137

http://www.feynman.com/science/the-mysterious-137/

@metal-brain said
http://www.feynman.com/science/the-mysterious-137/

Oh, please. This is such Chopra-level quantum woo. That entire site should be deeply ashamed of itself, abusing Feynman's name for such pseudo-zen-physics.

By the way, you might not have caught this, because you're stuck in mythic-quantum-is-magic-land, but... we now know that the fine structure constant is actually one over 137.036, not one over 137 exactly.

("wHaT !s YoUr SoUrCe Of InFoRm@tI0N!?@?!?!?@" - well, boy: I've kept up with the literature, where you've only read phys.org and misinterpreted even their Daily Mail-level cheap shots.)

@shallow-blue said
Oh, please. This is such Chopra-level quantum woo. That entire site should be deeply ashamed of itself, abusing Feynman's name for such pseudo-zen-physics.

By the way, you might not have caught this, because you're stuck in mythic-quantum-is-magic-land, but... we now know that the fine structure constant is actually one over 137.036, not one over 137 exactly.

("wHa ...[text shortened]... rature, where you've only read phys.org and misinterpreted even their Daily Mail-level cheap shots.)

Rounding it off is unacceptable to you?
You are really dense. It was not just Feynman, Dirac and others too. This is a mystery that physicists obsess over. It keeps coming up over and over again in QM.

YouTube

@metal-brain said
Rounding it off is unacceptable to you?

Rounding it off and then pretending that the rounded value is the real value and has some mysterious inner meaning?

Yes, that's unacceptably unscientific.

You are really dense. It was not just Feynman, Dirac and others too. This is a mystery that physicists obsess over.

No, it's not. It was thought to be a notable coincidence that physicists were interested in. Since we were able to measure the more precise, non-rounded value and noted that it isn't a real coincidence at all, just a simple near-miss, nobody thinks its value is all that significant any more.
Sure, it's an important number. Well, so is the speed of light in a vacuum, but nobody makes a fuss over that being very nearly 300 megametres per second.

Only woo-woo peddlers like Chopra and their dupes like you have ever obsessed over it - with, to my knowledge, the only exception of Wolfgang Pauli, but he was weird and a Jungian anyways - and still do even though science has moved on.

@shallow-blue said
Rounding it off and then pretending that the rounded value is the real value and has some mysterious inner meaning?

Yes, that's unacceptably unscientific.

You are really dense. It was not just Feynman, Dirac and others too. This is a mystery that physicists obsess over.

No, it's not. It was thought to be a notable coincidence that physicists ...[text shortened]... fgang Pauli, but he was weird and a Jungian anyways - and still do even though science has moved on.

You are nit picking over nothing. The link I provided has a quote from Feynman giving the exact number. Here it is:

"Feynman’s Conjecture: A general connection of the quantum coupling constants with p was anticipated by R. P. Feynman in a remarkable intuitional leap some 40 years ago as can be seen from the following much quoted extract from one of Feynman’s books.

There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e, the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to -0.08542455. (My physicist friends won’t recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to p or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the “hand of God” wrote that number, and “we don’t know how He pushed his pencil.” We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don’t know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!"

But you are not here to read, you are here to troll.

@Metal-Brain
There is the way out there possibility it is just a frigging coincidence. But that doesn't fit with your love of conspiracy theories.

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
There is the way out there possibility it is just a frigging coincidence. But that doesn't fit with your love of conspiracy theories.

Do you know how many of these so called coincidences there are? Have you ever counted them? Are you calling Feynman and Dirac conspiracy theorists?

Count them and give me the number. Then tell me it is a mere coincidence. I dare you.

YouTube

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
There is the way out there possibility it is just a frigging coincidence. But that doesn't fit with your love of conspiracy theories.

The answer is 26
Coincidence?

Not a conspiracy theory. You just say that about anything you don't understand or don't want to believe.

@Metal-Brain
It is an ongoing scientific problem so your talking about will make ZERO headway in that regard so why are you even bringing it up? You are barely educated much less a physicist so what is your angle? You must have some motivation for this post.

@metal-brain said
The answer is 26
Coincidence?

That's half the number of cards in a full deck, so of course it can't be a coincidence. Mystic woo must be real. D'oh!

@Shallow-Blue
I swear you must be retarded.

@Metal-Brain
I swear you must be a communist Comrade.

@sonhouse
The answer is 26
Coincidence?

Not a conspiracy theory. You just say that about anything you don't understand or don't want to believe.

@shallow-blue said
That's half the number of cards in a full deck, so of course it can't be a coincidence. Mystic woo must be real. D'oh!

But what if someone isn't playing with a full deck? Then 26 is overkill. Coincidence?

Vladimir Putin's birthday is Oct. 7, 1952. Now, you add the single digits, like so: 10 / 7 / 1952

1+0+7+1+9+5+2 = 25

So Vlad's not playing with a full deck. But he's got his finger on the nuclear button and a hot shooting war in Ukraine and he says he's not bluffing. Overkill? Coincidence?

@moonbus said
But what if someone isn't playing with a full deck? Then 26 is overkill. Coincidence?

Vladimir Putin's birthday is Oct. 7, 1952. Now, you add the single digits, like so: 10 / 7 / 1952

1+0+7+1+9+5+2 = 25

So Vlad's not playing with a full deck. But he's got his finger on the nuclear button and a hot shooting war in Ukraine and he says he's not bluffing. Overkill? Coincidence?

What do playing cards have to do with anything?
You need to do the research. You know nothing.