Talk:137 (number)

It was at one time thought to be exactly 1/137
New to me. Who did in fact think this? Do you have any reference? AFAIK &alpha; has always been e^2/hbar.c, so why would anyone expect this to be the reciprocal of an integer?


 * The physicist Arthur Eddington. See http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_5_21_01.html

No, Eddington's magic number was 136. See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EddingtonNumber.html See http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Eddington.html So it would seem that MathTrek is misinformed.

Herbee 2004-02-07

Why is this tibit of information important?
"Interestingly, the number 137, when viewed upside down, resembles the word LEI."

What is LEI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlacatl (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Lei is the flower necklace given to visitors to Hawaii.

In Portuguese, it is 'the law', and you can't argue with that! --DStanB (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In Romanian, LEI is Romanian leu (plural) Terraflorin (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone supply a citation for 137 as the number of Cabala? I've seen conflicting references to this fact elsewhere on the internet and the Cabala article doesn't clarify. This seems like an important coincidence of mysticism and reality... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.122.35 (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A citation is not strictly necessary here, as the relationship may be generated from first principles by anyone, requiring only the Hebrew spelling of Qabalah (Kabbalah) and access to the table of Gematria letter values. I have already added this known fact to the main article. More interesting is the way that Gershom Scholem - late expert in all forms of Jewish Mysticism - was the first to make a connection between the gematria of Kabbalah and the universal Fine Structure Constant, on a visit to the office of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman.--DStanB (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Rabbi Yitschak Ginsburgh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Ginsburgh, one of the world greatest living Kabbalists has expounded on this concept. See e.g. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3064/jewish/Where-Kabbalah-Kisses-Science.htm 185.182.71.15 (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See also https://www.amazon.co.uk/137-Riddle-Creation-Torah-Science/dp/9655320421 185.182.71.15 (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that falls under numerology and therefore not relevant to this encyclopedia? Dhrm77 (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

1/137 has interesting properties- it not only has a repeating portion, but this repeat is itself palindromic, and when aligned against another sequence of 1/137 below or above it, 180 degrees out of synch (or 136/137 aligned along the decimal), the numbers are complements of 9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.246.177 (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I should imagine that 71.127.246.177 is using 10 as the base. Other bases are possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.99.245 (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Remarks
The remarks about the Ancient Egyptians are close to rambling. The writer is not a native speaker of English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.227.222.7 (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed it per wp:unsourced, and not sufficiently related to this article. - DVdm (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

137 In Physics
How could Wolfgang Pauli, a pioneer of quantum physics, be disturbed by the coincidence that he died in a hospital room numbered 137? #In_physicsVynbos (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he was simultaneously both alive and dead. Certes (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Psychology
The Psychology section seems to be based on the editor's own self-published two-page paper reporting speculation by others, and should probably be removed along with similar sections from other articles. Certes (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That's the way I tend to feel, but I'm not an expert to evaluate if that paragraph and references cited are correct, or have relevance at all, or are just wild speculations. Perhaps others can comment, Dhrm77 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)