Article <66f0262d$0$1280$426a34cc@news.free.fr>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<66f0262d$0$1280$426a34cc@news.free.fr>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: When was the observer effect (physics) first observed?
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 16:14:06 +0200
Organization: De Ster
Lines: 75
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <66f0262d$0$1280$426a34cc@news.free.fr>
References: <ccfsbjpndpneap4183ubl73p5ubtg3mr5r@4ax.com> <nnntej1mcunasdng5vm07ocsfkfr6bo42t@4ax.com> <66efc915$3$1293$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <5X-dnc-vF7CMn237nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
Reply-To: jjlxa31@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="29961"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
Bytes: 5051

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > IDentity <identity@invalid.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:42:53 +0100, Martin Harran
> >> <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> It seems to have been first formally stated by Heisenberg in 1958 his
> >>> book "The Physicist's Conception of Nature" but I would have thought
> >>> that it would have been noted earlier than that.
> >>> 
> >>> The reason I'm asking is that Teilhard de Chardin effectively
> >>> describes it in his foreword to 'The Phenomenon of Man' - "Object and
> >>> subject marry and mutually transform each other in the act of
> >>> knowledge; and from now on man willy-nilly finds his own image stamped
> >>> on all he looks at."
> >>> 
> >>> Teilhard wrote that somewhere in the last 1920s/early 30s which more
> >>> or less coincides with the early days of QM. I'm wondering if Teilhard
> >>> was reflecting what those involved in QM were already talking about or
> >>> whether he arrived at this under his own steam.
> >> 
> >> The old Chinese sages knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. They
> >> understood that to understand the world, you must first understand
> >> yourself - your mind.  
> >> 
> >> Like Jung said:  "Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside
> >> awakens."     
> >> 
> >> External reality is a dream dreamed by the mind, and to wake up you
> >> must realize that you are the dreamer.
> >> 
> >> Niels Bohr was a deep admirer of TAOism and probaby got many of
> >> scientific his ideas from here.  He didn't get far enough in his
> >> understanding though to realize that TAO represents the fundamental
> >> principle of the GUT science is still looking for.  
> > 
> > Sure. Please introspect the value of \alpha for us,
> > 
> > 
> 137?
> 
> "But where did 137 come in?

From experiment of course, to 12 significant digits.

> Pauli became convinced that the number was so
> fundamental that it ought to be deducible from a theory of elementary
> particles.

Yes, but that is obsolete by now.
Thanks to string theory we know nowadays
that this is just another random number,
selected anthropically at the big Bang.
'Uggly theories are good!'

> This quest took over his waking and sleeping life. Driven beyond
> endurance, he sought the help of Jung…"
> 
> https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/looking-back-odd-couple

Who couldn't help either.
And now, almost a 100 years on,
we are still as clueless as Pauli was a century ago.
Asking some Buddhist idiot, or a Taoist idem,
or any other Eastern 'sage' like this IDentity <identity@invalid.org>
will get us lots of fuzzy language, but not 137

Jan

-- 
More 137 fun, the element 137 has been pre-named Feynmanium, 137^Fy,
because Feynman predicted that it would be fundamentally different
in electronic structure, hence chemistry. Unfortunately....