It is likely that the exact value of the fine structure constant is not significant as it appears to change based on energy (1/128 at 80 GEV) and seems to vary over time.
So 137 might be a decent integer approximation of a value that changes under varying circumstances. On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > > If he eventually does include these two well supported phenomena, then the >> 1/137.0359 fraction most likely will be changed to a new one. Then, my >> hope for inclusion of all the integer and fractional values might reappear >> as a consequence. >> > > One detail I think it's important to draw attention to in general (but > which I'm sure you're personally aware of) is precision in the matter of > the principal quantum number we're talking about. > > There are integers (0, 1, 2, 3, etc.), rational numbers (1/2, 1/3, 1/137, > etc.), irrational numbers (e.g., pi) and so on. Following are some numbers > that have been mentioned in connection with the lowest redundant level in > Mills's model: > > 1. 1/137 (a rational number, and precisely specifiable). > 2. The fine structure constant, α = e^2/hbar*c ~ 1/137.035999074. > This is no doubt an irrational number, despite the numerator and > denominator, because of the irrational components. > 3. A principal quantum number -- generally an integer, but in Mills's > model it appears to be a precisely-specifiable rational number for all but > the most redundant level. > > It is a non-sequitor to replace (1) with (2) without a justification of > some kind. In addition, even if we can justify the step, we then end up > with the awkward situation where value (3) is sometimes a rational number > and sometimes an irrational number. (We've set aside hope at this point for > having a simple integer principal quantum number.) One gets the impression > there has been a fishing expedition for convenient physical constants. > > Eric > >
