I will never understand quantum mechanics: I'm too old and not smart enough. But I can just about understand many of the basic concepts and I find them both perplexing and fascinating. Your videos are much appreciated because they make some of this information that much more easy for me to grasp.
I enjoy your talks because there are nuggets of information that other channels do not mention but that help to explain why scientists see the world the way they do. For example the fact that all sorts of fields get involved in particle collisions at higher energies.
I enjoyed this. My degree is in Psychology and Politics, however I did I did get a general idea of what you were explaining here, which is more than I had before. Thank you!
Say the charge of an electron was different than it was, then it would change the value of the fine structure constant and it would also change how far it orbited around a nucleus. So the fine structure constant is the value that it is, because the atom has the size that it has.
It does appear to be like that. Someone ping me if an argument starts because it seems too simple considering their struggle-session. To add, if you were to add a bunch of other stuff like described in the video, the fields would compress/repel/attract each other, which would change their size. Whether particle or field, this seems like it would hold true, and even without either, there must be a distance the radiation can reach which would look the same as size.
Thank you for this incredible video on the fine-structure constant (1/137). Watching it unconsciously rang a bell in my mind, sparking huge insights. The most real things come without effort-if it's there, it's there. And it seems you have an unconscious big idea. Keep doing what you're doing-you're making a real impact!
I would assume that the higher energy fine structure constants grow exponentially larger, or closer to 1, with the fields involved eventually becoming energized to a point similar to plasma "particles" where the individual particles become indistinguishable from one another. But who knows? I'm just spitballin
Also: the size of a hydrogen atom is 137 times the electron Compton wavelength (maybe reduced), the latter being the most localized an electron can be with pair formation
137 is odd, it is a strong prime, it is equal to 4n +1 where n is 34, and it is a Pythagorean prime being equal to the sum of two squares 11^2 + 4^2. I particularly like the Pythagorean components of 11 (dimensions for a string) and 4 dimensions of space and time)
Louis, I posted this comment elsewhere, gently correcting a gentleman who thought that changing the number base that 137 is expressed in, would be significant. I had already seen your comment earlier, but couldn't find it at the time. I did, however, indirectly reference your comment in my reply. Now that I've rediscovered your comment, i will repost my reply HERE, as THIS is its true home. I will employ strike-thru rather than delete the portion that doesn't apply to your excellent post. --Sir, changing the number base would only change the way the number is written, not the value (magnitude) of the number when written in a different base. More importantly, it wouldn't change the fact that it is a dimensionless constant... it's a pure ratio (like pi), but one anchored in the physics of our universe rather than in pure mathematics (we can imagine a universe with a sightly -or HUGELY- different value for the fine structure constant, but not a different universe where the value of pi is altered even in its trillionth digit).-- Another oddity which Paul mentioned, but IMHO didn't emphasize ENOUGH, is that this number is so peculiarly "bite sized". The "region" of the number line which is near ONE is a very special region... We see gigantic ratios between, say, the strength of gravity versus the strength of the strong interaction, and the fine structure constant could (for all we know) be ANY gigantically large or vanishingly small number, and there are gazillions of such LARGE numbers that the fine structure constant might take... but only an infinitesimal fraction of numbers are in the immediate vicinity of zero/one. If there some unfathomable reason that it must be "nearish" to unity rather than arbitrarily far away, it wouldn't be odd at all, if it were 1.00000037. But 137 is oddly large for something that must be near unity, yet freakishly small if it could be arbitrarily far away. 137 is just a weird adjacency. 37 or 7 are significantly nearer, but even they would be exceedingly freakish and inexplicable. 137 (or rather, 137-ish ) is a full frog-hop, not a wobble nor a tweak. Hmmm... And there is also the issue of the "-ish"... this tiny but definite deviation from 1/137. 137 is a quite interesting number for number-theoretic reasons, such as primality as others have pointed out (please see other comments for more). Maybe the "strange attractor" of the fine structure constant really is the integer ratio 1/137, and the "tweak" that makes the observed value slightly different, isn't operating against the denominator 137, (being somehow a mathematical necessity) but it is instead modifying the numerator "1" which is affected ever so slightly by randomization... perhaps a value that is always very close to unity that is "inherited" from a parent universe. If so, the "mathematically necessary" denominator 137, and the tiny deviation of the numerator away from unity, are the keys to deeper physics, maybe even an answer to why the physical constants have the values that they do... That somehow, the recipe for the universe is much less arbitrary than some think. This number that tells us so much about our universe is mysterious for many reasons, but I get a wierd feeling contemplating that -if expressed in terms of distance- it is (almost precisely) one very specially-chosen frog-hop away from unity, NOT something arbitrarily VAST (light years), or tiny, like angstroms. 137, or rather unity divided by 137, is just weird. A statistically unexpected magnitude may be just a fluke, but it is DEEPLY unlikely from Baysian inference. It gives me the odd feeling that there might be a very deep MATH reason, a logical necessity as it were, why 137 is required AS A DENOMINATOR (otherwise no creation event can unfold), and a physics/cosmic inheritance reason why the numerator is always very close to, but never exactly equal, to ONE. Or maybe it's just a fluke...
It looks to me like it's a real-time value. That's why you have to measure it at the time of the interaction. Everything else gets to interact with it too, just a little bit, right? That sounds like ambient interactivity will always be taken into account, and has too many possible variables to fall within a predictable model for models to use. Like the universe's packet header. It has to stay ahead of everything else and make all the decisions for the data stream to complete the source/destination's interaction successfully. But the universe is not a simple connection via twisted pair cable, it's a complex network with 8 different subnets and the fine structure constant is the network admin.
You wanna know what else is weird. I derived an equation which shows the famous Hawking-Bekenstein equation for black hole entropy is also proportional to the fine structure constant. I have a theory that it has to be the value 1/137 to respect the thermodynamics of black hole event horizons. If anyone wants to talk about this please feel free to reply.
You can't replace particles by fields because particles have spin and this cannot be recorded in the field: it must be recorded in the particle. It can't be recorded in the field since a given particle is not specific to the field: there can be more than one particle in which case the field must record more than one value - an ambiguity/contradiction.
@Paul M. Sutter Love how you always include food synoniems, maybe do a whole episode using only food references? There's a whole universe of alien food out there you know
I just saw another video where the golden ratio (similar to the Fibonacci sequence), if stretched out over a circle will result in the short segment covering 137.5 degrees. Is it possible that this Fine Structure ratio is closer to that equaling 1/137.5? I like the feel of it as the result is 0.0072727272… with the 72 going on indefinitely.
I dont think it all we got. There are some hints of what it is. Barring numerological explanations devoid of epistemology or anthropic explanations which do not give it very precisely, there is interesting mousetrap model discussed by Feynman and Casimir that gives an approximate value with satisfying epistemology. In this model the fnc arises from a scale invariant balance of the casimir forces with a conducting charged region. The fnc depends however on geometry and dimension...hence the difficulty. It's still I think the most promising approach, but the papers and funding for more theoretical research are very little for such an important problem. I don't think experiments will help much in the near future either without better theoretical models.
There are some researches that suggests that fine structure constant does vary over time. Those aren't definitive but they are curious enough to give them some thought. Another research found that FSC could vary also spatially. The significance of this research is 3.9 sigma, so it is not a discovery but could lead somewhere.
@@bmurt4286 Honestly I don't know. I'm just a physics enthusiast, not an expert. But I woould go on a limb and say that same as there is a possibility that hubble "constant" is changing over time also FSC could be changing so there could be some connection. But how would that work is beyond me.
Perhaps the fine constant structure is similar to a 2D creature in Flatland understanding a 3D object! We could be living in a 4D hypersphere that interacts with our 3D world and that at all points in location and at all moments of time this force is expanding in all directions at the speed of light and moves all objects.
I like this a lot. Here's something I've been thinking about. If you believe Roger Penrose, and if consciousness is quantum, then it seems like we exist as 3+1 dimensional creatures trying to find a way (by living and harvesting entropy) to combine the 3+1 into a combined 4 dimensions. Imagine a human mind (if it is quantum) connected to AI in the future. That would be a quantum computer (a human) connected to the singular human past (AI)...or something like that.
There is good evidence supporting the notion that our universe is encapsulated within a hypersphere that resides in a larger universe possessing four spatial dimensions. This evidence lies in the mathematics that describes black holes and how physics breaks down within them. The equations of general relativity predicted gravitational lensing as well as the existence of black holes, which is why they are useful. These equations also predict the existence of white holes, but these have yet to be observed or confirmed in the same way that black holes have been. Gravity warps time as well as space, and so perhaps within black holes entirely new universes with unique timelines are being created. The big bang itself appeared to behave in the same way as what would be expected from a white hole, and so to conclude, it could be that our universe exists within a four dimensional black hole and that all of the matter that makes up our universe used to be four dimensional matter that fell into our universe’s black hole. This four dimensional matter would exist within a 5th dimensional black hole, and so on. The expansion of our universe would make more sense if a white hole was the originator of all matter as well. Further supporting this notion, quantum physics can be simulated in any number of spatial dimensions. When this is done, what is observed is that energy becomes more quantized in lower dimensions, and less quantized in higher dimensions. Eventually, with enough spatial dimensions (axis of freedom), energy loses all quantizations and quantum mechanics as we understand them disappear, leaving us with a higher dimensional universe that is purely classical across all scales. This happens in a theoretical universe that possesses 11 spatial dimensions (interestingly, this is the same amount of spatial dimensions that are required in string theory). In other words, the arbitrary quantizations that we observe could potentially be consequences of what happens when 11th dimensional matter is repeatedly compressed within time warping black holes that are able to exist in any amount of spatial dimensions (the only force that remains invariant across any number of spatial dimensions is gravity, the others eventually unify with each other in higher dimensions). If these assumptions are correct, it would have some interesting implications for what happens to matter that falls into black holes in our universe. All of the matter that one of our black holes collects within its entire lifetime would be focused to a single point in a universe with only two spatial dimensions. Then, it would expand out in a big bang like scenario, existing within its own timeline separate from ours, stripped of yet another dimension that has been left behind as the event horizon of a three dimensional black hole in our universe.
If we changed our mathematical unit from base ten to base "X" (i.e. our definition) we change the constant also. It is a specific ratio but it depends on the base unit also
Sir, changing the number base would only change the way the number is written, not the value (magnitude) of the number when written in a different base. More importantly, it wouldn't change the fact that it is a dimensionless constant... it's a pure ratio (like pi), but one anchored in the physics of our universe rather than in pure mathematics (we can imagine a universe with a sightly -or HUGELY- different value for the fine structure constant, but not a different universe where the value of pi is altered even in its trillionth digit). Another oddity which Paul mentioned, but IMHO didn't emphasize ENOUGH, is that this number is so peculiarly "bite sized". The "region" of the number line which is near ONE is a very special region... We see gigantic ratios between, say, the strength of gravity versus the strength of the strong interaction, and the fine structure constant could (for all we know) be ANY gigantically large or vanishingly small number, and there are gazillions of such LARGE numbers that the fine structure constant might take... but only an infinitesimal fraction of numbers are in the immediate vicinity of zero/one. If there some unfathomable reason that it must be "nearish" to unity rather than arbitrarily far away, it wouldn't be odd at all, if it were 1.00000037. But 137 is oddly large for something that must be near unity, yet freakishly small if it could be arbitrarily far away. 137 is just a weird adjacency. 37 or 7 are significantly nearer, but even they would be exceedingly freakish and inexplicable. 137 (or rather, 137-ish ) is a full frog-hop, not a wobble nor a tweak. Hmmm... And there is also the issue of the "-ish"... this tiny but definite deviation from 1/137. 137 is a quite interesting number for number-theoretic reasons, such as primality as others have pointed out (please see other comments for more). Maybe the "strange attractor" of the fine structure constant really is the integer ratio 1/137, and the "tweak" that makes the observed value slightly different, isn't operating against the denominator 137, (being somehow a mathematical necessity) but it is instead modifying the numerator "1" which is affected ever so slightly by randomization... perhaps a value that is always very close to unity that is "inherited" from a parent universe. If so, the "mathematically necessary" denominator 137, and the tiny deviation of the numerator away from unity, are the keys to deeper physics, maybe even an answer to why the physical constants have the values that they do... That somehow, the recipe for the universe is much less arbitrary than some think. This number that tells us so much about our universe is mysterious for many reasons, but I get a wierd feeling contemplating that -if expressed in terms of distance- it is (almost precisely) one very specially-chosen frog-hop away from unity, NOT something arbitrarily VAST (light years), or tiny, like angstroms. 137, or rather unity divided by 137, is just weird. A statistically unexpected magnitude may be just a fluke, but it is DEEPLY unlikely from Baysian inference. It gives me the odd feeling that there might be a very deep MATH reason, a logical necessity as it were, why 137 is required AS A DENOMINATOR (otherwise no creation event can unfold), and a physics/cosmic inheritance reason why the numerator is always very close to, but never exactly equal, to ONE. Or maybe it's just a fluke...
No, a ratio is "something" like pi - where a relationship between 2 dimensions being measured does not change. One can even argue that the Pythagoras Theorem is a ratio of the sum of the squares... which equals 1.
@@egay86292 for ratios to “be just a number” they must have the same units of measure: flour to flour, eggs:eggs, toast:toast, energy:energy, Newton:Newton etc. Find the underlying “thing” that α is actually comparing, (and in every case where α’s little squiggly head pops up it will be the same “thing”) and new understandings of physics will appear everywhere. And if it was possible for a members of the general public to submit scientific papers, that (already cracked) α egg would have been served for breakfast, with toast decades ago.
As energy increases, does this number get larger, or smaller? I can’t help but wonder, if this “constant”, is somehow a description of “resonance”. If the number gets smaller as energy increases… This could indicate that, at a high enough energy state, everything (within the system) would be in “perfect resonance”…. and no “splitting” would then be observed. So in other words…. If you could increase the energy in the entire universe, then the entire universe would be in “absolute resonance” (with itself?). I’m really not sure what the ramifications of that would be. Would this be some sort of “unification” of the universe? Or would this more likely result in its “annihilation”? We would probably never know, since intuition leans towards assuming that to bring the entire universe to a high enough energy state, would most likely require “infinite energy”.
One point I never here: Fitting a number like the FSC into a set of equations, or even one equation, does not "explain" anything. It can only show it's relation to other numbers in the equation/s. To ask "why" a constant is what it is is unanswerable in current physics or philosophy. Mathematics can only "describe" a physical system. It cannot explain why a value is what it is. It is probably true that we can never know the "why" we try so hard to find.
137 is the maximum number of Muon Neutrinos/Antinuetrinos in a post-"mass defect" n-p nucleon pair, that is absorbing an incoming photon into both nucleons at the same time - in other words the energy maximum. It all makes sense once you have a normalized view of the Standard Model [where you see the mass values of particles as integers], and you have the correct age of the Universe: 13,863 mya.
I believe in fields like the rainbow does in colors: there is the red field, orange field, yellow fields,green fields, blue filds, violet fields, white field and black fields - the black field its ground - eight planets in the disk of our sun for 8 colors to make the rainbow. Planets relate from the very out one that is Neptun with Mercury that is the nearest to the sun, next pair its venus and uranus - earth with saturn for last its mars pair with jupiter so we get one rocky planet uith a gas planet in all 4 cases going out from the sun mercury belongs to white, venus to violet, earth - blue, mars green, jupiter-yellow, neptune-orange, uranus -red, neptune its black in this case. Sub atoms unite making atoms, atoms in groupes form cells, cells in clsters of cells, clusters of cells make our body - stars are like atoms, clusters of cells like clusters of galaxies, super clasters of cells like superclasters of galaxies etc. so to form our universe which is just an atom and so on.
Well the thought of it is that beautiful spatial structures have some kind of significant value at least right here that still regards later into huge matter of space creating such an Impulse for someone else or something else Every considerable fact can still be wondered about bigger pictures Too bad we're in a small version
I got it from, perhaps, your clip... Assuming hydrogen (Bohr's) model : an electron circling around proton : k•q1•q2/(r^2) = m•(v^2)/r : r (Bohr's radius) = 0.53e(-10) metre k= 9e(+9) N/(m/C)^2 q1,q2 = 1.6022e(-19) Coulomb Process and Substitution the Values to find Electron Velocity (Ve) ; v = (1/137)• c c = 3e(+8) m/sec ; Speed of Light c = {"137" x Ve}
Hi Paul. If the fine structure constant is just a unitless number, that can be measured but not derived, how come it is being expressed in terms of other constants? That suggests a derivation
And he was proposed for both the Nobel Prize in Physics and in Chemistry, and for each more than 40 times, and he never got it. But he was the mentor for many people who did, and more Nobel Laureates have been doctoral or post-doctoral students of Arnold Sommerfeld than anyone else.
@@SiqueScarface "I didn't get *a* Nobel Prize: I *grew* 'em!", Arnold Sommerfeld (attributed). It is a pretty crazy statistic of having the greatest number of nominations *and* the greatest number of proteges to get the award.
At 6:23 you said the speed of light is 300M km/s. It's 300M m/s. I know you go on to talk about changing the units change the value of the speed of light, but at least start out with the 'correct' value with the units we typically use. Other than that minor snafu, good video.
Pauli said there's two values of motion. Spin up clockwise and spin down cntrclkwz. But the direction of momentum is the same. Suppose the fundamental movement is like a two winding string oscillating between clockwise helical from one pole and cntrclkwz from the opposite pole of the atom . The opposite moving waves can't collide as they cross over. There's a small energy difference. That small difference would be the fine structure. But a year later and I still don't know 1/137 of what?
A constant indicates an equilibrium. Look at all these equals signs, look at all these "equations", more equilibrium. Look at it in 3D, its the inner and outer equilibrium of the torus. Torus equilibrium of the spiral line and the curved plane. Marko Rodin vortex math illustrates this.
is this like 42? so does the Fine constant change as matter approaches the speed of light? is the number like a sound barrier? Alpha value becomes zero at speed of light. could it be photons don't surpass C as they fall into a black hole but when the alpha gets to zero they just cease to exist? physics breaks?
Great video. I don't know Physics enough to offer a valid comment on the Fine Structure Constant. However, perhaps some insights can be extrapolated via the understanding of CIG Theory, which is very easy to understand. Arguably different, yes, but the concept is easy. And Einsteins Field Equation will make much more sense as well as the Double Slit. Please learn CIG Theory and see if you can apply it to the FSC. Also, learn CIG and apply it to Bell's Inequality because I haven't done that either.
No, it’s dimensionless. It’s the same in all unit systems. Hence you can send it to aliens and by the number of digits you know, they can access your technology level.
it is a ratio, like pi so we can leave it as a symbol in the equation but cannot set it to 1 like c (by changing the dimension definition) afterall its dimensionless
Dear Mr. Paul M. Sutter. The number 1/137.036 is a better approximation at the fine-structure constant (with only an error of five parts in 1000 millions). Regards from Costa Rica. Luis E. Pineda. 😉
When supernovae release their energy, they leave a trace of their residues that were released, but only in a certain volume, why doesn't their residue continue to spread, what is it that "stops" them, what prevents them from continuing to expand at the initial speed? ?. would you mind explaining it? ,thanks.
Liked the clip. I trained as a chemist, so I could understand the stuff about spectroscopy. Spectroscopy is a big deal in chemistry. Also was aware that there was a relationship with some of the other notions of matter. Including String Theory. Which has been gaining more traction recently. Maybe we might be asking the wrong set of questions as to just why of this value? Maybe the relationship is "pointing' to something else, and as a chemist, I am as 'stuck' as the Physist/presenter. Also, like the fact that the question was tossed out there to be examined and commented on by crowd solving. Sort of like what is now happening with NASA's Mars Rovers and the clips that those widgets are radioing back to Earth. A clever fellow.
My intuition tells me, it's like a Doppler shift from when the electron is moving towards or away from the photon. That would explain why at different energies it has different values. I'm sure there may be some reason I'm wrong, but...
Paul, why not just reduce the function to: [ ( e^2) / ( 2h / Z ) ] . ( where Z = 376.7303135 ...which = the impedance of the vacuum of space ) ??? The other question is, knowing the this fact, does Aleph still come up as a unitless " 1/137 ".? Stay Safe.
why is there h bar times c in the denominator, like isn't the strength of electromagnetic radiation depends on the frequency and if electricity and magnetism are the same thing why isn't there mu not?
Constanta de structura fina este inversul indicelui de refractie al mediului atomic Na=1/alfa=137. Asa ca fotonul care patrunde in atom se contracta longitudinal de 137 de ori, deoarece viteza fotonului se micsoreaza de 137 de ori fata de viteza luminii in vid c. Se poate verifica faptul ca lungimea de unda a fotonului gama electronic se contracta de 137 de ori. Si daca se inparte la lungimea in radiani a cercului, la 2.pi , se obtine raza clasica a electronului. Acest fapt dovedeste ca electronul este unda stationara bipolara si de foarte mare amplitudine, a fotonului gama electronic. Unda ce se constituie din insumarea, prin mecanismul interferentei constructive, a celor 9 miliarde de unde componente ale fotonului gama electronic. The fine structure constant is the inverse of the refractive index of the atomic environment Na=1/alpha=137. So the photon entering the atom contracts longitudinally 137 times, because the speed of the photon decreases 137 times compared to the speed of light in a vacuum c. It can be verified that the wavelength of the electronic gamma photon contracts 137 times . And if it is divided by the length in radians of the circle, by 2.pi, the classic radius of the electron is obtained. This fact proves that the electron is a bipolar and very high-amplitude standing wave of the electronic gamma photon. The wave formed by the summation, through the mechanism of constructive interference, of the 9 billion component waves of the electronic gamma photon.
The point is, the value of mathematical constants like pi,e,etc can be found to an arbitrary degree of precision using mathematics alone; no physical experiments required. For example, check out the Leibniz formula for pi. There is no known mathematical formula or algorithm for approximating the FSC. We don't even know if it is a rational number or not.
I wonder if the fine structure constant suffers something akin to time dilation as energies increase ? Other than that, I did get the bit about the crusty bread.
constants just changes to higher or lower levels say atoms, cells, stars, galaxies, claster of galaxies - In each level say LS must change for sure, ligh can not be the same in any level from above - Light Speed is not even usefull for our star to proxima centaurius so much time to go and come back so to level each other needs.
Why isn't the anthropic argument the greatest argument? Seems perfectly clear the universe is fine tuned for life... I think the mistake is assuming it's fine tuned for human life rather than an amorphous intelligence / awareness in general.. I think the anthropic argument can come in multiple flavors, one of which is that it's fine tuned for or with a general baseline intelligence / awareness... Including the possibility that mineral crystal structures and electromagnetism itself has some type of baseline level of intelligence / awareness... So, this would include the concept of cosmological pansychism... For example: neutron stars having a baseline level of amorphous intelligence and awareness... The magnetic flux tubes at the center of the Milky Way galaxy that were recently discovered could also be argued as having a baseline level of intelligence and awareness.. humans forget that we may be a representation of super intelligence, where intelligence and awareness on the cosmological scale would be very subtle but present and represented as the laws of physics..
I'm definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed but...How is the conundrum of not knowing why the FC has the value it has any different than not knowing why the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter the value of 3.14....? It is also dimensionless.
Well.. it is the symbol for science because there is no graphically strong and versatile, while also visually descriptive/accurate, depiction of an atom. We instantly know it's an atom no matter what color it is, no matter what size it is, and many small variations on the design still activate the same response.
Great video! Now, if we could just figure out who's idea it was to have the clerk put the bills in your palm, and then stack that little pyramid of coins on top when they're giving you your change. That's the kind of thing that stands in the way of progress. We have GOT to solve this problem.
At this point that's obviously true to many. We interrupt the flow of energy, get a result, and call it a particle, while simultaneously saying nothing took a state until we interacted with it. Capslock isn't enough!
May it be linked with Lambda of L-CDM, so that if the universe inflate, the rate of c and h, e and the electric constant remainst relatively the same for each other? Maybe right now Lambda is one, but in the past was 1-delta and in the future will be 1+delta and the fine constant grows conformally...who knows?
Pi, e, and the golden ratio are dimensionless. However, those are mathematical while the fine structure constant is physical. This is what I think is most impressive about it.
"2 Fine 2 Furious" -- I don't think I've ever outright laughed at one of these videos before, but that was seriously well played. 👏
I will never understand quantum mechanics: I'm too old and not smart enough. But I can just about understand many of the basic concepts and I find them both perplexing and fascinating. Your videos are much appreciated because they make some of this information that much more easy for me to grasp.
I enjoy your talks because there are nuggets of information that other channels do not mention but that help to explain why scientists see the world the way they do. For example the fact that all sorts of fields get involved in particle collisions at higher energies.
Presentation : humorously reasonable / reasonably humorous .
A single thumbs up like is woefully inadequate to describe the value your talks bring to the world. Thank you
Dude. This video rocks and your explanations are awesome! Keep up the amazing work!
I enjoyed this. My degree is in Psychology and Politics, however I did I did get a general idea of what you were explaining here, which is more than I had before. Thank you!
Really nice video and explanation. Thank you!
Um always fascinated to learn more about the find structure constant, thx for this little fresh sine into it.
Say the charge of an electron was different than it was, then it would change the value of the fine structure constant and it would also change how far it orbited around a nucleus. So the fine structure constant is the value that it is, because the atom has the size that it has.
It does appear to be like that. Someone ping me if an argument starts because it seems too simple considering their struggle-session. To add, if you were to add a bunch of other stuff like described in the video, the fields would compress/repel/attract each other, which would change their size. Whether particle or field, this seems like it would hold true, and even without either, there must be a distance the radiation can reach which would look the same as size.
Not we have to live with it, instead "we get to live with it!" It's amazing that we found the key to communicating with alien life!
How does this number 137 look like in different numerical system like binary, hexadecimal, octal and base 2,3,4,5 and so on?
if you can ask this question here, then can't you search for it online?
seriously, see what turns up when you google "base ten converter"
Thank you for this incredible video on the fine-structure constant (1/137). Watching it unconsciously rang a bell in my mind, sparking huge insights. The most real things come without effort-if it's there, it's there. And it seems you have an unconscious big idea. Keep doing what you're doing-you're making a real impact!
Thank you. Very clearly explained
Good stuff. A dimensionless constant is an awesome thing!
_Dimensionless is the pile of pseudoscientific-manure those pseudoscientific bamboozlers tell people_ .
I would assume that the higher energy fine structure constants grow exponentially larger, or closer to 1, with the fields involved eventually becoming energized to a point similar to plasma "particles" where the individual particles become indistinguishable from one another. But who knows? I'm just spitballin
It’s 1/128 at the Z mass. See “running of the fine structure constants”
Also: the size of a hydrogen atom is 137 times the electron Compton wavelength (maybe reduced), the latter being the most localized an electron can be with pair formation
137 is odd, it is a strong prime, it is equal to 4n +1 where n is 34, and it is a Pythagorean prime being equal to the sum of two squares 11^2 + 4^2. I particularly like the Pythagorean components of 11 (dimensions for a string) and 4 dimensions of space and time)
Louis, I posted this comment elsewhere, gently correcting a gentleman who thought that changing the number base that 137 is expressed in, would be significant. I had already seen your comment earlier, but couldn't find it at the time. I did, however, indirectly reference your comment in my reply.
Now that I've rediscovered your comment, i will repost my reply HERE, as THIS is its true home. I will employ strike-thru rather than delete the portion that doesn't apply to your excellent post.
--Sir, changing the number base would only change the way the number is written, not the value (magnitude) of the number when written in a different base. More importantly, it wouldn't change the fact that it is a dimensionless constant... it's a pure ratio (like pi), but one anchored in the physics of our universe rather than in pure mathematics (we can imagine a universe with a sightly -or HUGELY- different value for the fine structure constant, but not a different universe where the value of pi is altered even in its trillionth digit).--
Another oddity which Paul mentioned, but IMHO didn't emphasize ENOUGH, is that this number is so peculiarly "bite sized". The "region" of the number line which is near ONE is a very special region... We see gigantic ratios between, say, the strength of gravity versus the strength of the strong interaction, and the fine structure constant could (for all we know) be ANY gigantically large or vanishingly small number, and there are gazillions of such LARGE numbers that the fine structure constant might take... but only an infinitesimal fraction of numbers are in the immediate vicinity of zero/one. If there some unfathomable reason that it must be "nearish" to unity rather than arbitrarily far away, it wouldn't be odd at all, if it were 1.00000037. But 137 is oddly large for something that must be near unity, yet freakishly small if it could be arbitrarily far away. 137 is just a weird adjacency. 37 or 7 are significantly nearer, but even they would be exceedingly freakish and inexplicable. 137 (or rather, 137-ish ) is a full frog-hop, not a wobble nor a tweak. Hmmm...
And there is also the issue of the "-ish"... this tiny but definite deviation from 1/137. 137 is a quite interesting number for number-theoretic reasons, such as primality as others have pointed out (please see other comments for more). Maybe the "strange attractor" of the fine structure constant really is the integer ratio 1/137, and the "tweak" that makes the observed value slightly different, isn't operating against the denominator 137, (being somehow a mathematical necessity) but it is instead modifying the numerator "1" which is affected ever so slightly by randomization... perhaps a value that is always very close to unity that is "inherited" from a parent universe. If so, the "mathematically necessary" denominator 137, and the tiny deviation of the numerator away from unity, are the keys to deeper physics, maybe even an answer to why the physical constants have the values that they do... That somehow, the recipe for the universe is much less arbitrary than some think.
This number that tells us so much about our universe is mysterious for many reasons, but I get a wierd feeling contemplating that -if expressed in terms of distance- it is (almost precisely) one very specially-chosen frog-hop away from unity, NOT something arbitrarily VAST (light years), or tiny, like angstroms.
137, or rather unity divided by 137, is just weird.
A statistically unexpected magnitude may be just a fluke, but it is DEEPLY unlikely from Baysian inference. It gives me the odd feeling that there might be a very deep MATH reason, a logical necessity as it were, why 137 is required AS A DENOMINATOR (otherwise no creation event can unfold), and a physics/cosmic inheritance reason why the numerator is always very close to, but never exactly equal, to ONE.
Or maybe it's just a fluke...
It looks to me like it's a real-time value. That's why you have to measure it at the time of the interaction. Everything else gets to interact with it too, just a little bit, right? That sounds like ambient interactivity will always be taken into account, and has too many possible variables to fall within a predictable model for models to use.
Like the universe's packet header. It has to stay ahead of everything else and make all the decisions for the data stream to complete the source/destination's interaction successfully. But the universe is not a simple connection via twisted pair cable, it's a complex network with 8 different subnets and the fine structure constant is the network admin.
My wife just bought me your book she won't tell me witch one super excited great video paul thank you for all you do.
Actually, she had to choose between two of his books. But you won't know which one she chose until you open the present.
1/137 is 42's drunk uncle.
You wanna know what else is weird. I derived an equation which shows the famous Hawking-Bekenstein equation for black hole entropy is also proportional to the fine structure constant. I have a theory that it has to be the value 1/137 to respect the thermodynamics of black hole event horizons. If anyone wants to talk about this please feel free to reply.
what, in your thinking, does 1/137 have to do with the thermodynamics of black holes? is there an intrinsic relationship?
@@nathaneisenberg3644 If you at the black hole entropy you will find it is proportional to the fine structure constant.
Your video was more understandable than all the other I listened to on the subject I guess you made it plan. Thank you!
Dimensionless constant = pulsating constant?
Do we not have any readings to extrapolate the frequemcy or magnitude of the pulse?
Just curious.
You can't replace particles by fields because particles have spin and this cannot be recorded in the field: it must be recorded in the particle. It can't be recorded in the field since a given particle is not specific to the field: there can be more than one particle in which case the field must record more than one value - an ambiguity/contradiction.
@Paul M. Sutter Love how you always include food synoniems, maybe do a whole episode using only food references? There's a whole universe of alien food out there you know
The man likes his vinegar and olive oil. Who can blame him?
I (non-scientist) have seen half a dozen videos on this topic. I learned the most by far from this one.
I just saw another video where the golden ratio (similar to the Fibonacci sequence), if stretched out over a circle will result in the short segment covering 137.5 degrees. Is it possible that this Fine Structure ratio is closer to that equaling 1/137.5? I like the feel of it as the result is 0.0072727272… with the 72 going on indefinitely.
What is the plus and minus of the fine structure konstant
Pauli said the parts cant share the same space but can get that close 1/137. But 1/137 of what? I've been wondering for decades.
I dont think it all we got. There are some hints of what it is. Barring numerological explanations devoid of epistemology or anthropic explanations which do not give it very precisely, there is interesting mousetrap model discussed by Feynman and Casimir that gives an approximate value with satisfying epistemology. In this model the fnc arises from a scale invariant balance of the casimir forces with a conducting charged region. The fnc depends however on geometry and dimension...hence the difficulty. It's still I think the most promising approach, but the papers and funding for more theoretical research are very little for such an important problem. I don't think experiments will help much in the near future either without better theoretical models.
There are some researches that suggests that fine structure constant does vary over time. Those aren't definitive but they are curious enough to give them some thought. Another research found that FSC could vary also spatially. The significance of this research is 3.9 sigma, so it is not a discovery but could lead somewhere.
Could that variation be due to the expansion of the universe itself, maybe?
@@bmurt4286 Honestly I don't know. I'm just a physics enthusiast, not an expert. But I woould go on a limb and say that same as there is a possibility that hubble "constant" is changing over time also FSC could be changing so there could be some connection. But how would that work is beyond me.
"im an enthusiast not and expert" dam , I thought i came up with that :) @@oskarskalski2982
Perhaps the fine constant structure is similar to a 2D creature in Flatland understanding a 3D object! We could be living in a 4D hypersphere that interacts with our 3D world and that at all points in location and at all moments of time this force is expanding in all directions at the speed of light and moves all objects.
I like this a lot. Here's something I've been thinking about. If you believe Roger Penrose, and if consciousness is quantum, then it seems like we exist as 3+1 dimensional creatures trying to find a way (by living and harvesting entropy) to combine the 3+1 into a combined 4 dimensions. Imagine a human mind (if it is quantum) connected to AI in the future. That would be a quantum computer (a human) connected to the singular human past (AI)...or something like that.
@@ConsiderationFarm yes, that is a possibility!!!
There is good evidence supporting the notion that our universe is encapsulated within a hypersphere that resides in a larger universe possessing four spatial dimensions. This evidence lies in the mathematics that describes black holes and how physics breaks down within them. The equations of general relativity predicted gravitational lensing as well as the existence of black holes, which is why they are useful. These equations also predict the existence of white holes, but these have yet to be observed or confirmed in the same way that black holes have been. Gravity warps time as well as space, and so perhaps within black holes entirely new universes with unique timelines are being created. The big bang itself appeared to behave in the same way as what would be expected from a white hole, and so to conclude, it could be that our universe exists within a four dimensional black hole and that all of the matter that makes up our universe used to be four dimensional matter that fell into our universe’s black hole. This four dimensional matter would exist within a 5th dimensional black hole, and so on. The expansion of our universe would make more sense if a white hole was the originator of all matter as well.
Further supporting this notion, quantum physics can be simulated in any number of spatial dimensions. When this is done, what is observed is that energy becomes more quantized in lower dimensions, and less quantized in higher dimensions. Eventually, with enough spatial dimensions (axis of freedom), energy loses all quantizations and quantum mechanics as we understand them disappear, leaving us with a higher dimensional universe that is purely classical across all scales. This happens in a theoretical universe that possesses 11 spatial dimensions (interestingly, this is the same amount of spatial dimensions that are required in string theory). In other words, the arbitrary quantizations that we observe could potentially be consequences of what happens when 11th dimensional matter is repeatedly compressed within time warping black holes that are able to exist in any amount of spatial dimensions (the only force that remains invariant across any number of spatial dimensions is gravity, the others eventually unify with each other in higher dimensions).
If these assumptions are correct, it would have some interesting implications for what happens to matter that falls into black holes in our universe. All of the matter that one of our black holes collects within its entire lifetime would be focused to a single point in a universe with only two spatial dimensions. Then, it would expand out in a big bang like scenario, existing within its own timeline separate from ours, stripped of yet another dimension that has been left behind as the event horizon of a three dimensional black hole in our universe.
If we changed our mathematical unit from base ten to base "X" (i.e. our definition) we change the constant also. It is a specific ratio but it depends on the base unit also
Sir, changing the number base would only change the way the number is written, not the value (magnitude) of the number when written in a different base. More importantly, it wouldn't change the fact that it is a dimensionless constant... it's a pure ratio (like pi), but one anchored in the physics of our universe rather than in pure mathematics (we can imagine a universe with a sightly -or HUGELY- different value for the fine structure constant, but not a different universe where the value of pi is altered even in its trillionth digit).
Another oddity which Paul mentioned, but IMHO didn't emphasize ENOUGH, is that this number is so peculiarly "bite sized". The "region" of the number line which is near ONE is a very special region... We see gigantic ratios between, say, the strength of gravity versus the strength of the strong interaction, and the fine structure constant could (for all we know) be ANY gigantically large or vanishingly small number, and there are gazillions of such LARGE numbers that the fine structure constant might take... but only an infinitesimal fraction of numbers are in the immediate vicinity of zero/one. If there some unfathomable reason that it must be "nearish" to unity rather than arbitrarily far away, it wouldn't be odd at all, if it were 1.00000037. But 137 is oddly large for something that must be near unity, yet freakishly small if it could be arbitrarily far away. 137 is just a weird adjacency. 37 or 7 are significantly nearer, but even they would be exceedingly freakish and inexplicable. 137 (or rather, 137-ish ) is a full frog-hop, not a wobble nor a tweak. Hmmm...
And there is also the issue of the "-ish"... this tiny but definite deviation from 1/137. 137 is a quite interesting number for number-theoretic reasons, such as primality as others have pointed out (please see other comments for more). Maybe the "strange attractor" of the fine structure constant really is the integer ratio 1/137, and the "tweak" that makes the observed value slightly different, isn't operating against the denominator 137, (being somehow a mathematical necessity) but it is instead modifying the numerator "1" which is affected ever so slightly by randomization... perhaps a value that is always very close to unity that is "inherited" from a parent universe. If so, the "mathematically necessary" denominator 137, and the tiny deviation of the numerator away from unity, are the keys to deeper physics, maybe even an answer to why the physical constants have the values that they do... That somehow, the recipe for the universe is much less arbitrary than some think.
This number that tells us so much about our universe is mysterious for many reasons, but I get a wierd feeling contemplating that -if expressed in terms of distance- it is (almost precisely) one very specially-chosen frog-hop away from unity, NOT something arbitrarily VAST (light years), or tiny, like angstroms.
137, or rather unity divided by 137, is just weird.
A statistically unexpected magnitude may be just a fluke, but it is DEEPLY unlikely from Baysian inference. It gives me the odd feeling that there might be a very deep MATH reason, a logical necessity as it were, why 137 is required AS A DENOMINATOR (otherwise no creation event can unfold), and a physics/cosmic inheritance reason why the numerator is always very close to, but never exactly equal, to ONE.
Or maybe it's just a fluke...
thank you for taking the time to write and share all that, you increased my awareness significantly, have a great day ! @@brettselph7591
If it is “without units”…
Wouldn’t that indicate that rather than being a “measurement” of anything, it is instead, a RATIO of “something”?
No, a ratio is "something" like pi - where a relationship between 2 dimensions being measured does not change.
One can even argue that the Pythagoras Theorem is a ratio of the sum of the squares... which equals 1.
You nailed it.
exactly. and just for shits and giggles, what the hell is being compared? sugar v. flour in a cookie? i'm dying to know.
@@egay86292 for ratios to “be just a number” they must have the same units of measure: flour to flour, eggs:eggs, toast:toast, energy:energy, Newton:Newton etc. Find the underlying “thing” that α is actually comparing, (and in every case where α’s little squiggly head pops up it will be the same “thing”) and new understandings of physics will appear everywhere.
And if it was possible for a members of the general public to submit scientific papers, that (already cracked) α egg would have been served for breakfast, with toast decades ago.
As energy increases, does this number get larger, or smaller?
I can’t help but wonder, if this “constant”, is somehow a description of “resonance”.
If the number gets smaller as energy increases…
This could indicate that, at a high enough energy state, everything (within the system) would be in “perfect resonance”…. and no “splitting” would then be observed.
So in other words…. If you could increase the energy in the entire universe, then the entire universe would be in “absolute resonance” (with itself?).
I’m really not sure what the ramifications of that would be.
Would this be some sort of “unification” of the universe?
Or would this more likely result in its “annihilation”?
We would probably never know, since intuition leans towards assuming that to bring the entire universe to a high enough energy state, would most likely require “infinite energy”.
The number gets larger. What I learned is that at the Biig Bang energy was closer to 1
Thank you for that explanation, I feel that I understand it a bit better.
One point I never here: Fitting a number like the FSC into a set of equations, or even one equation, does not "explain" anything. It can only show it's relation to other numbers in the equation/s. To ask "why" a constant is what it is is unanswerable in current physics or philosophy. Mathematics can only "describe" a physical system. It cannot explain why a value is what it is. It is probably true that we can never know the "why" we try so hard to find.
Perhaps the FSC indicates which of the infinite universes we are in. Google: Anthropic Principle
137 is the maximum number of Muon Neutrinos/Antinuetrinos in a post-"mass defect" n-p nucleon pair, that is absorbing an incoming photon into both nucleons at the same time - in other words the energy maximum. It all makes sense once you have a normalized view of the Standard Model [where you see the mass values of particles as integers], and you have the correct age of the Universe: 13,863 mya.
What happens if you try to work in Base137?
"The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, but queerer than we can imagine.“ - J. B. S. Haldane.
no
Sodom & Gamorrah ......
Queer had other connotation you guys
Queer indeed
that word needs to be updated to strange
I believe in fields like the rainbow does in colors: there is the red field, orange field, yellow fields,green fields, blue filds, violet fields, white field and black fields - the black field its ground - eight planets in the disk of our sun for 8 colors to make the rainbow.
Planets relate from the very out one that is Neptun with Mercury that is the nearest to the sun, next pair its venus and uranus - earth with saturn for last its mars pair with jupiter so we get one rocky planet uith a gas planet in all 4 cases going out from the sun mercury belongs to white, venus to violet, earth - blue, mars green, jupiter-yellow, neptune-orange, uranus -red, neptune its black in this case.
Sub atoms unite making atoms, atoms in groupes form cells, cells in clsters of cells, clusters of cells make our body - stars are like atoms, clusters of cells like clusters of galaxies, super clasters of cells like superclasters of galaxies etc. so to form our universe which is just an atom and so on.
Thank you for proliferate the atomic physics profe!
Well the thought of it is that beautiful spatial structures have some kind of significant value at least right here that still regards later into huge matter of space creating such an Impulse for someone else or something else
Every considerable fact can still be wondered about bigger pictures
Too bad we're in a small version
Love your Eiffel Tower picture :)
But that's it! It changes with Energy so in reality it's not dimensionless at all!
I got it from, perhaps, your clip...
Assuming hydrogen (Bohr's) model : an electron circling around proton :
k•q1•q2/(r^2) = m•(v^2)/r :
r (Bohr's radius) = 0.53e(-10) metre
k= 9e(+9) N/(m/C)^2
q1,q2 = 1.6022e(-19) Coulomb
Process and Substitution the Values to find Electron Velocity (Ve) ;
v = (1/137)• c
c = 3e(+8) m/sec ; Speed of Light
c = {"137" x Ve}
Very beautifully explained!
Fabulous video. I would love to know by how much the number changes with energy.
Which of Pi, e, c, epsilon nought, h bar, 1 or 4 is not a constant then?
When does first position occur?
Hi Paul. If the fine structure constant is just a unitless number, that can be measured but not derived, how come it is being expressed in terms of other constants? That suggests a derivation
what are you thoughts on steinmetz?
It has been shown that the speed of the electromagnetic spectrum as well as gravity are not constant, so how does this effect the FSC?
Arnold Sommerfeld: the mighty bridge between Classical and Quantum Mechanics.
And he was proposed for both the Nobel Prize in Physics and in Chemistry, and for each more than 40 times, and he never got it. But he was the mentor for many people who did, and more Nobel Laureates have been doctoral or post-doctoral students of Arnold Sommerfeld than anyone else.
@@SiqueScarface
"I didn't get *a* Nobel Prize: I *grew* 'em!", Arnold Sommerfeld (attributed).
It is a pretty crazy statistic of having the greatest number of nominations *and* the greatest number of proteges to get the award.
At 6:23 you said the speed of light is 300M km/s. It's 300M m/s. I know you go on to talk about changing the units change the value of the speed of light, but at least start out with the 'correct' value with the units we typically use. Other than that minor snafu, good video.
Pauli said there's two values of motion. Spin up clockwise and spin down cntrclkwz. But the direction of momentum is the same. Suppose the fundamental movement is like a two winding string oscillating between clockwise helical from one pole and cntrclkwz from the opposite pole of the atom . The opposite moving waves can't collide as they cross over. There's a small energy difference. That small difference would be the fine structure. But a year later and I still don't know 1/137 of what?
A constant indicates an equilibrium. Look at all these equals signs, look at all these "equations",
more equilibrium. Look at it in 3D, its the inner and outer equilibrium of the torus. Torus equilibrium of the spiral line and the curved plane. Marko Rodin vortex math illustrates this.
is this like 42? so does the Fine constant change as matter approaches the speed of light? is the number like a sound barrier? Alpha value becomes zero at speed of light. could it be photons don't surpass C as they fall into a black hole but when the alpha gets to zero they just cease to exist? physics breaks?
Great video. I don't know Physics enough to offer a valid comment on the Fine Structure Constant. However, perhaps some insights can be extrapolated via the understanding of CIG Theory, which is very easy to understand. Arguably different, yes, but the concept is easy. And Einsteins Field Equation will make much more sense as well as the Double Slit. Please learn CIG Theory and see if you can apply it to the FSC. Also, learn CIG and apply it to Bell's Inequality because I haven't done that either.
Physicists often let _c_ = 1 to simplify certain computations. Do they ever do that for α?
That was exactly my thought. I’m curious to know too.
No, it’s dimensionless. It’s the same in all unit systems. Hence you can send it to aliens and by the number of digits you know, they can access your technology level.
it is a ratio, like pi
so we can leave it as a symbol in the equation
but cannot set it to 1 like c (by changing the dimension definition)
afterall its dimensionless
Dear Mr. Paul M. Sutter. The number 1/137.036 is a better approximation at the fine-structure constant (with only an error of five parts in 1000 millions). Regards from Costa Rica.
Luis E. Pineda. 😉
How about 1000/137036
Wrong I Can’t believe Not one person GETS it.
@@mrmaestrouk Ok, then explain it. I really want to understand.
ive been reading the comments thinking the same thing, shocking @@mrmaestrouk
Next step: discover that all fields are actually the same field.
Let's recall Zeno's paradox, folks. 😏
When supernovae release their energy, they leave a trace of their residues that were released, but only in a certain volume, why doesn't their residue continue to spread, what is it that "stops" them, what prevents them from continuing to expand at the initial speed? ?. would you mind explaining it? ,thanks.
Liked the clip. I trained as a chemist, so I could understand the stuff about spectroscopy. Spectroscopy is a big deal in chemistry. Also was aware that there was a relationship with some of the other notions of matter. Including String Theory. Which has been gaining more traction recently. Maybe we might be asking the wrong set of questions as to just why of this value? Maybe the relationship is "pointing' to something else, and as a chemist, I am as 'stuck' as the Physist/presenter. Also, like the fact that the question was tossed out there to be examined and commented on by crowd solving. Sort of like what is now happening with NASA's Mars Rovers and the clips that those widgets are radioing back to Earth. A clever fellow.
My intuition tells me, it's like a Doppler shift from when the electron is moving towards or away from the photon. That would explain why at different energies it has different values. I'm sure there may be some reason I'm wrong, but...
Defined as v/c, so I think you are onto something
If PI could be legislated to be 3.0 -- if only in limited jurisdictions -- then certainly we should be able to make 1/137 stick for the FSC.
Why are other fields Involved with high amounts of energy transfer?
Paul, why not just reduce the function to: [ ( e^2) / ( 2h / Z ) ] . ( where Z = 376.7303135 ...which = the impedance of the vacuum of space ) ??? The other question is, knowing the this fact, does Aleph still come up as a unitless " 1/137 ".?
Stay Safe.
why is there h bar times c in the denominator, like isn't the strength of electromagnetic radiation depends on the frequency and if electricity and magnetism are the same thing why isn't there mu not?
How do we explain Pi?
absorption and emission could be misnomers for magnetic attraction and magnetic repulsion which we measure as electricity
Constanta de structura fina este inversul indicelui de refractie al mediului atomic Na=1/alfa=137. Asa ca fotonul care patrunde in atom se contracta longitudinal de 137 de ori, deoarece viteza fotonului se micsoreaza de 137 de ori fata de viteza luminii in vid c. Se poate verifica faptul ca lungimea de unda a fotonului gama electronic se contracta de 137 de ori. Si daca se inparte la lungimea in radiani a cercului, la 2.pi , se obtine raza clasica a electronului. Acest fapt dovedeste ca electronul este unda stationara bipolara si de foarte mare amplitudine, a fotonului gama electronic. Unda ce se constituie din insumarea, prin mecanismul interferentei constructive, a celor 9 miliarde de unde componente ale fotonului gama electronic.
The fine structure constant is the inverse of the refractive index of the atomic environment Na=1/alpha=137. So the photon entering the atom contracts longitudinally 137 times, because the speed of the photon decreases 137 times compared to the speed of light in a vacuum c. It can be verified that the wavelength of the electronic gamma photon contracts 137 times . And if it is divided by the length in radians of the circle, by 2.pi, the classic radius of the electron is obtained. This fact proves that the electron is a bipolar and very high-amplitude standing wave of the electronic gamma photon. The wave formed by the summation, through the mechanism of constructive interference, of the 9 billion component waves of the electronic gamma photon.
Fine structure constant and pi(3.14) are dimensionless....
The FSC is not the only one
The point is, the value of mathematical constants like pi,e,etc can be found to an arbitrary degree of precision using mathematics alone; no physical experiments required. For example, check out the Leibniz formula for pi. There is no known mathematical formula or algorithm for approximating the FSC. We don't even know if it is a rational number or not.
I wonder if the fine structure constant suffers something akin to time dilation as energies increase ? Other than that, I did get the bit about the crusty bread.
constants just changes to higher or lower levels say atoms, cells, stars, galaxies, claster of galaxies - In each level say LS must change for sure, ligh can not be the same in any level from above - Light Speed is not even usefull for our star to proxima centaurius so much time to go and come back so to level each other needs.
Blue cheese is the answer. Excellent talk Paul.
Why isn't the anthropic argument the greatest argument? Seems perfectly clear the universe is fine tuned for life... I think the mistake is assuming it's fine tuned for human life rather than an amorphous intelligence / awareness in general.. I think the anthropic argument can come in multiple flavors, one of which is that it's fine tuned for or with a general baseline intelligence / awareness... Including the possibility that mineral crystal structures and electromagnetism itself has some type of baseline level of intelligence / awareness... So, this would include the concept of cosmological pansychism... For example: neutron stars having a baseline level of amorphous intelligence and awareness... The magnetic flux tubes at the center of the Milky Way galaxy that were recently discovered could also be argued as having a baseline level of intelligence and awareness.. humans forget that we may be a representation of super intelligence, where intelligence and awareness on the cosmological scale would be very subtle but present and represented as the laws of physics..
Equilibrium of emission and absorption of radiation , equilibrium of the electro and the magnetic. The fine constant is in the equals sign.
8:20 2^256 (2^2^3) Arthur Eddington - Doing binary before computers made it cool.
137.06 is the electrical charge of an electron in Planck units.
That’s the squared charge.
We are at the childhood of science. We will know the answer after thousands of years.
I'm definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed but...How is the conundrum of not knowing why the FC has the value it has any different than not knowing why the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter the value of 3.14....? It is also dimensionless.
I was able to derive the fine structure constant using the Existics equations which can also be substituted for a better renormalization formalization
So is 1/137 a natural unit of measurement?
Well.. it is the symbol for science because there is no graphically strong and versatile, while also visually descriptive/accurate, depiction of an atom. We instantly know it's an atom no matter what color it is, no matter what size it is, and many small variations on the design still activate the same response.
Brilliant.
Great video!
Now, if we could just figure out who's idea it was to have the clerk put the bills in your palm, and then stack that little pyramid of coins on top when they're giving you your change.
That's the kind of thing that stands in the way of progress. We have GOT to solve this problem.
I thought 42 was the most important number in the universe.
Also, everyone has an inaudible micro fart every 137 seconds.
Learned that from a Snapple cap.
A fart is defined as a small explosion between the legs. I learned that from the dictionary when I was 10 years old.
IT COULD BE THAT THERE IS ONE FIELD BUT PARTACLES PRECIPITATE AS/BY FRACTILE FREQUENCIES
At this point that's obviously true to many. We interrupt the flow of energy, get a result, and call it a particle, while simultaneously saying nothing took a state until we interacted with it. Capslock isn't enough!
Enjoyed the video. One question; why is the FSC dimensionless when there is C in it?
the units cancel out. e^2/ hc
@@nmarbletoe8210 h is dimensionless and e is coulombs. I guess I need to look into it with my level of physics knowledge
@@nmarbletoe8210 you forgot epsilon naught
Whom do you mean by "we"?
May it be linked with Lambda of L-CDM, so that if the universe inflate, the rate of c and h, e and the electric constant remainst relatively the same for each other? Maybe right now Lambda is one, but in the past was 1-delta and in the future will be 1+delta and the fine constant grows conformally...who knows?
Pi, e, and the golden ratio are dimensionless. However, those are mathematical while the fine structure constant is physical. This is what I think is most impressive about it.
I think I just saw the stock footage brainstorming constant!😮
@4:34 You said "Howzit"... Howzit right back braddah, auryte! Aloha!
Could this be a computer code like binary code
Douglas Adams knew the reason but he was saving it for his next book. The answer 42 was just a red herring.