Albert Einstein: Genius.


Recommended Posts

Albert Einstein: Genius.

IF YOU WE’RE TO ASKED TO NAME A PHYSICIST, chances are you’d think of Albert Einstein. The wild-haired, hastily-dressed, German born scientist who changed our understanding of space, time, matter, energy, and the nature of the universe is not only one of the very few true celebrities that science produced in the twentieth century, he is also our culture’s most common conception of genius.

His statement of the mass-energy equivalence relationship (E=mc2) is perhaps the most commonly known, if less commonly understood, scientific formulas. People who don’t know what his Theory of Relatively is called know the formula. And they know his name.

Hell, he’s become a part of the language—his name is synonymous with genius. “He’s smart, but he’s no Einstein,” we’ll say.

Einstein himself was uncomfortable with his own iconic status. “It strikes me as unfair, and even in bad taste, to select a few individuals for boundless admiration, attributing superhuman powers of mind and character to them,” he said in 1921. “This has been my fate, and the contrast between the popular estimate of me and the reality is simply grotesque.”

Einstein’s modesty did not prevent him from speaking out on subjects other than science. Though he had a hand in the early development of the atomic bomb, he became a prominent critic of nuclear weapons. He called himself a “deeply religious non-believer,” and as such asserted “I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world,” and “The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not.”

He reassured schoolchildren: “Do not let your problems with mathematics trouble you, for I assure you mine are greater.”

Perhaps it was this modesty that led him to decline the Presidency of Israel in 1952. Or perhaps he just had other things on his mind—he spent the later years of his life questing unsuccessfully after a Grand Unified Theory.

einstein_by_victor_pross.gif

Einstein

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vic:

~ Interesting caricature. As such, it certainly seems to sum up one common 'image' of him: Mr 'Brain.'

~ Do you do any non-caricature portraits?

LLAP

J:D

John,

Perhaps I would, if there were more non-caricature people--but I don’t come across that too often. But then I wouldn’t be too interested…because I’m not a photographer. Imagination is more important that exacting replications of reality. Read both “The dark side of caricature” and “The light side of caricature” here at OL for this artist’s fuller statement. :turned:

-Victor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vic:

~ Interesting response, "...if there were more non-caricature people."

~ Since 'caricature' depends inherently upon perceived interpretations of known perceptions of person 'X' being exaggerated, (akin to how impressionists [like Rich Little, or the earlier known Frank Gorshin] work) and, person 'X' having to be a known figure (if not an established 'celebrity'), this "...if..." sounds like that within "...if pigs had wings." Ie: no such thing for your 'if'...IF I understand correctly.

~ However, your answer is in terms of "...if...more..." Yet, my question was whether there are "...any...."

LLAP

J:D

Edited by John Dailey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And did you know that Albert Einstein Middle School in Chatsworth CA is directly across the street from the site of AR's former home? I think she would have liked that. The house is long gone, and it was out in the country, with no near neighbors, when she lived there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And did you know that Albert Einstein Middle School in Chatsworth CA is directly across the street from the site of AR's former home? I think she would have liked that. [....]

I don't know why you surmise she would have liked that, considering her views on the corruption of 20th-century physics. I don't think Einstein was any intellectual hero of hers.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And did you know that Albert Einstein Middle School in Chatsworth CA is directly across the street from the site of AR's former home? I think she would have liked that. [....]

I don't know why you surmise she would have liked that, considering her views on the corruption of 20th-century physics. I don't think Einstein was any intellectual hero of hers.

Ellen

___

Ellen,

Nothing else that Einstein ever did, except for the later general relativity, so greatly affected our view of the world and so much influenced the course of physics, and I don’t see how or why Rand would downplay this singular achievement.

-Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor; I'm agreeing with you on the subject of Einstein. I have never heard any criticisms of Einstein by Rand. The screenplay she did about the creation of the atomic bomb I don't think mentions Einstein. The later criticisms came after her death from Peikoff and Hull. Is there anyone out there who can provide more information.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know about Rand, but Peikoff calls him the outstanding example of misintegration in physics, "he represents a mixture of empiricism and rationalism", "the interpretation of [his gravitational theory] is completely unphysical and rationalistic" and Harriman chimes in with "a complete floating abstraction". Rand was still cautious enough to keep her accusations of corruption in physics rather vague and general, but her "intellectual heir" has no such scruples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And did you know that Albert Einstein Middle School in Chatsworth CA is directly across the street from the site of AR's former home? I think she would have liked that. [....]

I don't know why you surmise she would have liked that, considering her views on the corruption of 20th-century physics. I don't think Einstein was any intellectual hero of hers.

Ellen

___

She mentions E = mc^2 in _Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology_.

But she was ignorant of mathematics and physics, so her admiration

for their practioners lacked any specificity. -- Mike Hardy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

Nothing else that Einstein ever did, except for the later general relativity, so greatly affected our view of the world and so much influenced the course of physics, and I don’t see how or why Rand would downplay this singular achievement.

If you're referring to special relativity, how about because: (a) she was suspicious of it; and (b ) she didn't understand it. I don't know if she ever said anything on the subject publicly -- CDROM search, anyone? -- but I know of a few occasions when she made suspicious remarks privately to physics "professionals," as the participants in the Epistemology Workshop were styled, one of those my husband.

I also know of Leonard making sounds about special relativity being suspicious back in that same time period (1970). In the case of Leonard, I heard him doing so myself, on two or three occasions when I had lunch with him and Larry at Brooklyn Poly. If AR had been praising Einstein's "singular" achievement, I greatly doubt that Leonard would have been trying (without success) to get negative comments from Larry. As I've said before, I think Harriman is "just what the doctor ordered" from LP's standpoint, because Harriman is willing to provide some kind of case against the whole fabric of 20th-century physics.

It's simple really: Kant corrupted the whole of 20th-century thought, so the tale goes. This has to have included physics, although physics was the last to feel the effect.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are Rand's statements on Einstein from The Objectivism Research CDROM. (I did not include where she quoted another person mentioning Einstein.)

Letter dated January 23, 1949 to Robert Spencer Carr, a science fiction author, discussing his book, The Room Beyond (The Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 426):

I strongly suspect that the real difference between you and me is that I did take your book more seriously than you intended. When you write a story in which the heroine vanishes through a shimmering film of air into the fourth dimension, and then returns, walking on a light ray—when you are then accused of being a mystic and answer that you are not, because you once got a letter from Einstein who does not write to mystics—I cannot take it in any way except as humor.

Letter dated August 24, 1963 to Libby Parker, a fan (The Letters of Ayn Rand, pp. 613-614):

If, as you say, you are an advocate of reason, I suggest that you should develop a very strict and independent critical faculty in regard to courses on philosophy. You will find very little rationality in modern philosophy, which is dominated by a revolt against reason. You should be on guard against the influence of modern philosophy which leads you to write such a contradictory sentence as "Einstein's Theory of Relativity does question the objectivity of knowledge." If it does, it would invalidate all theories, including itself; and if so, by what means would you validate it or regard it as knowledge?

But in fact, Einstein's theory does nothing of the kind. Einstein himself objected to the unwarranted distortions of his purely scientific theories by the philosophizing of scientifically ignorant popularizers. The same is true of all modern pseudoscientism: the fact that scientists do not know the cause of a given phenomenon does not give them ground to proclaim that "the universe is based on chance"—any more than the ignorance of primitive savages gave them ground to declare that the universe is ruled by gods and demons.

From The Journals of Ayn Rand, "9 - Top Secret," entry dated January 2, 1946, "An Analysis of the Proper Approach to a Picture on the Atomic Bomb," pp. 320-321:

Now let us look at the history of the bomb in detail. If there is a God, it is almost as if He had staged it that way on purpose—to give us an object lesson.

Some of the key figures in the development of the bomb were [Albert] Einstein, [Niels] Bohr and [Enrico] Fermi. They had to flee from Germany, Denmark and Italy. The Statist dictators had these men and had the knowledge of their original discoveries. And it did not do the dictators any good. These scientists laid the foundations of their future achievements in their own countries. But they could not continue to work there. They had to escape to a free country.

. . .

To say that Einstein and Lise Meitner were thrown out of Germany on account of racial prejudice is the truth—but not the whole truth. It was racial prejudice armed with State power. And what about Fermi and the others? There was no racial prejudice involved in their cases.

From The Journals of Ayn Rand, "9 - Top Secret," entry dated January 2, 1946, "An Analysis of the Proper Approach to a Picture on the Atomic Bomb," p. 322:

The public is eager to know just what the atomic bomb really is and how men made such a discovery. Therefore we must tell our story from the beginning.

The first step was Einstein's equation on the conversion of matter into energy, which he formulated before the First War. After that, there was a long, progressive series of steps, achieved by single scientists working independently of one another all over the world. Quoting now merely from a newspaper account (this has to be checked by fuller research), the key steps seem to have been: the discovery of the neutron by Sir James Chadwick, in England, in 1932; the splitting of a uranium atom by Lise Meitner, Hahn and Strassman, in Germany, in 1939; the elaboration upon this experiment by Niels Bohr in Denmark and Enrico Fermi in Italy; the meeting of Bohr and Fermi in America in 1939, when the first discussion of the possibility of an atomic bomb was held; Fermi's proposal to representatives of the Navy; the creation of the atomic bomb project; the two years of work there; the test in New Mexico; the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

. . .

It was not the achievement of one individual—nor the achievement of an organized group. It was—as all civilization—the sum of free, individual efforts.

I quote from Science and the Planned State: "We may turn to any part of science and we are likely to find the same thing: the fundamental discoveries are commonly made by single workers."

I quote from Einstein: "I am a horse for single harness, not cut out for tandem or teamwork."

From The Journals of Ayn Rand, "9 - Top Secret," entry dated January, 1946, "Philosophic Notes," p. 335:

The men that a dictatorship needs most (if it's real power that it wants) are the first to turn into its bitterest enemies (Fermi, Einstein)—by the very nature of the idea of dictatorship.

From The Journals of Ayn Rand, "9 - Top Secret," entry dated January 19, 1946, General outline of the screenplay, pp. 337-340:

1934. . . .

John X is now fifteen. There is a violent scene when he tells his father that he wants to become a scientist. Scientists, the father declares, are no good, because they "live in ivory towers." Man must act, not think. His son must learn to be practical; take, for instance, that fellow who's growing so powerful in Germany; of course, the father says, I don't approve of some of his ideas, but nobody will deny that he's practical, a realist, a smart man with an efficient system who'll get what he wants. As an illustration of how one goes about being practical, the father seizes the boy's books and throws them into the fireplace.

As the books burn, we dissolve to a huge pile of books burning in the square of a German city, under swastika flags. And we see the "practical man," Hitler, in his office, bending over a map of Germany. He tells his assistants that he controls all of it—he boasts about his power—to hell with principles and theories—thinking is a weakness—the brain is evil—action and force are all that counts—a powerful State can accomplish anything—the individual doesn't matter—the mind doesn't matter (exact quotations from Mein Kampf to be used here). Camera pans to the window of the office: there is a light in a distant window of the dark city outside. Camera moves toward that window and into the room. It is a modest study. A solitary man sits working at a desk. The desk holds nothing but books, papers, abstract formulas. The man is Einstein.

Scene of Einstein leaving Germany. (I would like to have the date and authentic details from Einstein.)

. . .

1939. . . .

In Denmark, Lise Meitner explains her solution—that the uranium atom was actually split in half—to Dr. Otto Frisch, another refugee scientist. Together, they communicate the discovery to Niels Bohr. Realizing its tremendous importance, Bohr sails for the United States.

Bohr informs Einstein, Fermi, and other scientists in the United States. The experiment is repeated at Columbia—and [there is] a tremendous release of energy, as predicted by Einstein's formula.

January, 1939. Bohr and Fermi attend a conference on theoretical physics in Washington. Their report creates a sensation among the scientists. Fermi suggests to some of his colleagues the possibility of a military application of the new discovery.

March, 1939. Fermi and Pegram approach representatives of the Navy Department with the suggestion of an atomic bomb.

October, 1939. Fermi and his friends enlist the help of Einstein and Alexander Sachs to approach Roosevelt. Sachs obtains an interview with Roosevelt, reads excerpts from Einstein's letter. Roosevelt forms first "Advisory Committee on Uranium."

November, 1939. The committee reports; Roosevelt approves first purchase of materials—for $6,000.

Summer of 1940 (after the fall of France). Einstein gets first news from the underground that Germany is doing some work on atomic research. Sachs urges more effort—by contacts with Roosevelt. The "National Defense Research Committee" is formed, with Dr. Vannevar Bush in charge. Bush makes contracts for uranium research with many University laboratories. He finds Labine and has him reopen his mines, closed by the war, to get uranium ore.

Undated (around 1962-1964), notes called "Issues" for an article on "The Unsacrificed Self" (The Journals of Ayn Rand, pp. 687-688):

People do not want total irrationality or dependence. What they want is much worse: an independent mind who, in case of conflict, accepts their judgment above his own. (This is impossible, therefore the result is neurotics with switching metaphysics; also—the men who reserve their independence for their professions, but surrender their mind in everything else. Examples: Einstein, Frank Lloyd Wright.)

From Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, "Theory And History, 1. What Is Capitalism?" (Originally published in The Objectivist Newsletter: Vol. 4, No. 12, December, 1965, "Check Your Premises: What Is Capitalism?" Part 2 of a two-part article).

The tribal mentalities attack this principle from two seemingly opposite sides: they claim that the free market is "unfair" both to the genius and to the average man. The first objection is usually expressed by a question such as: "Why should Elvis Presley make more money than Einstein?" The answer is: Because men work in order to support and enjoy their own lives-and if many men find value in Elvis Presley, they are entitled to spend their money on their own pleasure. Presley's fortune is not taken from those who do not care for his work (I am one of them) nor from Einstein—nor does he stand in Einstein's way—nor does Einstein lack proper recognition and support in a free society, on an appropriate intellectual level.

From The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 18, June 4, 1973, "Selfishness Without A Self."

Today, we are seeing a ghastly spectacle: a magnificent scientific civilization dominated by the morality of prehistorical savagery. The phenomenon that makes it possible is the split psycho-epistemology of "compartmentalized" minds. Its best example are men who escape into the physical sciences (or technology or industry or business), hoping to find protection from human irrationality, and abandoning the field of ideas to the enemies of reason. Such refugees include some of mankind's best brains. But no such refuge is possible. These men, who perform feats of conceptual integration and rational thinking in their work, become helplessly anti-conceptual in all the other aspects of their lives, particularly in human relationships and in social issues. (E.g., compare Einstein's scientific achievement to his political views.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laugh when I read most Objectivist commentary on science and scientists, I'm reminded of the John Galt quote about pronouncing judgment over arts they've never seen and sciences they've never studied. I also had a hard time reading most of Rand's nonfiction beyond the Objectivist Ethics, What is Capitalism, ITOE and the Romantic Manifesto. There was so much that was so unremittently negative. That did not match my experience of the world, which was overwhelmingly positive.

By the way, I'll take this opportunity to apologize to Michael Stuart Kelly after having gotten hot about issues around Hugo Chavez awhile back. I have a blind spot when it comes to discussing realpolitik. I get such a sense of revulsion about what these South American strongmen represent that it washes over the whole discussion.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not certain, but I heard from someone that Peikoff referred to Einstein's "so-called" theory of relativity, speaking of it in a belittling way. One does hear of some Objectivists having a problem with Einstein’s theories, but I'm lost to understand why. But I do not want to speak for Leonard Peikoff or put words in his mouth, I don’t know that he held a negative view.

Over the years I have come across scattered Objectivists who infer a “moral relativism” from Einstein’s theory, but moral relativism found in some approaches to ethics has nothing to do with Einstein's relativity! It is sheer nonsense to think that it would. There have been many wrongful generalizations made from the theory to other fields where physics does not relate. Sadly, many detractors of relativity do not correctly understand the physics, and perhaps they are taken in by the word “relativity.” If so, this is foolish at best.

But, let Rand speak about this issue. In a letter to a fan, Rand speak to this point in regard to epistemology.

Ayn Rand:

“You should be on guard against the influence of modern philosophy which leads you to write such a contradictory sentence as 'Einstein's Theory of Relativity does question the objectivity of knowledge.' If it does, it would invalidate all theories, including itself; and if so, by what means would you validate it or regard it as knowledge? But in fact, Einstein's theory does nothing of the kind. Einstein himself objected to the unwarranted distortions of his purely scientific theories by the philosophizing of scientifically ignorant popularizers.”

I don't think Ayn Rand had a problem with Einstein.

***

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vic:

~ Interesting response, "...if there were more non-caricature people."

~ Since 'caricature' depends inherently upon perceived interpretations of known perceptions of person 'X' being exaggerated, (akin to how impressionists [like Rich Little, or the earlier known Frank Gorshin] work) and, person 'X' having to be a known figure (if not an established 'celebrity'), this "...if..." sounds like that within "...if pigs had wings." Ie: no such thing for your 'if'...IF I understand correctly.

~ However, your answer is in terms of "...if...more..." Yet, my question was whether there are "...any...."

LLAP

J:D

John,

I'm sorry, I want to answer your question, I just don't understand it. Could you rephrase it? Thanks.

-Victor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, let Rand speak about this issue [confusing the word "relativity" in Einstein's theories of relativity with epistemological non-objectivity and/or moral relativity]. In a letter to a fan, Rand speak to this point in regard to epistemology.

Ayn Rand:

“You should be on guard against the influence of modern philosophy which leads you to write such a contradictory sentence as 'Einstein's Theory of Relativity does question the objectivity of knowledge.' If it does, it would invalidate all theories, including itself; and if so, by what means would you validate it or regard it as knowledge? But in fact, Einstein's theory does nothing of the kind. Einstein himself objected to the unwarranted distortions of his purely scientific theories by the philosophizing of scientifically ignorant popularizers.”

I don't think Ayn Rand had a problem with Einstein.

***

That quote doesn't say she didn't have suspicions about the theory as a scientific theory. I shall continue to place reliance on the reports I've heard of first-hand conversations with her.

Something the excerpts from the CD-ROM make clear is negative views of Einstein personally:

Undated (around 1962-1964), notes called "Issues" for an article on "The Unsacrificed Self" (The Journals of Ayn Rand, pp. 687-688):

QUOTE(Rand): "[...] the men who reserve their independence for their professions, but surrender their mind in everything else. Examples: Einstein, Frank Lloyd Wright."

And:

From The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 18, June 4, 1973, "Selfishness Without A Self."

QUOTE(Rand): "These men, who perform feats of conceptual integration and rational thinking in their work, become helplessly anti-conceptual in all the other aspects of their lives, particularly in human relationships and in social issues. (E.g., compare Einstein's scientific achievement to his political views.)"

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor,

I feel compelled to add to the discussion. There was a recent PBS special about Einstein and in it one learned that he fell in love with a bright young female who was also a physicist. I do not recell her name and it is a shame because although his name lives on forever, the gist of the special was that it was his wife who is responsible for the crucial aspects or concepts of the theories for which Albert has been given the credit!

I am surprised that no one else here is aware of that. At least we can rest assured that our heroine did write Atlas Shrugged herself and even gave her husband credit for the title of the novel as its working title from the beginning was "The Strike."

galt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a recent PBS special about Einstein and in it one learned that he fell in love with a bright young female who was also a physicist. I do not recell her name and it is a shame because although his name lives on forever, the gist of the special was that it was his wife who is responsible for the crucial aspects or concepts of the theories for which Albert has been given the credit!

The story brought some attention and income to whoever the researcher was who propounded it -- a name I've forgotten. But the story isn't true. There's some correspondence between Albert and Mileva in which he refers to the theory of special relativity as "our theory," but no evidence that the references are anything more than a loving expression of appreciation for conversations with her. The idea that Mileva was the real mind behind the theory is as big a stretch as if one were to speculate that Frank O'Connor was the real mind behind Atlas Shrugged. The contributions of the respective spouses -- Mileva and Frank -- to the famous spouse's work were on pretty much the same level. Both served as conversational and emotional supports, sympathetic and understanding companions. Mileva was more of an intellect in her own right than Frank was. Still, there's no evidence which has been found by real experts on Einstein's life which indicates any major contribution of hers to his theoretical insights, and there's plenty of evidence which indicates that he was their source.

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vic:

~ Yes, I do have an awful penchant for preluding a question with a convolutedly-put context. Sorry. No biggee subject, so, nm, and, fahgedaboudit.

~ Re Rand and Einstein, I share the same view as you.

~ Let's not forget that event regarding Bobby Fischer whom she, aware that he only 'thought' within the confines of 64 squares, showed little compunction in supporting him when his skill and abilities were necessary for cultural morale in a globally-iconic competition-of-the-times. I know of nothing where she had a philosophical prob with implications from Einstein's views within physics. She certainly didn't accept the idiotic popularizers about ethical-relativism being implied therefrom. Indeed, she had to have been aware that Einstein regretted that he even accepted the term 'relativity' to label his theories.

LLAP

J:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a passage in AS in which Dr. Stadler is scolding Floyd Ferris for a book that the latter has written:

"Science! You've taken the achievements of the mind to destroy the mind. By what right did you use my work to make an unwarranted, preposterous switch into another field, pull an inapplicable metaphor and draw a monstrous generalization out of what is merely a mathematical problem? By what right did you make it sound as if I—I!-—gave my sanction to that book?"

This seems to indicate that Rand could distinguish between science and popular misrepresentations of science. Unfortunately these good points for her are nullified by her sanction and even enthusiastic endorsement of Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels, with its ridiculous statements about Heisenberg and Gödel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen--That quote doesn't say she didn't have suspicions about the theory as a scientific theory.

Ergo, so we can therefore assume that she did have 'suspicions'? :turned: And I’m supposed to be swayed by your—not second-hand account—but third-hand account—that she did look down on Einstein? Hmm? No, sorry. :)

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vic:

~ If Rand 'looked down [or askance] on Einstein', she gave no hint which I'm aware of (but then, I'm not 3-rd-handedly conversant with 'inner circles') that she did so because of his Cosmology views or his (check his seminal book) epistemic analysis re 'measuring.' No doubt she was aware of his naive 'political' views (and, quite probably, did 'look down' on him for such)...and felt vehement disagreement...but, she clearly did not allow such to color her views on his analysis of God not playing dice with the universe, nor on Al's view on how the universe 'worked.'

~ Even if he's wrong, he opened new doors of perspectives in physics that some, after decades, are now starting to re-appreciate re identifying (as NB once pointed out the primary importance of) QUESTIONS that need answers, beyond apparent inherent conflicts of his SR and GR with QM.

LLAP

J:D

Edited by John Dailey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now