https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant ...As a dimensionless constant which does not seem to be directly related to any mathematical constant <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_constant>, the fine-structure constant has long fascinated physicists.
Arthur Eddington <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington> argued that the value could be "obtained by pure deduction" and he related it to the Eddington number <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_number>, his estimate of the number of protons in the Universe.[40] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#cite_note-40> This led him in 1929 to conjecture that its reciprocal was precisely the integer <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer> 137 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/137_(number)>. Other physicists neither adopted this conjecture nor accepted his arguments but by the 1940s experimental values for 1/α deviated sufficiently from 137 to refute Eddington's argument.[41] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#cite_note-41> The fine-structure constant so intrigued physicist Wolfgang Pauli <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli> that he collaborated with psychiatrist Carl Jung <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung> in a quest to understand its significance.[42] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#cite_note-42> Similarly, Max Born <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born> believed if the value of alpha were any different, the universe would be degenerate, and thus that 1/137 was a law of nature.[43] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#cite_note-43> Richard Feynman <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman>, one of the originators and early developers of the theory of quantum electrodynamics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics> (QED), referred to the fine-structure constant in these terms: There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, *e* – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly! — Richard Feynman <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman>, Richard P. Feynman (1985). *QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED:_The_Strange_Theory_of_Light_and_Matter>* . Princeton University Press <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_University_Press>. p. 129. ISBN <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number> 0-691-08388-6 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-691-08388-6>. Conversely, statistician I. J. Good <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._J._Good> argued that a numerological explanation would only be acceptable if it came from a more fundamental theory that also provided a Platonic explanation of the value.[44] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#cite_note-44> Attempts to find a mathematical basis for this dimensionless constant have continued up to the present time. However, no numerological explanation has ever been accepted by the community. On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > R. Mills may have experimentally observes that the SPP soliton behaves > like a hydrino. > > As energy is feed into the SPP soliton it gets smaller. From Mills > observations, the soliton must shrink in size in 1/137 increments. The > orbits of the polaritons inside the soliton will adjust their structure to > refit inside the smaller whispering gallery wave through Fano resonance. > Mills makes the mistake that in order for an electron that follows a > circular path must revolve around a nucleus. This is not true. An > electron(together with a entangled photon) can follow a circular orbit > inside an optical cavity. > > There is something special about 1/137 that is important in string theory. > I will keep an eye pealed for that connection. >
