Einstein's "mistakes"

skwinty (Steve) · #1 25-05-2008, 05:50 PM

1. Quantum Mechanics

Einstein believed in strict causality/determinism. ie, no randomness in nature.
Quantum Mechanics on the other hand refutes causality as its fundamental tenet is statistical probabilities.

Einstein grudgingly accepted QM because it worked, however he believed that there was a yet to be discovered fundamental theory of nature.
In a sense he was correct as QM defers to classicality through decoherence.
ie, observe the cat and the probability wave collapses.

It is ironic considering that his work on the photoelectric effect and EPR
(spooky action at a distance) kickstarted QM.

Neils Bohr formulated the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM which states that it is only possible to calculate the probabilities outcomes. Einstein rejected this and stated that God does not play dice.

However, Bohr's argument was flawed in that the Copenhagen Interpretation treated the observer and the act of measurement as classical objects.
This means that the evolution of the wave function must be explained by deterministic equations. QM combines probabilistic interpretation with deterministic dynamics.

2. Cosmological constant.
The jury is still out on this as it may yet prove to be his greatest insight into cosmology. Einstein's mistake was that he considered it a mistake.

3. Keeping the math simple.
General Relativity relies on the principle of equivalence and that the math should be simple and aesthetically pleasing. The math was limited to second order differential equations and this in turn limited the number of spacetime derivatives.

4. Grand Unification Theory.
Einstein became a victim of his own success. He also did not consider the weak and strong nuclear force in the gravity and electromagnetic scenario.

Having said all this, once he was sidelined by mainstream science in his later years, he still contributed in many different ways to science and humanity.
It cannot be disputed that he was one of the greatest forces (if not the greatest) in science mankind has ever experienced.

xelasnave · #2 27-05-2008, 01:23 PM

His only mistake in my view was the fact that be backed off on the Cosmological constant...

I feel he did this because he was faced with a stronger personality in the form of Mr Hubble...who was a contender for the heavy weight boxing championship of the world and a lawyer, and addition he had the biggest toy in the world at his call....

DrA.saw... if only briefly... that gravity must push and tried to fit that proposition into his scheme of things

however no doubt the discovery of an expanding Universe must have left him unsure of his direction .... he backed off and left it to me to take gravity push forward ... gravity push is the mechanical translation of the math he was working upon that was his cosmological constant.

Dr A is one of my heroes the fact he may have made mistakes takes nothing away ..however in spite of the parrallels between out lives it is the aspect that he was falible that seperates us...I have yet to make one single mistake ..ask my ex misuss.

And I am happy to point out that our (Albert's and my) mutual unacceptance of the proposition of black holes (as dictated in the minds of some by general relativity to establish them as fact) he, like I will,...to his death bed... an unacceptance that they are "real"...

So I ask you am I not in good company when I reject black holes as fairy tale nonsence..

He was a smart man and someone should take notice of his rejection of black holes even if they wish to disregard mine.....and time will tell his cosmological constant translates into an understanding of the very fabric of space..

I used to bang this drum years ago when all agreed his cosmological constant was indeed his greatest mistake that is was not...I note these days many have fallen in behind my view..look at any news etc over the last ten years and you will notice the change in the commentary.

So fellow travellers how is that for a stand???

alex

GrahamL · #3 29-05-2008, 06:33 AM

but how do you argue against the math alex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild

xelasnave · #4 29-05-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nightstalker

but how do you argue against the math alex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild

You know me I rarely argue against anything

Thanks for the link I will enjoy it as I am sure you suspect.

I feel silly for my post as I was still upset about other stuff and I think the post did not sound right.

Actually I have spent a great deal of time over the past days reading re black holes and it makes me feel silly to take the stand I do...but nevertheless I will stand firm.

I simply think the evidence offered for all the "black holes" found can be explained with alternatives... black holes are identified by the xray etc ..I know about the gravity inference but I dont buy gravity works via attraction so any interpretation based on that approach I regard as suspect...

Anyways I am dammed here.... a short explanation is not enough and a long one too tiresome to read.

However the thread is about DrA and not me and for mine I think he was really an outstanding human and responsible for some very exciting concepts,..he was a neat man also irrespective of anything else..

alex

xelasnave · #5 29-05-2008, 03:45 PM

Interesting links from there as well .. I can not work with the formula but that is not a problem I accept that others have presumably tested it and found it valid.

I do find it interesting that DrA rejected the product of his theory...

One can not argue against math per se ...there is no doubt in my mind about that... however as I have impertinently indicated I think that extrapolations that math can give may not reflect the reality.

alex

bojan · #6 29-05-2008, 04:38 PM

Alex,
Einstein rejected so called "cocmological constant" because at that time it was not known that Universe expands at an accelerated rate.
He NEVER rejected the concept of black holes (on the contrary! they are the very consequence of his own theory) .. and neither should you.

xelasnave · #7 29-05-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bojan

Alex,
Einstein rejected so called "cocmological constant" because at that time it was not known that Universe expands at an accelerated rate.
He NEVER rejected the concept of black holes (on the contrary! they are the very consequence of his own theory) .. and neither should you.

I thought he backed down when Mr Hubble found his observations indicated an expanding Universe and it was that work by Mr H that caused him to think he was wrong.

I read recently that Dr A did not accept the consequence of his theory such that he accepted black holes .. I cant find the site again but when it turns up I will have another look...
alex

Chippy (Nick) · #8 29-05-2008, 06:57 PM

I don't have a reference at hand - but I also thought that Einstein rejected the notion of Black Holes appearing in nature (though not with the mathematics that inferred them). Could be wrong though...

bojan · #9 29-05-2008, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I thought he backed down when Mr Hubble found his observations indicated an expanding Universe and it was that work by Mr H that caused him to think he was wrong.

I read recently that Dr A did not accept the consequence of his theory such that he accepted black holes .. I cant find the site again but when it turns up I will have another look...
alex

Alex, actually you are quite right as far as his backdown re expansion of the universe is concerned

.. sorry guys... my mistake...

skwinty (Steve) · #10 30-05-2008, 12:33 AM

My understanding of the cosmological constant is:

1. Einsteins equations indicated that the universe was either expanding or contracting.

2. Observation by astronomers at the time indicated a static universe.

3. The constant was introduced to make the equations match observed "reality"

4. It was quite a few years later that Hubble made the observation that the universe was expanding.

edwardsdj (Doug) · #11 30-05-2008, 12:53 AM

Einstein added the cosmological constant because it was the view of Newton that the universe was static and because there was no reason in the maths why this term shouldn't exist.

Einstein revered Newton and thus modified his equations to make the universe static as Newton had postulated.

Einstein immediately rejected the cosmological constant as soon as Hubble produced experimental evidence that the universe was expanding. This is the mark of a great scientist.

Einstein never accepted the physical existance of black holes. He had a rather contrived reason why they could never exist in the actual universe.

skwinty (Steve) · #12 30-05-2008, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwardsdj

Einstein revered Newton and thus modified his equations to make the universe static as Newton had postulated.

Hi Doug
Could you tell me what book or papers to read that will expand on the way that Einstein felt about Newton?
You have mentioned this in other posts and I would like to read more.

DJDD · #13 30-05-2008, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skwinty

My understanding of the cosmological constant is:
1. Einsteins equations indicated that the universe was either expanding or contracting.
2. Observation by astronomers at the time indicated a static universe.
3. The constant was introduced to make the equations match observed "reality"
4. It was quite a few years later that Hubble made the observation that the universe was expanding.

according to Richard Progge in Astronomy 162 (just finished- what next?) skwinty is correct.

bojan · #14 30-05-2008, 09:40 AM

Accepted :-)

xelasnave · #15 30-05-2008, 03:32 PM

I like so many of Dr A's quotes.
I reckon I could carry on a conversation using only his quotes to reply..there is always one that suits any occasion...but I guess one could do that with a Bible

Although this one is a worry..........

If the facts dont fit the theory get new facts

.... or something like that.

Great thread and wonderful contributions.

alex

edwardsdj (Doug) · #16 30-05-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skwinty

Hi Doug
Could you tell me what book or papers to read that will expand on the way that Einstein felt about Newton?
You have mentioned this in other posts and I would like to read more.

I've recently read a great book I got from an ABC shop called "Einstein, A Hundred Yeras of Relativity" by Andrew Robinson. It was only $20 and when I bought it I thought it would be a coffee table picture book.

Upon reading it, it is actually a great book and covers many of these issues without any math. There are also many articles by famous scientists scattered throughout the book that provide fascinating reading. This was a thoroughly engaging read.

The first book I read about Einstein was "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais. This definitive biography of Einstein goes right into all of the math as well as detailed biographical information. Highly recommended.

Einsteins great little book "Relativity: the Special and the General Theory" which is out of copyright and available in several on-line forms is in my view essential reading. It gives a huge insight into the way his mind worked.

Hope this helps.

Take care,
Doug

edwardsdj (Doug) · #17 30-05-2008, 04:28 PM

A collection of all the important papers by Einstein and others on relativity is available in the great little book "The Principle of Relativity":

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...urmilabwwwfour

This is a great (and very cheap) reference to have on hand. All the papers have been translated into English.

skwinty (Steve) · #18 30-05-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwardsdj

Einsteins great little book "Relativity: the Special and the General Theory" ug

Thanks for the info Doug.
This online book is the one you posted a link to earlier. Very good.
I will buy Subtle is the Lord if I can find it.

xelasnave · #19 30-05-2008, 07:31 PM

Well I take the bits that suit me

And here we have a great man who wanted some push in things...so what do you do?
For me I like to think of things the way I do and I will not worry if all the facts wont fit the theory

alex

circumpolar (Matt) · #20 30-05-2008, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skwinty

3. Keeping the math simple.
General Relativity relies on the principle of equivalence and that the math should be simple and aesthetically pleasing. The math was limited to second order differential equations and this in turn limited the number of spacetime derivatives.

I was under the impression that using the math of Matrices enabled Determinants to be calculated, giving real values and numbers to higher order dimentions. That is the beauty of Matrices. Our conceptual visions stop but the numbers keep on going. Einstein used several Matrices in his calculations for GR. Although Matrix math is basicly X,+,-, the procedure is not what I would call simple.