🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 11:33:14 UTC No. 16623503
Why does this pop up everywhere?
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 12:26:42 UTC No. 16623537
qed (h-bar with e) governs intermolecular atomic electromagnetic forces. that's why it's everywhere.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 14:38:38 UTC No. 16623663
>>16623503
so that speed of light [math] c [/math] has meaning in the holy equations when in fact it cannot be measured
You may replace [math] c [/math] with [math] \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}} [/math] same difference
It is very important that nothing moves faster than light. very
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 14:39:45 UTC No. 16623664
>>16623663
sry [math] \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_0 \epsilon_0}} [/math]
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 18:36:05 UTC No. 16623807
>>16623641
four bounds on alpha
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 18:41:19 UTC No. 16623812
>>16623664
>s[or]ry
omg can't you get anything right on your first try?
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 18:42:44 UTC No. 16623813
>>16623812
tits or gtfo
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 00:47:42 UTC No. 16624039
>>16623807
same 4 bounds on alpha
Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:33:37 UTC No. 16624249
>>16623503
My guess is that it is the output to a Riemann Zeta function, similar to the strength of the Casimir Effect.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:00:43 UTC No. 16624623
>>16623503
>Why does this pop up everywhere?
it doesnt, it only pops up on physical situations that involve electromagnetic interactions. Other interactions have nothing to do with it. Its also not a fixed number as suggested with 1/137, its a variable
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 01:56:26 UTC No. 16624684
>>16624623
>it[']s a variable
So then it should be renamed.
Or called the "fine-structure variable" instead.
"Paul Dirac in 1937 speculated that physical constants such as the gravitational constant or the fine-structure constant might be subject to change over time in proportion of the age of the universe. Experiments conducted since then have put upper bounds on their time-dependence."
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 02:02:33 UTC No. 16624688
>>16624039
The first lower bound on alpha is 27/3700.
27*37 = 999
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 03:58:13 UTC No. 16624737
Oh yes, the structure constant.
Is just a part of the Sacred Geoemtry.
Here you go, a blogpost.
https://blog.world-mysteries.com/sc
There's other elements on the Sacred Geometry, maybe you should check it out instead of getting obsess with one part... You become no different from horse with blinders, missing the unseen trues.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 04:52:39 UTC No. 16624743
>>16623503
Nobody knows. You can make reasonable conjectures where most dimensionless constants come from and dimensioned constants are numerically uninteresting because they just depend on the units you choose and how accurate your measurements are. Fine structure constant on the other hand appears out of nowhere with a totally arbitrary value that is very specific for there to be any meaningful existence.
>>16624684
Its value depends on how hard you yeet the electron but is constant at the same energy level. Fine structure constant is defined by permittivity in vacuum but you can have a different effective fine structure constant if you have higher permittivity. The time variation Paul Dirac hypothesized is not referring to that.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 07:56:37 UTC No. 16624804
>>16624684
>So then it should be renamed.
Everyone knows its not a constant and has known since the 1940s. Its only news to you
>Paul Dirac speculated
Its not a speculation that the fine structure constant changes. It doesnt change with the age of the universe, it changes with the energy level of the interaction. Its not a constant at all, it only looks like one at low energies.
Every other physical interaction has something similar to its own "fine structure constant" so not only is not a constant but theres a few of these
plpl at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:40:30 UTC No. 16625290
>>16624804
>It[']s only news to you[.]
I already knew this.
Thus it's olds to me.
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:23:18 UTC No. 16625308
>>16623503
wtf I thought it was exactly 1/137????
Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 21:43:17 UTC No. 16625377