Not all of the best minds ... just the best in the field of physics. And certainly: not all of the best of all time, but certainly some of them.
Having said that, it is an amazing cast and all tolled certainly the most fantastic picture of human brilliance ever seen, from a time characterized by rapid discoveries in experimental and theoretical physics -- a time that makes our current epoch in physics appear moribund by comparison.
David, I have to say that I really love ur comments and critics most of the time... but there are times when I feel like choking u :D But in my defense, I have to say those moments are very rare, now don't get mad :P
One more comment to clarify my point: most of these folk are remembered today because quantum mechanics was successful and is still the dominant theory, and they were the original experimenters and architects of the theory.
If anything half as grand had been accomplished since, we would find pictures of other similar conferences concomitantly impressive.
Which is to say: not much has changed in physics since the quantum revolution. Which is to say: it has been almost a century and it is about time to shake it up.
One question David, Is it true that Einstein was kinda upset at the time this photo was snapped because he lost the argument with Bohr regardless Copenhagen Interpretation? I mean look at Bohr, he looks kinda victorious while Einstein is kinda glum
I don't know the answer to that, and as they are both dead I doubt it is possible to answer definitively.
But: Einstein did not lose the argument per se; he merely got stumped for three related reasons:
1) Einstein implicitly accepted Heisenberg's premise that observation might alter the observed even as he explicitly argued against it, which premise is what I call "weak (indeterminacy) uncertainty principle" as opposed to the "strong (a priori) uncertainty principle" (and it is funny to me that Heisenberg, the progenitor of uncertainty principle in QM adopted the weak version, presumably because the Copenhagen Interpretation could not stand the strong version). I suspect that Einstein could not embrace the strong version because it would have blown up his concept of classical trajectories and required a quantum rethink of general relativity, is my best guess here.
2) Einstein insisted on classical continuum mathematics in general relativity, which precludes any discovery of quantum gravity based on the strong a priori uncertainty principle, which I do adopt in my reasoning to and which naturally leads to a quantum mass attraction theory that only contradicts Einstein in one area, which is:
3) Einstein insisted that mass attractive forces propagated from one thing to another at speed of light, by analogy with electromagnetic forces, rather than be an extant property of every pair of things in existence, which I have concluded to be the correct stance.
So Einstein got stumped because he was entangled in rejecting quantum mechanics not simply on the basis of distaste for Heisenberg's interpretation of uncertainty in physics, but also because he wanted a continuum mathematical solution in general relativity. In other words: he let his personal bias get in the way of his thinking.
Had he realized, as I have (and few others seem to grok) that strong a priori uncertainty principle cannot coexist with continuum general relativity, he would have had an "I could have had a V-8" moment and probably very quickly come to where I have in terms of quantizing motion and coming to an integrated quantum model of mass attraction and charge interaction. Then again, he might have required hobnobbing with Bucky Fuller to get the geometry of his thinking correct, given his indoctrination in rectilinear thinking as normal ... but he was a clever man and I have no doubt that had he realized the connection between a priori uncertainty (which was not the Copenhagen sense of it) and the necessity for an a priori quantum approach to motion, he would have easily refuted the Copenhagen interpretation (as I am convinced I have).
Not all of the best minds ... just the best in the field of physics. And certainly: not all of the best of all time, but certainly some of them.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, it is an amazing cast and all tolled certainly the most fantastic picture of human brilliance ever seen, from a time characterized by rapid discoveries in experimental and theoretical physics -- a time that makes our current epoch in physics appear moribund by comparison.
Very cool Corina Marinescu !
ReplyDeleteDavid, I have to say that I really love ur comments and critics most of the time... but there are times when I feel like choking u :D
ReplyDeleteBut in my defense, I have to say those moments are very rare, now don't get mad :P
Indeed a cool photo, John
ReplyDeleteI'm kinda absorbed by Madame Curie since she is the only woman in the pic :)
Corina Marinescu I don't do "rah rah". Sorry dear.
ReplyDeleteOh, I missed her at first glance! I would've loved to listen in on lunch time chat.
ReplyDeleteOne more comment to clarify my point: most of these folk are remembered today because quantum mechanics was successful and is still the dominant theory, and they were the original experimenters and architects of the theory.
ReplyDeleteIf anything half as grand had been accomplished since, we would find pictures of other similar conferences concomitantly impressive.
Which is to say: not much has changed in physics since the quantum revolution. Which is to say: it has been almost a century and it is about time to shake it up.
The Cars-Shake it up
One question David,
ReplyDeleteIs it true that Einstein was kinda upset at the time this photo was snapped because he lost the argument with Bohr regardless Copenhagen Interpretation? I mean look at Bohr, he looks kinda victorious while Einstein is kinda glum
I don't know the answer to that, and as they are both dead I doubt it is possible to answer definitively.
ReplyDeleteBut: Einstein did not lose the argument per se; he merely got stumped for three related reasons:
1) Einstein implicitly accepted Heisenberg's premise that observation might alter the observed even as he explicitly argued against it, which premise is what I call "weak (indeterminacy) uncertainty principle" as opposed to the "strong (a priori) uncertainty principle" (and it is funny to me that Heisenberg, the progenitor of uncertainty principle in QM adopted the weak version, presumably because the Copenhagen Interpretation could not stand the strong version). I suspect that Einstein could not embrace the strong version because it would have blown up his concept of classical trajectories and required a quantum rethink of general relativity, is my best guess here.
2) Einstein insisted on classical continuum mathematics in general relativity, which precludes any discovery of quantum gravity based on the strong a priori uncertainty principle, which I do adopt in my reasoning to and which naturally leads to a quantum mass attraction theory that only contradicts Einstein in one area, which is:
3) Einstein insisted that mass attractive forces propagated from one thing to another at speed of light, by analogy with electromagnetic forces, rather than be an extant property of every pair of things in existence, which I have concluded to be the correct stance.
So Einstein got stumped because he was entangled in rejecting quantum mechanics not simply on the basis of distaste for Heisenberg's interpretation of uncertainty in physics, but also because he wanted a continuum mathematical solution in general relativity. In other words: he let his personal bias get in the way of his thinking.
Had he realized, as I have (and few others seem to grok) that strong a priori uncertainty principle cannot coexist with continuum general relativity, he would have had an "I could have had a V-8" moment and probably very quickly come to where I have in terms of quantizing motion and coming to an integrated quantum model of mass attraction and charge interaction. Then again, he might have required hobnobbing with Bucky Fuller to get the geometry of his thinking correct, given his indoctrination in rectilinear thinking as normal ... but he was a clever man and I have no doubt that had he realized the connection between a priori uncertainty (which was not the Copenhagen sense of it) and the necessity for an a priori quantum approach to motion, he would have easily refuted the Copenhagen interpretation (as I am convinced I have).
Fascinating reasoning and explanation David Chako
ReplyDeleteBased on ur info David, I am certain that Bohr had a better day, also I'm now sure that Einstein hated quantum mechanics. Danke :)
ReplyDelete