[HN Gopher] What Life Means to Einstein (1929) [pdf]
___________________________________________________________________
What Life Means to Einstein (1929) [pdf]
Author : magda_wang
Score : 100 points
Date : 2024-08-29 05:32 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.saturdayeveningpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.saturdayeveningpost.com)
| amunozo wrote:
| I use this post to ask a question I just had a bit before: can
| anyone recommend me an Einstein's biography?
| sturza wrote:
| Walter Isaacson's.
| prof-dr-ir wrote:
| And Abraham Pais' if you know physics.
| guerrilla wrote:
| How much physics? Is undergrad enough or do you need to
| actually know GR?
| prof-dr-ir wrote:
| The more you know, the more fun the book is.
|
| At times the going is tough even if you are a physics
| professor, because Pais accurately captures the process
| of discovery which was often messy with unfamiliar
| equations, strange logical jumps, or subtle mistakes.
|
| I would not recommend the book unless you have taken
| courses in quantum mechanics, statistical physics and
| general relativity.
|
| (Historically quantum mechanics and statistical physics
| were developed together, even though now we see one as
| more fundamental than the other.)
| rs_rs_rs_rs_rs wrote:
| I really thought you were joking, will buy this.
| gradschoolfail wrote:
| I recommend the closest thing to an autobiography,
|
| _The travel diaries of Albert Einstein_
|
| https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174419/th...
| amunozo wrote:
| This looks like something I would really enjoy, thank you!
| alberto_ol wrote:
| If you want a scientific biography, "Subtle is the Lord" by
| Abraham Pais, but you need a degree in physics to understand
| many chapters (unfortunately for me a degree in engineering was
| not enough).
|
| Abraham Pais wrote also "Einstein Lived Here" a non-scientific
| biography, but I did not read it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtle_is_the_Lord
| amunozo wrote:
| I actually have a degree in Physics but I am not sure it is
| what I want (I don't remember much :D). But I will take a
| look. Thanks a lot for both recommendations!
| udev4096 wrote:
| You should watch season one of "Genius"
| (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5673782/) docuseries which is
| quite an accurate life events (professional as well as
| personal) of Einstein
| rottc0dd wrote:
| Not a biography but I like Einstein's book "Evolution of
| physics". It is supposed to be popular scifi book, and covers
| same topics as high school physics for layman. But, it is still
| good to hear his perspective: https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-
| Physics-Albert-Einstein/dp/...
| vargr616 wrote:
| whenever people say that modern journalists are bad and nobody
| knows how to write anymore, i'll show them this article
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| You mean that it is just as bad if not more, right?
|
| Because it is making Einstein out to be some sort of rebel like
| who wants things to be "relative" as if it is a religion or
| philosophy of some sort.
|
| Relativity is just what he discovered, not some ideology he set
| out to prove or invented.
|
| Then the author goes on to try and apply this relativity to all
| aspects of the world, try to make puns on it despite Einstein
| specifically telling him that it is explicitly only about those
| physical and mechanical facts.
|
| It is like the whole article author tried to apply this idea in
| the exact way Einstein was annoyed about, perpetuating the same
| misunderstanding described.
| vargr616 wrote:
| exactly, plus the author's warped understanding, like
| einstein reinventing the wheel for every equation to make it
| "more" perfect, whatever that means; or in multiple
| instances, drawing up conclusions and asking them, or
| presenting these as facts in the article.
|
| or one article being split on 5 pages so I can see some ads
| in-between (not really the author's fault there though).
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| I actually didn't realize the article went on after the ad.
| lou1306 wrote:
| Choice of appropriate notation can absolutely make one
| version of a formula "more perfect" than another. Maxwell's
| equations underwent a painstaking "evolutionary" process as
| vector notation improved.
|
| Ditto for proofs; it's not hard to believe that _Albert
| Einstein_ could prove a theorem from scratch and end up
| with a better argument than one found in a previous
| textbooks.
|
| The fatal flaw in the article, rather, is exemplified by
| the quote
|
| > With the advent of Einstein, mathematics ceased to be an
| exact science in the fashion of Euclid.
|
| Which I am in complete disagreement with. Einstein
| exploited elegant, novel (at the time), _anything but
| inexact_ mathematical tools for his theory. That the theory
| posits uncertainty and, well, relativity of real-world
| phenomena has no bearing on the exactitude of mathematics.
| If anyone ever put a dent in that, it should be Godel :)
| begueradj wrote:
| There are serious allegations that Einstein stole the work of
| Henri Poincare and Hermann Minkowski because he had access
| and the right to review their work before anyone else did.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| It is well known and absolutely not a secret that Einstein
| "stole" from fellow scientists and mathematicians. That's
| the whole "shoulders of giants" thing and how science
| typically works. If you study relativity, you will stumble
| upon the names of Poincare (Poincare group) and Minkowski
| (Minkowski metric) as well as others, like Lorenz (Lorenz
| transformation).
|
| What Einstein is credited for is applying all these maths
| to the real world, coming up with a theory that is based on
| observations and testable.
| raincole wrote:
| Clearly modern journalists learned from their old masters.
| FerretFred wrote:
| "look at the mark in your underwear".. oh dear, how times
| have changed
| laGrenouille wrote:
| > His fame may outlive Foch and Ludendorff, Wilson and
| Clemenceau.
|
| Funny to think how this has aged since 1915. Over a century later
| Einstein is an almost universally known figure. The others on
| this list are, particularly outside of France, names that I would
| not expect the median person to be able to say something
| interesting about.
| keiferski wrote:
| I wonder how much of this ultimately comes down to branding.
| Einstein has a memorable name, a memorable haircut/photograph,
| and also managed to have his name become a byword for "genius."
| pierrefermat1 wrote:
| If you purely value scientists with some sort of Value Over
| RePlacement metric on their scientific contribution alone, I
| would like to think Einstein is tier 1 along side another
| 20-50 people.
| ruthmarx wrote:
| I'm not familiar with the other names in the parent comment,
| but do their accomplishments map to Einstein's as far as
| impact goes? I think they would have to before we consider
| branding as a main factor in longevity of...reputation?
| keiferski wrote:
| Depends on what you mean by impact. Those other figures
| were quite influential on European (and thus global)
| politics during and after WW1. One could argue that the
| harsh policies toward Germany had a big impact on setting
| the stage for WW2, the largest war in history. So I
| wouldn't be too dismissive of their impact on world
| history.
|
| Of course in the grand scheme of things Einstein was
| probably more influential, but I was more commenting on the
| fact that Einstein has become a kind of memetic symbol in
| himself, a bit like Che, whereas the others haven't. (Most
| people probably can't even name more than a handful of
| people from WW1.) Maybe that only happened because his work
| was so impactful, but does the average person really know
| much about relativity? I was trying to find a paper that
| traced how Einstein became synonymous with _genius_ but
| couldn't come up with anything.
| ruthmarx wrote:
| > So I wouldn't be too dismissive of their impact on
| world history.
|
| Not of their impact on world history, no, but we are
| discussing more how the idea of someone lives on after
| they are dead and for how long, so maybe in that context
| it maybe deserves to be dismissed, as in there's a reason
| those figures are not referenced or talked about as much
| as Einstein is.
| steve1977 wrote:
| Erich Ludendorff was a rather significant factor in the
| rise to power of the Nazis and he coined the term "total
| war".
|
| So he certainly had an impact, I'm not sure if I would use
| the term accomplishment though.
| openrisk wrote:
| Interestingly this is what he thought of the matter at the
| time:
|
| > Our time, he added, "is Gothic in its spirit. Unlike the
| Renaissance, it is not dominated by a few outstanding
| personalities. The twentieth century has established the
| democracy of the intellect. In the republic of art and
| science there are many men who take an equally important part
| in the intellectual movements of our age. It is the epoch
| rather than the individual that is important. There is no one
| dominant personality like Galileo or Newton".
|
| Now, there was probably a good deal of fake modesty in that
| statement - he _was_ a fairly dominant personality in the
| first part of the 20th century. But I suspect a key reason
| Einstein continues to be a widely recognizable name is that
| _current_ scientists (physicists etc., those who are most
| equipped to rank / perpetuate his status) continue being in
| awe of the singular nature of his contributions, more so than
| any of the other "greats" of that period.
|
| Why so? He could not have predicted it himself back then, but
| more than a century later his work would not have been
| "normalized". There was no subsequent breakthrough in
| fundamental physics that would somehow link geometry/gravity
| with the rest of the physics "stuff" (or vice-versa). As he
| relates in the interview, during that time (1929) he was
| working on a unified theory of gravity and electromagnetism
| but his language suggests he was not at all confident. Till
| this day the mental models he introduced to help us grasp the
| workings of the universe remain a thing apart.
| Dig1t wrote:
| It is almost completely due to media's frequent mention of him.
| He shows up in movies and TV shows a LOT, way more than any
| other scientist by a wide margin. Most normal people don't know
| what he did, but he exists in popular culture as a symbol of
| intelligence.
| countrymile wrote:
| The thing that jumps out to me is how well read Einstein is, some
| of the modern day scientists could do with a much broader
| education. CP Snow's two cultures argument seems more relevant
| now than ever.
| keiferski wrote:
| IIRC Kant was a huge influence on Einstein and arguably had an
| effect on his physics work.
|
| https://philpapers.org/archive/PALTKG-5
|
| Nowadays I doubt the average scientist has read the work of any
| single philosopher to that degree.
| pierrefermat1 wrote:
| Sure not your average scientist, but could I find a few
| hundred who have but who are themselves of no particular
| fame? Quite easily yes.
| lqet wrote:
| I think the philosopher who had the most influence on
| Einstein (and on other physicists of the early 20th century)
| was Arthur Schopenhauer:
|
| > Schopenhauer was well read by physicists, most notably
| Einstein, Schrodinger, Wolfgang Pauli, and Majorana. Einstein
| described Schopenhauer's thoughts as a "continual
| consolation" and called him a genius. In his Berlin study
| three figures hung on the wall: Faraday, Maxwell,
| Schopenhauer. Konrad Wachsmann recalled: "He often sat with
| one of the well-worn Schopenhauer volumes, and as he sat
| there, he seemed so pleased, as if he were engaged with a
| serene and cheerful work."
|
| > When Erwin Schrodinger discovered Schopenhauer ("the
| greatest savant of the West") he considered switching his
| study of physics to philosophy. He maintained the idealistic
| views during the rest of his life. Wolfgang Pauli accepted
| the main tenet of Schopenhauer's metaphysics, that the thing-
| in-itself is will.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Influence_.
| ..
| keiferski wrote:
| From what I understand, Einstein's education and cultural
| milieu was very influenced by Kant, but Einstein himself
| was personally more interested in Schopenhauer.
| magicloop wrote:
| To quote Schopenhauer (English translation): ``` But
| space and time are not only, each for itself, presupposed
| by matter, but a union of the two constitutes its
| essence, for this, as we have seen, consists in action,
| i.e., in causation ```
|
| That's the kind of thinking that could help Einstein
| formulate an idea of "spacetime"
| hermitcrab wrote:
| "Philosophy consists mostly of kicking up a lot of dust and
| then complaining that you can't see anything." -- Gottfried
| Leibniz
| PunchTornado wrote:
| I am surprised to find out that Einstein was so convinced in the
| non-existence of free will.
|
| > I claim credit for nothing. Everything is determined, the
| beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no
| control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the
| star. Human beings, vegetables or cosmic dust, we all dance to a
| mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player.
|
| Meanwhile, I believe, that you can also be a determinist and
| believe in free will.
| layer8 wrote:
| It probably depends on what you mean by free will. People who
| disagree about determinism and/or compatibilism usually can't
| agree on a common definition of free will either.
|
| Your Einstein quote above doesn't necessarily deny free will.
| lazystar wrote:
| in the article, Einstein is firm regarding his belief that
| there is no free will. there are many other quotes in the
| article to choose from.
|
| anyway, my own view is that ones belief or disbeleif in free
| will is predetermined - if one could predict the path of
| every atom and molecule in the galaxy from the start of time
| until now, theyd be able to predict what choices a random
| person would make before the person had decided. for example,
| being able to predict if someone would read the linked
| article before commenting on it :-)
| hirvi74 wrote:
| > determinist and believe in free will.
|
| Do you care to elaborate more? I am genuinely curious about
| your opinions.
|
| Have you read/listened to any of Dr. Robert Sapolsky's material
| on free will? I am curious what you think of his position on
| the matter.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Not the OP but one thing I find interesting about free will
| is that one of the things you can do with it is to choose to
| give it up, such as by delegating a decision to either a
| random process or one that you have no prior knowledge or
| control over. The act of flipping a coin to decide whether to
| drive to work or take the bus might end up altering the
| course of your life to an extent that no other decision you
| make that day will.
|
| Given how often we delegate whatever free will we have,
| intentionally or otherwise, it's easy to conclude (or at
| least suspect) that whether or not it exists in the first
| place simply isn't an interesting or important question.
| Sure, we might have free will, but if we do it's almost
| overwhelmed by noise.
| slibhb wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
|
| As far as Sapolsky goes, it's fine to argue that free will is
| an illusion. But it doesn't follow that we should stop
| believing in it. Actually, belief in free will is adaptive.
| Concepts that follow from free will such as punishment,
| guilt, blame, etc are extremely effective at promoting pro-
| social behavior and it's not clear how they could be
| replaced.
| j-a-a-p wrote:
| > ... by forces over which we have no control
|
| That would be logical if we would be a simulation.
| anthk wrote:
| Again, I'm tired of pseaudo new-age bullshit quackery. There's
| no free will, either being deterministic or sightly shifted
| because of weird quantum effects. You are your brain, and your
| brain will work under the rules of the Universe, whether you
| like it or not.
| pkoird wrote:
| It's a shame that Einstein thought writing a book for popular
| consumption to be an endeavor tied solely to material ambitions.
| I, for one, would have loved to read "A brief history of time"
| esque compilation written by Einstein himself. It would have been
| a great way to peek into his mind and get to know him better
| (sans the obvious mathematical way).
| pzs wrote:
| I read his book on relativity theory, which I would
| characterize as one written for popular consumption [1]. I
| recommend reading it if you have not done so yet. I found the
| explanation of the special theory in the book easily accessible
| and enlightening, less so the explanation of the general
| theory, although it did help me understand it better.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_th...
| ai4ever wrote:
| what caught my attention were the ads.
|
| specifically, the hanes ad.. and i wonder why the hanes brand is
| still around whereas the motor heater brand is not.
|
| and hotel rooms were $3 per night back then.
| lazystar wrote:
| $3 in 1929 = $55.18 in 2024
|
| sure, thats on the lowend for a hotel these days, but i doubt
| that hotel knickerbocker was giving their best rooms for $3.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| "A motorcar heater? That's a feature, not a product." - Steve
| Jobs's grandpa
| WalterBright wrote:
| The thing about Einstein is he did not _discover_ that gravity
| bent space and then produced a theory to explain it. He predicted
| it. The proof came decades later, and his prediction was dead on
| target.
|
| It changed everything.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-29 23:01 UTC)