Why does the fine-structure constant $α$ have the value it does?









up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2












This is a follow-up to this great answer.



All of the other related questions have answers explaining how units come into play when measuring "universal" constants, like the value of the speed of light, $c$. But what about the fine-structure constant, $α$? Its value seems to come out of nowhere, and to cite the previously-linked question:




And this is, my friend, a real puzzle in physics. Solve it to the bottom, and you will win yourself a Nobel Prize!




I imagine we have clues about the reason of the value of the fine-structure constant. What are they?










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 1




    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/2725/2451
    – Qmechanic
    Nov 11 at 5:13






  • 1




    related: physics.stackexchange.com/a/377449/137409
    – dlatikay
    Nov 11 at 12:44














up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2












This is a follow-up to this great answer.



All of the other related questions have answers explaining how units come into play when measuring "universal" constants, like the value of the speed of light, $c$. But what about the fine-structure constant, $α$? Its value seems to come out of nowhere, and to cite the previously-linked question:




And this is, my friend, a real puzzle in physics. Solve it to the bottom, and you will win yourself a Nobel Prize!




I imagine we have clues about the reason of the value of the fine-structure constant. What are they?










share|cite|improve this question



















  • 1




    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/2725/2451
    – Qmechanic
    Nov 11 at 5:13






  • 1




    related: physics.stackexchange.com/a/377449/137409
    – dlatikay
    Nov 11 at 12:44












up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
7
down vote

favorite
2






2





This is a follow-up to this great answer.



All of the other related questions have answers explaining how units come into play when measuring "universal" constants, like the value of the speed of light, $c$. But what about the fine-structure constant, $α$? Its value seems to come out of nowhere, and to cite the previously-linked question:




And this is, my friend, a real puzzle in physics. Solve it to the bottom, and you will win yourself a Nobel Prize!




I imagine we have clues about the reason of the value of the fine-structure constant. What are they?










share|cite|improve this question















This is a follow-up to this great answer.



All of the other related questions have answers explaining how units come into play when measuring "universal" constants, like the value of the speed of light, $c$. But what about the fine-structure constant, $α$? Its value seems to come out of nowhere, and to cite the previously-linked question:




And this is, my friend, a real puzzle in physics. Solve it to the bottom, and you will win yourself a Nobel Prize!




I imagine we have clues about the reason of the value of the fine-structure constant. What are they?







electromagnetism quantum-electrodynamics renormalization physical-constants






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 11 at 14:08









David Z

62.8k23136251




62.8k23136251










asked Nov 11 at 2:25









Magix

1587




1587







  • 1




    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/2725/2451
    – Qmechanic
    Nov 11 at 5:13






  • 1




    related: physics.stackexchange.com/a/377449/137409
    – dlatikay
    Nov 11 at 12:44












  • 1




    Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/2725/2451
    – Qmechanic
    Nov 11 at 5:13






  • 1




    related: physics.stackexchange.com/a/377449/137409
    – dlatikay
    Nov 11 at 12:44







1




1




Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/2725/2451
– Qmechanic
Nov 11 at 5:13




Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/2725/2451
– Qmechanic
Nov 11 at 5:13




1




1




related: physics.stackexchange.com/a/377449/137409
– dlatikay
Nov 11 at 12:44




related: physics.stackexchange.com/a/377449/137409
– dlatikay
Nov 11 at 12:44










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
12
down vote



accepted










No one knows, and, at the moment, there is no realistic prospect of computing the fine-structure constant from first principles any time soon.



We do know, however, that the fine-structure constant isn't a constant! It in fact depends on the energy of the interaction that we are looking at. This behaviour is known as 'running'. The well-known $alpha simeq 1/137$ is the low-energy limit of the coupling. At e.g., an energy of the Z-mass, we find $alpha(Q=M_Z)simeq 1/128$. This suggests that there is nothing fundamental about the low-energy value, since it can be calculated from a high-energy value.



In fact, we know more still. The fine-structure constant is the strength of the electromagnetic force, which is mediated by massless photons. There is another force, the weak force, mediated by massive particles. We know that at high energies, these two forces become one, unified force. Thus, once more, we know that the fine-structure constant isn't fundamental as it results from the breakdown of a unified force.



So, we can calculate the fine-structure constant from a high-energy theory in which electromagnetism and the weak force are unified at high-energy (and perhaps unified with other forces at the grand-unification scale).



This does not mean, however, that we know why it has the value $1/137$ at low energies. In practice, $alpha simeq 1/137$ is a low-scale boundary condition in theories in which the forces unify at high-energy. We know no principled way of setting the high-energy values of the free parameters of our models, so we just tune them until they agree sufficiently with our measurements. In principle it is possible the high-scale boundary condition could be provided by a new theory, perhaps a string theory.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 2




    Pet peeve of mine in this answer: it is not true that the electromagnetic and weak forces unify before the GUT scale. It's not even close. The name "electroweak unification" is a misnomer that refers only to the fact that the SM includes both forces; it does not mean the fields are unified like in grand unification.
    – knzhou
    Nov 11 at 9:58










  • Yeah I know what you mean. How do you briefly explain or refer to 'EW unification' though?
    – innisfree
    Nov 11 at 10:01






  • 1




    Maybe it is interesting that the part of the fine structure constant that is changing with energy is the elementary charge e.
    – asmaier
    Nov 11 at 10:57






  • 1




    Maybe you could emphasize that the $U(1)_textEM$ coupling doesn't just split off from some one "unified" electroweak coupling, but rather is a combination of two independent couplings, the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$. I think that actually shows the arbitrariness better.
    – knzhou
    Nov 11 at 10:58










  • @asmaier Can you give a reference for this ? As far as I know, elementary charge is a fundamental constant, like h and c.
    – my2cts
    Nov 11 at 14:30

















up vote
4
down vote













One theory is that we live in a multiverse where physical constants such as $alpha$ are different in different universes. This theory is speculative but based on plausible physics such as cosmic inflation and the large number of different vacuum states believed to exist in string theory.



We happen to live in a child universe with a small-but-not-too-small value of the fine structure constant, because such a value is compatible with the existence of the periodic table, organic chemistry, and life, while signifcantly different values are not.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    -1
    down vote













    I know for sure why it is about 1/137. Because it never comes alone, but with some other dimensionless combinations of a problem parameters, so its value is only a part of a whole expression.



    Some say it determines the strength of EM interaction. Let us see. We will proceed from QED, which is QM of Electrodynamics. And QM, you may like it or not, is first about probabilities and only then about energies. What is the probability of radiating a soft photon while charge scattering? It is unity (p=1). Let me cite Akhiezer-Berestetski QED textbook:



    enter image description here



    You see, alpha itself never comes alone, except for the Hydrogen spectrum problem considered first by Sommerfeld and then by Dirac. Alpha itself is small since the Hydrogen electrons have much smaller velocity than $c$ ($alpha=v_0/c$). In heavier Hydrogen-like ions ($Z>1$) the ground state electron velocity is larger than $v_0=e^2/hbar$, so alpha is not "alone" and the answer is context dependent.






    share|cite|improve this answer






















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "151"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f440211%2fwhy-does-the-fine-structure-constant-%25ce%25b1-have-the-value-it-does%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      12
      down vote



      accepted










      No one knows, and, at the moment, there is no realistic prospect of computing the fine-structure constant from first principles any time soon.



      We do know, however, that the fine-structure constant isn't a constant! It in fact depends on the energy of the interaction that we are looking at. This behaviour is known as 'running'. The well-known $alpha simeq 1/137$ is the low-energy limit of the coupling. At e.g., an energy of the Z-mass, we find $alpha(Q=M_Z)simeq 1/128$. This suggests that there is nothing fundamental about the low-energy value, since it can be calculated from a high-energy value.



      In fact, we know more still. The fine-structure constant is the strength of the electromagnetic force, which is mediated by massless photons. There is another force, the weak force, mediated by massive particles. We know that at high energies, these two forces become one, unified force. Thus, once more, we know that the fine-structure constant isn't fundamental as it results from the breakdown of a unified force.



      So, we can calculate the fine-structure constant from a high-energy theory in which electromagnetism and the weak force are unified at high-energy (and perhaps unified with other forces at the grand-unification scale).



      This does not mean, however, that we know why it has the value $1/137$ at low energies. In practice, $alpha simeq 1/137$ is a low-scale boundary condition in theories in which the forces unify at high-energy. We know no principled way of setting the high-energy values of the free parameters of our models, so we just tune them until they agree sufficiently with our measurements. In principle it is possible the high-scale boundary condition could be provided by a new theory, perhaps a string theory.






      share|cite|improve this answer
















      • 2




        Pet peeve of mine in this answer: it is not true that the electromagnetic and weak forces unify before the GUT scale. It's not even close. The name "electroweak unification" is a misnomer that refers only to the fact that the SM includes both forces; it does not mean the fields are unified like in grand unification.
        – knzhou
        Nov 11 at 9:58










      • Yeah I know what you mean. How do you briefly explain or refer to 'EW unification' though?
        – innisfree
        Nov 11 at 10:01






      • 1




        Maybe it is interesting that the part of the fine structure constant that is changing with energy is the elementary charge e.
        – asmaier
        Nov 11 at 10:57






      • 1




        Maybe you could emphasize that the $U(1)_textEM$ coupling doesn't just split off from some one "unified" electroweak coupling, but rather is a combination of two independent couplings, the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$. I think that actually shows the arbitrariness better.
        – knzhou
        Nov 11 at 10:58










      • @asmaier Can you give a reference for this ? As far as I know, elementary charge is a fundamental constant, like h and c.
        – my2cts
        Nov 11 at 14:30














      up vote
      12
      down vote



      accepted










      No one knows, and, at the moment, there is no realistic prospect of computing the fine-structure constant from first principles any time soon.



      We do know, however, that the fine-structure constant isn't a constant! It in fact depends on the energy of the interaction that we are looking at. This behaviour is known as 'running'. The well-known $alpha simeq 1/137$ is the low-energy limit of the coupling. At e.g., an energy of the Z-mass, we find $alpha(Q=M_Z)simeq 1/128$. This suggests that there is nothing fundamental about the low-energy value, since it can be calculated from a high-energy value.



      In fact, we know more still. The fine-structure constant is the strength of the electromagnetic force, which is mediated by massless photons. There is another force, the weak force, mediated by massive particles. We know that at high energies, these two forces become one, unified force. Thus, once more, we know that the fine-structure constant isn't fundamental as it results from the breakdown of a unified force.



      So, we can calculate the fine-structure constant from a high-energy theory in which electromagnetism and the weak force are unified at high-energy (and perhaps unified with other forces at the grand-unification scale).



      This does not mean, however, that we know why it has the value $1/137$ at low energies. In practice, $alpha simeq 1/137$ is a low-scale boundary condition in theories in which the forces unify at high-energy. We know no principled way of setting the high-energy values of the free parameters of our models, so we just tune them until they agree sufficiently with our measurements. In principle it is possible the high-scale boundary condition could be provided by a new theory, perhaps a string theory.






      share|cite|improve this answer
















      • 2




        Pet peeve of mine in this answer: it is not true that the electromagnetic and weak forces unify before the GUT scale. It's not even close. The name "electroweak unification" is a misnomer that refers only to the fact that the SM includes both forces; it does not mean the fields are unified like in grand unification.
        – knzhou
        Nov 11 at 9:58










      • Yeah I know what you mean. How do you briefly explain or refer to 'EW unification' though?
        – innisfree
        Nov 11 at 10:01






      • 1




        Maybe it is interesting that the part of the fine structure constant that is changing with energy is the elementary charge e.
        – asmaier
        Nov 11 at 10:57






      • 1




        Maybe you could emphasize that the $U(1)_textEM$ coupling doesn't just split off from some one "unified" electroweak coupling, but rather is a combination of two independent couplings, the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$. I think that actually shows the arbitrariness better.
        – knzhou
        Nov 11 at 10:58










      • @asmaier Can you give a reference for this ? As far as I know, elementary charge is a fundamental constant, like h and c.
        – my2cts
        Nov 11 at 14:30












      up vote
      12
      down vote



      accepted







      up vote
      12
      down vote



      accepted






      No one knows, and, at the moment, there is no realistic prospect of computing the fine-structure constant from first principles any time soon.



      We do know, however, that the fine-structure constant isn't a constant! It in fact depends on the energy of the interaction that we are looking at. This behaviour is known as 'running'. The well-known $alpha simeq 1/137$ is the low-energy limit of the coupling. At e.g., an energy of the Z-mass, we find $alpha(Q=M_Z)simeq 1/128$. This suggests that there is nothing fundamental about the low-energy value, since it can be calculated from a high-energy value.



      In fact, we know more still. The fine-structure constant is the strength of the electromagnetic force, which is mediated by massless photons. There is another force, the weak force, mediated by massive particles. We know that at high energies, these two forces become one, unified force. Thus, once more, we know that the fine-structure constant isn't fundamental as it results from the breakdown of a unified force.



      So, we can calculate the fine-structure constant from a high-energy theory in which electromagnetism and the weak force are unified at high-energy (and perhaps unified with other forces at the grand-unification scale).



      This does not mean, however, that we know why it has the value $1/137$ at low energies. In practice, $alpha simeq 1/137$ is a low-scale boundary condition in theories in which the forces unify at high-energy. We know no principled way of setting the high-energy values of the free parameters of our models, so we just tune them until they agree sufficiently with our measurements. In principle it is possible the high-scale boundary condition could be provided by a new theory, perhaps a string theory.






      share|cite|improve this answer












      No one knows, and, at the moment, there is no realistic prospect of computing the fine-structure constant from first principles any time soon.



      We do know, however, that the fine-structure constant isn't a constant! It in fact depends on the energy of the interaction that we are looking at. This behaviour is known as 'running'. The well-known $alpha simeq 1/137$ is the low-energy limit of the coupling. At e.g., an energy of the Z-mass, we find $alpha(Q=M_Z)simeq 1/128$. This suggests that there is nothing fundamental about the low-energy value, since it can be calculated from a high-energy value.



      In fact, we know more still. The fine-structure constant is the strength of the electromagnetic force, which is mediated by massless photons. There is another force, the weak force, mediated by massive particles. We know that at high energies, these two forces become one, unified force. Thus, once more, we know that the fine-structure constant isn't fundamental as it results from the breakdown of a unified force.



      So, we can calculate the fine-structure constant from a high-energy theory in which electromagnetism and the weak force are unified at high-energy (and perhaps unified with other forces at the grand-unification scale).



      This does not mean, however, that we know why it has the value $1/137$ at low energies. In practice, $alpha simeq 1/137$ is a low-scale boundary condition in theories in which the forces unify at high-energy. We know no principled way of setting the high-energy values of the free parameters of our models, so we just tune them until they agree sufficiently with our measurements. In principle it is possible the high-scale boundary condition could be provided by a new theory, perhaps a string theory.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered Nov 11 at 6:05









      innisfree

      11k32957




      11k32957







      • 2




        Pet peeve of mine in this answer: it is not true that the electromagnetic and weak forces unify before the GUT scale. It's not even close. The name "electroweak unification" is a misnomer that refers only to the fact that the SM includes both forces; it does not mean the fields are unified like in grand unification.
        – knzhou
        Nov 11 at 9:58










      • Yeah I know what you mean. How do you briefly explain or refer to 'EW unification' though?
        – innisfree
        Nov 11 at 10:01






      • 1




        Maybe it is interesting that the part of the fine structure constant that is changing with energy is the elementary charge e.
        – asmaier
        Nov 11 at 10:57






      • 1




        Maybe you could emphasize that the $U(1)_textEM$ coupling doesn't just split off from some one "unified" electroweak coupling, but rather is a combination of two independent couplings, the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$. I think that actually shows the arbitrariness better.
        – knzhou
        Nov 11 at 10:58










      • @asmaier Can you give a reference for this ? As far as I know, elementary charge is a fundamental constant, like h and c.
        – my2cts
        Nov 11 at 14:30












      • 2




        Pet peeve of mine in this answer: it is not true that the electromagnetic and weak forces unify before the GUT scale. It's not even close. The name "electroweak unification" is a misnomer that refers only to the fact that the SM includes both forces; it does not mean the fields are unified like in grand unification.
        – knzhou
        Nov 11 at 9:58










      • Yeah I know what you mean. How do you briefly explain or refer to 'EW unification' though?
        – innisfree
        Nov 11 at 10:01






      • 1




        Maybe it is interesting that the part of the fine structure constant that is changing with energy is the elementary charge e.
        – asmaier
        Nov 11 at 10:57






      • 1




        Maybe you could emphasize that the $U(1)_textEM$ coupling doesn't just split off from some one "unified" electroweak coupling, but rather is a combination of two independent couplings, the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$. I think that actually shows the arbitrariness better.
        – knzhou
        Nov 11 at 10:58










      • @asmaier Can you give a reference for this ? As far as I know, elementary charge is a fundamental constant, like h and c.
        – my2cts
        Nov 11 at 14:30







      2




      2




      Pet peeve of mine in this answer: it is not true that the electromagnetic and weak forces unify before the GUT scale. It's not even close. The name "electroweak unification" is a misnomer that refers only to the fact that the SM includes both forces; it does not mean the fields are unified like in grand unification.
      – knzhou
      Nov 11 at 9:58




      Pet peeve of mine in this answer: it is not true that the electromagnetic and weak forces unify before the GUT scale. It's not even close. The name "electroweak unification" is a misnomer that refers only to the fact that the SM includes both forces; it does not mean the fields are unified like in grand unification.
      – knzhou
      Nov 11 at 9:58












      Yeah I know what you mean. How do you briefly explain or refer to 'EW unification' though?
      – innisfree
      Nov 11 at 10:01




      Yeah I know what you mean. How do you briefly explain or refer to 'EW unification' though?
      – innisfree
      Nov 11 at 10:01




      1




      1




      Maybe it is interesting that the part of the fine structure constant that is changing with energy is the elementary charge e.
      – asmaier
      Nov 11 at 10:57




      Maybe it is interesting that the part of the fine structure constant that is changing with energy is the elementary charge e.
      – asmaier
      Nov 11 at 10:57




      1




      1




      Maybe you could emphasize that the $U(1)_textEM$ coupling doesn't just split off from some one "unified" electroweak coupling, but rather is a combination of two independent couplings, the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$. I think that actually shows the arbitrariness better.
      – knzhou
      Nov 11 at 10:58




      Maybe you could emphasize that the $U(1)_textEM$ coupling doesn't just split off from some one "unified" electroweak coupling, but rather is a combination of two independent couplings, the $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$. I think that actually shows the arbitrariness better.
      – knzhou
      Nov 11 at 10:58












      @asmaier Can you give a reference for this ? As far as I know, elementary charge is a fundamental constant, like h and c.
      – my2cts
      Nov 11 at 14:30




      @asmaier Can you give a reference for this ? As far as I know, elementary charge is a fundamental constant, like h and c.
      – my2cts
      Nov 11 at 14:30










      up vote
      4
      down vote













      One theory is that we live in a multiverse where physical constants such as $alpha$ are different in different universes. This theory is speculative but based on plausible physics such as cosmic inflation and the large number of different vacuum states believed to exist in string theory.



      We happen to live in a child universe with a small-but-not-too-small value of the fine structure constant, because such a value is compatible with the existence of the periodic table, organic chemistry, and life, while signifcantly different values are not.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        4
        down vote













        One theory is that we live in a multiverse where physical constants such as $alpha$ are different in different universes. This theory is speculative but based on plausible physics such as cosmic inflation and the large number of different vacuum states believed to exist in string theory.



        We happen to live in a child universe with a small-but-not-too-small value of the fine structure constant, because such a value is compatible with the existence of the periodic table, organic chemistry, and life, while signifcantly different values are not.






        share|cite|improve this answer






















          up vote
          4
          down vote










          up vote
          4
          down vote









          One theory is that we live in a multiverse where physical constants such as $alpha$ are different in different universes. This theory is speculative but based on plausible physics such as cosmic inflation and the large number of different vacuum states believed to exist in string theory.



          We happen to live in a child universe with a small-but-not-too-small value of the fine structure constant, because such a value is compatible with the existence of the periodic table, organic chemistry, and life, while signifcantly different values are not.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          One theory is that we live in a multiverse where physical constants such as $alpha$ are different in different universes. This theory is speculative but based on plausible physics such as cosmic inflation and the large number of different vacuum states believed to exist in string theory.



          We happen to live in a child universe with a small-but-not-too-small value of the fine structure constant, because such a value is compatible with the existence of the periodic table, organic chemistry, and life, while signifcantly different values are not.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 11 at 5:47









          G. Smith

          3,449917




          3,449917




















              up vote
              -1
              down vote













              I know for sure why it is about 1/137. Because it never comes alone, but with some other dimensionless combinations of a problem parameters, so its value is only a part of a whole expression.



              Some say it determines the strength of EM interaction. Let us see. We will proceed from QED, which is QM of Electrodynamics. And QM, you may like it or not, is first about probabilities and only then about energies. What is the probability of radiating a soft photon while charge scattering? It is unity (p=1). Let me cite Akhiezer-Berestetski QED textbook:



              enter image description here



              You see, alpha itself never comes alone, except for the Hydrogen spectrum problem considered first by Sommerfeld and then by Dirac. Alpha itself is small since the Hydrogen electrons have much smaller velocity than $c$ ($alpha=v_0/c$). In heavier Hydrogen-like ions ($Z>1$) the ground state electron velocity is larger than $v_0=e^2/hbar$, so alpha is not "alone" and the answer is context dependent.






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                up vote
                -1
                down vote













                I know for sure why it is about 1/137. Because it never comes alone, but with some other dimensionless combinations of a problem parameters, so its value is only a part of a whole expression.



                Some say it determines the strength of EM interaction. Let us see. We will proceed from QED, which is QM of Electrodynamics. And QM, you may like it or not, is first about probabilities and only then about energies. What is the probability of radiating a soft photon while charge scattering? It is unity (p=1). Let me cite Akhiezer-Berestetski QED textbook:



                enter image description here



                You see, alpha itself never comes alone, except for the Hydrogen spectrum problem considered first by Sommerfeld and then by Dirac. Alpha itself is small since the Hydrogen electrons have much smaller velocity than $c$ ($alpha=v_0/c$). In heavier Hydrogen-like ions ($Z>1$) the ground state electron velocity is larger than $v_0=e^2/hbar$, so alpha is not "alone" and the answer is context dependent.






                share|cite|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  -1
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  -1
                  down vote









                  I know for sure why it is about 1/137. Because it never comes alone, but with some other dimensionless combinations of a problem parameters, so its value is only a part of a whole expression.



                  Some say it determines the strength of EM interaction. Let us see. We will proceed from QED, which is QM of Electrodynamics. And QM, you may like it or not, is first about probabilities and only then about energies. What is the probability of radiating a soft photon while charge scattering? It is unity (p=1). Let me cite Akhiezer-Berestetski QED textbook:



                  enter image description here



                  You see, alpha itself never comes alone, except for the Hydrogen spectrum problem considered first by Sommerfeld and then by Dirac. Alpha itself is small since the Hydrogen electrons have much smaller velocity than $c$ ($alpha=v_0/c$). In heavier Hydrogen-like ions ($Z>1$) the ground state electron velocity is larger than $v_0=e^2/hbar$, so alpha is not "alone" and the answer is context dependent.






                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  I know for sure why it is about 1/137. Because it never comes alone, but with some other dimensionless combinations of a problem parameters, so its value is only a part of a whole expression.



                  Some say it determines the strength of EM interaction. Let us see. We will proceed from QED, which is QM of Electrodynamics. And QM, you may like it or not, is first about probabilities and only then about energies. What is the probability of radiating a soft photon while charge scattering? It is unity (p=1). Let me cite Akhiezer-Berestetski QED textbook:



                  enter image description here



                  You see, alpha itself never comes alone, except for the Hydrogen spectrum problem considered first by Sommerfeld and then by Dirac. Alpha itself is small since the Hydrogen electrons have much smaller velocity than $c$ ($alpha=v_0/c$). In heavier Hydrogen-like ions ($Z>1$) the ground state electron velocity is larger than $v_0=e^2/hbar$, so alpha is not "alone" and the answer is context dependent.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Nov 12 at 9:04

























                  answered Nov 11 at 14:45









                  Vladimir Kalitvianski

                  10.3k11234




                  10.3k11234



























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded
















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f440211%2fwhy-does-the-fine-structure-constant-%25ce%25b1-have-the-value-it-does%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      這個網誌中的熱門文章

                      How to read a connectionString WITH PROVIDER in .NET Core?

                      In R, how to develop a multiplot heatmap.2 figure showing key labels successfully

                      Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art of Trento and Rovereto