Ethan Siegel: “The story of what the Universe is like from … It’s literally the greatest story one could ever tell. …

It’s also still very, very important for me to tell this story — to the best of my abilities — in a way that’s accessible and free to anyone who wants to hear it.

I can’t wait to see all that we can wind up accomplishing together!”

Excellent, I am more than happy to play the role as money-tree for this great endeavor. But, …, while you are so excited about telling the stories, are you willing to listen? Some of the names that you mentioned have their own blogs, and some of them will not tolerate any different opinion. It is all okay to cut out the nonsense to prevent the plaguing of one’s blog, but silencing a genuine opinion or question is character of dishonesty, as the mainstream knowledge (which you are trying to tell in this big Bang) is not complete at all.

Your hallmark is “Asking Siegel a question”. Let me ask you a simple question to see whether it is a nonsense (which should be cut out) or not.

Question:

The Alpha (fine structure constant) is just a pure number = (1/137.0359 …). At the Wikipedia, in the “Numerological explanations” section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant ), it states (on June 1, 2015) “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 community.”

Here, it is talking about the numerological formula (NF), not physics equation.

For NF1: (1/Alpha) = 137 + 0.039…

NF2: (1/Alpha) = N (a + F(x) + G(y)), (N and a) are pure numbers, F(x) is a function, G(y) is a geometric series.

While NF1 is obvious a nonsense. Yet, is NF2 a genuine numerological formula? What is numerological explanation? Must numerological explanation be physical?

The following equation was published online over 20 years ago, long before the inception of Wikipedia.

Beta = 1/Alpha = N (a + F(x) + G(y))

= 64 ( 1 + first order sharing + sum of the higher order sharing)

= 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …)

= 137.0359 …

A(2) is the sharing angle, A(2) = 28.743 degree

The sum of the higher order sharing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + …+(1/n)(1/64)^n +…]

= .00065737 + …

Is there any debate about it being a numerological formula (which can be verified by any 8th grader)? After all, F(X) is a function of physics parameter (the Weinberg Angle); that is, it is not an arbitrary numerological formula at all. Even if this numerological formula were incorrect in physics, it is a genuine numerological formula.

And this formula was and still is widely available online at many prominent physics blogs, such as,

http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/02/23/synopsis-of-the-opera-situation/#comment-6531 ,

http://physicsfocus.org/athene-donald-we-should-all-be-aware-of-our-unconscious-biases/#comment-3407 ,

http://blog.vixra.org/2013/05/16/why-i-still-like-string-theory/#comment-32568 ,

http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2015/01/09/string-theory/#comment-1788717126

If you can tell me where goes wrong (not numerological formula or wrong numerological explanation) on this example, I will definitely be a money tree for your great project.

��AD�����