What scale hierarchy determines whether μ varies significantly over accessible energy ranges?

Your question asks about the scale hierarchy that controls whether the fine-structure constant μ (or α, the fine-structure constant) varies noticeably across energy ranges we can access experimentally.

This is a deep question in fundamental physics. The provided preprints address it from an unconventional angle.

The Scale-Hierarchy Picture

The archives suggest that nature may possess a discrete hierarchy of physical scales — Planck scale, grand-unification scales, electroweak scale, and others — that organize themselves according to a surprisingly simple pattern [AG-2024.11-1101, AG-2025.02-1007, AG-2025.10-1509].

The key finding: the logarithms of these energy scales fit a straight line when plotted against a dimensionality parameter *q* derived from Lagrangian density terms [AG-2024.11-1101, AG-2025.10-1509]. This linearity is explained by an ontologically real "fluctuating lattice" — a spacetime with quantum-mechanically varying link length — that naturally generates logarithmically-spaced scales [AG-2025.02-1007, AG-2025.10-1509].

Why This Matters for Coupling Constants

If the fine-structure constant α is governed by these discrete scales rather than continuously, its variation would be locked to transitions between scale-hierarchy levels [AG-2025.02-1007]. Within a single scale interval (say, between electroweak and unification), α would remain nearly constant — which matches observation [AG-2025.10-1509]. Only at scales where the lattice structure itself changes significantly would α shift noticeably.

One framework proposes that local scale invariance introduces a non-integrable scale effect with a tiny coupling α_S ~ 10^−21 relative to α, rendering such variations experimentally invisible in ordinary quantum experiments unless special conditions (like Aharonov-Bohm setups with extreme flux) are engineered [AG-2026.01-236].

The Caveat

These preprints propose that structure is hierarchical and semi-discrete, but they do not provide a single canonical criterion that cleanly separates "significantly varying" from "nearly constant" regimes without additional assumptions about the lattice fluctuation spectrum. The straight-line fits are phenomenological fits rather than predictions from first principles.