It's not what I was looking-for [and
have found], but in my reading of
the Gamow Book [Excellent!] that
I refferenced in another recent post,
I came across Gamow's "enticing"
discussion of the so-called "fine
structure constant", and, although
I'm going to take a side-trip into
further reading with respect to it,
I've Resolved it's 'mystery'.
Quoting from Gamow [p.324, first
Published in 1961.]
"Let us take the elementary charge
e, for example. It is known that e ^ 2
divided by the product of the velocity
of light c and the quantum constant h
is a pure number or a dimensionless
constant, which means that no matter
whether we express e, c, and h in
centimeter-gram-second units, in inch-
pound-hour units, or in any other
units (provided they are used consist-
ently), this ratio remains the same.
This ratio is known as the 'fine struc-
ture constant" because it emerges in
the description of the splitting of the
Balmer series lines into several very
close components, and it's numerical
value is given by 1 divided by 137 [*].
Why 137, and not 75 or 533? In phys-
ical formulas numerical coefficients
always have coefficients always have
some mathematical meaning. For ex-
ample, if one studies the relation be-
tween the period T of a pendulum,
its length l, and the acceleration of
gravity g, no matter which units one
uses one always comes to the formula:
T = 6.283 SQR( l / g )
What is this number 6.283? Well, if
one tries to correlate it with various
numbers known in mathematics, one
finds that it is actually 2 * pi. And in-
deed, using the equations of theoret-
ical mechanics for the derivation of
the formula, we find that the coeffic-
ient =must= be 2 * pi. [which just
states that the pendulum's motion is
always periodic, like the motion of
a 'point' on the circumference of a
circle] Similarly, deriving an expres-
sion for elementary charge [**]
by using the equations of relativ-
istic quantum theory which contain
the constants c and h, one should be
able to come to a conclusion that
the ratio (h * c) / (e ^ 2) (inverse
fine structure constant) is given by
a certain mathematical expression
which is numerically equal to 137. [*]
But, nobdy knows at present [~1961]
=how= to develop such a theory, and,
whereas it is not difficult to guess that
6.283 is 2 x 3.14 ..., it is much more
difficult to guess what kind of animal
the number 137 [*] is!"
Lord! What a Beautifully-written
passage! [I encourage folks to pur-
chase a copy of this Book -- $8.98
from the Dover Press [at least
when I purchased my copy 'decades'
ago. I only got around to reading it
'now' -- be-cause I had to put-down
my reading in Science to work to
get NDT's stuff across to folks.]
The Book is Brilliantly-Written. [I
mean, it's totally-accessible. No mean
feat, given that it's a Book covering
the History of Physics. Way to Go!
Dr. Gamow.]
* The best value that I've found for
the "fine structure constant" in the refs
I've on-hand is 1 / 137.0360 [1983].
** I did this in my discussion of the
"photoelectric effect", earlier this
Spring.
Funny story -- back in the early 1990's,
in discussions posted in Compuserve's
"Science Forum" in reply to my discus-
sions of "Tapered Harmony", the "fine
structure constant" was brought-up, as
queries to me, but I could say nothing
because I'd never before encountered
=the words= "fine structure constant".
[I was working at the 'level' of the ex-
periments upon which "quantum mech-
anics" was founded, wanting only to
Correct the Error upon which qm was
founded. So I was focused on that
Foundation stuff, leaving higher-'level'
study to "sometime in the future".
What's funny is that I'd already resolved
the =Nature= of the "fine structure con-
stant".
I became able to "translate" between my
own work and the standard view only
after reading Dr. Gamow's Excellent
Book :-]
I'll, briefly, reiterate the significant stuff
in the remainder of this post. ["Reiterate",
because I already discussed all that's
entailed in long-former posts.]
1. The splitting of the spectral lines that's
correlated to what's been referred to
as the "fine structure constant" is due,
=solely= to the wave dynamic that's
set-up within an SSW<->UES harm-
onic [within an 'atom'] when the 'atom'
is subjected to a "magnetic field".
2. "Magnetic fields" are =just= locally-
Directed UES-flows.
3. When such a local UES-flow en-
couters an SSSW<->UES harmonic,
it's harmonics alter in a way that Rig-
orously-reflects it's intermingling with
that locally-Directed UES-flow. [Re-
member that it's the action of the UES
[the Universal Energy Supply, "aether"-
like =energy= that =flows= in Rigorous
accord with the one-way flow of energy,
from order, that is what's =described=
by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T] throughout
the Universe.] So the harmonics behave
in a way that's =Exactly= analogous to
waves in an ocean -- having amplitude
and period that's Determined by their
local flow of energy. [You can see the
same-stuff by gently rocking a cookie
sheet with a quarter inch of water in it.]
What happens is that the locally-Directed
energy-flow that is what the "magnetic
field" is exhibits physical inertia that's
reflected in a distortion of the SSW<->
UES harmonics in an "inertial" way.
The "splitting" of the spectral lines act-
ually constitutes a sub-harmonic that's
=Exactly= like the SSW<->UES
harmonics, including the 'trapping' and
'holding' of energy in 'confined' regions
of 3-D space.
What the "split" spectral lines are are
actually little pilings-up of energy that're
'maintained' by the local energy-flow
that is what the "magnetic field" is.
Get it?
So what the so-called "fine structure
constant" is is a "weighing" of the in-
ertia inherent in the intermingled ["en-
tangled" :-] UES-flows, one Directed
in Rigorous accord with the SSW<->
UES harmonics [discussed ad nauseum
in former posts] and 'the' other [there're
myriad "other" energy-flows always acting
Continuously upon 'atoms'].
And this "weighing" is =NOT= "con-
stant", but, rather, varies with Universal
WDB2T [as to =ALL= so-called "con-
stants" within physical reality] for the
same Reason I've reiteratively-discussed
with respect to 'the speed of light' --
relative "ephemerance" [relative energy's
freedom to move, roughly, relative energy-
density, and how and why the energy-
gradients, inherent, Direct the flow of
energy at any 'point' in 3-D space.]]
So "1 / 137.0360" is, itself, only an
"ephemerant". We 'see' it as "constant"
only be-cause we haven't looked-at-it
long enough. It alters, as do all of the
so-called "physical constants", in Rig-
orous accord with the variation of
Universal WDB2T.
4. If my PCs were not 'monitored',
I'd write a little QBASIC[tm] app
that'd Nail-down a =lot= of stuff that's
Worthy of being-Nailed-down.
This's a =really-easy= calc that I've
reiterated many 'times' in long-former
posts here in b.n.
But I can See that it'd Unlock =every-
thing= within physical reality.
So, if folks won't meet with me, in-
person, I encourage folks to reread
my long-former discussions of SSW
'containment', and to cross-correlate
that stuff with what's above, and with
~"1 / 137.0360".
Can folks See it?
It Needs to be Done so folks'll have
Reason to stop Ravaging one another
[which folks do, in large part, be-cause
of the sense-of-haphazardness" that's
been Coerced upon them by The Error
inherent in 'quantum mechanic's 'seeing
randomness' when all there is within
physical reality is =Continuous, Deter-
ministic= energy-flowing.
Folks'll stop Killing one another when
they See how =everything= is Rigorously-
Connected via this Continuous-Determin-
istic energy-flow.
Get it?
It makes not "sense" to Kill others be-
cause, in so doing, one Directs the
energy-flow back-upon-one's-self, in
commensurately-Injurious 'ways'.
You know -- "Do unto others as you'd
have them do unto you" is in-Truth.
K. P. Collins