Fine-structure constant

{| class="wikitable floatright"

! Value of

In physics, the fine-structure constant, also known as the Sommerfeld constant, commonly denoted by (the Greek letter alpha), is a fundamental physical constant that quantifies the strength of the electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles.

It is a dimensionless quantity (dimensionless physical constant), independent of the system of units used, which is related to the strength of the coupling of an elementary charge with the electromagnetic field, by the formula <math display=inline>\alpha = { e^2 }\left( 4 \pi \varepsilon_0 \hbar c \right)^{-1}</math>. Its numerical value is approximately , with a relative uncertainty of

The constant was named by Arnold Sommerfeld, who introduced it in 1916 when extending the Bohr model of the atom. <math>\alpha</math> quantified the gap in the fine structure of the spectral lines of the hydrogen atom, which had been measured precisely by the Michelson–Morley experiment in 1887.

Why the constant should have this value is not understood,

<math display="block"> \alpha = \frac{ e^2 }{\ 4 \pi\ } ~.</math>

As such, the fine-structure constant is chiefly a quantity determining (or determined by) the elementary charge: in terms of such a natural unit of charge.

In the system of atomic units, which sets , the expression for the fine-structure constant becomes

<math display="block"> \alpha = \frac{ 1 }{\ c\ } ~.</math>

Measurement

frame|right|Eighth-[[Perturbation theory|order Feynman diagrams on electron self-interaction. The arrowed horizontal line represents the electron, the wavy lines are virtual photons, and the circles are virtual electron–positron pairs.]]

The CODATA recommended value of is

This has a relative standard uncertainty of

This value for gives the following value for the vacuum magnetic permeability (magnetic constant): , with the mean differing from the old defined value by only 0.13 parts per billion, 0.8 times the standard uncertainty (0.16 parts per billion) of its recommended measured value.

Historically, the value of the reciprocal of the fine-structure constant is often given. The CODATA recommended value is

While the value of can be determined from estimates of the constants that appear in any of its definitions, the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED) provides a way to measure directly using the quantum Hall effect or the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. Other methods include the A.C. Josephson effect and photon recoil in atom interferometry.

There is general agreement for the value of , as measured by these different methods. The preferred methods in 2019 are measurements of electron anomalous magnetic moments and of photon recoil in atom interferometry.

This measurement of has a relative standard uncertainty of . This value and uncertainty are about the same as the latest experimental results.

Further refinement of the experimental value was published by the end of 2020, giving the value

with a relative accuracy of , which has a significant discrepancy from the previous experimental value.

Physical interpretations

The fine-structure constant, , has several physical interpretations. is: = \frac{e^2}{ 4 \pi \varepsilon_0 \hbar c } .</math>

| The ratio of the velocity of the electron in the first circular orbit of the Bohr model of the atom, which is , to the speed of light in vacuum, . This is Sommerfeld's original physical interpretation.

| <math>\ \alpha^2\ </math> is the ratio of the potential energy of the electron in the first circular orbit of the Bohr model of the atom and the energy equivalent to the mass of an electron. Using the virial theorem in the Bohr model of the atom , which means that . Essentially this ratio follows from the electron's velocity being .

| The two ratios of three characteristic lengths: the classical electron radius , the reduced Compton wavelength of the electron , and the Bohr radius : .

| In quantum electrodynamics, is directly related to the coupling constant determining the strength of the interaction between electrons and photons. The theory does not predict its value. Therefore, must be determined experimentally. In fact, is one of the empirical parameters in the Standard Model of particle physics, whose value is not determined within the Standard Model.

| In the electroweak theory unifying the weak interaction with electromagnetism, is absorbed into two other coupling constants associated with the electroweak gauge fields. In this theory, the electromagnetic interaction is treated as a mixture of interactions associated with the electroweak fields. The strength of the electromagnetic interaction varies with the strength of the energy field.

| In the fields of electrical engineering and solid-state physics, the fine-structure constant is one fourth the product of the characteristic impedance of free space, <math>\ Z_0 = \mu_0 c\ ,</math> and the conductance quantum, <math>\ G_0 = 2 e^2 / h\ :</math> <math>\ \alpha = \tfrac{ 1 }{\ 4\ } Z_0\ G_0 ~.</math> The optical conductivity of graphene for visible frequencies is theoretically given by , and as a result its light absorption and transmission properties can be expressed in terms of the fine-structure constant alone. The absorption value for normal-incident light on graphene in vacuum would then be given by or 2.24%, and the transmission by or 97.75% (experimentally observed to be between 97.6% and 97.8%). The reflection would then be given by .

| The fine-structure constant gives the maximum positive charge of an atomic nucleus that will allow a stable electron-orbit around it within the Bohr model (element feynmanium). For an electron orbiting an atomic nucleus with atomic number the relation is . The Heisenberg uncertainty principle momentum/position uncertainty relationship of such an electron is just . The relativistic limiting value for is , and so the limiting value for is the reciprocal of the fine-structure constant, 137.

When perturbation theory is applied to quantum electrodynamics, the resulting perturbative expansions for physical results are expressed as sets of power series in . Because is much less than one, higher powers of are soon unimportant, making the perturbation theory practical in this case. On the other hand, the large value of the corresponding factors in quantum chromodynamics makes calculations involving the strong nuclear force extremely difficult.

Variation with energy scale

In quantum electrodynamics, the more thorough quantum field theory underlying the electromagnetic coupling, the renormalization group dictates how the strength of the electromagnetic interaction grows logarithmically as the relevant energy scale increases. The value of the fine-structure constant is linked to the observed value of this coupling associated with the energy scale of the electron mass: the electron's mass gives a lower bound for this energy scale, because it (and the positron) is the lightest charged object whose quantum loops can contribute to the running. Therefore, is the asymptotic value of the fine-structure constant at zero energy.

At higher energies, such as the scale of the Z boson, about 90 GeV, one instead measures an effective ≈ 1/127.

As the energy scale increases, the strength of the electromagnetic interaction in the Standard Model approaches that of the other two fundamental interactions, a feature important for grand unification theories. In perturbative quantum electrodynamics as a stand-alone theory, the coupling diverges at an energy known as the Landau pole – this fact undermines the consistency of quantum electrodynamics in perturbative expansions. However, non-perturbative numerical experiments suggest that instead the Landau pole becomes inaccessible at such energies and QED becomes trivial.

History

thumb|right|upright|Sommerfeld memorial at [[LMU Munich ]]

Based on the precise measurement of the hydrogen atom spectrum by Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley in 1887,

Arnold Sommerfeld extended the Bohr model to include elliptical orbits and relativistic dependence of mass on velocity. He introduced a term for the fine-structure constant in 1916.

The first physical interpretation of the fine-structure constant was as the ratio of the velocity of the electron in the first circular orbit of the relativistic Bohr atom to the speed of light in the vacuum.

Equivalently, it was the quotient between the minimum angular momentum allowed by relativity for a closed orbit, and the minimum angular momentum allowed for it by quantum mechanics. It appears naturally in Sommerfeld's analysis, and determines the size of the splitting or fine-structure of the hydrogenic spectral lines. This constant was not seen as significant until Paul Dirac's linear relativistic wave equation in 1928, which gave the exact fine structure formula.

! Date

! Sources

| 1969 Jul

| 0.007297351(11)

| 137.03602(21)

| CODATA 1969

| 1973

| 0.0072973461(81)

| 137.03612(15)

| CODATA 1973

| 1987 Jan

| 0.00729735308(33)

| 137.0359895(61)

| CODATA 1986

| 1998

| 0.007297352582(27)

| 137.03599883(51)

| Kinoshita

| 2000 Apr

| 0.007297352533(27)

| 137.03599976(50)

| CODATA 1998

| 2002

| 0.007297352568(24)

| 137.03599911(46)

| CODATA 2002

| 2007 Jul

| 0.0072973525700(52)

| 137.035999070(98)

| Gabrielse (2007)

| 2008 Jun

| 0.0072973525376(50)

| 137.035999679(94)

| CODATA 2006

| 2008 Jul

| 0.0072973525692(27)

| 137.035999084(51)

| Gabrielse (2008), Hanneke (2008)

| 2010 Dec

| 0.0072973525717(48)

| 137.035999037(91)

| Bouchendira (2010)

| 2011 Jun

| 0.0072973525698(24)

| 137.035999074(44)

| CODATA 2010

| 2015 Jun

| 0.0072973525664(17)

| 137.035999139(31)

| CODATA 2014

| 2017 Jul

| 0.0072973525657(18)

| 137.035999150(33)

| Aoyama et al. (2017)

| 2018 Dec

| 0.0072973525713(14)

| 137.035999046(27)

| Parker, Yu, et al. (2018)

| 2019 May

| 0.0072973525693(11)

| 137.035999084(21)

| CODATA 2018

| 2020 Dec

| 0.0072973525628(6)

| 137.035999206(11)

| Morel et al. (2020) String theory and other proposals for going beyond the Standard Model of particle physics have led to theoretical interest in whether the accepted physical constants (not just ) actually vary.

In the experiments below, represents the change in over time, which can be computed by <sub>past</sub> − <sub>now</sub> . If the fine-structure constant really is a constant, then any experiment should show that

<math display="block"> \frac{\ \Delta \alpha\ }{\alpha} ~~ \overset{\underset{\mathsf{~def~

or as close to zero as experiment can measure. Any value far away from zero would indicate that does change over time. So far, most experimental data is consistent with being constant, up to 10 digits of accuracy.

Past rate of change

The first experimenters to test whether the fine-structure constant might actually vary examined the spectral lines of distant astronomical objects and the products of radioactive decay in the Oklo natural nuclear fission reactor. Their findings were consistent with no variation in the fine-structure constant between these two vastly separated locations and times. The most recent constraint from Oklo, from Davis & Hamdan (2015), set an upper limit of 11 ppb difference at 95% confidence level, a constraint comparable in strength to that from atomic-clock measurements.

Improved technology at the dawn of the 21st century made it possible to probe the value of at much larger distances and to a much greater accuracy. In 1999, a team led by John K. Webb of the University of New South Wales claimed the first detection of a variation in .

Using the Keck telescopes and a data set of 128 quasars at redshifts , Webb et al. found that their spectra were consistent with a slight increase in over the last 10–12 billion years. Specifically, they found that

<math display="block">\frac{\ \Delta \alpha\ }{\alpha} ~~ \overset{\underset{\mathsf{~def~

In other words, they measured the value to be somewhere between and . This is a very small value, but the error bars do not actually include zero. This result either indicates that is not constant or that there is experimental error unaccounted for.

In 2004, a smaller study of 23 absorption systems by Chand et al., using the Very Large Telescope, found no measurable variation:

<math display="block"> \frac{\Delta \alpha}{\alpha_\mathrm{em\ =\ \left(-0.6\pm 0.6\right) \times 10^{-6} ~.</math>

However, in 2007 simple flaws were identified in the analysis method of Chand et al., discrediting those results.

King et al. have used Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to investigate the algorithm used by the UNSW group to determine from the quasar spectra, and have found that the algorithm appears to produce correct uncertainties and maximum likelihood estimates for for particular models. This suggests that the statistical uncertainties and best estimate for stated by Webb et al. and Murphy et al. are robust.

In 2007, Khatri and Wandelt of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign realized that the 21 cm hyperfine transition in neutral hydrogen of the early universe leaves a unique absorption line imprint in the cosmic microwave background radiation. They proposed using this effect to measure the value of during the epoch before the formation of the first stars. In principle, this technique provides enough information to measure a variation of 1 part in (4 orders of magnitude better than the current quasar constraints). However, the constraint which can be placed on is strongly dependent upon effective integration time, going as . The European LOFAR radio telescope would only be able to constrain to about 0.3%. used the frequency ratio of and in single-ion optical atomic clocks to place a very stringent constraint on the present-time temporal variation of , namely = per year. A present day null constraint on the time variation of alpha does not necessarily rule out time variation in the past. Indeed, some theories that predict a variable fine-structure constant also predict that the value of the fine-structure constant should become practically fixed in its value once the universe enters its current dark energy-dominated epoch.

Spatial variation

Measuring the tiny spatial variation of the fine-structure constant with astronomical observations is a challenging project.

In 2011, evidence for spatial variation across the observable universe was obtained by reanalyzing an existing spectroscopy data set. A second set of measurements confirmed some effect, at the level of a few part per million with a large uncertainty, .

Subsequent and more sophisticated analysis found no variation down the parts per million level.

Anthropic explanation

The anthropic principle provides an argument as to the reason the fine-structure constant has the value it does: stable matter, and therefore life and intelligent beings, could not exist if its value were very different. For instance, if modern grand unified theories are correct, then needs to be between around 1/180 and 1/85 to have proton decay to be slow enough for life to be possible.

In the late 20th century, multiple physicists, including Stephen Hawking in his 1988 book A Brief History of Time, began exploring the idea of a multiverse, and the fine-structure constant was one of several universal constants that suggested the idea of a fine-tuned universe.

Numerological explanations

As a dimensionless constant which does not seem to be directly related to any mathematical constant, the fine-structure constant has long fascinated physicists.

Arthur Eddington argued that the value could be "obtained by pure deduction" and he related it to the Eddington number, his estimate of the number of protons in the universe.

This led him in 1929 to conjecture that the reciprocal of the fine-structure constant was not approximately but precisely the integer 137.

By the 1940s experimental values for deviated sufficiently from 137 to refute Eddington's arguments.

Physicist Wolfgang Pauli commented on the appearance of certain numbers in physics, including the fine-structure constant, which he also noted approximates reciprocal of the prime number 137. This constant so intrigued him that he collaborated with psychoanalyst Carl Jung in a quest to understand its significance. Similarly, Max Born believed that if the value of was larger, then it would not be possible to distinguish matter from ether, and thus that = is a law of nature.

Conversely, statistician I. J. Good argued that a numerological explanation would only be acceptable if it could be based on a good theory that is not yet known but "exists" in the sense of a Platonic Ideal.

Attempts to find a mathematical basis for this dimensionless constant have continued up to the present time. However, no numerological explanation has ever been accepted by the physics community.

Quotes

Footnotes

References

External links

(adapted from the Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th ed. by NIST)
Physicists Nail Down the 'Magic Number' That Shapes the Universe (Natalie Wolchover, Quanta magazine, December 2, 2020). The value of this constant is given here as 1/137.035999206 (note the difference in the last three digits). It was determined by a team of four physicists led by Saïda Guellati-Khélifa at the Kastler Brossel Laboratory in Paris.