Talk:Fine-structure constant/Archive 2

message: The Schwinger effect: there can't be isolated point-like charged particles of more than 1/α (about 137) unit charges because an electric field that strong leads to pair creation of which one particle gets bound in the lowest possible energy state the other one escapes. 
This can theoretically occur when shooting heavy nuclei at each other, creating temporary ultra-heavy cores (however, as nuclei aren't point-like but have a volume, it requires about 170 protons for the effect to occur)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.69.115 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another physical aspect 

message: I've removed the following paragraph, which was added repeatedly:
:It was recently discovered another property of the fine structure constant: arrange special one-dimensional chaotic dynamics. [9], [10]
D.B. Volov, Specific behaviour of one chaotic dynamics near the fine-structure constant //
arXiv:1205.6091v1.[http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6091
D.B. Volov, The generalized Verhulst-Ricker-Plank dynamics and its relation to the fine-structure constant // Bulletin of Volga Region Transportation # 4 (28), 67 (2011). [1]
This is not only unclear, but in my opinion also thoroughly nonnotable. People have tried zillions of calculations to "explain" the numerical value of the fine-structure constant, and non-surprisingly some came out somewhere near 137 or its inverse. The result referred to does not stand out in any way among this fringe. No plausible connection grounded in any physics theory is offered for a connection between the dynamic system considered and electromagnetic interaction. The anonymous IP adding this geolocates to the same city in Russia where Mr. Volov's institute is located, so a COI is plausible.  --Lambiam 13:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea!  I was about to check this out, but hadn't gotten around to it.  Thanks Lambian. 70.109.176.173 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear paragraph on non-notable result 

message: 1/137 is actually quite a special number- expressed in decimal notation it shows palindromic repeats, and in fact the largest length palindromic repeats (6 units) for at least 50,000 whole integer denominators, when both numerator and denominator are whole integers. Thus it is very curious that the FSC is so close to it. Also makes one wonder whether deviation FROM this fraction has other causes, which distort what it *should* be ideally.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.117.192 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eddington's Wish... 

message: The best experimentally determined value is 137.035999084(51). The value below lies well within the uncertainty of that.
:: 137.0359990777649 = 137 + {\frac{ln \, ln \, 137^{137^{137}}}{137^{2} - 1}} 
Note that
:: ln \, ln \, 137^{137^{137}} = ln \, (137^{137} \, ln \, 137) = ln \, 137^{137} \, + \, ln \, ln \, 137 = 137 \, ln \, 137 \, + \, ln \, ln \, 137 = 675.6306915
--Vibritannia (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerology 

message: Integer based derivations of Einstein's relativistic mass-energy equation and deBroglie's wave equation suggest the Compton and deBroglie wavelengths are governed by a Pythagorean triple whose multiples provide orbital stability by maximizing the overlap between the interlaced waves. A systematic search across the uncertainty range of the Fine Structure Constant reciprocal (137.035999084(51)) results in a single primitive Pythagorean Triple that forms 9X the number of  n^2 multiples above any other primitive triple suggesting it is the exact value of this constant:
 
       1/∝= 137.035999065849 
see more at www.quantumpulse.com  
Brian d nelson (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this article talk page is for discussions about the article, not about the subject. See wp:TPG. - DVdm (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fine Structure Constant is likely governed by Primitive Pythagorean Triples that form n^2 Multiples by: Brian Nelson 

message: The article needs updating with the latest experimental-QED determination of the fine structure constant:
Aoyama, T., Hayakawa, M., Kinoshita, T. & Nio, M. "Tenth-Order QED Contribution to the Electron g-2 and an Improved Value of the Fine Structure Constant," Physical Review Letters, 109, 111807 (2012) arXiv:1205.5368v2.
"This Letter presents the complete QED contribution to the electron g-2 up to the tenth order. With the help of the automatic code generator, we evaluate all 12 672 diagrams of the tenth-order diagrams and obtain ... The improved value of the fine-structure constant 1/α = 137.035 999 173 (35) [0.25 ppb] is also derived from the theory and measurement of ae." Alphatronic (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs update 

message: The ratio of the anti-matter pair electron-positron to the charged pi-meson mass produces a number which is not terribly far off from the fine structure constant: 2m_e/pi^+- = 0.00732247. The electron mass is well determined precisely and accurately by 2010 Codata (it is very good) from the NIST while the charged pion mass determination is from the Particle Data Group (PDG). If the PDG value is not as good as it should be maybe a future determination will bring it in line with the FSC.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.29.4.150 (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  FSC as a mass ratio 

message: I am somewhat concerned about a [significant addition to the article 2 days ago] by IP 78.54.103.221 .
It appears to promote and reference from:
: G. Poelz, retired from Hamburg University, Institute of Exp. Physics, Hamburg, Germany
and draws from no other references.
The IP is also from Hamburg.
I don't have a problem specifically with the content, because I cannot evaluate the quality or veracity of the content.  So I am leaving it alone and leaving it to other people do evaluate. 70.109.183.89 (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can be removed per no secondary sources for it. - DVdm (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New addition 

message: With relative discrepancy  in respect to the Fine Structure constant recommended value
</br>
next equality is observed
</br>
::::::::cos(\alpha^{-1}) = e^{-1}
Mikhail Vlasov
</br>
Korablino (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooooooooh, nice one! If only it was a bit closer (gives 137.03600793921456). --Vibritannia (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unity" formula for the Fine Structure constant reciprocal 

message: Checking the article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1749-6632.2001.tb02133.x), I see :
"If, instead, we consider the allowed variations in the strength of the strong nuclear force, αs, and α then roughly αs < 0.3α^1/2 is required for the stability of biologically useful elements like carbon. If we increase αs by 4 percent, there is disaster because the helium-2 isotope can exist (it just fails to be bound by about 70 KeV in practice) and allows very fast direct proton + proton → helium-2 fusion. Stars would rapidly exhaust their fuel and collapse to degenerate states or black holes. In contrast, if αs were decreased by about 10 percent, then the deuterium nucleus would cease to be bound, and the nuclear astrophysical pathways to the build up of biological elements would be blocked." 
in the text I think there is a confusion between alpha and alpha_s.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.156.174.225 (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropic explanation 

message: Article describes a contour of spinning electron and derives a value of the Fine Structure constant from Proton-to-Electron mass ratio on basis of the facts that both electron and proton have equal spin angular momentum while proton is heavier than electron more than 1836 times.
</br>
It appears from suggested model that the path of rotating electron is shaped as hardware nut (regular polygon) with 137 sides and rounded corners.
</br>
Numerical outcome of the model: electron’s spin circumference is 137.035999118… times longer than diameter of spinning proton. It is proven that this ratio is physically the Fine Structure constant. The result is located right on the upper boundary of the CODATA Fine Structure constant reciprocal recommended value range.
</br>
Key formula for the number of sides n in polygon formed by electron’s spinning body:
::::::::n = round up to prime {(\pi \cdot {\sqrt{\frac{m_p}{m_e}}})} = 137
where                 
                
    m_p/m_e 		-	Proton-to-electron mass ratio.
</br></br>
Solution for the Fine Structure constant reciprocal:
::::::::\alpha^{-1} = n \cdot {\frac {Sin({\frac{\pi}{n}} - \psi) + \psi} {Sin({\frac{\pi}{n}}) \cdot Cos({\frac{\pi}{n}} -  \psi)}} = 137.0359991176...
where
::::::::n = 137 		-	number of sides in polygon formed by electron’s spinning body;
::::::::\psi = {\frac{\pi}{(3 \cdot 137)^2}}  	-	angle of polygon corner rounding. 
</br>Mikhail Vlasov
</br>
Korablino (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  <!--e-Nut or -->Shape of Spinning Electron: how to extract Fine Structure Constant from Proton-to-Electron Mass Ratio 

message: I edited the value to be 1/137, consistent with the rest of the article and the quoted link but my edit was reversed to 1/128 by Alphatronic.Yehoshua2 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The source says 1/137 with a marker to the footnote "At Q2 = 0. At Q2 ≈ m2W the value is ∼ 1/128". - DVdm (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But 1/137 seems to be more fundamental, as it is the main listed value; anyway it should be 1/137 to maintain consistency throughout the article.Yehoshua2 (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not follow the source and take both values with footnote and all? - DVdm (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  If someone understands what the footnote refers to, then we could add it; I think in the measurement segment, rather than the constancy section.Yehoshua2 (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute over value of alpha in "Is the fine-structure constant actually constant?"

message: while my request for clarification (or the clarification itself) may not be as intensive as some of the others here, i would still like to know in which direction this "4%" applies. is it an increase of 4% or a decrease? or both? alpha being >.1 is certainly a much larger change than a "measly" 4%. in any case, please differentiate this value, thanks. :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke J Pickett (talk • contribs) 23:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Anthropic Principle datum 

message: Adler's short paper on the fine structure constant should be mentioned as well 'Theories of the Fine Structure Constant a' in any biblography on the subject. FERMILAB-PUB-72/059-T  http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/1972/pub/Pub-72-059-T.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.29.4.150 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, why not?  It's not hard to do, 167.  Even for a lowly IP editor.  71.169.179.45 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen L. Adler's short classic paper on the fine structure constant 

message: I would like to note that the use of the term "Numerology" in this article does not correspond to its definition given in the Wikipedia itself.  Such a common contradiction (to a lesser extent in the identical German and Russian articles) creates a negative attitude for the fine structure constant in this article. At the same time the "Coupling constant" article gives only neutral information about the fine structure constant (as well as other constants). I may say about each paragraph in «Numerological explanations» the same what Lambian said in «Unclear paragraph on non-notable result».  
Eventually this article must be combined with the "Coupling constant" article because at least first three of them are: α^(0*0), α^(1*1), α^(2*2) (next are α^(3*3), α^(4*4), α^(5*5), ... but accuracy of calculations must be as twice as more than 64 bits).Алры (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory of fine-structure constant was published already

message: It would be helpful to note that the natural units mentioned are specifically Lorentz–Heaviside units. The term "natural units" needlessly ambiguous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulu (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural Units

message: The "Is the fine-structure constant actually constant?" section strikes me as unencyclopedic. It reads like a bunch of inconclusive experimental findings, with no reliable secondary source to reach a conclusion. When you add in the Nobel-bait of discovering a variation in the constant .... I propose deleting the section entirely. It would also improve the article to work the content of the "Numerology" and "Quotes" into the meat of the article—Finell
:It seems to be something which a number of reputable physicists have speculated about, and which would be extremely important if true, but which can't be conclusively verified or refuted in the current state of knowledge.  Sometimes that's just the way that science in a field is... (Probably  would be a secondary source; can't fully view it from here.) AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the constant constant? 

message: In the section, Is the constant constant? there is a block of text,
:"King et al. … stated by Webb et al. and Murphy et al. are robust."
Webb is in the main article, but Murphy is not. How can you refer to Murphy when he doesn't exist?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikesdad (talk • contribs) 01:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 8 cites to Murphy. Why is this item hiding here instead of at the bottom of the list?   Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown reference to Murphy in Is the constant constant. 

message: I'm aware of a physical representation of \alpha derived from purely classical means. A spherical resonator cavity in free space with radius \alpha a_0, where a_0 is the Bohr radius, will have free space inductance L and capacitance C such that its resonant frequency \omega exactly matches, to 8+ significant figures, the frequency of a photon with energy equal to the electron rest mass, m_0. To see this, note that \omega = {1 \over \sqrt{LC}} = {1 \over \sqrt{\alpha a_0 \mu_0 \alpha a_0 \epsilon_0}}  = 7.7634408 x 10E20 rad/s. This frequency corresponds to a photon of energy 510998.896 eV, which is also m_0. Has this ever been described? The implication to particle  production is evident. This describes a necessary condition for a photon with energy of the electron rest mass to experience infinite vacuum impedance. 66.87.76.91 (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical representation of alpha 

message: All measurements of the Fine Structure constant are based on a behavior of electrons in atoms. Hence Fine Structure constant should depend on Proton-to-Electron mass ratio. The link can be described by following formulae
::::::::\alpha^{-1} = {{\sqrt{137^2+(\pi-atan(\frac{4}{3\cdot\mu}))^2}}} = 137.035999074536255(7)
where                 
        
    \mu 		-	Proton-to-electron mass ratio.
Deviation for produced value for the Fine Structure constant reciprocal is 10-14.
It is determined exclusively by uncertainty of measurements of the Proton-to-electron mass ratio.
Simplified expression is also practical for the constant's value calculation
::::::::\alpha^{-1} = {{\sqrt{137^2+\pi^2}\cdot(1-\frac{4\pi}{3}\cdot\frac{1}{(137^2+\pi^2)\cdot\mu})}} = 137.035999073...
Mikhail Vlasov
Korablino (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You need a source for that. It looks like OR, and hardly that original.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fine Structure Constant depends on Proton-to-Electron Mass Ratio 

message: In the article it says It is related to the electromagnetic coupling constant g whereas following the link it is then only called gauge coupling parameter, g. In the German article the "fine-structure constant" is equivalent to and just another name for the "electromagnetic coupling constant". I guess it is a mistake in this article. Ra-raisch (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, the term "electromagnetic coupling constant" is often used for α, but this is unfortunately a misnomer. My memory may be failing me, but I think that Feynman used the term to refer to e, the elementary charge.  The latter use is in keeping with the use of the term "coupling constant".  The use of g as a symbol is probably just a way of changing the units of e. The lead is definitely not satisfactory in this regard at the moment.  I'd like to see us not using the term "electromagnetic coupling constant" for α (because it is a bad use), but rather just mention that this is often what it is used to mean, preferably not even in the lead. α is proportional to the square of what I'm here calling Feynman's electromagnetic coupling constant.  —Quondum 23:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Electromagnetic coupling constant g 

message: There was previously a reference to a sheet of physical constants, provided by NIST. It included a reference to a high value of alpha at high energies, and this was mentioned in the article (~1/128).
Although this is not made clear in the NIST reference, this "alpha" is not the same as the fine-structure constant referred to in this article, which really is a constant that relates precisely to other physical constants in a known and simple way. 
The alpha mentioned in the NIST reference is alpha_sub_2 = alpha /(sin theta_w), which is a variable.
Check out A Modern Introduction to Particle Physics by  By Fayyazuddin, Riazuddin for more details.
In any case, including this reference will mislead the reader. Under all circumstances, the fine-structure constant is fixed, as defined at the start of this article.
Ordinary Person (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the 1/128 reference: here's why 

message: The group working with J. K. Webb published results showing a dipole spatial variation in the fine structure constant with axis that appeared to be passing through the South Magnetic Pole of Earth. Discussions following publication of the first arixv article suggested some interaction of the magnetic field with the optical measurements. General relativity allows such an interaction to occur through the electromagnetic stress energy tensor, but most strongly for magnetic monopoles which have not been found. Magnetic dipole field of Earth has a long base line which allows the two poles to act independently in regions of considerations for General Relativity around the two telescopes. Gravity of Earth can also interact with optics through stress energy. Doctor Webb indicated in other correspondence his knowledge on these possibilities and others not discussed in the arxiv articles due to space limitations.
This article discusses concerns about accuracy of the measurements and possible differences in the two telescopes, but fails to notice whether or not the apparent spatial variation occurred in both telescopes equally when they observed the same object. "A search for systematics, using observations duplicated at both telescopes, reveals none so far which emulate this result." Also the possibility of a stress energy interaction is not reflected in the article. 
A major issue is involved in that the published data from Australia is suggesting a preferred location and axial direction in space, in disagreement with modern astronomy and physics. If true it will require confirming data from other researchers and a serious discussion among specialists in the field. Additional published data in arxiv from the Australian group seems to support the original findings. Something important might have been discovered, but the explanation of it is not satisfactory. The article needs help from technical experts. Astrojed (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Spatial Variation Of Fine Structure Constant

message: Number 137 belongs to sequence of squared natural numbers
</br>
::::::::S_n = n^2 - S_{n-1}, where n=1,2,... and S_0=1
S1=0 
S2=4 
S3=5 
S4=11</br>
S5=14
S6=22
S7=27
S8=37</br>
S9=44
S10=56
S11=65
S12=79</br>
S13=90
S14=106
S15=119
S16=137</br>
S17=152
S18=172...</br>
Number 137 also belongs to sequence of cubed natural numbers
::::::::C_n = n^3 - C_{n-1}, where n=1,2,... and C_0=2
C1=-1
C2=9
C3=18
C4=46</br>
C5=79
C6=137
C7=206
C8=306...</br>
Respectively 
::::::::137=1+\sum_{n \mathop =1}^{16}(-1)^n \cdot n^2=1+\sum_{n \mathop =1}^{16}n
or 
::::::::137=2+\sum_{n \mathop =1}^{6}(-1)^n \cdot n^3  
</br>
Mikhail Vlasov
</br>
Korablino (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  It worth to mention that number 137 belongs to recursive sets of squared and cubed natural numbers 

message: If Fine-structure is caused by interaction of an electron and an atomic nucleus - the constant should depend on Proton-to-electron mass ratio μ as
</br>
::\alpha^{-1} = 137 \cdot (1 + e^{-1} \cdot \frac{\mu+0.5}{137^3}) = 137.035999082...
::::::::::::::\alpha^{-1} = 137 { } / { } (1 - e^{-1} \cdot \frac{\mu+0.018}{137^3}) = 137.035999091...
Small shifts 0.5 and 0.018 in reduced mass ratios are not accidental because 0.018 / 0.5 = 0.036
</br>
Korablino (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article does not explicitly tell that Fine-structure constant cannot be measured on free electrons because the Fine-structure split is observed only in atoms. Is this statement correct? 

message: ((e * cos(137035.9991232535539893 radians)) - 1) / phi = 1 
1/((137036 ^2)/(pi/2)^0.5 ) = G  is to "G"   what E = mc^2 is to "c" 
https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/fibonacci-c-433494437
Our space time could be thought of as a cavity held open by the orbit of a pair of quite large black holes & the CMBR is their temperature   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B10E:4F53:68D0:CC1F:43C4:11B3 (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  F S C is Space Time's Architecture  

message: This quote (by a self-published writer whose articles appear on vixra, etc) apparently alludes to its author's rather idiosyncratic theories (for example, that the top quark / electron mass ratio is 18/alpha^2 -- in the Standard Model this mass ratio is the ratio of the top and electron Yukawa couplings, which are independent parameters and have nothing to do with alpha). What are Wikipedia's standards for quotes in a physics article? I don't think this meets them, but I'll defer to a more experienced editor. 171.64.57.166 (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Range of its domain" quote 

message: I was confused. I dont troll , you are very well aware of that. But why arent you talking to me? 
 i thought we were becoming friends.  —usernamekiran (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous edit 

message: Almost none of the physical interpretations seems to be adequately sourced. Can we have more references?238-Gdn (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: i've been studying this for some time, 238-Gdn: there basically aren't any (with one notable exception recently encountered: see below, new section just added a few hours ago).  it's been over a hundred years now and basically nobody has the slightest clue. the only interpretations that make sense are ones which match the de vries formula.  given that de vries is a programmer who has never published a peer-reviewed paper, his work is dismissed with prejudice.  it's a ridiculous situation.  Lkcl (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical interpretations 

message: Just asking if the sentence 
"Equivalently, it was the quotient between the minimum angular momentum allowed by relativity for a closed orbit, and the minimum angular momentum allowed for it by quantum mechanics." 
should read 
"... the maximum angular momentum allowed by relativity..." (...and the minimum by QM)?
--J. Sketter (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, absolutely not. It is not important, but the throwaway sentence invites you to visualize circular orbits of a classical electron, before quantization constraints. In that case, the angular momentum goes as \sqrt r  and, equivalently, as e^2/v.  As the radius of the orbit decreases, the velocity increases.  The classical angular momentum, then, naively, is decreasing with v, and achieves its minimum at e^2/c. Comparing, then,  with the likewise minimum angular momentum provided by the quantization condition  yields α. It's a formal wisecrack---if it doesn't speak to you, you might pass it over. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: International Journal of Quantum Foundations 3(2017) 100 - 118, a copy of which may be obtained here, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320110017_Quantum_Jumps_and_Electrodynamical_Description - section 4.
the original formula - for which there was no explanation provided because it was found by a programmer with deep analytical and pattern-recognition skills - is here: http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2004_10_04_The_Electro_Magnetic_coupling_constant.html
unlike many other reverse-engineered formula for alpha the de vries formula has an extremely low Kolmogorov Complexity in its recursive expression, and its maclaurin-like series form extremely similar to the well-known electron g/2 formula.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkcl (talk • contribs) 15:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Insertion of "penultimate" comment on list, unsigned, to boot, is highly objectionable. Advocacy of irredeemably fringe science should not be argued for on these pages. Promulgation in the actual article is not acceptable. Please hash this nonsense out in the Physics Forum of WP, not here. Please. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: autosigning bot takes care of unsigned comments if people forget or are unsure.  please do not break wikipedia spirit and guidelines by assuming ill-intent on the part of contributors. Lkcl (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: International Journal of Quantum Foundations is not something I would call a reputable journal. It's indexed literally nowhere . Now Leonardo Chiatti may very well be right, but if he is, he will very soon be cited by a ton of people. But it's been over a year, and no one batted an eye. Right or wrong, Chiatti failed to convince the physics community and WP:UNDUE applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finally an actual explanation for alpha that's based in mathematics and is in a published peer-reviewed journal 

message: I want to point out that the few references to a theory involving "quantum micro black holes" seem to be just one other among many attempts to explain the fine structure constant - this seems to me not suitable for such a general Wikipedia article. (seems like advertisement of an unproven theory). But I leave it to others to decide whether to delete.
(Florian Marquardt)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.128.80.239 (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, that section is basically charlatan, and its content does not deserve more than a footnote. The article is veering into junk science. Pity the student who comes here in search of instruction. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That section appears to be yet another numerological attempt to derive alpha via crazy iterative processes.  I don't think we need to leave it for others to decide to delete; it's rubbish. ES2 (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on "quantum micro black holes" 

message: Previous version deleted by ESnyder2 „numerological, non-scientific explanation”.  Yoichiro Nambu of the 1st ref got the nobel for physics in 2008, so I'd rather classify at least his work as „science“. Numerology - sure there is a lot, on a level with e.g. the Koide formula. However, the cited relation for α is based on a model conventionally derived from a DE.
-Kawarayaki (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you badly misunderstood Nambu's paper: He definitely did not derive 1/α in that paper: he utilized it to propose regularities of masses of elementary particles using it as a yardstick, regularities invalidated by posterity. That was 67 years ago, and, since, much more has been learned about elementary particles to invalidate this speculation.  You cannot implicate α in failed attempts at progress. Koide would be first to object to his intriguing formula being used as an excuse for including obsolete pablum in a general article of this kind. Sure, α underlies the Balmer series, as  already discussed in the article. Using it as an excuse to insert pseudoscience in a mainstream article, however, is rich.  I believe you should retract the paragraph you wantonly inserted, with extreme prejudice. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "subatomic particles and {{math|''α''}}" in "physical interpretations" 

message: I plan to clean up this sentence if there are no objections. It is missing a preceding delimiter (a blank space) from the preceding formula, making it confusing. Also the use of the word force is potentially confusing in this context. Also it is wordy. No change planned to the numbers or references. Any concerns? J Mark Morris (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. J Mark Morris (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  “In to the new SI system entering into force in 2019, 4π × 1.000 000 000 82 (20) 10−7 H·m−1 is a value in the new system for µ0 according to a new measurement of the fine structure constant.[1][2][3]” 

message: It is fairly clear from the article and talk that there is a commonly held view that the fine structure constant is not a constant, but that it runs with energy. In preparation for future new science, I propose the remaing of the page to "Fine-structure value". It can be made clear that the value is as determined by experiments under certain conditions corresponding to test results at relatively low energy. An alternate proposal would be the "Fine-structure asymptote" which would be the low energy asymptote of the fine structure variable. To continue to call this a constant, when there is widespread scientific evidence that the fine structure "runs with energy" is wrong. J Mark Morris (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong or not, it is established usage. You don’t change names by unilateral fiat. Anyone with a smattering of physics has mastered that. I tweaked the relevant "running coupling" section to clarify the point.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed renaming of page to "Fine-structure value" 

message: Is it worth mentioning that 
4 pi^3 + pi^2 + pi = 137.0363... is a close approximation to 1/ \alpha? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. endorsing voodoo numerology would and should raise hackles.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good approximation worth mentioning? 

message: It would be good if this article were to explain why this constant was defined as being less than 1, and not 137.  For example, it could have been decided that π was the ratio of diameter to circumference, and everyone would be forced to use 0.318309886... everywhere.  And of course, there is no reason why this convention could not be changed.  Like how there has been a push to replace pi with tau.  But the article would be improved if it were to present the explanation behind why this more obscure version of the constant was adopted.  Physicists get a warm fuzzy feeling when the h-bar gets put in the denominator.  But there is no rule that says you have to do that.  -- Tdadamemd19 (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 1/137 versus 137 

message: Dear administrators, 
I do know that article belongs to C-Class. Nevertheless it is no reason to re-edit it just at one second (or 30 minutes). One ref. and short content of ref. paper is added because certain interest is arised for the result from high-rank physicists even. Report was represented on seminars of three European Universities. Paper is published in peer-reviewed journal. The reason to lay content in Wiki is following. 1)Exclusively simple formula  strikes imagination of scoolboys, students, and professors of physics. 2) It has far going consequences for physics. 3) I don't tuch a letter of the basic article, short section is added only.
Mark (to edit) signifies that I may insert short passage again. It will help to discuss and to criticize result by physicists. Sincerely Yours EfimovSP (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Publication does not override lack of consensus. This is tendentious self promotion.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish we wouldn't have to  go there: Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Parity of sources... But this is not a forum. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link of constant {{math|''α''}} with quantum numbers {{math|''l''}} and {{math|''m<sub>l</sub>''}} 

message: An equality can be written retroactively for the ratio π/137 being expressed as a function (Taylor series) of the fine-structure constant α.
::::::{{(\pi \cdot \alpha)}^2} + (\pi \cdot \alpha)^4 + \frac{1}{8} \cdot (\pi \cdot \alpha)^6 + ...  =  (\frac{\pi}{137})^2
The result has a very narrow range of values
 \alpha^{-1} = 137.0359991676 ± 0.0000000007 satisfying the above equality.
The direct expression for the fine-structure constant α as a function of the π/137 ratio produces the same result.
::::::(\pi \cdot \alpha)^2 = (\frac{\pi}{137})^2 - (\frac{\pi}{137})^4 + \frac{15}{8} \cdot (\frac{\pi}{137})^6 - \frac{35}{8} \cdot (\frac{\pi}{137})^8 + ...
Also, there is a converging set.
::::::(\pi \cdot \alpha)^2 = \frac{\pi^2}{137^2+\pi^2} \cdot (1 + \frac{7}{8} \cdot (\frac{\pi^2}{137^2+\pi^2})^2 + ...)
Mikhail Vlasov
Korablino (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another beauty in '''α''' 

message: Through the last years, starting up to 2016, I have worked on other theories, that Coulombs Law best describes the three known forces as strong and weak atomic/nuclear forces and 'electro-magnetic' radiation quite differently. But the work of Feynman is not part of this. The reach of electrostatic force in these collections, is not much further than the radius of any atom. The electrons in these ideas do not orbit or spin. Magnetism is sought explained as gravity with graviton flux. But light as photons. Link to my homepage in Danish, if these theories have interest, but it has not been translated. www.alternativfysik.dk
This might mean, that at the distance 100.000.000 (10^8) meters, electrostatics differences can be measured, which if I have any clue, what I am saying, means, magnetism on Earth, experimentally almost can be registered on the moon? "Magnetism reaches much further that electrostatic fields. And gravity much, much further that any magnetism, that can be both natural and generated." (384.405 km - 3474*0,5 km - 3474*4*0,5 km =  360.087 km)
--Damsgaard1971 (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetism 

message: Is "numerological" the right word? This isn't numerology as far as I can tell. kencf0618 (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the speculations of Arthur Eddington in this area and others are most definitely referred to as numerology (see Eddington number).  Attempts to derive the 137+ number from pure mathematics (without reference to any physical theory) would also be called "numerology" by some... AnonMoos (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Numerology in this context means just making up some formula or some argumentation with no real physics underpinnings with the sole intent to make it output the desired number. In this very page, you can see a lot of people who came out with made up formulas to output \alpha using a bunch of unexplained, exoteric and made up combinations of \pi, e, \Sigma, cos, sin, c, square roots, logarithms, etc. What it seems that most people don't get up, is that it is not difficult to make some formula that output \alpha or any other number you like by using some combination of those. But just because your made up a formula that outputs what you want it to output, that doesn't means that it is correct neither that its made up and unexplained inputs have any real connection to real physics. 2804:431:C7CF:F03F:90BB:1D2D:AA63:F897 (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: "In the early 21st century, multiple physicists, including Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time, began exploring the idea of a multiverse"
According to our article on the book A Brief History of Time was published in 1988, not in the early 21st century. This probably should say "In the late 20th century" - using "began" already implies it continued after that. Vultur~enwiki (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "early 21st century" error