Slashdot Mirror
100 Years of Einstein
spacerabbits writes "A century after Einstein's miracle year, most people still do not understand exactly what it was he did. The Economist tries to elucidate what AE did in a recent article."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Your desk is all squared away. Yep, all squaaaaaaaaaaaared away.
Oh so Einstein is writing articles from the grave? His technology really is sufficiently advanced!
If you really want to get a handle on what Einstein did and what his work has influenced, I would recommend buying The Elegant Universe by Brian Green. Somehow it found it's way onto my Amazon wishlist a few years ago (I don't remember putting it there), and my mom bought it for me for xmas. I've read about half of it so far and it's amazing stuff. It's about the (super)string theory, which essentially ties together Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum physics. I can feel my brain get bigger as I read it.
Einstein speaks!
A blog like any other.
His semenal influence in modern lighting: the filament light-bulb.
Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity
... well, from what? You'd have to say that you don't even get to use a word like "move" when you are the only body in that void. Sure. Okay.
In Words of Four Letters or Less
[ 0 ]
So, have a seat. Put your feet up. This may take some time. Can I get you some tea? Earl Grey? You got it.
Okay. How do I want to do this? He did so much. It's hard to just dive in. You know? You pick a spot to go from, but soon you have to back up and and go over this or that item, and you get done with that only to see that you have to back up some more. So if you feel like I'm off to the side of the tale half the time, well, this is why. Just bear with me, and we'll get to the end in good time. Okay?
Okay. Let's see....
[ I ]
Say you woke up one day and your bed was gone. Your room, too. Gone. It's all gone. You wake up in an inky void. Not even a star. Okay, yes, it's a dumb idea, but just go with it. Now say you want to know if you move or not. Are you held fast in one spot? Or do you, say, list off to the left some? What I want to ask you is: Can you find out? Hell no. You can see that, sure. You don't need me to tell you. To move, you have to move to or away from
Now, let's add the bed back. Your bed is with you in the void. But not for long -- it goes away from you. You don't have any way to get it back, so you just let it go. But so now we have a body in the void with you. So does the bed move, or do you move? Or both? Well, you can see as well as I that it can go any way you like. Flip a coin. Who's to say? It's best to just say that you move away from the bed, and that the bed goes away from you. No one can say who's held fast and who isn't.
Now, if I took the bed back but gave you the sun -- just you and the sun in the void, now -- I'll bet you'd say that the sun is so big, next to you, that odds are you move and not the sun. It's easy to move a body like ours, and not so easy to kick a sun to and fro. But that isn't the way to see it. Just like with the bed, no one can say who's held fast.
In a word, you can't find any one true "at rest". Izzy was the one who told us that. Izzy said that you can't tell if you move or are at rest at any time. You can say that you go and all else is at rest, or you can say that you are at rest and all else goes. It all adds up the same both ways. So we all knew that much from way back when.
Aha, but now wait! The sun puts off rays! So: why not look at how fast the rays go past you? From that you'd see how fast you move, yes? For you see, rays move just the same if what puts them off is held fast or not. (Make a note of that, now.) Izzy had no way to know that, back then, but it's true. Rays all move the same. We call how fast that is: c. So, you can see how fast the rays go by you, and how far off that is from c will tell you how fast you move! Hell, you don't even need the sun for that. You can just have a lamp with you -- the one by your bed that you use to read by. You can have that lamp in your hand, and see how fast the rays go by you when you turn it on. The lamp will move with you, but the rays will move at c. You will see the rays move a bit more or less than c, and that will be how fast you move. An open-and-shut case, yes?
Well, and so we went to test this idea out. Hey, you don't need to be in a void to do this test. We move all the time, even as we sit here. We spin, in fact. So they shot some rays off and took note of how fast they went east, and how fast they went west, and so on. Well, what do you know? The rays went just as fast both ways. All ways, in fact. They all went at c, just the same. Not an iota more or less.
To say that we were less than glad to find that out is to be kind. It blew the mind, is more like it. "What is up with that?" we said. And here is when old Al came in.
[ II ]
Old Al, he came out the blue and said, "Not only do rays move at c if what puts them out is held fast or not: they move at
We find ourselves once again questioning the theories he revised.
Crazy year for science.
I asked 7 people in my office what elucidate meant. Only one person knew, some shrugged, and one asked me if that was really a word *sigh*
We need a National Holiday - Physicists Day - On his Birthday!
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
Another good book is 'Relativity and Common Sense'. It explains the logical progression from Newton to Einstein. It starts off with Gravity, newtonian principles and then starts adding twists. However, I think that quantom mechanics probably was a bigger discovery than Einstein. The concept of chance at the atomic level was a revelation, and even Einstein had trouble accepting it. However, we can only hope that within our lifetime, someone will succeed in crafting the 'THeory of Everything' which combines theory of large objects such as Planets, galaxies of Einstein with the theory of small things such as atoms of quantam mechanics. Maybe M (string theory) is the answer, maybe not. But these are exciting times we live in!
Ahh, it's so much more clear to me now that they've elusiwhatevered it. Choosing obscure words like elucidate over simpler words like explain or clarify really does help to ameliorate the burden of learning difficult material.
Grandson (who hasn't a clue, but can't admit it): Well, you see, relative to me, you're old, but relative to a sea turtle, you're young...
(Long silence.)
Old Man: So. From this, your Einstein makes a living?
I had a physics professor who hated Einstein and seemed to imply that there was a large faction of the scientific community who did as well. I'm not sure if this is from popularity or some honest to God issue he/they might have had with him. And I don't think I'll be able to find that out from this article since it seems to be singing most of his praises.
Any ideas?
-Teiresias
...I can certainly appreciate Einstein's sheer genius, particularly when it came to relativity. It was Einstein who postulated that, essentially, absolutely everything was relative. You hear all the examples about going around the sun in a spaceship really fast, or the twins paradox, but it doesn't really just stop there. There are all kinds of weird things that happen when you go really fast; for example, your size changes. If I'm driving my car really really fast (and of course, we're talking close to the speed of light), my vehicle actually becomes shorter. Then as I slow down, it stretches out again. At the beginning of the 20th century, no doubt what a lot of Einstein proposed sounded like sheer madness.
In his later years, though, Einstein became increasingly conservative and very resistant to the idea of uncertainty, formulated by Bohr and Heisenberg. Einstein, from a generation of research before these two scientists, was still a determinist; he believed that you could not only discover both the position and velocity (speed and direction) of a particle, but that if you knew all such properties of all particles, you could accurately predict the state of things far in the future. I became disappointed with Einstein when I learned that, in the late 30s and 40s, even when faced with overwhelming evidence to support the ontic and epistemic uncertainty principles, Einstein tried lots of clever thought experiments to prove them wrong, even though they all relied on knowing more than one mutually incompatible property at once. I think Einstein contributed a lot, but he also made a lot of mistakes later in his life.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
This works if your browser doesn't insert spaces after each line. Otherwise you'll have to remove them by hand. If I remember correctly it's a couple hundred megs.
a 1a1afb6ae049ae214fc034aad839a9198\f 362d841a61948bf2688f01f87fb\b /nova_eu_30[12-14]c[01-\
:)
curl -f "http://a768.g.akamai.net/5/768/142/3f9e\
9589/1
5ea187bea5786
6fdf0e7ceb61c22186f
08]_mp4_300.mov" -O
The joys of curl | strings
This Far Side is also pretty good - "Einstein discovers that time is actually money"
Well, he gave me my nickname, for one!
For example, this on-air quote:
"There are no geniuses [among coaches] in the National Football League. A genius is someone like Norman Einstein."
- ESPN commentator Joe Theismann
Here are some Einstein quotes from Wisdomtoday.com - a daily quote e-mail:
Strange is our situation here on earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men - above all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends.
- Albert Einstein
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
- Albert Einstein
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
- Albert Einstein
Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.
- Albert Einstein
Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.
- Albert Einstein
The significant problems we face can not be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.
- Einstein
It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.
- Albert Einstein
Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from that of their social environment.
- Albert Einstein
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
- Albert Einstein
What if he were right and one of his clever though experiements did prove them wrong?
In his time he couldn't KNOW he was right or wrong, he just hoped he was right.
It's only in hindsight can you say, "he also made a lot of mistakes later in his life," but if you were there, then, you would STILL be dwarfed, I think, by his genius. It's only unfortunate that his genius didn't extend to embrace QM, but he honestly thought they were wrong, too.
GPL Deconstructed
Space tells matter how to move. Matter tells space how to curve.
The best definition I've found till date. If you can wrap your head around that, you're in the clear!
From the article:
Abraham Pais, a physicist who wrote what is generally regarded as the definitive scientific biography of Einstein, said of his subject that there are two things at which he was "better than anyone before or after him; he knew how to invent invariance principles and how to make use of statistical fluctuations."
This is a great one-line summary of what made Einstein an outstanding physicist.
The use of invariance principles is still finding its way slowly into other subjects. Jaynes' work on probability is an excellent example of the power of invariance principles--he derives all of probability theory from a few basic postulates, including the condition that conclusions be invariant under transformations in the path used to reach them.
--Tom
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Parent is troll, the Amazon link he posts goes to the book "What It Takes To Run Slashdot" by CmdrTaco. It's not Einstein related.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And God said "sqrt(e/m)=c" - and there was light.
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
I haven't read the book you mention, but I did catch PART of the Nova on PBS.
;)
IMHO, it was overproduced drek. It was absolutely the worst NOVA I've ever seen. Dumbed down physics and cutesy graphics and music. I had to turn it off, I just could not take it. Certainly not of the standard I've come to expect from Nova.
I had a string theorist on my Thesis Committee in grad school, and he asked some pretty interesting questions during my Oral Exam. It's a fascinating field, but if you have to dumb it down that far to make it popular and interesting (which I don't believe), save it for those who care to listen.
That said, it's hard for me to take Brian Greene very seriously. But, I bet he's better at math than me, and not by just a little bit.
Computational Chemistry products and services.
Note: "Herb" actually refers to Hermann Minkowski. (And "Izzy" and "Ari" are, of course, Isaac Newton and Aristotle.)
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html
It's space-time, not space.
If you're going to use fancy words, at least use the greater precision doing so gives you.
Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
I'm so confused......
It might make some wonder what really these rocket scientists know, behind their rocket science math, used to frighten laymen ;)
Any explanations?
"a black body could emit radiation only at discrete frequencies"
I think, black bodies can emit radiation at all frequencies. However, Planck purposed that the radiation does so in a discrete fashion. Recall his formula E=nhv (h = 6.626x10^-34 J s) (v (nu) = the frequency) (n is a postive integer). Notice that energy can increase either with v (nu) continously or discretely with n. The electromagnetic spectrum is continous. (For all intents and purposes I am ignoring the debate of whether the world is actually continous. Mathematicians need not quible.)
For laypeople, I think the best book introducing Einstein's theories in an understandable way is Relativity Visualized by L. Epstein.
what? thats a fucking shit comment. it's not even close to being midly informative... lucky I just got mod points and modded you a troll.
ate a pound of pasta in one sitting
avoided every single episode of Fear Factor
bowled a 150 game
watched the entire Godfather trilogy, pausing only to switch discs
obeyed nearly all traffic laws
finally cleaned out the laundry room
played Civ II for 13 hours straight
washed the car
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
I'm 23, and already I can see my mind slipping away into senility.
Dementia isn't only about short-term memory loss, it's about a general stagnation in thinking. We try and cram more into our existing architectures of thought, and explain things in terms of our established beliefs in stead of trying to deduce structures from raw data. Eventually the world moves on, and our reality becomes obsolete. Anything that doesn't fit with the daily routine doesn't get remembered, and memories of the daily routine could be today, yesterday, or 5 years ago.
I can't wait to have kids so that I can know what real intelligence is again.
-------
Incite and flee.
As a physicist who is currently doing experiments on using the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen scheme for quantum cryptography, I have the upmost respect for Mr. Einstien. While his contribution to physics is significant, I think the public's perception of the importance of his work may be overblown. The development of quantum mechanics is a large scale effort by a lot of people over a long period of time, and I think even without Einstein, most of those ideas would have developed anyways because they are the inevitable conclusions from what scientists were observing at that time. However, Einstein can grab the public's attention like no other physicist in modern time is able to achieve. Try teaching kids about Lorentz's relativity or Schrodinger's quantum mechanics. They'd rather hear about Einstein! I am happy to see that people are excited about something related to physics, but at the same time, maybe people will be less intimidated if they know that you don't have to be Einstein to contribute to our understanding of physics, just as you don't have to be Bill Gates to influence what technology will bring us next.
most people still do not understand exactly what it was he did thats because the average person has the thought capacity of a 4th grader. I mean hell, many people still believe the world was created around 6000 years ago on a given sunday by some guy. That kills me.
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosop hy/works/fr/poincare.htm
What he describes in his paper is quite similar to the Special Relativity of Einstein, although he does not explain it as clearly and as completely as Einstein does. But why history keeps him the shadow I'll never understand.
Me Homer, I'm running from PBS
Says so here.
I think it is a matter of target audience. The Simpsons is on a major 'pop' broadcast network and specifically targets people for whom potty humor is (part of) the draw. Personally, I do like The Simpsons for it's subtlety.
Nova, otoh, has set itself up as a cut above the 'for the masses' standard. I've watched that show since high school (early 80's), and I remember specifics from specific episodes. It was produced to be informative first, and if pop style entertainment was a goal at all, it was far down on the list.
I've also witnessed what I believe to be a general degradation of Nova in this respect. This is just my opinion, mind you, but I think Nova is but a faint shadow of its former self.
To put this into a broader perspective, I also happen to believe the 'making science fun' in the classroom is partially responsible for the overall degradation in science education here in the US. I've taught my classes without that maxim, and proudly achieved my (only) stated goal of actually making sure my students finished the semester with more knowledge than they had at the start.
Iconoclastic, I know.
Computational Chemistry products and services.
I have found out that reading the original papers of Einstein elucidates a lot more than the whole of literature that's been wasted on the subject to introduce people to the ideas. Start with "Relativity : The Special and the General Theory" which is an introduction for everybody who followed math in highschool a little decently. Then read "The principle of relativity" published by Dover. You can buy both for $14.36 on amazon. I found those very understandable and I'm certainly no math wizard.
Einstein was a marvellous educator and his writing on the subject is way better than almost anybody else (except for Feynmann maybe).
I sometimes think that God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability. -- Oscar Wilde
n/t
We attempted to elucidate Einstein's miracle year last week, but I have to admit the Economist did a nice job on this article.
Energy: time to change the picture.
It appears to come from here.
I highly agree! Einstein was rare among scientists in that he could clearly explain his ideas to a lay audience. I have read a number of books on relativity but NOBODY does a better job of explaining it than the man himself. Think about it - this guy had to sell people on his idea long before it was fully accepted by the scientific community.
First off, I'm a physics grad student with nothing but the utmost respect for Einstein's work, and I make use of it's consequences frequently. He did some of the most beautiful stuff in the history of physics. Nonetheless, I think that his mythos may have arguably had a detrimental effect on theoretical physics and its public perception.
When asked what he would have thought if solar eclipse had not confirmed general relativity, Einstein famously responded something like he "would have been sorry for the dear Lord - the theory is correct!". The general picture people have is that Einstein sat in a room, thought really hard, and figured out how the world was supposed to be without ever needing to go out and LOOK at it. This idea has inspired generations of young physicists to think that the "real" route to truth about the world is mathematical insight. Over the ensuing century, however, this has essentially never been the case - the biggest breakthroughs generally come when an experiment sees something weird (i.e. discovers new particles or behaviors) and a theorist comes up with a mathematical picture that makes all the weird observations fit together. Experiments are still important - it's not just Plato sitting in his cave imagining how the world ought to be. Beautiful mathematical models of fundamental physics very frequently turn out to be experimentally wrong!
Outside of physics, the public image of Einstein has arguably breathed life into the legions of crackpots who think they know the theory of everything, claim that quantum mechanics is "obviously" wrong, etc. Everyone learns in school that Einstein was terrible at mathematics growing up and that he did his best work as a patent clerk, not at a university. Many people are encouraged by this, thinking that the best work comes from "outside the system" and need not involve a thorough understanding of the details of current science.
Unfortunately, this is not true. Einstein was quite good at mathematics (had he been a bit more versed in fancy Reimannian geometry, however, general relativity might have happened faster). He had a Ph.D. from one of the world's most prestigious grad schools. He was working as a patent clerk to pay the bills simply because he hadn't yet gotten a teaching job (they were scarce, and even in later years Einstein never did much teaching).
The point is that he knew his stuff (experimental results and current theory). Too many people think they can walk in off the street with no substantial knowledge of physics or mathematics and give a "common sense" alternative to modern physics that doesn't involve any of the "hard stuff". It usually turns out that their work contradicts some experimental result that they never bothered to learn about. I often see e-mails about such ideas that cite Einstein as an example of how an outsider with no knowledge can change a field. In principle, a gifted outsider with a new insight can change any field. In practice (as Einstein shows), it's good to know what others know first.
The money quote:
The original paper by Prof. Winterbottom was published but a rebuttal to that paper by Corry, Renn and Stachel was not.
Seastead this.
That way you can avoid all those 'clever' questions about shooting beams of light at each other.
- This and all my posts are public domain. I am a Physicist. I am not your Physicist. This is not Physically advice
Space and time are not the same thing. Not even in relativity - they're not completely interchangable. Either the space dimensions or the time one (which one depends on if you use quaternions or normal imaginary numbers) is non-real and the other is real. I.e. one subtracts from the interval between events and the other adds.
The local police just freed a guy that had been
arrested for murder. They offered the following
reason for the release:
"Facts were distributed, but the actuality is
different."
Gotta love that indeterminate state.
The single most important principle in physics is finding symmetries and invariance principles. And Einstein was extremely good at understanding and formulating those.
FYI:
"The World Year of Physics 2005 plans to bring the excitement of physics to the public and inspire a new generation of scientists. Timed to coincide with the centennial celebration of Albert Einstein's "miraculous year," the World Year of Physics will be coming to YOU before you know it. "
From http://www.physics2005.org/
I, for one, welcome our new Physics overlords.
Right on brotha!
Winterbottom is one of my favorite directors.
Seastead this.
It feels weird having your first story accepted after all those years.
fortune is my favourite linux command
... and my comment was too simple and flippant (perhaps that's often a danger when discussing complicated and/or counterintuitive ideas such as this), but meant to convey that Einstein's findings point out that there's a closer relationship between space and time than many people realize, and than anyone thought of before Einstein.
Tag lost or not installed.
After all these years, and there are very few people on this planet that truly understand relativity! average Joe surely does not understand it...many people that claim they understand it make foundamental mistakes when asked very simple questions about it, me included.
I'd really wish that Alain Aspect's experiment could have been made when Einstein was young..
..
Maybe he could have shed some light on it: think about what this experiment reveals: one interaction at one place can have an 'impact' instantly on a different location!
But this 'impact' is subtle enough that it cannot provide information faster than the speed of light..
That's just plain weird! And Einstein was one of the few men who viewed how bizarre QM is and thought it was incomplete as a result: while some thought that he was 'an old fart' which cannot accept new theory, for me this is exactly the opposite: I bet that few takers of QM really understood how weird it is when you think about EPR paradox..
I still don't understand it: non-local instant interaction but which still cannot convey information faster than the speed of light???
Uh?
I wonder if string theory helps here to describe a "clearer" picture of these weird distant interactions
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -- Albert Einstein
The name "Einstein" evokes images of genius, but was Albert Einstein, in fact, a plagiarist, who copied the theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert? A scholarly documentation of Albert Einstein's plagiarism of the theory of relativity,
"Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist" discloses Einstein's method for manipulating credit for the work of his contemporaries, reprints the prior works he parroted, and demonstrates through formal logical argument that Albert Einstein could not have drawn the conclusions he drew without prior knowledge of the works he copied, but failed to reference. Numerous republished quotations from Einstein's contemporaries prove that they were aware of his plagiarism.
Many people may have been misled by the tactless and prejudiced account of the history of the Hilbert-Einstein equations of gravity published in 1997 by Leo Corry (Cohn Institute, University of Tel-Aviv) and John Stachel (Director of the Center of Einstein Studies, Boston). The "objectivity" of that account is well demonstrated by the fact that Corry and Stachel "forgot" to mention that the set of galley proofs of the fundamental Hilbert's paper that they analyzed was incomplete and was missing a critical part. The wonderful book "Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity" by Bjerknes is a perfect remedy to Corry and Stachel's "discovery" and their attempt to further cultivate the cult of personality of Einstein at the expense of Hilbert. The book is thoroughly and meticulously documented and leaves only one way to counter it: by silencing it or by labeling the author as Einstein-hater (or worse) and changing the subject. Especially valuable is the section reproducing the original publications, including the (incomplete) galley proofs of the Hilbert's paper. If after having read this book someone still thinks that Corry and Stachel understand physics well enough to write about the history of general relativity then I would recommend the paper by A. A. Logunov et al., "How were the Hilbert-Einstein equations discovered?" Physics-Uspekhi, vol. 47, pp. 607-621 (2004) (in English).
Oddly enough recent news reports imply that he is being abused by his new wife.
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
I can't quite tell if Hilbert backed down seeing that Einstein had submitted for publication too.
Anyway, it appears that Hilbert and Einstein both came up with General Relativity at the same time.
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
That kills me.
What keeps you alive? Pure arrogance? You are the one without any thought capacity.
Unlike most discussions of Einstein, the article does a good job of mentioning the breadth of his discoveries and explaining his stellar place in the scientific pantheon. It's refreshing to see some mention of his work on the photoelectric effect and the results of his brownian motion studies (this is referred to as proving atoms are real, rather than mentioned directly).
Some of Einstein's other accomplishments, such as the new interpretations of metalurgical theory spun off in his paper on diffusion of metallic atoms at a plane surface weld, has been skipped over, but enough is included to give the idea. His "not quite accomplishement" of getting close to proving the universe was expanding has been skipped as well, but then this field has opened back up and the results are as yet very uncertain. This would probably have required too much space to introduce properly.
However, in discussing quantum mechanics, only non-locality is really touched upon. Both the other approaches Einstein himself criticised and affected (the many-worlds interpretation, and the classical Copenhagen interpretation) aren't mentioned, and so his thought experiments about QM aren't actually explained at all. When I got to this section, I kept expecting to see the phrase Einstein-Rosen-Podolski pop up somewhere to give the reader something they could google for an explanation. If the article space was that limited, it would have been better to discuss only the early Einstein and stop about 1926.
Who is John Cabal?
Id rather watch these on my DVD player then the pc...
They aired in my market.. but i missed them when they were on..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Schrödinger's cat was supposed to show the flaw in the idea of something being simutaneoulsy two things at once, only defined at observation, why, oh why does everyone use it as a justification (or even explination) of that idea?
link
Little Brother, watching the watchers
Relativity : The Special and the General Theory
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -- Albert Einstein
The name "Einstein" evokes images of genius, but was Albert Einstein, in fact, a plagiarist, who copied the theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert? A scholarly documentation of Albert Einstein's plagiarism of the theory of relativity,
"Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist" discloses Einstein's method for manipulating credit for the work of his contemporaries, reprints the prior works he parroted, and demonstrates through formal logical argument that Albert Einstein could not have drawn the conclusions he drew without prior knowledge of the works he copied, but failed to reference. Numerous republished quotations from Einstein's contemporaries prove that they were aware of his plagiarism.
Many people may have been misled by the tactless and prejudiced account of the history of the Hilbert-Einstein equations of gravity published in 1997 by Leo Corry (Cohn Institute, University of Tel-Aviv) and John Stachel (Director of the Center of Einstein Studies, Boston). The "objectivity" of that account is well demonstrated by the fact that Corry and Stachel "forgot" to mention that the set of galley proofs of the fundamental Hilbert's paper that they analyzed was incomplete and was missing a critical part. The wonderful book "Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity" by Bjerknes is a perfect remedy to Corry and Stachel's "discovery" and their attempt to further cultivate the cult of personality of Einstein at the expense of Hilbert. The book is thoroughly and meticulously documented and leaves only one way to counter it: by silencing it or by labeling the author as Einstein-hater (or worse) and changing the subject. Especially valuable is the section reproducing the original publications, including the (incomplete) galley proofs of the Hilbert's paper. If after having read this book someone still thinks that Corry and Stachel understand physics well enough to write about the history of general relativity then I would recommend the paper by A. A. Logunov et al., "How were the Hilbert-Einstein equations discovered?" Physics-Uspekhi, vol. 47, pp. 607-621 (2004) (in English).
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -- Albert Einstein
The name "Einstein" evokes images of genius, but was Albert Einstein, in fact, a plagiarist, who copied the theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert? A scholarly documentation of Albert Einstein's plagiarism of the theory of relativity,
"Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist" discloses Einstein's method for manipulating credit for the work of his contemporaries, reprints the prior works he parroted, and demonstrates through formal logical argument that Albert Einstein could not have drawn the conclusions he drew without prior knowledge of the works he copied, but failed to reference. Numerous republished quotations from Einstein's contemporaries prove that they were aware of his plagiarism.
Many people may have been misled by the tactless and prejudiced account of the history of the Hilbert-Einstein equations of gravity published in 1997 by Leo Corry (Cohn Institute, University of Tel-Aviv) and John Stachel (Director of the Center of Einstein Studies, Boston). The "objectivity" of that account is well demonstrated by the fact that Corry and Stachel "forgot" to mention that the set of galley proofs of the fundamental Hilbert's paper that they analyzed was incomplete and was missing a critical part. The wonderful book "Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity" by Bjerknes is a perfect remedy to Corry and Stachel's "discovery" and their attempt to further cultivate the cult of personality of Einstein at the expense of Hilbert. The book is thoroughly and meticulously documented and leaves only one way to counter it: by silencing it or by labeling the author as Einstein-hater (or worse) and changing the subject. Especially valuable is the section reproducing the original publications, including the (incomplete) galley proofs of the Hilbert's paper. If after having read this book someone still thinks that Corry and Stachel understand physics well enough to write about the history of general relativity then I would recommend the paper by A. A. Logunov et al., "How were the Hilbert-Einstein equations discovered?" Physics-Uspekhi, vol. 47, pp. 607-621 (2004) (in English).
we still use Newton every day. Einstein, however, is relegated to a few crackpot sci-fi fans and pop icon posters.
.... n/t
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Here you go:
... or foe if we look at your unfortunate comment.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930
Goolge is your friend
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
he is right