Deriving the fine-structure constant (Born's 'mysterious number 137'): the open core of the 1935 unitary field-theory program

Max Born's Bangalore lecture 'The mysterious number 137' (1935) asked whether the fine-structure constant $\alpha\approx 1/137.036$ — the dimensionless strength of the electromagnetic interaction — can be derived by pure theory rather than measured. Within his unitary non-linear (Born–Infeld) field theory, which gives the point electron a finite self-energy $mc^{2}=1.236\,e^{2}/r_{0}$, matching the classical Lagrangian's quartic term to the one-loop quantum-electrodynamic (QED) effective Lagrangian yielded $1/\alpha\approx 82.4$, short of the observed $\approx 137$, and the lecture identified the missing steps: a consistent quantization of the non-linear field, the dynamics of the conjectured proton-as-rotational-state of the same charge ($M/m\sim 1/(8\alpha^{2})$), induced proton-to-positron transitions releasing energy of order $Mc^{2}$, and empirical tests including light-by-light scattering. The core question remains open: no accepted theory predicts the value of $\alpha$, which remains an input parameter of the Standard Model. The problem is to derive $1/\alpha\approx 137.035999$ from first principles.

Background

The fine-structure constant $\alpha=e^{2}/\hbar c\approx 1/137.036$ (Gaussian units) is the dimensionless number that fixes the strength of the electromagnetic interaction: it sets the scale of atomic binding energies, of the fine splitting of spectral lines for which it was introduced in 1916, and of scattering amplitudes in quantum electrodynamics (QED), the quantum field theory of electrons and photons. Unlike derived quantities, its value has always been measured rather than predicted: in the modern Standard Model of particle physics it is one of a set of undetermined input parameters.

This was already the situation motivating Max Born's lecture of 9 November 1935 to the South Indian Science Association in Bangalore, published as 'The mysterious number 137'. The 1930s gave specific reasons to hope that a deeper theory might compute it. Classical electrodynamics assigns a point electron an infinite electrostatic self-energy (the field-energy integral $\int E^{2}\,dV$ diverges as $r\to 0$), and the quantum theory of the day added the divergences of the 'Dirac sea' — the picture, forced by the negative-energy solutions of the Dirac equation for the electron, in which all negative-energy electron states are filled, producing infinite vacuum effects. Born and Leopold Infeld had proposed in 1934 a 'unitary' non-linear modification of electrodynamics — now called Born–Infeld theory — in which a single new constant, the 'absolute field' $b$, caps the field strength of a point charge: the field of a point electron becomes $E_{r}=e/\sqrt{r_{0}^{4}+r^{4}}$ with $b=e/r_{0}^{2}$, finite at the origin, and the total field energy is finite, $mc^{2}=1.236\,e^{2}/r_{0}$, where $a_{0}=e^{2}/mc^{2}$ is the classical electron radius and $r_{0}=1.236\,a_{0}$. The electron mass thus becomes pure electromagnetic field energy — the 'unitary' idea that particles are singularities of one field, with no separate matter degrees of freedom.

Two further ingredients made a computation of $\alpha$ conceivable. First, the low-field expansion of the Born–Infeld Lagrangian density (the function whose extremization yields the field equations) contains quartic terms in the fields, $-\frac{1}{8b^{2}}\{(\vec{B}^{2}-\vec{E}^{2})^{2}+4(\vec{B}\cdot\vec{E})^{2}\}$, structurally identical to the one-loop effective Lagrangian of QED computed by Heisenberg and Euler — the quantum correction due to virtual electron-positron pairs, which makes the vacuum a non-linear optical medium and causes, among other effects, light-by-light scattering ($\gamma\gamma\to\gamma\gamma$). Matching the quartic coefficients fixes $b$ in terms of $e$, $m$ and $\hbar$, and in the lecture's classical extrapolation gives $1/\alpha=45\pi(1.236)^{4}/4\approx 82.4$ — the right order of magnitude but a factor $1.66$ below the measured $\approx 137$. Second, the same theory suggested an interpretation of the proton: a heavier rotational excitation ($l=1$ rather than $l=0$) of the same charge singularity, whose magnetic self-energy $\sim\frac{1}{2}\mu^{2}/a_{0}^{3}$, with $\mu=ea_{0}/2\alpha$ the electron's natural magnetic-moment scale (the Bohr magneton), gives $M/m\sim 1/(8\alpha^{2})\approx 2340$, near the observed proton-to-electron mass ratio $\approx 1836$. A rotating charge distribution of one sign has no electric dipole moment, so the $l=1$ state cannot decay to $l=0$ by dipole radiation — only by a magnetic quadrupole transition — making the proton metastable; and the lecture conjectured that energetic cosmic-ray collisions could induce the proton$\to$positron transition, releasing $\sim Mc^{2}\approx 1000$ MeV and accounting for the then-unexplained penetrating power of cosmic rays and for localized ionization 'bursts' seen in cloud chambers (detectors that render particle tracks as condensation trails).

None of this worked out. The lecture itself flagged the missing steps: the classical coefficient $1.236$ was being extrapolated into the quantum domain without justification; the non-linear field theory had no consistent quantization (commutation relations were only sketched); no actual rotational-state solutions of the non-linear field equations, transition matrix elements, or rates existed; and the proposed tests (light-by-light scattering; radiative transitions of order $Mc^{2}$) were beyond 1935 capabilities. The contemporary follow-up literature — Born and Infeld's 1935 quantization paper and Born's 1934–1935 Nature letters on cosmic rays, the proton mass, and the absolute field constant — pursued exactly these steps without closing the $82.4$-versus-$137$ gap. The question at the core was stated in the lecture itself: 'A perfect theory should be able to derive the number $\alpha$ by purely mathematical reasoning without recourse to experiment' (quoted by Kragh 2011 from p. 560).

Today the auxiliaries are settled. The proton is a composite of quarks and gluons bound by quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the strong-interaction sector of the Standard Model, as revealed by deep-inelastic electron-proton scattering at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) in 1969, and its mass is dominated by quark and gluon kinetic and potential energies and by a quantum effect, the trace anomaly (the failure of the energy-momentum tensor to remain traceless after quantum corrections) — not by electromagnetic rotation. The penetrating cosmic-ray component is the muon (a heavy sibling of the electron, about 207 times its mass), and showers and bursts are multiplicative electromagnetic cascades of successive bremsstrahlung (photon emission by fast charged particles in matter) and pair creation (conversion of photons into electron-positron pairs), described in 1937 by Bhabha–Heitler and Carlson–Oppenheimer. Light-by-light scattering was observed by the ATLAS experiment in 2019 and agrees with standard QED. The Born–Infeld action itself survived in string theory, reappearing as the effective action of electromagnetic fields on D-branes (membrane-like extended objects on which open strings end), with $b$ a phenomenological parameter bounded by experiment — the logical inverse of Born's program. But the core question is untouched by any of this: no accepted theory predicts the value of $\alpha$, which remains an input.

Problem Statement

Can the observed value of the fine-structure constant $\alpha$ — the dimensionless strength of the electromagnetic interaction, with measured value $1/\alpha\approx 137.035999$ — be derived from first principles? In the source's own formulation: 'A perfect theory should be able to derive the number $\alpha$ by purely mathematical reasoning without recourse to experiment' (Born 1935, p. 560). Is there a complete, internally consistent physical theory — its degrees of freedom, dynamics, and the constants it introduces — such that (a) no premise takes as input a numerical value fixed by measurement ('recourse to experiment' means using such a measured number as a premise; the choice of units, spacetime dimension, gauge group, and field content is not by itself such a premise), (b) the value of $1/\alpha$ follows uniquely from the theory's axioms and definitions, (c) this value agrees with the measured $1/\alpha\approx 137.035999$ within the experimental uncertainty, and (d) every constant the theory introduces is fixed by its axioms and definitions rather than left free, none of these is numerically equal, within the experimental uncertainty, to $1/\alpha$ or to any measured dimensionless ratio, and the theory entails, from the same axioms, at least one further observable that has been independently measured? A proof that no theory meeting (a), (b) and (d) can yield a value of $1/\alpha$ agreeing with the measured value (condition (c)) would equally answer the question in the negative; a no-go result for a restricted subclass of theories — including the source's own original route — would not by itself answer it.

The source's original concrete route — deriving $\alpha$ by quantizing the non-linear unitary field and matching its quartic terms to the one-loop QED effective Lagrangian, with the proton as a rotational state of the same charge and induced proton-to-positron transitions as the observable signature — is part of the problem's history: this route's specific auxiliary claims are contradicted or superseded (the classical matching gives $82.4$, not $137$; the proton is a QCD bound state; the cosmic-ray anomalies were explained by cascade showers and the muon; no such transitions are observed). Answers within any framework — including a completed version of the unitary-field program — are admissible.

References

1. Born, M. (1935). 'The mysterious number 137.' Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences – Section A 2(6), 533–561. DOI: 10.1007/BF03045991. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03045991
2. Born, M. and Infeld, L. (1934). 'Foundations of the new field theory.' Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 144, 425–451. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1934.0059. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1934.0059
3. Born, M. and Infeld, L. (1935). 'On the quantization of the new field theory II.' Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 150, 141–166. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1935.0093. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1935.0093
4. Born, M. (1934). 'Cosmic Rays and the New Field Theory.' Nature 133, 63–64. DOI: 10.1038/133063b0. https://doi.org/10.1038/133063b0
5. Born, M. (1935). 'Quantised Field Theory and the Mass of the Proton.' Nature 136, 952–953. DOI: 10.1038/136952a0. https://doi.org/10.1038/136952a0
6. Born, M. and Schrödinger, E. (1935). 'The Absolute Field Constant in the New Field Theory.' Nature 135, 342. DOI: 10.1038/135342a0. https://doi.org/10.1038/135342a0
7. Heisenberg, W. and Euler, H. (1936). 'Folgerungen aus der Diracschen Theorie des Positrons.' Zeitschrift für Physik 98, 714–732. DOI: 10.1007/BF01343663. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01343663
8. Bhabha, H. J. and Heitler, W. (1937). 'The passage of fast electrons and the theory of cosmic showers.' Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 159, 432–458. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1937.0082. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1937.0082
9. Carlson, J. F. and Oppenheimer, J. R. (1937). 'On Multiplicative Showers.' Physical Review 51, 220–231. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.51.220. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.51.220
10. Neddermeyer, S. H. and Anderson, C. D. (1937). 'Note on the Nature of Cosmic-Ray Particles.' Physical Review 51, 884–886. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.51.884. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.51.884
11. Bloom, E. D., Coward, D. H., DeStaebler, H., Drees, J., Miller, G., Mo, L. W., Taylor, R. E., Breidenbach, M., Friedman, J. I., Hartmann, G. C. and Kendall, H. W. (1969). 'High-Energy Inelastic e-p Scattering at 6° and 10°.' Physical Review Letters 23, 930–934. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.930. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.930
12. Ji, X. (1995). 'QCD Analysis of the Mass Structure of the Nucleon.' Physical Review Letters 74, 1071–1074. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.1071. arXiv:hep-ph/9410274. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9410274
13. Uzan, J.-P. (2003). 'The fundamental constants and their variation: observational and theoretical status.' Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 403–455. DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.75.403. arXiv:hep-ph/0205340. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340
14. Kragh, H. (2003). 'Magic Number: A Partial History of the Fine-Structure Constant.' Archive for History of Exact Sciences 57, 395–431. DOI: 10.1007/s00407-002-0065-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-002-0065-7
15. Kragh, H. (2011). 'Visions of Revolutions: Microphysics and Cosmophysics in the 1930s.' arXiv:1111.6163. https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6163
16. Fradkin, E. S. and Tseytlin, A. A. (1985). 'Non-linear electrodynamics from quantized strings.' Physics Letters B 163, 123–130. DOI: 10.1016/0370-2693(85)90205-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(85)90205-9
17. Franklin, J. and Garon, T. (2011). 'Approximate Born–Infeld effects on the relativistic hydrogen spectrum.' Physics Letters A 375, 1391–1395. DOI: 10.1016/j.physleta.2011.02.012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2011.02.012
18. Neves, M. J., Ospedal, L. P. R., Helayël-Neto, J. A. and Gaete, P. (2022). 'Considerations on anomalous photon and Z-boson self-couplings from the Born–Infeld weak hypercharge action.' European Physical Journal C 82, 327. DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10296-y. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10296-y
19. Super-Kamiokande Collaboration (K. Abe, et al.) (2017). 'Search for proton decay via $p\to e^{+}\pi^{0}$ and $p\to\mu^{+}\pi^{0}$ in 0.31 megaton·years exposure of the Super-Kamiokande Water Cherenkov Detector.' Physical Review D 95, 012004. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.012004. arXiv:1610.03597. https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.03597
20. ATLAS Collaboration (G. Aad, et al.) (2019). 'Observation of Light-by-Light Scattering in Ultraperipheral Pb+Pb Collisions with the ATLAS Detector.' Physical Review Letters 123, 052001. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.052001. arXiv:1904.03536. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.03536