Re: When was the observer effect (physics) first observed?

*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Yes, but that is obsolete by now.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....