In reply to Grimer's message of Fri, 13 May 2005 16:28:54 +0000: Hi, [snip] >>That number is 137 BTW, not 127. 137 is approximately >> the inverse of the fine structure constant. > > >That's very interesting. Is that simply a co-incidence or is there >some theoretical reason why the number of collapses (which, of its >nature, has to be an integer, happens to be "approximately the >inverse of the fine structure constant".
It's not a coincidence. It's the largest integer smaller than the inverse fine structure constant. The latter is important, because if the electron could shrink to exactly the inverse fine structure constant level, it would be traveling at the speed of light (in a circle), which is why the shrinkage is limited to that value. However If one takes into account relativistic increase in the mass of the electron, then the maximum shrinkage level is even less than 137. How much less depends on which model one adopts. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
