Editing 1047: Approximations
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
|align="center"|0.00<span style="text-decoration: overline;">714285</span> | |align="center"|0.00<span style="text-decoration: overline;">714285</span> | ||
|align="center"|0.0072973525664 (accepted value as of 2014), close to 1/137 | |align="center"|0.0072973525664 (accepted value as of 2014), close to 1/137 | ||
| β | |align="left"|The {{w|fine structure constant}} indicates the strength of electromagnetism. It is unitless and around 0.007297, close to 1/137. The joke here is that Randall chose to write 140 as the denominator, when 137 is much closer to reality and just as many digits (although 137 is a less "round" number than 140 | + | |align="left"|The {{w|fine structure constant}} indicates the strength of electromagnetism. It is unitless and around 0.007297, close to 1/137. The joke here is that Randall chose to write 140 as the denominator, when 137 is much closer to reality and just as many digits (although 137 is a less "round" number than 140). At one point the fine structure constant was believed to be exactly the reciprocal of 137, and many people have tried to find a simple formula explaining this (with a pinch of {{w|numerology}} thrown in at times), including the infamous {{w|Arthur Eddington|Sir Arthur "Adding-One" Eddington}} who argued very strenuously that the fine structure constant "should" be 1/136 when that was what the best measurements suggested, and then argued just as strenuously for 1/137 a few years later as measurements improved. |
|- | |- | ||
|align="center"|Fundamental charge | |align="center"|Fundamental charge | ||
