Why Is 1/137 One of the Greatest Unsolved Problems In Physics?

Dipublikasikan tanggal 27 Sep 2022
Thank you to Squarespace for supporting PBS. Go to ​ www.squarespace.com/pbs for a free trial, and when you are ready to launch, go to Squarespace.com/PBS to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.

PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to: to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE

Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!

The Fine Structure Constant is one the strangest numbers in all of physics. It’s the job of physicists to worry about numbers, but there’s one number that physicists have stressed about more than any other. That number is 0.00729735256 - approximately 1/137. This is the fine structure constant, and it appears everywhere in our equations of quantum physics, and we’re still trying to figure out why.

Check out the Space Time Merch Store

Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!

Search the Entire Space Time Library Here: search.pbsspacetime.com/

Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Fernando Franco Félix & Matt O'Dowd
Post Production by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini, Pedro Osinski, Caique Oliveira, Adriano Leal & Stephanie Faria
GFX Visualizations: Ajay Manuel
Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
Associate Producer: Bahar Gholipour
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
Executive in Charge for PBS: Maribel Lopez
Director of Programming for PBS: Gabrielle Ewing
Assistant Director of Programming for PBS: John Campbell

Spacetime is produced by Kornhaber Brown for PBS Digital Studios.
This program is produced by Kornhaber Brown, which is solely responsible for its content.
© 2022 PBS. All rights reserved.

End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: id-tv.org/username-MultiDro...

Special Thanks to Our Patreon Supporters

Big Bang Supporters
Scott Gilgallon
Ryan Salsamendi
Steffen Bendel
Gautam Shine
Adam Hillier
Bryce Fort
Peter Barrett
David Neumann
Leo Koguan
Alexander Tamas
Morgan Hough
Amy Hickman
Juan Benet
Vinnie Falco
Fabrice Eap
Mark Rosenthal
David Nicklas

Quasar Supporters
Vivaan Vaka
Glenn Sugden
Sujasha Gupta Vaka
Vikram Vaka
Alex Kern
Ethan Cohen
Stephen Wilcox
Christina Oegren
Mike Conroy
Mark Heising
Hank S

Hypernova Supporters
Ryan Moser
Ivari Tölp
Vyce Ailour
Brandon Paddock
Ken S
Gregory Forfa
Kirk Honour
Mark Evans
Joe Moreira
Marc Armstrong
Scott Gorlick
Paul Stehr-Green
Russell Pope
Ben Delo
Scott Gray
Антон Кочков
John R. Slavik
Donal Botkin
John Pollock
Edmund Fokschaner
Joseph Salomone
chuck zegar
Jordan Young
John Hofmann
Daniel Muzquiz

Gamma Ray Burst Supporters
Nikhil Sharma
Alexander Gruber
Jonathan Cordovano
John Anderson
Scott Hannum
Paul Widden
Bradley Ulis
Craig Falls
Kane Holbrook
John Yaraee
Ross Story
teng guo
Mason Dillon
Harsh Khandhadia
Thomas Tarler
Sean McCaul
Carsten Quinlan
Susan Albee
Frank Walker
Matt Q
Terje Vold
James Trimmier
Anatoliy Nagornyy
Andre Stechert
Paul Wood
Kent Durham
jim bartosh
Ramon Nogueira
The Mad Mechanic
Ellis Hall
John H. Austin, Jr.
Diana S
Faraz Khan
Almog Cohen
Alex Edwards
Ádám Kettinger
Endre Pech
Daniel Jennings
Cameron Sampson
Geoffrey Clarion
Russ Creech
Jeremy Reed
Eric Webster
David Johnston
Web Browser
Michael Barton
Mr T
Andrew Mann
Isaac Suttell
Devon Rosenthal
Oliver Flanagan
Bleys Goodson
Robert Walter
Bruce B
Mirik Gogri
Mark Delagasse
Mark Daniel Cohen
Nickolas Andrew Freeman
Shane Calimlim
Tybie Fitzhugh
Robert Ilardi
Eric Kiebler
Craig Stonaha
Graydon Goss
Frederic Simon
John Robinson
David Neal
John Funai
Bradley Jenkins
Kyle Hofer
Daniel Stříbrný
Thomas Dougherty
King Zeckendorff
Dan Warren
Patrick Sutton
John Griffith
Daniel Lyons
Kevin Warne


  • Some alien civilization wanted to make a fully simulated space game. One programmer set a constant as 1/137 during development, then left the dev team. After a while some other programmer went over the code and couldn't figure out what the constant was for. He commented the code saying "I don't know what it does or why it has that value. When deleted the whole universe breaks down so don't touch it."

    • @Osmosis Jones what if the actual reality (the one where we were programmed in) is way more complex than our reality is and for them all these molecules are not much to understand

    • A theory just as goog as any other.😁

    • @Sudeepta Ghosh Or-perhaps there are 137 separate universes that have manifested and need to be kept relative to each other in some way. BUT- Who's counting them?

    • prob

    • God damn it, I wanted to make the same joke... The simulation hive-minded.

  • Watching this video made me feel like I learned something without actually having to have learned anything. Well done.

  • Excellent video, but I think the number most universally stressed out over by physicists is the rent.

  • I like the number 137.035999 better. Much more esthetically pleasing!

  • Why am I hearing about this number for the very first time in my life after years of watching various popular science videos like that? Odd it’s not talked about more.

  • 1/137 is the real-world version of 42. The secret of life, the universe, and everything is encoded in 1/137... Too bad we don't know the question.

    • 3-1 =2 7-3=4

    • @Xavier Thomas you are contradicting yourself in your statement around “something that has been given, does not return to the owner”. If Jesus actually did give his life, he would not, then have life, and therefore could not have risen, since he is risen, and still has life, then he did not give his life, or the action of giving his life is a small, worthless thing, since he still has life, unlike any other person who has given their life for a cause. As for your base premise, there are a number of times that something given is returned to the owner, throughout the Bible, including the very Promised Land that was given and returned, as one of the biggest examples. Samson and his strength. Lazarus and his life. Even the very concept of a deathbed shriving is nice again getting God’s Grace, after having given it up, previously. Repentance and being forgiven for one’s sins is giving something up, and then having it returned. I’m afraid your whole argument here is flawed.

    • @NELA according to scripture, something that is given doesn't return to the owner becauae God doesn't turn or vary in judgment. If Jesus gave his life for sinners, than he didn't just have a bad weekend, he died and rose from the grave. Uet the life he has now doesn't end. It's not the same life becauae he has essentially been reborn as something entirely new with a whole new body, that doesn't die. He gave one thing he can never get back, life in earth as a human and gained an eternal life for his love for God and men. It's not am equal thing, but a gift to one who is worthy to recieve more than all things that can be given for giving up a chance to gain anything.

    • I suspect the question is, what is π?

    • I remember havung read somewhere 42 is actually 4 workdays in a week and 2-plie toilet paper.

  • Parabéns pela excelente palestra da constante de estrutura fina. Ótima didática e clareza. Foi muito bom. Gostei muito!

  • Putting the fine structure constant in a communication seems like a good way to make aliens think the message is just a natural fluke.. after all, it turns up everywhere and in strange places.

    • @Richard Siegers No. If you agree that any alien race would have knowledge of electricity to be able to pick up the signal in the first place, then you also must agree that they have discovered switches. And if they have discovered switches then they have discovered binary. Because mathematics functions in the same way everywhere in the universe, not just on Earth.

    • (Assuming we detect actual alien signals) Transmit only when earth is in front of the sun (to them), and make them think it’s coming from the sun. Sol (the sun) will become the greatest mystery of all time to their astronomers. We do a (literally) astronomical amount of trolling.

    • @Fissile Missile | ||| ||||||| would make more sense than binary sending the number 137, | ||| ||||||| is amount based so its easily translated to their own symbols for 137, or sending 1/137 as | / | ||| ||||||| they will quickly translate it to 1 137 and the / symbol will make sense afterwards what it means binary would be stupid because its not amount based so you must know the meaning of the 0 and 1 symbol first before you have a change deciphering it

    • @Silvia Fox it can also be the other way around, we don't even know if an alien civilisation would be communicating with such advanced ways as we have, they might just be archaic and primitive themselves

    • @Silvia Fox Because if aliens are picking up our transmission they have already discovered switches. And if they have discovered switches (on/off) they have discovered binary numbers.

  • I wonder if anyone has tried to create a number system using a number like 1/137 as either the unit or the base instead of 1 or 10.

    • could be 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 base math

    • It's a prime number so not really an obvious choice.

    • Dunno, but from the very little that I do understand, what you are suggesting is similar to, and quite possibly related to, Planck units, which are natural units. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram..🎁🎁

    • This is exactly what I was thinking

  • just finished reading QED and loved hearing all the references in this video. been enjoying the channel a lot. thank you for all your hard work!

  • Outstanding and stimulating video! When I studied physics at UC Berkeley, my quantum mechanics classes were Physics 137A and 137B, not a coincidence

    • My first year calculus course was cal137, and it brought me much misery!

    • @B.O.L.T. Inquiries and Adventures of Mick Malkemus 3.14?🤷🏽

    • Was it actually confirmed to be not a coincidence? That would be hilarious haha

    • I was a TA for 137😂. Still haven’t figured it out!

    • If you posted an assignment defining what 1/137 meant: automatic fail.

  • Feynman's wall quote was actually about the observed coupling constant (0.0854...), which is directly related to 137.036 via an inverse square relationship. The full quote feels a little like a dig at other physicists, suggesting that they know the 137 number but good theoretical physicists look deeper and keep the 0.0854 number to hand.

    • The hand of God wrote that number.

    • He mentions the relation of 137 to the base probability at 6:03, which is the highlight of the video for me. It makes it clear how fundamental to our Universe the fine structure constant is, since it is the basis for so many particle interactions. I also wonder if the lack of units is surprising given that the constant is describing probabilities, which should be unitless.

  • Really good lecture thanks. You sounded out my thoughts at the end. We know that for centuries mathematics was stuck. We just had to do something that seems so obvious now - accept that 0 (nothing) was a real number. I wonder if we are missing something obvious here. All constants involve fractions, yet we do not recognize fractions as numbers in their own right. 1 is a whole number, as is 2. 1.5, or 1/5 is not a whole number, but a value expressed between 1 & 2. Number Theory is filled with the odd, often inexplicable behaviour of whole numbers. Suppose we accepted fractions as different types of whole numbers? Perhaps only those who existed between two consecutive whole numbers. We would enlarge Number Theory 100* just between 1 & 10. Too many numbers?. That's what we built calculators for!

  • I'm curious if there's a relationship between the fine structure constant 1/137 and the Golden Ratio 137.5° (although the GR isn't unit-less)

    • And A4 paper?

  • This is way over my head, but none the less, very interesting. Great video.

    • I don't know why I watch this type of video. I'm usually about ten minutes in when it occurs to me that I haven't the slightest idea what's going on.

  • These videos manage to blow my mind even though I only understand about 1/137 of the physics.

    • @rubiks6 GOD is not he or se, its due to the limitations of languages, no such problem with Arabic

    • @Kam ek - When you speak to me, I am triggered to respond to you. Isn't it normal to respond when people speak to you? Yes, you are definitely a troll. Trolls use the idea of "triggered" against those they are trying to arouse. Get over yourself, troll.

    • @rubiks6 i am trolling lol. Why u triggered that people don't believe the same things as you

    • @Kam ek - Who told you that? I didn't say that. You really come from left field. I begin to wonder if you aren't just trolling. I am not a fish for you to hook.

    • @rubiks6 didn't know that the Bible was first written in English

  • Couldn't it just be similar to how things want to shape themselves into spheres in a vacuum? It just happens to be the most efficient constant?

  • When you said that the fine structure constant was unitless, I immediately thought of the coefficient of friction. The former takes me back to when I learned about the latter in physics class in high school. Also, I like the little Portal animation that played when you mentioned the coefficient of friction. :)

    • @Nick I think it was just a cool nod to a popular puzzle game involving portals. It has nothing to do with the coeff of friction.

    • I N C L I N E D P L A N E

    • May I ask what that portal animation has to do with the Coeff. of friction?

  • Do Planck-time and Planck-distance have a 1/137 relationship with anything? Whether they do or not, they don't need units of measure to define them, but can be used instead to define universally inherent standard units of distance and time.

  • I 've been worrying myself about this α, all these years. You have brought it out clearly.Thank you very much.

  • Maybe if we just used base 137 instead of base 10 this would make sense. If only we had 137 fingers.

    • @Azriel_b Glad this 0.01% tolerance allowed us to be here at all 🏆

    • @Giovanni Barbera it could just be that the world seed generator has some tolerances. In engineering an 0.01% accurate machine is a very accurate one. God was probably just generating universes with random combinations of universal constants to find the optimal combination.

    • @Space Wave 1096 - the year teaching started at Oxford :)

    • @andrew cobb what is 8x137

    • An octopus has 137 suckers on each arm. Presumably a coincidence.

  • I like the idea of a number being set and from that universes build. Logically in a multiversal setting, you could label each universe by this preset constant. So our's would be 137... Oh god no.

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram..🎁

  • Here’s a thought, or two. Matt said the universe has been changing since it started. Could black holes be one end of the spectrum where 137 isn’t true and dark energy the other end of the spectrum where 137 doesn’t hold true anymore? Descriptions of both these phenomena tell use something is abnormal. Maybe it’s drifts away from the value in Alpha.

    • I seriously doubt it. The 4π makes me think this is orbit related. Black Holes rotate, and are generally depicted as circular in nature. I actually suspect the issue is directly related to π, and Base 10. Subsequently, I suspect that 1/137 doesn't actually exist.

    • What does this even mean

  • With a universe billions of years old, how do we know alpha is not still decreasing? We’re witnessing only a instant in cosmological time.

    • @david anderson the reason would be rather simple. Far beyond where a human eye could reach would be a theoretical white hole, into which nothing could possibly go, but from which everything continually goes. An event horizon that forces all thongs to move away and out from it continually. Something so constant as this might account for the amount of force necessary, seeing as how a black hole is at the center lf the milky way, pulling all things into itself

    • @Hi There Yes, how they existed billions of years ago. Yet nothing in my comment contradicted that. The point is that light has been traveling for billions of years, and in that immense time who knows what giant pillars of creation it went through, possibly affecting the spectrum. Additionally please explain how the fine structure constant, relates to redshift, and how, for instance, if space was expanding more rapidly in the past, the red shift caused then, would be changed to not reflect that. It appears that once light was red shifted, it would remain red shifted.

    • As was mentioned elsewhere, we can see how galaxies existed billions of years ago. As very far galaxies are redshifted due to their constant acceleration away from everything else, we can study that light and see that it agrees with a constant value of the fine structure throughout the observable universe. From that alone we can reasonably conclude that the value has not changed much since the universe's creation.

    • @Axle Regarding the current state of inflation. This "Red Shift is a bit confusing, as we are measuring the past yes? And the degree of past is, of course, variable to the distance, so we are measuring where things WERE thousands, millions, and billions of years ago. So how do we know we are not measuring how fast space WAS expanding, thousands, millions, and billions of years ago? Is it possible that space (whatever that is, and I will try to understand "virtual" particles") WAS expanding ever faster, the further back in time we perceive? If this is true, then possibly the further away one looked, the greater the red shift would be, for THAT light which left that star however long ago. ( It possibly WAS red shifted via more rapid expansion THEN, and has encountered ever slower expansion over an ever longer journey) The correlation between time and distance could create a FALSE idea that expansion is currently accelerating, when in fact it may be slowing down or staying the same now. A steady slowing of the expansion rate over time, may create a steady appearance of accelerating expansion over distance, and do we assume steady expansion over all space, and all time. (Why would "space" expand the same everywhere all the time.) After all, if the impossible happened, and a galaxy 10 billion light years away instantly reversed its motion towards us, it appears we would not know that happened for about 10 billion years. In the Doppler effect, a race car moving away transmits a deeper sound. If the race car is 3 seconds away, and instantly reversed towards us ( ignore the the physics of that instant reversal) we would not hear the higher sound until AFTER the Doppler affected lower sound passed our ears, three seconds later. For three seconds we would think the car was still moving away. I am uncertain why light is said not to have a Doppler affect. Also what is the error margin of this measurement? For Instance, what space gases between our perception exist over millions of light years, OR did exist billions of years ago, and is no longer in the light path, and how does this phase shift light perception? I understand the JWST telescope is finding immense gas fields we were previously not as aware of. I understand we do not see the expected blurring, yet those gases do exist. And when we map these vast thousands, millions and billions of light years distant galaxies, in order to know where they are NOW we would have to know what there motion was over the past thousands, millions and billions of years, as well as know how said space was expanding during that variable time, and this would completely change the map. In ten billion years a galaxy, a galaxy cluster and a super cluster, and variable space expansion, can move stuff a long way. Can we even map the current physical location of our own galaxy, and does gravity propagate at light speed.

    • I was thinking that. The coefficient that describes the current state of inflation.

  • If the number has been dropping since the big bang, what if it just was derivative of entropy?

    • @Casey Winkler 137.036 is not an integer and therefore not a prime number. "Close enough by association" is not the way nature seems to work. Only humans do.

    • 137 is a prime number. What if that equation is related to prime numbers and its a countdown

  • Pauli died in 1958 in Zürich in hospital room No. 137. He was crazy about this room number and saw it as a bad sign!

    • @BasiliskObelisk this is too one of my favorite topics...we are sorounded by meaning...only deep sorrow prevent us from seeing it...

    • He was big mad on synchronicity en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

    • @the breadman But then he would have to be the one, because the room would probably not have this number...was he the one ?

    • it reminds me of mysticism and the number 23. 137 is the special number for physics.

    • OR it _MIGHT_ have been a not-so-subtle message that he was soon to _return HOME_ ?

  • When you use auto compete for an hash function inside jetbrains IDE, they multiply the objects parameter by 137 ... Seems to be the father of 42.

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram..🎁🎁

  • This especially holds up in models where gravity has a negative vacuum energy state to bring the balance to zero.

  • if you take a cubed grid (9x9x9=729), ordered each box by number and placed an octahedron within it perfectly aligned with the cube and added the numbers connected to each vertex of the octahedron you'd find two times the number of 137x8 (=1096) minus 1 (1095). which is significantly close.

  • Love your teaching! Are you sure the number for unity is not just one? Everything else would therefore be 137x10-1?

  • We had a professor in grad school who is obsessed with the fine structure constant. Whenever he gets to the chapter with α, he would go off on a tangent about how peculiar it was. We made him a meme amongst the grad students. Whenever new grad students join, they would see α or 1/137 all over the TA and RA office and wonder what’s up with that. We just tell them to wait till they take that one professor’s class. It’s grad quantum 1, so every new grad student has to take it. And sure enough, after the semester the new students understood all the memes.

    • @R Hamlet, The Planck zone of matter would make constants like that. If the fine-structure constant depends on the process and structure of the initial (Planck length size) matter zone, then there must be variables and fixed values related to them. Buddhism explains the lifetime of a smallest matter zone, and it has 17 mind moments. If the matter zone shows 17 moments of existence within its lifetime, then possibly, the number 17 could be a fixed value in the constant. If the matter zones disappear and appear 4 times within 4 lifetimes showing a complete rotation virtually, making a complete rotation of existence, then possibly, the number 4 could be a fixed value in the fine-structure-constant. If there is a fundamental value for the dimensionless moment called g-factor that is related to the angular momentum of elementary particles in the observable universe, then a variable or a fixed value closer to the electron’s g-factor −2.00231930436256(35) (g(e) in “μ(S) = g(e) S μ(B)/ħ”) would have a relationship with the fine-structure constant. So perhaps, the fine-structure constant would be equal to a collection of variables and fixed values like this: α = 1/(17 × 4 × (2.015235714020221) = 0.007297351. But if it is true, the value of the g-factor must be a square root of its number if the g-factor in the fine-structure constant must always be a plus (+) value. According to the fundamental behavior of the dimensional sets in my theory, the electric field doesn’t make a force, and it would make an angular momentum (electric moment) like the so-called magnetic moment (μ(L) in “μ(L) = -g(L) L μ(B) /ħ”) in modern physics. Likely, the electrons are an angular momentum because the electric moment (called the magnetic moment in modern physics) makes the angular momentum called the orbital angular momentum of an electron. The name electric field that is being used in modern science actually represents a magnetic field. Also, the name magnetic field that is being used in western science actually represents an electric field. It is a major error in modern science. It is a explanation that I made according to a special theory about dimensions.

    • @Suresh Wanayalaege It that were true, it would be science, not superstition.

    • @Suresh Wanayalaege "This number vaguely 'relates' to something in a religion, therefore it is significant to me!"

    • ​@B B, If it (1/137) represents a structure that couples matter and antimatter, then its real value (0.007297351) would show a pattern like this 1.0091194/((22/7) x (+22-(-22)). So perhaps, the fine-structure constant has a variable or a fixed value (1.0091194) closer to 1 with the other fixed structural values.

    • ​@B B, numerology is BS. No matter how you add, subtract, and multiply the page numbers, the fact is, no religious tract, and nothing said by Buddha, gave us the gravitational constant, Euler's formula, Planck's constant, e, pi, or even, 0, much less, negative numbers, much less, imaginary numbers (which Euler's formula of course uses). It's like the Muslims who do backflips and contortions to convince themselves that the Quran is a science book. Meanwhile, none of those gods even had any idea about bacteria, viruses, or mold, much less, RNA and DNA. Those folks are brainwashed with the nonsense they were born into.

  • Perhaps they can use the Fine constant to find out other constants that are needed to complete equations. Like using the stars around a blackhole to find it, but with mathematics.

  • This certainly isn't my area of expertise, but why are we looking at 1/137 exclusively as a base 10 number? Could it be possible to gain new/better inference by looking at it in a different base number system? How about base PI or a base of some other universal constant?

    • What good would it do. Any base would yield an arbitrary number. The secret to reveal is not within the number itself, it's to be found in its cause and implications. Changing the base is just cosmetic.

    • All numerical systems are ultimately arbitrary.

    • That's what I thought! How about base [fine structure constant]? I need to give this more thought in the future..

    • @Jeff T I think arbitrary would be more accurate to use than irrational

    • An irrational number will be irrational in any number system with an integer base.

  • When I watch your videos and I understand something you said, it feels like such an achievement. Thanx for that.

  • It’s because light is the speed limit and other particles going a fraction slower, 1/137 (especially at the subatomic level) must be bound by this constant otherwise if anything goes faster, it ceases to exist, or gains more mass than exist in the entire universe. I believe if we ever truly break light speed, not warp, the mass would be so big and dense it would implode the entire universe.

  • Man I understood 1/137th of it all, but still nice to learn something new that is truly fascinating.

    • same.

    • @Don Adams we won't EVER be allowed to join the Federation as long as we still engage in war.

    • As a SETI person, I always wanted to use Pi times hydrogen as the carrier frequency. But now I'll have to rethink unique signatures

    • Lol, same. It didn’t help that I kept spacing out during the video. Still, it’s great to know that people are out there trying to answer the questions

  • A few years back, I discovered a life hack that made my life so much easier; round off! I round Pi to 3,0 exactly or I round off 1/137 to 1/100. It is SO much easier to do calculations in your head that way.

  • I can imagine the programmer creating this universe had 256 different universes. This happens to be the 137th instance of the program running on the computer simulator. The programmer happened to use that number as the variable to generate this universe.

    • Lol, it's just an int in a for loop

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram..🎁

    • @Jimmy Dandy Yes.

    • Why 256 ? Do you seriously believe aliens were limited to 8bit ? 😁

  • This might sound like an odd thought, but it seems like one of the most fundamental thing in the universe is that things agree about what happened. Maybe these numbers and constants are just what is required for things to all work properly. It's what's needed for everything in space and time to be able to observe the same events. Like another value might just not be able to keep the universe self consistent. Who knows if a universe can even exist that isn't self consistent.

    • @Xavier Thomas And the intelligent people said "We don't care about the figments of your imagination, and a work of fiction is not proof". Common Sense 20:22

    • @Max Power But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26

    • @Xavier Thomas Everything you claim to be impossible for a universe by itself you at the same time claim to be possible for your God. Ergo every argument you make against a self existence of a uninverse can be applied equally to your God. You disprove your own God with your own arguments. Careful, thats probably a sin for you.

    • @Xavier Thomas Well we definitely won't escape with that attitude! Lol Still, the solar system is eventually doomed no matter how we care for it. I mean I guess we could figure out how to stop eventual stellar nova maybe. Still I think spreading elsewhere is a more hopeful goal. Isn't it in the bible somewhere that we are supposed to multiply and spread or something? Why not take that out to the universe as a whole some day? We may be truly trapped, but we should still try. People thought the speed of sound was something impossible to reach at one point.

    • @samtheweebo we will not escape the destruction of this planet. That's the whole point of God making a planet that has only so much substance. We're supposed to take care of it. Obviously, my point isn't that God is the final answer, inasmuch as instead of an actual answer we just say God did it. But the answer starts with God, God leads us through the process and we get to the final process of comprehension. God is the answer, and he has the answers. Only seek him and trust hin with the whole heart and acknowledge him in all your ways and anything you ask him, he will provide

  • It is often said that if the question were ever found, the universe would instantly be replaced by something else even more inexplicable.

    • Let's just stick with "What do you get if you multiply 6 by 9?" then. It's probably better that way.

    • Honestly that's what I love about physics

  • Little known fact: our universe was a typo, the 4D experimentalists had originally meant to type "1337" for the seed phrase

    • The alpha and omega is leet...

    • This mathematical dubious-ness,is NOW Hugely Nuge(New Age+Ted Nugent)1 acoustic lounge room*once maybe twice rehearsing*Stormtroopin[g] T.Nugent:Double live Gonzo*weird yet fun to play song,"same night 1989.Oops The thread topic"poss.good for *Number Ologists*,not so much for me,as*I do know why*,it's just the ole - "If I don't wanna know,you definitely don't"🤔 ✌🏼. ♥️ .

    • God smudged the number with his pencil ...

    • I love that these comments a blending science and religion and putting them on the same plain

    • @Plop Doo as the lower dimensions are a building block to the next I believe Electromagnetism is a better next step to the All-that-Is

  • Could it be a ratio, conceptually similar to pi? Possibly related to a deeper dimensions of quantum energy we are yet to understand? Pi is a constant that crops up regularly but has no dimensional value as it is a ratio, it feels like this could be the same, however I am guessing as this is a field of knowledge I haven't had the opportunity to think deeply about.

    • Well, the ratio thing was addressed in the video, but it was presented as a 'wild guess' but i think it deserves more than that. For example, what does pi tell us? Pi tell us that lenghts of circumferences and diameters of circumferences aren't independent: if you know the length of the circumference, there is one and only one lenght of the diameter possible, and if you know the lenght of the diameter, there is one and only one length of the circumference possible. So, is alpha is as fundamental as pi is, then it tells us that you can't have a random set of universal constants, so you can''t have a universe where you have a slower speed of light and every other constant remains the same, for example.

  • Loved it, this number will live rent free in my head for the foreseeable future.

  • This is a great video - one of my favourites on this channel! A couple small errata: at 03:33 the denominator should have Coulombs squared instead of C^7; at 03:44 the alpha value shown is missing a zero: 0.007297352569278033 (works out to double-O-seven; calc code below). Just want to make sure the number is right for when future alien xenoarchaeologists uncover this video! (Hi there 👋 this is called an emoji ;) ... In [1]: from scipy import constants In [2]: import numpy as np In [3]: constants.e ** 2 / (4 * np.pi * constants.epsilon_0 * constants.hbar * constants.c) Out[3]: 0.007297352569278033 In [4]: (constants.e ** 2 / (4 * np.pi * constants.epsilon_0 * constants.hbar * constants.c)) ** -1 Out[4]: 137.0359990841083

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram..🎁🎁

  • I feel like the easiest way to send a probe that would tell an advanced civilization that we are advanced would be to send out a slate of gold like previously, but with microscopic writing, so if they aren't advanced enough they wont learn anything from it.

  • If the square of the fine structure constant is the base probability of and electron emitting or absorbing a photon, then wouldn't it make sense that it be unitless?

  • The properties of the fine structure constant were similar to the symptoms of space time dialation. Why would we believe that the constant would be the same somewhere else in the universe?

  • It seems to me the issue here is that we are so embroiled in our math having units, that we have a tough time realizing that the units might be more descriptive, but not any more accurate. It might be easier to not worry about the units and just think that you you have a grouping of energy and a grouping of space. And the ratio of energy to space is 1/137. Because that space is an orb in most of the examples you listed, there is a very good chance that there each layer gets bigger and bigger, and needs more and more energy to proliferate it. The growth of energy to space is just in multiples of 1/137... Silly question, but what about Helium? It is a different ratio? It seems to me that a single electron is where you should be starting at, not an atom with two electrons. Maybe Helium is 0.00364963503649635036496350364964?

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram..🎁🎁

  • Euler's constant (also called the Euler-Mascheroni constant) is a constant which is dimensionless and takes the value of approximately 0.577). Although it is a mathematical constant it crops up in physics, for example in the dimensional regularisation of Feynman diagrams.

    • for oilier macaroni, use a little over 1 part oil for every 2 parts water, got it. :P

  • I stopped understanding anything really 40 episodes ago or so. But I am addicted to this channel

    • 🤣

    • 😂 your awesome and probably understand more than you think you do

    • @Chaedi It seems everything we know and all the amazing technology we have came from a couple of people per century, like Newton and Einstein.

    • Yeah... I stopped being able to understand things around 211 episodes ago... but I do still love it and pick up a small bit ever so often lol.

    • @3RAN7ON time catches up with us all. A universe with 'time' but less aging would be a great dimension

  • I keep having strange occurrences of the number "137" appearing in my life. I used to see the number "1316" quite a bit and spiritually I took it as some sort of code or message. I even at one point acquired an old African decor mask with "1316 Magic Pot" carved into the plating on the forehead. I've come to like the number, but I hadn't ever found any potential significance other than maybe 1 John 3:16. Well, being the somewhat spiritual person/mystic that I am, I occasionally ask to communicate with "the spirit realm" as I am falling asleep. Just kind of "leaving the radio on" if you will. My focus on determining the meaning of 1316 swiftly shifted when on the morning of 2/7/2022, I had noticed from a text alert that at some point in the night, $1.37 was allegedly removed and simultaneously added back into my bank account. In checking my banking app, however, no transactions were documented. A simple glitch? Maybe. After this occurrence, I learned about the fine structure constant and started taking notes on every occurrence of 137 I could think of or read about. More recently, on 11/19/2022, I did the usual opening of communication before bed, after reviewing all of the notes I had on 137. I hadn't gone to bed late but felt compelled to sleep in that day. I did not wake up until my cousin knocked abruptly on my bedroom door. He questioned why I hadn't responded to his texts from that morning. To my amusement, my phone data had been somehow disrupted and all of the messages I'd received that night/morning weren't delivered to me until the exact moment I had picked up my phone upon waking to check the time, at exactly 1:37pm. So, in conclusion... Aliens? Spirits? Physics? The Matrix acting up again? Rick Sanchez perhaps? Whatever the case, it's my new favorite number. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

  • As you mention, our units are fairly arbitrary human constructions, and since our physics aims to describe what we see around us, these units naturally appear in our constants. Thinking out loud, could the fact that the fine structure constant is unitless be an indication that the physics surrounding it is truly fundamental, somehow?

  • You said that the fine structure constant depends on the value of other constants of the universe, and that the value of the fine structure constant changed since the beginning of the universe. Does that mean that the value of the other constants changed too ? By the way, I love what you are doing.

  • Just a side-thought about the "sending alpha to aliens"-thing: how exactly would we do that? they most probably don't work in base 10 and I don't know if binary can be assumed to be fundamental enough.. Maybe someone here has thought about it/some more info?

    • Binary is pretty fundamental, to the extend that only unary is simpler (that is, if you want to transmit the number 137, you just send 137 'beeps'). The problem of unary is not only that it's only practical for small numbers, but that it can't represent zero. So, if some alien civilization is advanced enough to have discovered alpha, it's pretty sure that they also discovered the simplest way of counting that allows zero.

    • If aliens are intelligent enough to develop advanced technology and communicate with us, they can figure out base 2 numbers.

    • Since it's a proportion, all you'd have to do is display 1 symbol and then 137 symbols (circles maybe?), possibly separated from one another with a line or space.

  • Wow, what coincidence! I got 1/137 on my Physics final.

  • I wonder if numbers used in the fraction are cleaner than 1/137.05 in some non-base-10 number system?

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram.. 🎁🎁

  • In the movie UFO (2018), aliens used the fine-structure constant to communicate.

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram

  • If the alpha varied from the beginning of the universe, asymptotically to a current value, AND it's described by 2^2 and pi and the speed of light and plancks... Then that has to mean that one (or more) of those values changed too, doesn't it?

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram.🎁

  • For 10:00 moment, I'd think about the pi number, which is also unitless and more universal and common...

  • Matt you and the team that put PBS Space Time episodes together week after week are doing a fantastic job in explaining some of the more difficult concepts that underpin physics. Your delivery is not only clear and concise but also entertaining as well as thought-provoking. Bravo to you all.

  • 1/137 is the speed of time. It is constantly increasing by itself

  • Sounds like 137 is the constant fine tuning of the universe

    • 137... or C-137?

    • Demonstrate that there is fine tuning

    • @Karl Klabuster puppet king they dance Cinderella your glass shoe don’t fit we gon steal em who comes at night it’s a riddle this not a oxy this a skittle

    • 1/137 should be 42, no?

  • (9:15) The most minimalistic message we could send to an alien civilization that would convey intelligence would be "0, 1." Any advanced civilization would understand a simple binary configuration.

  • Could you somehow alter this constant to facilitate low temperature deuterium fusion? I mean if the electrons could get closer to the nucleus yeah chemical reactions can't be made, but fusion would be easier right?

  • If α changed over time, does that mean the ratios between the other constants changed over time? e.g. rewrite the equation as c = e^2/(α4πε₀ℏ); either the speed of light changed over time, some other constants changed to hold c constant, or the formula for α isn't true at all times.

    • @Blinded I get you said it's the speed limit against which other things are measured, but it's more fundamental than that. It isn't actually the speed of light, it's the maximum speed possible in the universe. If that maximum were higher, light would have that speed. It's the speed at which distance has no meaning and therefore nor does time.

    • @Blinded Saying it's the universes speed limit or the speed of causality is the same thing as what you said. One can likewise say "everything travels at light speed through *spacetime* ", as different portions are movement through space or movement through time. maybe reread my comment. I was pretty specific. Lights speed limit* doesn't change, but it's possible speed varies depending on matter, that's what I said.

    • ​@Entrepenumbra Okay, calling light matter was wrong. Although I wouldn't say that it really matters too much. And this is not just speed limit of causality, it IS the rate at which spacetime kinda gets updated. Like, think of cellular automata. Data between cells can only travel max 1 cell per tick. But it can also effectively travel slower, if it's involved in a more complex mechanism, which forces this data propagate in bent trajectories instead of straight ones. Well, now just project this picture onto the concepts of wave mechanics. And here you go. By default waves all travel at the same speed - at the speed of data propagation. But when they interact, they slow down. So, no, speed of light cannot change. Speed of light isn't derived from other stuff. It is the fundamental property, around which everything else is based. You can only seemingly change it, if you change how much does matter interact. How much mass everything has.

    • @Blinded the speed of light was different only because of the distribution of matter being different. But you're right that the maximum speed light *could* achieve in a vacuum was still the same.

    • @Blinded light is not matter, and the speed of light has nothing to do with light, it's just the speed limit of causality as some like to say

  • So generally we are yet to optimise our processes to a fine structure constant of 1. Seems like a very good standard.

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram.🎁

  • Maybe, go with me on this, 137 represents the 137th attempt at making this universe work. And it did. The Maker just started at 1 and counted up until something worked. Or just kept making different version of universe's and this is the 137th created. Maybe this number is the hidden time stamp of creation. Doubtful though.

  • As a species we created time units based on earths rotational speed and we created distance as metres based on the earth’s geometry. If we used different scales of measurement like for example inches … Because units of measurement cancel out do we always return to 1/137?

  • has anyone actually modelled a numbering system using 0.00729735256 or 1/0.00729735256 as the base value and looked at some of the other constants that are irrational numbers to see if they are still irrational? using base 10 doesn't seem a good idea when you look at a constant that has no dimension to surmise its value

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram.🎁🎁

  • Astrophysicist Arthur Eddington was fascinated by pure numbers. He promoted the "Eddington number, " which he calculated to be 10E80 protons in the universe (current estimate). He used that number and a complicated formula to derive the fine structure constant which had been measured to be 1/136 (at the time). Later, when alpha was measured more accurately and determined to be 1/137, Eddington revised his formula so that it now equaled 1/137. He was then known as "Arthur Adding-one." On the other hand, he's also the guy who put Einstein on the map.

    • @H Kumar - The Chandrasekhar Limit concerns the maximum mass a white-dwarf star can be supported by electron degeneracy pressure, beyond which it will collapse into _either_ a neutron star or a black hole, depending. A similar limit exists for neutron stars - the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff Limit - sets the maximum mass for neutron stars beyond which they collapse into black holes. Both limits are for non-rotating stars. Stars which rotate at high speed - millisecond pulsars, for example - can extend the maximum somewhat.

    • Good.

    • @Боян Богданов The day after Eddington confirmed Einstein's prediction that gravity bends light, the New York Times ran the results on its front page. Einstein was now world famous.

    • @Боян Богданов Anglians were pretty disappointed when their homeboy was proven wrong big time.So they want Eddington to be the discoverer of Einstein.I saw a english docu drama where Eddington really was the hero.He found Einstein s book in a dusty basement forgotten and then heroically proved it right.I don t think Einstein needed to be put on a map as it were.1905 special relativity proved to be Nobel worthy despite the blatant racism towards jewish scientists.This is typical british behavior.I watched a vid about british museum stolen items and their attitude was similar.we take better care of it than you do, so we keep it.

    • Put Einstein on the map.... I guess Max Planck doesn't exist in your Anglian multiverse....

  • if all other constants do indeed come from this fine structure constant, it may be the seed of our particular simulation. Assuming, of course, that simulation theory is correct.

  • Thought they were finished with this series and apparently not and Im loving it :/

  • Why can't the fine structure constant just be a coincidence? There could be infinite universes that had different values in each case that it appears in mathematics. We just happen to exist in one where all these values are 1/137 and are independent of each other with no meaningful relationship at all.

  • When you get into the physics of time reversed wave weapons, and other relatively unknown topics, you realize the general public is privy to a fraction of reality

  • Here's what the binary in the message @9:48 translates to 00110100 00110010 = 42 00110110 00111001 = 69 00110001 00110011 00110111 = 137 The problem with this is that it's encoded in base 10 using ascii symbols. Personally I think it's better to encode the numbers directly in binary. 42 -> 101010 69 -> 1000101 137 -> 10001001

    • aaah yes, the good old *"there are 10 kinds of ppl out there, those who understand binary & those who dont"* 😅

    • Fascinating!

    • Thanks for translating from binary-ASCII. I’ll give an additional level of meaning to those numbers as dates. First 69 is symbolic of the crab constellation ♋️ which has a date range from June 22 to July 22. Second, two factors of 42 are 7 & 6. July 6th is in the house of crab. Third, 137 if interpreted as a date in the house of crab then that is July 13. Although 137 could also be a day offset from Jan 1, which is May 16. Or it could be a day offset from the end of the year like August 16. I wonder if this video was intended to presage some event? Excelsior!

    • @Mckinsey t’a piqué 9ish

    • I don't see any binary at 9:48, is it somewhere else in the video?

  • In quantum entanglement, just as in interstellar space, the laws of physics break down so finding these types of constants is tricky but possible if you quit looking for consistency and start looking to unify electromagnetism with gravity through quantitative frequency computations then you may start to see big picture. Yes time travel is possible just not like you might think. It’s more like taking a journey in your mind or dreaming. Since your body would have to convert to energy, (photons to be precise) and then back again I highly doubt we will see the computation power in our lifetime to even begin to map trillions of cells in a body to change back from energy to a human body. Light truly is the speed limit of the universe.

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram.🎁

  • small correction. 3:28 Units of the permittivity of free space are in C^2/Nm^2, not C^7/Nm^2. It's corrected in the next slide.

  • The physicists Burkhard Heim (1925 - 2001) developed a Unified Quantum Gravitation Theory from the 1950's to 1980's in 6 dimensions (later added to 12 dimensions with some colleague). Neither quarks nor confinement are required in his theory and only Gamma, h and c are used as non-derived empirical constants of nature. (note: this theory is still not completely proven and it is also known that there are some errors in it. But some crucial part seems to be right [see below] ;) ) The dimensions 5 and 6 have their own semantics, dealing with selecting the next moment to happen (x5: probabilities [i.e. nor particles, neiteher waves]; x6: direction of developement of these probabilities [e.g. image a blueprint of a flower, from seed to flower to dust]). But giving an acknowledgement to this theory means accepting that "mind" exists independently of matter and that theses dimensions change the probable states of matter. And that's what a large part of this theory is actually about: how matter, living matter, emotions and "mind" can be brought together into one physical theory. BUt to check on the correctness of his assumptions about these two additional dimensions, he sucessfully developed a mass formular for elementary particles. In 1982, het let program an algorithm at the DESY [a kind a small CERN] at Hamburg (note: in 1989, a modified version of this algorithm was finished, with only G, h and c used as non-emperical data). For over 200 programmed partcicles, the theoretical masses deviated from measured ones far below the per mille range. And the error of calculated theoretical life time of the particles was in the range of ~2%. (note: as G [gravity constant] goes linearly into this equation, you can even derive the "true" value of G, by plotting measured e.g. mass values of electron over decades, getting G on the y axis.) The Excel File for the mass formula can be downloaded here: www.engon.de/protosimplex/index_e.htm#Downloads (see "unified mass formula"). During the development of this mass formula, had came across calculating the theoretical electron charge and in this regard he noticed that the fine structure constant is only a function of Pi. The deviation between theoretical and measured value on this first approach is "Elementarstrukturen der Materie - Einheitliche strukturelle Quantenfeldtheorie der Materie und Gravitation - Band 1 (Burkhard Heim)", formulas (28a) - (29a) (page 247 f) Heim theoretically derived all 4 known interaction coupling constants and guessed there should are 2 additional ones and 6 additional unknown transformative ones. Go for it, you may get a Nobel Prize for these! ;) There is some good channel here, called "6 Dimensionen in Farbe", with English subtitles. Lately, the owner added an English version of this, you find it under "6 Dimensions in Color". Here, the theory is explained superbly! Try it, go according to order. ;) Have fun exploring! PS: if you are a good theoretical physicist, you need about one year to get fully familiar with Heim's theory. Good luck! :P

  • I don't know anything about anything but what jumps to mind is that it's related to causality. Maybe in the immediate aftermath of the big bang when all the forces were combined then causality kinda broke and everything was happening all at once. Once everything cooled down the constant went down and causality chilled out and the timeline got itself sorted.

  • Love the atmosphere you create around explaning that constants are dimensionless, feels almost paranormal.

    • @Cyphermunk no

    • 🤦‍♂️

    • 1/2 is 50%... of ANYTHING. Meaning it's not dependent on dimensions or units of measurement. It has NOTHING to do with the four (conventional) dimensions we live in. 1/137 is a fraction just like 1/2. 1/137th of ANYTHING!!! That's all.

    • Like the religion in Asimov's Foundation :D

    • :D

  • 137 is so prevalent, it even made it into the original Battlestar Galactica: "Starbuck : The name's Starbuck. "Prison Enforcer : From now on your name is Bootlegger 137." This might give one hope that they actually had a good science advisor on the show, but nearly all of the rest of that series kind of... says 'no' to me.

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram. 🎁

  • Consider the following: a universe construct (or framework) can be imagined as a 3 dimensional lattice of invisible coordinates where everything happens. Those happenings take place also in a fourth dimension (time) which is bound to that same universe. Those two invisible lattices have a minimum unit of separation which is driven by the size of the smallest particle that can exist. This unknown ratio which keeps popping up is simply a product of that minimum "universal lattice measurement" and whatever else you measure within that universe. If it makes the physicists feel better they can call them quantameters, square quantameters, or even quantameters⁴ if you're dealing with time. It's doesn't matter what you call them because we someone once pointed out: "all words are made up".

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram.🎁🎁

  • Perhaps the many other universes where the factor wasn't 1/137 simply didn't continue and less than the "correct" factor being hit the first time, hence implying design, that it's really just a function of that the number that allows our existence eventually showed up. So maybe the basic problem here is that we're attaching more importance to 1/137 because without it we don't exist and that in the bigger scheme of things 1/257 is just as relevant as 1/137. We're attaching a personal bias to 1/137 that really isn't a big deal. We think it's a big deal, but it ain't.

  • Min 4:50 "It's clear that the number is trying to tell us something important about the universe." Now, I might be wrong, but that sounds an awful lot like a science-type just projected a human characteristic onto a number (which is - in part - what numerology does in order to unify abstract and concrete ideas). Interesting.

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram.🎁

  • wow the conundrum really is like discovering pi but not being able to visualise a circle

    • @jasondean88888 Prove he doesn't exist. If you can't, shut up.

    • @Science Dave Dunning Your entire paragraph is based on a hidden unproven assertion. Prove god, then we can discuss what it does or doesnt have use for.

    • @jasondean88888 What use has GOD for religion ? None. Satan uses religions to create chaos, conflict, and war. What use has GOD for physics ? He founded this very universe upon physics. He put nothing but circles (cycles) before us Space/time is circle ( cycle ) Life / death Birth and death of stars Even the chaos fueled Bible got one thing right......... Genesis of new idea leads to revalation of new thoughts leads to Genesis of new ideas leads to revalation.......... cycles upon cycles, very very Taoist

    • @Benjamin Filbert Pi was so easy to find, the Babylonians knew of it. And only applies to one relationship. Pi 3.1415926 1- Empirical number, the universe would not work if it had any other value 2- Unresolvable, infinitely regressing decimal 3- Seemingly random 4- Easy to find, impossible to miss, enigmatic Eddington's fine structure constant 1/137 / 0.00729927007299270072992700 1- Empirical number 2- Umresolvable , infinitely regressing decimal 3- Infinitely repeating numerical palindrome 4- Made up of prime number 2, prime number 7, and sum of those primes 9, which is itself the square of the prime number 3 5- Difficult to find, at the limits of our perception of the very small microcosmic scale and the very large macrocosmic scale of the univers Nowhere left to search 1 is a fluke 2 is a coincidence 3 is a pattern 4 is evidence 5 proof........ Feynman was right. God's signature at the edge of the painting

    • More like discovering Pi, but not sure which shape it applies to.

  • Eventualy it's the relationship between the first element "H" (known) and the last element on place 137 (unknown yet).

  • If only Adams would have made Deep Thought's answer 1/137, then the rest of us might truly be stressed.

  • Hmm...an excellent commentary on the physical constants. Including a mention of the inconstancy as a function of the Universe epoch. The ideas of dark energy (silly Nobel Prize) etc assume constancy of the constants. However, h, for example is simply a proportionality constant with frequency (y-mx+c). It is not fixed or a constant with regard to the Universe's lifespan... The possibility of variation of the constants (inc 1/137) as a function of cosmic time removes the silly need for Dark Energy...the new Lambda in the GR Field equations. So can we please stop modelling the Universe as LCDM and instead CDM(t)? alpha(now 1/137 ish) is a function of epoch. Along with the inconstant 'constants' I am sad that all models today are based on assuming constancy of 'constants' with cosmological epoch. This is where physics meets religion... a belief-based system rather than a rational system. I cry for the lack of intelligence here. Dolphins worked the c(t), h(t), G(t) etc stuff 6 million years ago. Lucky pan-dimensional fish?

  • Hey, quick question when i was studying Cosmology at Uni , I recall that the teacher did not mention the fine structure constant varying with increasing redshift. Is it because because the variation are significant only at the very early universe , smthing like the first second after the presumed singularity ? Because if the variation would have been more gradual , it seems that our cosmological calculations would be off by forgetting that the EM field behaved differently than today

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram..🎁

  • In my head, an analogy appears: Couldn't we indeed compare Alpha with our commonly known Pi? Imagine our maths doesn't know about the concept of the circle. But everytime, when talking about angles in geometry, this mysterious 3.1415 appears. For me it really looks like Alpha is hinting towards a deeper concept or principle we haven't discover yet.

    • @Language, Teaching, Truth. Hum? Your comment makes no sense. How does it appear intencional when we dont even know when exactly christ was born, or even if he actually existed. Again, king herod died before the time we started counting and acording to the bible he was alive when christ was born, so we are clearly not counting from his his birth...

    • @Redhwk It appears to be very intently so, not really "almost randomly".

    • @Language, Teaching, Truth. "We're counting years from Jesus' birth" and king Herod was already dead by year 0... so we are actually like those couples that dont remember exactly the day they started dating so they chose a day almost randomly. In other words, its has no real meaning except the one we chose to attribute to it.

    • @Taylor Copeland Guys, 1, 3 and 7 are holy numbers. One God, three Persons, 7 days of creation and a ton of other things. Take a look into Catholic teachings from the New Testament (especially the Revelation) and the Church Fathers (so the earliest Christians). We're counting years from Jesus' birth. Must have been a huge thing, right?

    • There is an analogy to be made there, but only a loose one. Pi is not so much a physical constant, though it does appear often in physics. It's important to note that physical constants are often merely consequences of the models in which they appear, and these models are subject to change-- "all models are wrong; some are useful." For example, we have every indication that general relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible and incomplete descriptions of our universe. The fine structure constant is itself defined (or perhaps a better word, "representable") in terms of other physical constants-- namely Planck's constant, the electric constant (vacuum permittivity), the elementary charge, and the speed of light in vacuum. To contrast, pi (or the circle constant, if you like) is independent of any other constants, physical or purely mathematical. In fact, one can model alternative geometries where pi takes on different values, and arrive at some interesting results. The same goes for our physical constants as well, and this channel has previously mentioned that the values of our fundamental constants appear to be "fine-tuned--" such that even subtle deviations in some of them can lead to an impossibility of complex chemistry and other physical phenomena. All said, you're quite right that there's still much we've yet to understand about our universe.

  • 8:42 “Many physicists believe that these constants were set more or less randomly at the beginning of the universe. It would be surprising that they landed on just the right values to allow the formation of life.” “Surprising”? I’d say so. When has anything random produced precision?

  • and oddly enough the ground factor of the fine number squared times itself is the fine number cubed divided by sin(Theta)/sine(Theta) - no doubt about that as derived from T^(-137) after the collision of two black holes.

  • The fine structure constant is a QED thing. It pops up wherever QED manifests itself. But QED is not the only thing in existence. There's also QCD, weak force (admittedly unified with QED), and, of course, gravitation, plus possibly more. QED is special, yes, because all chemistry, biology, geology, solid state physics, optics, atmospheric physics, a great deal of astrophysics, is driven by QED ultimately. But then we can also say that there'd be no stars, no planets, no oceans, no atmospheres, and no us without gravitation. And then, there's also nuclear physics that accounts for nearly all the mass around us.

  • The tetrahedron that defines the King's Chamber proportions is a geometric representation of 1/137. One face of that squared off tetrahedron has edges 5, √5, and 2√5, which when added together equal the square root of 137. Another has edges equal to 2, 4, and 2√5 also add up to the square root of 137. Additionally, the measured length of the 2√5 edge, the floor or ceiling diagonal, is √137 meters. It ties Alpha to Phi because proportionally one is equal to the square of Phi meters as measured.

  • Back when Minecraft added the command block, the \give command still used numerical IDs, and the command block's was 137. Back then, I was really excited about this block so I just incorporated that number on a bunch of stuff I made (especially my old Scratch projects) Turns out I couldn't have picked a better number!

    • @Marc Johnson LOL I thought that last part was unironic, I was considering commenting something like, this comment comes of as insecure. Well you got me lol

    • @Michieal lmao. But also, u develop for minecraft? Where? And what exactly do u do or have u developed?

    • @Dom Chapman lol 😂 well said

    • @Mayhem Discord & Chaos, Oh my! Sorry dude, I was just parodying an angry D.A. rebuke -- at the end I say; "anyway, I'm just goofing. Just be glad I wasn't angry."

    • tbf, developing for minecraft (and it's clones), I have to say that is where my mind went, when I heard Matt say that it was everywhere as the relationship between universal constants. I was just like, "Yep. 137 -- that's the random seed for the mapgen!" lol

  • The answer to the question is very simple and well understood for long time. People have hard time accepting coincidence and inverse coincidence. The number 1/137 is no more unique or special than the 136 ratios that come before it. 1 out of 137. We've all won contests with worse odds than that. The lotto is won everyday by someone when the probability is orders of magnitude worse. Even the most unlikely event is certain to happen as time/opportunity becomes infinite ... that's the math behind life. We exist simply because it is possible.

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram.🎁

  • Do any of these geniuses know where the physical laws of the universe existed prior to the big bang? Or where the matter to create the universe came from? The laws of physics deny the creation or destruction of matter in a closed system (the universe)…don’t they?

  • ≈1/137 is laminar flow of consciousness or thought energy. Squish it, compact it, and see if it can be reduced in your relationships, or if it can be "omega" inverse holding the outside together too.

    • Thanks for watching and congratulations you have been selected among my shortlisted winners... Claim your prize now on Telegram.🎁

  • 1/137 is what’s created when two things are interacting. Could this be some way connected to dark matter? Is this dark matter showing itself? If everything in the space between what we see is dark matter why wouldn’t this come out in every equation?

  • Excellent explanation of the fine-structure constant. I got my PhD earlier this year for measuring constraints on variation in alpha (an area of research going back to 1956) in nearby Sun-like stars, and that quote from Feynmann made it into my thesis. (For the curious, I applied a method for measuring the fine-structure constant in astronomical observations to main-sequence stars in the Milky Way for the first time, allowing us to put a constraint of ~12 parts per billion on any variation in its value within 52 parsecs of us, about a hundred times more precise than previous constraints measured in our galaxy.)

    • @Austin Burridge it's just one of those things that plays on my mind. Everything is moving away from us, and the further away the faster it is accelerating.. And when we see distant galaxies they are spinning faster than gravity should allow..sure- maybe an unknown dark force is acting on everything in some way, but isn't it also possible that we are watching things at a different speed than we realise? Couldn't the immense speeds and distances effect time in ways we don't yet understand? How can we actually tell if we are experiencing time the same speed as other places in the universe?

    • @yzmotoxer807 full house?

    • @Ben Walker to attempt at answering your question though - it would all be a difference in how fast they are traveling relative to us. If a distant galaxy is traveling away from us near the speed of light then I believe we would see them in their own time (it would almost appear that you were watching a movie in 3x speed). The only issue is that, even if we could observe something like this it would now be way too far away from us to observe. Anything that we could observe as of now would be traveling slow enough to where I don’t believe it would appear as if they were moving at a different rate of speed. Therefore - I believe that a second seen by us from them would still be the same duration of time.

    • @Ben Walker someone mentioned an object with a massive amount of gravity such as a black hole. This would slow down their time relative to ours (our day would be an hour for them). If an object is traveling near the speed of light, the same effect is experienced. Theoretically, since space time is expanding.. I’m wondering if there is matter on the outer rim of the universe traveling at speeds fast enough to relatively slow down time for them🧐

    • I Just bumped into this video tonight. And it gave me an Epiphany. I'm just an ordinary guy that has read a few book, so bear with me. It appears the light being emitted is from electrons moving between orbit within the element. So i surmise that there is 137 max layers in which the electrons can jump thus creating the veritable spectrum we are able to measure. Maybe even a max 137 elements are possible. Have some interesting thoughts on wave polarization also. Message if you would liked to hear. Lol, after writing this i google max # of elements possible and thats exactly what it said 137!!! Wow, truly never knew that till then.