The Most Important Number in the Universe - Ask a Spaceman!

[@SplashOfOrange]

"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. 👏

[@Lyra0966]

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.

[@jerrybecker1628]

Me tooooo!😢

[@johugra1]

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.

[@brentdobson5264]

Presentation : humorously reasonable / reasonably humorous .

[@marcredgate7288]

A single thumbs up like is woefully inadequate to describe the value your talks bring to the world. Thank you

[@KyleBenzien]

Dude. This video rocks and your explanations are awesome! Keep up the amazing work!

[@rogertulk8607]

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!

[@wiesmaeil8888]

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!

[@kasperlindvig3215]

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.

[@grawss]

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.

[@rikardtvedby3206]

Really nice video and explanation. Thank you!

[@georgerevell5643]

Um always fascinated to learn more about the find structure constant, thx for this little fresh sine into it.

[@baruchbobo9993]

Your video was more understandable than all the other I listened to on the subject I guess you made it plan. Thank you!

[@memoryracer2643]

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

[@DrDeuteron]

It’s 1/128 at the Z mass. See “running of the fine structure constants”

[@Dan2Sail]

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.

[@Native_love]

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!

[@jasoncravens1124]

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.

[@jiritichy6855]

How does this number 137 look like in different numerical system like binary, hexadecimal, octal and base 2,3,4,5 and so on?

[@WeeWeeJumbo]

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"

[@stuffandnonsense8528]

It's a ratio. How would the base make a difference? Listen again from 6:20, I think that might help.

[@kennethpayne7943]

I (non-scientist) have seen half a dozen videos on this topic. I learned the most by far from this one.

[@bobinthewest8559]

If it is “without units”… Wouldn’t that indicate that rather than being a “measurement” of anything, it is instead, a RATIO of “something”?

[@freddymngadi6135]

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.

[@4pharaoh]

You nailed it.

[@egay86292]

exactly. and just for shits and giggles, what the hell is being compared? sugar v. flour in a cookie? i'm dying to know.

[@4pharaoh]

@@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.

[@PhilFogle]

Good stuff. A dimensionless constant is an awesome thing!

[@michael.forkert]

_Dimensionless is the pile of pseudoscientific-manure those pseudoscientific bamboozlers tell people_ .

[@willemesterhuyse2547]

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.

[@louiscrain3603]

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)

[@brettselph7591]

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...

[@MrPandyaketan]

Just like spectrum is separated by alpha (1/137), is it possible that wave and particle are also separated by an exponential of Alpha?

[@kooskroos]

@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

[@wcsxwcsx]

The man likes his vinegar and olive oil. Who can blame him?

[@lukestockett252]

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.

[@DrDeuteron]

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

[@emilythorne8181]

Thank you. Very clearly explained

[@keith.anthony.infinity.h]

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.

[@nathaneisenberg3644]

what, in your thinking, does 1/137 have to do with the thermodynamics of black holes? is there an intrinsic relationship?

[@keith.anthony.infinity.h]

@@nathaneisenberg3644 If you at the black hole entropy you will find it is proportional to the fine structure constant.

[@tylerhenderson9170]

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.

[@richardrose2606]

Actually, she had to choose between two of his books. But you won't know which one she chose until you open the present.

[@zackbarkley7593]

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.

[@donelson52]

Perhaps the FSC indicates which of the infinite universes we are in. Google: Anthropic Principle

[@oskarskalski2982]

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]

Could that variation be due to the expansion of the universe itself, maybe?

[@oskarskalski2982]

@@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.

[@ryanjames3907]

"im an enthusiast not and expert" dam , I thought i came up with that :) @@oskarskalski2982

[@dragonfly.effect]

okay, I get that the FSC is unusual because it"s dimensionless, but, if we can set that aside momentsrily, there is an equation that you flashed by us a couple of times, it has four other variables whose values we also have to measure but can"t explain or derive. we might choose to use a veraion of natural units in which c=hbar=e=1, then interchange the measured quantity alpha with epsilon-nought & derive a value for the vacuum permittivity (which could then be experimentally verified). in fact, if the value of alpha is so mysterious, where did that equation come from in the first place? somehow, the fact that a quantity that was initially defined as a ratio of two energies turns out to be dimensionless lacks any element of surprise.

[@bobinthewest8559]

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”.

[@marceloguarini7695]

The number gets larger. What I learned is that at the Biig Bang energy was closer to 1

[@3niknicholson]

"The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, but queerer than we can imagine.“ - J. B. S. Haldane.

[@digitalsiler]

no

[@helbitkelbit1790]

Sodom & Gamorrah ......

[@nicolasbarbosa8270]

Queer had other connotation you guys

[@PrisonOrDeathPenalty4Congress]

Queer indeed

[@johnjeffreys6440]

that word needs to be updated to strange

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

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.

[@David_Lloyd-Jones]

1/137 is 42's drunk uncle.

[@komolkovathana8568]

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}

[@danmiller4725]

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.

[@stridedeck]

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.

[@ConsiderationFarm]

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.

[@stridedeck]

@@ConsiderationFarm yes, that is a possibility!!!

[@bodeeangus9957]

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.

[@robinkelly1770]

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

[@brettselph7591]

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...

[@ryanjames3907]

thank you for taking the time to write and share all that, you increased my awareness significantly, have a great day ! @@brettselph7591

[@jessicamorgan3073]

Thank you for that explanation, I feel that I understand it a bit better.

[@woofie8647]

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.

[@rajeevelkunchwar]

Dimensionless constant = pulsating constant? Do we not have any readings to extrapolate the frequemcy or magnitude of the pulse? Just curious.

[@danmiller4725]

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?

[@gavinwince]

I was able to derive the fine structure constant using the Existics equations which can also be substituted for a better renormalization formalization

[@anjalibhatia8843]

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

[@stuartwatkins171]

Can the fine structure constant be calculated to sufficient decimal places to establish whether it recurring or non recurring like pi.

[@frankshifreen]

Great Episode

[@notmadeofpeople4935]

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...

[@chem7553]

Defined as v/c, so I think you are onto something

[@wysskey1]

What is the plus and minus of the fine structure konstant

[@postsurrealfish]

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?

[@kdpwil]

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.

[@jimparsons6803]

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.

[@GoGreenHeating]

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..

[@luisemiliopineda1054]

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. 😉

[@erbenton07]

How about 1000/137036

[@mrmaestrouk]

Wrong I Can’t believe Not one person GETS it.

[@erbenton07]

@@mrmaestrouk Ok, then explain it. I really want to understand.

[@ryanjames3907]

ive been reading the comments thinking the same thing, shocking @@mrmaestrouk

[@GreatAwakeningE]

Fabulous video. I would love to know by how much the number changes with energy.

[@douglasstrother6584]

Arnold Sommerfeld: the mighty bridge between Classical and Quantum Mechanics.

[@SiqueScarface]

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.

[@douglasstrother6584]

@@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.

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

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.

[@jsmmsj2520]

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.

[@matthewgale1176]

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

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

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.

[@msgupta26]

Very beautifully explained!

[@rollerskeezer3325]

absorption and emission could be misnomers for magnetic attraction and magnetic repulsion which we measure as electricity

[@kpk1958]

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.

[@Velereonics]

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.

[@polodelmar9852]

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.

[@Yamahog]

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.

[@ThomasEmilioVilla]

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?

[@adriangheorghe2327]

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.

[@alex79suited]

When does first position occur?

[@toymaker3474]

what are you thoughts on steinmetz?

[@mactabilis6039]

@4:34 You said "Howzit"... Howzit right back braddah, auryte! Aloha!

[@MrDarkwing78]

What happens if you try to work in Base137?

[@GenericInternetter]

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.

[@e-t-y237]

Why not 42? But in insisting this number is weird or "Why this number?," wouldn't the same apply to whatever number it was. So that if the constant was 1/4 we'd be saying, "Why in the world would it be 1/4?"

[@williamhardes8081]

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?

[@jameshoffman552]

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.

[@jameshansen1903]

Physicists often let _c_ = 1 to simplify certain computations. Do they ever do that for α?

[@NicleT]

That was exactly my thought. I’m curious to know too.

[@DrDeuteron]

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.

[@antonyyung]

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

[@hut8_newzealand361]

Which of Pi, e, c, epsilon nought, h bar, 1 or 4 is not a constant then?

[@atticuswalker]

137 is a prime number. prime numbers hold the universe together . they represent the shared turn in the wave length of mass as it moves in time. so mass has a constant flow.

[@coherentmud]

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.

[@alexkirichenko6436]

A little correction, the speed of light is 300M meters per second (not kilometers)

[@geoffas]

You can do anything with arithmetic. Take the number 12: it is 12x1, 2x6, 3x4. Most of these 'constants' are not constants, they are derivatives.

[@DarpanAryal-d9y]

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?

[@jsmmsj2520]

Equilibrium of emission and absorption of radiation , equilibrium of the electro and the magnetic. The fine constant is in the equals sign.

[@rossfriedman6570]

Why are other fields Involved with high amounts of energy transfer?

[@bryandraughn9830]

I think I just saw the stock footage brainstorming constant!😮

[@SpotterVideo]

Is it the ratio of the transition between the photon moving at C and the twisted hypertubule of the particle moving at less than C in the following model? Is it caused by the winding up or the winding down of the hypertubule? This model attempts to describe particles in terms of geometry, in the same way gravity has been described as a curvature of spacetime. It is not looking for a particle which produces a curvature of space-time. It is doing the opposite. Does the following quantum model agree with the Spinor Theory of Roger Penrose? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting occurs. 720 degrees per twist cycle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? ================================

[@Eduardo-tq5sk]

Thank you for proliferate the atomic physics profe!

[@Turbohh]

How do we explain Pi?

[@ratbullkan]

But that's it! It changes with Energy so in reality it's not dimensionless at all!

[@adi.olteanu.1982]

Fine structure constant and pi(3.14) are dimensionless.... The FSC is not the only one

[@tynerben]

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.

[@rgaleny]

IT COULD BE THAT THERE IS ONE FIELD BUT PARTACLES PRECIPITATE AS/BY FRACTILE FREQUENCIES

[@grawss]

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!

[@b43xoit]

Whom do you mean by "we"?

[@chipbaish4012]

Love your Eiffel Tower picture :)

[@walterbrownstone8017]

I believe if you don't go along with the story you get fired in physics. Step 1 create a unit particle. Charge is 1, diameter is 1. When you ask it to look in the mirror, it tells you it weighs e/2. Then you look at the electron and you see it's made of 101 unit particles. The 26th prime number. 101 x e/2 is the fine structure constant. No serious math, just common sense. Particles are prime numbers. How much does a neutrino weigh? A neutrino is the fourth prime so take the mass of an electron and multiply by 5/101 and you get 0.45x10^-31 kg. Now you know the mass of a neutrino.

[@TheOtherSteel]

How do we pretend an electron orbits an atom, especially when it doesn't? How do we calculate an electron's velocity around an atom when it doesn't go around/orbit?

[@butterfacemcgillicutty]

So is 1/137 a natural unit of measurement?

[@JxH]

12:02 Harald Fritsch died on 16 August 2022. RIP.