Einstein: A Genius, a Paradox

Guille · **Einstein: A Genius, a Paradox -** 06-12-2005, 04:43 AM

Abstract (not necessary): First of all, I want to state that I had real hard work in deciding where to post this thread: it could be in "Exploring Gravity" because it has to do with Einstein and relativity. It could also be general discussion of physics because it is not directed to gravity. It could also be western philosophy because Einstein is from Europe and this is a philosophical view. In addition, it could be in Supreme Being or any religious forum because it has to do with god.

Intro: You will all know that Albert Einstein was a theoretical physicist who developed the special and general theories of relativity and made many other contributions to the science previously mentioned. You will also know that Einstein was Jewish and believed in god. You may also know that he was against Quantum Mechanics (QM, or Q theory) and recognise his famous sentence "God does not play with dice".

Body (important!): Relativity, summarized, means that there is no objective point of view, no "real" reality, that it all depends. QM, summarized, is based on probability, which is, there is no exactitude, no possibility of complete prediction, that it all depends. See? Relativity-invented and obviously supported by Einstein-states that it all depends and QM-neglected and despite by Einstein-states that it all depends.

Conclusion: Einstein, when he tried to support the idea of god in doing science/physic, by neglecting that it all depends, was supporting his theories of relativity and dependence. So, he contradicts himself. He was, truly, a genius in science, he was a fraud, un-valid, un-logical, contradictory....i.e. a paradox in philosophic topics, even when applying them to science.

Comments??

AntonioLao · 06-30-2005, 06:59 PM

Einstein believed that God is subtle not malicious. The devil is maliciously subtle.

~~subversion~~ · 06-30-2005, 09:01 PM

the main difference I can see is that Einstein knew the parameters which relativistic measurements depended on. Whereas in QM, we don't know the parameters that the probability depends on because it appears to be totally random. So I conclude that Einstein was self-consistent when he criticized QM. I myself think that QM is not a discipline, and agree with Einstein in this right.

Guille · 07-28-2005, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by subversion

the main difference I can see is that Einstein knew the parameters which relativistic measurements depended on. Whereas in QM, we don't know the parameters that the probability depends on because it appears to be totally random. So I conclude that Einstein was self-consistent when he criticized QM. I myself think that QM is not a discipline, and agree with Einstein in this right.

humm.....

That's a good point.

Now, if we could find a basis for measurements parameters of probability, would make QM much more reliable.

Guille · 07-29-2005, 12:03 PM

Human by default,

First: I think that you are nto human by default. You should be thankfull to live! And even more to be a human. Would you like to have been a fish, that has a 3 seconds memory, and that is either eaten by a bigger fish or fished by men? Or would you like to be a turtle, and when you break your egg, you see that there is no mother or father that will take care of you? Would you like to have been any other animal? If so, let me know, and I will tell you how and why we have a better life. Anyway, I don't want to be enemy of you, I just want to note that it's not that bad to be human, not bad at all....

Second, and this is just pure curiosity, don't you get tierd of writing all these enormous posts? I mean, it's ok, perfectly ok, but you know, people loose concentration easily, and it is possible that not many (maybe nobody) reads your posts ENTIRELLY. I, thankfully, have a very high level of concentration, I don't eat, sometimes, for my concentration, so I do read quite a big percentage of your posts.

Ishai · 10:38 AM

If Einstein believed in a Jewish GOD, he had no other alternative but to be deterministic in his way of thinking. Was he right on rejecting the QM, HO! Yes he was. QM, a branch in science that supports the view that a cat in a closed box is “alive” and “dead” at the same time is not much of a discipline. I personally think that QM is the biggest scientific illusion/mistake of the 20 century.

dleviwing · 07-30-2005, 04:17 PM

Guille;
I think humanbydefault has abused the TOEquest site by posting the same garbage post on several treads started by others. This long post should have been placed in his own thread where it could be ignored. His lack of knowledge of science and theoretical physics is quite obvious. Since this is your thread, I believe you have the right to ask him to refrain from posting his philosophies that do not follow your theme.

Guille · 07-31-2005, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Guille;
I think humanbydefault has abused the TOEquest site by posting the same garbage post on several treads started by others. This long post should have been placed in his own thread where it could be ignored. His lack of knowledge of science and theoretical physics is quite obvious. Since this is your thread, I believe you have the right to ask him to refrain from posting his philosophies that do not follow your theme.

Yes. An so I should have done. Now, this thread is loosing all the meaning of it. But it really doesn't matter much for me, because I got all the discussion I wanted out of Antonio's and Sub's posts. From there, for me, the discussion had finished, I ahd nothing more to comment.

Graybeard · 10-06-2005, 03:43 AM

And yet ....... the very semi-conductors (chips.. diodes) in your computer, that you used to type your post ... were first visualised, conceived, built and tested under the umbrella of QM ....

According to Classical maths ... tunnel diodes do not exist and can't exist ... and yet these impossibilities work .... in a tunnel diode 'something' appears outside the box. And this was used to build early smoke detectors !

If there was a fire, and this detector alerted you, would you refuse to heed it because you don't believe it works.

You use the products of QM every single day ...

i think it is around 25% (feel free to correct this figure) of the worlds industry uses and builds QM designed products.....

Is it OK to say you believe the QM designed flight control system of a Boeing 747 is crap when your flying .... or do you only say that from the ground ...

Business is not concerned with Science or religion unless they can be turned to profitable use .... Ask them . They will tell you ."well ... its all very weird .... but look at the size of my bank balance"

If it is adopted and used by the world so successfully that we take it for granted.... shouldn't it be given some benefit of doubt..

Probably yours .... Greg

Guille · 10-08-2005, 09:54 AM

Graybeard,

I'm not at al against QM or relativism. I just say that Einstein's view on both is contradictory. I actually find both of them very usefull theories for technology, as well as usefll theories to undrerstand nature.