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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]