Posted on 08/20/2004 9:43:04 AM PDT by RightWingAtheist
LOVE: I particularly admired Einsteins deep devotion to, and ability to focus on, science itself and his recognition that the personalities of scientists are irrelevant to understanding science. Most important, in light of recent trends in physics, he understood the place of mathematics in science as a tool, not an end in itself. He was always motivated by physical questions and searching for experimental tests, even as he explored new mathematics. In particular, he didnt confuse mathematical elegance with physical significance.
HATE: I find myself frustrated at Einsteins constant and inappropriate use of the term God, when he really meant something else. As a result, he opened the door for generations of individuals to misrepresent his ideas.
LAWRENCE KRAUSS, chairman, department of physics,
Case Western Reserve University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Einsteinhis mind and his mannerbecame the symbol of science to millions of people throughout the world. In an era of wrenching human struggle under the heels of military might and the horrors of World War I, the experimental proof of the correctness of Einsteins notion of gravity and curved space showed the world that there were fundamental truths to be learned about nature and that the human mind and spirit could rise above all. Einsteins manner, his grandfatherly warmth, gave science, and physics in particular, a human side, which we have lost over the century.
What still drives me crazy about Einstein is that he did not participate in the scientific revolution he helped launch. His successful theory of the photoelectric effect was a key step in establishing the correctness of quantum mechanics. He seemed to consider working out the details of the atom and its nucleus more as busywork than as fundamental science.
NEAL LANE, former director, the National Science Foundation;
professor of physics and astronomy, Rice University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Excerpt) Read more at discover.com ...
Who is certainly no run-of-the-John Stuart-Mill thinker, I think.
I think he just meant to say "quantum mechanics" instead of "relativity".
That's a great book, I have my copy near my bedside, 5th printing, Simon and Schuster, 1938.
I should re-read his "Out of my Later Years", Philosophical Library, New York, 1950.
Were he growing up in today's world, he might well be labeled autistic; as for his grand ideas about the great scheme of things, I can never quite get my arms around the universe, some ignorance is healthy, I believe.
The Siege Perilous?
Bell?
Ouch...
The Lucasian(sp?) chair at Cambridge?
I'm wrong, I think that's Horton.
WHAZ UP BRO?
(Henry James walks across thread to high-five his big brother, Willie James.)
P.S. By the way, what the heck is a "Swedenborgian?"
A species of Christian. Johnny Appleseed was one. So was Helen Keller.
I can never quite get my arms around Miss Universe either.
Oh, THE universe......nevermind.
John Bell, Cambridge University, author of "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics", Cambridge University Press, 1987.
He is the discoverer/inventor/interpreter of the famous Bell inequality, which makes us change our ideas about the true nature of space/time/causality.
It's very simple, and has to do with what color socks you wear!
I like his bicycle poster.
Believe it or not, I actually have a friend who knows someone that was brought up in that church.
According to him, the guy is in the process of acquiring his second Master's of Arts in a subject that hardly anyone on this planet has ever heard of.
LOL...
oh, and my socks are white.
Thanks for the ping!
Right. To the end, he remained a socialist. Probably the result of his early coffee house days in pre-WWI Europe. Somewhat excusable then, because so many Europeans were (and are) ignorant about such things. Alas, he never seems to have bothered to learn about the economic system of his adoped country, and as a result, zillions of idiots imagine that socialism is the "intellectual" position to take when in fact, it's the moronic position.
So he was wrong when he said that his cosmological constant was his biggest blunder. Rather, it was his endorsement of socialism.
Granted, his political views were misguided at best, but he was still a patriotic citizen, unlike some of the other members of the scientific community, who decided to either sell or mortgage their souls to the Evil Empire.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.