Comments on: Smolin on Einstein in The New York Review of Books

By: Roger Brewis

Roger Brewis — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 09:23:13 +0000

There are significant other problems with the Einstein myth than those you cite. For example, he is commonly referred to as an outstanding mathematical physicist, yet there is only one piece of evidence for this (the 1916 paper of GTR) and lots of evidence refuting it, including the comments of Minkowski and Einstein himself.
There is also the problem that his claim not to have known of the Michelson -Morley result, or to have read other important papers, is simply not credible. Einstein wrote a total of 26 articles and letters for Annalen der Physik in 1905 alone, the majority designated as reviews of the physics literature. Biographers agree that he was passionately interested in esoteric physics. Reading round the subject is a key part of the job of a patent office, and this appears to be what attracted Einstein to it.
Einstein is credited with E=mc squared, clock synchronisation and other elements that were well known for several years before 1905.
Recently a BBC television programme, ‘Eddington and Einstein’, has clarifed his character, but muddied other aspects, by showing Einstein calculating the advance of perihelion himself, and apprently before 1916 GTR.
I could go on.

By: Arun

Arun — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:26:41 +0000

When I learned more about a missing daughter of Maric and Einstein, and Einstein’s late life affair in Princeton, I lost much sympathy for the man as any kind of human being to emulate. Einstein should be remembered for his scientific works and not for much else.

By: Belizean

Belizean — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 07:27:29 +0000

CapitalistImperialistPig wrote:

Anyone who goes into physics for money or power is not likely to be bright enough for physics.

Dear CIP,

That’s exactly my point. Physics is not currently linked to money and power. If it were somehow linked by, say, a crazy new law setting the minimum wage for physicists to be $400,000/year, being a physicist would suddenly become a cool thing to be.

By: CapitalistImperialistPig

CapitalistImperialistPig — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 02:55:09 +0000

Oppenheimer on Einstein should not be missed.

By: John Farrell

John Farrell — Thu, 31 May 2007 17:21:16 +0000

A nice little touch about Einstein that I discovered while researching my book on Lemaitre: when Lemaitre met him in the early 30s to discuss his GR model, Einstein’s wife had put a strict daily limit on how much tobacco he could smoke in his pipe; so Einstein would bum cigarettes off Lemaitre during their walks outside, open them and stuff the tobacco into his pipe.

Again, very human, but not the kind of thing you’ll learn in standard bios.

By: adam

adam — Thu, 31 May 2007 00:48:46 +0000

Actually, CIP, I have found that being a physicist always worked pretty well with the laydeez. Back when I was single, mind. Maybe it was my steely gaze, handsome face and witty repartee at work*.

*Not likely, for almost all meanings of ‘not’.

By: Alex Nichols

Alex Nichols — Wed, 30 May 2007 07:59:14 +0000

Yvette
“As long as we’re bringing up examples of physicists who went off to do other things let’s not forget Brian May, who is to my knowledge the only physicist who has gone platinum.”

..and is currently finishing the PhD dissertation on Interplanetary Dust he interrupted 35 years ago, after he joined Queen.

See Bri’s Soapbox
http://www.brianmay.com/brian/brianssb/brianssb.html

By: CapitalistImperialistPig

CapitalistImperialistPig — Wed, 30 May 2007 02:32:37 +0000

Belizean,

Anyone who goes into physics for money or power is not likely to be bright enough for physics. And last time I checked, “I am a physicist” was roughly as effective a pick-up line as “I live with my mother,” though marginally more effective than “I’m on parole on child pornography charges” and clearly less effective than “I’m an escaped axe murderer.”

The situation for women may be slightly different. As a female undergrad at Caltech wrote: “for a woman here, the odds are good but the goods are odd.”

By: TBB

TBB — Tue, 29 May 2007 16:33:51 +0000

BTW, Mark, you are correct, that was a good review; interesting, lengthy, and written well. It makes me want to read all those Einstein books. (As if I don’t have 20 zillion other books to read!)

By: Belizean

Belizean — Tue, 29 May 2007 12:45:06 +0000

I wouldn’t worry too much about unflattering stereotypes of physicists reducing the talent pool. Any young person deterred from entering physics for this reason is of exceedingly limited perspicacity and therefore unlikely to be talented in physics, where perceiving the truth of things is the name of the game. Any young person whose repulsion from physics based of such stereotypes exceeds her attraction based on the nature of the subject isn’t much interested in physics.

If you want to create more interest in physics as a career choice among people are aren’t particularly interested in physics, you must connect it to the things that most people are interested in: money, power, and sex. Because of a perceived connection between these things and the legal profession, law schools have a surplus of applicants despite lawyers being generally regarded as lying scum.