Re: No new Einstein

Ed Hanna wrote:
> markwh04@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > LEJ Brouwer wrote:
> > > More specifically Einstein believed:
> > > (c) That there exists a classical field theory unifying gravity,
> > > electrodynamics and quantum theory.
> > >
> > > Anyone who poo-poos any of the above beliefs/visions of Einstein is
> > > simply not of Einstein's calibre, and can neither hope to be, nor is
> > > worthy of being, the next Einstein.
> >
> > "One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by
> > a continuous field. From the quantum phenomenon it appears to follow
> > with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely
> > described in terms of a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This
> > does not seem to be in accordance with a continuum theory, and must
> > lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory for the
> > description of reality. But nobody knows how to find the basis for
> > such a theory"
> >
> > -- Albert Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, 1956 (posthumous)
>
> And let's not forget:
>
> In 1936 Einstein wrote that: "To be sure, it has been pointed out that
> the introduction of a space-time continuum may be considered as
> contrary to nature in view of the molecular structure of everything
> which happens on a small scale. It is maintained that perhaps the
> success of the Heisenberg method points to a purely algebraical method
> of description of nature, that is, to the elimination of continuous
> functions from physics. Then, however, we must also give up, on
> principal, the space-time continuum. It is conceivable that human
> ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to
> proceed along such a path." (p. 319.)
>
> In 1940 Einstein wrote that: "All attempts to represent the particle
> and wave features displayed in the phenomena of light and matter, by
> direct recourse to a space-time model, have so far ended in failure.
> .. For the time being, we have to admit that we do not possess any
> general theoretical basis for physics, which can be regarded as its
> logical foundation. ... Some physicists, among them myself, cannot
> believe that we must abandon, actually and forever, the idea of direct
> representation of physical reality in space and time; or that we must
> accept the view that events in nature are analogous to a game of
> chance." (p. 334.)
>
> Both quotes from collected writings found in: A. Einstein. Ideas and
> Opinions. (Crown, New York, 1954).
>
> Regards,
> Ed Hanna

And let's underline:

"... Some physicists, among them MYSELF, CANNOT BELIEVE that we must
abandon, actually and forever, the idea of direct representation of
physical reality in space and time; or that we must accept the view
that events in nature are analogous to a game of chance."

In less diplomatic terms he could have written: "There are good reasons
to waste time of this red herring, but my superior intuition and
philosophical principles prevent me from doing so."

Chris

.

Relevant Pages