A Physics Self-study Hobbyist, Fascinated by the 1/137 Conjecture

[long_yaya]

How did you find PF?

Zenodo, Google

Hello everyone, I'm Dickinson.
Glad to join the PF community. I am an amateur of mathematics and physics, and I spend much spare time studying classic textbooks intensively.

** My Persistent Learning Style
I have long been accustomed to deriving formulas independently without referring to books.
In middle school, I figured out the change-of-base formula for logarithms by myself. In high school, I derived Taylor expansion conversely based on physical motion principles. During university years, I worked out the mass-energy equation using differential methods. Old yellowed handwritten notes are attached here.
This rigorous derivation habit has stayed with me for over two decades. It may seem inefficient, yet it forms my unique way of learning.

** Drawn to the Great Unsolved Puzzle
I have lately studied researches on the fine-structure constant by Dirac, Feynman and Pauli. They regarded this constant as a profound cosmic mystery that puzzled them throughout their careers.
I cannot help wondering what special nature this constant possesses to perplex such outstanding physicists.

** Current Exploration & Expectation
I attempt to interpret this constant with the elegant mathematical tools of differential geometry and geometric algebra. I fully acknowledge my limited knowledge and often get stuck in complicated deductions. I merely explore this field as a curious learner.
I will observe discussions in the group. Kind guidance will be highly appreciated if I put forward naive questions and avoid misleading thinking.

Best regards to all researchers.
Dickinson Long

 

[sbrothy]

Now, I'm NOT enough into physics to recognize non-mainstream research or personal speculation from equations alone but be warned that those are not allowed on here (the sentence: "without referring to books" set off alarms with me).

Non-mainstream theories:
Generally, in the forums, we do not allow the following:

• Discussion of theories that appear only on personal websites, self-published books, etc.
• Challenges to mainstream theories (relativity, the Big Bang, etc.) that go beyond current professional discussion
• Attempts to promote or resuscitate theories that have been discredited or superseded (e.g. Lorentz ether theory); this does not exclude discussion of those theories in a purely historical context
• Personal theories or speculations that go beyond or counter to generally accepted science
• Mixing science and religion, e.g. using religious doctrines in support of scientific arguments or vice versa.
• Philosophical discussions are permitted only at the discretion of the mentors and may be deleted or closed without warning or appeal

---

Thread 'Physics Forums Global Guidelines'

Sep 2, 2003

Welcome to Physics Forums!

In an effort to maintain the integrity of this site and to provide a comfortable environment for people to communicate, we ask that you please follow these Guidelines when posting on this site. These guidelines are global and apply to every area of this site. Mentors may choose to enact specific guidelines for individual forums, which are to be taken as an extension to the global guidelines when posting and visiting that specific forum. These specific guidelines are usually sticky topics placed at the top of the specific forum.

Application and...

• Greg Bernhardt
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Feedback and Announcements

• 

I'm assuming you mean the fine structure constant. This is part of the fine tuning problem (and the anthropic principle) if I'm not too much mistaken. And I think it fascinates everyone.

EDIT: Oh, and welcome regardless!

 

[long_yaya]

Dear Sir:
I apologize for any misunderstanding caused by my wording. What I mean is that before I learned about Taylor series, I built a mathematical model based on physical relationships and unexpectedly derived the Taylor series on my own. This can be regarded as an independent rederivation. The conclusions I wrote down back then are shown in the pictures below. I only learned later that this was the Taylor formula. I have had quite a few similar experiences of independently rederiving existing mathematical and physical formulas. For instance, shortly after learning about geometric sequences in Grade 10 of high school, I accidentally worked out the general term formula for the Fibonacci sequence. It was not until later that I realized what I had derived was actually Binet's formula, which filled me with great excitement. Thank you for your kindness. Below is the revised part of the main text:
"In middle school, I figured out the change-of-base formula for logarithms by myself. In high school, I independently discovered the Taylor expansion long before I had learned it formally, reasoning it out using physical motion principles. During university years, I worked out the mass-energy equation using differential methods. Old yellowed handwritten notes are attached here."

 

[sbrothy]

Oh, and I made a really really stupid error:

I meant to write:

"Now, I'm NOT enough into physics to recognize non-mainstream research or personal speculation from equations alone [...]"

I'm really genuinely sorry if that messed things up!

I basically just wanted to make sure you were aware of those rules. I'm not a moderator and I have no power here. I'm basically just trying to greet people, make them feel welcome (and warn them about that particular rule as I myself got into trouble initiallly and I've seen a lot do the same since).

Don't take me too seriously (although the rules are what they are!).

Genuinely: Welcome!

 

[long_yaya]

Now, I'm enough into physics to recognize non-mainstream research or personal speculation from equations alone but be warned that those are not allowed on here (the sentence: "without referring to books" set off alarms with me).


---

Thread 'Physics Forums Global Guidelines'

Sep 2, 2003

Welcome to Physics Forums!

In an effort to maintain the integrity of this site and to provide a comfortable environment for people to communicate, we ask that you please follow these Guidelines when posting on this site. These guidelines are global and apply to every area of this site. Mentors may choose to enact specific guidelines for individual forums, which are to be taken as an extension to the global guidelines when posting and visiting that specific forum. These specific guidelines are usually sticky topics placed at the top of the specific forum.

Application and...

• Greg Bernhardt
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Feedback and Announcements

• 

I'm assuming you mean the fine structure constant. This is part of the fine tuning problem (and the anthropic principle) if I'm not too much mistaken. And I think it fascinates everyone.

EDIT: Oh, and welcome regardless!

Dear Sir:

I apologize for any misunderstanding caused by my wording. What I mean is that before I learned about Taylor series, I built a mathematical model based on physical relationships and unexpectedly derived the Taylor series on my own. This can be regarded as an independent rederivation. The conclusions I wrote down back then are shown in the pictures below. I only learned later that this was the Taylor formula. I have had quite a few similar experiences of independently rederiving existing mathematical and physical formulas. For instance, shortly after learning about geometric sequences in Grade 10 of high school, I accidentally worked out the general term formula for the Fibonacci sequence. It was not until later that I realized what I had derived was actually Binet's formula, which filled me with great excitement. Thank you for your kindness. Below is the revised part of the main text:
"In middle school, I figured out the change-of-base formula for logarithms by myself. In high school, I independently discovered the Taylor expansion long before I had learned it formally, reasoning it out using physical motion principles.
During university years, I worked out the mass-energy equation using differential methods. Old yellowed handwritten notes are attached here."

 

[sbrothy]

You may be a genius for all I know and that's no problem as long as your findings line up with mainstream research (and you know how to argue from a proper peer reviewed paper from a respectable journal). It only becomes a problem if you postulate Einstein or Newton got it wrong and that you have a better solution (which you BTW came up with in a closed room without access to any educational books or research). I hope you can see how that will soon be a problem. I'm only trying to save you from some run-in with a moderator without my humor!

 

[berkeman]

Woo-wee.

First, Welcome @long_yaya to PF.

Second, Please be sure to read the PF Rules (see INFO at the top of the page). We do not allow personal speculation or discussing unpublished work here. We discuss mainstream science as published in the scientific literature (peer-reviewed journals and mainstream textbooks). Thank you, and welcome again.

This "brief Introduction" thread is now closed.