NUMEROLOGY OF THE CONSTANTS OF NATURE

BY G. GAMOW
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS AND ASTROPHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER

Communicated December 12, 1967

Since the works of Sir Arthur Eddington, it has become customary to discuss
from time to time the numerical relations between various fundamental con-
stants of nature. Although until today such discussions have not led to any
practical results-that is, to any valuable road signs toward further development
of the theory of the still unclear fundamental facts in physics-it may be of some
interest to survey the present status of this "clairvoyant" branch of science.
In discussing the constants of nature it is convenient, though of course not
absolutely necessary, to use for three dimensionally independent basic units the
physical quantities which are of fundamental importance in the great theories
of today.
One of these quantities is undoubtedly the velocity which, according to the
theory of relativity, cannot exceed the speed c = 3 X 101 cm/sec of light vac-
uum. (We do not enter here into the complication arising from the change of
the speed of light in the gravitational field.)
The second convenient quantity is, of course, the action, the values of which
must be an integer of the "barred" quantum constant: hi = 1 X 10-27 erg sec.
The third such quantity, at least in the field of elementary particle physics
(in contrast to cosmology), may be assumed to be the length characterizing the
range of strong nuclear interactions. Since only rudimentary developments
have been made in this field, we cannot say at present whether elementary length
should be considered as the smallest possible distance or the quantum of dis-
tance, and its introduction into the mathematical formalism of the theory suf-
fers from the difficulties connected with the demands of relativistic invariance.
We will tentatively assume for its numerical values: X = 1 X 10-13 cm. Along
with elementary length goes the elementary time T defined as the period of time
necessary for light to cover a distance at one elementary length. Thus r-
X/C - 10-23 sec. For arithmetic simplicity we will also take: 3 X 3=-a = 10.
We will now give the list of important constants of nature expressed in the c,
Ii, X units system. It is convenient to carry out this discussion by considering
the numerical value of the dimensionless coefficients in these expressions. The
first such number of paramount importance is the fine-structure constant a =
e2/lc = (137.0)-l. Since c and h are chosen here as the basic units, this con-
stant defines the value of the elementary electric charge e. Eddington made
great efforts in his attempt to explain "137" as a purely mathematical number.
In fact, the correct mathematical identity, 137 = (162 - 16)/2 + 16 + 1, can
be interpreted as the number of independent elements of a symmetrical matrix
in 16-dimensiQnal space where 16 = 4 X 4 (4 being the number of dimensions in
Minkowski's world). The last unit in the above expression had to be added by
using a special argument after it was found experimentally that 1/a is 137 and
not 136 as believed previously. Few people can follow Eddington's argument
313
314 PHYSICS: G. GAMOW PRoc. N. A. S.

today, if any can, but the fact is that most theoretical physicists have a deep
belief that any pure number in the formulae will sooner or later be interpreted
by means of some significant mathematical expressions. (A small deviation from
integrity may, of course, be explained by some small perturbations similar to
those in the case of the Lamb-Rutherford effect.) In this paper we will sub-
scribe to that general belief. It may be noticed that since the expression for e
contains only two basic constants c and X, we may expect that the value of "137"
may be obtainable from a complete relativistic quantum theory.
The next large pure number is the ratio of proton and electron masses: M/m =
1856. Of course, there are many other masses of various leptons, mesons, and
hyperons, but M and m seem to be exceptionally important as the lowest possible
state of "heavy" and "light" particles. Since, empirically, we have for the 7r-
meson mass ju fiF/cX and for the nucleon's mass M I-lO _ gr27A (maybe), and
since the "classical" mass of an electron is m - e2/c2X, we can write M/m _
[T211/cX] X [e2/c2X]-l = r2 ch/e2 - 1370, which is not too far from the empirical
value.
The problem of strong interaction between elementary particles seems to be
dimensionally quite in order, involving, however, all three basic constants. In-
deed, by definition the range of that interaction is equal to X. For the depth of
the potential well we can write, again dimensionally,
U0 = ch/X 10-4 erg _ 100 MeV, (1)
in agreement with the observed value.
It was indicated by Gamow and Critchfield2 that Fermi's constant g of the
weak interactions can be very closely represented by the expression

g '-' a(dh)2 = a2C3fiX2 = 1.5 X 10-26 erg cm3, (2)

the meaning of which is, however, quite unclear. Thus we fkndthat in the case
of strong as well as weak interactions the dimensionless numerical coefficients
are of the order of magnitude 1.
A different situation arises in the attempt to use the c, X, X system for the de-
scription of the phenomenon of gravity, and particularly in the cosmological
problems.
Since the discovery of elementary electric change, it has been known that
gravity cannot play any role in atomic (and nuclear) structure, since Newtonian
forces between a proton and electron are negligibly small as compared with the
coulomb forces between them. Indeed,
Fooulomb e2
o
- = 6 X 1040. (3)

While one can hope that "137" can be interpreted as a mathematical number
obtainable from some future theory, the case of 1010 is almost hopeless. In
1937, Dirac3 suggested that 101° should not be considered as a constant but as a
variable parameter. Indeed, he noticed that this large number is very close to
VOL. 59, 1968 PHYSICS: 0. GAMOW -315

another large number which is obtained in expressing the present age of the
Universe in elementary units of time, often called tempons. In fact, if we assume
for the age of the Universe today's most probable value, A = 9.109 eons - 3 X
1O'7 sec, we find Air -1041. (An eon is defined as 109 years, and a hubble as
109 light years.) Dirac concluded from this relation that the values of the gravi-
tational constant y must vary in inverse proportion to the cosmic time t. Dirac's
suggestion was strongly criticized ten years later by Teller,' who showed that
the larger values of y in the past would lead to a much higher temperature of
the Earth's surface and to the boiling of the oceans during the Cambrian (and
all previous!) geologic eras. Indeed, if y --' t-', one can conclude from the law
of the conservation of angular momentum for the motion of the Earth on its
orbit that the radius of that orbit r would change in direct proportion to t. On
the other hand, from the simple homology transformation for the dependence of
the luminosity of the Sun L<, on the gravitational constant, it followed that Lo
t-7. Combining the two dependencies, Teller found that the surface tempera-
ture of the Earth must have varied as:
4Lo 4 t-7

Taking the then accepted value of 2 eons for the age of the Universe, and assuming
that the Cambrian era was 0.5 eons ago, he found T., > 1000C, which, of
cambr.
course, contradicted the well-established fact that life had existed at that time.
The change of the scale of the Universe introduced by Baade in 19535 increased
the figure for the age of the Universe. Since the date of the Cambrian era has
remained unchanged, the ratio (age of Universe at Cambrian era)/(age of
Universe today) became much closer to 1 and Teller's argument became in-
valid. Quite recently, however, life (in the form of green algae) has been found
in deposits that are more than three eons old," which makes Teller's argument
valid again.
In the meantime, a new argument was raised against the My t-' hypothesis:
If the Sun really was much brighter in the past, then it could not have lasted
through the estimated 4.5 eons of the existence of the planetary system! Inte-
grating on an electronic computer the evolutionary equations of the Sun, Poch-
oda and Schwarzschild7 came to the conclusion that if 4.5 eons ago the Sun had
just started to burn its hydrogen-being at that time much brighter than today
(as would follow from y t-1 hypothesis)-then it would have turned off from
--

the main sequence long before today. It would now have been on its way to
becoming a red giant, a situation clearly disproved by the observed present
state of the Sun. Having missed that article, Gamow8 made similar calcula-
tions and, by using a simple though less exact method of homology transforma-
tion, arrived at the same conclusions. Unfortunately, Dirac's suggestion" that
the difficulty can be avoided by assuming that the Sun was originally not so
bright and that the steady decrease of its luminosity (which would result in
freezing the oceans today) could be compensated for by accretion of interstellar
matter in the course of the past 4.5 eons would not work. The mean density
316 PHYSICS: G. GAMOWPPROC. N. A. S.

of interstellar material in the plane of the Milky Way is too small to supply any
al)l)reciable amount. Thus one would have to assume that during the last 4.5
coits (several revolution periods around the center of the Milky Way) the Sun
has been moving through a dense cloud similar to the Great Orion Nebula, con-
tinuously accreting large amounts of the material needed to compensate for the
steady decrease of its luminosity resulting from the diminishing value of the
gravitational constant. And it must only recently have emerged from that
cloud since we know that we are at present in "clear space."
An attempt to save the relation e2/ y t was recently made by Gamow,10 who
__

suggested that it could remain in force if, instead of the hypothesis that -Y
t'1, one would assume an alternate hypothesis e2 t+'. Gamow showed that
__

the assumption of the variability of the elementary electric charge will not lead
to the difficulties which arose with the assumption of the variability of the
gravitational constant. In fact, in this case, the distance Earth-Sun in the past
would have been the same as today, and the luminosity of the Sun in the past
(caused by the dependence of Kramers' capacity-coefficient k of solar material
on e) would be only slightly higher.
Gamow suggested that the possible increase of e2 with the age of the Universe
could be proved or disproved in two different ways:
(1) The observation of the fine-structure doublets in the spectra of the distant
galaxies. Indeed, both the Doppler effect and the Einstein gravitational red
shift would affect all the lines of the spectrum in the same way (i.e., increase all
wavelengths by the same factor). Since, however, the Rydberg constant is
proportional to e4 while the fine-structure separation is proportional to e6, the
effect of the change of e could be noticed.
(2) The change of e with the cosmic time could be noticed by the study of the
a- and 3-decay of the naturally radioactive elements in old rocks. In particular,
this would affect the forking ratios in ThC, RaC, and AcC of the three known
radioactive families.
It happened that when these proposals were made, both questions had already
been answered to some extent even though not in connection with Dirac's hy-
pothesis.
Studying the absorption spectrum of the quasistellar object 3C-191 (z =
1.95; z = AX/X) Bahcall, Sargent, and Schmidt" found three fine-structure
doublets of silica-ion and obtained for the value of the fine-structure constant
a(z = 1.95)/a(lab) = 0.98 + 0.05,
whereas from the relation e2 _ t would follow a (z = 1.95)/a(lab) = 1/3.
i\fore recently, Bahcall and Schmidt'2 measured the fine-structure doublets in
the emission line of oxygen in five radiogalaxies with z _ 0.2 and found that
a(z = 0.2)/a(lab) = 1.001 + 0.002
instead of 0.8 on e 2 t hypothesis. The possible variability of e, as well as
other constants nature, with cosmic time was investigated in 1958 by Wilkill-
of
son,'3 who has shown in particular by studying the forking at AcC that it is
unlikely that e changes by as much as 10-12 parts per year. However, Wilkini-
VOL. 59, 1968 PHYSICS: G. GAMOW 317

son's paper was published in a magazine which is only rarely seen by physicists
interested in atomic nuclei and elementary particles, and thus it escaped the
attention of Gamow as well as of Freeman Dyson. Therefore the latter attacked
the problem of the variability of e anew, and, using data concerning terrestrial
and meteoritic abundances of Re 87 and Os,87, succeeded in proving that the rate
of change of e2 (if any) is less than 10-12 parts per year. 14
These results exclude the variation of e not only in proportion to cosmic time
t, but also in proportion to tnt, the possibility proposed by Teller in the 1948
paper in which he first raised objections to Dirac's original hypothesis. Thus it
seems to be certain that this hypothesis, elegant as it is, must be abandoned and
that we are again facing the huge number 1040, which is a true constant, and has
nothing to do with the present age of the Universe.
We conclude this account with one more possibility which could connect the
ratio of coulomb and Newtonian forces with the cosmological theories. It was
shown by Gamow in 194815 that during the sufficiently early stages of the expan-
sion of the Universe, the mass density of radiation must have been much larger
than the density of matter (the "primeval fireball," as it is somewhat incorrectly
described today). Adjusting the density of matter so as to explain the origin of
light elements (in particular He/H ratio) at that early era, it was possible to
show that at some later era radiation must have lost its dominant role to matter
and that today it must exist in a highly diluted state, having a temperature
of only a few degrees above absolute zero.'6
The recent discovery of the isotropic black-body radiation of the temperature
of 30K17 gave new support to the relativistic theory of the expanding Universe.
The situation is now reversed and, using the observed present value of the mean
density of matter, 7 X 10-3" gm/cm3, the black-body radiation temperature
(30K), and the Hubble expansion "constant" (H = 100 km/sec/AMpc), it is
possible to calculate with reasonable certainty the physical conditions of the
Universe in the course of its past evolution. Calculations of that kind were
recently carried out by Alpher, Gamow, and Herman18 and showed that the
point of time at which the mass density of radiation becomes equal to that of
matter lies at the cosmic time t* = 3 X 10' years = 1 X 10"3 see = 1 X 1036
tempons. This figure determines uniquely the density or matter in the Unii-
verse at any other time. It follows that the value of t* also determines the
constant ratio of the heat capacities Crad/Cmat, though in a rather complicated
mathematical way.
If, returning to the ratio of coulomb to Newton forces, we calculate it for two
protons rather than for a proton and an electron (a step for which some reasons
can be given), we get
e2
_M = 3 X 1037, (5)

which is (lose to t* expressed ill tempons. It must be remembered, however,

that now we have the approximate equality of two constant big numbers. The
relation
318 PHYSICS: G. GAMOW PROC. N. A. S.

-= t* (6)

if indeed it has any physical significance, represents a relation between the

"atomic" constants e and M, and the cosmological constants -y and a = Crad/Cmat.
We may test this relationship by varying y, not as a physical reality but as a
mathematical trick. It was found by Alpher'9 that if, purely formally, one
changes the value of y in the equations of the expanding Universe, t* varies in
inverse proportion to V/'y. Thus we can write
eyM2 A,/ or /2M2 = A (7)

where A is composed of c, A, and X and has the dimension of X1/2. We chose

A h=
[ 1/2 -[/]l/2 (8)

and get
[e2 M22c ( )
=y L AJ= eM] =(9)
or, substituting the numerical values, V - 10+, which is 1033 times larger than
the actual value. Thus, the result was completely unsatisfactory, and one
could only hope to have better luck next time.
These persistent difficulties in treating electric and gravitational forces on the
same level in the field of cosmology are probably of the same nature as those
which prevented Einstein from developing a consistent unified field theory.
I Eddington, Sir Arthur, Fundamental Theory (Cambridge University Press, 1948). See also
Beck, G., H. Bethe, and W. Riezler, "Bemerkung zur Quantentheorie der Nullpunktstempera-
ture," Naturwiss., 19, 39 (1931).
2 Gamow, G., and C. Critchfield, Theory of the Atomic Nucleus and Nuclear Energy Sources,
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949).
a Dirac, P. A. M., Nature, 139, 323 (1937); Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), A 165, 198 (1938).
4Teller, E., Phys. Rev., 73, 801 (1948).
6 Baade, W., International Astronomical Union Meeting, Rome, 1953.
6Schopf, J. W., and E. S. Barghoorn, Science, 156, 508 (1967).
7Pochoda, P., and M. Schwarzschild, Ap. J., 139, 587 (1964).
8 Gamow, G., these PROCEEDINGS, 57, 187 (1967).
9 Private communication.
10 Gamow, G., Phys. Rev. Letters, 19, 758 (1967); 19, 913 (1967).
11 Bahcall, T. N., W. L. W. Sargent, and M. Schmidt, Ap. J., 149, L 11 (1967).
12 Bahcall, T. N., and M. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Letters, 19, 1294 (1967).
13 Wilkinson, D. H., Phil. Mag., 3, 582 (1958).
14 Dyson, F. J., Phys. Rev. Letters, 19, 1291 (1967); Phys. Rev. (in press).
15 Gamow, G., Phys. Rev., 74, 505 (1948); Nature, 162, 680 (1948).
16 Alpher, R., and R. Herman [5'K], Phys. Rev., 75, 1089 (1949); Gamow, G., [7'K], Kgl.
Danske Videnskab. Selskab Mat. Fys. Medd., 27, no. 10 (1953).
17 Penzias, A. A., and R. W. Wilson, Ap. J., 142, 419 (1965); Roll, P. G., and D. T. Wilkin-
son, Phys. Rev. Letters, 16, 405 (1966).
18 Alpher, R., G. Gamow, and R. Herman, these PROCEEDINGS, 58, 2179 (1967).
19 Private communication.