This is part of a series within the Reading and Book Lovers group; it was suggested by LimeLite. The subject is books about science, math and statistics.
This is intended to be a group series, with lots of contributors. plf515 can't do this alone. But has a list of topics to get us started, and a list of weeks as well.
This diary will post on Sunday mid-afternoons at an inexact time, and given the nature of Sundays chez plf, We can't be sure there will be a regular schedule. But we all wish we were eating at chez plf, and I'm wondering what will be served today. In any case, these diaries will likely be published after brunch/lunch, before dinner.
Topic ideas (some of which could be collaborative with other RBL groupies):
Book reviews regarding science, math and statistics in fiction or non-fiction.
Diaries about popular science writers
Interviews of daily Kos science, math or statistics authors
A community read of a science, math or statistics book, possibly Feynman's The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, or maybe the much neglected Ascent of Man by Jacob Bronowski.
"Why it couldn't happen" - looking at some classic books and why they are not possible.
Books on Kindle or other e-reader vs. paper
I don't have the RBL Schedule, but I'm guessing plf515 will serve it up in the comments apres des livres.
The Lovable Albert Einstein is not really a book title. It's just how I think of the wild haired guy who often didn't wear socks. I don't know any math or science geeks (and I know plenty) who don't have a special place in their heart for the guy. I'd wager that most of you like him too. I remember clearly when I first felt drawn to his mystique. I was watching a TV documentary on him when I was 9 years old. And I first heard the short sound byte below. There is something very sweet about his accented voice. I've been captivated by his person work and his work ever since hearing this.
For this installment of the geeks book club, I've chosen two books that touch on Einstein's relentless pursuit of a unified physical theory based on elementary foundations -- one in which "God does not play dice with the world" -- a pursuit that he followed even after the rest of the scientific community had rejected the notion that such a theory was possible, and was busy advancing a statistically based quantum theory.
I think this topic touches on all 3 disciplines this group focuses on. And I'm curious to know what others here think about whether Einstein's concept of a unified theory is achievable. Or whether a statistically based theory is as far as we can go in understanding matter.
I'm mostly going to let the books speak for themselves. Excerpting passages where the contributors discuss Einstein's search for a unified theory. If you stay with me, you'll read Bohr, Einstein and others, discussing Einstein's departure from mainstream science.
The books I'll draw from are:
Albert Einstein Philosopher-Scientist
Edited by Paul Arthur Schipp
Einstein's Miraculous Year
Edited by John Stachel
The first book is a compilation of essays by scientists and philosophers discussing Einstein's contributions to the body of human knowledge. It starts with Einstein's own "Autobiographical Notes," which he wrote for this book. And these are followed by 25 essays by various other heavy thinkers. I'll list the authors and essay titles at the end of the diary. The book finishes with Einstein's "Reply to Criticisms," in which he responds to some of the essays.
This book is not easy reading. But if you like the guy, it's well worthwhile. You get a good picture of how Einstein's ideas changed more much than just our scientific viewpoint. His thinking went well beyond science and this book does a good job of illuminating a broad range of his views. It seems to me that Einstein was a genuine wise guy.
The second book recounts the 5 papers Einstein published in 1905. It sets up some of the historical context and describes what Einstein accomplished in that miraculous year. It's only 200 pages. But it's very dense. Stachel walks you through what Einstein's papers meant and how they fit into the development of physical science at the time. The text and equations of the papers are also included. Einstein's writing is clear, but his reasoning is very complex. I usually have to read sections over and over to follow him. And sometimes, I still can't. But it's fun trying. And even if you skip over some of the technical stuff. The book lays out very nicely, the 1905 flood of ideas that would soon rocket Einstein to the top of the scientific world.
We'll start with some of Neils Bohr's essay.
Niels Bohr: Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics
When invited by the Editor of the series, "Living Philosophers," to write an article for this volume in which contemporary scientists are honoring the epoch-making contributions of Albert Einstein to the progress of natural philosophy and are acknowledging the indebtedness of our whole generation for the guidance his genius has given us, I thought much of the best way of explaining how much I owe to him for inspiration. In this connection, the many occasions through the years on which I had the privilege to discuss with Einstein epistemological problems raised by the modern development of atomic physics have come back vividly to my mind and I have felt that I could hardly attempt anything better than to give an account of these discussions which, even if no complete concord has so far been obtained, have been of greatest value and stimulus to me. I hope also that the account may convey to wider circles an impression of how essential the open-minded exchange of ideas has been for the progress in a field where new experience has time after time demanded a reconsideration of our views.
From the very beginning the main point under debate has been the attitude to take to the departure from customary principles of natural philosophy characteristic of the novel development of physics which was initiated in the first year of this century by Planck's discovery of the universal quantum of action. This discovery, which revealed a feature of atomicity in the laws of nature going far beyond the old doctrine of the limited divisibility of matter, has indeed taught us that the classical theories of physics are idealizations which can be unambiguously applied only in the limit where all actions involved are large compared with the quantum. The question at issue has been whether the renunciation of a causal mode of description of atomic processes involved in the endeavours to cope with the situation should be regarded as a temporary departure from ideals to be ultimately revived or whether we are faced with an irrevocable step towards obtaining the proper harmony between analysis and syntheses of physical phenomena. To describe the background of our discussions and to bring out as clearly as possible the arguments for the contrasting viewpoints, I have felt it necessary to go to a certain length in recalling some main features of the development to which Einstein himself has contributed so decisively.
As is well known it was the intimate relation, elucidated primarily by Boltzmann, between the laws of thermodynamics and the statistical regularities exhibited by mechanical systems with many degrees of freedom, which guided Planck in his ingenious treatment of the problem of thermal radiation, leading him to his fundamental discovery. While in his work, Planck was principally concerned with considerations of essentially statistical character and with great caution refrained from definite conclusions as to the extent to which the existence of the quantum implied a departure from the foundations of mechanics and electrodynamics, Einstein's great original contribution to quantum theory (1905) was just the recognition of how physical phenomena like the photo-effect may depend directly on individual quantum effects. In these very same years when, in developing his theory of relativity, Einstein laid a new foundation for physical science, he explored with a most daring spirit the novel features of atomicity which pointed beyond the whole framework of classical physics.
With unfailing intuition Einstein thus was led step by step to the conclusion that any radiation process involves the emission or absorption of individual light quanta or "photons" with energy and momentum
E = hv and P=h(delta)
respectively, where h is Planck's constant, while v and delta are the number of vibrations per unit time and the number of waves per unit length, respectively. Notwithstanding its fertility, the idea of the photon implied a quite unforeseen dilemma, since any simple corpuscular picture of radiation would obviously be irreconcilable with interference effects, which present so essential an aspect of radiative phenomena, and which can be described only in terms of a wave picture. The acuteness of the dilemma is stressed by the fact that the interference effects offer our only means of defining the concepts of frequency and wavelength entering into the very expressions for the energy and momentum of the photon.
In this situation, there could be no question of attempting a causal analysis of radiative phenomena, but only, by a combined use of the contrasting pictures, to estimate probabilities for the occurrence of the individual radiation processes. However, it is most important to realize that the recourse to probability laws under such circumstances is essentially different in aim from the familiar application of statistical considerations as practical means of accounting for the properties of mechanical systems of great structural complexity. In fact, in quantum physics we are presented not with intricacies of this kind, but with the inability of the classical frame of concepts to comprise the peculiar feature of indivisibility, or "individuality," characterizing the elementary processes.
Skipping ahead a few pages...
In connection with a thorough examination of the exigencies of thermodynamics as regards radiation problems, Einstein stressed the dilemma still further by pointing out that the argumentation implied that a radiation process was "unidirected" in the sense that not only is a momentum corresponding to a photon with the direction of propagation transferred to an atom in the absorption process, but that also the emitting atom will receive an equivalent impulse in the opposite direction, although there can on the wave picture be no question of a preference for a single direction in an emission process. Einstein's own attitude to such startling conclusions is expressed in a passage at the end of the article, which may be translated as follows:
These features of the elementary processes would seem to make the development of a proper quantum treatment of radiation almost unavoidable. the weakness of the theory lies in the fact that, on the one hand, no closer connection with the wave concepts is obtainable and that , on the other hand, it leaves to chance (Zufall) the time and the direction of the elementary processes; nevertheless, I have full confidence in the reliability of the way forward.
When I had the great experience of meeting Einstein for the first time during a visit to Berlin in 1920, these fundamental questions formed the theme of our conversations.
The discussion, to which I have often reverted to in my thoughts, added to all my admiration for Einstein a deep impression of his detached attitude. Certainly, his favoured use of such picturesque phrases as "ghost waves (Gespensterfelder) guiding the photons" implied no tendency to mysticism, but illuminated rather a profound humour behind his piercing remarks. Yet, a certain difference in attitude and outlook remained, since, with his mastery for co-ordination apparently contrasting experience without abandoning continuity and causality, Einstein was perhaps more reluctant to renounce such ideals than someone for whom renunciation in this respect appeared to be the only way open to proceed with the immediate task of co-ordination the multifarious evidence regarding atomic phenomena, which accumulated from day to day in the exploration of this new field of knowledge.
And here is some of what Einstein wrote in reply to Bohr's and others' essays.
I now come to what is probably the most interesting subject which absolutely must be discussed in connection with the detailed arguments of my esteemed colleagues Born, Pauli, Heitler, Bohr and Margenua. They are all firmly convinced that the riddle of the double nature of all corpuscles (corpuscular and undulatory character) has in essence found its final solution in the statistical quantum theory. On the strength of the successes of this theory, they consider it proved that a theoretically complete description of a system can, in essence, involve only statistical assertions concerning the measurable quantities of this system. They are apparently all of the opinion that Heisnberg's indeterminacy-relation (the correctness of which is, from my own point of view, rightfully regarded as finally demonstrated) is essentially prejudicial in favor of the character of all thinkable reasonable physical theories in the mentioned sense. In what follows, I wish to aduce reasons which keep me from falling in line with the opinion of almost all contemporary theoretical physicists. I am, in fact, firmly convinced that the essentially statistical character of contemporary quantum theory is solely to be ascribed to the fact that this [theory] operates with an incomplete description of physical systems.
Above all, however, the reader should be convinced that I fully recognize the very important progress which the statistical quantum theory has brought to theoretical physics. In the field of mechanical problems -- i.e., wherever it is possible to consider the interaction of structures and of their parts with sufficient accuracy by postulating a potential energy between material points -- [this theory] even now presents a system which, in its closed character, correctly describes the empirical relations between stable phenomena as they were theoretically to be expected. This theory is until now the only one which unites the corpuscular and undulatory dual character of matter in a logically satisfactory fashion; and the (testable) relations, which are contained in it, are, within the natural limits fixed by the indeterminacy-relation, complete. The formal relations which are given in this theory -- i.e., its entire mathematical formalism -- will probably have to be contained, in the form of logical inferences, in every useful future theory.
What does not satisfy me in that theory, from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation). Whenever the positivistically inclined modern physicist hears such a formulation his reaction is that of a pitying smile. He says to himself: "there we have the naked formulation of a metaphysical prejudice, empty of content, a prejudice, moreover, the conquest of which constitutes the major epistemological achievement of physicists within the last quarter-century. Has any man ever perceived a 'real physical situation'? How is it possible that a reasonable person could today still believe that he can refute our essential knowledge and understanding by drawing up such a bloodless ghost?" Patience! The above laconic characterization was not meant to convince anyone; it was merely to indicate the point of view around which the following elementary consideration freely group themselves. In doing this I shall proceed as follows: I shall first of all show in simple special cases what seems essential to me, and then I shall make a few remarks about some more general ideas which are involved.
snip
I now imagine a quantum theoretician who may even admit that the quantum-theoretical description refers to ensembles of systems and not to individual systems, but who, nevertheless clings to the idea that the type of description of the statistical quantum theory will, in its essential features, be retained in the future. He may argue as follows: True, I admit that the quantum-theoretical description is an incomplete description of the individual system. I even admit that a theoretical description is, in principle, thinkable. But I consider it proven that the search for such a complete description would be aimless. For the lawfulness of nature is thus constituted that the laws can be completely and suitably formulated within the framework of our incomplete description.
To this I can only reply as follows: Your point of view -- taken as theoretical possibility -- is incontestable. For me, however the expectation that the adequate formulation of the universal laws involves the use of all conceptual elements which are necessary for a complete description, is more natural. It is furthermore not at all surprising that, by using an incomplete description, (in the main) only statistical statements can be obtained out of such description. If it should be possible to move forward to a complete description, it is likely that the laws would represent relations among all the conceptual elements of this description which, per se, have nothing to do with statistics.
Roger Penrose wrote the preface to Einstein's Miraculous Year. And he summarizes with this.
The question is often raised of another seeming paradox: Why, when Einstein started from a vantage point so much in the lead of his contemporaries with regard to understanding quantum phenomena, was he nevertheless left behind by them in the subsequent development of quantum theory? Indeed Einstein never even accepted the quantum theory, as that theory finally emerged in the 1920's. Many would hold that Einstein was hampered by his "outdated" realist standpoint, whereas Niels Bohr, in particular, was able to move forward simply by denying the very existence of such a thing as: "physical reality" at the quantum level of molecules, atoms, and elementary particles. Yet, it is clear that the fundamental advances that Einstein was able to achieve in 1905 depended crucially on his robust adherence to a belief in the actual reality of physical entities at the molecular and sub-molecular levels. This much is particularly evident in the five papers presented here.
Can it really be true that Einstein in any significant sense was as profoundly "wrong" as the followers of Bohr might maintain? I do not believe so. I would, myself, side strongly with Einstein in his belief in a submicroscopic reality, and with his conviction that present-day quantum mechanics is fundamentally incomplete. I am also of the opinion that there are crucial insights to be found as to the nature of this reality that will ultimately come to light from a profound analysis of a seeming conflict between the underlying principles of quantum theory and those of Einstein's own general relativity. It seems to me that only when such insights are at hand and put appropriately to use will the fundamental tension between the laws governing the micro-world of quantum theory and the macro-world of general relativity be resolved. How is this resolution to be achieved? Only time and, I believe, a new revolution will tell -- in perhaps some other Miraculous Year!
And finally, here is some of what John Stachel writes as he threads his way through the papers Einstein published in 1905.
Einstein was far from considering his work on the quantum hypothesis as constituting a satisfactory theory of radiation or matter. As noted he emphasized that a physical theory is satisfactory only "if its structures are composed of elementary foundations." Adding "that we are still far from having satisfactory elementary foundations for electrical and mechanical processes." Einstein felt that he had not achieved a real understanding of quantum phenomena because (in contrast to his satisfactory interpretation of Boltzmann's constant as setting the scale of statistical fluctuation) he had been unable to interpret Plank's constant "in an intuitive way". The quantum of electric charge also remained "a stranger" to theory.
He(Einstein) was convinced that a satisfactory theory of matter and radiation must construct these quanta of electricity and of radiation, not simply postulate them.
As a theory of principle, the theory of relativity provides important guidelines in the search for such a satisfactory theory. Einstein anticipated the ultimate construction of "a complete worldview that is in accord with the principle of relativity." In the meantime, the theory offered clues to the construction of such a worldview. One clue concerns the structure of electromagnetic radiation. Not only is the theory compatible with an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of light is always the same relative to its source: the theory also requires that the radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain circumstances. He maintained that
"The next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light, which may be regarded as a sort of fusion of the undulatory and emision theories of light"
Essays in Albert Einstein Philosopher-Scientist
1. Arnold Sommerfeld: To Albert Einstein's Seventieth Birthday
2. Louie De Broglie: The Scientific Work of Albert Einstein
3. Ilse Rosenthal-Schneider: Presuppositions and Anticipations in Einstein's Physics
4. Wolfgang Pauli: Einstein's Contributions to Quantum Theory
5. Max Born: Einstein's Statistical Theories
6. Walter Heitler: The Departure from Classical Thought in Modern Physics
7. Neils Bohr: Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics
8. H. Margenau: Einstein's Conception of Reality
9. Philipp G. Frank: Einstein, Mach and Logical Positivism
10. Hans Reichenbach: the Philosophical Significance of the Theory of Relativity
11. H.P. Robertson: Geometry as a Branch of Physics
12. P. W. Bridgman: Einstein's Theories and the Operational Point of View
13. Victor F. Lenzen: Einstein's Theory of Knowledge
14. Filmer S. C. Northrop: Einstein's Conception of Science
15. E. A Milne: Gravitation Without General Relativity
16. Georges Edward Lemaitre: The Cosmological Constant
17. Karl Menger: Modern Geometry and the Theory of Relativity
18. Leopold Infeld: General Relativity and the Structure of our Universe
19. Max von Laue: Inertia and Energy
20. Herbert Dingle: Scientific and Philosophical Implications of the Special Theory of Relativity
21. Kurt Godel: A remark About the Relationship Between Relativity Theory and Idealistic Philosophy
22. Gaston Bachelard: The Philosophic Dialectic of the Concepts of Relativity
23. Aloys Wenzl: Einstein's Theory of Relativity Viewed from the Standpoint of Critical Realism, and Its Significance for Philosophy
25. Virgil Hinshaw, Jr.: Einstein's Social Philosophy
And just so there's something to discuss, other than the point I've tried to bring out, here is a nice youtube video titled "Einstein on God", that quotes many of the profound things he said on the subject.