Douglas Adams famously told us in his Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42, but another opinion has emerged.
I have just learned that the number of God is 137.
Stay with me. I have not gone bonkers.
Yet.
A number of years ago I stumbled upon a website called InternetMonk (IM for short) and have been reading it off and on ever since. In spite of the name, it is not a Roman Catholic place. In fact, it was begun by a Southern Baptist man named Michael Spencer, who was a high school teacher in Kentucky, as a place for people wandering in what he called "the post-evangelical wilderness". After his death, IM continued with Mike Mercer, who is both a hospice chaplain and the pastor of an ELCA church in Indiana, at the helm. (For those who don't read alphabet soup, ELCA stands for Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.) All sorts of people read and comment on IM. Unlike other religious blogs, the conversation in the comment section remains civil but can get a bit snarky at times. A lot of the readers wandered in the post-evangelical wilderness for a long time; some have found a home in Eastern Orthodoxy; a few fundamentalists (ex- and otherwise) show up now and then; it is an eclectic group. It is a real community where not everyone agrees but everyone can have a place at the table.
On Thursdays, a Canadian man who calls himself Mike the Geologist presents a variety of interesting scientific stuff that is usually above my pay grade, including a nine-week series earlier this year that was an extended review of the book Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship by John Polkinghorne. Mike writes in an engaging style, but (as I mentioned) his subjects are usually above my pay grade.
This week's offering, The Number of God, is worth a read. It is not filled with religious mumbo-jumbo and hocus-pocus, it is filled with scientific mumbo-jumbo and hocus-pocus (I'm kidding) like Planck's constant and Grand Unified Theory (GUT) and fine structure constant and even -- yes, friends -- the beloved Fibonacci sequence.
It's well worth a look. Mike the Geologist calls 137 "another one of those 'lucky coincidences' that seem to propel science forward". I hope you will click on the link.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
<b>Some of my earliest memories include...</b>
Seeing my mother wash the outside of the windows in our third-floor apartment at 61 Larch St. in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, by sittin...
I am happy to be reminded of Fibonacci. It is such a pure concept. Mandelbrot is much more modern and is also simple and between the two they cover a vast range of physical, natural constructions.
ReplyDeleteAdrian, so far you are the only commenter on this post. I know you have a scientific bent because you said recently in a post or comment somewhere that you used to have the responsibility of teaching spherical trigonometry to cadets (I think I got that right, or maybe you said geometry). My posts are meant to attract people, not drive them away, but one never knows, does one? I had to look up Mandelbrot.
DeleteBob, I suspect fractals have been understood for centuries it just took computers to process the maths. Amazing that nature can make a snowflake without a computer.
DeletePS. I have been called lots of things but never bent. Have fun.
I love fractals and fibonacci sequences and my girls were stunned and amazed when i pointed out the spirals in a head of cauliflower.
ReplyDeleteI tried to read the link but i don't have much power to concentrate right now. Maybe another day
kylie, I hope your powers of concentration return soon and that whatever interrupted them either dissipates or are resolved quickly. You will enjoy the link once that happens. (The mood of the last sentence is not imperative; it's hopeful.)
DeleteI can understand the Fibonacci sequence because it's simple. I found most of the article referred to too difficult to grasp without much more thought than I was prepared - or, more probably, able - to allocate to the task. It also seemed to make one basic assumption which may not have universal acceptance, namely, that there is a God.
ReplyDeleteI also found the sentence "Physicist Laurence Eaves, a professor at the University of Nottingham, thinks the number 137 would be the one you’d signal to the aliens to indicate that we have some measure of mastery over our planet and understand quantum mechanics." rather odd. My understanding has always been that if you say that you understand quantum mechanics then you do not.
After all, a propos nothing at all, physicists are still far from understanding why a proton has about 2,000 times more mass than an electron.
Cos its evier innit.
DeleteA, Adrian, of course. I should have though of that. Actually I have often wondered how one weighs an atom never mind those tinier things.
DeleteMarvellous post, I'm a big fan of the Fibonacci sequence, it's repeated appearance never ceases to amaze me and it looks beautiful in every occurance I've observed. Thank you for that, I still like 42 better but 137 is now just below it.
ReplyDelete