Was Einstein indeed "Very Great"? [Physics]

Prev: CERN, LHC, strangelet = droplet of death. Copy this letter and send it to another forum; to physicists, politicians, prosecutors, terrorists; to citizens of Geneva and so on.
Next: NATURE: A CoGeNT result in the hunt for dark matter [?]

From: Sam Wormley on 16 Mar 2010 16:01

On 3/16/10 10:19 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:03:42 -0700, Robert Higgins wrote:

>>
>> In 1905, there barely WAS a quantum theory. Einstein certainly picked up
>> work by Planck, and carried it much further.
>
> Carried it much further? Again, NO! Planck showed how his idea of how
> quantized energy packets could explain the ultra violet catastrophe.
>
> Einstein just copied the same approach on a slightly different problem.
> To say he "carried it much further" is absurd.

Einstein's Contributions to Quantum Theory
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r7664540132k6v83/

Einstein's Contribution
http://www.skybooksusa.com/time-travel/physics/einsteis.htm

"The Bohr–Einstein debates is a popular name given to a series of public
disputes between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr about quantum physics.
These two men, along with Max Planck were the founders of the original
quantum theory. Their "debates" are remembered because of their
importance to the philosophy of science. The meaning and significance of
these debates are rarely understood, but an authoritative account of
them has been written by Bohr himself in an article called "Discussions
with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics" published
in a volume dedicated to Einstein".

"Einstein's position with respect to quantum mechanics is significantly
more subtle and open-minded than it has often been portrayed in
technical manuals and popular science articles.[citation needed] His
constant and powerful criticisms of quantum mechanics compelled its
defenders to sharpen and refine their understanding of the philosophical
and scientific implications of their own theory".
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates

_____________________

Quoting John Wheeler from "STEPHEN HAWKING'S A BRIEF HISTORY OF
TIME, A READER'S COMPANION", "I had worked with the other great man
in the quantum debate, Niels Bohr, in Copenhagen. And I know no
greater debate in the last hundreds of years than the debate between
Bohr and Einstein, no greater debate between two greater men, or one
that extended over a longer period of time--twenty-eight years--at a
higher level of colleagueship. To put it in brief: Does the world
exist out there independent of us, as Einstein thought; or, as Bohr
thought, is there some sense in which we, through our choice of
observing equipment, have something to do with what comes about..."
Einstein refused to believe in a reality that precluded cause and
effect. "God does not play dice with the universe." he declared. He
especially objected to the theory's insistence that particles,
forces, and events seemed to come into existence only when a
measurement or observation was made.

For more than half a century physicists and philosophers debated
whether the quantum theory really was a complete and accurate
description of reality. Then in 1964, physicist John Bell proposed a
brilliant method to resolve the issue. "Bell's Theorem," says the
eminent physicist Henry Stapps, "is the most profound discovery of
science." By the early 1980's a number of elegant experiments
applying Bell's Theorem have proved that quantum theory, which
speaks in terms of probabilities rather than actualities, is indeed
a complete explanation of reality... God DOES play dice with the
universe!

Empirical results of observation and experiment... that's what makes
something so!

From: spudnik on 16 Mar 2010 16:14

you mean, God plays dice, when He wants to (or, She) ??

Bell's nonlocality and Aspect's experiment can
be comprehended as "reifying the math of photons,"
sipposedly proven to exist by the photoelectrical effect;
that is to say, "rocks o'light," or re-empowering Newton's "theory"
of corpuscles, which was completely shattered by Young,
with his words and his two-hole experiment etc.

if there is any thing that is more obnoxious than Einsteinmania,
it is the Second (secular) Church of England,
Newtonmania!... why, do you think,
he was awarded with the minding of the mint?

> Empirical results of observation and experiment... that's what makes
> something so!

thus:
not if there is no perfect plenum a la Pascal; then,
every thing is "due to quanta."
> Is gravity due to quanta or is space a void?

thus:
since all of the primes are determined by the seive
of Eratosthenes (who also pushed an Egyptian expedition
that made it all the way to Chile, ne'er returned),
why would "correlations" of twin-primes not be related
to "distributions" of all (or just single) primes?
what was Fermat's proof of the so-called last theorem?

thus:
quasars are cool, even if they are not as far,
away as the Hubble assumption'd make them; I mean,
then, they'd be cool-er. phonons & photons:
they are merely the quanta of being-captured-
by-the-device!

thus:
it was only a double-negative, unless
you believe that Fermat's proof of n=4 came,
before his marginal miracle. I mean,
why would he explicitly state n=4, otherwise?
(he did not prove n=3, explicitly.)

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

From: Marvin the Martian on 16 Mar 2010 21:59

On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:14:45 -0700, spudnik wrote:

> if there is any thing that is more obnoxious than Einsteinmania, it is
> the Second (secular) Church of England, Newtonmania!...

You're an idiot.

What's funny, is that you're too stupid to know that you're an idiot,
even if you're told.

From: Urion on 17 Mar 2010 06:19

I think people like Einstein, Newton and maybe even some very strong
blind chess players (blind chess is the ability to play chess without
seeing the board) have a few things in common: Their incredible memory
and spatial processing ability.

Einstein has never been in space and at his time he had no computer to
assist him in the calculations but despite that he could visualize
complex geometric shapes and structures like a perfectly symmetrical
sphere in his mind. He could also memorize mathematical equations
without having these equations before him.

I don't think that those who don't possess a good memory and spatial
processing ability could ever become theoretical physicists. I for one
don't have a good memory like Einstein and I am very bad at blind
chess.

From: Marvin the Martian on 17 Mar 2010 10:41

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:19:33 -0700, Urion wrote:

> I think people like Einstein, Newton and maybe even some very strong
> blind chess players (blind chess is the ability to play chess without
> seeing the board) have a few things in common: Their incredible memory
> and spatial processing ability.

The point of the thread is that Einstein didn't do anything remarkable,
as Newton did.

Lumping them together is circular logic.

> Einstein has never been in space and at his time he had no computer to
> assist him in the calculations but despite that he could visualize
> complex geometric shapes and structures like a perfectly symmetrical
> sphere in his mind. He could also memorize mathematical equations
> without having these equations before him.

Been in space?! What advantage would that confer upon him with respect to
anything he's done? Spheres? What's so hard about imagining a sphere?
What does a sphere have to do with anything, exactly?

The last sentence, about being able to memorize things he's not seen,
makes no sense.

> I don't think that those who don't possess a good memory and spatial
> processing ability could ever become theoretical physicists. I for one
> don't have a good memory like Einstein and I am very bad at blind chess.