Solving Einstein's puzzles

Posted: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:20 AM by Alan Boyle

Walter Isaacson’s 704-page, 2.4-pound biography of Albert Einstein may not provide a solution to the great question that nagged the physicist to the day he died – but thanks to Isaacson's access to a treasure trove of letters released just last year, "Einstein: His Life and Universe" provides the most definitive word yet on Einstein's personal puzzles.

Simon & Schuster

"Einstein: His Life and
Universe" draws upon
recently released
archival material.

You'll get the latest take on the inner sources of his genius, the "triangular geometry" of his sex life and the ambiguities of his religious beliefs. And you just might learn something new about relativity, too.

Isaacson isn't a professional scientist, but he ranks among the heavyweights in literary circles (though not in a literal way - he's still pretty trim for a soon-to-be 55-year-old). His past biographical subjects include Henry Kissinger and Benjamin Franklin, and he worked his way up to become managing editor of Time magazine.

It was in that capacity that he helped select Einstein to be the magazine's "Person of the Century" in 2000. Even before then, Isaacson had the German-born physicist on his short list of potential book subjects. While he was writing the Franklin book, he also was researching Einstein's life and legacy - and waiting patiently for the release of more than 3,500 pages of correspondence and photos, sealed away two decades earlier by his stepdaughter Margot.

After a long stint with Time and a shorter stint with CNN, Isaacson is now the chief executive officer of the Aspen Institute and a touring author. Isaacson's tome has been hailed as the "most comprehensive English-language biography of Einstein for a general readership," and it's No. 1 on The New York Times' best-seller list for hardcover nonfiction.

During a Q&A session with Isaacson on Tuesday, just before a Town Hall Seattle talk, he told me his aim wasn't to capitalize on the zingers within the newly released files - for example, the kiss-and-tell details of his dalliances, which Einstein jokingly called "triangular geometry." Rather, he wanted to draw upon the best information available to put the great man's life in the broadest perspective possible.

Aspen Institute

Author-journalist Walter
Isaacson is CEO of the
Aspen Institute.

Einstein was fond of saying that "imagination is more important than knowledge." And in a letter to Elsa Lowenthal, the lover who would later become his wife, he declared that impudence was his "guardian angel in this world." Isaacson concluded that it was Einstein's imagination - as well as his impudence - that set him apart from his contemporaries and allowed him to enter the scientific pantheon alongside Galileo and Newton.

"I wanted to try to explore the roots of his imagination ... For Einstein, it really is a question of creativity, of creativity born of rebelliousness," Isaacson said.

It was once said that only three people in the world could understand Einstein's theories of relativity (which famously led astrophysicist Arthur Eddington to wonder who the third person was). But Isaacson's view is that human relations pose harder puzzles to crack.

"If you can understand 'Hamlet,' you can understand relativity," he said.

In Tuesday's Q&A with science writers, Isaacson touched upon Einstein's human foibles as well as his scientific triumphs. The conversation started out with a puzzle that's quite familiar to Cosmic Log readers: the role of Einstein's first wife, Mileva Maric, in developing the special theory of relativity. Here's an edited transcript:

Isaacson: The Mileva controversy is absolutely astonishing. And of course, I've gotten the most recent personal papers that were released last year, which is the final blowup of the marriage. ...

My theme about her in the book is basically that she overcomes most, but not quite all, of the obstacles facing a woman physicist. My second great thing, which is the key question on Mileva, is how much she was a collaborator with Einstein. I try to take it step by step.

You want it to be a collaboration, because that's more explosive. But unfortunately, most of the concepts of special relativity come from Michele Besso being Einstein's sounding board - including the relativity of simultaneity, which is the key step.

Mileva helps check the math. But I think the PBS documentary ["Einstein's Wife"] is wrong in saying that her name is on an original draft of the special-relativity paper. The more you go through the archives, the more you see that's just not the case. The one person who said it was the case was a Russian writer who doesn't fully agree with himself anymore.

Having said that, she was a big helpmate. You don't have to exaggerate her accomplishments to be totally awed, blown away, respectful of the pioneering role she played in physics for women. People who try to exaggerate her role probably do her a disservice rather than a service.

The blowup of the marriage is also interesting. The contract, you probably know about. [Einstein's list of conditions for staying married to Maric included these demands: "You make sure . . . that I receive my three meals regularly in my room," and "You are neither to expect intimacy nor to reproach me in any way."] It's totally brutal.

As far as I can tell, she almost signs the contract. She talks to Fritz Haber [a family acquaintance and mediator], Einstein sends another note, but she finally decides not to sign it. They do make a contract where Einstein says, "You'll get the Nobel Prize money if I win" [as part of a divorce settlement]. They go through a lawyer who is a neighbor, and he draws up the contract, and they even go into the possibility that he won't win the Nobel Prize. ... I have a footnote that goes into the entire thing about who got the money, how she got sick, how she put some of the money under a mattress. ... There must be 200 letters that are disputes over money, all in German.

Q: Did you come across anything about Einstein having affairs while he was married to Mileva - other than his affair with Elsa [who became Einstein's wife after he divorced Maric]?

A: No. He does have an affair with Elsa. He has affairs while married to Elsa, with four women, while living in Caputh. I don't dwell on it, but I have a paragraph on each of his girlfriends. And then of course he has girlfriends after Elsa dies, up to the very end. I don't know to what extent they were sexual, but I'm sure they were intimate relationships.

Q: Did his affairs tend to be with colleagues?

A: No, Mileva was the only really brilliant woman he was in love with.

I am respectful to Elsa. She's usually considered the motherly, not very smart, just doting on Einstein type. But I think she was smarter than people gave her credit for. She had a lot of savvy and common sense. They both had a great sense of humor. And I think they had a solid relationship.

Q: In the course of writing the book, were you looking for "zingers," or were you looking for a complete picture of Einstein?

A: This is just supposed to be a pure narrative, a complete picture - especially about the way his mind worked. It's about the rebellious nature of his personality - even when it came to things like his marriages, but especially about other things, such as making the leaps in science. It's about the source of his genius.

Q: It seems as if one of the themes you came up with was that he, unlike some of his contemporaries, was willing to throw out the Newtonian view of the universe.

A: He was incredibly rebellious - rebellious as a kid. He gets thrown out of school, for example. Imagination and rebelliousness ... that's the source of him being slow in learning how to talk, being a visual thinker, being creative.

Max Planck comes up with the constant that you need to explain black-body radiation. It makes the equations work - something that nobody's been able to do before. And Planck is academically more knowledgeable than Einstein by about twentyfold. I mean, Einstein is a patent examiner, third class. In some ways, Planck is just as smart as Einstein, and smarter in math. So Planck comes up with this constant. And yet Planck, Lorentz, Poincare, all these people think it's basically some mathematical contrivance.

Einstein looks at the formula, and he realizes that light is a particle. It's that ability to sense the particle nature of light that shows him to be so much different from the others.

Q: The willingness to take the extra step?

A: Or just visualize. As a 16-year-old, he's looking at Maxwell's equations, and he realizes something that even the greatest physicists haven't figured out. A light wave has to travel at a constant speed, 186,000 miles per second. Maxwell's equations don't allow the wave to travel at any other speed. But if you're traveling near the speed of light, wouldn't you see the wave as stationary compared to you, as if you were on a Jet-Ski right next to an ocean wave? Well, Maxwell's equations don't allow for that.

At the age of 16, Einstein is totally freaked by this. He says his hands start sweating, he's so worried. You think back to all the things that were causing your hands to sweat when you were 16, and they're not Maxwell's equations!

But he can visualize this and nobody else can. Every single thing he does comes from taking a visual and imaginative leap, not from being smarter than other people. Quantum theory. Special relativity. General relativity. The EPR experiment. They're visual, imaginative, rebellious leaps as opposed to hard-crunching science.

And that ties into his personal life as well. Everything he does is rebellious, defying convention, defying authority. He has a contempt for what he calls "Zwang" - which is the German word for bonds or commitments - which is why he's not exactly "Husband of the Year."

Q: Was there any sort of visualization tool you came across that was particularly important?

A: The lightning striking both ends of the train is the most important stuff. He and Michele Besso, his best friend from the patent office, were taking a walk one day and trying to define what it meant for events to be simultaneous. Peter Galison tells the story very well in "Einstein's Clocks, Poincare's Maps." They got 70 patent applications involving how you use signals to synchronize clocks - so that when it strikes 7 in Bern, it strikes 7 in Zurich. That's the big visualization: If you're moving, you have a different definition of what's simultaneous than if you're not moving. That's all special relativity.

One interesting thing about Einstein is why he failed so miserably in the last part of his life...

Q: When he was looking for the unified field theory, the theory of everything?

A: Right. ... One of his collaborators at Princeton, Banesh Hoffmann, said that they had no ground lines. Einstein had been able to visualize everything up until then, but in the end they were just doing pure mathematical formalism. Which is the problem with string theory now. It's absolutely the most elegant thing you can imagine, but it's just mathematical formalism. It doesn't have a ground line to say here's where it connects with reality. I'm not a string theorist, but even string theorists will tell you they haven't yet found a way to say "here, let's test it," or "let's visualize it, what's the underlying physical reality to string theory."

And that's where Einstein fails on the unified field theory. He doesn't have that imaginative image: "Oh, light's a particle" ... "Oh, if you're synchronizing clocks, it's relative when you're moving" ... "Oh, acceleration and gravity are equivalent if you're in an enclosed chamber." All these are totally cool ideas that my 16-year-old daughter can perfectly understand. "Oh, yeah, you're in an enclosed chamber, you're accelerating upward, it feels just like gravity." From that springs the equivalence principle.

Q: I have to ask about the God question: It seems to me that you're pretty definitive in the book, that he's a deist and a determinist...

A: A deist, a determinist. He's sort of a pantheist, although I don't know quite what a pantheist is. He says he believes in Spinoza's God, a God whose spirit is manifest in the harmonies of the universe. He deeply believes in God. He gets really mad when people call him an atheist.

I've avoided getting into a debate with [evolutionary biologist] Richard Dawkins, who starts his book by claiming that Einstein was an atheist, and that when Einstein says "God," he just means the laws of nature, he doesn't mean God. Dawkins knows so much more about science than I'll ever know, but I do happen to have read a lot more of Einstein than he's read.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

It's not about knowing more about Einstein, it is about knowing what a deist is... The deist says there is a GOD, and that GOD exists everywhere that science can't look yet... A deist is FAR, FAR, from the Judeo-Christian version of GOD... much closer to a view of the Atheists, Dawkins was right about this...

Damian, Newport, RI (Sent Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:44 PM)

One of the simplest thoughts Einstein projected is relativity. What he says is that time exists in our minds...we made it up...it is relative to situations. For example, time does not exist in Space.

We've had that info for decades, yet Space Travel is still spoken of in terms of how far, and how long.

It's all relative. Stop worrying about it.

My proof of this comes from continued use of such notions as vehicle re-entry being at speeds of 10,000 plus mph. There is no such thing as 10,000mph...as a measure of distance traveled over the surface of the Earth, it's impossible...can you say off on a tangent within a mile, or so, or held down by so much friction the 10,000mph object gets hot enough to disintegrate?

Think about it...just another big number with zero meaning.

Relativity is ours to use, and it remains misunderstood.

E=MC2...sure it does...tell me what that one means, eh?

Al was putting people on...like the famous poster of him, tongue wagging, while careening wildly on his bike...he understood that straight science/physics was a private language, for participants only...if the public was to get in on any of it, and expand upon his concepts, he'd have to toss the info out there as Pop Culture.
Have a chuckle...Al did!

for more curvilineareality...

http://smythspace.blogspot.com

Steve Smyth (Sent Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:48 PM)

This article touched me, because I had been a student of Banesh Hoffman, who in turn was a student of Einstein. Unfortunately, I did not do well in the modern-physics unit in Dr. Hoffman's course in mathematical physics.

I do, however, have a concept for a hyperdimensional theory to expand upon Special and General Relativity, and explain Quantum. I guess I lack the resources to finish it, but, maybe a bit of online collaboration can bring this idea to life.

In Einstein's Special Theory of relativity, the speed of light is an absolute speed limit. Now, suppose you have those little invisible curled-up compactified (small) dimensions, in addition to the macroscopic (big) spatial dimensions we perceive.

Now, suppose also that any particle or wave always moves through all the spatial dimensions, big and small, with a combined pythagorean sum of the speed of light. A stationary particle has all its motion in the small dimensions, while a photon would have all its motion in the big dimensions. A particle moving at less than the speed of light would have some of its motion in the big dimensions, and some of the motion in the small dimensions.

Some grand cosmological theories suppose an oscillating universe, where the universe (that is, the big dimensions of the universe) repeatedly shrinks to a choke point, then has a Big Bang, expands to its maximum size, and then shrinks again to a singularity, and repeats the cycle. What if the small dimensions are also oscillating, but at a much faster pace, and they don't oscillate down a choke point? Suppose further that these dimensions are grouped in threes, with all three dimensions in a group being approximately equal. The vibrations of the three grouped dimensions may be offset by 120 degrees from each other, so that the volume of these three dimensions vibrates, but at three times the frequencies of the fundamental vibrations. Notice that, as the vibrations become stronger, the average volume tends to decrease slightly. Bear in mind that the vibrations of the small dimensions can vary from point to point as you move around in the big dimensions.

Let us use the word "hyperspace" to describe the combined large and small spatial dimensions.

Let's make another supposition -- that, within any closed segment of hyperspace, the hypervolume is constant. Therefore, a spot which has a lot of vibrations in its small dimensions will have a slight contraction of the average volume of the small dimensions, which should be accompanied by an expansions of the big dimensions. I guess you can see where this is leading -- the vibrations in the small dimensions are mass-energy, and the expansion in the big dimensions are what causes gravity in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

The vibrations in different small dimensions can resonate, producing what appear to us to be discrete particles -- a whole zoo of them, in fact!

This approach can unify Special and General Relativity with Quantum. It also identifies some of the compactified dimensions as the luminiferous ether that physicists were searching for, in vain, over a century ago. The three big dimensions are the gravitational ether, but we live in these dimensions, so there are no gravitons that we could possibly detect.

Thus, the universe itself is smooth. The discreteness of particles is an illusion caused by the resonances between smooth waves in different dimensions.

This is a start -- all words, no elegant mathematics. Now, can anyone out there in cyberspace help me fill in the details?

-- Josh-Levin@ieee.org

Joshua Zev Levin, Ph.D. (Sent Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:40 PM)

I want to mention the subtle ways in which play has been shown to be a fruitful path to new insights. I was thinking about something that can be observed in young critters of many kinds, and humans, of course.

The basic idea is to have a young mind, chock full of useful facts, untainted by traditional concepts of the relationships between them, and in possession of a certain point of view.

This POV is arrived at through no ideal function or intent nor is it guided to a given goal. It does have a large potential to reveal many unforeseen and unexpected new relationships, any of which may be engaging or scary or just plain funny. Or maybe very interesting.

Lots of people I've talked to have said they learned important and useful things while playing as a child. Encouragingly, some people say the same thing about playing as an adult. If one has had the pleasure of being around domestic critters of any kind, on can observe a similar process.

Einstein did play, but not with our minds, Steve Smyth. He played with his own. The immediate benefit was only to himself; playing with his mind had no effect on the world until he shared it. Now we all get to play with his (then) new ideas and do so in relation to all the other ideas we have.

Waddaya bet that the fun will continue?

Crudely Wrott, Dayton, OH (Sent Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:07 PM)

It is very important to recognize that no one yet know WHY e=mc^2. I.e., why mass/energy are physically equivalent and in particular, why the conversion factor must be the speed of light squared. Why the speed of light and not something else? Why squared? And while Einstein discovered the speed of light is absolute and has a maximum that cannot be breached, he doesn't (nor anybody since) know why this must be so. Physicists take these as discovered facts, but offer no explanation. Clearly, light reflects the absolutely fundamental properties of this universe. (Light, or photons, is also the the stuff that binds an atom together. The protons in the nucleus and the electrons constantly exchange photons, thus creating the force that hold atoms.) But it is how light travels that poses the great mystery. The person who discovers the physical principle that explains the origin of photon, permits one to derive the speed of light and predicts its behavior across all space-time and interactions with all matter, will certainly be the Einstein of the 21th century.

Dr. To (Sent Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:30 PM)

Dr Levin:

Your proposal has a lot of very big assumptions. In particular, you assume small (compactified) dimensions. This is old news because string theory already has that long time ago. And it is those extra 6/7 dimensions that created, instead of a theory of everything, a very troubled theory of anything (or nothing). All attempts to unify relativity and quantum using extra dimensions, over many decades and by thousands of the brightest physicists, have so far failed !!

As for your proposal that universe (assume you mean space-time) is smooth down to the lowest possible scale, all current scientific theories on space-time beyond relativity starts with the idea that the universe is not smooth at the tiniest scale. This is so that it will not invalidate quantum theory, which has been proven correct to extreme precision. For a discussion of a leading post-relativity theory of space-time search Google on Loop Quantum Gravity. This theory also posit that space-time has a minimum discrete volume bounded by Planck length of 10^-33.

Dr. To (Sent Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:53 PM)

It is Deist, not deist. The names of religions and the words formed by them are capitalized. Deism is a religion with its belief centered on a Creator which is perfect and since that Creator is perfect in the creation of the universe, then no further interference by the Creator is needed. This is opposed to revealed religions which have God as imperfect in creation and needs to constantly adjust creation due to imperfection, and the whims of humans which can't accept creation as being perfect.

Rev. Keith R. Wright , President, The United Deist Church (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 2:20 AM)

Einstein did not expand the dimensional aspects of relativity because in his review of Kalusa's work, he found that classical sets of particles could only form within a 4 dimensional cosmology.

So far as is known, he did not consider the idea that his quasi-static universe (as he originally conceived it) might consist of not one but two three spaces sharing a common single process time dimension...even though he was well aware that Schwarzschilds "mirror" geometry provided correct solutions to his General Relativity formulae.

Further, he failed to see, so far as is known, that an inversely mapped bifid universe with a submicroscopic Planck Realm proper time pulse, crossread by observers in extreme gravitational time dilation could be the solution in his attempt at conceiving a quasi-static universe.

Einstein also failed to visualize how the introduction of scale to the universe is related to the emergence of determinism from seemingly random quantum fluctuations.

To Einsteins credit he had no idea black holes were real, nor did he have access to the field results of the last 50 years, critical discoveries such as acceleration outward, and the power spectrum. Nor was he here to find out that the universe does indeed have a cosmological constant...and to speculate on the meaning of that fact relative to his original idea of a quasi-static universe.

Samuel A. (Sam) Cox, Philadelphia, Pa. (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 3:03 AM)

J. Z. Levin,

I can't help you out, especially online. I suggest your visiting a group or individual physicists at a major college or university. You may not get much attention (and I'd advise waiting or trying to go on your own) until after proposed detectors of gravitational waves fail to detect them.

You may keep your hopes alive by recalling the failure to detect the aether in the Michaelson/Morley experiment supported Special Relativity.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 7:21 AM)

Deism

"Deism" has various definitions in dictionaries, but "The Merriam Webster Dictionary" seems to get the general meaning of them all with: "a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human morality and reason rather than divine revelation". It is probably safe to say that "natural religion" is taken to be in direct opposition to "organized religion" (dogmatic religion?). If we take Isaacson's reporting as correct, then is seems Einstein could agree with this definition of deism. With this definition, it is easy to understand why Einstein, as a deist, would get upset (Isaacson's choice of "mad" for upset or angry may mislead) with those trying to say he was an atheist. Einstein, probably, would have seen "atheism" as being a contradiction (denial) of deism. After suffering all the now-seen-as false claims of self-contradiction in his Special Relativity and being vindicated by so much experimental evidence, one can understand how he might come close to Isaacson's "mad" when unjustifiedly an wrongly branded with "atheist". The upset becomes even greater on seeing how his Special Relativity is so POORLY UNDERSTOOD by so many with things like claiming Special Relativity shows everything to be relative. For Einstein and those who correctly understand Special Relativity there are firm ABSOLUTES found in the physics of Special Relativity. Einstein, even without Special Relativity, knew that some things are ABSOLUTE and some things are relative, but Special Relativity allowed him to see the ABSOLUTES clearly and to be able to distinguish them from that which is relative (not absolute). It seems that these ABSOLUTES, made clear in his Relativities, could have been his reason for being a deist.

Einstein being especially sensitive to self-contradictions could, readily, see that the often heard atheist claim: "There is nothing absolute." is a self-contradiction. Mathematics (Einstein said that he evolved from physicist toward mathematician) is our best tool for finding or exposing self-contradictions and physics, probably, a close second. The field of Dawkins pales in comparison to mathematics on self-contradiction and absolutes; hence, maybe Dawkins did not see the self-contradiction involvement in calling Einstein an atheist. It could well be that Einstein's absolute conviction of the existence of absolutes, brought forth by his Special and General Relativity, was basic in making him so unsatisfied with quantum theory. Maybe this fact sparked the famous "God does not play dice". Incidentally, since Einstein's death, even though Einstein's attempts to show quantum theory incomplete have failed, it has become clearer that physics can say quantum theory is not a total "crap shoot", there are ABSOLUTES in quantum theory after all. That fact would please Einstein.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 9:01 AM)

To Crudely,

I couldn't agree more. However...your point on the 'mind play' issue...please? That's some pretty convoluted syntax, but I think you know what you mean, eh?

Get back with more...I'm fascinated.

Sure is nice of Alan to let us develop this here...don'tcha think?

Steve Smyth (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 8:01 PM)

Response To Dr. To:

I believe that Einstein's original papers (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/;
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/) adequately explain why the conversion factor is the square of the speed of light -- and not just because the dimensions work out that way.

I am a rebel against quantum. Maybe, according to Crudely Wrott's [Dayton, OH (Sent Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:07 PM)] criteria, I am a young imaginative boy of 58 years of age. I want to show that Einstein was right, but that there is an illusion of quantumness due to the resonances of different small vibrating dimensions. In essence, I'm trying to do is make a stringless string theory. Also, I trying to show that combinations of dimensions constitute the various "ethers" which conduct the various forces. The three "big" dimensions alone constitute the gravitational ether. My guess is that one set of three small dimensions combine with the three big dimensions to form the strong-force either, and that the addition of another set of three yet-smaller dimensions constitute the electroweak ether.

Response to Carlton Lane:

Before Michaelson-Morley, people imagined the luminiferous ether to be something rigid, superimposed upon the three spatial dimensions. In contrast, since these strong-force and electroweak ethers are "subspaces" of the big dimensions, in that they can vary from point to point in the big dimensions, they are fully compatible with relativity.

Also, I firmly believe in the existence of gravity waves -- it is gravitons that I don't believe exist. I don't believe in Higgs bosons either -- the contraction of small dimensions leading to dilation of large dimensions is enough to explain gravity.

Joshua Zev Levin, Ph.D. (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 8:06 PM)

Reverend Wright

You have every right to define Deist as you like, but it is at least intolerant (hope your Deism is big on tolerance) to deny others the use of deism (with a small "d"). It should be clear why some atheists feel very strongly about avoiding Atheist.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 9:33 PM)

Dr. To and Others

If your Dr. is for physics, it seems your training missed the very important point that physics is about answering "how to measure" NOT "why?" "Why?" may be seen as metaphysics (beyond physics). Physics and other areas of human endeavor recognize that "Why?" can never be ultimately answered. Physicists, along these lines, recognize that ultimate definitions are as problematical (lead to endless regress etc.) as finding ultimate answers to the "Why?" question and, therefore, set up accepted PRIMARIES (things to NOT be defined, undefinables, expected to be familiar or have adequate experience with or feeling for, like length and time of physics). Physicists (many Cosmic Loggers and others) still use and exploit why-questions to encourage exploration, thinking, discoveries, etc. and not letting the ultimate answer difficulty spoil the fun. The (at least satisfatory for themselves) ultimate answer difficulty is resolved by many with the introduction of god or God. Often these people believe that god or God is infinite goodness and infinite goodness would not make it so that such problems arise without their being able to be resolved (sounds more like devilishness than infinite goodness to not provide resolution after allowing such problems to arise). Some, indeed, invoke "heaven" (a resurrection ala global general relativist Tipler?) in order to provide this infinite goodness the opportunity for resolution. Some types of atheists face terrible despair on seeing their position necessarily leading them to the conclusion that it all is a worthless game (joke?). They have a right to believe (have faith) in their atheism and even to proselytize, but far more optimistic beliefs are around and rightly, at least by the tolerant, demand or require equal opportunity as beliefs. Such beliefs can give atheism (that with built in ultimate pessimism or nihilism) adequate competition, even if denied by such atheists. Honest atheists know that their belief is based on (justified by) what they see as a preponderance of evidence. They may even claim this evidence constitutes a reasonable proof, a proof by induction, but common logic makes clear that proof by induction is not an absolute (ultimate?) proof in the way that deductive proof is. Neither atheist nor theist can provide a deductive proof for the absence or presence (existence) of God (god) without running into some assumptions (beliefs) essential to their "proof" where they can, at least for themselves, justifiably disagree. Ultimate proof is similar to ultimate definition or the ultimate answer to "Why?"

Finally, it is correct to say that string theory is currently, scientifically untested, just a bunch of interesting mathematics; therefore, it does not resolve the unification of the well tested relativity theory and qantum theory. However, it is misleading to imply that string theory has nothing in it that has the potential to bring a unification. Moving away from dealing with particles as mathematical points to mathematical strings represents such a potential. However, until scientific, evidence for strings is found, you are right to say string theory does not scientifically provide unification.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Friday, May 04, 2007 11:34 PM)

J Z Levin:

Of course I and many others studied Einstein's papers decades ago. And I know of many others claiming they completely understood it. But I don't. Yes I understood it rationally, mathematically. But I do not understand the deep reason why this universe must have a thing called photon, that it must travel thru space at a fixed maximum speed and at no other speeds, and the deep physical reason why this speed is connected with mass-energy. I don't believe photons are the origin of everything, so something even more basic must have created them. Only knowing how photons were originally created can one claim to know why e=mc^2. Because then one will know how to derive the speed of light for all times, and know why the photon have the amazing properties and fantastic roles it has in our universe. And, BTW, this also implies solving the mystery of the dark matter. We know dark matter does not interact with light. Knowing the full story of light will tell us why the universe has matter that does not interact with it when all other matter that we know do.

While Einstein shed deep insight on light, and quantum mechanics explains much about it, deeper mysteries remains. I believe the key to unlocking the origin and fundamental properties of this universe lies in a full understanding of light.

Dr. To (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 1:27 AM)

J. Z. Levin,

You can see why I didn't think that I could help you online. As I read your comment, I got the wrong idea that your proposal was to show the non-existence of gravity waves. Sorry for my error and thank you for setting me straight. I now see that it is the non- existence of gravity particles not the non-existence of gravity waves that is involved in your proposal. Einstein would be so very happy if your proposal can be validated by experiments because that fact would verify what he felt so strongly but was not able to discover a theory to support his feelings. The wave-particle duality is so well ingrained in current physics that you will find it difficult to get understanding or a hearing in the physics community for how a theory can have gravity waves and not gravity particles in the face of so much evidence supporting quantum uncertainty. As I, maybe wrongly again, read your comments, it seems that you, like Einstein, feel that quantum theory is incomplete with its wave-particle (uncertainty) problem and your proposal may be able to alleviate this problem.
Also, have you thought of experiments to verify your proposal. The traditional physics community still loves experiments. Your "hyperspace" seems not quite on a par with strings in this matter.

Again, my not-young (remember Einstein made his major contributions while less than 30) mind has trouble with your saying that photons move only in the large dimensions while mass-energy vibrations are in the small dimensions, but photons have mass-energy. Also, I don't see how your gravity wave and no gravity particle avoids a photon wave and no photon particle if the gravity wave speed equals the maximum speed of light. Einstein would, probably, give up his strong conviction for photon particles (even gamble on losing his Nobel Prize?) if your proposal showed quantum theory to be incomplete.

No need to correct any of my errors or misunderstandings about your hyperspace proposal (please, if you have the time, correct any of my traditional-physics errors in order to help any who might be misled by them). I just wanted you to see why I could not help you even though I have a strong wish that I could.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 8:09 AM)

Dr. To and Others: "Why?"

Dr. Levin's reference for seeing why e = m times c times c may be a too-long answer. Please look up or remember my comment on the impossibilty of giving an ultimate answer to "Why?". I, however, will give you a breifer, but not ultimate answer, that may help you. First a little story that seems germane. A young boy asked his mother where he came from and she gave him a long answer that included all the intricacies of sex, etc.. After her heroic effort, her son said "Thank you mom, but my pal Paul comes from Chicago and I still don't know where I come from.".

Sooooo, try this not-ultimate answer. E = mass multiplied by the square of the maximum speed of light so that our universe can have nuclear energy (end of brief answer). To, again, emphasize the not-ultimateness, notice that one may now ask, "Why does our universe want the ability to have nuclear energy?". An answer might be: "Our universe wants to have nuclear energy because it wants to make suns hot.". "Why?"

Our universe wants hot suns so that you can be around to ask why-questions. "Why?" ad infinitum and Q.E.D.. Some atheists may try to stop the endless "Why?" by saying that there is no answer, its all meaningless. Our whyer then still can ask "Why is there no answer or why is it meaningless?" The atheist may try to stop the why-chain with "Because I say so", which may work if your daddy or mommy, but persistent whyers may come up with "Why do you say so?", maybe followed by because "I say so", followed by "Why?, followed by "because --" ad infinitum. The theist is no better off with "Because God made it that way" which can be followed by "Why did God make it that way?", "because --", "Why?", back to ad infinitum. HOWEVER, we should not let this "ad infinitum" problem stop us from probing with "whys" because such pobing often leads to great discoveries, can prove to be very interesting, bring joy, fun, etc..

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 9:06 AM)

"I want to mention the subtle ways in which play has been shown to be a fruitful path to new insights. I was thinking about something that can be observed in young critters of many kinds, and humans, of course."

"The basic idea is to have a young mind, chock full of useful facts, untainted by traditional concepts of the relationships between them, and in possession of a certain point of view."

Well, this is a good start to creating a fertile landscape for creativity - but it is quite difficult in practice to remain untainted by the agreements made in a given culture about the relationship between things. We are all fed the same information for 12 years of school and taught how to conform and be 'useful' to society.

Once the intention to be free and discover what your mind is capable of is born ... how do we begin the process of undoing all of those binding relationships and all the while retain enough sanity to get up and go to work each day?

William James (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 11:45 AM)

Dear Mr. Lane,

My comments were on grammar and not convictions. I hope you can separate the two.

Everybody has poetic licence to use alternatives to common usage to make a point, as in the poetry of e. e. cummings, but this was not the case. Ignorance that Deism is a name of a religion and should be capitalized and animosity toward a word are entirely two different things. I was speaking about the ignorance in capitalization; you are speaking about your feelings toward a specific word.

    Does this mean that if you are self loathing that you must spell your name in lower case? Does this mean if you dislike the state of your residence that you spell it hawaii?

    This issue has nothing to do with tolorance. It was an issue dealing with grammar.

    The only difference separating Atheists and Deists is that Atheists see no reason for a God and that Deists reason that the evidence speaks for one.

    I have far more in common with Atheists than those of revealed religions. I have been a member of infidels.org for five years and have had many enjoyable discussions, and many Atheists appreciating my ontological position.

    I tolorate, but deep down inside, I wish the earth was filled with Deists and Atheists so there would only be a world of reason and not hate and fear induced by revealed religion.

Rev. Keith R. Wright, President, The United Deist Church (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 12:46 PM)

The major problem with Einstein has always been that only one other person has ever fully understood his therories.......And he didn't agree.

David Bradbury (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 3:40 PM)

I am the only one who thinks that set definition of 'ism's, especially religious views, are just sad and that like anything else in life we should continue to explore and evolve our views through time.

Nick Allen, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 4:00 PM)

"It is very important to recognize that no one yet know WHY e=mc^2. I.e., why mass/energy are physically equivalent and in particular, why the conversion factor must be the speed of light squared. Why the speed of light and not something else? Why squared?"

Because of radiation pressure. Before Einstein, it was known that a beam of light pushes against matter, thus it has momemtum. This means that a beam of energy E will have a momentum of E/c, since light always moves at c.

If you consider that light carries a momentum in one direction, then there must be an equal an opposite momentum in the opposite direction - due to conservation of momentum, this will be Mv= (E/c)

v will also be the speed light, thus we get mc=e/c

Multiplying both sides by c, we get mc^2 = e

Frank, Dallas, TX (Sent Saturday, May 05, 2007 9:59 PM)

Mention Einstein and all the kooks come out...

Josh Kojing, Somewhere, Earth (Sent Sunday, May 06, 2007 12:50 AM)

WHOOPS Rev. Wright

Your response to my defense of Alan's and Isaacson's right to use "deism" (they certainly were not referring to you or your church and I am certain, in view of your comments herein, that they would use Deism if they now should) rather than to be bound by your dictum "Its Deism not deism." seems to indicate that it hit a raw nerve for you. I apologize for upsetting you; I had no idea of your sensitivity in this matter and perhaps I should have. If you say so, you are a Deist not a deist. If you read further, you may be angered even more, but you have hereby been warned and I am going on because some readers may be misled by errors in your reply to me of May 5 at 12:46 P.M..

(1) Alan, Isaacson, and my defense of their (grammatical not convictional) use of "deism" is supported by at least 3 dictionaries all of which have deism (and no Deism) as entries. I am certain they have atheism (not Atheism) and pantheism (not Pantheism). However, as is to be expected they have Christianity (not christianity).

(2) As explained, I was defending Alan's and Isaacson's use of "deism" and not in any way trying to express my feelings or their feelings (emotions?) about a particular word, "deism".

(3) I do hope your error in the spelling of tolerate as "tolorate" is a typographical error and not some kind of Freudian slip.

(4) Not all atheists will accept your "the only difference separating Atheists and Deists ---" and may even become enraged if you insist they be Atheists rather than atheists, especially if they see you as trying to label them as a religion.

(5) Your implication that Einstein would have himself be called a Deist rather than a deist is in error because he did not belong to your church or any similar church.

Finally, Rev. Wright risked making me as angry as I seem to have angered him with my "deist" when he wrote "hawaii" instead of Hawaii. Guess the Rev. Wright didn't know that Hawaii is paradise by my definitions.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Sunday, May 06, 2007 8:35 AM)

Isaacson needs to write a book on Nikola Tesla next.

Benjamin (Sent Sunday, May 06, 2007 1:33 PM)

Further response to Carlton Lane:

I just want to clarify a few things and raise some questions I have not been able to answer.

1) If some of the "movement" or "vibrations" associated with a photon occur in the small dimensions, then it is possible that photons actually move slightly slower than "c", where "c" would now be the "hypothetical" speed of light. Such a difference should be less than one part per googol (c/10^100), but this is disturbing because it implies a rest mass for photons, and some photons might travel faster than others in a "pure" vacuum. This might not ever be possible to test. I hope I'm wrong about this part.

One must also consider that, according to Special Relativity, time stands still when you are moving at the speed of light. Thus, the lifetime of a photon in its own coordinate frame is identically zero.

2) What happened at the "Big Bang"? If the hypervolume of hyperspace is conserved on a local level, it of course has to be conserved on a cosmic level. Therefore, instead of starting from a point singularity, the universe would have a small but finite size in its big dimensions. Perhaps the Big Bang is where three of the small dimensions of a previous universe became the big dimensions of our universe, and their big dimensions are now three of our small dimensions. Would it be possible to probe what was in the previous universe by examining the small dimensions?

3) This framework assumes that the wave property of everything is always primary, and that any quantization, whether of energy or matter, is an artifact of wave resonance.

Lastly, here is a brain teaser that has little to do with the current discussion: What are the dynamic mass (not rest mass) and momentum of a tachyon traveling at infinite speed? Assume the rest mass is im, where i is the square root of minus one. Does the answer to the second part disprove the existence of tachyons?

Joshua Zev Levin, Ph.D. (Sent Sunday, May 06, 2007 6:28 PM)

To Carlton Lane:
Thanks for your view on 'why'. Of course, the final 'why' is best left to philosophy at our current stage of understanding. But I disagree because I believe it is possible to push the 'why' scientifically much further then current knowledge. We have a significant community of physicists engaged in research of such deep questions based on that premise.

Frank:
I saw your derivation some 35 years ago when I first studied classical physics. Clearly I am not convinced that's the 'final' answer, anymore than the original Einstein paper. Current knowledge says vacuum has a full range of virtual particles due to quantum uncertainly fluctuations. That this exist is proven. As a photon moves thru vacuum, it interacts with some of the virtual particles. Also, QFT says that the photon does not interact with Higgs particle but is it not proven. Problems: 1) Best calculation of vacuum energy due to virtual particles is very very wrong. This is a tremendously deep problem because that means we don't fully understand the vacuum and how things move thru it. 2) No one is able to calculate speed of propagation of photon given known quantum properties of a photon and its interactions with the vacuum. If one is able to do 2), one should be able to derive e=mc^2 from quantum principles. And one should also be able to say if e=mc^2 holds for all time because one will know if c is time-dependent even it that time is Planck time. Also, we know photon does not interact with dark matter but we don't know why. Finally, do we know if speed of light, thus e=mc^2 holds for all timescale of dark energy. It might not in the early universe when all 4 known forces are assumed to be unified!

Again, I think the person who is able to answer these questions will very well be the 21th century Einstein. And yes, he/she will surely be awarded the Nobel for delivering answers to a few very profound 'why'. Oh, BTW, they give Nobel Prizes to scientists (and peace activists) but not to philosophers or theologians. It's because of the way they deal with the 'whys'.

Dr. To (Sent Sunday, May 06, 2007 9:32 PM)

Dear Frank Dallas,

a lightchannel carries informations and light at the same time.
The moment you see light the information passed already.
You can say the light is the shadow of information.

It is not easy to understand that E=0.
Light moves one million times 300 000.
Call Nasa,NSA,CIA and you learn more about me.
Top secret.
First at all 1+1=0.
I hope you got some news.
RCI

Rainer Chinnery Ich (Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 3:52 AM)

Dr. Levin..what exactly is your Ph.d in?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 8:32 AM)

One thing is for sure in my mind, if it were up to religion alone, humanity wouldn't have all this science and knowledge of the universe. We wouldn't have had Einstein, Newton and Darwin had they not been been so bold as to challenge western style religion (as per , the bible) and "take on God".

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 8:42 AM)

Reply to Thomas Ashby:

My Ph.D. degree is in Computer and Systems Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. My thesis was a combination of mathematics and computer languages.

A preliminary version of the mathematical portion is "A Parametric Algorithm for Drawing Pictures of Solid Bodies Bounded by Quadric Surfaces." Comm. ACM 19:10 (October, 1976).

Check my resume at http://www.Josh-Levin.us for more details.

My current dream is described as http://www.LeviCar.com

Joshua Zev Levin, Ph.D. (Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 10:01 PM)

Einstein is famously quoted (or maybe misquoted) as saying that "God does not play dice with the universe

(see http://www.avantnews.com/
modules/news/article.php?storyid=321)

I think it more appropriate to say that "God does not micromanage the Universe."

Joshua Zev Levin, Ph.D. (Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 10:31 PM)

"Why? Again

As said in some earlier comments, "Why?" is a great and continuing question for us all because it leads to so many wonderful discoveries and shows that our curiosity is alive and well. Perhaps our universe led to our being able to wonder (ask) "why?", knowing all the time that "Why?" would have no ultimate answer, in order that curiosity and discovery could persist forever in our universe.

Here's another NOT ultimate but maybe helpful answer, for some, to "Why?" and on which Einstein relied, "Because our universe has self-consistency". E. A. Milne founded his "Kinematic Relativity" (which included Einstein's Special and General
Relativity) based on his belief that our unvierse had a consistent method of timekeeping throughout.

We are very sensitive about self-consistency and avoiding self-contradiction. Einstein might have said that humans can be self-contradictory but not our universe, as reflected by his "God is subtle but not malicious." and his firm conviction in the rectitude of his Relativities due to their accord with consistency in our universe.
It seems that most can agree that a non-self-consistent (self-contradictory) universe could be seen as a malicious one.

Soooo, another non-ultimate "Why?" answer, "in order to have a universe that is not malicious". For those who agree that the existence of a self-contradictory universe is impossible (except as a concept in the minds of humans who can be and often are self-contradictory), the proposed answer for the why-question can be adequate.

Again, the fact that "because our universe is not malicious" is not an ultimate answer, we can still have fun, discovery, curiosity, etc. continue while we search to see why our universe is not malicious but subtle and enjoy discoverig its subtleties.

P.S. As I age, I find that I make more simple mistakes than when younger and have difficulty spotting many, like its for it's. I saw an interesting article the other day that showed how even though having many mssing letters, let alone misspellings, a paragraph could still be read and understood. For example, Som- p--pl- th-nk th-s is dum- -nd c-n't m-k --y s-n-s- -f it -----. The article was entitled "Can You Read This?" and much better than my example. Well, After seeing this article, I better understood how I could proof read something several times and still miss some omitted letters or punctuation. It also made me far more tolerant of myself and others along these lines.

Of course, errors in theories also arise which we often can't see. After all, this last fact may be why some contribute to Cosmic Log (hoping that some reader can spot an error our ego or whatever kept us from seeing). How wonderful it is to have Comic Log around.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 10:42 PM)

Thomas Ashby:
Historical records, Isaacson, and many Cosmic Log contributions indicate that Einstein, Newton, and Darwin would have difficulty with your UNQUALIFIED "God". Your comment seems to indicate that you are, perhaps, "taking on" Yahweh, the (qualified) Old Testament God. If so, you are probably correct, at least about Einstein. "God" has so many different meanings to so many different people today that qualification seems a good idea if one desires to be clearly understood and to minimize misleading. For meaningful or useful discusion (or opting for no discussion) atheists need to qualify (define?) their atheism. For example, is it Atheism (as a religion) or atheism (as no religion). For meaningful and useful discussion of God, "God" must be qualified (defined?). For example is it God (of Einstein) or god (of a certain novel).

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 11:17 PM)

Carlton, I think the average person has a grasp of the general connotation of God. Without exact reference to a bible (although you have to include that in western Judo-Christian ways).

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8:57 AM)

LOL..sorry..watch out for them Judo-Christians, you may end up on your back.

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8:16 PM)

So far, I've confined my comments to Physics. I would just like to show what my theological views are, as summed up at http://www.godsgrownchildren.org/

God is a loving Parent to all humankind -- and Who made the universe such that we could live in it.

God is Unique and is One, each human being is unique and different, and so humankind is diverse.

God is Perfect, we are imperfect -- therefore God has made us diverse, so that, in our diversity, we can approach, but never reach, Perfection.

God has given us free will, and wants us to grow in understanding -- to grow towards, even if we never reach, His Wisdom.

Joshua Zev Levin, Ph.D. (Sent Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:32 PM)

Another Theological View

My theological view finds its foundation in mathematics where the concept of something infinite exists and can be explored in ways not possible for other human endeavors, like strict science. Often, where one finds the word "God", I can replace it with "The Absolute Infinite" (or simply the Absolute, Infinity, or the Infinite) in order to help others Understand, especially those immediately turned off by the word "God". For a somewhat different example, where Dr. Levin writes "God is Unique and is One, each human being is unique and different ---.", my theology would write "God is infinite and humans are mostly finite." or "The infinite is infinite and humans are mostly finite." for those wishing to avoid the word "God". My theology would need to say "mostly" rather than "totally finite" because something that is totally finite is unable to have a concept of infinity as humans have found in mathematics.

Humans have a tendency to be anthropocentric and cast The Absolute Infinite in
their limited, finite, anthropocentric mold. Once one has a clear concept of infinity, hence infinite things and how they are very different from finite things, the errors introduced or wrong assmptions (dogmas?) often made can be exposed. God, "The Absolute" exceeds our finite, anthropocentric ideas in the way that the infinite list of counting numbers exceeds any finite list of counting numbers. Our customary ideas about our finite love don't even come close to infinite (Levin's "perfect"?) love. Any finite attribute (like love) we find in mostly finite humans is certainly found in The Absolute, however, infinitely.

"The Absolute Infinite" was coined by the great mathematician Georg Cantor to remind us that mathematics (set theory) finds an infinite hierachy of infinities with each successor provably larger than its predecessor. Cantor knew that his "Absolute Infinite" required a concept that could include all the infinities of the hierachy and could not, therefore, strictly be classified as an infinity.

This last fact is like another well known mathematical fact that "the set of all sets can't be a set".

The possible confusion in "The Absolute Infinite" can be avoided by condensing it to "The Absolute" and keeping in mind that it comes from considerations of mathematical infinity.

Thus far, science has not been able to scientifically find or observe anything infinite in our physical universe; so, currently, the concept of infinity must be left to mathematics. Remember that the mathematics of Einstein's relativities and quantum physics were known to mathematicians long before they were found to have application to the physical universe. Mathematics is the best tool we have to help us understand our physical universe. Perhaps mathematics can be our best tool to help us understand our conceptual universe if not our spiritual universe. For some "God" is a concept. The simple concept of the counting numbers (with its many applications in our physical world) has led us to understand (see, know of) something infinite, the bottom rung of Cantor's hieracy of infinities. The less simple concept of the irrational numbers has led us to another rung in Cantor's hierachy (step on the "ladder to heaven, God, the Absolute?). We have no current mathematics that can tell us if the infinity of the irrational numbers is the second "rung". Cantor felt it was (often referred to as Cantor's Continuum Problem or Hypothesis), but even he, the hierachy discoverer, couldn't find a proof. Current mathematics is able to prove that current mathematics can't prove (Cohen) and can't disprove (Godel) Cantor's feelings that the infinitude of the irrational numbers is the "second rung". Current mathematics does not hold out much hope for future mathematics either; so, even mathematics has to tolerate some opposing (contradicting) views at least currently. Current Mathematics allows both those who agree with Cantor and those who disagree with Cantor to hold their postions without fear of being proved wrong by said mathematics. Maybe Dr. Levin and his possible opponents have something in common with Cantor and his opponents. However, it does seem that Dr. Levin made it clear that he was telling us his theological beliefs and as such they did not conflict with his scientific beliefs; likewise for me and my theological ideas expressed herein. While science may not be able to provide scientific evidence or a scientific basis for my ideas, mathematics can provide me with both. While, current science can neither prove nor disprove there is something infinite, current (even some simple) mathematics can do it in spades.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:15 AM)

Steve Smyth wrote in reply to my comment, "I couldn't agree more. However...your point on the 'mind play' issue...please? That's some pretty convoluted syntax, but I think you know what you mean, eh?"

Thanks for the question and involving me in the conversation.

Play, as engaged in by young animals (and my experience is mostly with mammals) is crucial to developing the life skills that they will need to survive into and through adulthood. As such it is of great importance not only to the individual critter but also for future generations that particular animal might procreate. In this case, the play is deadly serious.

In humans, play must have once served a similar role, and assuredly does today in those shrinking populations that do not rely on the assets of modern society to survive.

In more recent, and (ahem) civilized times, the survival value of play seems to be decreased by the overall increase in the chances of survival for the individual as well as the specie. Yet the proclivity for play seems undiminished. Play seems to have become, perhaps, more "sophisticated", more cerebral.

I think that human young play in order to develop physical strength and coordination but the needs of the intellect cannot be ignored. To "play" with words and numbers and concepts I think is critical in the development of cognition. As an unintended benefit, with all the ideas being compared, contrasted and assembled in novel fashion by a young mind, something like biological evolution seems to take place.

I guess my primary point is that this novelty appears to be an answer to that perennial question, "Where did that idea come from?" And the novelty arises from play.

Granted, there are different forms of play. One can observe children running, falling down, climbing up, and all manner of physical actions that may be engaged in singly or in groups. There are more sophisticated games like hopscotch, tag, hide and seek, and so on that require more directed focus and cooperation. Team sports for slightly older children.

In the realm of adolescent and adult humans play seems to generally lose it's physical qualities and become more intellectual. It is at this point that the "purpose" of play becomes less clear; it's goals are not as easily recognized as they are in physical games. Even so, such intellectual games are routinely described as being "fun" by those who so engage themselves, just as children will describe their games as fun.

I think that one might say that the pursuit of fun may have a survival value similar to, but more advanced than simple physical prowess. Intellectual games have given rise to technological advances that often become part of our daily lives. Such advances, rooted in a kind of play that takes place in the mind, contribute to feeding, clothing and sheltering people which has unmistakable survival value.

So it must be that many things that we have developed in the fields of science and philosophy (fertile playgrounds, both) may have their genesis in mental play. And now we come back to Einstein. In order to formulate his theories he must have played with ideas and concepts, since there was in his time no way to deal directly with the objects and forces involved.

I envy him. It must have been great fun. When I was a boy, my mother gave me a copy of "Relativity for the Millions", by Martin Gardner. The lucid description of Einstein's thought experiments caused my young mind to warp and stretch in ways I had not then experienced; and it was a blast! I was able to follow, after a fashion, his thought processes and they were utterly new to me. I had to think in ways I never had done before. It wasn't easy, but it stuck. I reread that book at least a dozen times and it motivated me to pursue more insight into physics, then astronomy and cosmology. Over many years, whenever I got a new book on one of these subjects it was like being a child at Christmas; mysterious, intriguing, promising and most of all, FUN!!

In short, Steve, I think that our ability to play, and our proclivity to do so on increasingly sophisticated levels, is a major factor in our character and our potential as functioning human beings.

Let the games continue!

Crudely Wrott, Dayton, OH (Sent Saturday, May 12, 2007 8:37 PM)

Einstein did not believe in some 'hell and damnation' sytle god that sat in judgement of human affairs. His god was more of the source of the universal driving force. One that reveals himself in the laws of nature. This is more like what Dawkins talks about. Einstein's remark similar to 'God does not play dice with the universe.' was a refuting of the statistical nature of quantum mechanics, as he considered universal events to be determistic, not chance-based.

P Murray, Freehold, NJ (Sent Friday, March 21, 2008 8:35 AM)

29 years ago, I came to stumble upon the true nature of gravity as described by Einstein. It's surprisingly simple and very exciting. However, I have had no success in sharing this with others. I have no formal education and therefore, no credibility. My goal is to share this with someone that could prove and then advance the idea.

Greg Cottrell, Edgewater Md. (Sent Friday, March 21, 2008 3:21 PM)

If a worm cannot comprehend that dogs are pets, and dogs cannot comprehend why their owner has to go to work, then it stands to reason that humans cannot comprehend everything God is, and can do. IT TAKES FAITH.

DEIST - "I AM THAT I AM" is God's name, according to God. It relates to "I am of and in everything", which is what we Deists believe. It is really the same as the Christian belief, except Deists understand more AND HAVE MORE FAITH in God being what God said God is. Everywhere, everthing.

Donna Petersen (Sent Friday, March 21, 2008 6:07 PM)

The deepest secrets of our existence in the universe are within us. Unfortunately, most of us cannot retrieve or unlock this data except for the occassional genius to whom this information, or at least parts of it, is revealed. Albert Einstein was one such human who could access and understand these universal truths. These principles didn't spring from the dust with man's presence on this earth - they have existed for an eternity and will continue to travel with the seeds of our existence across the universe where they have been since the beginning of time. There are men and women with the same genius as Einstein. I hope we are fortunate enough to meet them

Don S. Phoenix, Arizona (Sent Friday, March 21, 2008 7:37 PM)

As a simple observer I noticed the following; Many things seem organized, existing altogether they create a chaos.
Similarly,if one speaks one displays organization if we all speak we create white noise.
My conclusion; reality is that part of the chaos that is near me, the closer I look the more it is real!
H.Bos

H.Bos Perth Western Australia (Sent Friday, May 09, 2008 8:23 PM)

Something is responsible for everything. And if A.E. couldn't figure it out, what makes you think you can?

Steve Fickler (Sent Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:29 PM)

Could we then hold something accountable? What power!

With the present knowledge and conditions many could figure it out. If alive today Einstein could have but back then he could never for long enough get out of his religious pool, however small it may have been. In that kind of pool one finds peace and gets rocked.
Does God exist? Yes,eh,no,yes...yes, no,yes,no!
On dry land one must conciously create once's own energy waves, By doing that for long enough answers may be found.
However it is scary and the pool is so tempting!
Science without religion is lame! Finding answers is getting close to insanity.
That he also knew very well!

H.Bos (Sent Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:05 PM)

As I understand relativity, it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a mass to the speed of light in vacuo, therefore how can alight particle have mass?

s.gentry, salt lake, utah (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 2:30 PM)

You ask Why? Why not? It is our little human viewpoint that thinks there should be a "reason" for the universe. We little humans ask, "Why are we here?" and then try to make up reasons (Bible). We little humans think there has had to be some "intelligence" that made the universe. Just because they feel they have something they call intelligence. They want to make god in their own image. Things (including the universe) just are. Matter acts the way it acts. The answers to questions of why are applicable to survival here on our own little Earth, not to cosmology. The "laws" of physics are just how we see things work because of the nature of our world. After the next Big Bang the laws of nature could be entirely different or they could be the same. There need not be a "reason" for it. Now, since we like to entertain ourselves, tell me why atoms (and also sub-atomic particles) are small particles full of moving energy moving around them, why the solar system is small particles full of moving energy moving around them, why the universe is small particles full of moving energy moving around them, and it goes on and on. The universe could be someone else's atom. I love cosmology.

Sher Marshall, Davenport, IA (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 5:25 PM)

every action provokes a reaction, when one moves away from something one also moves towards something else. When one moves out does one also move in? If so the universe must be within the observer.

H.Bos (Sent Friday, May 16, 2008 6:44 PM)

The unified field theory is best 'visualized' in the simpliest of mathematical proofs, then applied by overcoming the flexiable/moveable boundary 'precieved reality'.

tami, tazewell, tennessee (Sent Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:38 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=180155

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG