An exact? expression for the fine structure constant

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a mathematical expression involving the fine-structure constant (α) and its relation to the electron's magnetic moment anomaly (μ). Substituting the value of α yields an approximation of pi that closely matches its true value, differing only in the tenth digit. Using the exact value of pi results in a fine-structure constant that is within the measurement range. The conversation raises questions about the significance of these findings and suggests that the topic may not fit well within certain theoretical frameworks. The thread also references previous work by De Vries, hinting at connections to logarithmic scales and hyperbolic functions.
Hans de Vries
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,094
Reaction score
31
Just for the record:


\ \alpha^{-\frac{1}{2}}\ +\ \alpha^\frac{1}{2}\ \mu\ =\ e^{\pi^2/4}


Where \alpha, the fine-structure constant = 1/137.03599911 (46)
and \mu=1+\frac{\alpha}{2\pi} is Schwingers first term of the electrons
magnetic moment anomaly.

Fill in 1/137.03599911 for \alpha and you'll get for pi:

3.14159265263 which only differs in the 10th digit with the real value:
3.14159265358...

Using the exact value for pi results in a value for the fine structure
constant of: 1/137.03599952837 which is within the measurement range.

Does it mean anything? maybe, maybe not.

Regards, Hans
 
  • Like
Likes simplemind
Physics news on Phys.org
I supposse this is to be moderated out of LQG/strings, but still I am amazed with de Vries' numerologist ability. Perhaps it should be moved to Nuclei & Particles; there is already a copy of the post in TheorDev, and it seems too deep for the TeorDev posters... no answers there.
 
BTW, the thread in "theory dev" is closed, so at least there is not multiple postings.

Note that previous developments from De Vries (the grand-grand-son of KdV fame?) were related to logarithmic scales and hyperbolic sines. One wonders if it is also the same thing here.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top