Great Physicists: what Einstein's character and convictions should tell us today

A short video about his personality, his style of work an his deep convictions about nature.

[@jeffsmith1284]

Great talk. Not only has physics become fragmented, but also the teaching of physics has become highly fragmented, specialized and silo-ed.

[@antonparas4782]

I'm happy youtube lets various fields' experts (e.g. physics, other STEM, music, history) communicate directly with the world, rather than via some middleman (e.g. university publication), we get to see completely original content like this. I have always been interested in the characters behind physics. Having someone like you who's educated in the field analyze those personalities is a unique perspective that's worth sharing with others really great stuff, please keep it up :)

[@nafeesaneelufer5023]

Imagination is the backbone of Physics. Einstein's thought experiment lead to the concept of relative nature of time which seems unbelievable.

[@johnworkman7262]

I can't describe the relief I feel after watching your videos in knowing that there are physicists that actually are trying to do physics out there, as a student in the U.S. you would be hard pressed to find a professor speaking like you and its driving me nuts. I need to know where I should look to find others that share this conviction

[@pbandyoyou]

I live in Kolkata [Cacutta] in India. I taught Physics to undergraduate college - students for more than 30 years and am now retired. I wish to tank Prof. Unzicker for, here, he has proclaimed things that I had felt for a very long time but was afraid to express to my peers. Mathematical jugglery too often obfuscates [ if not destroys] the essential Physics . But it is those jugglers who seem to have hijacked theoretical physics today. The number of fundamental particles in the Standard Model [~60] is of the same order as the total number of elements in the periodic table [~99]. Is that much of a reduction? Can we really assert that the former is more fundamental than the latter ? Probably we need an Einstein to ask such questions. A lesser person will not dare.

[@inflivia]

"The number of fundamental particles in the Standard Model [~60] is of the same order as the total number of elements in the periodic table [~99]" - that is a great point. Thanks.

[@christophershelton8155]

Paraphrasing what you said, "Physics is fragmented more today than in Einstein's time". Very true here

[@jomana1109]

Same for maths and many other disciplines, the one I see with most potential for “universalists” currently neuroscience and possibly the tech that lead to discoveries in this area.

[@BlueGiant69202]

I like this video because it starts to get into what Dr. Albert Einstein stated in his autobiography about the importance of knowing the details of HOW a theoretical physicist actually works rather than what he says. Something that seems to be missing is a zoomed-out mention of Dr. Albert Einstein's persistence in exploring different ideas like photons that were not part of Maxwell's theory of Electromagnetism, Riemannian Geometry, EKB quantization, 5d Kaluza-Klein and Herman Weyl's gauge theory idea, making many mathematical mistakes along the way, being corrected by other physicists and mathematicians, misinterpreting the meaning of the math and returning to start again, dismissing some ideas like gauge theory because they did not agree with his unsurpassed physical intuition but at the same time missing how his objections also applied to his own work, trying another approach in his own way (e.g. three axiom 5d Kaluza Klein) and slowly increasing his understanding of both the physics and how to employ advanced mathematics to express principles of physics. Would mention of Einstein's admiration for Ernst Mach's skepticism help in understanding him? He visited Mach and tried to persuade him that atoms were real based on the latest experimental evidence and his work on Brownian motion.

[@Feldeffekt]

Ich bin soh froh, ihren Kanal gefunden zu haben.

[@marieparker3822]

I love this lecturer.

[@jaysalbhatt2501]

"Today's orgies of mindless calculations are root cause of crises in modern physics"...... the most brilliant and testable theory in modern physics.

[@Fractalfriend]

Great stuff. Thanks.

[@EtherDais]

You two weren't both planning to post on einstein today? 🤪

[@VGameL0v3e12sF012Ree]

That's how I see my university experience too. lol. More than just an impression, I believe the universities where I'm from really inhibit organic understanding on physics, and I enjoy more just studying at my own pace ("accordance with my intellectual stomach and my interests" as quoted in the video), not being haunted and burdened by the tasks at the academic institution that supposedly prepares students for the real world.

[@irenehartlmayr8369]

Imagination takes you everywhere,said Einstein.Imagination rules the world,said Napoleon. A guideline !

[@reframer8250]

The recommended "Begegnungen mit Einstein, von Laue und Planck" is really great! I just read it two weeks ago due to a former recommendation of Dr. Unzicker (thank you fort hat). When I read it, I understood for the first time, that Einstein did not think about special relativity as a complete theory but as some kind of limiting principle (S. 6 „ein einschränkendes Prinzip“) similar to the laws of thermodynamics. In my opinion this contradicts to nowerdays thinking of special relativity (together with relativistic mechanics) being a theory that replaces Newtons mechanics. In relativistic mechanics it is not possible to simulate the effect of time dilation using the equations of motions, because a stable clock cannot be constructed using this dynamics. The reason for this is, that relativistic mechanics does not exhibit a length scale on which stability could be defined (in contrast quantum theory does indirectly, namely using Plancks constant). For long time I did see this circumstance as a logical inconsistency of special relativity (if time dilation is an effect necessary for relativistic logic, the equations of motion should reproduce it, right?). But now having read this, I realized that the problem is due to the incompletenes of special relativity (and I now understand why Einstein wanted to start to find a field theory after GR, that fulfills the limiting principle). This mentioned problem has something to do with the problem of length scale, which I find one of the most important problems in physics (also Einstein was puzzled about it: „Die Natur aber realisiert nur Elektronen von ganz bestimmter Größe und Eisen von ganz bestimmtem, spezifischem Gewicht.“). If one wants to trace real physical problems, this book indeed is an epiphany in some respects.

[@johnward5102]

Wonderful stuff, Dr. (?) Unzicker. My main focus is (at the moment) comparative religious studies, also about the nature of reality, and so much of what you say is relevant to this.

[@bodyofalegend]

I’m currently creating videos on this great man. This is useful information. Thanks 👍

[@JanPBtest]

6:45 It's perhaps interesting to ponder whether such thing would be possible, even in principle. In other words, perhaps the world is such that _no_ abstract model can contain it. So this would represent a certain limit of logic and thinking analogous to Goedel's theorem. Admittedly, a major hand waving here. There are examples of such "impossibility" theorems in physics although on a much smaller scale (e.g. Bell's work on hidden variables or the Conway-Kochen theorem which does not even assume quantum mechanics, only 3 (or 4, I forget) simple assumptions which can be verified experimentally.)

[@sunroad7228]

Fossil fuels are so energy-dense compared to wood, portable and versatile - they were very hypnotic to humans. Science since Newton is mainly a product of that hypnotism. "Energy, like time, flows from past to future".

[@douglasstrother6584]

I'm a dope, Herr Professor, but Physics is my best subject. ~ AE ;)

[@christophershelton8155]

If I recall in regards to what you were referencing, Einstein at the age of 17 or so thought what it would be like to travel next to a light wave and then proceed to speed up to the speed of the light wave. He commented that the light wave would appear frozen to him and that this would violate one of Maxwell's laws about how EM waves most always be propagating. HOWEVER, something I don't understand about this, is that if you look at the oscitation of a light wave or EM wave, it isn't just propagating forward or in one direction, but it is also fluctuating its position up and down just like a wave. So, this is why Einstein's belief here doesn't make sense to me: If he is just traveling with horizontal velocity (lets say the light beam is projected horizontal as well), then the light wave would appear at rest in regards to its horizontal components but it is still oscillating up and down vertically, so it would still be moving relative to Einstein. But, if Einstein decides to follow its oscillating trajectory as well, then he is no longer at rest because an acceleration occurs not just when you change velocity, but also direction. SO in other words, I am saying that regardless, light is always meant to be in constant motion and never at rest to an observer at rest. If you attempt to chase it and somehow reach its speed, then it still oscillates up and down next to you, but if you then decide to go a step further and bounce up and down alongside it, then you are no longer at rest as well AND by consequence, something I just realized, is that light is never at rest, although constant, based on this. A bit of a paradox but not really if you just visualize how an EM wave works

[@rd9831]

And do not forget the magnetic field front moving perpendicular to the electric field front.

[@Thermiable]

i fuking LOVE you little talks!!! can you explain to me how a self compressing and ordering stellar object does not break the second law: "no spontaneous increase in order"? how do we get around the fact that our current view of celestial formation requires "self compression"?

[@JanPBtest]

7:13 Sorry, one more 🙂If one assumes that in some future, good, physical theory space is not a "primary" object but some sort of substance, then one would be in agreement with some of the ancient mystic traditions according to which the "primal" substance can sort of "solidify" into our space and world of matter centred around many "seeds" or "germs". In this view the Big Bang then would not be a "creation" event but something more like a phase transition of the "ur-substance". One could conclude from that that such different worlds would "freeze" at slightly different states, with somewhat different fundamental constants (thus those constants would be a necessary part of the whole picture in this view). Yes, it's scholastics and all that but it's a fun speculation.

[@grahamblack1961]

A friend of mine is married to a theoretical physicist and she didn't know that objects fall with the same acceleration regardless of mass. She also admitted that when she wants to get a paper published she'll included some incomprehensible mathematics so the people reviewing it won't be able to understand it.

[@rayfleming2053]

Physicists fail to realize that many assumptions in Einstein's thought experiments have no basis in physical reality. For example he though that dimensions and clock rates emerge from non-physical space.

[@aryanbista747]

Care to explain more?

[@rayfleming2053]

@@aryanbista747 Here are a couple of my videos that explain his mistakes. I have others that explain the solutions. Einstein's 27 Worst Special Relativity Mistakes kzbin.info/www/bejne/poiWaoSko55_aKM Einstein's 25 General Relativity Mistakes kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJu5Xoqtfqx4qac

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

Lol you just spewed a lot drivel.

[@CharlesBrown-xq5ug]

Imagine an impractical but easy to visualize thought experiment where billions of nanometer scale paddlewheels are all mounted like sideways mushrooems on one side of a heat blocking wall in a gas atmosphere, each on a separate axle piercing the wall to a paired friction bearing mounted to not rotate, on the opposite side of the wall in a similar atmosphere. Brownian Motion randomly striking the paddlewheel vanes rotate the axle at random speed in either direlion. The brakes slow the rotation and yield heat. There is no pawl and ratchet. Hypothetically the installed coherent alignment of the robustly functionally different integrated parts move more energy than building and keeping the device requires. Arguably the paddlewheels' side would cool and the brakes' side would warm. ALOHA Charles M Brown

[@rogerscottcathey]

Would you cover his later years thinking re the ether.

[@TheMachian]

Torsion as description of defects in crystals is actually very close to that: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJXRmamgrrGJZ9k See also my paper arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0011064.pdf

[@JanPBtest]

3:08 Not only in physics 🙂I can (partially) stand this sort of rot in politics but what the covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated beyond all doubt is that the rot is also eating up medicine and health care. This is _very_ serious. (Sorry to get off-topic here.)

[@Eclesiastes323]

Hi Dr. Unzicker. Why do you think Einstein had such a difficult time accepting Kaluza's unification of general relativity and electromagnetism? To me it seems such a unification is no coincidence, and that the hypothesis that space has four-dimensions instead of three should have been explored further.

[@TheMachian]

Einstein tried several geometries. I think that the teleparallel approach is more interesting than the 5d-Kaluza-Klein theory (though the former is less known). Conceptual simplicity. But you might have a different opinion.

[@Eclesiastes323]

​@@TheMachian Thank you very much for your reply Dr. Unzicker. The reason for my comment is because I am an independent scientist working on a slightly different approach from Kaluza's. My work is based on the postulates that physical space is four-dimensional and time is absolute. The interesting result I recently obtained was deriving the Lorentz transformation from these two postulates. That is why I think the four-dimensional space hypothesis is very promising.

[@BlueGiant69202]

Did Einstein really have trouble accepting it? He seems to have been impressed enough with it to try his hand at making use of it.

[@Eclesiastes323]

@@BlueGiant69202 Initially, Einstein was enthusiastic about that unification. Nevertheless, it seems he started having some doubts about it and held up publication of Kaluza's paper for two years. My point is, however, that unifying gravity and electromagnetism by simply assuming space has four-dimensions, instead of three, is a meaningful result. It should not be dismissed as mere coincidence. The simplicity and explanatory power of this idea should be taken seriously, and that hypothesis should be explored further. Like I mentioned in my previous comment, I am currently working on that, and have already obtained important results. I have derived the Lorentz transformation from the postulates that physical space is four-dimensional and time is absolute. You only need to know algebra, trigonometry, and basic matrix operations to verify this result. The paper was sent for publication last month and is currently being peer reviewed, but that takes time, so here is the preprint of the article: Why is the Speed of Light in Vacuum a Universal Physical Constant? osf.io/6rhcb You are welcome to read it. I'll be glad to answer any questions you have.

[@BlueGiant69202]

@@Eclesiastes323 Thank you for the information. I like hearing about alternative ideas and hypotheses. I think Dr. Albert Einstein also liked exploring new ideas. There is a recent paper from August 2020 by Sauer and Schutz that contains a good summary of Einstein's work with 5d ideas. Einstein's Washington Manuscript on Unified Field Theory by Tilman Sauer andTobias Schütz "4 Concluding remarks" " In contrast to the published Einstein-Bergmann paper which does not indicate in which direction Einstein and Bergmann wanted to proceed further, the Washington manuscript ends with the following paragraph: 'The theory developed here provides a unified conception of the structure of physical space which is completely satisfactory from a formal point of view. Further investigations will have to show whether it contains a theory (free of statistical elements) of elementary particles and of the quantum phenomena.' 32 Three years later, in 1941, Einstein and Bergmann, now together with Valentine Bargmann, published a follow-up to the first Einstein-Bergmann paper (Einstein, Bargmann, and Bergmann, 1941). In it, they began with a brief description of the earlier theory, going back in spirit, if not in exact phrasing, to Einstein’s Washington manuscript, characterizing the core of the theory in terms of three “axioms.” But this paper by Einstein, Bargmann, and Bergmann was Einstein’s last published attempt along higher-dimensional approaches to unified field theory. Their paper ends, much more sceptically, by listing their reasons for the non-viability of the five-dimensional approach. Two years later, Einstein and Pauli (1943) closed the lid on this approach by publishing a proof of “the non-existence of regular stationary solutions of relativistic field equations” in both four and five dimensions. As van Dongen (2002, 2010) has already emphasized, foremost among the reasons for Einstein’s giving up on the five-dimensional approach figured their failure to find particle-like solutions, a task which had been formulated at the end of the Washington manuscript, but not in the published paper. The failed attempt to find particle solutions are documented only in working sheets and unpublished calculational notes (Sauer, 2019). This fact and the characteristics of the Washington manuscript show the necessity of including unpublished notes and correspondence for a proper historical understanding of the unified field theory program."

[@christophershelton8155]

Someone once said, "If you want to know why then seek philosophy. If you want to know how then seek physics". Idk how much truth there is to it though

[@TheMachian]

I do not fully agree. Could be a (too superficial) remark by Feynman.

[@christophershelton8155]

@@TheMachian Interesting! I do believe it may have been from a Feynman interview now that you bring it up. It's good to see someone else thinks a different way as well. To me, physics is very philosophical in a sense and can require deep thought at times as well

[@g.o.a.t4674]

2:05, professor please provide the Reference??

[@TheMachian]

www.amazon.de/Einstein-Wickert-Johannes/dp/B003CPGWCK/ in here, translated from German.

[@FloydMaxwell]

Group think is a huge problem by itself. Multiply it by the profit that comes from promoting the same B.S. as others, ...and we get the world of physics today.

[@g.o.a.t4674]

1:04, Sir where did you got that story of Enistein

[@TheMachian]

Kind of well-known, I guess one of his biographies but do not remember which one...

[@g.o.a.t4674]

@@TheMachian Is it Enistein's biography written by Abraham pais

[@davidwilkie9551]

Well if we can only judge by results, (like a Peasant Farmer who has to be self-consistent and reliant on their own Intuitive intelligence), we have to agree that the Theory of Everything will remain in the Everything is connected Theoretical Physics and the mechanism is the overlooked mathematically made of pure relative motion, Temporal Fluxion->Intergral, condensed orthogonality of time-timing, making Calculus the format of e-Pi-i phase-locked substantion shaping in the Mathematical Disproof Instrument Methodology. String Theoretical Vibration Calculus strung on a Numerical Reference Frame of 137 Instrumental Composition. There is the innate structure of QM-TIME sync-duration in that information In-form-ation is "imposed from on high" by gravity, in Perspective, by a hidden principle of natural probability and timing modulation quantization of logarithmic relative-timing ratio-rates, a number system of pure-math universal Singularity positioning. Authority may be borrowed from the natural heirachical dominance associations, it doesn't look good as an entitlement as suggested, when scientific information is democratic in/of existence.

[@4pharaoh]

So I may be a freak, but I’m a freak in very good company.

[@borischum5733]

Should I believe a proper physicist is a perfect human being?

[@PSRPulsar]

If it is not possible to "comprehend" the Laws of Universe from principles of simplicity (anymore), then people probably should focus on collecting experimental data (the more information the easier to combine/deduce). May be study in details ultra-high energy particles collision (sic! single proton/etc) ~10^18 eV - what can be found in Cosmic Rays (>> Energies available in CERN). Yes, such particles are extremely rare event but taking $$$..$ available for CERN it is probably possible to build such detector...

[@TheMachian]

I disagree. Going to higher energies can never repalce thinking, even if this is what CERN and other big science enterprises try to convey.

[@PSRPulsar]

@@TheMachian What actually "thinking" is? On abstract level it is processing of incoming information. (In general, not always) the more information (diversity), the more combinations brain can try and test. In case of Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays it is "clean" (at least compare to particle accelerators) - only one incoming particle and controllable output (feasible to detect all products). It is similar to building larger and larger telescopes - without any prejudice we are looking deeper into evolution of Universe ...

[@melvynbraithwaite8563]

Green Energy is The Ultimate Law of Nature It can be Proven MBraithwaite Yorkshire Viking

[@solank7620]

1:21 Almost a what...? I'm afraid I didn't catch that word.

[@TheMachian]

almost a rebel... sorry for the mispronunciation.

[@solank7620]

@@TheMachian Oh thank you sir! :) Excellent channel.

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

Albert Einstein is, by far, the greatest scientist of all time. He created an original proof of the Pythagorean Theorem at the age of 10; read and understand Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Kant's Critique of Practical Reason by the age of 11, taught himself integral and differential calculus by the age of 14, wrote his first scientific paper (that was published) by the age of 16. He had perfect scores on the math and physics sections of the Entry Exam to the Zurich Polytechnic in Switzerland (named the ETH), but due to poor scores on French and history he wasn't accepted that year into the ETH. However, it's important to note that the youngest the ETH accepted any student was 18 and Einstein took the exam at 16 years old. Before the age of 23 Einstein had received the entire foundations of Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics from first principles, a Herculean feat of genius and diligence. Unfortunately, Einstein isn't more famous for this work (a trilogy of papers between 1901 and 1904) because J.W. Gibbs had already done it but Gibbs work hadn't yet been widely translated into German so the Germam physics community didn't know. From 1905 to his death I'm 1955 Einstein revolutionized science in a way that hadn't been seen in the history of knowledge. The closest historical analog is Isaac Newton in 1666 but the mathematics in Newton is child's play compared to Einstein. Einstein started the quantum revolution in 1905 with his earth-shattering paper on light quanta and then shattered physics again in the same year with his mind-bending paper on Special Relativity which gave us spacetime and relativistic kinematics. Einstein then quantized the radiation field, proved the duloung-petit law, discovered wave-particle duality in 1909, Spontaneous and Stimulated Emission (the LASER), gave us Bose-Einstein Condensates and Bose-Einstein Statistics, Quantum Entanglement, Wormholes, and several other amazing discoveries. Most science historians believe Albert Einstein should have won at least 10 Nobel Prizes. Let that sink in. When polled in the year 2000 by the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) which physicist was the greatest in history, the top living physicists in 2000 voted Albert Einstein number one. Without Einstein, we wouldn't have modern technology, including the GPS! Heck, Einstein even managed to solve the Tea Leaf Paradox in his spare time before he died, and this was a mystery that eluded many of the greatest minds of the past several centuries. For any history buff, he is the GOAT scientist and well deserving of being synonymous with genius 👑🐐.

[@Burevestnik9M730]

We know that Einsteins (Albert + Mileva + many others who they did not cite) equations, while good at predictions (just like Newton's), are not fundamentally accurate. Tesla was the first to dispute space curvature and nowadays nobody disputes Tesla's dispute. Now they are saying it is not the space that is bent, but rather it is its "fabric" (whatever that is)?! If we imagine such a space's counterpart that twists, curves, bends while space remains as-is, we can very well accept the idea of ether. And if we accept the idea of ether, then the Tesla's Dynamic Gravitation theory looks much more plausible. This space fabric bending stupidity is going to slow down the physics for at least 50 to 100 years. Gravity is a force. More precisely, a fictitious force, just like centrifugal and centripetal forces. It is like in a chess game. White make such elegant moves early on in the opening so much so that he is looking to win very soon, but then the Black gradually gets a formidable position in mid game. Yet the White is still under the impression of his opening elegance effectiveness that he pursues it stubbornly all the way to - his loss.

[@TheMachian]

Is there any worked out theory by Tesla available? I'd be glad if you provide a link.

[@ViratKohli-jj3wj]

Einstein is my favourite physicist of all time

[@Gringohuevon]

John Stewart Bell proved Einstein was wrong 40 years ago

[@MrWolynski]

I read a large portion of a biography of him. I do not think he was all that interesting. I think his cult of personality made him into something else, same thing with Hawking. I think both got lost in math and did not produce explanation of large scale structure such as planet formation. They just brushed it to the side as being for the plebs. Alas, neither men knew how the very ground they walk on came to be, and that's saying a hell of lot about their methods and ideas.

[@TheMachian]

I agree only in part. Galaxies discovered in 1923, it was difficult for him to understand large scale structure... As you see, I am against the cult. However, his general convictions about nature, simplicity and constants show he was much ahead of his time.

[@Eclesiastes323]

@Jeffrey wolynski . I think what you wrote is true about Hawking, but certainly not about Einstein. Explaining gravity in terms of the geometry of space-time is, perhaps, the most profound insight that a physical theory has given us. He was also the last great physicist to stand up for philosophy and against the "shut up and calculate" mentality that is so pervasive in modern physics.

[@Greg_Chase]

@@Eclesiastes323 **NO** All matter objects create a gravity field (see the Cavendish gravity experiment from the year 1798 - 223 years ago). A single hydrogen atom is an object of matter and has its own gravity field, however miniscule. A single hydrogen atom consists of one electron and a nucleus of one proton. 99% of the mass of the atom is known to be in the nucleus. For the hydrogen atom with its (however miniscule) gravity field - what manifests it? Not the electron. The electron is known for over 100 years to manifest only electromagnetic effects. A single hydrogen atom's nucleus thus manifests its gravity field in the QED Vacuum surrounding it. A major constituent of the QED Vacuum is the immense number of electron-positron pairs. Figure out how the nucleus of a single hydrogen atom interacts with the particle-antiparticle QED Vacuum to manifest its (however miniscule) gravity field, and you will have solved the exact physical nature of how gravity manifests for all collections of atoms. Start with the qualities of that single hydrogen atom's nucleus. It has spin. It has electric charge. Consider the effect of those attributes and the inducing of a charge-separation dipole in the surrounding electron-positron pairs. "Earth curves spacetime" sorry that is useless in getting at the exact physical nature of how gravity is created. PUT THE 'physical' BACK INTO physics. This one science discipline - physics - is the main vehicle humans rely on to provide explanations for the **exact physical nature** of - NATURE. And it is failing that job miserably, and should be FIRED. Physics has gotten lazy and now only describes SYMPTOMS. Gravity is a symptom. Stop deploying complexity as a knee-jerk reaction. Reduce the problem to the smallest possible situation that reproduces the symptom. A single hydrogen atom and how it interacts with the QED Vacuum. EDIT: This is not without precedent. Recall from high school physics that the alignment of the magnetic domains - aka electron spins - in a sample of iron or cobalt or nickel - manifests a magnetic field in the space surrounding the sample. When electron spins - aka magnetic domains - are randomly aligned, the magnitude of the magnetic field is greatly diminished. Physics **IS** capable of getting at the exact physical nature of how to organize the constituents of matter objects to manifest field effects in the QED Vacuum. The precedent is well established. . .

[@davidrandell2224]

@@Greg_Chase “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for cause of gravity.

[@climbeverest]

Not sure about unlinker, why is he not inventing instead of criticizing? I wish some real scientist would shed a light on this unscientist

[@cowboybob7093]

Heh, yeah, as far as I can tell unlinker operates from the position that a fully formed theory will simply emerge and until it does there's no use in even trying. To me that's infertile ground where the genius capable of such a breakthrough will instead use enough of their genius protecting themselves intellectually that they limit their wandering curiosity inside their self-imposed protective wall.

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon

[@Trizzer89]

What a cope from Einstein. I am not orderly, conscientious or have an above average attention span and I still got straight As

[@pacajalbert9018]

Vo sne som videl vesmír zmienil za sekundu farbu

[@hansvetter8653]

Assuming that Einstein's theory of "special relativity" is applicable to ALL (!) particles of the mighty particle-zoo called "Standard Model" ... saying that also particles called "photon" have their "inertial frame of reference" ... ! ... well ... then the particle called "photon" canNOT interact with any other particle e.g. the so called "electron" ... ! ... because the observer (the particle called "photon") cannot "see" the "observed" object (the particle called "electron") because, atleast according to the Lorentz-transformation called "length-contraction", such an (observed) object has a relativistic length of ZERO ... ! ... and therefore all matter "disappears" for all particles called "photon" ... if sich objects are the way of these observers ... But the very fact that the human eye can see, voids the idea of the Lorentz-transformation called "length-contraction" ... because any eye with a relativistic length of ZERO ... could not absorp any particle called "photon" ...

[@juan_martinez524]

einstein stole relativity.

[@TheMachian]

No. I concede Poincare's and Lorentz's contributions are somewhat underappreciated.

[@user-jy2sz1jr9p]

Einstein was like a child when he argued against nondeterminism (of Quantum Physics) with Niels Bohr who was always able to successfully counter his gedanken experiments, at times using Einstein's own theories. Ironically it was Einstein who laid the foundations of Quantum Physics. Despite all his achievements, he did not agree with solid evidence presented against his pet beliefs. Newton was head and shoulders above Einstein for his many astounding achievements.

[@TheMachian]

You are right in part. Einstein just said, that if there is randomness in nature he would like to have this fact explained. This is an epistemological critique of QM hard to dismiss.

[@user-jy2sz1jr9p]

@@TheMachian yes, I agree to some extent, but the mark of a true scientist is intellectual honesty; face evidence with an open mind. Einstein spoke as if he had a direct hot-line with God with his reference to dice and so on - how did he know that? Did he have a vision? Also the so-called "order in the universe" is just anthropomorphic thinking; there's plenty of randomness and our inability to explain one or the other shouldn't blind us to alternate views. In this respect, Max Plank was an intellectual giant since he accepted the reality of quanta though he was personally against the idea. And so was Johannes Kepler who accepted elliptical orbits though he loved the idea of circular orbits.

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

Wrong. Newton couldn't explain WHY gravity obeys an inverse square law, Newton wrongly believed in alchemy, Newton didn't even publish calculus first, Leibniz did, Newton believed in absolute space and absolute time, and Newton didnt even derive f=ma2 first, Emile Du Chalet did. Einstein is head and shoulders above Isaac Newton as a thinker. Newtonian Mechanics is child's play compared to General Relativity.

[@jonbainmusicvideos8045]

google "Einstein's wife"

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

Professor, you got a few details wrong. Einstein was ALWAYS great at math and physics. He taught himself differential and integral calculus by 14 years old, derived an original proof of Pythagoreans Theorem at the age of 10, aced the physics and math sections of the ETH Entry Exam at the age of 16 when the youngest you could even enter the school was 18. Einstein also BEAT Hilbert to the correct generally covariant field equations in the race for relativity by 6 months. And Hilbert would never have even been in a position to derive the final field equations without Einstein's help several months earlier. Einstein wasn't a god but his scientific intuition was unsurpassed. Nobody approaches Einstein as a conceptual genius, not Newton, not even Da Vinci.

[@TheMachian]

I do not deny that. However, read the Einstein cartan correspondence. It is clear that he himself did bot think that he was great at pure math.