Contents of v brief file "Max Born. Evo, bb. Einsteins Blunder."

Max Born: Einstein's theory of Relativity: 1920, 1924, 1962

Einstein's Blunder material: CH VII : (section) 12. Cosmology

AR: Irony like for Einstein;s blunder: he wanted to disprove bb theory so to speak and so introduced the c.c., but it turned out the c.c. was needed for the bb theory:

P367-8: L was needed to make age of un larger than age of meteorites, but later it turned out not to be needed bec the distances were larger than Hubble had measured

[Evo bb material:P368-370: Critique of both the religious and atheistic slants pro and con the bb theory (includes sharp critique of Hoyle steady-state theory).]

....

FIle: "FW to Evo. Transforming article via this addition"

Editing "Free Will" BH article:

Introduction: Leave it out.

Part I: give it new heading: eg: Is 'Mind' Subject to Natural Law? Then the next heading immediately following makes sense: The Concept of natural Law.

Keep section "The Concept of natural Law" and the next: "Natural Law vs FW" (except change last sentence, see below)

Put the section "Causality and Determinism" as an Appendix for advanced readers, and change the reference to it in the last sentence of the preceding section.

Keep the next sections, but in section "Explanation of QP" put the paragraph "For example" as advanced Appendix.

Part II: Keep

Part III: Contentious. Whitehead quote is good for this, but maybe just leave it all out. But keep last paragraph, just delete But delete the first phrase of the second (=last) sentence.

Part IV: Keep, but something is missing, need to change order. I don’t present the idea of consciousness collapsing the wave function but I refer to it! And there's a heading "FW & Collapse" before the heading "The Measurement Problem". So I need to insert material re QP/Collapse, and then re consiousness and then re FW. Eg the last sentence of "FW & Collapse" should be part of an intro or conclusion of a section re the measurement problem.

Need to explain that perhaps consciousness is governed by naturallaw and ultimately by qp, the type of FW we are referring to is by definition not.

Part V: Make Option C less dogmatic.'We must" "all people" etc.

AOJS My Letter re Editing "Einstein's Blunder" book/DVD

Sat, May 28, 2005, 2:53 AM

on ext flash HD

from email,

File : "EinsteinSpinozaC.C. PS Aug 05"

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 6:15 pm

air1@nyu.edu

Subject : PS meeting transcript

Taped meeting with PS Aug 05.doc 39K

Taped meeting with PS, Aug ’05: All on side 1

Two topics, only the first is transcribed here (typed from handwritten notes made from tape).

1) Einstein, c.c., Spinoza etc

2) Even at ‘initial state’ an infinite universe can be infinite in extent (based on Rindler 2^nd ed)

………………

Einstein c.c

AR added later: Einstein concluded that there were no non-static cosmological solutions to his equations. Partially he invoked a proof to this effect, partially it was because he did not notice that there was indeed a solution, as found by Friedmann, partially it was due to his desire to incorporate Mach’s principles into cosmology/GR[1] , and partially it was because he did not see astronomical evidence that the stars/galaxies have high speeds, as would be the case if the universe were dynamic.

Problems:

There WAS astronomical evidence that the stars have high speeds.

If Einstein felt his proof was solid, why would one need the evidence of no high speeds of the stars/galaxies?

The Friedmann solution is very simple, and jumps out at one in hindsight. Is this the case only in hindsight, and it was very much not apparent at that time or is it only not evident if one a priori rejects the possibility of a non-static solution?

Was Einstein’s proof of the son-existence of dynamic solutions unusually shoddy for him, so that it indicate sa blindness on his part?

It seems that if Einstein had looked for non-static solutions he would have found them, and his proof that they don’t exist contained a basic error, so it seems possible that he was proceeding under a preconceived notion that the universe is static and this blinded him to other possibilities.

…………

It seems that he held philosophical/metaphysical beliefs regarding the static nature of the universe. He referred to believing in ‘Spinoza’s god’, and Spinoza was considered a heretic due to his belief in the eternity of universe, ie in non-creation, ie in a static universe.

Everyone is to some degree influenced by their beliefs, which are influenced by those of others, scientific and religious teachers, writers, great thinkers of the past etc.

Questions:

· Psychological methodological question: To what extent was Einstein influenced by these beliefs?

· Historical question: Did Einstein already have well-defined beliefs that the universe is static before he studied cosmological solutions of his equations or were these philosophical beliefs formulated as aresult of his scientific work?

· His belief in a deterministic underpinning to quantum effects was purely philosophical/metaphysical not scientific, ie there was no a priori scientific proof, nor experimental evidence etc (but he and others put together the EPR effect to show how one could verify this conjecture via experiment) – does this validate the possibility that philosophical/metaphysical beliefs influenced his scientific comnclusions?

AR: mentioned:

· Seeliger and Mach, BCs of the universe as in Newtonian gravity cosmology (based on Pais: “Subtle is the Lord” and in Jammer “Concepts of Space” (I have both books at home: NY);

· Einstein’s ‘proof’ that the universe has to be static, Friedman’s disproof (as per Gamow book (I have) due to E’s division by zero [PS said it was ‘s proof];

· claim that E’s belief in Spinoza’s metaphysic underlay his adherence to view of universe as static.

PS: Have to go by E’s paper, he writes re why he gives this particular solution:

· no BCs needed for closed universe;

· Mach principle re that no matter leads to no metric.

· no large velocities measured for stars

(AR: this is all in book “Meaning of Relativity”, I have)

AR: But was that all really due to a prior prejudice against dynamic to universe, and this was actually post-hoc justifications?

PS: One should first of all assume that he means what he says. Also, in letters exchanged with Ehrenfest, the scientist closet to him, and deSitter, this is what he believed. He fought long and hard against the reality (of a dynamic universe)

It’s strange that he hadn’t heard of the large velocities of the galaxies as measured by an astronomer during WWI, 1917. Although it was during the war, he was close to an astronomer who would have known it and told him about it.

AR: Do you see E as working from a bias against a dynamic universe?

PS: Western thought doesn’t have dynamic universe. Indian idea of creation/shiva destruction. There is the Bible, creation, but Einstein didn’t believe in the that.

AR: E believed in the Bible early on, then rejected the Biblkical stories, so it WAS in his philosophical heritage, and there are speculations that the c.c. came from his bias re Spinoza, who was heretic re this and E followed Spinoza and Western civilization philosophy bias and the math was simply post-hoc justification.

PS: Newton already showed there can’t be a static solution.

[repulsive potential at large distances, exponential factor like Yukawa potential. Newmann. Seeliger, like Laplace put in….. By mistake introduced attractive force, oscillator, was not clear to him (who?) later apologized to Newman. Freak solution.]

…………..

Essential points underlying my questions in the next discussion:

Einstein’s equations show a link between a closed universe and a static one. Was Einstein’s choice of a closed static universe influenced by the ideas of Riemann/Gauss/Clifford re a closed 3-space?

Did Riemann/Gauss/Clifford understand that this model of a closed 3-space had relevance to the cosmological BC issue in a Newtonian cosmology based on gravity?

AR: Was there no historical connection between Riemann/Gauss/Clifford and Mach/Einstein?

PS: Einstein knew of Riemann’s idea re a closed universe.

AR: But was it only after he discovered it himself that he realized Riemann had preceded him in this?

This idea is in every differential geometry text and Einstein studied it.

It was known idea (Clifford, Lobachevsky checked parallaxes, Schwarzschild made measurements, placing limits on maximal spatial curvature etc)

AR: added later:

a) Einstein did not start with Riemann/Gauss/Clifford ideas of space curvature and expand it to spacetime, rather he began with spacetime curvature and then in studying curvature was led by Grossman to Riemann’s work. And maybe it was only then, when he was already considering ideas of a spatial curvature as applied to the universe, after he was led to the idea of a closed 3-space, did he first encounter Riemann’s idea. So he didn’t really build on Riemann’s idea. Question: Does this imply that Riemann’s idea wouldn’t have affected his preference for the closed-universe model? And since a closed model seemed linked ot the idea of a static universe, that Riemann’s idea didn’t therefore influence his preference for a static universe?

b) In the metric for spacetime curvature responsible for gravity Einstein neglected spatial curvature and included only time-space curvature; similarly - and what is actually the reverse - in the metric for spacetime curvature responsible for cosmology he neglected universal spatial expansion which is time-space curvature and included only spatial curvature.

In the other direction:

Did Clifford realize that a closed 3-space solves the problem discussed by Mach?

re: Newton’s cosmological BC problem and the non-existence of a static solution

If one assume sspace is closed, and one sees with Newton that there can’t be a static solution even in a closed space, then a closed universes doesn’t solve the problem it just transfers the non-staticity to the space itself – ie it predicts a non-static universe. This solves both problems, of Mach and Newton

[1] [Mach’s principle seemed to require (or be easier or better) in a spatially-closed universe, and indeed his equations for cosmology indicate that a static pressureless universe implies it is closed and v.v.]

Re physics attitude to the idea of a beginning, or to 'creation' ie 'emergence into existence (w.o. agency)', or to the notion of time being non-infinite etc:

...

new sci/relig thought, said at Machlis, re Hawking (who died a few days ago)etc

Inbox Sat, Mar 17, 2018, 12:45 AM

to me

R Machlis after maariv asked me cahallenged me to find something frm Hawlking that is in line with religion, i thought it would not be possibel but i eventuallly cameup with this:, said it (and was complimented)

H was atehitst wold hate this but he siad there's no life after death so i;m safe

qp --> randomenss made fw seem les outre

GR--> bb --> made breishis creaiton vs eternity less outre

qp +GR --> Bekenstein,frum --> Hawking atheist -->: informaiton can be destoryed, so AR: maybe it can be created, which makes creativity less oure.

Of course H admitted he was wrong, info is NOT destoryed, but at least it cannot be said that i is obvious that info cannot be destroyed, and so also re created, ie mindset of what can o r cannot be is change,d, not that we need physics to enfrachise what is a metaphysical belief.

PS meeting Oct 05 re my Ein book

Einstein Blunder Book. ms, publishers, AOJS etc

x

Avi I Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>

Thu, Oct 20, 2005, 2:16 AM

to me

Oct 05 meeting with PS re Einstein's religion etc for my Ein book

Two Sides: Transcribed only first side and beginning of 2nd side:

AR: One possibility is that evo etc leads to existence in human mind

of categorical imperative, I ought not to kill etc. Nevertheless a

person can know/believe this and it doesn't weaken the feeling of

ought not.

One can also believe that God created the un and designed it so that

evolution would produce humans with a categorical imperative.

So someone like Einstein can deeply feel that there's a "God", and

experience an infinite impenetrable mystery, source of order, but at

the same time believe that all this is simply in his mind as a result

of some evolutionary process, and is not reflective of an external

physical actuality. This would expalin why he so deeply felt about

religion and God and yet didn't seem to take it seriously in his ideas

about the physical universe.

PS: I don't know whether Ein had a consistent view. he made many

statements about religion, these philosophical questions, he was a

physicist nor a philosopher, he made these remarks, gave enormous

amounts of interviews, at diffeent times.

If one wants to write sensibly abou thtese, you haV TO GOT O TH

SOURCES, LEARN gERMAN. tHE EARLY..WEHRE HE TALKS MPTS OPENLY ABOUT HIS

VIEWS, A BOOK HE AUTHORIZED BY HIS STEP SONE IN LAW, ANOTHER ONE BY A

JOUIRNALIST NAMED Miskowski, journalist in Berlin, 20's talked quit

eiopenly, things he later didnt talk about openly, his views changes,

earlier EIn is not same as Later EIn. To make him a source of great

insight into this philosophicall provblem is wrong bec this was not

his forte, on the other hand if one is interesteted in Ein (AR: EIn

himself, not a sa source of phil wisdom) etc the of course, and have

to llok at his letters, whole stuff is in German not translated.

A: People used this as source for exisitng trnaslated works etc

PS: but it us selectve, translated only a part of it

AR: who read the material and hasa n interest and good be consulted?

PS: Holton. he brought all this material out, it was sitting in inst

for adv studies, in basement, was a secretary had it , collected

letters. All aty HU, but a copy is available, Caltch EIn papaers

project, DIanna Kalmash Buckwald, chief editor of these papers. PS was

concerned with ranslating vol 6&7 which contain Ein's most important

papers on GR 1910-1920, "I have been purged by Mrs Buchwald, so as

Hotlon been purgd",she's a crazy woman, nw has hired a porno film

director and his mistress, a novelist, and they translat Einstein.

(they translated Grrman word for contraction as 'tapering off' of a

tenor'. e says she understands everything Ein wrote, she has a degree

in chemistry.

AR: I'm in contact with Holton.

AR: summarizing: you are saying that:

Was not EIns forte

Ein was not consistent,

his philosophical views changed over time,

only some material has been published.

Best scientific bio is Pais, there's a german one ?? by???

Always have new material emerging.

AR: His posthumous publications even more than during his lifetime. PS

chuckles.

AR: when I was reading re Pauli said others published his idead

PS: yes, i have big volume of his letters

AR: Pauli's papers as published by others

PS chuckles

AR: re what yopu saud E's views in this not of great inerest as source

of phil wisdom but of course if interested in Ein is ok. I I am

indeed interested in these ideas, in phil, metaphysics, religion etc,

but also in Eins's ideas, sdo it is a combination.

The point is that i'm not convinced that jus bec hes not a philosopher

thant he didnt think inot hese thjkngs deepls, consistently.

He was the first to develop cosmolgy in to a REAL PHYSICAL THEORY

(OTHER THAN kANT, LAPLACE ETC), origin of universe etc

PS: he didn;t think in terms of an origin

AR: that's true he postulated a static (AR: and therefore eternal)

universe, but the idea tha this should be so is also philosophy, so he

WAS concerned re philosophy re the 'origin' of the universe.

SOmeone else, a straw man physicist, who thinks things through and

believes theres a source of order, infinite impenetrable mystery,

would they not think of this as relevan tot cosmolog/ That's why I

mentioned at the outside

PS: He was not a systematic thinker, he was an opportunist, that was

the way he worked.Versatile, many things that were doaable. He never

wrote a textbook, if one does, need to sit down and do it in a

systermatic way. He did not make a systmatic theory of cosmologyu, he

said you can fulfil Machs principle if you make this model, and then

when expansion of universe was discovered he made EIn-deSitter, but it

was just anote, and Ein claimed deS was interested in it, and de S

said it wa Ein, and he didnlt put more time into it nad didnt write

more about it, one short..

AR: isnt that astounjding to treat it as just another physics problem

PS: that's how successful physicists work

AR: but if it is true that as Wheeler and Jammer write claim that the

reaosn was not mAch by t his phil views SPinoza etc, then one would

expect that the discovery of the non static nature of the uniwould

then affect his phil.

EIn had no interest in all this? Its weird!

Mayb bec he was working on his unified field theory and was waiting to

complete that before he applied it to cosmology, it would be a waste

to use an incoplete theiory for cosmology.

PS: at that point he didnt beleiv ein math, he said nothing should

need more than sines and cosines, that was stupid!

In later years he studies and di math, all his field theories were

quite math'l. After working with ROsen he thought there sno solution

in GR for a rotating body, it was nonsense.

AR: so he was saying GR was not suffucuent.

PS: He was saying his greatest brainchild, GR, was worng!@ He sort of

lost interest in it. tried these crazy field theories combining

gravity and EM.

AR: Mayb bec he was working on his unified field theory and was

waiting to complete that before he applied it to cosmology, eg like

people today wait for quantum gravity, it would be a waste to use an

incoplete theiory for cosmology.

PS: he wasn't that intetreste din cosmology

AR: some lab physuicst onterested in tiny problems, one could

postulate this, but EIn theought deeply about space and tinme, and

Machs principle and BCs of universe, could it be, is it plausible?

PS: Have to take people as they are, their interests.

PS: Maybe it was a goal. But it was unti the 1950s, and he died in 55,

was not part of phsyics.

...............................

Interestig discussion of astronomy etc but not relevant tot this

point, jus tthat cosmology was not serious 'til the 60s etc.

PS: Nowadays it has been discovered by the particle physicists that

one can get money by talking about cossmilogy, but at that time there

was very little evisdence, observations. In 48 Bondi Gold Hoyle still

could postulte steady state, matter crwated at all times...

AR: not a silly as it sounds, if matter could be created

at 'begining' it could be created at an y time..

PS:

AR:

PS: it was not a physical theory, they introduce a perfect

cosmological prniciple....

till 65 Penzias/Wilson...........

AR: no verified predictions of GR til then?

PS:

AR: .

........................

PS: EIn made his theory in 1915/16 and he immediately abandoned it, in

1917 he intrduced the cc, and then later abandoned it for unified

field theories, and he ssems to have lost interest in this idea.

AR: two things: that un is nit random, and that need other than grav

to get unified theory.

.............

Other discussion

AR: re what you said re Ein re sine and cosine , could one say tha the

meant that nature should be describalbe in elegant math, just that one

needs to study alot to get to see that the math that's used

is 'simple' etc.

Minkowski etc

.......................

AR: re Pauli synchronicity: I read long ago in

Koestler "Sleepwalkers". Is it now emerging in ophysics community due

to publication of P's letter's

PS: Yes.

.......................

AR: Ein didnt seem to take metaphysics seriously re physics, but Pauli

seemed to have taken it more seriously.

PS: But EIn produced very little in that area which was coherent.

Newton produced more about religuio and chemistry than physics. Pauli

wrote much more about these questions than about phsycs, his letters,

but didnt publish it. Why do we believe in these ideas, science. Ps

ideas was to explore the unconscous, to see how arrive at these

decision, what is the belief strucutre, hw people come to their ideas,

but EIn didnt have this interst in epistemology of discovery.

Certainly as a subject, bec of the depth of his discoveries and power

of his intuition, (EIn or Pauli?) of interest to us how did his mind

work, but he didn't leav too many clues. In case of Kepler he wrote

what he felt like etc

AR: but beyond trying to see how we arrive at these ideas, he took it

setriously as a physical reality

PS: Sure, [Pauli nervous breakdown, wrote to Jung, I help you with

univ position you help me with women]

AR: Who framed Roger Rabbit. Two sets of laws of nature. TO me

synchronicity is like that. Pauli new of laes of casuality, physics,

but also looking for synchronicity etc., Obvioulsy there has to be

some correlation betwen them to interact, but its almost like two sets

of laws for th eun.

PS:He was also interested in paranormal phenomena, Pauli effect. I

remember he invited ne to give a talk at EH shortly before his death,

we took the tram, a car cllided with another tram, he pointed and

asaid "Pauli effect"

AR: DId he really believe it?!

PS: he thought he had an enormous power...

AR: told ps re my week experiment writng down all coincidences etc.

SIDE ONE OF TAPE ENDED: CHANGE SIDES

........

EInstein (?/Pauli?) was a guinea pig for experiments in parapsychology.

Excahnged letters with [peeople who made statistical theories/studies

of these things.

wryly: (spiritual)Mediums have declining effect

AR: nothing counterscientific about telepathy etc, not really

extrasensory just new senses, but not like synchronicity. And not like

infinite mystery and source of order, this is not the same, it would

radically change idea of universe, and Pauli synchronicity is in the

middle,...

PS: interaction of the uncncscious with the conscious....revealed in

dreams......

he has some inmtersting ideas

AR: you think with possible validity?

PS: Yes. about the role of the unconscious in our understanding of the

world.....

Didn't transcribe after this.

....