Einstein and Physicists
These are notes from a book in Einstein and physics. My intention was to develop an understanding of the perspective of the scientists. What were the avenues for researching and what did they find?
Basically, the two areas of studying physics were arising as measuring the structures of reality themselves and observing the relationships between the structures. This is a discussion on mass and space where one is the backdrop and the other is the barrier.
The structures of reality are the physically quantifiable building blocks. 'Atom' is the original word meant for describing matter in this way. Perhaps there is an 'Eve' to mean ether or space. Today scientists are looking at vibrating strings to make up all of space and matter. At the time, Einstein was studying light and metals.
Something interesting that Einstein found was that light is matter. He did this by measuring the mass of a box as it emits a photon. While the preciseness of the reading could have shown various accuracies, it did say there was a decrease in the mass of the box after light was emitted.
Another experiment about light is called the double slit experiment. This is a famous one where an observer tries to calculate the effects of shooting a photon out of a box. They said you could either know where the photon was going to land or when it was going to land, but not both. Just another case of duality, I suppose.
The effect of observing experiments lead the scientists at the time to make a huge discovery which said that the observer himself was in the experiment. It was an interesting process to make this realization. It seems they realized first how the measuring apparatus that they used could not be separated from the experiment because it was from the device that they were reading.
For example, you can have a scale that measures to the nearest pound and another that measures to the nearest ounce and your scales will produce different readings for some of the same things. This is a case of exactitude as being the prime indicator of variations in measurements. Taking this example one step further, there are some people who will measure a reading with more or less exactitude than others.
I believe this was the first indication of seeing the experimenter or observer as being critically involved in the experiment. Now, we are reaching a point where we seem to be thinking our beliefs have to do with our findings as well. While I agree, this is a slight tangent from the discoveries being made at the time of Einstein's hype.
When you chose to observe a particle, such as a photon, you are automatically becoming a part of the experiment. What happens is that you are creating an initial place (either in time or space) from which to "begin" the experiment. However, nature does not seem to have a clear, objective beginning. Therefore all experiments are subjective, not only to the observer, but to the measuring apparatus as well.
Completeness becomes another impossible equation along the topic of beginnings. We wonder then if the universe is open or closed, because if it is open, Einstein says that algebra is certainly unable to explain its wonder. Here is an excellent quote on completeness:
You can continue to push the boundary between observed and observer but the actual results will always be incomplete.
Completeness seems to have two strong connotations to it. The first is to be able to measure the physical reality with exactitude. The second is to create a definite reality outside of the self. Both seem to be impossible.
It's too limiting to determine reality as only that which is physically measurable because in order to measure the measurable, there must be a device and an observer to produce the calculations.
From this point on we begin to understand that there is no such external world independent from the percipient. Automatically, by having a device on the "outside" of the experiment, there is a clear indeterminism as to the edge from which the apparatus is excluded from measuring the quantization of reality. Therefore the use of individual senses to interpret reality will by nature remain incomplete.
Einstein says physicists will remain unsatisfied by both the general relativity theory that says all things relate to one another and by the field mechanics theory that describes everything existing in a field without singularity.
When investigating reality there will usually be an apparent duality from which to relate. There is the measuring of the relationship or is comparing the two aspects of duality even possible? In this case, they would need to a background. It is likely that the background is the unity, which brings us full circle to questioning, 'is the backdrop space or matter?' Alas, the laws of nature are continuing to unravel themselves to us.
Einstein wrote with continuity and ease. He could be seen as a philosopher just from the beautiful ways in which he perceived. His perspective remained holistic and his fascination was with gravity. To end here's an interesting quote: "How many angels are able to sit on the point of a needle?"
Basically, the two areas of studying physics were arising as measuring the structures of reality themselves and observing the relationships between the structures. This is a discussion on mass and space where one is the backdrop and the other is the barrier.
The structures of reality are the physically quantifiable building blocks. 'Atom' is the original word meant for describing matter in this way. Perhaps there is an 'Eve' to mean ether or space. Today scientists are looking at vibrating strings to make up all of space and matter. At the time, Einstein was studying light and metals.
Something interesting that Einstein found was that light is matter. He did this by measuring the mass of a box as it emits a photon. While the preciseness of the reading could have shown various accuracies, it did say there was a decrease in the mass of the box after light was emitted.
Another experiment about light is called the double slit experiment. This is a famous one where an observer tries to calculate the effects of shooting a photon out of a box. They said you could either know where the photon was going to land or when it was going to land, but not both. Just another case of duality, I suppose.
The effect of observing experiments lead the scientists at the time to make a huge discovery which said that the observer himself was in the experiment. It was an interesting process to make this realization. It seems they realized first how the measuring apparatus that they used could not be separated from the experiment because it was from the device that they were reading.
For example, you can have a scale that measures to the nearest pound and another that measures to the nearest ounce and your scales will produce different readings for some of the same things. This is a case of exactitude as being the prime indicator of variations in measurements. Taking this example one step further, there are some people who will measure a reading with more or less exactitude than others.
I believe this was the first indication of seeing the experimenter or observer as being critically involved in the experiment. Now, we are reaching a point where we seem to be thinking our beliefs have to do with our findings as well. While I agree, this is a slight tangent from the discoveries being made at the time of Einstein's hype.
When you chose to observe a particle, such as a photon, you are automatically becoming a part of the experiment. What happens is that you are creating an initial place (either in time or space) from which to "begin" the experiment. However, nature does not seem to have a clear, objective beginning. Therefore all experiments are subjective, not only to the observer, but to the measuring apparatus as well.
Completeness becomes another impossible equation along the topic of beginnings. We wonder then if the universe is open or closed, because if it is open, Einstein says that algebra is certainly unable to explain its wonder. Here is an excellent quote on completeness:
You can continue to push the boundary between observed and observer but the actual results will always be incomplete.
Completeness seems to have two strong connotations to it. The first is to be able to measure the physical reality with exactitude. The second is to create a definite reality outside of the self. Both seem to be impossible.
It's too limiting to determine reality as only that which is physically measurable because in order to measure the measurable, there must be a device and an observer to produce the calculations.
From this point on we begin to understand that there is no such external world independent from the percipient. Automatically, by having a device on the "outside" of the experiment, there is a clear indeterminism as to the edge from which the apparatus is excluded from measuring the quantization of reality. Therefore the use of individual senses to interpret reality will by nature remain incomplete.
Einstein says physicists will remain unsatisfied by both the general relativity theory that says all things relate to one another and by the field mechanics theory that describes everything existing in a field without singularity.
When investigating reality there will usually be an apparent duality from which to relate. There is the measuring of the relationship or is comparing the two aspects of duality even possible? In this case, they would need to a background. It is likely that the background is the unity, which brings us full circle to questioning, 'is the backdrop space or matter?' Alas, the laws of nature are continuing to unravel themselves to us.
Einstein wrote with continuity and ease. He could be seen as a philosopher just from the beautiful ways in which he perceived. His perspective remained holistic and his fascination was with gravity. To end here's an interesting quote: "How many angels are able to sit on the point of a needle?"
