...As a dimensionless constant which does not seem to be directly related
to any mathematical constant
<>, the fine-structure
constant has long fascinated physicists.

Arthur Eddington <> argued
that the value could be "obtained by pure deduction" and he related it to
the Eddington number <>, his
estimate of the number of protons in the Universe.[40]
<> This
led him in 1929 to conjecture that its reciprocal was precisely the integer
<> 137
<>. 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]

The fine-structure constant so intrigued physicist Wolfgang Pauli
<> that he collaborated with
psychiatrist Carl Jung <> in a quest
to understand its significance.[42]
 Similarly, 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]

Richard Feynman <>, one of the
originators and early developers of the theory of 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 <>, Richard
P. Feynman (1985). *QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
. Princeton University Press
<>. p. 129. ISBN

Conversely, statistician 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]

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 <> 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.

Reply via email to