Upload
oppekee
View
74
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
On the Misconceptions about Einstein Roger J Anderton [email protected]
There are misconceptions about Einstein as Robert Resnick gives his account of some
of the misconceptions in the Journal of Chemical Education. It highlights that there
was not agreement in Academia regarding Einstein’s relativity; it thus seems odd that
a theory (theories) which were not agreed as to what was really meant was fostered
upon us in the physics education system. It is my contention that something
ambiguous such as Einstein’s relativity would therefore only have had a corrupting
effect on physics. It should have been clearly defined; because when clearly defined it
could then be clearly tested. But instead we have something ambiguous that is not
clear as to what it really means.
The first misconception that Resnick [1] points out is that – it’s falsely believed
Einstein received Nobel Prize for his theory of relativity – in fact he did not.
The citation for the Nobel Prize was really for “his [Einstein’s] services to theoretical
physics and in particular for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.”
The usual explanation for why Einstein did not get the Nobel Prize for Relativity and
instead got it for something else is as Resnick notes false.
The false explanation is according to Resnick – “…in his will, Alfred Nobel had
stipulated that the prize should be awarded for a recent discovery in physics from
which mankind had derived great benefit and that there was doubt whether a theory
[Einstein’s relativity], no matter how important, could qualify. However, the law of
the photoelectric effect was only one prediction of another theory of Einstein’s, the
quantum theory of light. In Einstein’s quantum theory, though, ‘facts were
discovered’- that is, statements were made from which observable phenomena could
be deduced directly.”
And Resnick notes that this is false because the reasons for dismissing Einstein’s
Relativity as worthy of a Nobel Prize could equally apply to Einstein’s quantum
theory of light. Resnick says: “Of course, one could argue the same for the theory of
relativity except that the train of reasoning in the case of some ‘facts discovered’ from
relativity might be considered less direct.”
Thus if the usual explanation for why Einstein did not get the Nobel prize for
Relativity were true, then he would similarly have not received the Nobel prize for his
quantum theory of light’s photoelectric effect.
Resnick then points out the real reason why Einstein did not get the Nobel Prize for
Relativity: “The truth is, as observers at the time and since have pointed out, that
relativity was then regarded as very controversial, both scientifically and politically. It
had been widely attacked and was not exactly easy to understand, and the Swedish
Academy used the expedient of subtle distinctions to award Einstein the prize while it
avoided expressing any opinion on a controversial theory. Millikan’s recent brilliant
experimental verification of every aspect of the photoelectric laws – as he said
‘contrary to my own expectations’ – and his characterization of the ideas as
‘Einstein’s bold, not to say reckless, hypothesis’ provided both an ample and a safe
reason for awarding Einstein the prize….. Einstein’s quantum theory of light enters
into the work of several of the later Nobel laureates, so the Academy could not have
waited any longer to recognise Einstein.”
Einstein being awarded a Nobel Prize for quantum theory’s photoelectric effect has
had a corrupting effect on physics as well, which will be explained anon.
As regards Einstein’s Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect, Resnick says:
“.. in the official document of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, dated
December 10, 1922, it was stated that the prize was bestowed ‘independent of the
value that may be credited to the relativity and gravitation theory after eventual
confirmation.”
Resnick notes Einstein totally ignored this and treated the Nobel prize as an award for
relativity – “Einstein’s visit to Gotborg, Sweden, in July 1923, when he gave his
delayed Nobel Prize Lecture, Einstein totally ignored the cautious wording of the
citation and spoke on…. the theory of relativity.”
So, the points to highlight:
1. Einstein’s relativity was controversial both scientifically and politically – and
could not be agreed upon, hence he was not awarded the Nobel Prize for it.
2. A false explanation is generated by the pro-Einstein fan-group to try to cover
up the real reason why Einstein did not get the Nobel Prize for his relativity.
3. Einstein completely ignores he did not get the Nobel Prize for his relativity
and falsely acts like he did, that generates a false picture which can deceive
the casual student. It’s like he is deliberately trying to confuse things.
This adds up to corrupting physics, but there is still more input-
Now the awarding of Einstein a Nobel Prize for his quantum theory of light also
corrupts physics on many counts. This is because there is for one thing the same type
of philosophic outlook that Einstein used in his quantum theory as he used in Special
Relativity, so the controversial in his relativity is still in his quantum theory.
As Resnick notes – subsequent Nobel prizes were issued based on Einstein’s quantum
theory; so “it” is being built upon. Einstein himself later rebelled against this physics
theorising approach with his famous sayings like ‘God does not play dice.’ [2] So
even Einstein did not agree with the route that physics took based on his ideas.
As well as the many problems in conceptual understanding of Einstein’s quantum
theory (same or similar to the conceptual problems of understanding Einstein’s
Relativity). Dirac received a Nobel Prize for supposedly joining Quantum theory with
Einstein’s Relativity. So despite resistance against giving Einstein a Nobel Prize for
his Relativity, it was still indirectly later honoured by the Nobel award system,
making it something that is being built upon. But Dirac had not really joined Quantum
theory with Einstein’s Special Relativity. [3] So the whole system is being built upon
mistakes, and the real issue of the “controversy” (point 1 above) is not met—i.e. the
physics theorising is being built upon something that was never agreed upon.
How something terrible as that has occurred is dealt with by the second
misconception.
Second misconception is according to Resnick – that only a few people understood
Einstein’s general relativity and that it is unintelligible.
Resnick says: “When Einstein first advanced the theory this might not have been
considered an exaggeration, and this view, propagated by journalists, enhanced the
fame with the general public.”
Resnick also notes: “….this belief in the unintelligibility of general relativity persists
among educated persons even today, though in less damaging and narrower forms, to
be sure.”
Resnick adds: “Moreover, not everyone accepted Einstein’s theory as valid. Several
eminent scientists gave it faint praise or disagreed with it.” But notes: “Today courses
in or those containing general relativity theory are readily available, and published
articles involving general relativity are of the order of 1000 per year.”
The points now to highlight are:
4. Einstein’s relativity was initially unintelligible, and some people today still
think it’s unintelligible. My contention is – that is because it is unintelligible.
As per point (1) it was controversial and could not be agreed upon, because of
that it is made unintelligible.
5. Resnick tries to excuse it that Einstein’s relativity is now dealt with in many
texts and taught. My contention is – such a thing should not have been done
until it was agreed upon what was meant by Einstein’s relativity. Because it
was not agreed upon, all of these 1000s of articles on Einstein’s relativity are
giving numerous different opinions as they try to make sense of Einstein. That
is not good for physics to have such ambiguity.
How this could come about, Resnick refers to Chandrasekhar.
According to Chandrasekhar quote: “The meeting of November 6, 1919, of the Royal
Society also originated a myth that persists even today (though in a very much diluted
version): ‘Only three persons in the world understand relativity.’ Eddington explained
the origin of the myth. Thompson, as President of the Royal Society at that time,
concluded the meeting with the statement: ‘I have to confess that no one has yet
clearly succeeded in stating in clear language what the theory of Einstein’s really is.’
And Eddington recalled that as the meeting was dispersing, Ludwig Silberstein (the
author of one of the early books on relativity) came up to him and said: ‘Professor
Eddington, you must be one of the three persons in the world who understands
general relativity.’ On Eddington demurring to this statement, Silberstein responded.
‘Don’t be modest Eddington.’ And Eddington reply was, ‘On the contrary, I am trying
to think who the third person is!’ The myth that general relativity is a difficult theory
to understand did immeasurable harm to the development of the theory. The fact is
that the theory of general relativity is no more difficult than many other branches of
physics…”
I shall now dissect what Chandrasekhar says:
“Thompson, as President of the Royal Society at that time [1919], concluded the
meeting with the statement: ‘I have to confess that no one has yet clearly succeeded in
stating in clear language what the theory of Einstein’s really is.’”
That is the central point of this article—Einstein’s relativity is not clearly defined
hence ambiguous and hence unintelligible. Thompson concluded that in 1919. Physics
should not have been built on that! But it was built on it contrary to commonsense; by
the mistakes of awarding Einstein the Nobel Prize, by the mistakes of misconceptions
about Einstein presented to the public, by the mistakes of thinking something
unintelligibly meant it was the sign of genius instead of what it really was namely
unintelligible and numerous other mistakes.
Chandrasekhar: “And Eddington recalled that as the meeting was dispersing, Ludwig
Silberstein (the author of one of the early books on relativity) came up to him and
said: ‘Professor Eddington, you must be one of the three persons in the world who
understands general relativity.’ On Eddington demurring to this statement, Silberstein
responded. ‘Don’t be modest Eddington.’ And Eddington reply was, ‘On the contrary,
I am trying to think who the third person is!’”
Silberstein wrote an early book on relativity as noted above, and if we look at what
Silberstein says he disagrees with Einstein on that issue. It was fundamental in
physics to try to get agreement as to what Einstein’s relativity means, so that we can
have a clearly defined theory. But those disagreeing with Einstein like Silberstein end
up getting ignored, and often instead misrepresented as supporting Einstein.
Chandrasekhar: “The myth that general relativity is a difficult theory to understand
did immeasurable harm to the development of the theory. The fact is that the theory of
general relativity is no more difficult than many other branches of physics…”
That is Chandrasekhar’s opinion. What is really the problem is that the controversy in
the subject of Einstein’s relativity is glossed over when it is presented to physics
students. There was much disagreement with Einstein in 1919; why that was the case
is not dealt with. If a balanced presentation were given as to what the critics had to
say then the students would get a better insight into the issues and why there is so
much confusion in physics.
Einstein himself eventually decided he did not understand his own theory (theories) of
relativity and said: “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I
do not understand it myself anymore.” [4]
So what the students should be presented with is- Einstein did not understand his
theories, which means to me that it no longer made sense to him and many people
could not make sense of them. And so – they were never properly accepted; thrashing
out the differences of opinion never happened. By not doing that a mess was created.
The perception by many people is that if a subject is "unintelligible" then it’s very
complicated and the person who came up with it was extremely clever; i.e. they bow
to authority and consider themselves not clever enough to understand complicated
things.
The alternative was -- it was "unintelligible" because it was "unintelligible."
Sadly the publicity campaign went for the interpretation it was "unintelligible"
because it was "clever"; instead of what it really was - it was "unintelligible" because
it was "unintelligible".
It tells us more about the psychology of people than anything about physics.
And so it persists into the present day-- those opposed to Einstein's relativity and
those supporting Einstein's relativity-- but the "real" issue is no-one can agree what
"it" is because it’s ambiguous.
Epilogue
Going over the essential issues again:
It was decided that Einstein's relativity was not clearly defined.
That means it was ambiguous; "they" (physics community) could not decide what
precisely "it" was.
Being vague and ambiguous it was of course then "unintelligible."
Meaning that only a select few could supposedly understand it.
While for the majority - "they" didn't know precisely what it was.
Example of how that confusion can occur -- some said by Einstein (1905) that aether
did not exist; some by Einstein (1920) that aether existed.
i.e. you could be a follower of different versions of Einstein; you might think Einstein
was correct in 1905 and wrong in 1920 or vice versa or something else and still think
you followed Einstein.
In Einstein’s famous paper on SR he says, Einstein (1905): “The introduction of a
``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous..” [5]
This gets interpreted by many Einstein followers as Einstein meaning that aether does
not exist, and gets repeated as such in many SR texts. Highlighting also the
“interpretation problem” with Einstein; maybe he did not mean in his 1905 persona
that it be interpreted that way; who knows; Einstein never made it clear.
Later he says; Einstein (1920) : “According to the general theory of relativity space
without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation
of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time
(measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical
sense. “ [6]
This raises many problems for instance – SR is supposed to do without ether, and the
earlier theory of Lorentz was similar to SR but had ether; so was AE now thinking the
correct theory was Lorentz theory not SR. On numerous issues like this AE is unclear
what he thinks and keeps changing his mind anyway, leading to him finally saying he
didn’t understand his theory (as noted).
According to Lorentz theory article: What is now called Lorentz Ether theory
("LET") has its roots in Hendrik Lorentz's "Theory of electrons", which was the final
point in the development of the classical aether theories at the end of the 19th
and at
the beginning of the 20th
century. An extension of the theory was developed in
particular by Henri Poincaré, who coined the name "The New Mechanics". One of its
features was to explain why no experiments had been able to detect any motion
relative to an "immobile" aether, which was done by introducing the Lorentz
transformation. Many aspects of Lorentz's theory were incorporated into special
relativity (SR) with the works of Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski. [7]
So Lorentz ether theory might be really what Einstein came to believe instead of SR;
but this article’s aim is not to go into that problem; only to highlight the ambiguity
that Einstein left us.
Another example is the cosmological constant. In this example Einstein admits to
being wrong, but the physics community is left wondering when he was wrong.
According to Einstein – he first thought the cosmological constant was non-zero then
changed his mind to think it was zero. .
Maggie Wittlin says: The great physicist called the inclusion of a cosmological
constant in his general relativity equations the “biggest blunder” of his life. But
perhaps Einstein shouldn’t have been so hasty with his self-criticism. A new study,
the most precise of its kind to date, shows that Einstein’s cosmological constant may
explain one of the greatest mysteries in modern physics: dark energy. [8]
Einstein has been given too many privileges-- been allowed to say one thing and the
complete opposite.
Meaning mainstream decides to build on something ill-defined.
Side note
The other misconceptions that Resnick notices are not so important; and for the fourth
misconception – I think Resnick does not deal properly with namely, the relationship
to Relativity and Relativism.
References
[1] Journal of Chemical Education 1980, 57 (12), p 854-- DOI: 10.1021/ed057p854
Publication Date: December 1980 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed057p854
[2] http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/ae63.htm
[3] The Myth of Dirac supposedly combining Special Relativity with Quantum
Mechanics, Roger J. Anderton http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/anderton69.pdf
[4] In A. Sommerfelt "To Albert Einstein's Seventieth Birthday" in Paul A. Schilpp
(ed.) Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, Evanston, 1949.
http://math.furman.edu/~mwoodard/mqs/ascquote.html
[5] ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905 http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
[6] Ether and the Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein :An address delivered on May
5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html
[7] Lorentz ether theory
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1094601
[8] Einstein Wrong About Being Wrong, by Maggie Wittlin "
SEEDMAGAZINE.COM October 17, 2010 http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/einstein_wrong_about_being_wrong/
c.RJAnderton2010-10-17