|
|||||
THE PERSONAL TRAGEDY OF ALBERT EINSTEIN |
|||||
Ebook Ebook of 17 (7.7 MB) pages crammed with Wallace Thornhill's content leading the reader through a series of steps
involving challenges to some of the foundational aspects of the
prevailing cosmology. These include the mass=matter assumption, gravity.
the nature of light, catastrophism, the birth of planets and stars, and
the nature of redshift and how that relates to gravity and mass. All of
this treats the reader to a remarkable dissertation on the new
cosmology. Thornhill's answers to major issues, questions, and problems are
different but consonant with the facts and the EU paradigm.
Order Link
www.stickmanonstone.com
$6.00
The Electric Sky
The
book contains sensible science for the experts written for the public,
and represents the first substantial public exposition of the latest
developments in the Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology.
The chapters in the book cover the history of EU/plasma cosmology, the
electric sun in depth, Arp’s findings on redshift and the implications
for quasars, galaxies, and gamma ray bursters. Professor Scott gives a
simple yet compelling electrical explanation for the solar magnetic polarity reversal,
something that hitherto has been particularly baffling. A must read! For complete
information including Preface and Chapter 1 see:
The Electric Sky info
www.stickmanonstone.com
$25.00 |
By H.C.DUDLEY
Relativity is consequently now accepted as a faith.
It is inadvisable to devote attention to its
paradoxical aspects. -R. A. Houstoun,
Treatise on Light (1938)
Students of the physical sciences, and of
mathematics, have for the past 30-40 years been so
busy mastering the basics of their chosen field,
that there has been little time or inclination to
study the history of their field in order to learn
how the assumptions and logic of the early workers
in the field established the basic framework, now
quite rigid as the result of long usage. Today's
scientists and mathematicians assume that all that
has gone before is flawless and they can therefore
proceed safely without a backward glance. They and
most of their teachers remain unaware of the hidden,
unstated assumptions which are an inherent part of
every scientific field.
This is dangerous business since technical training
is no insurance that in days gone by very human
frailties have not crept in, blurring judgments and
providing the basis for rationalizations which show
so clearly why some young upstart's fresh viewpoint
or new method of evaluating data must be in
error.
If one takes as a reference point the date 1875, and
examines the rather unusual state of the sciences of
that period, it will be found that physics was
making rapid strides as the result of the discovery
of stable sources of unseen electric current; of
unseen electromagnetic radiations; of visible
effects in unseen gases produced by this electric
current. No longer were the experimenters working
with easily observed and measured phenomena. To
explain unseen phenomena one must rely on the
imagination, on mental images, on conceptual models.
About 1875 there began the application of the rather
new, exciting and untried systems of mathematics to
these unseen phenomena. These mathematical
manipulations often predicted phenomena which the
experimenter could not duplicate at the laboratory
bench. This did not deter the mathematical theorist
in the least, for his limits were of the mind, of
his imagination. The straight line was assumed not
to be the shortest distance between two points. The
unidirectional flow of time, as observed in our
everyday lives, was reversed simply by changing +t
to -t. To aid in other problems, the insoluble,
imaginary expression - 1
2
was used in the calculations involving unseen
electric currents. Increasingly as the years went
on, I assume! Therefore it is! began to take
on more and more respectability.
There was a meld of philosophical methods with the
abstractions of metaphysical mathematics, such that
the methods of the experimenters, i.e. Faraday,
Kelvin, Fizeau, Hertz, Fresnel, Cavendish et al.,
were looked upon as of secondary importance by an
ever increasing number of those who considered
themselves scientists, rather than philosophers
and/or mathematicians.
Some scientists at that time recognized the dangers
of such a trend and the effects such mental
gymnastics were having on scientific thought. The
following was a most timely warning that
unfortunately went unheeded:
"To the followers of Pythagoras the world and its
phenomena were all illusion. Centuries later the
Egyptian [?] mystic Plotinus taught the same
doctrine, that the external world is a mere phantom,
and the mystical schools of Christianity took it up
in turn. In every age the mystically inclined have
delighted in dreaming that everything is a dream,
the mere visible reflection of an invisible
reality. In truth the delusion lies in the mind of
the mystic, not in the things seen. The alleged
untrustworthiness of our senses we flatly deny. We
frequently misinterpret the messages they bring, it
is true, but that is no fault of the senses. The
interpretation of sense impressions is something to
be learned; we never team it fully; we are liable to
blunder through all our days, but that gives us no
right to call our senses liars. It is our judgment,
not the sense of sight, that is occasionally
deceived. We not only wrong our honest senses but
also lose our grip upon this most substantial world
when we let mistaken metaphysics persuade us to
doubt the testimony they bear.@
-Scientific American July 1875
To an experimentalist the above paragraph may be
summarized as advising all scientists to adhere
religiously to the spirit and letter of the
SCIENTIFIC METHOD that we all were required to
learn as beginning students of the physical and
biological sciences. And the experimenter should
always keep in mind that our apparatus and measuring
instruments, no matter how sophisticated, are but
extensions of our senses, thus liable to "let
mistaken metaphysics persuade us to doubt the
testimony they bear. "
It was at Ulm, Germany that Albert Einstein was
born, 1879, to become the most widely publicized
scientist ever to have lived. And it was into this
milieu of science-mathematics-philosophy that the
young man, seemingly of no particular promise, grew
into manhood. This scientific climate of opinion
was at that time essentially limited to Western
Europe, receiving its greatest impetus from the
deluge of discoveries made in this same area
1895-1900.
Between the ages of 16 and 25 Einstein learned of
such discoveries as x- and gamma rays, of the
electron, of spontaneous transmutation of the atom,
of radium that continuously gave off heat without
any apparent reduction in weight. Here was another
host of unseen phenomena which could be evaluated by
the use of metaphysical mathematics! Names which
were to become famous in the next decades were
utilizing the metaphysical methods of 1875 to
explain this host of new phenomena. Why? The
phenomena which were being observed and quantified
were so foreign to any which had been observed prior
to 1895 that the theories and conceptual "models"
which sufficed to explain pre-1895 "classical"
physics were certainly unable to account for this
mass of new data. In effect there was a
"theoretical vacuum." As an obscure, almost unknown
patent clerk in Switzerland, young Einstein had the
time and opportunity to pour over the scientific
papers appearing in the journals that came to the
nearby library. He studied. He thought. He was a
mystic. And in 1905 he wrote five papers on various
aspects of these new phenomena. All were accepted
for publication -which, by the way, contrasts the
treatment accorded the young unknowns of today who
take unorthodox approaches to science. The present
peer review systems are so stifling that any
manuscript so iconoclastic as Einstein's initial
papers would now have little chance of appearing in
any ranking journal. This is particularly true in
physics, and especially so in the United States.
More on this later.
Of the five papers published by young Einstein in
1905, three were destined to bring him fame. These
three papers would by 1940 be recognized as basic
to the physical sciences.
A theoretical study of the only visible
manifestation of perpetual motion, termed "Brownian
Movement," was completed by Einstein. This was an
extension of the existing knowledge concerning the
incessant, random motion imparted by atomic
collisions to finely divided solid particles when
suspended in a liquid. An example of this is carbon
particles in India ink. By special microscopic
techniques it is possible to show that these
particles can be visualized as constantly dancing
points of light. This theoretical study was a
mathematical treatment of observable events and was
one of the two studies which won for Einstein the
Nobel Prize in Physics, 1921.
The second paper which provided the basis for the
Prize was the extension of the theoretical studies
of Max Planck, who in 1900 proposed that light was
not necessarily a continuous wave train but reacted
as if it were a series of bundles of energy (E=hf)
which he termed "quanta." For this work Planck
received the Prize just three years before Einstein.
In this aspect of his historic work Einstein
combined the experimental findings of J.J. Thompson
(Nobelist, 1906), which demonstrated the existence
of the electron (e-), with the theoretical approach
of Planck. By this method Einstein provided the
basis for explaining the experimental results of
others, which had shown that the kinetic energy of
an electron emitted by a metallic surface, was
dependent on the wave length (i.e. color) of the
light falling on the surface.
This is termed the "Photoelectric
Effect," and is the basis for the operation of many
modern electronic units. These studies led others
to apply the concept of the photoelectric effect in
clarifying the complex processes of x-ray adsorption
in solid materials.
These two theoretical papers are the reason for
Einstein's receiving the richly deserved Nobel Prize
in 1921, although many historians of science have
led our students to believe that it was the much
more publicized Theory of Relativity that earned
for him this coveted honor. For this reason it is
here emphasized that the papers on Brownian movement
and the photoelectric effect, based on directly
observable phenomena, are just as valid now as when
written 70 years ago. Also it is of utmost
importance to note that these theoretical
developments required little or no use of the
metaphysical mathematics and philosophical
assumptions which were becoming so popular in
Western Europe at that time.
Let us turn now to that third 1905 paper, usually
called the "Theory of Special Relativity," which
together with a more generalized version, General
Relativity (1915), have generated mountains of
papers and correspondence every generation since
1905. In these one finds controversy, ridicule,
"proofs," "disproofs," and all too often the most
unscientific of attitudes imaginable. In those who
support the theories there is so often evidence of a
quasi-religious, unquestioning faith. Equally as
vehement, pre- 1930, were those who were most
critical of methods which made use of systems of
metaphysical mathematics and free-wheeling
philosophies.
As with all controversies, and especially when
unquestioned faith is an armament, there is a middle
ground wherein stands TRUTH, which will be unveiled
when additional information is obtained by
observation and experiment. Such has always
been the course of every field of experimental and
applied sciences. Such is the history of science!
CAN NATURE DECEIVE?
The scientists, in playing their game with Nature,
are meeting an opponent on her own ground, who has
not only made the rules of the game to suit herself,
but may have even queered the pitch, or cast a spell
over the visiting team. If space possesses
properties which distort our vision, deform our
measuring-rods, and tamper with our clocks, is there
any means of detecting the fact? Can we feel
hopeful that eventually cross-examination will break
the disguise? . . .
Ultimately, we can only rely on the evidence of our
senses, checked and clarified of course by
artificial apparatus, repeated experiment, and
exhaustive inquiry. Observations can often be
interpreted unwisely, as an anecdote told by Sir
George Greenhill illustrates:
At the end of a session at the Engineering College,
Coopers' Hill, a reception was held and the science
departments were on view. A young lady, entering
the physical laboratory and seeing an inverted image
of herself in a large concave mirror, naively
remarked to her companion: "They have hung that
looking glass upside down. " Had the lady advanced
past the focus of the mirror, she would have seen
that the workmen were not to blame. If nature
deceived her it was deception which further
experiment would have unmasked.
-Clement V. Durell, Readable Relativity (1938)
In contrast to the theoretical methods which he had
utilized in treating Brownian movement and the
photoelectric effect, Einstein in developing
Relativity allowed himself to become an integral
part, in fact a leading disciple, of the "school"
which made use of metaphysical mathematics. This
group assumed time to be an independent variable,
combinable with three coordinates of space (Minkowski's
space-time). He assumed as true the following
unproved attributes of the physical world:
A. That there exists no "ether," no
generalized subquantic medium by which absolute
motion could be determined.
B. That mass and energy are interconvertable
(E=mc')
C. Reversability of time
With these unsupported hypotheses Einstein flew in
the face of the majority opinion then held by
professional scientists, and particularly
experimentalists. He embarked on a course that
brought eventual disillusionment.
It is proposed to present here a biographical sketch
giving aspects of his scientific career which have
only been lightly touched on by his contemporaries,
and largely ignored by his biographers.
Einstein made use of a system of computation
developed in Germany (1850 - 1875) which assumes
that a line projected in space curves, that parallel
lines converge. This was basic in developing what
has become known as the General Theory of
Relativity. Using these methods he predicted that a
beam of light as it passed close to the sun would be
deflected 1.75 seconds of arc, as the result of the
gigantic gravitational field. Note particularly
that he specified only gravitational effects. Such
a phenomenon had been qualitatively predicted by
Isaac Newton before 1700.
The observed weighted deflection was 1.98 arc
seconds, providing the initial impetus of one of the
most unusual chapters in all of man's history, not
just scientific history.
An obvious question: Why should a rather obscure
mathematical theorist, whose prediction of an
obscure astronomic event generate such world-wide
interest, producing a ticker-tape parade down New
York's Wall Street in 1921? 1 asked myself this
question as a teenager and college student,
observing the outpourings of publicity in Sunday
newspaper supplements, in the Rotogravure sections,
news reels, and "educational" movies. I again
asked myself this question in 1957 when a study was
begun of the historical background of the various
systems of physical theory which were then being
taught as the fundamentals of atomic and nuclear
science. As will be shown below the final pieces of
the puzzle fell into place in mid-1975.
If one wishes to study the thinking of
those who early opposed the relativistic theories
(and there were many!) it-becomes a major research
project even to learn of the authors of such
heresy. The usual abstracting services are
strangely silent. Between the years 1905 and 1930
the doctrines of relativity and of n-dimensional
and non-Euclidean geometries had a "good press." The
theory was publicized by the most astute, adroit
application of subtle "soft sell" techniques ever to
be devised. Modern day advertising executives could
learn much of psychology in studying the showmanship
by which persons in high and influential places were
favorably impressed, how the general public was
"educated," how scientists were swayed by the
"fads" of the day.
Relativity, the New Science, became the rage of the
intelligentsia, the "smart" drawing-room set.
Further, to bolster the claims of this "new" and
"different" science, data were culled, and that
which upheld the theory was praised and publicized,
while more valid information was ignored.
There were some men who lived during the development
of the basic postulates of modern theories who
doubted the logic on which they rest. Moreover,
these men resented the use of the promotional
methods of the market place, which were blatantly
used to fasten on the minds of men, at all levels of
culture, what many considered to be a false
scientific doctrine. Certain of these men, having
the courage of their convictions, published books
reporting on various aspects of the situation as
they saw it at first hand.
To attempt to dismiss all such publications as the
work of crackpots, as the railings of "cranks
rebelling against the father-image of established
authority," is to belittle the work of technically
trained men of high renown, respected in their
fields of specialization. In order that students of
the physical sciences may know that there were (and
are now!) other views in fundamental physical
theories than are presented in recent physics texts,
there follow reviews of the more pertinent of these
works.
One of the first,(1) also one of the most scholarly,
works to point out the fallacies in logic was by
Charles L. Poor, who obtained his Doctorate in
mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins
University, 1892. He served as professor of
astronomy at Hopkins, 1900-1910, and as professor
of celestial mechanics at Columbia University,
1910-1944. In his volume, Dr. Poor clearly
indicates the false premises of n-dimensional and
non-Euclidean geometries, and of the dual frames of
reference used by Lorentz and later theorizers. His
greatest contribution is the pinpointing of the
manner in which the proponents of relativity
selected and culled astronomic data, no doubt
unconsciously, to uphold their own preconceived
ideas. In this evaluation of the "scientific
advertising" used so effectively in promoting "The
Theory," Dr. Poor gives a calm, dignified appraisal
of a field of knowledge in which he has few equals.
Another writer to question seriously the basis of
relativity was Arthur Lynch, a most remarkable man
of unusual courage and breadth of interest. He was
a graduate engineer, a linguist; he studied physics
in Berlin, took his medical degree in London, and
later an electrical engineering diploma in Paris.
He served in the British Parliament for 10 years,
and practiced medicine in London for twenty-six
years. In 1927 he published his first volume on
scientific fallacies, and in 1931 his second. He
shows clearly that relativity is an unhappy union of
philosophy, metaphysical mathematics, and science.(2)
In these two little-known works Dr. Lynch takes on
the character of the iconoclast, the rebel, against
many of the scientific beliefs of the 1920's. In
this respect he weakens his arguments and somewhat
obscures flashes of keen insight into many of the
errors of logic in science, some of which still
exist in our thinking today. The great service
Lynch renders is to give an on-the-spot observer's
biting account of the causes (cultural, political,
mathematical, and philosophical) which resulted in
the rapid rise in popularity of the Theory of
Relativity. He clearly outlines the well-managed
showmanship that "sold" this theory to those in
influential places who could not understand the
language in which it was presented, much less the
abstractions of metaphysical mathematics on which
the theory rests for its development.
The third writer to publish in English a volume
critically discussing at length the Einstein
theories was J. J. Callahan.(3) He was a Catholic
priest and educator, having received his training in
rigorous logic and reasoning at Duquesne University
and at the Gregorian University at Rome. In this
volume Dr. Callahan discusses the illogical
character of neo-geometries and the multiple frames
of reference used in the mathematical development
of the fundamental ideas of relativity by Lorentz,
Poincare, Einstein, Minkowski and others.
Another scientifically trained writer to tilt with
Einstein's theories, and a contemporary of all those
mentioned above, was a Russian-born electrical and
aeronautical engineer, George de Bothezat. He
secured his electrical-engineering degree in Liege,
1907, a Doctorate in Paris, 1911. He was an
aeronautical leader in Russia before 1918 and later
in the United States. He patented many inventions
and organized and directed a sizeable commercial
enterprise. In 1959 his name survived and appeared
in the Manhattan telephone directory: de Bothezat
Division, American Machine and Metals Company. This
unusual man took the battle to the enemy's camp,
lecturing at Princeton University during the 1930's,
questioning Einstein's doctrine of isochronous
time.
The volume by de Bothezat makes difficult reading,
as the author' meaning is not clear in many
cases.(4) But certainly it is clear in one
important aspect. Because he was a mathematician,
de Bothezat saw that by the mathematical processes
utilized by Einstein, Grossman, and Minkowski all
manner of hypotheses could be proved. This
observation of course was not original with de
Bothezat, as it was shown earlier by many French
mathematicians, particularly Painleve.
No doubt some will object to the use of the terms
"sell" and "promotion" to describe the methods by
which the Theory of Relativity was so quickly
popularized. Perhaps some others feel that such
methods are not suitable or ethical in the world of
science. It all depends on the viewpoint. In the
present era, nearly every laboratory of any size, be
it academic, commercial, or governmental, has as
part of its organization a publicity or public
relations department. This is staffed by persons
whose livelihood depends on getting the laboratory's
findings, reports, papers, and accomplishments into
as many news outlets as possible.
Being convinced that many of the mathematical
systems responsible for modem physical theories
contain illogical, erroneous assumptions, this
writer has attempted to determine the processes
through which this type of mathematics, and the
Theory of Relativity, have taken such a hold on the
minds of countless millions. It is believed that
four volumes published some few years ago explain
how and why these ideas have gained such a
following. These books are not erudite, scholarly,
studies in psychology, mathematics, or physics.
They are popularly, well written blueprints of the
way men's minds en masse are influenced and the
individual's supposed free-will actions channeled
into a pattern set by those who apply subtle
pressures.
A summary of the new techniques of advertising are
discussed in Vance Packard's The Hidden
Persuaders. No doubt there will be many who
will scoff at the statements in this volume;
nevertheless, advertising budgets in the millions of
dollars are risked on these principles of mass
psychology. The effectiveness of this type of
pressure is quickly evidenced by the sales volume
of the goods and the services being publicized .(5)
In a second volume, Science Is a Sacred Cow,
A. Stander gives us a glimpse into the manner by
which scientists delude themselves and apply the
same subtle suasions to the members of the learned
professions as are used by the men who guide
modern-day advertising. This book will make many
scientists cringe as they see some of their most
treasured illusions trampled upon by another
well-trained scientist.(6)
With regard to the subject which we are considering,
Mr. Stander has this to say:
And yet Einstein did not destroy the Absolute.
There is always an Absolute in science. In the
nineteenth century it was the ether, but when the
ether fell to pieces and disintegrated, there was no
Absolute left at all—a condition intolerable to
scientists, although they don't know it. Einstein
made space and time relative, but in order to do
this he had to take something else, which was the
velocity of light, and make it absolute. The
velocity of light occupies an extraordinary place in
modern physics. It is lese majeste to make
any criticism of the velocity of light. it is a
sacred cow within a sacred cow, and it is just about
the Absolutest Absolute in the history of human
thought. There is a textbook on physics which
openly says, "Relativity is now accepted as a
faith." This statement, although utterly astounding
in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately
only too true.
The third volume for studying the methods by which
men's minds are influenced is C. D. MacDougall's
Hoaxes.(7) This also shows very graphically
that any explanation, even if it is grossly
incorrect, is considered better than none at all.
This is not to imply that the mathematicians,
philosophers, theoreticians, and physicists who
developed modern physical theories were consciously
engaged in perpetrating hoaxes. They were not, for
each in his own field sincerely believed that he was
completely justified in his basic assumptions, and
accurate in his reasoning and mathematical
calculations.
The reasons "Why We Don't Disbelieve" and
"Incentives to Believe" are clear-cut discussions
of the underlying pattern of mass acceptance of the
things which appear on the printed page, be they
truth, half-truth, or complete falsehood. The
following list of "Incentives to Believe" explains
in one or more important instances the motivation
which caused many to embrace, champion, and
popularize the Theory of Relativity during its
all-important formative period, 1905-30; also to
continue as a quasi-religious dogma to 1975:
The means whereby health, wealth, and happiness may
be obtained;
The essential evidence that one's church, political
party, race, city, state and nation is superior,
The fragments of knowledge to establish a
scientific, literary, artistic, historical or other
hypothesis;
The spectacular incidents to give sanctions to
prejudices, attitudes and opinions;
The heroes to worship and the vicarious thrills by
which to escape an otherwise dull and routine
existence.
The fourth volume in this group, Caplow and Reece's
The Academic Marketplace, is a report
of a sociological study of ten of the larger
universities of the United States, giving the
results of an investigation of the personnel
practices, basic problems, and motivations of the
faculties of these eminent centers of learning.(8)
The findings were a revelation, for in the areas of
study which are discussed here, mathematics and
physics, the following statements stand out: "Today,
a scholar's orientation to his institution is apt to
disorient him to his discipline and to affect his
professional prestige unfavorably. Conversely, an
orientation to his discipline will disorient him to
his institution, which he will regard as a temporary
shelter where he can pursue his career as a member
of the discipline .... Several respondents referred
to the 'guild aspect' of certain disciplines
-especially mathematics and physics. Their comments
seem to assert that, in these fields at least, for
the successful professor the institutional
orientation has entirely disappeared."
Thus it would seem that indeed these two
disciplines form two guilds, which owe their first
loyalty to the other members of the craft, not to
the school where they are, for the time being, doing
their work. This well may explain why criticism and
questioning of modern physical theories based on
mathematical constructs are so often received in
stony silence as ranks close.
In the four volumes cited above appears to be the
answer to the puzzle posed by Professor Bridgeman in
1936: ". . . but it seems to me that the arguments
which have led up to the theory (Relativity), and
the whole state of mind of most physicists with
regard to it, may some day become one of the puzzles
of history. "I And so we see how men of science can
be influenced in their thinking and in their
judgment by suasions and pressures, often
self-imposed, but in recent years, through
indoctrination during their formative undergraduate
days.
The scientist who has received his training during
the past 40 years has received scant introduction to
other alternative hypotheses, for in all present-day
general physics and nuclear texts, classical physics
is limited to the material world of direct
observation. In these texts the "laws" that govern
the microcosm, together with the results of the
Michelson-Morley experiments (1887), show clearly
that there can be no "ether"-that matter and energy
in small packages are governed by special rules not
applicable to the observable world. Three centuries
of laboratory data are summarized in a relatively
few paragraphs.
Two rather recent reports by distinguished
contemporaries of Einstein give a most illuminating
overview of the events which resulted in his being
catapulted to fame, or more correctly, notoriety.
For such was the result of a public relations
campaign comparable to that generated for a budding
movie star.
The first of these reports was by Nobelist P.A.M.
Dirac who, when in his acceptance speech for the
Oppenheimer Award (1969), made the following
statement regarding his own work:
This work was done in the 1920's when the whole idea
of relativity was still quite young. It did not
make a splash in the scientific world until after
the end of the first world war and then it made a
very big splash. Everyone was talking about
relativity, not only the scientists, but the
philosophers and the writers of columns in the
newspapers. I do not think there has been any other
occasion in the history of science when an idea has
so much caught the public interest as relativity did
in those early days, starting from the relaxation
which occurred with the ending of a very serious
war.(10)
The second of the recent reports came to this
writer's attention in June 1975, and did in fact
provide the missing pieces in the puzzle as to why a
young, essentially unknown scientist should be so
quickly smothered in honors. This report, in the
form of an article(11) by Professor S.
Chandrasekhar, makes such stimulating and
enlightening reading that this writer highly
recommends it to every student of the sciences at
all levels of training. It is in these paragraphs
that the following appears:
(Ernest) Rutherford turned to Eddington and said,
"You are responsible for Einstein's fame." And more
seriously he continued:
The war had just ended; and the complacency of the
Victorian and the Edwardian times had been
shattered. The people felt that all their values
and all their ideals had lost their bearings. Now,
suddenly, they learnt that an astronomical
prediction by a German scientist had been confirmed
by expeditions to Brazil and West Africa and,
indeed, prepared for already during the war, by
British astronomers. Astronomy had always appealed
to public imagination; and an astronomical
discovery, transcending worldly strife, struck a
responsive cord. The meeting of the Royal Society,
at which the results of the British expeditions were
reported, was headlined in all the British papers;
and the typhoon of publicity crossed the Atlantic.
From that point on, the American press played
Einstein to the maximum. Dr.
Chandrasekhar continues:
Let me go back a little to tell you about the
circumstances which gave rise to the planning of the
British expeditions (of 1919). 1 learned of the
circumstances from Eddington (in 1935) when I
expressed to him my admiration of his scientific
sensibility in planning the expeditions during the
'darkest days of the war.' To my surprise,
Eddington disclaimed any credit on that
account—indeed he said that, left to himself, he
would not have planned the expeditions since he was
fully convinced of the truth of the general theory
of relativity!—In any event, Eddington clearly
realized the importance of verifying Einstein's
prediction with regard to the deflection of the
light from the distant stars as it grazed the solar
disc during an eclipse.
Examine carefully the above paragraphs for in these
will be found certain key phrases:
Rutherford to Arthur Eddington—
"You are responsible for Einstein's fame."
"Eddington . . . indeed said that left to himself he
would not have planned the expedition, since he was
fully convinced of the truth of the general theory
of Relativity."
Here can be seen the underlying reason why Professor
Poor in 1922, and Professor Freundlich in 1931, both
professional astronomers, reported that the
astronomic data obtained by the Eddington
expeditions had been culled and selected in order to
uphold preconceived conclusions.
At the peak of the campaign to popularize Einstein
and his works, there occurred a most surprising and
important development. At a meeting of the most
eminent physicists and theoreticians (Solvay
Congress) in 1927, Niels Bohr adroitly furthered his
own brand of theory, since known as Bohr-Heisenberg
Quantum Mechanics of the "Copenhagen School." At
this meeting Bohr in effect ridiculed Einstein's
basic assumption of causality, which requires that
Event A be preceded by some prior event. Bohr, on
the other hand, espoused the concept of "acausality"
which assumes that Event A may arise spontaneously,
requiring no initiating event. At this Congress the
young theoretician Louis deBroglie, who two years
later was to receive the Nobel Prize, was won over
to the Copenhagen School which he supported until
the mid-1950's.
Although Einstein's popular image
was untarnished, younger scientists followed Bohr,
and Einstein was effectively isolated from the main
stream of theoretical physics for the remainder of
his life.
It is indeed ironic that in the teaching of physics
for more than 40 years, there have been courses
which have stressed Relativity, while in the next
classroom the theories of Bohr are given overriding
priority. However, at no time is it pointed out to
students that the basic philosophies which underlie
these two systems are mutually exclusive. If Bohr
is correct, then Einstein cannot be correct; and
vice versa. Interestingly, both systems require
the absence of an "ether" or "subquantic
medium." For if such a medium or substrate does
exist, both systems of theory are untenable.
Following the failure of his efforts after 1931 to
modify the General Theory of Relativity in order to
take into account magnetic and electrostatic
forces, coupled with his decreasing stature in the
rapidly developing theoretical areas, Einstein
received another very personal blow. This was as
the result of his famous letter of 1939 written to
President Franklin Roosevelt in which he recommended
that research be initiated on nuclear explosives.
Einstein was a gentle man, a true internationalist,
and above all a pacifist. The use of two fission
bombs against Japan in 1945 was for him a personal
tragedy, as it was for many of the other scientists
who were actively engaged in the Manhattan Project.
In the press Einstein was then lauded as the Father
of the Bomb, a title which he most certainly
detested. And as fusion devices became realities
before he died, we can only speculate as to his
inner feelings.
The personal tragedy of Albert Einstein was that he
was beguiled by the fame and notoriety generated as
the result of a most improbable sequence of events.
Thus he, scientists and the general public were led
to overlook the good, solid work based on
experimental results, which won for him the Nobel
Prize in 1921.
Philosophically, looking back on his life at age 70,
Einstein gave a clear evaluation of what he believed
were his accomplishments. This was in a letter made
public many years after his passing:
Personal Letter to Professor Solovine, dated 28 March 1949-
You can imagine that I look back on my life's work
with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks
quite different. There is not a single concept of
which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I
feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right
track.(12) The
tragedy of Einstein, translated to the entire
scientific community, is that of the failure of the
open, self-corrective long-term processes which are
normal to all science, or at least should be. In
Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, the Medical Sciences,
Geology, and Engineering in all branches, there have
since 1930 been many and varied competing
alternative hypotheses and theories. These rose,
were modified and often fell before the evidence of
new data and innovative techniques. In
nuclear science and theory, however, the assumptions
which developed pre-1930 have taken on the aura of
self-evident truths, in the nature of a
quasi-religious dogma which cannot, must not, be
questioned. In fact since about 1940, those who did
cast doubts were looked upon as clearly lacking in
common sense. In
1959, a letter to the writer from a scientist then
employed at the Oak Ridge Laboratories stated:
Most of
us who share your general viewpoint tend to be 'gun shy'
(or job shy, or what have you) in such matters because
we are aware of our minority position and the ridicule
normally to be expected from highly respected and firmly
entrenched theoreticians. Professor
Herbert Dingle (University of London) 13 in 1972
questioned the morality of continued unquestioned
acceptance of the basic postulates of Relativity. This
produced published insulting ridicule. The crux
of the problem which is being discussed here is the
scientific morality of those who insist that there
shall be no alternative hypotheses permitted in nuclear
science which question present dogma. Just why is
physical theory so sacrosanct, when all other areas of
science are subject to the very healthy stimulation and
discipline of competing viewpoints and alternative
hypotheses?
REFERENCES
1. Charles L. Poor, Gravity Versus Relativity
(New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1922).
2. Arthur Lynch,
Science: Leading and Misleading (London: John
Murray, 1927). The
Case Against Einstein (London: Phillip Allan, 1932;
New York: Dodd-Mead, 1933).
3. J.J. Callahan, Euclid
or Einstein? (New York: Devin-Adair Co., 1931).
4. George de Bothezat,
Back to Newton (New York: G.E. Stechert & Company,
1936).
5. Vance Packard, The
Hidden Persuaders (New York: David McKay, 1957).
6. A. Stander, Science Is a Sacred Cow
(New York: E.P. Dutton, Everyman Edition, 1958),
7. C.D. MacDougall,
Hoaxes (Rev. ed . ; New York: Dover Books, 1958).
8. Theodore Caplow and R.J. Reece, The
Academic Marketplace (New York: Basic Books, 1958).
9. P.W. Bridgeman,
Nature of Physical Theory (1936).
10. P.A.M. Dirac,
Development of Quantum Theory (N.Y.: Gordon and Breach, 1971).
11. S. Chandrasekhar, "Verifying the Theory of
Relativity," The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists
(June, 1975).
12. Solovine Letter. Quoted in B. Hoffman,
Albert Einstein-Creator and Rebel (N.Y.: Viking
Press, 1972).
13. Herbert Dingle,
Science at the Crossroads (London: Martin Brian
O'Keefe, 1972) |
||||
home
features
science/philosophy
wholesale store
policies
contact |