Talk:Fine-structure constant

Is Wikipedia for everyone, or only for pompous egotists to show off their knowledge of specialized subjects?

Having the intellectual capacity to simplify the presentation of a complex subject so that a layperson with a basic understanding of science can comprehend is a feat in itself. 2600:8801:BE1C:1D00:FA07:6031:AB4E:440C (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

In the system of atomic units, ... it all makes sense and nothing mysterious

This is not some obscure "magic number" that appears in physics.

It's about the "fine structure" of the spectral lines of the hydrogen atom as measured by the Michelson–Morley experiment.

So α = 1/c if e = ħ = 4πε₀ = 1 then the question becomes, What is the speed of light in natural atomic units? And why is the speed of light what it is?

We still don't know the answer, but we do know that nothing more or less than that is being asked. However, as soon as we look at Einstein's equation E = mc², it's just as "natural" if not more so to set c = 1 so that E = m and then the other units don't work out and the same mismatch factor remains, no matter what. Justina Colmena ~biz (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Fine structure constant's numerology.

Regarding the removal of the numerological calculation of the constant with the motivation "unreliable source". (137.0359990900848 etc.)

Numerology is not a science. The chapter is called "Numerological". Therefore, scientific references are not possible and your demand is baseless and logically absurd. References proving the correctness of the calculations are enough. Scientific journals do not accept articles on the numerology of constants. The source can never be reliable, and thus you generally protest against Wikipedia's right to publish numerology. In this case, delete the mention of Eddington, given that his calculation is much worse. Is that so? I consider the decision to delete it a deliberate obstacle to the dissemination of information. Марина Безух (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

There's no numerology exemption in Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. And what I'm objecting to is the quality of the sourcing, not of the calculation. Eddington's calculation, as bad as it is, was published in a book by a reputable publisher. The source you added is self-published, that's not acceptable. Tercer (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I will wait for the public's opinion. So far you have not managed to dispel my doubts about the logical absurdity. Марина Безух (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

So, as we see from the prolonged powerless silence, people who are unable to argue and defend their opinions at the same time have the audacity to edit and even delete other people's smart things. Now we will search for mechanisms in Wikipedia that allow some editors to be banned so that they do not spoil the encyclopedia verification scheme with their incompetence. Марина Безух (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Марина Безух Yeah but I tried to put out the "arithmetic proof" as well, that was also deleted: If we can have (E for energy) E=(sqrt((2*c)+sqrt(1/(2*c))*(2*c)**2))=1/0.0144 then c is near 137.25200109776506. 144 is a light speed. 2A02:FE1:9281:9A00:4A47:15A2:9FA1:DBFB (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

We will soon check their competence and their rights. I am personally curious how everything is arranged in our jungle for maximum convenience of exchanging ideas, and not ambitions and self-conceit. Марина Безух (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I am glad that the attacks of the unpredictable Tercer (talk) remained without sympathy, and only I managed to get a positive response. Therefore, the victory of the dispute is mine. Марина Безух (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. Your edit was and continues to be in violation of the site's basic policies. This is not a place to host numerological speculations. The fact that people ignore you because you have made no actual argument in favor of your position is not a free pass to violate Wikipedia policy. 158.121.180.24 (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, but I also studied logic at the philosophy department. To claim that numerology is unacceptable in a chapter on numerology is something I have not heard even from the worst underachievers in the department, that's the first. Besides, numerological sport in the history of the alpha constant has long been legitimized by publishers (read John Barrow, for example). Before you is the highest achievement in this sport to date, which you are hiding from science. Second, "Wikipedia's requirement for writing articles is "verifiability, not truth". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources). The verifiability of the presented numerology is undeniable, because we are talking about a simple mathematical formula showing the stated result. The third argument I stated earlier and you just repeated it to me with the opposite sign: there are no reliable sources for numerology, but there are VERIFIABLE sources. So, with your strange objection you confirmed my point, and did not object to me. My point has not been weakened: a reliable source about non-scientific discourse ACCEPTED for consideration by Wikipedia itself (sic: Numerology) must be verifiable, and NOT necessarily included in the list of reliable ones. Марина Безух (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

So, as we see from the prolonged powerless silence, people who are unable to argue and defend their opinions at the same time have the audacity to edit and even delete other people's smart things. Now we will search for mechanisms in Wikipedia that allow some editors to be banned so that they do not spoil the encyclopedia verification scheme with their incompetence. Марина Безух (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)