Albert Einstein: Physicist, Philosopher, Humanitarian

[Cypress]

Oh really? I can show you some threads here on JPP that would prove that proposition wrong. LOL

All I can say is that Roger Waters must have learned how to build a wall from Charles Darwin (one brick at a time). He makes a central thesis statement, then he list the facts that support his thesis, they he list a wide array of examples of empirical observations that support those facts, then he lists the flaws, weaknesses and absence of evidence....and he does it one brick at a time without ever losing focus on his central thesis.

Where anyone else would have gotten lost or buried in phylogenetic history, Darwin starts out with common every day livestock....but he stays on point. Brilliant riding. It's withstood over 150 years of more scrutiny and examination that any other idea proposed by man, and yet it still stands.

What impresses me the most is that Darwin was no genius. He was just a dedicated, hardworking, persevering, completely methodical, competent scientist. He wasn't a genius like Einstein or Newton but his ideas were every bit as profound. So probably the most important thing I learned from reading "On The Origins Of Species" is that great science is 1 part inspiration, 10 parts perspiration and 100 parts preparation. In other words, it takes a whole lot of elbow grease to be good. Genius certainly helps but it's mostly good ole elbow grease.

Good insights.

A good scientist is, above all, a good observer. A keen observer. Someone possessing clarity of mind. Darwin was a natural at observing the world around him, and coming to profound insights through the power of induction.

We have to remember that Einstein himself was a mediocre student, who was stuck at a dead end job in the Swiss patent office. Hardly an auspicious start for any scientist, let alone a world class scientist.

What Einstein had - and Darwin had too - were very creative minds. Free thinking minds. Minds that could think outside the bounds of convention. I mean, what made Einstein famous was not his dexterity at higher math. It was his thought experiments - the insights he reached simply by thinking about the speed of light and relative motion. In hindsight, those were actually fairly simple - but very profound and creative insights.

Well, that's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

My grandparents knew and were friends with Einstein, I have a picture with him when I was three years old, my most treasured possession

Wow.

Okay...I envy you.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Good insights.

A good scientist is, above all, a good observer. A keen observer. Someone possessing clarity of mind. Darwin was a natural at observing the world around him, and coming to profound insights through the power of induction.

We have to remember that Einstein himself was a mediocre student, who was stuck at a dead end job in the Swiss patent office. Hardly an auspicious start for any scientist, let alone a world class scientist.

What Einstein had - and Darwin had too - were very creative minds. Free thinking minds. Minds that could think outside the bounds of convention. I mean, what made Einstein famous was not his dexterity at higher math. It was his thought experiments - the insights he reached simply by thinking about the speed of light and relative motion. In hindsight, those were actually fairly simple - but very profound and creative insights.

Well, that's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

What a lot of people don’t appreciate is that Einstein was not a great mathematician. He often collaborated with mathematicians to proof his physics.

I think the most important accomplishment a scientist can achieve is drawing an independent conclusion. I don’t mean solving a problem or equations. I’ve only ever done it three times in my career. Two of those others had made those discoveries long before I did but I only discovered that after the fact. I still did the work independently and was unaware of others work. Those were my most satisfying moments working in science. They don’t happen often.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Wow.

Okay...I envy you.

The closest I can come to that is I met Neal Armstrongs first flight instructor. My Aunt was a bridesmaid in his sister wedding and my Grandparents attended the same church as his parents and knew him as one of the neighborhood kids...but i never did meet him myself. That’s my best name dropping story.

 

[Cypress]

What a lot of people don’t appreciate is that Einstein was not a great mathematician. He often collaborated with mathematicians to proof his physics.

I think the most important accomplishment a scientist can achieve is drawing an independent conclusion. I don’t mean solving a problem or equations. I’ve only ever done it three times in my career. Two of those others had made those discoveries long before I did but I only discovered that after the fact. I still did the work independently and was unaware of others work. Those were my most satisfying moments working in science. They don’t happen often.

Cheers, and keep up the good work.

I can't say I have every been involved in any ground-breaking, original research. It mostly comes down to the application of existing scientific principles towards solving energy or environmental related concerns. The fun part is the problem solving, the figuring out creative ways to ask the right question and applying the appropriate mix of tools to getting to the right answer, and seeing some sort of resolution to a real world problem or issue. In short, the fun comes down to a creative and effective use of the scientific method. I have to say at this point, mentoring is one of the most rewarding parts of my career. You get to a point were you have a substantial amount of institutional and technical knowledge, and it basically puts one in a leadership role because that knowledge needs to be transferred horizontally and vertically within the institution.

 

[Cypress]

What a lot of people don’t appreciate is that Einstein was not a great mathematician. He often collaborated with mathematicians to proof his physics.

<snip>.

Indeed.

Einstein's real talent - the real source of his genius - was visualization. He did not think in terms of math or equations - but he thought in terms of images, in mental pictures. To him, the images came first. The words and the math came later. And it was the images where the genius and brilliance were formulated. After that, it was just busy work. His special theory of relativity was basically spawned merely by thinking about what lightening strikes look like to observers in different frames of reference. And that had profound implications for insights into the nature of space and time from the perspective of the speed of light.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Indeed.

Einstein's real talent - the real source of his genius - was visualization. He did not think in terms of math or equations - but he thought in terms of images, in mental pictures. To him, the images came first. The words and the math came later. And it was the images where the genius and brilliance were formulated. After that, it was just busy work. His special theory of relativity was basically spawned merely by thinking about what lightening strikes look like to observers in different frames of reference. And that had profound implications for insights into the nature of space and time from the perspective of the speed of light.

That's how I do it...I just don't do it nearly as well.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Cheers, and keep up the good work.

I can't say I have every been involved in any ground-breaking, original research. It mostly comes down to the application of existing scientific principles towards solving energy or environmental related concerns. The fun part is the problem solving, the figuring out creative ways to ask the right question and applying the appropriate mix of tools to getting to the right answer, and seeing some sort of resolution to a real world problem or issue. In short, the fun comes down to a creative and effective use of the scientific method. I have to say at this point, mentoring is one of the most rewarding parts of my career. You get to a point were you have a substantial amount of institutional and technical knowledge, and it basically puts one in a leadership role because that knowledge needs to be transferred horizontally and vertically within the institution.

Oh goodness...I haven't come up with anything ground breaking either...well my use of molar basicity calculations on slags was pretty unique...but the other two were where I figured out the basic chemistry on some polymer chemistry where I, just to see if I could do it, developed the theory for the synthesis I was developing and the theory matched with the predicted results. After the fact, I then looked up the same synthesis in the reference literature and the work had been done by other organic chemist many years before. Still...I came up with the theoretical conclusion myself and verified it via experimentation and it worked. That's an independent conclusion and it was rewarding to know I could do that....even if it was fifty years after another scientist had. LOL

The vast majority of times we work in science and technology we stand on the shoulders of giants and use their independent conclusions. That's hard enough. Doing it on your own takes a lot more work.

 

[Cypress]

Oh goodness...I haven't come up with anything ground breaking either...well my use of molar basicity calculations on slags was pretty unique...but the other two were where I figured out the basic chemistry on some polymer chemistry where I, just to see if I could do it, developed the theory for the synthesis I was developing and the theory matched with the predicted results. After the fact, I then looked up the same synthesis in the reference literature and the work had been done by other organic chemist many years before. Still...I came up with the theoretical conclusion myself and verified it via experimentation and it worked. That's an independent conclusion and it was rewarding to know I could do that....even if it was fifty years after another scientist had. LOL

The vast majority of times we work in science and technology we stand on the shoulders of giants and use their independent conclusions. That's hard enough. Doing it on your own takes a lot more work.

I am nominating your for a Nobel in chemistry. Keep on rockin', man!

Let's face it. About 90 percent of published scientific research is pretty irrelevant, mediocre, or uninspired. As you said, we stand on the shoulders of giants, and it is the ten percent of truly original and creative scientific work of superior minds that really pushes the envelope.

On that tangent, Francis Bacon split the scientific method into basically two parts - light shedding experimentation, and fruit-bearing experimentation. The fruit-bearing is where the talented and exceptional labor in.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I am nominating your for a Nobel in chemistry. Keep on rockin', man!

Let's face it. About 90 percent of published scientific research is pretty irrelevant, mediocre, or uninspired. As you said, we stand on the shoulders of giants, and it is the ten percent of truly original and creative scientific work of superior minds that really pushes the envelope.

On that tangent, Francis Bacon split the scientific method into basically two parts - light shedding experimentation, and fruit-bearing experimentation. The fruit-bearing is where the talented and exceptional labor in.

Oh boy and if anything can ruin an academic career in science it is doing original and creative scientific work. When I was in academia I was just exasperated on how little such a vast collection of brain power actually accomplished. I came out of academia with a rather tepid respect for it. Not because academia tends to be left leaning, it's just that they are like most other large public institutions. Nothing is more threatening to them than original and creative thinking.

I can remember watching academics trying to defrock (and by that I mean discredit) one of their own. He made a unique discovery that upset the apple cart on what could be done with ceramics and thin layer technology. The guys discovery should have gotten him an major scientific award. Instead he got persecuted by his fellow academics, who denied him tenure.

Poor guy was forced out of his academic job and went out into private sector work and was a millionaire within a couple of years. LOL

 

[Cypress]

Oh boy and if anything can ruin an academic career in science it is doing original and creative scientific work. When I was in academia I was just exasperated on how little such a vast collection of brain power actually accomplished. I came out of academia with a rather tepid respect for it. Not because academia tends to be left leaning, it's just that they are like most other large public institutions. Nothing is more threatening to them than original and creative thinking.

I can remember watching academics trying to defrock (and by that I mean discredit) one of their own. He made a unique discovery that upset the apple cart on what could be done with ceramics and thin layer technology. The guys discovery should have gotten him an major scientific award. Instead he got persecuted by his fellow academics, who denied him tenure.

Poor guy was forced out of his academic job and went out into private sector work and was a millionaire within a couple of years. LOL

Yes, there is a tendency at group think and mediocrity in all large organizations, including academia.

The pressure on a newly-minted PhD graduate, slogging through the post-doc must be incredible. Those post-doc years are a make-or-break moment when you are supposed to step up your game and show you are capable of compelling research.

What I have noticed in recent years is more of a recognition that creativity needs to be rewarded and encouraged. There has been a lot of research in the last decade showing the benefits to employers and organizations allowing their employees to have some autonomy, freedom, and space to be creative. Obviously, the Wall Marts of the world are not on board with this change. But, I have started to see some signs that some large organizations are promoting creativity and autonomy for their professional staff - incrementally least. And the reason it, it is good for the bottom-line - for making money.

Google recognizes the benefit of allowing employees to be creative and have some autonomy....

"Google’s engineers are given one day a week to work on something entirely of their own. It’s unfortunate, but these days, our last bastions for free-range thinking seem to be the shower and the commute to work. Real thinking demands conceptual exploration, and that just takes time."

- Source credit: Dr. Patrick Grim, State University of New York Stony Brook

 

[Cypress]

What a lot of people don’t appreciate is that Einstein was not a great mathematician. He often collaborated with mathematicians to proof his physics.
.

Here is some historical trivia for anyone who considers themselves a science geek.

Einstein collaborated with the Swiss mathematician Marcel Grossman, who purportedly had the mathematical skills and techniques Einstein needed for his work on gravity. Grossman was actually Einstein's co-author on his first paper pertaining to the theory of general relativity.

 

[christiefan915]

I have not read it myself, but I have definitely heard others testify that Origin of Species is both elegant and accessible - and that is, in part, what helped make it the scientific masterpiece that it is.

I am not even going to bother reading Einstein's work - because I always needed someone to dumb down the concept of curved space-time for me.
And don't even get me started on quantum mechanics - I think species transforming through natural selection is a little more self-intuitive than quantum field theory!

I hear ya. Bertrand Russell tried to dumb it down in The ABC of Relativity and I couldn't even get through that.

 

[Cypress]

I hear ya. Bertrand Russell tried to dumb it down in The ABC of Relativity and I couldn't even get through that.

Mind blowing stuff!

It takes a writer or an orator of extraordinary skill to even begin to clearly articulate the general theory of relatively for the lay person. 95 percent of the people I have seen try to explain it fail miserably. There are a select few I have listened to who have the skill to make the theory intuitive enough that I can grasp some of the basics.

I was trying to circle back to quantum mechanics yesterday, and even after 30 years of trying to grasp it in any truly substantive sense, I am still failing....and failing miserably!

 

[Cypress]

Finishing a video course on Albert Einstein, and my take-away lessons:

As famous as he was for being a physicist, Einstein was equally well known internationally for being an advocate for social justice, pacifism, and socialism.

He famously advocated for democratic socialism (while being overtly hostile to the totalitarian communism of Stalin), and offered stinging critiques of capitalism.

Because of his leftist politics, J. Edgar Hoover put Einstein on the FBI's watch list. false rumours were circulated that Einstein was in league with Soviet agents, and he was denied from working on the Manhattan project even though he was America's foremost physicist.

He famously worked on anti-nuclear proliferation after WW2, was apparently appalled at how America's nuclear bombs were used on civilian targets without any warning, and dedicated the last 20 years of his life to racial justice, nuclear proliferation issues, social justice, and economic justice.


Wrapping up: In the United States, it struck me that Einstein is celebrated for his physics - but his internationally-renowed advocacy for socialism and critique of capitalism is almost like a well guarded state secret here.