The more we learn of the universe and physics the more that unveils itself as a new riddle to be solved. And so it will go on into infinity, multiuniverses probably. Human like to think in terms of just human life that effects us and not that our short time here with all life that has equal importance, not only on earth but in our universe and most likely in multiuniverses. Religion is important for those the don't think deeply and when you apply the laws of God to their faith it gets sticky. One sticky is Noah's ark floated above the highest mountain, Everest almost 30,000 ft. but the laws of our universe say that water freezes at 32 degrees. The temp. at 30,000 is -40 below zero and oxygen is almost non existent. So the ark is frozen in ice and everything on board is dead in a day from lack of oxygen. So if you understand the big bang and the laws that came with it then believing the universe revolved around the earth, the flat was earth, the ark then just doesn't work in the real universe.
5
And beyond the physical universe? That's the real frontier.
2
Dennis Overbye's accredits Einstein with much more of what he didn't accomplish than what he did, and his article contains factual errors.
Overbye claims that in 1913 Grossmann and Einstein predicted, for the first time (implied), the bending of light in a gravitational field. The bending of light was first predicted by Soldner in 1801, and the calculation was done by Einstein himself two years earlier [Ann. Phys. 35 (1911)].
Overbye claims that to Einstein the laws of physics should be the same "no matter how you were moving". Rather, to Einstein, what actually characterizes gravity is a "pseudo-tensor" that can be made to vanish merely by a change of coordinates. And since it does not contain second derivatives, it cannot measure curvature [cf. "Where Physics Went Wrong"].
We read that "gravity was not a force transmitted across space-time like magnetism..." Yet, the same linearized theory that predicts the existence of gravitational waves also predicts that mass in motion creates a 'gravitomagnetic' field, a magnetic field attributed to gravity. Linearized GR magically converts tensors into vectors.
If gravity is not a force then what propagates at the speed of light, and how can energy be conserved? Light arriving from the sun takes about 8 min to reach earth, and so too should gravity, causing havoc with planetary orbits.
Without the force of gravity what would cause the sagging mattress (space-time) to sag? And who discovered dark energy?
Overbye claims that in 1913 Grossmann and Einstein predicted, for the first time (implied), the bending of light in a gravitational field. The bending of light was first predicted by Soldner in 1801, and the calculation was done by Einstein himself two years earlier [Ann. Phys. 35 (1911)].
Overbye claims that to Einstein the laws of physics should be the same "no matter how you were moving". Rather, to Einstein, what actually characterizes gravity is a "pseudo-tensor" that can be made to vanish merely by a change of coordinates. And since it does not contain second derivatives, it cannot measure curvature [cf. "Where Physics Went Wrong"].
We read that "gravity was not a force transmitted across space-time like magnetism..." Yet, the same linearized theory that predicts the existence of gravitational waves also predicts that mass in motion creates a 'gravitomagnetic' field, a magnetic field attributed to gravity. Linearized GR magically converts tensors into vectors.
If gravity is not a force then what propagates at the speed of light, and how can energy be conserved? Light arriving from the sun takes about 8 min to reach earth, and so too should gravity, causing havoc with planetary orbits.
Without the force of gravity what would cause the sagging mattress (space-time) to sag? And who discovered dark energy?
12
Many abstract ideas in Einstein's Theory of Relativity stretch my ordinary sense of how the "real world" works.
I enjoyed Dennis Overbye's amusing description of space-time:
- "a kind of sagging mattress"
- "could jiggle like Santa Claus's belly"
- "turned out to be far more frisky than (Einstein) had bargained for"
It seems to me that, as quantum physicists expand Einstein's theories into invisible dimensions of matter, they are trying, more and more, to "peer" into the mysterious "Ground Of Being".
Christopher Hitchens disparaged Paul Tillich's reference to God as "The Ground Of Being", saying, "I would classify that under the heading of statements that have no meaning - at all."
I, myself, reject organized religion ideologies professing belief in a literal, anthropomorphic deity. However, I am attracted to teachings by sages, throughout the ages, who in their deep explorations of consciousness, have intuitively perceived the mysterious interplay between consciousness/matter/energy/spirit, and they have inwardly "seen" that, at the deepest level, all beings and things in the universe are interconnected in a vast, dynamic dance of unity.
I recommend Paul Levy's thought-provoking philosophical essays about quantum physics at website - awakeninthedream.com
- Excerpt - "The material world is composed of myriad quantum events incessantly flashing in and out of existence, pulsating in and out of the underlying field of infinite potentiality every nanosecond."
I enjoyed Dennis Overbye's amusing description of space-time:
- "a kind of sagging mattress"
- "could jiggle like Santa Claus's belly"
- "turned out to be far more frisky than (Einstein) had bargained for"
It seems to me that, as quantum physicists expand Einstein's theories into invisible dimensions of matter, they are trying, more and more, to "peer" into the mysterious "Ground Of Being".
Christopher Hitchens disparaged Paul Tillich's reference to God as "The Ground Of Being", saying, "I would classify that under the heading of statements that have no meaning - at all."
I, myself, reject organized religion ideologies professing belief in a literal, anthropomorphic deity. However, I am attracted to teachings by sages, throughout the ages, who in their deep explorations of consciousness, have intuitively perceived the mysterious interplay between consciousness/matter/energy/spirit, and they have inwardly "seen" that, at the deepest level, all beings and things in the universe are interconnected in a vast, dynamic dance of unity.
I recommend Paul Levy's thought-provoking philosophical essays about quantum physics at website - awakeninthedream.com
- Excerpt - "The material world is composed of myriad quantum events incessantly flashing in and out of existence, pulsating in and out of the underlying field of infinite potentiality every nanosecond."
7
We are, indeed, starstuff. The wonder is that we are able to contemplate what we come from, and in so doing, at the same time, create it.
3
It is just wonderful to immerse oneself in the world of Physics, in which everyone is united in the search for truth, as opposed to the institutional universe we mostly inhabit, in which lie is piled upon lie and crime upon crime.
11
He natural way is the definition of learning: the imagination, the persistence through doubt and challenge, the checking and rechecking of his own concepts and results, the open arms to other great minds, and,ultimately, his sturdy and certain belief in his theories when their time had come.
And we kind of love him for the sheer humility and brilliance which improbably combined in his nature, as he journeyed to one of the rarest things: an original idea that changes everything!
And we kind of love him for the sheer humility and brilliance which improbably combined in his nature, as he journeyed to one of the rarest things: an original idea that changes everything!
5
It's always so humbling to read about the universe. Because here we are, concentrating so had on our little corner and taking things out of proportion.
8
Amazing to think how many versions of Einstein had to be created within the 3rd dimension to get things just right within special relativity and not give men the gift to blow themselves up... well, for the most part at least.
"Both the man of science and the man of action live always at the edge of mystery, surrounded by it."
- Robert Oppenheimer
To know the future is imminent doom, because that means you are unable to change. If you feel it, it feels you, and so it changes again. If you know all the theories in the world but fail at grasping faith, you fail yourself, just yourself though, not anyone else really.
It is amazing how far off the mythological path we have gotten. I would assume our gaze at our distant past seems so close to us by now by peering into outer space.
All the stars were once planets, and all those planets are somewhere out there, waiting for us to reunite with us, someday. I do not understand why people assume that 'they' is 'us' and we are already in the future, hoping that SOMEBODY makes contact with a decently configured train-of-thought.
I figured it out in 9 months... how long has it taken you?
"Both the man of science and the man of action live always at the edge of mystery, surrounded by it."
- Robert Oppenheimer
To know the future is imminent doom, because that means you are unable to change. If you feel it, it feels you, and so it changes again. If you know all the theories in the world but fail at grasping faith, you fail yourself, just yourself though, not anyone else really.
It is amazing how far off the mythological path we have gotten. I would assume our gaze at our distant past seems so close to us by now by peering into outer space.
All the stars were once planets, and all those planets are somewhere out there, waiting for us to reunite with us, someday. I do not understand why people assume that 'they' is 'us' and we are already in the future, hoping that SOMEBODY makes contact with a decently configured train-of-thought.
I figured it out in 9 months... how long has it taken you?
2
It may be worth clarifying; light does not "bend," downward or otherwise. Light remains traveling in perfectly straight lines with "respect to the space in which it is contained." It is the space that bends. Light still follows the most straight path possible, in that bent space. "Straightness itself" is curved in large gravitational fields.
22
Yes, his theories indeed changed everything. As a result, the science of physics is distracted and not to be trusted anymore. It entered an era, when speculations and illusions are taken granted. It is sad.
Wait, it was better to trust physics when it was wrong?
13
This month as the world celebrates Einstein's General Relativity theory centennial, something has been missing: a straightforward explanation of how the expansion of space – 'positively curved spacetime' – produces gravity as we know it. Rulers are getting longer. It's at once profound, quite unexpected, hard to believe (even for Einstein), and simpler than Newton's theory. I've been looking for such a summary, talking with physicists – and eventually realized I'd have to write one. (Happily, leading physicist Prof Kip Thorne – also the original author of the Interstellar movie – gave permission to use his hilarious figure showing gravity is a fictitious force.) I hope it's understandable – while there's almost no math in the article, it even shows how Einstein's theory accounts for Newton's Inverse Square law. Happy Centennial!
https://medium.com/@davidlevitt/space-itself-is-expanding-gravity-and-ge...
https://medium.com/@davidlevitt/space-itself-is-expanding-gravity-and-ge...
2
I mean this with all my soul when I say that he changed NOTHING. Even the horror of nuclear weapons would have eventually happened without his help. His ingenious dreaming delved in to the deepest realms of utter uselessness. Where is the free endless energy? Where is the peace from besting fate’s hand? Where is the light speed travel? We are still living in the first century if politics and mores are any measure. We are as mired in human idiocy as ever and none of this pure quackery and nonsense means anything at all. Results are all that matter. 100 years of nothing is what we have to show.
1
I agree with Alex! The article is accompanied by the statement: "A Century Ago, Einstein's Theory of Relativity Changed Everything."
Did it change anything important as far as human beings are concerned?
No, it didn't!
Einstein deserves the respect he has attained because as a person he was outstanding. I ought to know because he was my next-door neighbor during many summers on the shore of Lower Saranac Lake.
I don't pretend ro understand the Theory of Relativity. I see no need to understand it.
What the world needs is a mind like Einstein's who can bring Peace to the World on an interpersonal basis and international basis.
Did it change anything important as far as human beings are concerned?
No, it didn't!
Einstein deserves the respect he has attained because as a person he was outstanding. I ought to know because he was my next-door neighbor during many summers on the shore of Lower Saranac Lake.
I don't pretend ro understand the Theory of Relativity. I see no need to understand it.
What the world needs is a mind like Einstein's who can bring Peace to the World on an interpersonal basis and international basis.
3
He changed everything for those of us who care.
Human beings are endowed with a small capacity of abstract thought, and Einstein pushed it to its limits. His job wasn't to change the world, just to show it in its true light.
Sorry, but relativity doesn't give free energy or light travel (if anything, it prohibits the latter). Physics can only shed some light on the nature of the universe. If you're trying to free us from human idiocy, you can take a pretty positive step by teaching physics and disabusing everyone from the silliness of religion.
Human beings are endowed with a small capacity of abstract thought, and Einstein pushed it to its limits. His job wasn't to change the world, just to show it in its true light.
Sorry, but relativity doesn't give free energy or light travel (if anything, it prohibits the latter). Physics can only shed some light on the nature of the universe. If you're trying to free us from human idiocy, you can take a pretty positive step by teaching physics and disabusing everyone from the silliness of religion.
22
GPS would not work accurately without relativity calculations.
Gravity meters have been used to help discover oil, which fuels cars, that a lot of, but not all, people use and even enjoy.
Sunshine is a form of free energy, and the curved spacetime around the sun keeps the world in the goldilocks zone for our brief time in the sun. Was it better back during prehistoric time for our species without this knowledge? Perhaps. Can't speak for others but relativity science is interesting, it took some thought to figure out how things work as it's not obvious to the vast majority. We all end up like Einstein eventually, in some black hole of the unknown. At the speed of light time stops, that's what the Buddha sought, enlightenment from gravity's attraction.
Gravity meters have been used to help discover oil, which fuels cars, that a lot of, but not all, people use and even enjoy.
Sunshine is a form of free energy, and the curved spacetime around the sun keeps the world in the goldilocks zone for our brief time in the sun. Was it better back during prehistoric time for our species without this knowledge? Perhaps. Can't speak for others but relativity science is interesting, it took some thought to figure out how things work as it's not obvious to the vast majority. We all end up like Einstein eventually, in some black hole of the unknown. At the speed of light time stops, that's what the Buddha sought, enlightenment from gravity's attraction.
12
More than anything, Einstein was a big fraud.
Did it feel good to write that? I suppose going into a bit of detail about your claim would be too much to ask.
33
So very grateful to you, Dennis Overbye for this wonderful and timely article about the man of first man of the 20th century, Albert Einstein. I am enjoying the many references and cross references and your informed and illuminating writing. The photos and insider scoop on how dedicated Einstein was, I feel like it's Christmas already and I have one of the best presents I could have been given. I'm delighted to be reading your article, thank you so much. Happy holidays to you and yours!
3
Duh...you are writing to a functional illiterate here. May I suggest two things as a follow up to this..
1-Explain in simple English, his ground breaking discoveries...
ie..a) E= MC squared..ie explain it...b) You can capture light electronically.
c) Space is a mesh that planets sit on and make indentations.
Explain it in simple English.
Then list all the things we have now that we can thank Einstein for like TV's, digital cameras, etc..and explain why he is was the reason we have it now..
Thank you...
1-Explain in simple English, his ground breaking discoveries...
ie..a) E= MC squared..ie explain it...b) You can capture light electronically.
c) Space is a mesh that planets sit on and make indentations.
Explain it in simple English.
Then list all the things we have now that we can thank Einstein for like TV's, digital cameras, etc..and explain why he is was the reason we have it now..
Thank you...
9
You can explain all of that in simple language, but you're looking at the wrong Einstein discovery.
Though Einstein never quite got onboard, he was one of the first people to realize that light is made of individual particles and not a continuous wave. This means that light delivers energy in jolts instead of in a weak stream. These jolts can free electrons in the photoelectric effect. Einstein explained this and won his Nobel Prize for it. The free electrons increase the conductivity of silicon, basically opening a circuit. A digital camera basically has a giant mesh of these detectors powering a giant grid of circuits that form an image.
Science is rarely a one man show. Obviously, Einstein didn't invent the digital camera, but you can't invent it without knowing that light manifests as packets of energy called photons.
While we're on the subject of quantum mechanics, we can talk about another Einsteinian concept. Most people have a sense for objects absorbing or emitting energy in the form of light. Think of fire or sunlight hitting asphalt. Einstein discovered in the math for absorption and emission that there was a third form of interaction: that light could can cause an object to emit energy in the form of light that was exactly in tune with the original light. This is called stimulated emission, and it's the basis for how lasers work. Lasers are of course heavily used in industry and medicine.
I have to stop here because I have exactly 3 characters left to type.
Though Einstein never quite got onboard, he was one of the first people to realize that light is made of individual particles and not a continuous wave. This means that light delivers energy in jolts instead of in a weak stream. These jolts can free electrons in the photoelectric effect. Einstein explained this and won his Nobel Prize for it. The free electrons increase the conductivity of silicon, basically opening a circuit. A digital camera basically has a giant mesh of these detectors powering a giant grid of circuits that form an image.
Science is rarely a one man show. Obviously, Einstein didn't invent the digital camera, but you can't invent it without knowing that light manifests as packets of energy called photons.
While we're on the subject of quantum mechanics, we can talk about another Einsteinian concept. Most people have a sense for objects absorbing or emitting energy in the form of light. Think of fire or sunlight hitting asphalt. Einstein discovered in the math for absorption and emission that there was a third form of interaction: that light could can cause an object to emit energy in the form of light that was exactly in tune with the original light. This is called stimulated emission, and it's the basis for how lasers work. Lasers are of course heavily used in industry and medicine.
I have to stop here because I have exactly 3 characters left to type.
15
Thank you for this!
2
Einstein set out to have a unified account of space, time, matter, gravity (Newton) and Maxwell's laws re electricity, magnetism and light. This led him to special relativity and general relativity without producing the desired unified field theory.
1
America was the place to migrate to when brilliant minds sought the freedom and funding to do basic research. It's wonderful that our friends in Europe had the foresight to build the Superconducting Super Collider. It's sad that we cancelled our plan to build an even larger version in the U.S. during the early ninties. Visionary investment in basic research was critical in planting the educational and economic seeds of the most technologically advanced country the world. Our modern competitors have recognized this fact of history and are wisely acting upon it. Meanwhile, we seem to have all but forgotten the roots of our own success. Non defense R&D spending as a share of the economy continues well below historical highs. It seems we would much rather offer billionaires tax breaks for building new stadiums than fund the next Einstein.
25
REALITY:relativity had nothing to do with explaining gravity
Please don't tell me it's God...
6
Recently the Times published article on the same subject that included a fascinating proof of Einstein theories performed million times every day.
While the effect of a massive body like Sun is minuscule, it is large enough to cause major inaccuracy in determining the position of a car using the omnipresent GPS devices.
I was not aware of this till a few years ago. I am not sure that this is generally known. Einstein would have been pleased.
While the effect of a massive body like Sun is minuscule, it is large enough to cause major inaccuracy in determining the position of a car using the omnipresent GPS devices.
I was not aware of this till a few years ago. I am not sure that this is generally known. Einstein would have been pleased.
2
The sun has nothing to do with the GPS effect. General relativity predicts that clocks will run slower in a higher gravitational realm. The case in point is the earth and low-to-mid earth orbit. The difference in the gravitational field on the earth's surface (where most GPS devices are used) and in earth orbit (where the GPS satellites are) is sufficient to desynchronize the clocks between the devices and the satellites to the degree that accuracy of GPS positioning would be useless.
5
It is worth being noted that Einstein was a modest man. He did not think he lived up to his own reputation as he once famously said, “I am no Einstein.”
8
I recall my chemistry teacher in Hi School a few years after the A Bomb drop on Japan, telling us that only about 10 people understood the Theory of Relativity, this was bout 1950.
We were just down the street fro Cal, where Lawrence and others were teaching. The Special Theory of Relativity made sense to me after I read it, I wanted to be a physicist, but the higher math required was beyond my abilities. However i worked in the electrical and electronic fields all my life as it was a close to being a physicist as I could get.
We were just down the street fro Cal, where Lawrence and others were teaching. The Special Theory of Relativity made sense to me after I read it, I wanted to be a physicist, but the higher math required was beyond my abilities. However i worked in the electrical and electronic fields all my life as it was a close to being a physicist as I could get.
6
This is a wonderful explanation of Einstein's work. Thank you.
5
At the same time, we have a large proportion of politicians and the public that eschew science, denigrate science or would rather fall back on belief rather than facts (most of whom don't understand science). Part of the fault is with the communication capabilities of scientists. In full disclosure, I am a retired scientist.
10
By "science" you are evidently referring to a single area of science, climate science, in which yes the science is pretty clear that the earth will warm by about 1 degree by 2100. That's not what the climate alarmists want you to think the science says. The alarmists posit "feedback loops" that will intensify the warming to a more problematic 4 or 5 degrees. However, if someone tries to sell you that the feedback loops are science, you can confidently rebut them. There might be feedback loops, but they are just as likely to muffle the impact of that 1 degree increase as they are to intensify it, as far as any scientists know at this point.
Anyone who points out this information -- which resides in the IPCC reports among many other public places but is not generally spotlighted -- is called a "science denier." But that's pure politics. The skeptics and lukewarmers honor science fully and will join the left in honoring Albert Einstein, a dedicated searcher for the truth.
Anyone who points out this information -- which resides in the IPCC reports among many other public places but is not generally spotlighted -- is called a "science denier." But that's pure politics. The skeptics and lukewarmers honor science fully and will join the left in honoring Albert Einstein, a dedicated searcher for the truth.
1
Climate denialists ain't all God's dangers. There's the HIV deniers and the evolution deniers too.
3
I remember Bill Foster (former U.S representative D-IL) said that he had to stand up and explain to Congress that a bill to fund research in game theory wasn't about allowing scientists to play and have fun.
You can also throw evolution and vaccines into the category of "science" as described. Google doodle today was about the 41st anniversary of the discovery of Lucy, and boy, did it make the crazies come out of the woodwork.
You can also throw evolution and vaccines into the category of "science" as described. Google doodle today was about the 41st anniversary of the discovery of Lucy, and boy, did it make the crazies come out of the woodwork.
1
Einstein's theories of special and general relativity did not initially have wide acceptance. That was why Einstein did not receive Nobel Prizes for either theory.
They were too radical for the Nobel committee.
Instead Einstein was awarded the Nobel for the photoelectric effect.
Light striking a surface will cause electrons to be emitted if the light is above a certain frequency which depends on the surface.
The orbit of the planet Mercury is observed to be a precessing ellipse.
The effect of the other planets and the departure of the sun from being a perfect sphere can cause precession. When all these effects were taken into account there was still an unexplained precession of 43 seconds of arc per century that was accounted for by Einstein's general relativity.
What happened to the people who did not accept relativity.
They died off.
They were too radical for the Nobel committee.
Instead Einstein was awarded the Nobel for the photoelectric effect.
Light striking a surface will cause electrons to be emitted if the light is above a certain frequency which depends on the surface.
The orbit of the planet Mercury is observed to be a precessing ellipse.
The effect of the other planets and the departure of the sun from being a perfect sphere can cause precession. When all these effects were taken into account there was still an unexplained precession of 43 seconds of arc per century that was accounted for by Einstein's general relativity.
What happened to the people who did not accept relativity.
They died off.
3
The reason Einstein received the prize for the photoelectric effect and not for Relativity or the Brownian motion, was due to Nobel's instruction that the prize should be given for innovations that would benefit humanity, not because Relativity was not widely accepted, which it was.
4
If you read the comments today, at least two of those deniers are still alive.
3
I refer readers to the discussion in Abraham Pais' book, "Subtle is the Lord", for a discussion as to why Einstein got the Prize for the photoelectric effect and not relativity.
At the time Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize there were many who did not accept relativity.
As late as 1951 a physicist named Miller claimed his experiments contradicted the results of Michaelson and Morley's experiment. When Einstein was told of these results, Einstein replied "Subtle is the Lord but malicious He is not"
At the time Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize there were many who did not accept relativity.
As late as 1951 a physicist named Miller claimed his experiments contradicted the results of Michaelson and Morley's experiment. When Einstein was told of these results, Einstein replied "Subtle is the Lord but malicious He is not"
1
Never the scientists or mathematician, I nonetheless read Walter Isaacson's biography of Einstein as well as this and other similar articles. I still have no idea what the heck it is Einstein was talking about, but in the process of trying to understand I came to appreciate the melding of math, science,and pure thought on the one hand, with dreams, vision, spirituality and imagination on the other. In the end, understanding Einstein's calculations and methodology is less important than sitting back, looking at the sky at night, and appreciating that he defined the undefinable...our universe. Has any quote been more pertinent in this time of struggle between religion and science over climate change than Einstein's aphorism, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
10
I very much doubt thath he said anything like the aphorism here quoted.
1
James, you need to read about Einstein's life. That is a direct quote from Einstein. See the biographies by Isaacson or Pais.
3
Einstein definitely did not believe in a personal God, his reference God was to help explain without any creator nonsense.
2
According to the beer commercial, the average guy sits in his chair at office or at home, and daydreams about fast cars, girls in bikinis and drinking beer.
And then we have Einstein who also sat down in a chair in his office, and thinks about falling in empty space and realizing he does not feel gravity.
And then we have Einstein who also sat down in a chair in his office, and thinks about falling in empty space and realizing he does not feel gravity.
4
And he does a good portion of the thinking while holding down a second job as a patent examiner.
4
Isaac Newton no more discovered gravity than I did a few years ago, falling off of a ladder. But, if he really did, I would like to travel back in time and give Sir Isaac a swift kick in the pants.
2
Newton didn't discover gravity. He discovered the universal law of gravitation. He found that the force is proportional to the two masses involved, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
F = G m1*m2 / r^2
F is the force, G the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 two the masses of two bodies, and r is the distance between the two bodies. _This_ is what he discovered, that the same law (this law) that makes objects fall to the ground and such is the same law that governs the motions of the moon and other heavenly bodies. With this law he was able to explain the motions of all the planets in the Solar System.
F = G m1*m2 / r^2
F is the force, G the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 two the masses of two bodies, and r is the distance between the two bodies. _This_ is what he discovered, that the same law (this law) that makes objects fall to the ground and such is the same law that governs the motions of the moon and other heavenly bodies. With this law he was able to explain the motions of all the planets in the Solar System.
6
This is a very well-written article. When I was a graduate student, I calculated the perihelion procession using Schwartzschild's solution of the field equations for a point source as a basis. (For most stars, including the Sun, the Schwartzschild radius has no relevance, since it lies with the star's periphery) I am puzzled as to how Einstein was able to obtain the correct value of 43 seconds of arc/century prior to his knowledge of the Schartzschild solution, as indicated in the article. If so, he was even smarter than I had thought.
3
He didn't need an exact, or closed form solution for the metric. In his papers he said he used "the method of successive approximation"--an iterative method--to obtain the value.
3
Thank you!
2
Except it didn't change everything. We're still fighting and killing each other over which ancient sky-dad is the best. And those of us who have even a vague understanding of physics, are left to be mocked by those who have no idea how much they don't know.
6
Maybe if those people sat down and actually learned some physics and marveled at how small we are in the universe, they'd stop trying to kill each other. Physics isn't about being better than someone else. It's about the search for truth. And maybe, for those lucky enough, the journey to discovery brings meaning.
4
I have been reading through Einstein's own explanation of Special and General relativity to the general public (2015) and discussing it with my daughters. He does not mention the Case Western experiment but discusses Fizeau's experiment instead. Lorentz' equation also figures prominently in the special relativity part of his theory, and Gauss' in the general relativity. He basically looked at what previous physicists and mathematicians had done and saw the pattern that had been missed by everybody else.
2
This is how science operates. No pun intended, but new scientific thought does not happen in a vacuum. To varying degree, every major new scientific discovery is built upon previous discoveries, such as concepts, mathematical tools, or observed data.
5
This is the way science is supposed to work: a theory that is tested and verifiable over and over again. When the data don't match the theory, the theory must be changed to account for the observational data. Science is not based on consensus either but verifiable and repeatable experiments.
Contrast this with man-made global warming. The theory is so full of holes and does not jibe with observational data. Then there is the cherry picking of data going back to 1905 when it is clear that the earth undergo climate change all of its own. Why do you think dinosaurs were so big and lived above the arctic circle? CO2 was 7-10 times present day level allowing plants and trees to grow to enormous size so as to support the dinosaurs.
Politicians, armed with political "science" degrees waded in and now demand that we hand over money (e.g., carbon tax) and give up our rights (to exist) all in the name of the one element (carbon) and compound (CO2) that are fundamental to life on this planet. All they had to quell dissenting voices are name calling ("deniers") and marketing tactics ("98% of scientist support global warming ...") rather than repeatable and verifiable experiments on the so-called "climate models".
Keep your mind open and follow the money when it comes to politically backed "science".
Contrast this with man-made global warming. The theory is so full of holes and does not jibe with observational data. Then there is the cherry picking of data going back to 1905 when it is clear that the earth undergo climate change all of its own. Why do you think dinosaurs were so big and lived above the arctic circle? CO2 was 7-10 times present day level allowing plants and trees to grow to enormous size so as to support the dinosaurs.
Politicians, armed with political "science" degrees waded in and now demand that we hand over money (e.g., carbon tax) and give up our rights (to exist) all in the name of the one element (carbon) and compound (CO2) that are fundamental to life on this planet. All they had to quell dissenting voices are name calling ("deniers") and marketing tactics ("98% of scientist support global warming ...") rather than repeatable and verifiable experiments on the so-called "climate models".
Keep your mind open and follow the money when it comes to politically backed "science".
2
I get the impression you haven't actually read anything about climate change theory except the rants of the deniers.
10
There's a lot more money to follow for the deniers. They don't want to spend any of their money on solutions to the problem, thus the incentive to deny.
Repeatable and verifiable experiments on climate are impossible, as no controls can be done. All that can be done is use past data and current trends to try to fit the future. It works pretty well in short-term weather forecasting, so why deny what most scientists think is going to happen?
Repeatable and verifiable experiments on climate are impossible, as no controls can be done. All that can be done is use past data and current trends to try to fit the future. It works pretty well in short-term weather forecasting, so why deny what most scientists think is going to happen?
7
Or perhaps keep your mind open and follow the huge amounts of money invested in fossil fuels if you want to see the real distortion of the scientific enterprise by an invested interest group.
By the way, nice basket of cherries you have there.
By the way, nice basket of cherries you have there.
12
Spacetime. string theory, wormholes! I wish time travel could be a reality this century! Would love to go back and shake his hand!
2
Einstein-based proof of reincarnation
During my father’s lifetime billions of sperm cells were created in his body but only one of them, a very precious one, created me. The odd that this unique single cell will beat the competition was therefore so small to be almost non-existent.
Going back to my father and mother, the odds for their own creation were similarly minute, which made my own creation even more impossibly small. Now go back to my grandfathers and grandmothers and all their ancestors, all the way to the creation of life …
But since I (and you) actually exist, the odds may have been infinitesimal, but obviously not zero!
When odds are not zero, no matter how small, statistics teaches us that given enough time, this event will definitely happen again!
We now know with absolute certainty (check with Einstein) that time will be with us forever. Space-time may slows and bends, disappear into a black hole and emerge on the other side, and even end collapsing into nothing with infinite density. But then with a big bang will be born all over again.
As time will be around forever any event that ever happened will therefore happen again!
This absolute fact gives me endless peace of mind: I am now confident that even if I’ll need to wait for awhile, I’ll definitely re-exist, even if in another galaxy, or a different universe altogether!
Note: If the reader has any issue with my logic please make a note of it. We can discuss it privately in the next life …
During my father’s lifetime billions of sperm cells were created in his body but only one of them, a very precious one, created me. The odd that this unique single cell will beat the competition was therefore so small to be almost non-existent.
Going back to my father and mother, the odds for their own creation were similarly minute, which made my own creation even more impossibly small. Now go back to my grandfathers and grandmothers and all their ancestors, all the way to the creation of life …
But since I (and you) actually exist, the odds may have been infinitesimal, but obviously not zero!
When odds are not zero, no matter how small, statistics teaches us that given enough time, this event will definitely happen again!
We now know with absolute certainty (check with Einstein) that time will be with us forever. Space-time may slows and bends, disappear into a black hole and emerge on the other side, and even end collapsing into nothing with infinite density. But then with a big bang will be born all over again.
As time will be around forever any event that ever happened will therefore happen again!
This absolute fact gives me endless peace of mind: I am now confident that even if I’ll need to wait for awhile, I’ll definitely re-exist, even if in another galaxy, or a different universe altogether!
Note: If the reader has any issue with my logic please make a note of it. We can discuss it privately in the next life …
4
You're referring to the Poincaré recurrence theorem.
The question is more philosophical, however. To the extent an exact replica of you and the world around you happens again in the future, or for that matter has happened in the past, do any of these replicas contain the 'you' that you experience now? Are they connected in any way other than via a similar distribution of matter and space?
The question is more philosophical, however. To the extent an exact replica of you and the world around you happens again in the future, or for that matter has happened in the past, do any of these replicas contain the 'you' that you experience now? Are they connected in any way other than via a similar distribution of matter and space?
2
Hinduism is fascinating, especially now given the present day many-worlds and infinite multiverse hypotheses being bandied about to explain a quantum universe.
As you hint at, this may pose a problem for cosmologists, as if infinity is true, and many math equations even the number Pi return infinity or infinitely repeating fractions that don't ever round off, that means there was an infinite amount of time to evolve infinitely more advanced levels of consciousness beyond our own. We may not be the smartest guys in the room.... of the infinite multiverse.
Oh well.
As you hint at, this may pose a problem for cosmologists, as if infinity is true, and many math equations even the number Pi return infinity or infinitely repeating fractions that don't ever round off, that means there was an infinite amount of time to evolve infinitely more advanced levels of consciousness beyond our own. We may not be the smartest guys in the room.... of the infinite multiverse.
Oh well.
I would love to run into you somewhere between Palo Alto and Portland!
It was said that Mr. Einstein was attracted to, and married his cousin because she well endowed. He referred to it as his Theory of Relativetitty.
1
I see that some us have started celebrating Thanks Giving.
1
@Desert Dweller,
I'm embarrassed to admit that I nearly swallowed my uvula laughing. Thanks for that.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I nearly swallowed my uvula laughing. Thanks for that.
1
It has been said that we are probably 3 or 4 Einsteins away from arriving at a Unified Field Theory of Everything.
Given the fact Special and General Relativity Theory are accurate predictors of space/time relative to Global Positioning Systems, and along with the concept of Energy Mass Equivalence, that Einstein neither is or was, like other brilliant scientist's, but rather head and shoulders above most.
To suggest that Einstein's work will be "eclipsed," or that he "scoot over," perhaps misses the central point of his singular genius. Namely that we would not know how far to "scoot over," in space/time, in order for that "eclipse" to occur without the extraordinary insights of Einstein's brain.
Given the fact Special and General Relativity Theory are accurate predictors of space/time relative to Global Positioning Systems, and along with the concept of Energy Mass Equivalence, that Einstein neither is or was, like other brilliant scientist's, but rather head and shoulders above most.
To suggest that Einstein's work will be "eclipsed," or that he "scoot over," perhaps misses the central point of his singular genius. Namely that we would not know how far to "scoot over," in space/time, in order for that "eclipse" to occur without the extraordinary insights of Einstein's brain.
7
Fun with metaphors! This one: "As compact and mysterious as a Viking rune, it describes space-time as a kind of sagging mattress where matter and energy, like a heavy sleeper, distort the geometry of the cosmos to produce the effect we call gravity...." brought to mind this George Castanza classic: "The sea was angry that day my friends, like an old man trying to send soup back at the deli!"
Whether in good or bad, remains to be determined.
The effect of gravity on mass and the effect of acceleration on mass are equivalent, but to me they seem like two situations. I have never been able to understand what a graviton is either. I know relativity and quantum are supposed to be contradictory. And string theory is an attempt to reconcile them.
2
Good to see that someone appreciates that science is confusing and interesting.
2
before he was 40 yo, einstein published his 2 papers on relativity, his equation of mass and energy, and explained th Compton effect, for which he won a Nobel prize
in th past century, numerous experiments have been performed on his theories, and never has he been contradicted by them
his genius in physics is only rivaled by another amazing genius, newton
in th past century, numerous experiments have been performed on his theories, and never has he been contradicted by them
his genius in physics is only rivaled by another amazing genius, newton
1
He won the Nobel for the photoelectric effect, not the Compton effect.
1
Einstein said:
There is no difference between the past and the future in the 4-dimensional space-time-world. The present is only an illusion.
And then last year Hubble showed us a super nova that formed in a very remote galaxy billions of years ago and whose light reached us in 1964, 1995, 2014 and again ten years from now showing us the same explosion again and again. Amazing in the real meaning of the word.
Now, imagine Aliens who might happen to live in the suburb of that super nova and could see earth’s light reaching them for the first time in the form us and then see us fighting WW1 and then see us again fighting WW2 and wondering if it is just the same war whose image is delayed by gravity and then seeing us again fighting hundreds of wars and killing each other in many different ways and then wondering: Is this gravity or are they just plain stupid?
There is no difference between the past and the future in the 4-dimensional space-time-world. The present is only an illusion.
And then last year Hubble showed us a super nova that formed in a very remote galaxy billions of years ago and whose light reached us in 1964, 1995, 2014 and again ten years from now showing us the same explosion again and again. Amazing in the real meaning of the word.
Now, imagine Aliens who might happen to live in the suburb of that super nova and could see earth’s light reaching them for the first time in the form us and then see us fighting WW1 and then see us again fighting WW2 and wondering if it is just the same war whose image is delayed by gravity and then seeing us again fighting hundreds of wars and killing each other in many different ways and then wondering: Is this gravity or are they just plain stupid?
13
Erwin Schrodinger's Quantum Mechanics has had far more impact on modern life and technology than Einstein, and as a theory is equally as astounding. Schrodinger didn't have the right press agent I guess.
1
There would be no QM if not for Einstein. Einstein convinced physicists that atoms were real, and he "invented" the idea of the photon as a quantized packet of energy. Without those, Schrodinger's got nothing.
4
Also, Schroedinger was a notorious womanizer. He was asked to leave his position at Oxford because at the time, he was living with two women, neither of whom were married to him.
Yes, Physics is fantastic. The Universe, however, can only be Known through Metaphysics. The problem with Metaphysics, is that the proof is in the Pudding; and not many have yet developed the Mystical Appetite.
1
We're not trying to "know" the universe. Just to probe and understand as much as we can. We're just simple meatbags with some small capacity for abstract thought (that is mostly wasted). "Knowing" is clearly beyond our reach.
3
Einstein proved that pre-WW I Germany fostered greater scientific genius than the "safe spaces" that are created by the politically correct universities in the US.
That is why very few Americans can understand the importance of Einstein's theory, or physics for that matter. The educational elites have diminished mathematics and science so badly that students hide from those disciplines, and it is considered "anti-women" or "anti-minority" to require someone to learn the facts and concepts that form the natural sciences.
It is sad that Obama promised to "elevate science to its rightful place," when none of the current democratic leaders could even understand the basic of Einstein's theory.
Even worse is how Einstein's university, Princeton, thinks that protests against Woodrow Wilson are a more appropriate use of time than studying.
The lesson is that genius requires diligence and work, and usually results from conflict and discord, and not from being coddled in a safe place.
"in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
-Harry Lime, "The Third Man"
That is why very few Americans can understand the importance of Einstein's theory, or physics for that matter. The educational elites have diminished mathematics and science so badly that students hide from those disciplines, and it is considered "anti-women" or "anti-minority" to require someone to learn the facts and concepts that form the natural sciences.
It is sad that Obama promised to "elevate science to its rightful place," when none of the current democratic leaders could even understand the basic of Einstein's theory.
Even worse is how Einstein's university, Princeton, thinks that protests against Woodrow Wilson are a more appropriate use of time than studying.
The lesson is that genius requires diligence and work, and usually results from conflict and discord, and not from being coddled in a safe place.
"in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
-Harry Lime, "The Third Man"
Oh yeah. Let's politicize science a bit more.
Like our politicians do not believe in something obvious like evolution or climate change.
Science marches on, and there will be more great ideas and marvelous insights down the road. Obama has no effect on this. And to suggest his policies have any predictable effect on the future is really, really ... dare I say it? Idiotic.
Like our politicians do not believe in something obvious like evolution or climate change.
Science marches on, and there will be more great ideas and marvelous insights down the road. Obama has no effect on this. And to suggest his policies have any predictable effect on the future is really, really ... dare I say it? Idiotic.
2
One tiny nit: The author states, "...Arthur Eddington ... ascertained that lights in the heavens were all askew during an eclipse, bent by the sun’s dark gravity." Stated this way, the reader may think that the lights in the heavens are all "askew" ONLY during an eclipse--as if the eclipse is the cause--when in fact the lights in the heavens are ALWAYS askew, compared to what traditional celestial mechanics would predict. The situation is rather more like the case of the drunk who looks for his keys under the streetlamp because that is the only place where there is enough light to conduct a search: During an eclipse is the only time it is dark enough to see the stars that are visually next to the sun, where the tiny shift in their predicted location due to their light passing close to the sun can be measured.
8
E=E
Essence of existence equals Existence
Essence of existence equals Existence
Huh?
Thanks so much for this most inspiring story of Einstein's discovery. Most of us cannot hope to understand or appreciate relativity. But I think we all have our own theories about what makes life work.
For a number of years I have been speculating about what makes education work and what makes it fail. I don't know if I will ever come ip with a great theory, but I am inspired to keep trying to come up with something useful for students...
For a number of years I have been speculating about what makes education work and what makes it fail. I don't know if I will ever come ip with a great theory, but I am inspired to keep trying to come up with something useful for students...
4
The best account of special and general relativity for the layman is given in the book, Einstein's Theory of Relativity by Max Born.
Born was a Nobel prize winner who interpreted the square of the absolute value of the quantum mechanical wave function as a probability density.
Born uses no more than high school algebra and does NOT engage in meaningless terms that many lay people use but do not understand.
Available as a Dover paperback.
You will NOT learn a lot of phony terms you can impress other phonies with but you will gain an understanding of the basic concepts of both special and general relativity.
Born was a Nobel prize winner who interpreted the square of the absolute value of the quantum mechanical wave function as a probability density.
Born uses no more than high school algebra and does NOT engage in meaningless terms that many lay people use but do not understand.
Available as a Dover paperback.
You will NOT learn a lot of phony terms you can impress other phonies with but you will gain an understanding of the basic concepts of both special and general relativity.
4
Just a couple of tidbits to toss in alongside all the other interesting comment and discussion. My wife's father was a Swiss and had great admiration for Einstein. In the 60's he picked up a Karsh Einstein that now graces the wall above our computer workstation. If you haven't seen this iconic portrait, google and take a look. The Michelson-Morley experiment referenced in a few comments took place on the campus of my alma mater, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
5
wo MM, einstein might not have thought of relativity
btw, Michelson disbelieved Einstein theory of relativity to his death
he never gave up th thought that he performed his experiment incorrectly
btw, Michelson disbelieved Einstein theory of relativity to his death
he never gave up th thought that he performed his experiment incorrectly
Isn't it amazing that the General Theory of Relativity not only helps us understand the structure and evolution of the Universe but also helps us compute our exact location on this planet through GPS. It has survived all challenges thrown at it though most physicists think that there must be some chinks in its armor as it cannot be unified with Quantum Field Theory. Still more stringent tests involving unimaginably distant pulsars are in the pipeline. Even if it is modified in the near or distant future, General Relativity will always be considered as possibly the grandest achievement of the human mind.
5
"General Relativity will always be considered as possibly the grandest achievement of the human mind." along with shakespeare...
2
"on Nov. 25, 1915, he set down the equation that rules the universe"
General relativity is quite important, particularly for physics involving very large length scales. However, one does not want to oversell it. The equation that "rules" modern physics is the Schrodinger equation, which is the cornerstone of quantum physics.
General relativity is quite important, particularly for physics involving very large length scales. However, one does not want to oversell it. The equation that "rules" modern physics is the Schrodinger equation, which is the cornerstone of quantum physics.
3
Which explains why Paul Krugman used a photo with a cat into the President's situation room when Obama et al were watching to see if Bin Laden had been killed in the raid. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/23/terror-politics/?_r=0
The cat lived and Bin Laden died; and of course according to Schrodinger it could have easily gone the other way.
The cat lived and Bin Laden died; and of course according to Schrodinger it could have easily gone the other way.
No, the Schrödinger equation violates Lorentz invariance and thus only applies to non-(special)relativistic systems. While historically important - it laid the groundwork for quantum theory - the Schrödinger equation is fairly dated, and falls apart for high energies and velocities. The closest thing to a fully relativistic Schrödinger equation is the Klein-Gordon equation for spinless particles, or the Dirac equation for fermions. The standard model / quantum field theory (a theory that brought about the unification of special relativity and quantum mechanics) is the most correct description of nature (neglecting gravity) that we have. And the cornerstone of the standard model is the SM Lagrangian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model_(mathematical_formulation)#....
Whereas the Schrödinger equation falls short for most modern experiments in particle physics, the field equations of GR are in remarkable agreement with experiment and have been tested under many conditions. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that GR is the biggest scientific accomplishment of modern times. It's a beautiful subject, really. Absolutely brilliant.
Whereas the Schrödinger equation falls short for most modern experiments in particle physics, the field equations of GR are in remarkable agreement with experiment and have been tested under many conditions. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that GR is the biggest scientific accomplishment of modern times. It's a beautiful subject, really. Absolutely brilliant.
2
The Schrodinger equation is incorrect because it's not relativistic. You at least need the Dirac formulation.
Frankly, the Feynman-Hamilton approach is probably how most physicists at that level deal with it.
Heisenberg matrices probably work, too, but that guy was too smart for everyone, which is why wave mechanics, as opposed to matrix mechanics, caught on.
Frankly, the Feynman-Hamilton approach is probably how most physicists at that level deal with it.
Heisenberg matrices probably work, too, but that guy was too smart for everyone, which is why wave mechanics, as opposed to matrix mechanics, caught on.
Eddington and Einstein did great science, General Relativity is provable unlike dark matter and dark energy which remain only theoretical. Gravity waves and gravitons haven't been discovered yet also, the Bicep II and Planck satellites failed to discover evidence of either.
Didn't Einstein eliminate the idea of gravity as a force though? Gravity is space, or space-time curvature to be more precise? Given this scenario gravitons and gravity waves are unlikely to be found as they possibly don't exist? Gravity's like an unseen etch-a-sketch pen and paper evolving a drawing of the universe as it is at any given time, and is the "ether" through which all things travel including light? Could anything exist or travel without gravity?
If dark energy and dark matter can be universal theories without any experimental proof, any chance the CMB isn't evidence of a big bang but of a big gravity event, like the creation of a universal event horizon? Everything is red shifted in relationship to this event horizon due to everything's relative proximity to the event horizon's strong gravitational field, and not necessarily its speed relative to us observers far far away from the horizon? Could an observer really tell if the event horizon was expanding at an increasing rate relative to them, or if they were all shrinking in size relative to that horizon during a gravitational collapse that occurs at the speed of light? Einstein was all about equivalence of phenomena for observers?
Didn't Einstein eliminate the idea of gravity as a force though? Gravity is space, or space-time curvature to be more precise? Given this scenario gravitons and gravity waves are unlikely to be found as they possibly don't exist? Gravity's like an unseen etch-a-sketch pen and paper evolving a drawing of the universe as it is at any given time, and is the "ether" through which all things travel including light? Could anything exist or travel without gravity?
If dark energy and dark matter can be universal theories without any experimental proof, any chance the CMB isn't evidence of a big bang but of a big gravity event, like the creation of a universal event horizon? Everything is red shifted in relationship to this event horizon due to everything's relative proximity to the event horizon's strong gravitational field, and not necessarily its speed relative to us observers far far away from the horizon? Could an observer really tell if the event horizon was expanding at an increasing rate relative to them, or if they were all shrinking in size relative to that horizon during a gravitational collapse that occurs at the speed of light? Einstein was all about equivalence of phenomena for observers?
The theory of relativity got me hooked on reading physics for fun and to expand my mind. Following Relativity I then discovered Quantum physics and mechanics, string theory and more.
However, if there is ONE thing I got from Einstein and that I have used in the hundreds of conferences that I've given all over the world on strategic planning, it is the power of imagination.
Einstein did not begin to crunch numbers with a Cray or an IBM Blue. He began by thinking about something, imagining it, seeing it come to life.
And that's precisely my message in those conferences. It all begins with imagining something, turning it around, visualizing its reality.
However, if there is ONE thing I got from Einstein and that I have used in the hundreds of conferences that I've given all over the world on strategic planning, it is the power of imagination.
Einstein did not begin to crunch numbers with a Cray or an IBM Blue. He began by thinking about something, imagining it, seeing it come to life.
And that's precisely my message in those conferences. It all begins with imagining something, turning it around, visualizing its reality.
10
Given the controversy with the Google doodle depicting Lucy, I'm surprised the creationists aren't about complaining that Albert Einstein was an atheist nutcase and the theory of relativity is just a "theory."
2
from th bulk of his writings we can conclude einstein was an atheist, his references to god notwithstanding
2
Gee. I don't know. I'm not a scientist, just a Swiss patent clerk.
4
As a PhD Student in physics studying solving Einstein's equations on supercomputers, thank you Einstein.
I remember learning General Relativity as a student and staring at the equations on my whiteboard one evening and just being in awe of the brilliance of this one mind. Einstein explained the universe using only pen and paper and opened up a door to worlds he (and the rest of us mortals) never even imagined.
I remember learning General Relativity as a student and staring at the equations on my whiteboard one evening and just being in awe of the brilliance of this one mind. Einstein explained the universe using only pen and paper and opened up a door to worlds he (and the rest of us mortals) never even imagined.
57
Agreed. Special/General Relativity was the main reason I did my graduate work in theory rather than experimental physics. Sadly, people who do work at Einstein's level are few and far between. I knew pretty early on I was not one of the chosen. Still, it was a great privilege to study physics at this level, and have since found very satisfying work in other areas.
Gotta love the man!
Gotta love the man!
13
"most cosmologists agree today that not quite all motion is relative"
Like what?
Like what?
2
Motion is constant, no matter what?
Some used to say that a Higgs field would constitute an 'ether like' fixed background against which absolute motion would then exist. I don't know what happened to that challenge. Maybe another commenter could explain.
1
One can speak of motion relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation, for example. Once the expansion of the universe is accounted for, we can establish an expanding coordinate grid on which the galaxies are stationary (they are still moving apart as the grid itself is being stretched). This establishes a sort of preferred cosmological rest frame, which moves with the overall expansion of the universe. Thus when one looks at the (essentially otherwise uniform) cosmic microwave background, i.e. the photons left over from the big bang, there is a clear dipole pattern which results from the fact that the solar system is not in fact at rest relative to this frame but rather orbiting around the milky way.
In fact, in the 1950's Dennis Sciama figured out that one can account for "inertia" by thinking about the gravitational force that results from motion relative to the cosmological rest frame. But all this essentially follows from the general theory of relativity nonetheless.
In fact, in the 1950's Dennis Sciama figured out that one can account for "inertia" by thinking about the gravitational force that results from motion relative to the cosmological rest frame. But all this essentially follows from the general theory of relativity nonetheless.
Question from a non-scientist. The graphic showing the effect of planetary gravity on light shows the planet repulsing the light. But wouldn't the gravity of the planet pull the light closer?
The illustration (0:23 in the video) is a bit deceptive; the arriving light beams are angled toward you, not toward the star, and they depart angled away from you.
The beauty of Einstein was that in addition to his intellectual brilliance, there was a sense of humility coupled with the ability to laugh at himself. He realized that he did not always have the right answers, yet was willing to go back after failure to seek them out. A good lesson to all of us, but especially politicians, who know far less, yet always seem to believe they are right.
52
I remember the course in General Relativity I took as a graduate student in physics; perhaps the most beautiful subject I ever studied. Its simple premise--the laws of physics should be the same for all observers--is powerful testimony to the elegance of physics and all that derives from it.
However, this came back to bite me one night when my son was about ten. We had just read a layman's book on the Special and General Theories of relativity, which my son could not get enough of. He called me into his room late one evening and asked why the earth precesses to cause the slow change in the equinoxes. I responded that, like a spinning top in a gravitational field, the earth does the same in the sun's gravitational field.
He responded by asking if an orbiting body was in free fall. I said yes, to which he responded, 'Well, according to the General Theory of Relativity, a free fall is the same as being in zero gravity, right?'
'Yes'
'So your explanation cannot be correct.'
After about ten minutes of handwaving, which he would have none of, I realised that my understanding of the precession of the equinoxes was wrong. I learned two things from this discussion:
1. The real reason why the earth precesses, and;
2. The fundamental premise of relativity is so simple even a motivated ten-year-old can understand it.
Now that's beautiful!
However, this came back to bite me one night when my son was about ten. We had just read a layman's book on the Special and General Theories of relativity, which my son could not get enough of. He called me into his room late one evening and asked why the earth precesses to cause the slow change in the equinoxes. I responded that, like a spinning top in a gravitational field, the earth does the same in the sun's gravitational field.
He responded by asking if an orbiting body was in free fall. I said yes, to which he responded, 'Well, according to the General Theory of Relativity, a free fall is the same as being in zero gravity, right?'
'Yes'
'So your explanation cannot be correct.'
After about ten minutes of handwaving, which he would have none of, I realised that my understanding of the precession of the equinoxes was wrong. I learned two things from this discussion:
1. The real reason why the earth precesses, and;
2. The fundamental premise of relativity is so simple even a motivated ten-year-old can understand it.
Now that's beautiful!
32
Only a very smart ten year old who is the son of a physicist, and who had "just read a layman's book on the Special and General Theories of relativity, which my [he] could not get enough of," could grasp the "fundamental [simple] premise of relativity .
3
Well, a kid's mind has an innate elegance and is less clouded by prejudice. This is why we older folk need younger folk, and we need to keep testing our perceptions against one another. Great story. Smart kid!
Why does the Earth wobble anyway? I always figured, "because it does."
Why does the Earth wobble anyway? I always figured, "because it does."
4
@Whome: He spent most of his childhood thinking about physics and technology. He's now a junior in college, majoring in physics and computer science. He just seems to have been hardwired this way, as was I.
Physics is more a calling than a profession.
Physics is more a calling than a profession.
4
The Times headline that wasn't --
"Jewish Pisces Kid Figures Out Entire Universe"
"Jewish Pisces Kid Figures Out Entire Universe"
2
As we reach the century mark, Einstein and the theory of relativity is facing its biggest threat from quantum mechanics. We've already proven Einstein was wrong about a theory of quantum mechanics, what he called "spooky action" and "locality".
Einstein derided the idea that separate particles could be “entangled” so completely that measuring one particle would instantaneously influence the other, regardless of the distance separating them. Now we have strong evidence that suggests that particles at opposite ends of the universe can instantly interact. Wow!
Einstein was brilliant, but like all brilliant scientists, he stood on the shoulders of brilliant people who came before him and soon he will be eclipsed by another. Perhaps a universe of connected subatomic particles, where matter doesn't take form until observed, and time runs forward and backward. Wow!
Scoot over Einstein! A new epoch in physics is taking form (at least at appears that way when observed).
Einstein derided the idea that separate particles could be “entangled” so completely that measuring one particle would instantaneously influence the other, regardless of the distance separating them. Now we have strong evidence that suggests that particles at opposite ends of the universe can instantly interact. Wow!
Einstein was brilliant, but like all brilliant scientists, he stood on the shoulders of brilliant people who came before him and soon he will be eclipsed by another. Perhaps a universe of connected subatomic particles, where matter doesn't take form until observed, and time runs forward and backward. Wow!
Scoot over Einstein! A new epoch in physics is taking form (at least at appears that way when observed).
1
th new epic is as muddled as mud
einstein rings clear
einstein rings clear
1
GR isn't facing a "threat" from QM. It's perfectly usable and verified over a vast range of measurements(as is Newton's theory of gravitation, for that matter). It will have to be modified and/or extended to resolve conflicts on the quantum scale is all.
8
"Entanglement" means that two quanta originating in the same transition will later exhibit mirror-opposite precessions under parallel applied magnetic fields no matter the direction of the magnetic field lines. The puzzle is why this is true independently of the direction of the magnetic field lines.
1
Einstein was a pacifist. In the middle of WW1 he uses his fame and scientist contacts to try to convince the warring nations to put down their weapon. In WW2, he convinced FDR to develop the nukes because he know how bad it would be if Nazism got the bomb first.
Today, a century after his greatest discovery, the nation he entrusted with keeping the bomb safe just shoot down a Russian jet flying in friendly airspace patrolling against terrorism.
If Einstein is alive today I wonder which nation he would entrust his bomb or would he have advocated it existence in the first place.
Today, a century after his greatest discovery, the nation he entrusted with keeping the bomb safe just shoot down a Russian jet flying in friendly airspace patrolling against terrorism.
If Einstein is alive today I wonder which nation he would entrust his bomb or would he have advocated it existence in the first place.
1
I had no idea that Einstein entrusted Turkey with the bomb. Is that from a Texas schoolbook?
6
That's right, Einstein was a pacifist and he chose to turn down an offer to be the first leader of Israel and rather stay in Princeton after WWII. He was quite politically opinionated during his days in the USA. He's a heroic figure beside being a physics visionary. I'd guess he'd be against the global militarism that his adopted country embraces today, seeing he fled militarism in Germany in the first place, just to be consistent in his pacifist values.
although I blame Einstein, along iwth Feynman, into tempting me to pursue a PhD in physics, what good is knowing that light is bent around a black hole when I dont know how to operate my iPhone as well as my 8 year old son?! - but i frequently try to impress my son on the importance of believing in yourself as when, challenged by '100 Authors against Einstein' the man reportedly replied " If I am wrong, ONE would have been enough"
24
We are in an age of big science, where the discovery of the Higgs boson involved thousands of scientists and billions of dollars of equipment. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, the product of one man's brain, has to be the greatest mental tour de force of all time.
71
The discovery took place in the cultural zeitgeist that Einstein found himself in. The General Theory used non-Euclidean Riemannian geometry using the language of tensors-tensor fields, the Lorentzian manifold, and ... The point is that Einstein built his theory from the available mathematical tool box.
The theory was a cultural achievement.
The theory was a cultural achievement.
2
Slightly disagree with this post. The original paper by Higgs was certainly a mental tour de force, it was the experimental proof that consumed billions of dollars. Proof of the general relativity theory has also taken some effort and expense.
1
One key thing to remember is that Einstein (and Higgs) was a theorist. A single brilliant idea is possible with just a paper and pencil. Proving the theory is often the really expensive part of the process.
Excellent story, Mr. Overbye. However, you only hinted at what got Einstein to get out of his malaise and finally finish working out the general relativity equations - it was his realization that Hilbert was very close to solving them himself. Once he realized that, it took him only days.
Nothing lights a fire under a scientist like the fear of being scooped.
Nothing lights a fire under a scientist like the fear of being scooped.
November 24, 2015
What goes on above and below is as much about all times as universal nature behavioral truths. Indeed historic Professor Albert Einstein Noble achievements opened the quantum worlds, making life's theory of everything more problematic and interesting all for the best in fitting universals applications awesome, formidable and nice.
jja Manhattan, N,Y,
What goes on above and below is as much about all times as universal nature behavioral truths. Indeed historic Professor Albert Einstein Noble achievements opened the quantum worlds, making life's theory of everything more problematic and interesting all for the best in fitting universals applications awesome, formidable and nice.
jja Manhattan, N,Y,
1
American high school students learn no mathematics or physics that is less than 400 years old. Too bad they don't study something more contemporary, say only 100 years old.
1
You have to walk before you can run
A dear and departed friend of mine was very well-versed and educated in the areas of Physics, Mathematics and Philosophy (in which he owned a PhD) -
He would tell me of a professor he once had who was fond of saying that the true test of a person's understanding of this is if they could explain the Theory of Relativity to you without moving their hands...
And yes -- my friend could do it...and it was fascinating to hear -
He would tell me of a professor he once had who was fond of saying that the true test of a person's understanding of this is if they could explain the Theory of Relativity to you without moving their hands...
And yes -- my friend could do it...and it was fascinating to hear -
2
yes, it has, but somehow the world has remained the same, if not slipped
backwards, or was that part of the theory?
backwards, or was that part of the theory?
In addition to sharing the same propagation velocity, all photons (unitary wave-packets of electromagnetic radiation) also contain exactly the same apparent total quantity of energy, differing only in how fast they deliver that energy to a point in an arbitrary reference frame. A one gigahertz photon will deliver that quantity of energy one billion times faster than a one hertz photon to any observer in any reference frame.
Einstein's Nobel prize was awarded for establishing that light is packetized into photons, not for his work in relativity.
Einstein's Nobel prize was awarded for establishing that light is packetized into photons, not for his work in relativity.
6
Steve Bolger writes: ". . . all photons (unitary wave-packets of electromagnetic radiation) also contain exactly the same apparent total quantity of energy . . ."
Not true. The energy in a photon is proportional to its frequency: E=hf where E is the energy of a photon, h is Planck's constant (an incredibly tiny constant), and f is the frequency.
He also writes: "Einstein's Nobel prize was awarded for establishing that light is packetized into photons, not for his work in relativity."
True, but more specifically for explaining the photoelectric effect.
Not true. The energy in a photon is proportional to its frequency: E=hf where E is the energy of a photon, h is Planck's constant (an incredibly tiny constant), and f is the frequency.
He also writes: "Einstein's Nobel prize was awarded for establishing that light is packetized into photons, not for his work in relativity."
True, but more specifically for explaining the photoelectric effect.
1
By the way Steve -
I think the Times was remiss in not including you in that article featuring you as one of their premiere commenters --
You certainly get my vote and I always look forward to reading your thoughtful, informative and well-written comments -
I think the Times was remiss in not including you in that article featuring you as one of their premiere commenters --
You certainly get my vote and I always look forward to reading your thoughtful, informative and well-written comments -
Who knew?
hν
(Don't know how it actually will "print" when the comment is viewed, so , just for the record, the letter after "h" in the above line is meant to be the lower case Greek letter nu.)
hν
(Don't know how it actually will "print" when the comment is viewed, so , just for the record, the letter after "h" in the above line is meant to be the lower case Greek letter nu.)
The incredible beauty and power that results from simple physical equations that take great skill and effort to mold never ceases to amaze me. Whether it is Maxwell's capstone for E&M equations, Plank's use of quanta, or this example of Einstein and GR (and numerous other instances), the amount of phenomena that can be understood with these equations is staggering.
Nice article, I really like the historical factoids inserted and the accurate representation of science as an imperfect, human process that takes great effort and fortitude, and yet the results change our understanding of the world in extraordinary ways. You see that Einstein didn't have a choice, nature is what it is and we must bend to it (although, of course, as relativity tells us, it bends to us too!).
I am glad to give thanks to all of the physicists, especially Einstein, who's efforts led to this marvelous theory.
Nice article, I really like the historical factoids inserted and the accurate representation of science as an imperfect, human process that takes great effort and fortitude, and yet the results change our understanding of the world in extraordinary ways. You see that Einstein didn't have a choice, nature is what it is and we must bend to it (although, of course, as relativity tells us, it bends to us too!).
I am glad to give thanks to all of the physicists, especially Einstein, who's efforts led to this marvelous theory.
8
I remember relativity being described as thus, though I don't know if it's Einsteins's. In the world, when you sit on a hot stove, every minute feels like an hour. In relativity though, every hour feels like a minute. It depends on the observer.
When you sit on a stove a minute feels like an hour; when you sit on the front porch with your beautiful date every hour feels like a minute.
The story I heard involved Einstein comparing sitting on a hot stove and being with a beautiful woman.
This article and the adjoining one, "Space the Frontier Right in Front of Us"--particularly the quote in the second article "music is the space between notes"--suggests to me the following whimsical explanation for the origin of space. In the first stage, I suggest a framework of two forces: creation, a non-physical, conceptual force, and chaos, initially, the unstable void in nothing, a physical force. In the second stage, creation, meeting its purpose and using its power, built an evolving harmony from the disorder in nature. Harmony, as it then existed, was a single note. In the final stage, the note, seeking a symphonic base necessitating silence between parts, fractured into ever accelerating pieces culminating in the Big Bang.
2
"A Century Ago, Einstein's Theory Of Relativity Changed Everything".
Oh, if that were only true. Instead the front page looks almost exactly like it did in 1915. Just a few changed names and damn near the same places. Oh, Albert, what theory can you come up with that makes us all relative?
Oh, if that were only true. Instead the front page looks almost exactly like it did in 1915. Just a few changed names and damn near the same places. Oh, Albert, what theory can you come up with that makes us all relative?
10
it changed physics
and ultimately led to th atom bomb
that changed everything
and ultimately led to th atom bomb
that changed everything
1
How about religion is nonsense?
4
Actually, an atomic bomb is not dependent upon the principles of relativity to explain its function. Nuclear fission is not a relativistic event, although it is compliant to those rules.
The Bomb's function is fully explainable by the energy involved in the separation of charges of the nucleus during fission. A complete explanation of this can be found in Robert Serber's The Los Alamos Primer.
The Bomb's function is fully explainable by the energy involved in the separation of charges of the nucleus during fission. A complete explanation of this can be found in Robert Serber's The Los Alamos Primer.
Reminds me of old joke-of course everything reminds me of old jokes. A dutiful son was trying to explain relativity to his mother. She listened, politely, and then said, "From this he makes a living?"
31
Ed, thanks for bringing a big smile to my face!
Or the story of his wife while getting a tour of the observatory in Griffith Park and being told the massive telescope is used to figure out the nature of the universe, remarked " Oh really, my husband does that on the back of envelopes"
2
1. How many Americans have read and truly appreciated this article
2. How many order of magnitude more Americans are captivated by The Donald
Alas, how bleak is the future for our beloved nation...
2. How many order of magnitude more Americans are captivated by The Donald
Alas, how bleak is the future for our beloved nation...
47
On the face of it, it would seem bleak indeed.
But remember, it only takes a handful of individuals to take care of everyone else:
Consider how few people it takes to grow enough food to feed the world (thank you farmers).
Consider that the Pacific War in 1942 was changed dramatically by a team of code-breakers. (and that perhaps as many as 15-20 million lives were spared by the Enigma code-breakers).
So when you hear someone say -- as I did a few days ago -- "What did we ever gain from our missions to the moon?", just smile.
But remember, it only takes a handful of individuals to take care of everyone else:
Consider how few people it takes to grow enough food to feed the world (thank you farmers).
Consider that the Pacific War in 1942 was changed dramatically by a team of code-breakers. (and that perhaps as many as 15-20 million lives were spared by the Enigma code-breakers).
So when you hear someone say -- as I did a few days ago -- "What did we ever gain from our missions to the moon?", just smile.
Thus, the irony of humanity.....
1
Yes - the people who honor Trump are depressing indeed. It's a wonder if any of them passed 2nd grade.
1
ever try to converse w a person who spoke a language you barely understand
you might get th general idea, but youll miss th nuance and th details
th language of physics is math, and attempts to translate it into an ordinary language are so inadequate it might be a good idea to not even try
seems to just confuse people, as witnessed in some of th below posts
you might get th general idea, but youll miss th nuance and th details
th language of physics is math, and attempts to translate it into an ordinary language are so inadequate it might be a good idea to not even try
seems to just confuse people, as witnessed in some of th below posts
4
Math is not the language of science, it is a tool of science. To call math the language of science is to misunderstand the role of math in science while misusing language.
1
One wonders whether the article might be more understandable if it had been written by someone with a better grasp of physics.
4
@ EmpiricalWarrior,
Without the language of math how would one describe physics? Math is far more than just a tool.
Without the language of math how would one describe physics? Math is far more than just a tool.
1
Thank you Bryan and company. Beautifully written staged and performed. Worthy of the Theory!
there are many tales of einstin, most are apocryphal
when asked to simply explain relativity he said, if you spend an hour in a room w a pretty girl it seems like 5 minutes
when you spend 5 minutes in a room w an old man like me, it seems like an hour
thats relativity
when asked to simply explain relativity he said, if you spend an hour in a room w a pretty girl it seems like 5 minutes
when you spend 5 minutes in a room w an old man like me, it seems like an hour
thats relativity
22
Very funny!
Sadly Einstein didn't get a nobel prize for the general theory of relativity. They ought to give him one posthumously.
5
But he did win it for his 1905 paper explaining the photoelectric effect.
1
he rightly deserves 4
Nobels are not awarded posthumously, but that's irrelevant: Einstein's contributions overshadow a mere Nobel (even the one he got).
1
"It could even rip or tear. "...Could the author confirm with astrophysicists that this is indeed possible? Ripping or tearing changes the topology of the continuum. Do Einstein's equations describe such phenomena too?
1
Einstein said I am not an American, I am not a jew, I am a human being
It might be of some interest to note one of the items on Albert Einstein’s desk, found after his death and prior to a planned speech to the israeli Knesset, was the following introduction: " I am not an American, I am not a jew, I am a human being". it was, therefore, not a surprise that jewish leaders of that day were shaking in their boots, and much relieved when he turned down the presidency of israel which would then go to chain Weitzman. for a definitive work on his life, works and trials, go to "Einstein" by Walter Isaacson.
It might be of some interest to note one of the items on Albert Einstein’s desk, found after his death and prior to a planned speech to the israeli Knesset, was the following introduction: " I am not an American, I am not a jew, I am a human being". it was, therefore, not a surprise that jewish leaders of that day were shaking in their boots, and much relieved when he turned down the presidency of israel which would then go to chain Weitzman. for a definitive work on his life, works and trials, go to "Einstein" by Walter Isaacson.
2
We might assume that Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and Jesus would say the same thing- but nevertheless we count them as part of the tribe.
3
Alas, it's the one thing we humans can say with any degree of certainty.
As we look at the universe from our little planet tucked away in our little corner of the milky way galaxy, not to mention our meager time on this planet, I find it incomprehensible to think that we in any way have figured out how the universe really works with any true accuracy, but i'm no Einstein
12
Fear not. Dr. Einstein would likely say the same thing.
1
I have that same feeling, too, Bob.
On the other hand, while, as you say, we may not "have figured out how the universe really works with any true accuracy" (that is to say, ALL the facts about ALL the universe), what I find incomprehensible is just how much we have learned during "our [truly] meager time on this planet."
The major portion of what we know now was learned in roughly the last five hundred years of that meager time of ours -- and the rate of learning continues to accelerate. What will we know (and what will we do with it) 20, 100, 200 years from now? .... if we still are here.
On the other hand, while, as you say, we may not "have figured out how the universe really works with any true accuracy" (that is to say, ALL the facts about ALL the universe), what I find incomprehensible is just how much we have learned during "our [truly] meager time on this planet."
The major portion of what we know now was learned in roughly the last five hundred years of that meager time of ours -- and the rate of learning continues to accelerate. What will we know (and what will we do with it) 20, 100, 200 years from now? .... if we still are here.
1
What a shame that Mr. Overbye didn't mention the mathematical foundation for Einstein's work. The General Theory could not have been developed without Tensor Calculus, which makes possible modeling of complex motion in uneven space. Tenor calculus is so difficult even Einstein needed a tutor, his friend mathematician Marcel Grossman, "Between the years of 1915 to 1919, Einstein held a correspondence with the Italian mathematician Tullio Levi-Civita – who in 1900 published perhaps the most important work on tensor calculus to this very day - who desired to help him [Einstein] fix some mathematical errors he had found in Einstein’s work."
9
Is it just a coincidence that the theory of relativity was formulated right around Thanksgiving? After all, everything is relatives this week.
52
Most clever observation ever on planets orbiting around a star and families around a turkey. This must be the GUT Einstein was looking for.
Einstein's theory changed everything - relatively speaking.
2
Very well written piece. Once every century or two it seems someone like Einstein comes along that intuits a key insight or two, validates it with mathematics, and advances the boundaries of human knowledge in unimaginable ways.
Not every meaningful insight requires a formula of course, and many won't relate in obvious ways to the physical universe, but they are all generated in the mind. Maybe all forces and laws of nature originate and objectify from there. Let's investigate.
Not every meaningful insight requires a formula of course, and many won't relate in obvious ways to the physical universe, but they are all generated in the mind. Maybe all forces and laws of nature originate and objectify from there. Let's investigate.
17
ideas come from th mind, not th laws of nature
2
Mathematics does not validate physics. Math is a modeling tool, an important and invaluable tool of science but only a tool. Mathematics is not in and of itself a science.
If you start with a completely erroneous assumption, say that the earth is stationary at the center of the universe, you can nonetheless create a mathematical model which agrees with physical observations. That is to say, the model is wrong but it 'works'.
Physicists care whether the model is correct in its description of physical reality; a mathematician's only concern is that the model gets the right answer to certain questions. The former approach can be said to be scientific, the latter is not.
If you start with a completely erroneous assumption, say that the earth is stationary at the center of the universe, you can nonetheless create a mathematical model which agrees with physical observations. That is to say, the model is wrong but it 'works'.
Physicists care whether the model is correct in its description of physical reality; a mathematician's only concern is that the model gets the right answer to certain questions. The former approach can be said to be scientific, the latter is not.
14
Gat point. Which is why physics fits the description of science using the tools of mathematics--but mathematical modeling in economics yields sterile (even harmful, if believed real) results. Math in economics does not render it a science. Too often, lay persons are easily bamboozled because they fail to appreciate the distinction you emphasize.
The Times has done a disservice to its readers by not showing even a fragment of mathematics. It would have been graphically interesting. It would have stimulated the imagination of young science students.
People are not expected to understand everything. Every fact of science was once UNKNOWN to any human.
People are not expected to understand everything. Every fact of science was once UNKNOWN to any human.
37
There is a small circle of calculus in Einstein's hand in the article printed in the paper edition of the newspaper.
Einstein's Equation can be written in a particularly simple form as G=8πT. It will easily fit on a teeshirt, or a license plate (as I have on mine). The simple form displays the beauty of General Relativity and the laws that govern our universe on large scales, but hides the great difficulty of solving the non-linear tensor calculus for particular situations.
A bit more for the curious: the modified Einstein Field Equation that includes the Cosmological Constant (greek lambda, Λ), which may be just dark energy, is G=8πT+gΛ. This doesn't fit on a license plate. Big G describes the curvature of space-time, T describes the distribution of mass-energy. Little g describes a flat space time. In the absence of mass-energy, T=0, and space would be flat if there were no dark energy.
Einstein, to his credit, did a great deal of thinking about the actual behavior of physical systems before he wrote down his equations. That is to say, the physics came before the math. That methodology has been inverted in modern science where mathematical theories now set the agenda for physical research.
As a consequence of that inversion no progress has been made over the last century in our understanding of the cosmos. On the contrary our understanding has devolved into carnivalesque collection of physical absurdities whose only common feature is that they cannot be observed in actual physical reality.
The list of those absurdities also comprises all the major features of the Standard Model based on General Relativity: the Big Bang, Inflation, curved space, expanding space, gravitational waves, dark matter, and dark energy. All are either unobservable by terms of the model (big bang, Inflation) or unobserved though required by the model (curved space, expanding space, gravitational waves, dark matter, dark energy).
All of these absurdities derive from two early 20th century assumptions about the cosmos that have never been scientifically verified. The first is that the cosmos is a singular, unified, coherent entity. The second is that the cause of the cosmological redshift is a recessional velocity.
Drop those unfounded assumptions and an entirely different model of the cosmos emerges without any of the current model's absurdities.
http://ThisIslandUniverse.com
As a consequence of that inversion no progress has been made over the last century in our understanding of the cosmos. On the contrary our understanding has devolved into carnivalesque collection of physical absurdities whose only common feature is that they cannot be observed in actual physical reality.
The list of those absurdities also comprises all the major features of the Standard Model based on General Relativity: the Big Bang, Inflation, curved space, expanding space, gravitational waves, dark matter, and dark energy. All are either unobservable by terms of the model (big bang, Inflation) or unobserved though required by the model (curved space, expanding space, gravitational waves, dark matter, dark energy).
All of these absurdities derive from two early 20th century assumptions about the cosmos that have never been scientifically verified. The first is that the cosmos is a singular, unified, coherent entity. The second is that the cause of the cosmological redshift is a recessional velocity.
Drop those unfounded assumptions and an entirely different model of the cosmos emerges without any of the current model's absurdities.
http://ThisIslandUniverse.com
1
As onerous as it is to learn, calculus is the language of physics. Well understood physics theory is invariably a visualization represented by differential equations.
7
"The first is that the cosmos is a singular, unified, coherent entity. The second is that the cause of the cosmological redshift is a recessional velocity."
The scientific method does not "verify" anything. Hypotheses can only be supported (not definitively proven) or refuted (shown to be wrong).
Occam's razor (the logical argument that a simple explanation is more likely to be true than a complex one) suggests that we start with an hypothesis that is as simple as necessary to make predictions. The continuity of the universe is a very simple step, and red shift explains so much about observations made before and after it was proposed. Scientists are trying to plan experiments to refute or modify both assumptions, or to develop theoretical solutions (as Einstein did) that propose alternative hypotheses that make better or more reasonable predictions.
The scientific method does not "verify" anything. Hypotheses can only be supported (not definitively proven) or refuted (shown to be wrong).
Occam's razor (the logical argument that a simple explanation is more likely to be true than a complex one) suggests that we start with an hypothesis that is as simple as necessary to make predictions. The continuity of the universe is a very simple step, and red shift explains so much about observations made before and after it was proposed. Scientists are trying to plan experiments to refute or modify both assumptions, or to develop theoretical solutions (as Einstein did) that propose alternative hypotheses that make better or more reasonable predictions.
Science is science. Math is math. Language is language. The dictum that math is the language of science is a faulty metaphor that misrepresents the actual role of math in science. Math is a modeling tool - that is all it is in any discipline, including science. In the realm of math itself, math is simply a set of abstract logical systems based originally on counting.
In science, a mathematical model is properly used to sharpen and clarify an already existing 'picture' or 'physical' model that has been derived from observation and measurement. Math does NOT underlie reality. That mistaken belief held by many mathematicians and scientists has greatly inhibited science over the last 100 years.
In particular the tendency, to elevate the positive assertions of physical events or entities made by a particular mathematical model over the actual empirical observations that such events and entities do not exist, has been a disaster. That tendency is the antithesis of the proper scientific method in which empirical observations are foundational, not conjectures derived from abstract mathematical, philosophical, or theological reasoning.
BTW, I did not find calculus onerous to learn.
In science, a mathematical model is properly used to sharpen and clarify an already existing 'picture' or 'physical' model that has been derived from observation and measurement. Math does NOT underlie reality. That mistaken belief held by many mathematicians and scientists has greatly inhibited science over the last 100 years.
In particular the tendency, to elevate the positive assertions of physical events or entities made by a particular mathematical model over the actual empirical observations that such events and entities do not exist, has been a disaster. That tendency is the antithesis of the proper scientific method in which empirical observations are foundational, not conjectures derived from abstract mathematical, philosophical, or theological reasoning.
BTW, I did not find calculus onerous to learn.
1
Describing a singularity (a/k/a, black hole) as "kerblooey" doesn't do it justice. If Einstein's equations and some physical evidence didn't hint at their existence, then they would be dismissed as "supernatural" by scientists since, to accept that space/time and matter/energy is reduced to the INFINITELY small and the INFINITELY dense, is to go, as any scientist will admit, beyond the laws of science. And what better definition of "supernatural" is there.
Overbye's article, as is way-too-typical with far-too-many, elevates Einstein's THEORIES of general/special relativity to LAWS. They are NOT laws and there is increasing evidence that space/time and matter/energy may not be fundamental (beyond the kerblooey of having to accept the existence of a singularity). That evidence includes the "dark energy" which Overbye claims was "discovered" in 1998. No, what was discovered was that Einstein's equations DID NOT WORK if the observed expansion of the universe was accurate. So instead of questioning the Pope's equations, an exotic (very exotic) and completely unobserved (if not unobservable) phenomenon called "dark energy" was conjured out of ... well, thin air (see also, "dark" matter).
My point I that that human beings seem to demand the certainty that we are on the path toward uncovering the TRUTH so we've substituted one religion for another. And, yes, even scientists will not question their dogma without the comfort of having some substitute dogma at the ready.
Overbye's article, as is way-too-typical with far-too-many, elevates Einstein's THEORIES of general/special relativity to LAWS. They are NOT laws and there is increasing evidence that space/time and matter/energy may not be fundamental (beyond the kerblooey of having to accept the existence of a singularity). That evidence includes the "dark energy" which Overbye claims was "discovered" in 1998. No, what was discovered was that Einstein's equations DID NOT WORK if the observed expansion of the universe was accurate. So instead of questioning the Pope's equations, an exotic (very exotic) and completely unobserved (if not unobservable) phenomenon called "dark energy" was conjured out of ... well, thin air (see also, "dark" matter).
My point I that that human beings seem to demand the certainty that we are on the path toward uncovering the TRUTH so we've substituted one religion for another. And, yes, even scientists will not question their dogma without the comfort of having some substitute dogma at the ready.
4
I have never heard of anyone burned at the stake over differences of opinion in cosmology.
2
Yes, it is true, that "faith" is needed as a foundation even for natural law. This attribute is relevant to Einstein's reported belief in "Spinoza's God," better described as the natural firmament.
I recommend Carl Sagan's novel "Contact" and the movie version of the same (featuring Jodie Foster) as an excellent depiction of an atheist's acceptance that faith is just as necessary to accept science as to accept the supernatural.
I recommend Carl Sagan's novel "Contact" and the movie version of the same (featuring Jodie Foster) as an excellent depiction of an atheist's acceptance that faith is just as necessary to accept science as to accept the supernatural.
There have been many, many tests of both the general and the special theory. Relativity has passed them all with flying colors. In the words of the great American relativist John Wheeler, it is the most battle-tested theory we have. For a terrific account of these tests, written for laymen, see Clifford Will's "Was Einstein Right?"
One day we will probably have a larger theory that encompasses general relativity, and tells us things that Einstein's masterwork does not. For one thing, as is widely known, there is as yet no clear victor in the courtship for a "fiery marriage" (Wheeler again) between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, within the realm of classical physics, general relativity is peerless, unvanquished, and easily the most beautiful theory yet devised by our species.
One day we will probably have a larger theory that encompasses general relativity, and tells us things that Einstein's masterwork does not. For one thing, as is widely known, there is as yet no clear victor in the courtship for a "fiery marriage" (Wheeler again) between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, within the realm of classical physics, general relativity is peerless, unvanquished, and easily the most beautiful theory yet devised by our species.
4
Here's a different, heretical view of General Relativity:
There is nothing relative about the claim that light travels at the same speed for all observers no matter their speed, as Special Relativity asserts, and which forms the foundation of General Relativity. The assertion takes the notion of speed, which is a relative measure (of the velocity of one thing against some other thing) and contorts it into something else entirely. Einstein was a genius at linguistic contortions, if nothing else.
From that inauspicious start, a theory was contrived that purported to explain the big stuff of the universe. It ultimately did so rather poorly, now requiring that 96% of the universe it supposedly explains be invisible and undetectable, except in its effects, which is circular reasoning as Dark Matter and Energy were invented to account for effects left inexplicable by General Relativity.
Because of Einstein, cosmological physics slinks towards mysticism. Vast rationalizations have been required (e.g., a hyperinflationary period shortly after the Big Bang) to correct for his theory of everything that can't explain much of anything (4%) and anyway does not comport with the most useful and brilliant of mankind's ideas about nature, Quantum Theory.
But I understand the heretical nature of these observations among those who believe that Einstein figured out the dear Lord's true nature. Sadly, the dear Lord's creation remains a mystery.
There is nothing relative about the claim that light travels at the same speed for all observers no matter their speed, as Special Relativity asserts, and which forms the foundation of General Relativity. The assertion takes the notion of speed, which is a relative measure (of the velocity of one thing against some other thing) and contorts it into something else entirely. Einstein was a genius at linguistic contortions, if nothing else.
From that inauspicious start, a theory was contrived that purported to explain the big stuff of the universe. It ultimately did so rather poorly, now requiring that 96% of the universe it supposedly explains be invisible and undetectable, except in its effects, which is circular reasoning as Dark Matter and Energy were invented to account for effects left inexplicable by General Relativity.
Because of Einstein, cosmological physics slinks towards mysticism. Vast rationalizations have been required (e.g., a hyperinflationary period shortly after the Big Bang) to correct for his theory of everything that can't explain much of anything (4%) and anyway does not comport with the most useful and brilliant of mankind's ideas about nature, Quantum Theory.
But I understand the heretical nature of these observations among those who believe that Einstein figured out the dear Lord's true nature. Sadly, the dear Lord's creation remains a mystery.
3
Speed, mass, and time are inter-related relativistic phenomena.
Einstein was no mystic. He understood perfectly well that nature is without the slightest hint of whimsical personality.
Einstein was no mystic. He understood perfectly well that nature is without the slightest hint of whimsical personality.
7
"...now requiring that 96% of the universe it supposedly explains be invisible and undetectable, except in its effects..."
How is anything "detectable" except by its effects? Physics has long predicted the existence of elements based on guesses as to what might cause an observed (or as yet, unobserved) physical effect. Neutrinos were predicted before they were detectable, based on computations of conservation of energy involved in nuclear processes. Many experiments still seek dark matter. Natural philosophers predicted (presumed?) the existence of phlogiston to explain fire, but further investigation proved that hypothesis wrong. Maybe what we call 'dark matter' will turn out to be something we already know about, or that it doesn't exist at all, but something needs to explain wht galaxies spin at rates not understood by standard (Einsteinian) gravity.
How is anything "detectable" except by its effects? Physics has long predicted the existence of elements based on guesses as to what might cause an observed (or as yet, unobserved) physical effect. Neutrinos were predicted before they were detectable, based on computations of conservation of energy involved in nuclear processes. Many experiments still seek dark matter. Natural philosophers predicted (presumed?) the existence of phlogiston to explain fire, but further investigation proved that hypothesis wrong. Maybe what we call 'dark matter' will turn out to be something we already know about, or that it doesn't exist at all, but something needs to explain wht galaxies spin at rates not understood by standard (Einsteinian) gravity.
1
"How is anything "detectable" except by its effects?"
Yes. This is so important but so poorly grasped by most people.
Yes. This is so important but so poorly grasped by most people.
It is a complete mystery to me why Max Planck considered it implausible that spacetime could actually be a three dimensional oscillator of electromagnetic waves. He made that assumption to derive his black body radiation theory.
I think the depiction of gravitation as a "hole" in spacetime misrepresents the reality that the gravitational field produced by a massive body goes to zero at its center of mass, not to infinity. Gravitation is not necessarily a "hole", I suspect it is more likely a distortion of spacetime caused by the presence of stored energy.
I think the depiction of gravitation as a "hole" in spacetime misrepresents the reality that the gravitational field produced by a massive body goes to zero at its center of mass, not to infinity. Gravitation is not necessarily a "hole", I suspect it is more likely a distortion of spacetime caused by the presence of stored energy.
1
One way to think of it is that matter is a three dimensional hole in a field of four dimensional electromagnetic radiation.
E=mc^2 suggests that matter is energy stored in an oscillator.
What do you mean by that, is the oscillator composed of energy or does a matter oscillator contain energy?
Not many years later he was welcomed in America as a refugee. Had he been displaced in spacetime a bit he might have boarded the Saint Louis to try to find refuge in America. Just a little "thought experiment." They work for topics outside of physics too.
23
Thank goodness Einstein was allowed to immigrate to the United States without incident before the xenophobic anti-Jewish policies were enacted by the State Department prior to and during WWII under the virulently antisemitic Secretary of State Cordell Hull.
There were many "rationales" for not letting German and other European Jews into the country many of which are being recycled and used to justify the xenophobia directed toward Syrian refugees today.
There were many "rationales" for not letting German and other European Jews into the country many of which are being recycled and used to justify the xenophobia directed toward Syrian refugees today.
58
Einstein spent all his remaining years after publication of his theory of general relativity trying to deduce how spacetime is distorted by the presence of energy. He needed three fields that could shift relative to each other in three orthogonal directions, subject to a restoring force, to construct Planck's hypothetical three dimensional oscillator.
Too bad Einstein died before physics discovered the the three form-shifting neutrinos. I think they represent the three distortable field components he needed for his all-wave grand unification theory.
Too bad Einstein died before physics discovered the the three form-shifting neutrinos. I think they represent the three distortable field components he needed for his all-wave grand unification theory.
2
I get the big picture of the sentence structure that defines the concepts of relativity theory; but without the knowledge of mathematics, I find these concepts impossible to understand at a detailed, more precise level. I know that I am trying to understand general relativity using words alone, and I know that this is impossible. The knowledge of mathematics far beyond calculus, is what separates the physicist from the layman, even the most intelligent of us. 40 years ago, I bought a copy of Einstein's book on general relativity. In his words, he claims to have written the book so that any high school student could understand the concepts of relativity. I pick it up about once a year, or whenever I think I am ready to understand the Lorentz transformation and how it inspired Einstein. After 40 years of trying, I am unable to finish the book. Sad to say, I know no more about this subject than I did 40 years ago.
7
One normally uses calculus to develop visualizations of physical processes, but physicists who think in terms of particles will apply any snippet of mathematics that corresponds to experimental results and develop theory from that.
but without the knowledge of mathematics, I find these concepts impossible to understand at a detailed, more precise level.
thats bc they ARE impossible to understand wo math
thats bc they ARE impossible to understand wo math
1
The epiphany I had with regard to the Lorentz Transformation is that it's just application of the Pythagorean Theorem.
It's hard to describe in just words, but Einstein's thought experiment involved a beam of light traversing the width of (say) a railway car, perpendicular to its direction of travel. The path of the light beam in the moving train car doesn't traverse the width of the car, but the hypotenuse of the width of the car and the distance the car travels during that period of time. To keep the speed of light constant, that hypotenuse must be shortened to the width of the car. This leads to 1 over the square root of (1-(v**2/c**2)), where v is the speed of the car.
It's hard to describe in just words, but Einstein's thought experiment involved a beam of light traversing the width of (say) a railway car, perpendicular to its direction of travel. The path of the light beam in the moving train car doesn't traverse the width of the car, but the hypotenuse of the width of the car and the distance the car travels during that period of time. To keep the speed of light constant, that hypotenuse must be shortened to the width of the car. This leads to 1 over the square root of (1-(v**2/c**2)), where v is the speed of the car.
After a hundred years to the average person this is meaningless.
Most commenters have no idea what he was saying and make a go of trying to sound intelligent.
Electronics is the main thing and he had little to do with it.
Most commenters have no idea what he was saying and make a go of trying to sound intelligent.
Electronics is the main thing and he had little to do with it.
you proved your point alrighty
17
Really? Einstein was award the Nobel prize in 1921 for "his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effec."
7
I doubt T.O. will understand your comment. Thanks for this, it's perfect.
2
To reinforce the incredible achievements of Einstein, the technology that conclusively proved his theories didn't exist for nearly a century. He was that far ahead of everything. Recent discoveries have added modifications, but the core of his analysis still stands. The cosmological constant issue should not tarnish his legacy. That was a minor blip, caused by a lack of observational data and his one stubborn desire for consistency. We can forgive him for that.
53
theory always leads tech
btw, every experiment ever performed to test th veracity of einsteins 2 theories of relativity has so far shown he is correct
btw, every experiment ever performed to test th veracity of einsteins 2 theories of relativity has so far shown he is correct
2
The jury's still out on the cosmological constant. We don't know if the dark energy and the cosmological constant are one and the same, though if they are, it's incredibly impressive that Einstein's equations can incorporate this phenomenon (or something like it.) The dark energy is real, as recognized by the Nobel Prize in 2011 to Riess, Perlmutter and Schmidt. But whether or not this is the same thing as the hypothetical cosmological constant has yet to be established.
1
"Recent discoveries have added modifications." Such as? General relativity has agreed with EVERY experimental test so far.
3
But why IS there something rather than nothing? [And what is that something relative to?]
1
That is the question the God invented by man in the human image could not possibly answer either.
5
Bob--If there were nothing instead of something, would that satisfy your sense of logic?
1
"Why are there beings at all instead of nothing?, the first sentence of Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics...
Einstein deduced how gravity manifests itself to us in the form of curved space, but we still don't know how gravity comes to be - the mechanism of how it works. What agency gives each bit of mass its own bit of gravity?
3
It is thought that the Higgs particle has something to do with this.
Correction, the right hand side is the energy momentum tensor, I.e., thdistribution of matter. The left hand side is the field equation, I.e, the shape of space time
There is an equal sign, feel free to switch the sides around :)
1
if a = b, then b = a
Marvellous
it's interesting that this article was buried on page 19, while most of the items on the front page of the NYT are, literally and figuratively, history.
1
With all due respect to Mr. Einstein, I feel compelled to inform his ghost that. while his equation may rule the universe, it does not rule me. I keep this dog around for that purpose, along with a wife, rwo kids and an amazing assortment of credit card companies.
1
His equations keep your feet on the ground. Literally.
4
I'm guessing his wife would do that without Einstein's equations...
Paraphrased note from a nuclear scientist from thousands of miles away from a different part of the world: "Fifty years ago, my son had asked me, What does God look like and I instantly showed him a photograph of Einstein and said, He looks like THIS. ....Einstein is etched into my consciousness. Thank you for posting this article, real food for thought, away from terrorism and bombings."
4
Looking at the successes and failures of such mind is a rough reminder of how meaningless life is without knowing. Yes, there are such gifted individuals as Newton, Einstein, Darwin and Galileo that can do so much more than us mere mortals. They are the ones that lead the way and illuminate our way ahead; but what is our excuse to not know what we can know, because of them? It is the time to ask ourselves some difficult questions as humans of XXI century. What is our excuse to disregard their discoveries only because our minds can not understand them? Why are we safer with wrong and simple claims that we are so sure about just because our minds can easily accept them? Salute to Albert Einstein, and hoping that ESA Lisa Pathfinder will give us proof of gravitational waves...
2
Einstein introduced the age of irrationality in modern science - if data do not fit into your worldview, all you have to do is come up with a better story. Instead of coming up with a reasoned and verifiable reason for why certain physical phenomenon did not behave has expected, he claimed that time itself was warped.
Before saying how useful Einstein's theories have been and how they've helped build such great technology, think about what time exactly is. How is time defined? How is it measured? How does it affect things?
You can't answer these questions honestly or definitively because time is a contrived metric based not on data, but the interpretation of data. Einstein mind as well have said that addition is nonlinear for very large numbers - either way, his theory describes how people can use math to predict events. it says nothing about how or why those events happen.
Wouldn't it be better if people knew exactly how a body, by virtue of being massive, changes the movement of other bodies? Knowing how something moves allows you to interact with it - knowing why allows you to utilize it. Einstein lacked the imagination to see that next step.
Before saying how useful Einstein's theories have been and how they've helped build such great technology, think about what time exactly is. How is time defined? How is it measured? How does it affect things?
You can't answer these questions honestly or definitively because time is a contrived metric based not on data, but the interpretation of data. Einstein mind as well have said that addition is nonlinear for very large numbers - either way, his theory describes how people can use math to predict events. it says nothing about how or why those events happen.
Wouldn't it be better if people knew exactly how a body, by virtue of being massive, changes the movement of other bodies? Knowing how something moves allows you to interact with it - knowing why allows you to utilize it. Einstein lacked the imagination to see that next step.
So wrong. Einstein was a Newtonian realist to the bone.
2
"Wouldn't it be better if people knew exactly how a body, by virtue of being massive, changes the movement of other bodies?" General relativity tells us just that: by curving space-time in 4 dimensions. The "warp" of time predicted by special and general relativity has been confirmed by experiment any number of time, to great precision. It isn't a "claim." Moving clocks really do run slow relative to stationary ones; clocks in a gravitational field really do run slower than clocks in zero-G or a lesser gravitational field. The GPS system, for one, relies on a precise understanding of these effects. Einstein understood that it must be so long before his predictions could be confirmed by experiment, yet confirmed they were.
8
"if data do not fit into your worldview, all you have to do is come up with a better story."
Well, yeah, that's exactly what you do. If the worldview is inaccurate for some reason, it needs to be modified.
"Before saying how useful Einstein's theories have been and how they've helped build such great technology, think about what time exactly is. How is time defined? How is it measured? How does it affect things?"
Those are all contentious points, which supports the idea that a new worldview of time was/is needed. Some modern scientists are proposing that time does not even exist, that the 't' dimension falls out of equations that otherwise describe the universe with accuracy. I guess you could say its a deep philosophical question of consciousness besides.
Well, yeah, that's exactly what you do. If the worldview is inaccurate for some reason, it needs to be modified.
"Before saying how useful Einstein's theories have been and how they've helped build such great technology, think about what time exactly is. How is time defined? How is it measured? How does it affect things?"
Those are all contentious points, which supports the idea that a new worldview of time was/is needed. Some modern scientists are proposing that time does not even exist, that the 't' dimension falls out of equations that otherwise describe the universe with accuracy. I guess you could say its a deep philosophical question of consciousness besides.
Why doesn't the fact that the universe is accelerating in its expansion call into question the validity of the general theory of relativity? The theory cannot account for that acceleration, and the standard explanation of "dark energy" is more of a hypothetical plug factor than explanation. Yet we continue to see celebrations of the triumph of the theory, such as this article. It seems very similar to the reluctant attitudes to face facts which Kuhn surveyed that preceded any "paradigm shift."
3
dark energy and dark matter are theoretical constructs to try to understand observations
so far, neither has been detected and they remain in th realm of useful fictions
so far, neither has been detected and they remain in th realm of useful fictions
And dark matter and dark energy, as we hypothesize them, need have nothing in common but the word 'dark.' It's just a convenient word to describe that, so far, we don't understand what they may be.
1
More than that. The dark matter is genuinely dark: it doesn't radiate, as stars do. But certainly "dark" also means "we have no idea what this is".
2
It would be enough---more than enough, were Einstein only an intellectual giant and a scientific radical like no other. But of course, he was also a moral giant and political radical, whose searing condemnation of Israeli fascism can be found in his letter to the NY Times (signed by 30 other prominent Jews). The letter is available online, though it would be almost impossible to imagine the NY Times printing such a statement today.
8
Contrary to what this comment might imply, and as any quick research (try Wikipedia's article on Einstein's political views) would confirm, Einstein was a fervent and lifelong Zionist. He was opposed to the Herut Party but strongly in favor of Israel and the Right of Return. When President Harry Truman recognized Israel in May 1948, Einstein declared it “the fulfillment of our dreams.” After Chaim Weizmann died in 1952 he was invited to become Israel's second president, but, in poor health, he declined, saying that he had "neither the natural ability nor the experience to deal with human beings... I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel, and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it." As for what the Times would or wouldn't print, it is no secret that many Israelis consider its editorial policy to be "anti-Israel". But I guess that's, um, "relative".
4
A nice article. But couldn't you give us that one equation that all the fuss is about, perhaps tucked away in a graphic? Must you assume that the inclusion of a single mathematical expression would cause your readers unbearable distress? Maybe you could preface it with a trigger warning.
104
They could ... the standard one is very simple. You could express it as C = 8 pi m where C is curvature and m is mass. But that, while correct, would be laughably oversimplified. There is a vast array of complicated "works" stuffed inside both C and m. 8 pi is just 8 pi. This can't be conveyed without lots of study. It is truly impossible to explain this to a relativity-layman without a whole course.
3
The standard form of the equation uses shorthand to express a complex relationship among (simply put) collections of vector called "tensors." Einstein himself did not understand the math needed until he asked for help from colleagues.
An analogy: If you understand trigonometry at all, you are comfortable with expressing the ratios among the sides of a right triangle as 'sine,' 'tangent,' etc., expressed at sin(), arcsin(), etc.
The bolded letter G and T in the concise formula are similarly abstract, though for far more complex constructs.
An analogy: If you understand trigonometry at all, you are comfortable with expressing the ratios among the sides of a right triangle as 'sine,' 'tangent,' etc., expressed at sin(), arcsin(), etc.
The bolded letter G and T in the concise formula are similarly abstract, though for far more complex constructs.
1
Visit for an example http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/einstein.html
case of special relativity, as I understand it, is like a train approaching sign. you have a bow and a guy 100 meters from the sign has one. When you pass him on the train you both simultaneously shoot at the sign. In Newtonian world your arrow hits first. If you do the same with a beam of light they hit at the same time. Why? Go ask Einstein. If I have this wrong let me know.
th Michelson morely experiment showed that regardless of th frame of reference of th observer, he always measures th speed of light to be th same, that is, c
this is bc space and time are malleable, and contract or expand to always make th speed of light measured to be c
thats special relativity,. general deals w accelerated reference frames
this is bc space and time are malleable, and contract or expand to always make th speed of light measured to be c
thats special relativity,. general deals w accelerated reference frames
Spacetime has a spring-constant, Planck's constant, such that all electromagnetic disturbances propagate at the same velocity, regardless of their energy. The arrow fired from the moving train will have a shorter wavelength and deliver more energy to the target than the one fired from a standing location, even though their times of flight in the target's frame of reference is the same.
1
The image that worked for me:
Make a clock with two mirrors. Bounce a blip of light between the two mirrors like the old game pong. The light goes back and forth forever. Each round trip is one second. Ok?
------------ mirror
.
. light bounces between
.
------------ mirror
Now move the two mirrors down the road at some speed. The light, which travels at a constant speed makes takes a longer path, and time SLOWS down. So to say! This is special relativity.
--------------- ------> moving mirror
.
. . light takes longer path
. .
--------------- --------> moving mirror
Make a clock with two mirrors. Bounce a blip of light between the two mirrors like the old game pong. The light goes back and forth forever. Each round trip is one second. Ok?
------------ mirror
.
. light bounces between
.
------------ mirror
Now move the two mirrors down the road at some speed. The light, which travels at a constant speed makes takes a longer path, and time SLOWS down. So to say! This is special relativity.
--------------- ------> moving mirror
.
. . light takes longer path
. .
--------------- --------> moving mirror
4
Nicely written article; one never gets tired of appreciating Einstein and his imagination. He wasn't the best mathematician, calculator or computer. He relied on his esteemed colleagues for help - Minkowski, Lorentz, etc... But was there ever a more intuitive dreamer inspired by the order in the universe? Until he (and Planck) made the leaps they did, much of physics seemed like common sense once the theory was stated and the equations defined. Newtons gravity, absolute time and space? Sure. Makes sense. I've always wondered if our experience in the world we continue to create will make Relativity and Quantum Mechanics seem like common sense.
43
How much easier to imagine that the world is supported by an infinite regress of cosmic turtles. It's one thing to come up with colorful metaphors for the universe and quite another to actually try to figure it out. I'm grateful that there are Einsteins in the world to do the hard work, and create the space and time for the rest of us to indulge our fantasies. We should return the favor by thinking critically and using the bricks and mortar of of Einstein's discoveries to build our worldview rather than ancient fairy tales.
160
"Scale independence" is a feature of self-organizing systems. The relationships of their elements seem self-similar at whatever level of scale one looks at them.
1
Nah! Fairy tales, as you call them, are just as interesting. And what's interesting about Einstein was his use of imagination to make sense of fact.
1
@rjon,
Imagination in the service of reality is no crime.
Imagination in the service of reality is no crime.
3
Thanks for this great article reminding us of an anniversary to celebrate, and of something we might toast on Thanksgiving if anyone at the table values science.
We're so lucky that that Einstein helped us take that big step toward understanding the "dear Lord" - that is, Spinoza's god, the natural world and its workings.
We're so lucky that that Einstein helped us take that big step toward understanding the "dear Lord" - that is, Spinoza's god, the natural world and its workings.
16
What does this have to do with Thanksgiving?
2
Thanksgiving commemorates witch burning religious freaks. This article commemorates human genius and the more glorious than religion Cosmos.
2
Great article. Albert Einstein was an amazing scientist. He also had doubts about quantum physics, and said that God did not roll dice.
Like all physicists, Einstein dealt with models of matter and energy, and not the philosophical nature or truth about them. That is what confuses many people. The same is true of quantum physics. Its rules seem so strange, but they are rules about models of matter and energy, and the scale of the models is mind-bogglingly small. Ditto the scale of time frames. None of this detracts from the achievements of general relativity (based on large scale models) or quantum physics (where randomness plays a large role in the models).
Like all physicists, Einstein dealt with models of matter and energy, and not the philosophical nature or truth about them. That is what confuses many people. The same is true of quantum physics. Its rules seem so strange, but they are rules about models of matter and energy, and the scale of the models is mind-bogglingly small. Ditto the scale of time frames. None of this detracts from the achievements of general relativity (based on large scale models) or quantum physics (where randomness plays a large role in the models).
6
Stuck in a place where people think that the earth is only 6,000 years old? Try a dose of "RELATIVITY FOR THE LAYMAN" [James A. Coleman, Macmillan, 1958].
6
Such modesty, clarity, and belief in the truly knowable is badly needed in these times of divisive political certitude and arrogance:
The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. - Albert Einstein
Stands at the sea,
wonders at wondering: I
a universe of atoms
an atom in the universe. - Richard Feynman
The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. - Albert Einstein
Stands at the sea,
wonders at wondering: I
a universe of atoms
an atom in the universe. - Richard Feynman
55
Ben Carson thinks that the theory of relativity is wrong. This theory is a foundation for the "big bang theory" and the expanding universe, concepts that Carson says are wrong. He would also have a problem with the 6000 year old earth and the theory. Oh yes, he says that fossils were planted by the forces of evil (Satan) to fool us into conjuring up the theory of evolution. Won't it be great to have such a genius, smarter than Einstein, as President? Let's not make conclusions on evidence, only the Bible.
106
The big bang theory and relativity are different things, the former being an historical hypothesis, the latter a theory of physics. The NYT Science section had an excellent article about ten years ago hypothesizing that the universe may be made up of a number "universes" that exist like galaxies that are set widely apart. So the idea that empty space or time for that matter was created in a genesis moment, and are not infinite and eternal strains credulity, but what really strains credulity is how it is accepted by educated people on an entirely mystical basis, a "belief system" that differs from Scripture only in its level of sophistication. No wonder theologians fawn over it. Students should not have this rammed down their throats anymore than Creation Science, but should rather be inculcated with tools of empirical reasoning. Remember that prevailing science before Pasteur held that, like the Big Bang "universe", germs were the product of spontaneous generation.
As I see it, the Big Bang, if it indeed occurred was a big event in natural history that dominated the locality of physical reality currently observable to humans, like say the world of ants on island wherre a nuclear test occurred. That it had no prehistory or cause or that no other phenomena exist(ed) outside its range spatially or temporally is an idea I am skeptical of. And if I hear another guest on Charlie Rose expound on the first milliseconds of the Big Bang I'm going to scream.
As I see it, the Big Bang, if it indeed occurred was a big event in natural history that dominated the locality of physical reality currently observable to humans, like say the world of ants on island wherre a nuclear test occurred. That it had no prehistory or cause or that no other phenomena exist(ed) outside its range spatially or temporally is an idea I am skeptical of. And if I hear another guest on Charlie Rose expound on the first milliseconds of the Big Bang I'm going to scream.
1
Interesting, but this comment would benefit by including references citing Ben Carson's statements.
1
The article is about Einstein and the 100 year anniversary of the publication of his theory. Why is it necessary to turn this into an attack on Ben Carson? Why inject politics into this in the first place?
7
And yet again the contribution of Hermann Minkowski is ignored. Without his formulation of space-time Einstein would not have been able to extend special relativity to general relativity. Sadly Minkowski died in 1910 so he could not claim credit.
17
I believe the majority of educated people realize that the work of each great physicist, scientist, researcher, no matter what field, rests on the shoulders of the great thinkers that preceded, and in some cases, worked along side them. Most people aren't familiar with with Lise Meitner whose work was so important in the development of fusion. There were many contributors that helped magnify our understanding of the universe in which we live. In the obituary he wrote for Minkowski, David Hilbert wrote: "Our science, which we loved above all else, brought us together; it seemed to us a garden full of flowers. In it, we enjoyed looking for hidden pathways and discovered many a new perspective that appealed to our sense of beauty, and when one of us showed it to the other and we marveled over it together, our joy was complete. He was for me a rare gift from heaven and I must be grateful to have possessed that gift for so long. Now death has suddenly torn him from our midst." A very befitting obituary from a true friend!
17
A pretty synopsis, Dennis. Although all of us have been exposed to the basics, popular and scientific during that whole century, the excitement now of the dark matter universe must be another great milestone. Either a bookend for Einstein's quandaries, or another step toward new cosmology.
Could we all be able to appreciate the meaning and beauty of it, we'd all be so joyful to be alive at this time.
Thanks for helping us see it.
Could we all be able to appreciate the meaning and beauty of it, we'd all be so joyful to be alive at this time.
Thanks for helping us see it.
16
What I take away from articles like this is how much I wish my physics classes in school had been as fascinating. There's a whole narrative about discovery and the truly mind-blowing aspects of our universe that was missing from my education--and, I suspect, is still missing from a lot of classrooms. Instead, we focused on solving, and being tested on, equations to the point that physics simply felt like another math class. Much of what I've learned about physics I've learned as an adult by reading great books like Brian Greene's. Which is a shame. If physics had been presented to me as a teenager as a story about discovering, piece by piece, what kind of universe we live in, and what kinds of questions we're trying to answer, there's a chance I would've gone down that path for a career. We need to make our education in the sciences as filled with wonder and excitement as the sciences are themselves.
168
It's all in the teacher who teaches the lessons. I had a great one for Physics in college and truly enjoyed those classes unlike chemistry........
3
I am afraid I have to disagree with the notion that classroom teaching has to be always entertaining. Math and science are intellectually demanding, and require self discipline and very hard work. While you are working, it is painful. but the reward comes when you finally solve the problem. Ask any marathon runner..
An article such as this is nice to read, and informs you about the history, but does nothing to teach you the nitty-gritty of the science. That is done in a classroom or by self-study where you put your nose to the grindstone and work, work, work. It is a long and painful slog.
An article such as this is nice to read, and informs you about the history, but does nothing to teach you the nitty-gritty of the science. That is done in a classroom or by self-study where you put your nose to the grindstone and work, work, work. It is a long and painful slog.
15
Unfortunately articles like this leave a very, very incorrect picture of what they purport to describe.
That they describe is, bluntly put, a humanities person's set of wordy statements. "We need to make our education in the sciences as filled with wonder and excitement as the sciences are themselves." is saying that we should ignore the science itself. The science is the math.
And oh yes, Einstein's theory is only applicable in areas of low temperature, long after the Big Bang.
The math at high temperatures is inconsistent with all the rest
of physics. Gravity is THE unsolved problem of science.
That they describe is, bluntly put, a humanities person's set of wordy statements. "We need to make our education in the sciences as filled with wonder and excitement as the sciences are themselves." is saying that we should ignore the science itself. The science is the math.
And oh yes, Einstein's theory is only applicable in areas of low temperature, long after the Big Bang.
The math at high temperatures is inconsistent with all the rest
of physics. Gravity is THE unsolved problem of science.
3
Formulating an equation, solving it and showing the solution corresponds with reality is like falling in love, marrying and raising fine kids.
4
I would never have thought of space-time jiggling like "like Santa Claus’s belly." Dennis Overbye, you never disappoint.
33
The whole idea of "particles" is deceptive. Everything is waves and wave-packets.
1
It is so refreshing to read this and realize that in the midst of political bickering and terrorism and the inability of human beings to agree with each other, we can actually escape into the realm of pure thought, figure out the workings of the heavens and the earth and transcend our divisive tendencies. We badly need another Einstein.
145
There are few things more nasty than academics going at it.
4
Given how influential Einstein became, whoever ultimately puts the electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields together into a unified field that sets up differential equations with solutions corresponding to observed "particle" properties will probably only be discovered posthumously.
@Ashutosh
Just think that Einstein would be dismissed from all the PC universities as just another part of the "white male hierarchy." It is sad that more students understand bogus topics like Beyonce, 50 shades of gray, and other pseudo- feminist or minority studies than the natural sciences.
Just think that Einstein would be dismissed from all the PC universities as just another part of the "white male hierarchy." It is sad that more students understand bogus topics like Beyonce, 50 shades of gray, and other pseudo- feminist or minority studies than the natural sciences.
2
I've read he said a couple of other things which I have often thought about. One was that when asked where he got his ideas, he replied, "Oh, they are in the air". The other questioned asked of him was "What caused matter made of molecules to arrange themselves into solid objects we touch see hear smell, etc" And his answer was "Collective belief". Now physics seems to be catching up with the rest of his ideas which include the metaphysical nature of our universe.
3
He was of course joking.
2
One of my favorite Einstein jokes well describes my husband and daughter:
Einstein was walking on the Princeton campus and stopped to talk to one of his grad students. After a long discussion, Einstein asked the grad student which way he, Einstein, was going when the grad student met him. The grad student pointed, and Einstein responded, "Oh, good. I've already had lunch, then."
Einstein was walking on the Princeton campus and stopped to talk to one of his grad students. After a long discussion, Einstein asked the grad student which way he, Einstein, was going when the grad student met him. The grad student pointed, and Einstein responded, "Oh, good. I've already had lunch, then."
1
Oh, dear Carolyn, you fail to understand the physics of today completely. There is, absolutely, no belief in your "metaphysical nature." There is no god, a "Force" or other woo-woo behind the scenes. Humans may not have a complete grasp of the mechanisms of the greater universe, but there is no evidence of a supernatural force. What makes a stone roll down the hill? How do the tides work? We actually DO know these things, and they don't involve a magic man or being in the "heavens."
2
Relativity, a great story that served us well.
6
Pretty smart guy. I wonder what he would have done with the DEA given the chance?
2