home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!news!iat.holonet.net!agate!spool.mu.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!nec-gw!netkeeper!vivaldi!aslws01!aslws01!terry
- From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: Einstein and Judaism
- Message-ID: <1992Nov9.232752.24615@asl.dl.nec.com>
- Date: 9 Nov 92 23:27:52 GMT
- References: <96657@netnews.upenn.edu> <emc.721244750@tristan> <TORKEL.92Nov9204231@bast.sics.se>
- Sender: news@asl.dl.nec.com
- Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
- Lines: 55
- Originator: terry@aslws01
- Nntp-Posting-Host: aslws01
-
- Hi folks,
-
- In article <TORKEL.92Nov9204231@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se
- (Torkel Franzen) writes:
-
- > In article <emc.721244750@tristan> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
- >
- > | Einstein fought against Quantum Theory until his last days because he
- > | felt that it completely contradicted God as he understood God to be.
- >
- > Einstein didn't "fight" QT, he thought it was incomplete. As for his
- > reasons, or if you like, philosophical prejudices, he made them clear
- > enough. They were quite ordinary realistic philosophical prejudices...
- >
- > He didn't base them on any ideas about God, as far as his actual writings
- > and reported explanations indicate. Almost invariably, people who imagine
- > that Einstein proceeded from theology to philosophy and physics base this
- > view on nothing more than one or two aphoristic formulations.
-
- Since I may have indirectly helped initiate this thread with my earlier
- comments about the strong theistic views of Newton, I guess I should briefly
- add that nothing I've ever seen about Dr. Einstein ever gave me the idea
- that his rejection of QM was based on his Judaic background. (If your
- particular religious upbringing was the *only* issue, then I suppose Dr.
- Richard Feynman should also have been adamantly anti-QM also, hmmmmm?)
-
- The persistence with which people blandly gloss over Einstein's objections
- to QM as trivial or simply biased astonishes me. Folks might try reading
- the biography "Subtle is the Lord" to get a feel for the depth of his
- thinking about the issue -- it was a good deal deeper and more profound
- than most of us will every realize, I suspect.
-
- The kernel of Einstein's objections appeared to center around the curious
- problem of a universe in which the timelines of all objects are not fully
- determined, yet time itself is relative to the inertial frame of the user.
-
- If more than one person can be in the "past" relative to some event that
- is being observed, how *do* you reconcile the idea of a future that is
- not yet fully determined? It's not a trivial question, nor has anyone
- every fully resolved it, at least not by anything I've ever seen or read.
-
- Winners do tend to rewrite history, as they say, and Einstein was not the
- winner when it came to QM -- even though 99.99999 percent of the ordinary
- population of the world (or more!) would heartily agree with Einstein's
- pragmatic view that, for example, the moon *really does* exist without
- having to have its wavefunction collapsed by an observer.
-
- Cheers,
- Terry Bollinger
-
- +--------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
- | Terry Bollinger | Phone: 214-518-3538 |
- | Advanced Switching Laboratory, NEC America | Fax: 214-518-3499 |
- | 1525 Walnut Hill Lane, Irving, Texas 75038 | Email: terry@asl.dl.nec.com |
- +--------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
-