• Audio: discussions with PS and a few others.
• Video: lectures I gave on the topic.
• Text: by AR with a few contributions by some others (Marvin etc; maybe invite Holton's students to contribute?)

Book Title: “Einstein’s Blunder and the God Who Plays Dice” (‘Einstein

in Eden’):

Summary: The mistakes of a genius can be very instructive.

Einstein’s extraordinary physical intuition led him to his greatest

triumphs as well as to his greatest (self-admitted) errors. Twice he

helped initiate theories involving fundamental aspects of the

universe, but then mistakenly rejected some of their most important

implications. Both times, these rejections stemmed from his beliefs

about the most important philosophical/metaphysical/religious matters.

Interestingly enough, the crux of both issues involve the central

ideas underlying the creation and Garden of Eden accounts in Genesis,

which Einstein read carefully as a boy, and whose literal truth he

rejected as a young man.

Sections of the book:

1) Einstein’s achievements, beliefs and errors are the starting point

and foil for an exploration of the following concepts and theories -

and their inter-relationship:

. causality, moral responsibility, creativity, significance, meaning

and purpose;

. cosmology and quantum physics;

. the philosophical and kabbalistic meaning of the creation and Eden

accounts in Genesis (including a brief discussion of which sources

would likely have been available to Einstein); Spinoza’s views on the

subject, and Einstein’s acceptance of them.

2) An examination of the internal logical consistency of Einstein’s

philosophical/religious views regarding God’s omnipotence, human free

will, and human moral culpability (see sample quotes below).

3) An exploration of:

. what our universe would have to be like - in the scientific sense –

in order for it to support the type of meaning and harmony Einstein

spoke of (see sample quotes below);

. whether/how these could ever be scientifically identified/detected

in theory/practice.

END of e-mail QUERY

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

Below is a sample of Einstein/Spinoza QUOTES:

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events

the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the

side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different

nature." "We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities

obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough to

nevertheless sense at least the rule of fixed necessity...." " ....

the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The

future, to him, is every whit as necessary as the past." "everything

is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which

we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the

star. human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a

mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an

invisible piper”

"The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of

the law of causation ...a God who rewards and punishes is

inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man’s actions are

determined by necessity, external or internal, so that in God’s eyes

he cannot be responsible any more than an inanimate object is

responsible for the motions it undergoes." "[T]he idea of the

existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficient personal God....

[has] decisive weaknesses... [I]f this being is omnipotent, then every

occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and

every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it

possible to think

of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an

almighty Being? In giving out punishments and rewards he would to a

certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be

combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him"

"What is the meaning of human life, or for that matter, of the life of

any creature? To know an answer to this question means to be

religious. You ask: Does it make sense then to pose this question. I

answer: The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow

creatures as meaningless is not merely unhappy but hardly fit for

life."

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all

that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and

actions of human beings

Spinoza: “[M]en believe themselves to be free because they are

conscious of their own actions and are ignorant of the causes by which

they are determined” (IIIP2S).

Science and Religion

19 videos 154 views Last updated on Aug 15, 2018

If you enjoyed the videos please 'like' them and also leave a comment, it's much appreciated. And if you attended the lectures and enjoyed watching the videos, write to me. (air1@nyu.edu) All the videos here are excerpts from three similar lectures (given 2002-2005) touching on topics related to the history and philosophy of the alleged conflict between religion and science. The lectures were over an hour each, and are also included below. The excerpts are the shorter segments below, focused on specific topics, and usually incorporate material from all three lectures. ................. For additional material on these and other (related) topics, see my website: https://sites.google.com/a/nyu.edu/av...

avirab

SUBSCRIBE 18

1

23:44NOW PLAYING

Ancient Metaphysics & philosophy. Eternity & infinitude of universe, Aristotle & Rambam

avirab

2

10:21NOW PLAYING

How Scientific development influenced religious disbelief

avirab

3

13:48NOW PLAYING

GeoCentrism, EgoCentrism & Existentialism:some alleged Bible-Science conflict created by theologians

Maimonides & Spinoza, Friedman & Einstein: 4 Jews, 5 opinions

avirab

6

19:57NOW PLAYING

Ошибка Эйнштейна, и Большого Взрыва. (Немного об общей теории относительности,)

avirab

7

8:02NOW PLAYING

Библейская история творения не о «начале», поэтому нет конфликта с наукой. Русский и иврит

avirab

8

16:18NOW PLAYING

Что такое Шаббат, если Бог создал Вселенную через большой взрыв, а не через 6 дней? Русский и иврит

avirab

9

34:39NOW PLAYING

Allegory in the torah, breishis

avirab

10

50:40NOW PLAYING

The Instant & Retroactive Universe:Quantum Kabbalistic Metaphysics,Genesis,age of the universe

avirab

11

1:43:58NOW PLAYING

The Big Bang in Art & Bible: Einstein's 'blunder', Genesis & Quantum Kabbalistic Metaphysics

avirab

12

1:02:00NOW PLAYING

"Reconciling" Genesis and the Big Bang theory: Lecture given in LI, NY

avirab

13

[Private video]

14

[Private video]

15

2:58NOW PLAYING

Analogies between Quantum Metaphysics and the philosophy of Halacha

avirab

16

14:29NOW PLAYING

The scientific basis for the Big Bang theory

avirab

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

Sat, May 28, 2005, 2:53 AM

Jammer re Einstein/Spinoza c.c., E's non-static solution beofre Friedmann

Jammer re Einstein/Spinoza c.c., E's non-static solution beofre Friedmann

Avi I Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>

Thu, Sep 1, 2005 at 1:11 AM

To: air1@nyu.edu

…..after having obtained the

field equations of general relativity, Einstein applied them

to the universe as a whole. His paper “Kosmologische Be-

trachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie,” pub-

lished in 1917, initiated the modern study of relativistic

cosmology and raised thereby the status of cosmology,

which theretofore had been a jumble of speculations, to

that of a respectable scientific discipline.

88

Einstein thought that his first cosmological solution of

the field equations was a failure and rejected it because it

yielded a nonstatic (expanding) universe. He thus missed

the chance of announcing the expansion of the universe as

perhaps the most important prediction of his general the-

ory. That the universe is, in fact, steadily expanding was

revealed only in the late 1920s by Edwin Powell Hubble’s

observations at the Mount Wilson Observatory. In 1917,

Einstein modified the field equations by introducing—

86

without violating their covariance—an additional term, the

so-called “cosmological constant ,” in order to obtain a

static unchanging universe. It was this introduction of

that Einstein called his “biggest blunder.” It has been sug-

gested that Einstein committed this “blunder” because he

was influenced by Spinoza who, in his Ethics declared,

“God is immutable or [which is the same thing] all his at-

tributes are immutable,” and “an extended thing [like

space] (and a thinking thing) are God’s attributes.”

89

In accordance with Spinoza, Einstein interpreted the term ”en-

dure” in the verse ”the Heavens endure from everlasting

to everlasting” in the sense of an immutable existence.

89

“Deum, sive omnia Dei attributa esse immutabilia,” Ethics, col. 2

to proposition 20, p. 1; “rem extensam (et rem cogitantem) Dei attri-

buta esse,” ibid., col. 2 to proposition 14.

...........

Address of the President, Sir J. J. Thomson, at the Anniversary

Meeting, Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, A96 (1919): 311–322,

quotation on p. 317.

87

G. Gamow, My Worldline (Viking Press, New York, 1970), p. 44.

88

A. Einstein, “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur algemeinen Rela-

tivitatstheorie,” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wiss-

enschaften 1917, part 1, pp. 142–152; “Cosmological Considerations on

the General Theory of Relativity,” The Collected Papers of Albert Ein-

stein, vol. 6 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1996), pp.

543–551.

....

Gerald Holton <holton@physics.harvard.edu>

Sep 20, 2005, 11:17 PM

to me

Dear Mr. Rabinowitz:

Yes, you may send me the synopsis/list of topics, so I can judge whether

or not I can be of use to you in a telephone conversation.

Sincerely yours,

Gerald Holton

..

Prof. Holton, hi!

Thank you so much for your reply and willingness to look at this

synopsis/list of topics. Most physicists I've encountered are either

not conversant with or not terribly interested in, philosophy,

metaphysics and religion and as you are a very eminent notable

exception to this, I would greatly appreciate any amount of time you

could apportion to a phone converation about these matters.

I've included the material both as text in the body of the e mail

below and also as an attached file.

Thanks again very much,

Avi

...

Spinoza/Einstein 3rd Paradise Cosmological Constant

Einstein Blunder Book. ms, publishers, AOJS etc

x

Avi I Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>

Sat, Sep 3, 2005, 1:50 AM

to holton

Prof Holton,

I'm a physicist with interest in philosophy, history and religion and

have greatly benefitted from and very much enjoyed your writings. I

just read "Einstein's 3rd Paradise", and as I'm writing a book on a

somewhat related topic I'm very eager to discuss it with you. Can I

send you a 2-page synopsis/list of topics?

Thank you wey much,

Avi

...........

Dr Avi Rabinowitz

air1@nyu.edu

(212) 749-2773

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

“Einstein’s Blunder and the God Who Plays Dice”: contents/sections

Overview

Einstein’s achievements, beliefs and errors are the starting point and

foil for an exploration of various concepts and theories, and their

inter-relationship:

• Science: cosmology (the big bang theory of a non-eternal

universe); quantum physics (indeterminism); acausality as the common

denominator.

• Philosophy: Causality/determinism, moral responsibility,

creativity, significance, meaning and purpose;

• Religion: Genesis: the creation account (a non-eternal

universe) and the Garden of Eden account (free will/non-determinism);

acausality as the common denominator; the relation to

Einstein’s ‘blunder’ and ‘the God who plays dice’.

1) The big bang model/theory:

• Einstein could have predicted it;

• initially it was considered by some to be too ‘Genesis-like’

to be scientifically correct, but later it was proposed by some as a

counter-proof to Genesis!

• What were E’s Real Reasons for Inserting the C.C.? [The

inconsistency of what he states in his papers].

• How General Relativity as a theory of spacetime curvature

leads to cosmological equations, and why these lead to the big bang

model; see also appendices.

2) Spinoza’s views on the authorship of the Bible, creation and free

will, and Einstein’s views on these matters; the philosophical and

kabbalistic meaning of the creation and Eden accounts in Genesis ; the

author’s interpretation of these accounts; .

4) An analysis of the internal consistency/inconsistency of Einstein’s

philosophical/religious views regarding theology, eg (see sample

quotes below): his ideas regarding theodicy in the context of an

omnipotent God’s judgement of human moral culpability; human free will

and human moral culpability; the disconnect between morality and God.

• Einstein’s Conception of What Constitutes ‘Religion’ as

opposed to ‘Science’

• Prescription for successful physics: Separating Metaphysical

Beliefs from Scientific Ones

• Different Ways of Acquiring Knowledge, different types of

knowledge: rational analysis, experiment intuition, revelation; AE’s

intuitions re the ‘physical’; the ethical; the metaphysical.

• The Uniqueness of Einstein’s Religion: Minimalism vs

maximalism

5) What the universe has to be like for Einstein’s metaphysics to be

valid: What the existence of the “meaning” , “harmony” and a Source of

Order which Einstein spoke of (see sample quotes below) imply

cosmologically: If this is not merely a personal psychological state-

of-mind but a reflection of a property of the universe:

• whether/how these could ever be scientifically

identified/detected in theory/practice.

• what our universe would have to be like - in the scientific

sense – in order for this to be so.

Platonic Ideals, Einstein and Platonism: similarities and differences

(the objective existence of mathematical and scientific truths, and of

the states of elementary particles) ; Spinozist metaphysics (eternity

of the universe, determinism).

Valid and Invalid forms of obtaining knowledge about existence:

Intuition vs Revelation; Science, Metaphysics, and Theology

• Wholism, Emergence, The Cosmic Mind

• The Basis of Morality: Subjective, Objective, Holistic .

……………..

Technical Appendices for the reader with a background of calculus-

based physics

• Introduction to Einstein’s Equations

• Einstein’s Equations for Cosmology

• Einstein’s cosmological solution, and his introduction of the

cosmological constant

• The Big Bang model: calculating the age of the universe

………..………….……..………………

What Einstein’s Metaphysical Beliefs imply about the Physical Universe

Einstein (abbrev: AE) claimed to have known of an ‘infinite mystery’,

a ‘source of order’. The brain is a physical device. If it detects

some ‘infinite mystery’ then either this is ‘just’ a psychological

feeling or it is a reflection of some actual existent. If the former,

then better to consider the whole thing as a matter of anthropology

and evolutionary psychobiology etc and not employ confusing

terminology. If the latter, then this is a subject of physics, and it

is legitimate, even necessary, to try to probe it, and come up with a

theory of it; one cannot a priori assume it can be neglected in

physical theories of the universe as a whole and of the brain.

To what extent and in which ways did Einstein ignore or consider it?

As Holton wrote, see also Jammer: “Einstein became more and more

serious about clarifying the relationship between his transcendental

and his scientific impulses ….….he developed, or rather invented, a

religion that offered a union with science.” We wish to clarify this

relationship further.

Different Modes of Knowing about the Universe

There are different types of information/knowledge/intuition:

AE’s intuition about the universe was of several types:

1. the ‘physical’;

2. the ethical;

3. the metaphysical re the source of order, impenetrable mystery

etc.

AE’s physical intuitions led to self-consistent rigorous theories re

1, and somewhat re 2, but not really re 3. Did the theories of the

first category require any input regarding the truths in the other

categories order to make successful models and predictions? If 1,2,

and 3 interact to the extent that the physical brain knows of the

ethical and metaphysical, should the part of the physical universe

described by physics be independent of the rest of existence?

.....

Re: Spinoza/Einstein: asking for confirmation of receipt

Wed, Sep 28, 2005, 10:56 PM

to Gerald

Prof Holton, hi

I'm sorry to trouble you, I just wished to make sure you had received

the material.

Thanks again,

Avi

....

Gerald Holton <holton@physics.harvard.edu>

Wed, Sep 28, 2005, 11:33 PM

to me

Yes, I have your mailing, but in this extreme overload-year I won't

get to it for some time. G.Holton

Re: Moshe, hi and thanks.

Wed, Sep 28, 2005, 11:14 PM

to Moshe

Hi!

If you have any more comments, I'm certianly interested...

Thanks,

Avi

----- Original Message -----

From: Moshe Shmukler <shmukler@osresearchllc.com>

Date: Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:26 pm

Subject: Re: Moshe, hi and thanks.

> Avi,

> I started reading the einstein file.

> At some point, I am hoping to have a commented word document for

> you, but

> for now I have one comment.

> To me, the document appears to be an organized collection of notes

> ratherthan anything else. I think that because you are writing for

> a very wide

> audience, the essay needs to have a crystal clear central idea

> (your thesis

> has that already.) brought down to a level of an ordinary reader.

> In simple

> "Why do I even care?" way. Then I would try build everything else

> around it

> to support the main theme.

> I have not done much reviewing in my life, so my ideas are worth

> squat :)

> M

>

> On 7/13/05 3:57 PM, "Avi I Rabinowitz" <air1@nyu.edu> wrote:

Thanks for sending the e mail: I made a mistake, wrote lle

instead of llc.

...

Moshe Shmukler <shmukler@osresearchllc.com>

Fri, Sep 30, 2005, 5:48 AM

to me

HI,

How are you? What's new?

Came back from Chicago a few hours ago. I know I still have not finished

reviewing your documents. I'll be taking days off (chol-hamoed) for

holidays. Hopefully, I'll do it then.

How's NYU?

I am not taking classes this semester, maybe a little research and that's

all. I enjoy school, but there is so much to do...

Happy and healthy New Year,

M.

,..........

Query letter re ms: Physics/Philosophy/Religion

Wed, Jun 22, 2005, 1:04 AM

to lbarrett

Hi.

I'd like to send a query letter and ms outline, and wish to ascertain

whether this is the appropriate e mail address.

Thank you very much

Dr Avi Rabinowitz

Laura G. Barrett <lbarrett@templetonpress.org>

Mon, Jun 27, 2005, 9:22 PM

to me

Yes it is. Please see our submission requirements at

www.templetonpress.org under About the Press, Manuscript Guidelines.

Sincerely,

Laura G. Barrett

Acquisitions/Managing Editor

Templeton Foundation Press

300 Conshohocken State Road, Suite 550

West Conshohocken, PA 19428

484-531-8380

484-531-8382 - fax

www. templetonpress.org

.......

Query letter re ms: Physics/Philosophy/Religion

Einstein Blunder Book. ms, publishers, AOJS etc

x

Avi I Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>

Sat, Jul 2, 2005, 12:34 AM

to Laura

Thank you very much.

The query letter is attached.

If there is interest based on this query, I would be pleased to work

towards creating a full proposal with Table of Contents and sample

pages.

Thanks again,

Dr Avi Rabinowitz

...

to Templeton:

Re: "Einstein's Blunder" manuscript

Fri, Oct 21, 2005, 1:18 AM

to Natalie

Hi.

Thanks for your response.

I wonder if perhaps there is some way to shortcut the process: besides

being very time-consuming, since one is never assured of success the

process of grant application writing is quite wearisome - so perhaps

since members of the board of the publishing arm are familiar with the

material I can shortcut to meet with someone at the Foundation to

discuss this, even if that is only a preliminary to actually writing

the grant proposal? Perhaps there is even someone affiliated with both

the Foundation and the publishing arm who has read my material and

with whom I could meet?

Failing this, is there anyone affiliated with either the publishing

arm or the Foundation who could help me through the process - I think

insight from someone connected in that way can help me very much in

writing the proposal in a shorter amount of time and with greater

confidence.

Failing that, is there any professional grant writer the Foundation

can recommend?

Thanks,

Avi

.....

Short version: two questions

Thu, Oct 20, 2005, 7:57 AM

to mskruger

Marv, hi.

You haven't answered or acknowledged receipt...maybe you're

incommunicado, or just way too busy... I hope all's well.

If you're too busy to look at all the material, maybe you can tell me

what you think re these two questions:

1) a) In your opinion did Einstein truly believe in an extra-

human "source of order" 'infinite mystery' which the human mind

detects? Or could one say the following: Einstein's rational brain

told him his belief in "source of order" etc was simply programmed

into his brain via evolutionary biology and did not reflect a physical

actuality and so whereas he deeply believed it, he did not take the

source of order etc seriously as an existent [ie it is not 'the source

of order' which has to be accounted for by physics, but rather it is

only the belief in that source of order which has to be accounted for,

and that by psychology, evolution etc, not physics].

b)If Einstein believed there was indeed some actual source of order,

and it was sufficiently physical that the human brain could detect it,

would it not be necessary to take this into account in a truly

complete theory of cosmology (and of the human brain)? (what

implications would this have re the mind/body issue?)

2) Would you agree that the common denominator between Einstein's two

significant 'mistakes' are the issue of non-causality (whatever the

correct term): he rejected free will and believed in determinism and

so rejected quantum indeterminism; he rejected cosmological non-

staticity which implies 'creation', which is a seemingly non-

causal 'beginning', and preferred instead the eternal universe.

Interestingly these two philosophical topics, creation and free will,

are dealt with in the first two stories in Genesis, with which he must

have been quite familiar.

Thanks

Marvin Kruger <mskruger@msn.com>

Fri, Oct 21, 2005, 5:17 PM

to me, mskruger

Hi Avi,

I did get a message from you, but it came across without a subject, body, or attachments. I was later able to download the message and attachments by logging into my account via the msn.com website. I looked through the attachments, but hadn't had time to formulate a response. I was traveling the first part of last week and have been sick with a fever and a sore throat since last Friday. I've nevertheless been going to work until yesterday and somehow managed to give a critical hour-long briefing, which simply could not be rescheduled. In answer to your two questions below, I first have to say that I am in no way an expert on Einstein's expressed philosophical views. Nevertheless, I will attempt to answer your questions.

As for metaphysical beliefs, in my view there is what people say they believe, what they think they believe, and what they reallybelieve. The latter can usually be determined primarily by their actions. E.g., most theoretical physicists will tell you that they believe 1) the universe is purely the product of chance and necessity - probably some kind of fortuitous vacuum fluctuation in a greater multiverse, which is itself eternal; 2) the world, as such, is purposeless and indifferent to human existence, which is of course meaningless; and 3) life on earth is purely the result of undirected material processes and, as such, there is no free will, since physical systems have no freedom. Yet they don't act as though any of this is the case. They struggle in the pursuit of their research, they sign petitions for and against this and that, and despite the seemingly bottomless complexity of Nature, they act as though it should all be utterly comprehensible to the human mind (as evidenced by the fact that few physicists reject outright the concept of a "theory of everything").

From the neo-Darwinian standpoint, any excess capacity that the human mind has beyond that which is required for raw physical survival is counter-adaptive and should have been discarded by evolution long ago. There is, therefore, simply no rational reason from the standpoint of neo-Darwinian materialism to believe that the universe should be profoundly comprehensible and every reason to believe the very opposite. The grand irony is that scientific materialism could never itself have given rise to science. So what I believe is that Einstein probably thought he was a materialist on one level, but in terms of the deepest beliefs that motivated most of his actions, he was, like most of us in the West, a believer in the basic Judao-Christian world view. Central to that world view is the proposition that the world was created and, is therefore, an artifact of mind. Human beings, made in the image of their Creator, therefore, have at least the possibility to comprehend the world and the freedom to pursue that possibility. What I'm saying is that actions speak louder than words; it's not what people say, or even think, they believe; it's the motivation for their actions that determines what they actually believe. In a somewhat analogous way, Lipman Bers has stated: "A working mathematician is always a Platonist. It doesn't matter what he says..."

Of course, when you say and think that you believe one thing, but you "really" believe something quite different, this can lead to conflicts, so when I say that actions are the ultimate indicators of true belief, the actions have to be coarse-grain averaged over the trajectory of a lifetime. I agree with you concerning the Friedmann affair. Einstein certainly thought that the universe was supposed to come out static and eternal, and the Friedmann universe looked too much like Genesis. I'm less certain concerning his attitude towards quantum theory. Einstein invented wave-particle duality and seemed to have no problem with the old quantum theory as a statistical theory (e.g., his 1917 quantum theory of radiation). There is even a pre-quantum-mechanics Born-Einstein letter wherein Einstein basically proposes a sort of Born interpretation for photon/electromagnetic wave duality. Quantum theory has no simple ontological interpretation. It was the non-classical aspects of quantum waves, viz., entanglement, projective measurement, and their Hilbert-space-time unreality in place of a simple space-time reality that he found disturbing. The objects of the theory, wave functions, are more descriptions of the dynamics of our information about the micro-world than anything "physical." Also, it was not obvious that quantum mechanics and special relativity could live together in peaceful coexistence; it looked as though one or the other would have to go. So I don't think the free will issue was all that prominent in forming Einstein's attitude toward quantum mechanics. Indeterminism doesn't imply freedom, it only opens up the possibility.

My view is that "intelligent causes," will ultimately drive the development of physics. If one looks at the world in all of its mind-numbing complexity, ingenuity, and beauty, the only kind of human structure that can begin to analogize it seems to be language. The elementary particles are a kind of alphabet, with words formed by composite particles and phrases by atoms and sentences by molecules...on up through paragraphs, chapters, books, libraries...The common denominator is information integrated at ever higher levels of semantic complexity. Most amino acid chains contain syntactic (Shannon) information, but lack semantic information, i.e., they have no function. Those structures and processes that contain high levels of both syntactic and semantic information are evidence of intelligent causes at work in Nature; they are simply too improbable to be otherwise. The unification of (syntactic) information theory and quantum mechanics (already a kind of information theory) is underway at full steam. At some point, a theory of semantic information will need to be developed (Carnap, Tarski and others have tried and failed at this in the past). Its unification with the theory of quantum syntactic information processing should yield machines (quantum semantic information processors) able to penetrate to the semantic primitives and connectives that constitute "the fabric of our lives."

Von Neumann said that quantum mechanics was telling us that the logic of Nature, i.e., the logic that one would abstract from quantum reality, was non-Aristotelian and that mathematics, if it was to continue to be an effective tool in physics, would have to restructure its foundations around quantum rather than classical logic. Yuri Manin has referred to the "quantization of classical mathematics," as a major trend in latter twentieth century and twenty-first century mathematics. The fact that this has simply happened through the coevolution of mathematics and physics, rather than through the program that von Neumann envisioned and tried unsuccessfully to initiate with the invention of quantum logic and operator algebras, indicates that there is probably no small amount of truth to von Neumann's basic insight about the meaning of quantum mechanics. "History is Judgment," when it comes to metaphysical ideas. Ultimately, logic is simply a system for processing information, syntactic or semantic.

Continuing to insist, as the materialists do, that nothing has a purpose, and that Intelligent Design is just those horrible Creationists in disguise, is standing in the way of the development of a real science of complexity. What Einstein's views of this were, or might be, I have no idea.

Shabbat Shalom & Shana Tova,

Marv

...

whew! got more than I bargained for.....

Fri, Oct 21, 2005, 7:07 PM

Noson, hi!

I sent Marvin some material re what I had discussed with you, and then

sent a briefer e mail with the following:

1) a) In your opinion did Einstein truly believe in an extra-

human "source of order" 'infinite mystery' which the human mind

detects? Or could one say the following: Einstein's rational brain

told him his belief in "source of order" etc was simply programmed

into his brain via evolutionary biology and did not reflect a physical

actuality and so whereas he deeply believed it, he did not take the

source of order etc seriously as an existent [ie it is not 'the source

of order' which has to be accounted for by physics, but rather it is

only the belief in that source of order which has to be accounted for,

and that by psychology, evolution etc, not physics].

b)If Einstein believed there was indeed some actual source of order,

and it was sufficiently physical that the human brain could detect it,

would it not be necessary to take this into account in a truly

complete theory of cosmology (and of the human brain)? (what

implications would this have re the mind/body issue?)

2) Would you agree that the common denominator between Einstein's two

significant 'mistakes' are the issue of non-causality (whatever the

correct term): he rejected free will and believed in determinism and

so rejected quantum indeterminism; he rejected cosmological non-

staticity which implies 'creation', which is a seemingly non-

causal 'beginning', and preferred instead the eternal universe.

Interestingly these two philosophical topics, creation and free will,

are dealt with in the first two stories in Genesis, with which he must

have been quite familiar.

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

His answer is fascinating and should really interest you (but I don't

want to share him with you at this point in terms of collaboration, I

need his time.....):

In answer to your two questions below, I first have to say that I am

in no way an expert on Einstein's expressed philosophical views.

Nevertheless, I will attempt to answer your questions.

As for metaphysical beliefs, in my view there is what people say they

believe, what they think they believe, and what they really believe.

The latter can usually be determined primarily by their actions. E.g.,

most theoretical physicists will tell you that they believe 1) the

universe is purely the product of chance and necessity - probably some

kind of fortuitous vacuum fluctuation in a greater multiverse, which

is itself eternal; 2) the world, as such, is purposeless and

indifferent to human existence, which is of course meaningless; and 3)

life on earth is purely the result of undirected material processes

and, as such, there is no free will, since physical systems have no

freedom. Yet they don't act as though any of this is the case. They

struggle in the pursuit of their research, they sign petitions for and

against this and that, and despite the seemingly bottomless complexity

of Nature, they act as though it should all be utterly comprehensible

to the human mind (as evidenced by the fact that few physicists reject

outright the concept of a "theory of everything").

From the neo-Darwinian standpoint, any excess capacity that the human

mind has beyond that which is required for raw physical survival is

counter-adaptive and should have been discarded by evolution long

ago. There is, therefore, simply no rational reason from the

standpoint of neo-Darwinian materialism to believe that the universe

should be profoundly comprehensible and every reason to believe the

very opposite. The grand irony is that scientific materialism could

never itself have given rise to science. So what I believe is that

Einstein probably thought he was a materialist on one level, but in

terms of the deepest beliefs that motivated most of his actions, he

was, like most of us in the West, a believer in the basic Judao-

Christian world view. Central to that world view is the proposition

that the world was created and, is therefore, an artifact of mind.

Human beings, made in the image of their Creator, therefore, have at

least the possibility to comprehend the world and the freedom to

pursue that possibility. What I'm saying is that actions speak louder

than words; it's not what people say, or even think, they believe;

it's the motivation for their actions that determines what they

actually believe. In a somewhat analogous way, Lipman Bers has

stated: "A working mathematician is always a Platonist. It doesn't

matter what he says..."

Of course, when you say and think that you believe one thing, but

you "really" believe something quite different, this can lead to

conflicts, so when I say that actions are the ultimate indicators of

true belief, the actions have to be coarse-grain averaged over the

trajectory of a lifetime. I agree with you concerning the Friedmann

affair. Einstein certainly thought that the universe was supposed to

come out static and eternal, and the Friedmann universe looked too

much like Genesis. I'm less certain concerning his attitude towards

quantum theory. Einstein invented wave-particle duality and seemed to

have no problem with the old quantum theory as a statistical theory

(e.g., his 1917 quantum theory of radiation). There is even a pre-

quantum-mechanics Born-Einstein letter wherein Einstein basically

proposes a sort of Born interpretation for photon/electromagnetic wave

duality. Quantum theory has no simple ontological interpretation. It

was the non-classical aspects of quantum waves, viz., entanglement,

projective measurement, and their Hilbert-space-time unreality in

place of a simple space-time reality that he found disturbing. The

objects of the theory, wave functions, are more descriptions of the

dynamics of our information about the micro-world than

anything "physical." Also, it was not obvious that quantum mechanics

and special relativity could live together in peaceful coexistence; it

looked as though one or the other would have to go. So I don't think

the free will issue was all that prominent in forming Einstein's

attitude toward quantum mechanics. Indeterminism doesn't imply

freedom, it only opens up the possibility.

My view is that "intelligent causes," will ultimately drive the

development of physics. If one looks at the world in all of its mind-

numbing complexity, ingenuity, and beauty, the only kind of human

structure that can begin to analogize it seems to be language. The

elementary particles are a kind of alphabet, with words formed by

composite particles and phrases by atoms and sentences by

molecules...on up through paragraphs, chapters, books, libraries...The

common denominator is information integrated at ever higher levels of

semantic complexity. Most amino acid chains contain syntactic

(Shannon) information, but lack semantic information, i.e., they have

no function. Those structures and processes that contain high levels

of both syntactic and semantic information are evidence of intelligent

causes at work in Nature; they are simply too improbable to be

otherwise. The unification of (syntactic) information theory and

quantum mechanics (already a kind of information theory) is underway

at full steam. At some point, a theory of semantic information will

need to be developed (Carnap, Tarski and others have tried and failed

at this in the past). Its unification with the theory of quantum

syntactic information processing should yield machines (quantum

semantic information processors) able to penetrate to the semantic

primitives and connectives that constitute "the fabric of our lives."

Von Neumann said that quantum mechanics was telling us that the logic

of Nature, i.e., the logic that one would abstract from quantum

reality, was non-Aristotelian and that mathematics, if it was to

continue to be an effective tool in physics, would have to restructure

its foundations around quantum rather than classical logic. Yuri

Manin has referred to the "quantization of classical mathematics," as

a major trend in latter twentieth century and twenty-first century

mathematics. The fact that this has simply happened through the

coevolution of mathematics and physics, rather than through the

program that von Neumann envisioned and tried unsuccessfully to

initiate with the invention of quantum logic and operator algebras,

indicates that there is probably no small amount of truth to von

Neumann's basic insight about the meaning of quantum

mechanics. "History is Judgment," when it comes to metaphysical

ideas. Ultimately, logic is simply a system for processing

information, syntactic or semantic.

Continuing to insist, as the materialists do, that nothing has a

purpose, and that Intelligent Design is just those horrible

Creationists in disguise, is standing in the way of the development

of a real science of complexity. What Einstein's views of this were,

or might be, I have no idea.

Shabbat Shalom & Shana Tova,

Marv

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

Noson Yanofsky <noson@sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu>

Fri, Oct 21, 2005, 7:46 PM

Looks interesting.

GREAT SHABBOS reading!

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

Sent to Marvin re EInstein etc

Sat, Oct 22, 2005, 12:12 AM

Marv, hi!

Thanks so much for your response, and I hope you're feeling better and

are less harried.

I’m trying to get this e mail out before shabbos……

1) Templeton Press wrote back: they’d be interested in publishing a

book based on the material I sent, but not in supporting it, and they

recommended applying for a grant from the foundation. So I want to

apply for a grant to think about these topics, to consult with others

(Like you, Schucking, philosophers, other physicists etc) and to write

it all up. What would you recommend – do you have any insight re what

I should or should not say? Do you know people who are close to the

process in any way that can help me? Anyone who would help me write a

grant proposal

2) What’s the most intelligent discussion on the web re Intelligent

Design, and is there a good but elementary treatment of the below

ideas on the web? Or is this your own synthesis?

> the only kind of human structure that can begin to analogize it

seems to be language.

The unification of (syntactic) information theory and quantum

mechanics, unification with the theory of quantum syntactic

information processing, logic non-Aristotelian Yuri Manin coevolution

of mathematics and physics, von Neumann's basic insight

3) Re your reply:

? there is no free will, since physical systems have no

freedom. Yet they don't act as though any of this is the case. They

struggle in the pursuit of their research, they sign petitions for and

against this and that…

They can say they are acting out their determined path and deeply feel

there is an imperative to do what they do, all the while that they

admit that this deep feeling is a result of programming of their brain

via blind processes.

The same with morality.

And that was my point in my question re Einstein, that maybe he

believed that this deep feeling of his, this belief in “the source of

order”, was implanted in his brain by blind or deterministic

processes: ie the psychological fact is that even knowing this is so,

nevertheless Einstein still felt/believed just as deeply. [Belief is a

state of mind, it is about human psychology, not about some exterior

entity that is believed in.]

[In answer to my questions re this, Schucking says Einstein was not a

philosopher, wasn’t as deep as eg Pauli who spent more time thinking

these things trough, and his thoughts on these matters were not

consistently thought out. He says even in physics Einstein was ‘an

opportunist’, ‘working on problems which could be solved’.]

I spoke to Atheists and they seem ok with my characterization that

they deeply feel they ought not to kill etc, and also know that the

reason they feel this way is evolution, and they feel strongly that

they are no more likely to commit murder than a religious person –

they actually feel that moral atheists are on the whole more ethical

than very religious people etc.

And my argument against the religious philosophy of morality etc is

that since to an atheist these things are non-existent, the addition

of alleged objective entities (eg God) or structure (eg Platonic)

doesn’t add any real meaning to anything, ie one’s claim to morality

or purpose etc is not more sound when one adds a non-existent alleged

objective basis to it.

So scientists in their guise as scientists, and atheists full time,

don’t feel that they need to add Platonic realms or God for there to

be more meaning or morality than they already feel.

4) Re QP and Einstein’s objections:

I find that it is really cool (!) that the universe manages to do this

type of stuff, exploits loopholes etc, ie one might have thought that

SR forbids spooky action at a distance, but it doesn’t , so it is

great that it actually happens; and that Birkhoff happens (1/r

theories) so that the inside and outside are disconnected, and this

allows for one to define expansion of space because inside the

birkhoff bubble space doesn’t expand; and Bohm Ahronov etc, all these

ar eveautiful exploitations of loopholes, and so is quantum physics,

we know macro is determined and people assumed the micro also, but the

loophole of allowing the micro to be random is beautifully clever. And

the universe is clearly flat at local scales, but the concept of

curvature allows for the interesting phenomena to appear non-locally

while maintaining local flatness, etc.

Why would Einstein insist on a less-interesting less-sophisticated

universe?

Because it would be misleading of ‘God’?! It is so beautifully

complex, we shouldn;t expect a universe reflecting an infinite mystery

source of order to be non-misleading to shallow analysis.

……………………

5) re Friedmann universe

I sent Holton 5 questions: the two I sent you plus these three:

a) After the discovery of the expansion of the universe did Einstein

speak exlicitly about changing his philosophical views as a result [eg

a Spinozist view re the eternity of the universe]?

b) One would certainly consider cosmology as a fundamental issue of

science to be investigated in its own right and deserving a serious

consistent treatment but it seems almost as though Einstein saw it

only as a particular solution of his equations: do you feel this is

so? if yes, Why?

[Could it be that he felt that without a unified field theory he

wouldn't be able to come up with a complete cosmological theory? Or

did he abandon the topic due to psychological frustration that he had

so seriously 'blundered'?]

c)If the universe is static, then due to Machian arguments Einstein

felt the spatially-closed universe was preferable to one which is flat

at infinity. However it's unclear why Einstein assumed the universe is

static: because he assumed there's no static solution or because he

preferred a non-static one for philosophical reasons, or because he

felt the stars' observed velocity was too small for a dynamic

universe.

If he put a cosmological constant into his equation in order that

there be a static solution, would this not imply that he knew there

was a non-static solution to the equations without the c.c.? ie

perhaps the Friedmann solution? If so, even if he felt the

observational evidence or philosophical reasons militated against it,

why would he not even mention it - would not the existence of such a

solution be of scientific importance?

………………

6) BTW: Is everything you write and receive vetted somehow, is that

why you didn;t receive the attachments first?

Also, when I place the cursor on the text of your e mail and highlight

it funny things happen.

…………….

7) re judging by actions: I hate to make the comparison, but it is in

a way similar to Chomsky's insistence that one judge US foreign policy

by its effects rather than the professed intention of those involved

in formulating the policy - of course he is talking about effects of

actions whereas you are talking of actions.

There are of course also religions which stress actions rather than

intentions and vv.

………………………

8) Of course quantum randomness doesn't imply free will but I’m

conjecturing that this philosophical bias against randomness might

have been fueled by a deeper bias against free will: if free will

exists, certainly randomness can exist in non-mind, and whereas the

reverse is not true, so he could deny free will and accept randomness,

nevertheless the bias against it is there.

I’m also trying to figure out why he was so opposed to the idea of

free will and why so opposed to randomness.

If he already believed in a source of order, impenetrable mystery etc,

why not just say that there’s randomness, it doesn’t destroy the

morality or the beauty, or the order or the meaning etc, all of which

exist at the macro level. And why not attach his morality to what he

called ’God’, why insist they are separate, and that morality resides

in the human sphere in some way?

Also, he says he’s against randomness and free will for a very poor

reason: since all processes in nature so far encountered are

determined: but actually this is true only at the macro level, and

only for phenomena outside the mind – since we know very little about

the mind and can’t say we know they are determines.

……………

Help With Templeton Grant Application?

Sun, Oct 23, 2005, 8:14 PM

to mskruger

Marv, hi.

Note: Remember, I'm interested in writing a book as I outlined it in

the

material I sent you, not a book on intelligent design etc, but of

course ID will figure in it somewhere.

The truth is I'm not necessarily writing it to make religion more

palatable to ateists but rather to get at truth in this area, and some

of what I say will not be palatable to very religious people, so I

hope it won't be problematic - and they saw the outline and all the

material and would be interested in publishing the proposed book;

given this, I suppose the grant people might feel the book is worth

writing.

Challenge: Even if they do, it is advisable that a grant proposal

explicitly answer the following (from their website):

strategic impact analysis

The need for the project

What gap it will fill

Who it will influnce (who most)

What is the specific intellectual justification for carrying out this

particular project

how it helps accomplish Sir JT's vision

I hate this stuff, I guess you do too, but grant people are likely

correct in forcing us to think it through in this way. Would you be

able to jot a few sentences in answer of the above re MY project (not

ID), petending that you really do think such a book would be

worthwhile! whatever comes to mind as you write your reply, not

writing a grant prosposal for me.

Besides investigating Einstein's beliefs and those of other

scientisits etc, I think of it as doing various things including

clarifying the true area of disagreement between atheists and

religionists or deists or Platonists, eg what people mean by 'god',

using EInstein as an example; how what people mean by religion and by

science can converge (especially if there will be a theory of mind,

and it will be a fundamental aspect of the universe, maybe affecting

evolution of the universe and life etc); how one can construct

minimalistic models of 'god' that satisfy this or that criteria

(platonic realms, revelation, karma in this life, reincarnation); what

are the disprovable claims of religion and which are not and which are

over-ambitious anti-religious claims of atheistic scientists rather

than 'science' etc.

But maybe this is overambitious, and for them I should start with a

book having just the first topic, more religion-friendly: Einstein;s

two 'mistakes' and their relation to his philosophies, topics which

are dealt with in the first two stories in Genesis.

Anyways.....

Thanks

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

Thanks (re "Einstein's Blunder" manuscript)

Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 7:42 AM

to Natalie

Natalie Lyons, hello.

Thanks again for your encouraging remarks regarding interest in the

book.

As you recommended, I looked at the foundation's very helpful web

site. I was very pleased and heartened by their stated willingness to

provide feedback on intial proposals and help in honing applications.

Thanks again,

Avi Rabinowitz

...

Gerald Holton <holton@physics.harvard.edu>

Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 6:37 PM

to me

Dear Dr. Rabinowitz,

I looked over all the long questions you sent me, and I regret to say

that I am not the person to ask them. Perhaps you can find somebody who

is giving a course on cosmology, etc., or try Professor Max Jammer at

Bar Ilan University; he recently wrote a good book on Einstein and

Religion, which addresses some of your interests.

Sincerely yours,

Gerald Holton

.....

Thanks and 2 requests

Fri, Oct 28, 2005, 1:03 AM

to Gerald

Dear Prof Holton,

Thanks for your reply.

I did indeed write to Prof Jammer.

Two requests: re:

1) referral to a philosopher;

2) your opinion on suitability for a book and grant (I need the

financial support).

1) My PhD is from NYU (physics) and I was until recently a visiting

scholar in the physics dept, and have had various discussions there

with researchers in the cosmology/field theory group on some of the

technical matters I referred to, including a recent discussion with

Prof Shucking (and I hope to discuss them with him further).

However, to make further progress I would like to begin to consult

with philosophers regarding these issues and would be interested to

know whom you feel would be qualified and interested in these topics

(especially in the NY area).

2) I am intending to put together a book as outlined in the material I

had originally sent you, and tentatively have a publisher, but as at

present I am without a position or other financial support I will be

seeking grant support from a foundation or via an appointment at a

university, eg in the category of philosophy of science (rather than

physics). You are a very prominent figure in this field, and have

written on topics related to the ones I am exploring, and will be

considered as an authority by university departments, publishers and

grant sources and so I feel it will be very important to determine the

following – especially as I cannot tell whether your referral to Prof

Jammer was due to your lack of interest in these questions - Do you

feel that the questions I raised are of interest? Do you regard them

as legitimate subjects for academic inquiry/research, and for a book?

If you were consulted in this matter by a grant source would you feel

comfortable stating that you felt this research, and the writing of

the book, might deserve some grant support?

Thank you very much,

Avi Rabinowitz

...

Gerald Holton <holton@physics.harvard.edu>

Wed, Oct 26, 2005, 6:37 PM

to me

Dear Dr. Rabinowitz,

I looked over all the long questions you sent me, and I regret to say

that I am not the person to ask them. Perhaps you can find somebody who

is giving a course on cosmology, etc., or try Professor Max Jammer at

Bar Ilan University; he recently wrote a good book on Einstein and

Religion, which addresses some of your interests.

Sincerely yours,

Gerald Holton

....

Physicist Requests Consultation with Philosophy Chair

Sat, Oct 29, 2005, 12:06 AM

to ss72

Prof Schiffer, hi.

I graduated from the NYU Physics dept with a PhD a while back, and was

recently a visiting scholar there during which time I gave an informal

course on General Relativity to undergrads.

I’m consulting with various faculty to clarify certain sissue related

to GR/cosmology but some of the topics of interest to me now are more

in the category of philosophy, and I’d very much like to come in for a

chat sometime.

Perhaps you have interest in the areas I've been thinking ab or if

not I’d greatly appreciate being directed to the most appropriate

person.

I’d also like to begin a real research project on these lines, and

would be interested in applying for grants, and so would like to

explore the possibility of working with someone in your dept on these

topics; as you are Chair of the dept I would like to discuss this

matter with you as well.

Thanks very much,

Avi

...

[Message clipped] View entire message

Stephen Schiffer <stephen.schiffer@nyu.edu>

Sat, Oct 29, 2005, 8:18 PM

to me

Avi, I'm afraid that the only one in our dept currently working in

philosophy of physics is Jill North, a post-doc who begins a regular

position at Yale in the fall, and so wouldn't suit your purposes.

Best, Stephen

....

Holton, PS, Einstein: Friday Nov 18 @ 1:00 PM

November 18, 2005 Friday 1:00 PM

Meyer 121

Other Physics Department Events (other)

World Year of Physics Symposium in Celebration of the 100th

Anniversary of Einstein's "Miracle Year" 1905

Schedule

• Gerald Holton "Relativity, Relativism, and their Opponents"
• Engelbert Schucking "Einstein's Apple"
• Rainer Weiss "The Search for Gravitational Waves"
• William Philips "Bose-Einstein Condensation and Cold Atoms"

Reception following talks

...

CREATIONISM IN CAMOUFLAGE Tuesday, 11/8, 8pm doors at 7:30pm

Tue, Nov 1, 2005, 10:00 PM

The Objectivist Club Presents: CREATIONISM IN CAMOUFLAGE Tuesday, 11/8, 8pm doors at 7:30pm Kimmel Center, Rosenthal Pavilion, 10th Floor

A talk with Dr. Keith Lockitch on the recent “Intelligent Design.”

Click on http://www.nyu.edu/clubs/objectivist for more information.

Available Wednesday, 11/2 at Ticket Central!

Tickets are FREE with NYU or Gov't issued ID.

Must have NYU ID to obtain ‘advance’ tickets at Ticket Central.

Limit 2 'advance' tickets per ID.

...

LeMaitre

Tue, Nov 8, 2005, 1:59 AM

to me

......

For Einstein Book re bb as pro-religious & Ein vs bb bec like creation

"The Day w/o Yesterday" J Farrell. re Lemaitre, bb EInstein deSittere

etc

p100: Quote of Ein to Lemaitre re bb idea too much like creation.

quoted from Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 8

(1967) 294-7. G McVittie obit notice ofr G Lemaitre.

p193-4: Lemaitre upset that Pope referred to bb theory as supportive

of creation idea bec it'd make Hoyle etc even more suspicious of his

motives.

Gamow pushed Alpher to make theory of bb and pushed Hoyle to write

counter paper re continuous creation (did Hoyle use THAT term!?).

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

Lemaître, Einstein and the Birth of Modern Cosmology:

from

Thunder's Mouth Press

Sample Chapter Podcast—Available for download.

(4:40; 3.2MB—add to your iPod or mp3 player)

Order book at Amazon.

Thunder’s Mouth Press / October 11, 2005 /

ISBN 1-56025-660-5 / 272 pp./ $24.95

Lemaître convinced Einstein’s generation that the universe was in fact

expanding according to the field equations Einstein himself laid out

in 1917. He is credited with first positing the idea of a temporal and

spatial origin to the cosmos, in a “primeval atom” theory of a

superdense cosmic nucleus from which the universe expanded—what later

became the Big Bang theory. He also developed the "dust" solution,

modifying the work of Karl Schwarzchild, which allowed later

astrophysicists to model black holes. He was in fact the first

physicist to combine training in Einstein’s theory with a rigorous

background in astronomy and astrophysics, allowing him to test, before

anyone else, the true cosmic implications of the general theory of

relativity.

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

A Day Without Yesterday': Georges Lemaitre & the Big Bang

In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges

Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of

seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein

stood up

applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory

explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” Lemaitre’s

theory, the idea that there was a burst of fireworks which marked the

beginning of time and space on “a day without yesterday”, was a

radical departure from prevailing scientific understandings, though it

has since come to be the most probable explanation for the origin of

the universe.

In the winter of 1998, two separate teams of astronomers in Berkeley,

California, made a similar, startling discovery. They were both

observing supernovae — exploding stars visible over great distances —

to see how fast the universe is expanding. In accordance with

prevailing scientific wisdom, the astronomers expected to find the

rate of expansion to be decreasing, Instead they found it to be

increasing — a discovery which has since “shaken astronomy to its

core” (Astronomy, October 1999).

This discovery would have come as no surprise to Georges Lemaitre

(1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed

the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the

universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning

embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst.

He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking

place on “a day without yesterday.”

After decades of struggle, other scientists came to accept the Big

Bang as fact. But while most scientists — including the mathematician

Stephen Hawking — predicted that gravity would eventually slow down

the expansion of the universe and make the universe fall back toward

its center, Lemaitre believed that the universe would keep expanding.

He argued that the Big Bang was a unique event, while other scientists

believed that the universe would shrink to the point of another Big

Bang, and so on. The observations made in Berkeley supported

Lemaitre’s contention that the Big Bang was in fact “a day without

yesterday.”

When Georges Lemaitre was born in Charleroi, Belgium, most scientists

thought that the universe was infinite in age and constant in its

general appearance. The work of Isaac Newton and James C. Maxwell

suggested an eternal universe. When Albert Einstein first published

his theory of relativity in 1916, it seemed to confirm that the

universe had gone on forever, stable and unchanging.

Lemaitre began his own scientific career at the College of Engineering

in Louvain in 1913. He was forced to leave after a year, however, to

serve in the Belgian artillery during World War I. When the war was

over, he entered Maison Saint Rombaut, a seminary of the Archdiocese

of Malines, where, in his leisure time, he read mathematics and

science. After his ordination in 1923, Lemaitre studied math and

science at Cambridge University, where one of his professors, Arthur

Eddington, was the director of the observatory.

For his research at Cambridge, Lemaitre reviewed the general theory of

relativity. As with Einstein’s calculations ten years earlier,

Lemaitre’s calculations showed that the universe had to be either

shrinking or expanding. But while Einstein imagined an unknown force —

a cosmological constant — which kept the world stable, Lemaitre

decided that the universe was expanding. He came to this conclusion

after observing the reddish glow, known as a red shift, surrounding

objects outside of our galaxy. If interpreted as a Doppler effect,

this shift in color meant that the galaxies were moving away from us.

Lemaitre published his calculations and his reasoning in Annales de la

Societe scientifique de Bruxelles in 1927. Few people took notice.

That same year he talked with Einstein in Brussels, but the latter,

unimpressed, said, “Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of

physics is abominable.”

It was Einstein’s own grasp of physics, however, that soon came under

fire. In 1929 Edwin Hubble’s systematic observations of other galaxies

confirmed the red shift. In England the Royal Astronomical Society

gathered to consider this seeming contradiction between visual

observation and the theory of relativity. Sir Arthur Eddington

volunteered to work out a solution. When Lemaitre read of these

proceedings, he sent Eddington a copy of his 1927 paper. The British

astronomer realized that Lemaitre had bridged the gap between

observation and theory. At Eddington’s suggestion, the Royal

Astronomical Society published an English translation of Lemaitre’s

paper in its Monthly Notices of March 1931.

Most scientists who read Lemaitre’s paper accepted that the universe

was expanding, at least in the present era, but they resisted the

implication that the universe had a beginning. They were used to the

idea that time had gone on forever. It seemed illogical that infinite

millions of years had passed before the universe came into existence.

Eddington himself wrote in the English journal Nature that the notion

of a beginning of the world was “repugnant.”

The Belgian priest responded to Eddington with a letter published in

Nature on May 9, 1931. Lemaitre suggested that the world had a

definite beginning in which all its matter and energy were

concentrated at one point:

If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and

time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they

would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum

had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this

suggestion is correct, the beginning of the world happened a little

before the beginning of space and time.

In January 1933, both Lemaitre and Einstein traveled to California for

a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his theory, Einstein

stood up, applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and

satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”

Duncan Aikman covered these seminars for the New York Times Magazine.

An article about Lemaitre appeared on February 19, 1933, and featured

a large photo of Einstein and Lemaitre standing side by side. The

caption read, “They have a profound respect and admiration for each

other.”

For his work, Lemaitre was inducted as a member of the Royal Academy

of Belgium. An international commission awarded him the Francqui

Prize. The archbishop of Malines, Cardinal Josef Van Roey, made

Lemaitre a canon of the cathedral in 1935. The next year Pope Pius XI

inducted Lemaitre into the Pontifical Academy of Science.

Despite this high praise, there were some problems with Lemaitre’s

theory. For one, Lemaitre’s calculated rate of expansion did not work

out. If the universe was expanding at a steady rate, the time it had

taken to cover its radius was too short to allow for the formation of

the stars and planets. Lemaitre solved this problem by expropriating

Einstein’s cosmological constant. Where Einstein had used it in an

attempt to keep the universe at a steady size, Lemaitre used it to

speed up the expansion of the universe over time.

Einstein did not take kindly to Lemaitre’s use of the cosmological

constant. He regarded the constant as the worst mistake of his career,

and he was upset by Lemaitre’s use of his super-galactic fudge factor.

After Arthur Eddington died in 1944, Cambridge University became a

center of opposition to Lemaitre’s theory of the Big Bang. In fact, it

was Fred Hoyle, an astronomer at Cambridge, who sarcastically coined

the term “Big Bang.” Hoyle and others favored an approach to the

history of the universe known as the “Steady State” in which hydrogen

atoms were continuously created and gradually coalesced into gas

clouds, which then formed stars.

But in 1964 there was a significant breakthrough that confirmed some

of Lemaitre’s theories. Workers at Bell Laboratories in New Jersey

were tinkering with a radio telescope when they discovered a

frustrating kind of microwave interference. It was equally strong

whether they pointed their telescope at the center of the galaxy or in

the opposite direction. What was more, it always had the same

wavelength and it always conveyed the same source temperature. This

accidental discovery required the passage of several months for its

importance to sink in. Eventually, it won Arno Penzias the Nobel Prize

in physics. This microwave interference came to be recognized as

cosmic background radiation, a remnant of the Big Bang. Lemaitre

received the good news while recovering from a heart attack in the

Hospital Saint Pierre at the University of Louvain. He died in Louvain

in 1966, at the age of seventy-one.

After his death, a consensus built in favor of Lemaitre’s burst of

fireworks. But doubts did persist: Did this event really happen on a

day without yesterday? Perhaps gravity could provide an alternative

explanation. Some theorized that gravity would slow down the expansion

of the universe and make it fall back toward its center, where there

would be a Big Crunch and another Big Bang. The Big Bang, therefore,

was not a unique event which marked the beginning of time but only

part of an infinite sequence of Big Bangs and Big Crunches.

When word of the 1998 Berkeley discovery that the universe is

expanding at an increasing rate first reached Stephen Hawking, he said

it was too preliminary to be taken seriously. Later, he changed his

mind. “I have now had more time to consider the observations, and they

look quite good,” he told Astronomy magazine (October 1999). “This led

me to reconsider my theoretical prejudices.”

Hawking was actually being modest. In the face of the scientific

turmoil caused by the supernovae results, he has adapted very quickly.

But the phrase “theoretical prejudices” makes one think of the

attitudes that hampered scientists seventy years ago. It took a

mathematician who also happened to be a Catholic priest to look at the

evidence with an open mind and create a model that worked.

Is there a paradox in this situation? Lemaitre did not think so.

Duncan Aikman of the New York Times spotlighted Lemaitre’s view in

1933: “‘There is no conflict between religion and science,’ Lemaitre

has been telling audiences over and over again in this country ....His

view is interesting and important not because he is a Catholic priest,

not because he is one of the leading mathematical physicists of our

time, but because he is both.”

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Midbon, Mark. “‘A Day Without Yesterday’: Georges Lemaitre & the Big

Bang.” Commonweal (March 24, 2000): 18-19.

Published with permission of Commonweal.

THE AUTHOR

Mark Midbon is a senior programmer/analyst at the University of

Wisconsin.

Copyright © 2000 Commonweal

...

Einstein Book. Intelligent Design. Science & Religion.

Fri, Nov 11, 2005, 8:34 AM

to me

Overstatements of the Scientific Credo

Objectivist lecture re Intelligent Design: "Creationism in

Camouflage" : Dr. Keith Lockitch

He said: "science is predicated on the non-existence of the

supernatural" and "there's no way to reconcile science with religion".

Both are untrue; they are also unfortunate, in that statmeents like

this antagonize fundamentalists and create the impression that there's

a

necessarily a war between science and religion and therefore may

stimulate efforts by fundamentalists to delegitimize science; also

since it is not

possible to disprove the existence of the supernatural, then this

statement seems to include non-provable beliefs within science, and so

makes it on par with religion and therefore can legitimize claims that

religion deserves equal time in the school biology curriculum.

Intelligent Design

Physics (science) is the programmatic effort to find naturalistic

explanations for objectively exisitng phenomena (objectively exisitng

phenomena = a chinese communist and a Hassidic American agree on it)

(without quibbling about each of these words). It does not imply that

there are phenomena which are not objectively existent or that science

cannot deal with them - it simply does not refer to such, only to

objectively exisitng phenomena. Science does not say that there are no

other explanations, or even that science provides the 'best'

explanation. It is simply the naturalistic explanation. Science does

not claim that a natrualistically-describable universe necessarily

emerged without God etc, it makes no statements about the reason

anything exists, nor about the possible existence of a God.

I feel that the issue of ID has nothing to do with religion, atheism

etc, it is a science issue. So far it has proven very useful to pursue

a programamtic search for naturalistic explanations, and there's a

confidence in most scientists that there is still much about the

univer and humanity which will be explained in this way if the effort

is made and so they wish to continue to explore. They feel that even

regarding problems which are intractable today, there is no way one

can today rule out the possibility that in the future one will suceed

in finding a naturalistic explanation, and so it makes sense to

continue to research these problems.

Some people believe that all objectively existing phenomena will

eventually be described naturalistically. Of course the human mind

migh be too limited for this but it is possible that we'll succeed in

augmenting our monds and then we'll find the answers. However, even if

eventually explanations are found for everything, this in no way

constitutes a proof of the non-existence of a creator etc and so the

issue of this or tha naturalistic explanation is not relevant to the

question of the existence of a creator.

Mind

Thoughts and feelings etc are not objectively measurable, but no one

doubts I have thoughts just because they can't measure them. One day

science will be able to measure the full neural correlate to every

thought, even if not perhaps the thought itself (mind body problem).

But whereas no one need doubt that I have the feeling of connectedness

to a supreme being, and if that all people describe that feeling in

that way, then the feeling can be considered even objectively

existent, but one can certainly not categorize the referenced supreme

being as objectively existent.

...

for Einstein Book: Subtitle, Intro, Query

Avi I Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu> Mon, Nov 21, 2005, 11:55 PM

The book isn't about Einstein, it's about Science and Religion, but it

uses Einstein's ideas as a jumping-off point (point of departure?).

• Physics, God and the Human Mind
• Einstein's God
• The Evolution of Adam and Eve
• God's Evolutionary Design
• God's Biology and Physics
• re Intelligent Design: no reason to abandon hope of rational explanation

...

For Prof Schucking Mon, Dec 5, 2005, 11:29 PM to Downing

Jacqueline, hi!

Prof Schucking asked me to find the appropriate address for Prof Holton

at Harvard University (he recently was here for that mini-conference on

Einstein), to write it on the package (containing a book) and ask you

to please mail it to him.

I e mailed Prof Holton to check which is the best address to sent it

to.

In the meantime, while waiting for his response, instead of carrying

the package around and perhaps damaging it or losing it I preferred to

leave it in with you - I hope that's ok.

Thanks very much,

Avi

.....

to Jacqueline Downing <jmd4@nyu.edu> Mon, Dec 5, 2005, 11:32 PM

Ok.

...

Prof. Schucking Requests your address

Mon, Dec 5, 2005, 11:09 PM

to Gerald

Prof Holton, hello

Prof. Schucking would like to mail a book to you. Is the below address

the most convenient for you?

Prof. Gerald Holton

Jefferson 358

17 Oxford Street

Cambridge, MA 02138

Thanks,

Avi

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

Gerald Holton <holton@physics.harvard.edu> Mon, Dec 5, 2005, 11:32 PM

to me

Thank you. The address is about right, but would be a bit safer if

after "Jefferson" one wrote " Physics Lab." GH

...

Templeton Grant Application

Fri, Jan 6, 2006, 10:48 PM

file "Templeton.ID..." starts "I was heartened.."

"SCIENCE AND RELIGION" by ALBERT EINSTEIN

Avi I Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu> Thu, Jul 14, 2005, 12:46 AM

to me

"SCIENCE AND RELIGION" by ALBERT EINSTEIN

It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we

understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring

together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of

this world into as thorough-going an association as possible.

But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of an answer

so easily. Instead of asking what religion is, I should prefer to ask

what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the

impression of being religious: a person who is religiously

enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his

ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and

is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he

clings because of their superpersonal value. It seems to me that what

is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth

of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness,

regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a

Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha

as a religious personality. Accordingly, a religious person is devout

in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of

those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are

capable of rational foundation. In this sense religion is the age-old

endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of

these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their

effect.

If one conceives of religion and science according to these

definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For

science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and

outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.

Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human

thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and

relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the

well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all

be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been

described.

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on

the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible.

This means an intervention of the part of religion into the sphere of

science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the

doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand,

representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at

fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of

scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition

to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

There are strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies between

religion and science. Though religion may be that which determines

the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest

sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it

has set up. But science can only be created by those who are

thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.

This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.

To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the world

of existence is comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a

genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation man be

expressed by an image:

SCIENCE WITHOUT RELIGION IS LAME, RELIGION WITHOUT SCIENCE IS BLIND.

One of the major reasons for the apparent conflict between religion

and science lies in the traditional concept of God. During the

youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy

created gods in man's own image, who were supposed to determine, or at

any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. People sought to alter

the disposition of God in their own favor by means of magic and

prayer. Today people still appeal to God in prayers and plead for the

fulfillment of their wishes.

Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an

omnipotent, just, omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord

mankind solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity

it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other

hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself.

If this Being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every

human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and

aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding

men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty

Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain

extent be passing judgment on Himself.

The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of

religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is

the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the

reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. The

fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the

temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision

and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of modern man,

even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those

laws. Of course, when the number of factors coming into play is too

large, scientific method may fail us. One need only think of the

weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is

impossible. Nevertheless, no one doubts that we are confronted with a

causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to

us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact

prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because

of an lack of order in nature.

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events

the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the

side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. To

be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural

events could never be refuted, in any real sense, by science, for this

doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific

knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must

have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is,

give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such

vast power in the hands of priests. After religious leaders refine

religion in accordance with its true purpose, they will surely

recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more

profound by scientific knowledge.The further the spiritual evolution

of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to

genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the

fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational

knowledge.

ReplyForward

Einstein book outline TEXT

Avi I Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>

Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 1:08 AM

To: air1@nyu.edu

People to ask for recommendation or for contacts

o AOJS

o Alan Sokal

o Thomas von Foerster

o Hans Koelsch

o Brian Greene

……..

Avi Rabinowitz

330 West 95th St.

NY NY 10025

(212) 749-2773 ; air1@nyu.edu

…….

For Templeton: Include list of BH and J Bible Q articles etc.

• Interconnection of Bible, Phil, Phys

• Relevance of creation/Eden account

• ‘Higher Critique’ of Einstein’s religious philosophy - ie

analyzing its internal (in)consistency

• re-establishing bb theory as a point in favor of Biblical

creation account rather than as in opposition to it.

• Possibility of Eventual Convergence of scientific/religious

belief

• Mind/body, FW etc: still much that is not yet dealt with by

physics – it is the most fundamental aspect of the PHYSICAL universe,

and as more is known possibly creation/eden will seem more relevant

(Branes are example of how the universe can be far more complex than

previously imagined)

………..

Description of the Book. In 250-500 words, summarize the book you are

proposing. What is the nature, focus, purpose, or argument of the

book? What is its thesis? Write the summary as if it were on the back

cover of the book convincing a potential reader to buy this book. What

unique contributions to the subject does this manuscript provide?

Audience.

Educated lay persons,

pastors to use in sermons, college.

potential for textbook adoption for courses in …..

Home schooling high school material, video course, or to be shown to

lay audiences

Competition:

• Einstein’’s religion: Max Jammer

• etc

Are there competing titles? If so, what are they? What does your book

offer that these competing titles do not? How will your book be

superior to or different from them?

Table of Contents. Give a tentative table of contents of the book by

chapters. Beneath each chapter title, give a brief outline of the

chapter and a brief summary of its contents. This summary should

explain the focus and development of the chapter and indicate how the

chapter advances the argument of the whole book.

Manuscript Length. 250 pages

Sample: 15-25 pages, perhaps of the introduction and the first

chapter, which illustrates your writing style. These should be pages

which are typical of the book as a whole, especially critical to your

argument, potentially controversial, or that give an overview of the

book.

……….

“Einstein’s Blunder and the God Who Plays Dice” (‘Einstein in Eden’)

Based on my highly-popular lectures.

Lectures on this topic to be delivered at upcoming AOJS conference Aug

05.

Query Letter: book/video of lectures (to accompany the book or to be

marketed separately)

Must address to appropriate person!!

Category: Non-Fiction: Non-Technical ; Physics/Philosophy/Religion

Market: Popular Science : Similar to ….( List 2 similar books which

sold well)

If I saw their name in an acknowledgment in another book etc mention

it - and that I loved that book, and that’s why I’m writing to THEM!

Author’s Relevant Qualifications:

o Phd Physics (NYU);

o Under contract with major publisher for technical text book in

general relativity/cosmology;

o Taught university courses in: General Relativity, Cosmology,

Astronomy, General Science;

o Published articles in physics journals;

o Published articles in science/religion journals;

o Delivered invited talks at science/religion conferences.

Video: My lecture style is energetic, engaging, dynamic and

passionate. I have some stage-acting experience, and much teaching

experience, and it shows.

Outline:

The mistakes of a genius can be very instructive. Einstein’s

extraordinary physical intuition led him to his greatest triumphs as

well as to his greatest (self-admitted) blunders. Twice he helped

initiate theories involving fundamental aspects of the universe, but

then mistakenly rejected some of their most important implications.

Both times, these rejections stemmed from his philosophical/religious

beliefs. Interestingly enough, the crux of both issues involve the

central ideas underlying the creation and Garden of Eden accounts in

Genesis – the truth of which Einstein rejected as a young man.

In the book, Einstein’s achievements, beliefs and errors are the

starting point and foil for an exploration of:

&#61656; the concepts of moral responsibility, creativity,

significance, meaning and purpose;

&#61656; cosmology and quantum physics;

&#61656; the philosophical and kabbalistic meaning of the creation and

Eden accounts in Genesis;

The book is non-polemic and does not present a particular religious

view. It is certainly not meant only for a Jewish audience, nor only

for religious people in general. Although it is true that if it were

to be marketed to a fundamentalist readership it could perhaps have

the subtitle: “How Einstein’s disbelief in the Bible (Genesis) led to

his Two Greatest Scientific Mistakes”, as it stands the book does not

purport to draw a causal link between the two, merely to point out the

parallels and use them as a starting point for discussion.

Unlike books attempting to….my book…. It is NOT about ‘reconciling

Genesis and Physics or the Big Bang theory etc”. However, the

underlying ‘tone’ is one of a lack of conflict between science and

religion/Bible.

My decision to publish this book (and video presentation) follow from

the great popularity of the lectures I gave at several venues,

including for several years at the annual conference of the

Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists (AOJS), a large proportion

of whose membership are health-science professionals. The AOJS has

agreed to publish and market this book, however I am seeking a

commercial publisher. The AOJS’s offer of help in marketing the book

will of course be welcomed.

Market:

o Year of Science/Einstein

o People who bought ……

o People interested in where Science/Religion Meet/Clash

o How religious beliefs influence scientific ideas…

o Many Bible-believing people in USA today

o Video for Home-schoolers (high school): especially religious.

People interested in these genres (specify) would be interested

particularly in MY book because it ties together many interesting

topics usually treated separately, such as Einstein’s beliefs and

Genesis, free will moral responsibility and the theory of the big

bang, Kabbalistic interpretations of the garden of Eden story and

existential loneliness.

Maybe mention Jason Aronson liked a ms with much the same material,

but needed editing etc.

Time-line: I have all the material, however it needs organizing.

I would welcome input from the publisher as to the level of the book,

whether to include more or less philosophical material …….

Outline of In-Depth Topics

Physics

&#61656; Cosmology

&#61656; Quantum Physics

&#61656; The Big Bang Theory

Philosophy

&#61656; Free will, determinism and randomness

&#61656; Meaning and Purpose

Einstein’s Views

Einstein’s philosophical/scientific views regarding:

&#61656; the eternity of the universe;

&#61656; randomness

&#61656; free will

Einstein’s philosophical/religious views regarding:

&#61656; The Bible

&#61656; Meaning/purpose

&#61656; Moral responsibility

&#61656; The human mind/the cosmic mind

&#61656; God’s omnipotence, human free will, and human moral

culpability.

The Bible

&#61656; The Creation account

&#61656; The meaning of the creation and Garden of Eden accounts;

&#61656; The interrelationship of creation and Garden of Eden

accounts.

&#61656; Relevant Kabbalistic interpretations of the creation and

Garden of Eden accounts.

A Critique of Einstein’s philosophical/religious views regarding God’s

omnipotence, human free will, and human moral culpability.

What does the universe have to be like to support FREE WILL,

creativity, meaning, purpose etc? [And E.’s statements re mind knowing

the universe etc ]

I look forward to your speedy response

Include home Phone # and e mail

………..

General discussion of how philosophical bias underlay scientific

discoveries, and how they hindered: mention classical and modern

physicists in this context.

o Literarymarketplace.com

o Literaryagent.com

o http://www.anotherealm.com/prededitors/

o absolutewrite.com

………

OUTLINE

“Einstein’s Blunder and the God Who Plays Dice”

An exploration of:

&#61656; the concepts of moral responsibility, creativity,

significance, meaning and purpose;

&#61656; cosmology and quantum physics;

&#61656; the creation and Eden accounts in Genesis;

using Einstein’s scientific errors, and his scientific achievements

and beliefs, as a starting point and foil.

Introduction:

The mistakes of a genius are very instructive.

Einstein’s physical intuition was incredible, and his ability

to apply it to a physical conception of nature was impeccable, but his

intuition led him astray in the end. On two basic issues Einstein made

tremendous scientific discoveries, but then mistakenly rejected some

of their most important implications. Both involved very fundamental

aspects of the universe.

Einstein’s ‘blunder’:

&#61656; Einstein’s equations predict the possibility/likelihood of the

expansion or contraction of spacetime (i.e. of the universe);

&#61656; This prediction would have led to astrophysical measurements

which would have shown that indeed the universe is expanding;

&#61656; The experimental verification of the expansion of the universe

would have made its prediction by Einstein’s theory one of the most

profound accomplishments of the human mind;

&#61656; Due to philosophical considerations Einstein rejected this

implication of his equations, and instead the expansion of the

universe was discovered by someone else, who found it without having

specifically looked for it.

&#61656; Einstein considered this his ‘greatest blunder’.

‘the god who plays dice’ error:

&#61656; Einstein could not accept the randomness inherent in quantum

physics: he said he didn’t believe in “a God who plays dice”;

&#61656; Einstein also pointed out that quantum physics, due to its

inherent randomness, implied a very unusual possibility (a type

of ‘action at a distance’);

&#61656; Due to philosophical considerations Einstein rejected (the

EPR) this possibility, and the randomness of quantum physics which

underlay it, and as a result he rejected the usual understanding of

quantum physics ;

&#61656; Because he rejected quantum physics he spent the last 30 years

of his life searching in vain for another theory;

&#61656; His acceptance of quantum physics would have allowed him to

spend this time usefully, and his prediction of this type of ‘action

at a distance’, which was later experimentally verified, could have

been one of the greatest scientific predictions ever.

It is interesting that there is a common thread running between these

two failures of his intuition: the commonality is ‘Acausality:

• Einstein could not accept that the universe had a beginning,

partially because this was causally problematic, and so he rejected

the conclusion that would have led him to the big bang theory,

• he could not accept the non-causality (non-determinism)

implied by randomness, and so he also rejected quantum physics as a

fundamental theory; he also rejected the notion of free will, since

this implies non-determinism as well.

It is interesting that these are precisely the central topics of the

the first prakim of breishis: the creation and Eden accounts:

&#61656; The creation account deals with the emergence into the

universe via a creation which had no physical cause;

&#61656; The Eden account tells of the emergence of free-willed choice –

true free will which allows for choices to be made which are neither

determined by prior cause, nor inherently random.

Note: A third example of acausality is creativity. We will examine

this later.

…………………..

Einstein in the Garden of Eden

It would seem that Einstein’s other blunder, that of rejecting quantum

indeterminism also stemmed from deeply held philosophical, even

religious, beliefs.

We saw that Einstein’s rejection of the biblical idea of creation

motivated him to reject the possibility of a dynamic to the universe,

and therefore led to his historic missed opportunity in predicting the

expansion of the universe and the idea of the big bang. We also saw

that his rejection of the idea of free will essentially underlay his

rejection of the possibility of indeterminism, and therefore underlay

his rejection of quantum physics, and thus led him to explore dead

alleys of research for the last twenty five years of his life.

What motivated Einstein’s rejection of the Biblical ideas of creation

and freedom of the will?

At an early age, Einstein learned the Biblical stories..........:

The Creation and Eden Accounts

These two areas of creation and free will involve a basic

discontinuity...acausal...and are also intimately related to the two

basic elements of the beginning of Genesis, the creation and Eden

accounts

We will find that indeed tracing the ideas... the parallelss with

these two accounts and their interrelationship....

Why Did Einstein Make These Mistaken Assumptions?

Einstein’s deeply seated belief that there is no inherent

randomness in nature was expressed by him as:

God does not play dice with the universe! Why did he believe

that there could not be any randomness in nature? What did he mean

by ‘God’?

Einstein could not believe that the universe (spacetime) could

change in time – why not?

It is interesting that on both counts Einstein’s scientific mistake

was motivated by his philosophical/ metaphysical/ religious views - or

the lack of them. And underlying both are essential concepts of the

first few chapters of Genesis – the creation account and the story of

the garden of Eden.

We will explore:

&#61656; Einstein’s philosophical views which led him to these

assumptions;

&#61656; the question of whether Einstein was aware of the content of

Genesis, and if so what his reaction was to it;

&#61656; the relation is between Einstein’s approach to the Bible and

to the scientific issues underlying his errors.

PART II: Einstein and the Big Bang (BIG BANG) theory

(Einstein’s Blunder)

Who Came Up With the Big Bang Theory Anyways?

We all know that Darwin came up with the evolutionary hypothesis which

radically changed the way science views humanity, and his name is

forever attached to it: it is called Darwin’s theory of evolution. We

may have learned about Copernicus and how he revolutionized our

picture of the cosmos when he showed that the earth was not the center

of the universe, but that instead it rotates about the sun, and this

paradigm shift is often called the Copernican revolution (a bit of a

pun there). And, of course Freud is credited with instigating the way

that moderns view their inner selves, and his name is attached to the

theory: it is referred to as Freudian psychology.

But what about the big bang theory which so radically changed the

scientific view of the universe as a whole? Who came up with it, and

why isn’t that person’s name attached to the theory? Surely it would

be prestigious to be the Joe of Joe’s Big Bang theory.

The reason that there is no name attached to the big bang theory is

that the theory was built up by a few people. However, we are not

being facetious when we say that the person who ought to have

discovered it was Einstein, and that really it should have

been “Einstein’s Big Bang Theory”, except that Einstein missed the

boat.

…………

We associate with the origins of great theories the names of

Mendel for genetics and Watson and Crick for DNA, Freud for

psychoanalysis, Pasteur….., Copernicus, Galilieo, Newton…., Einstein

revolutionized spacetime etc: but who is responsible for the theory of

the big bang?

How was the big bang theory developed?

Answer: It is implied by the expansion of the universe, and so

it should have been Einstein’s prediction.

………..

History of Cosmology

Aristotle: eternity of the universe.

Rambam (Guide): defense of Biblical creation idea against Aristotle’s

proof of the eternity of the universe.

Philosophers from Ancient times to 1920’s: Biblical idea of creation

is philosophically flawed. Since the essential idea of the beginning

of the Bible is that the universe was created rather than eternal,

this was a flaw in the Bible itself.

1920’s: The big bang theory implied a ‘beginning’ to the universe.

Initial Scientific Reaction to the Theory of the Big Bang

The theory of the big bang was considered ‘too religious’ since it

implied a ‘beginning’ to the universe; it seemd to close to Genesis

for it to be true science. (Hoyle gave the name big bang as a

pejorative description.)

Note: One can ask: why did they think it reminiscent of Genesis –

after all Genesis implies a creation in 6 days, and that the universe

was created only some thousands of years ago.

Answer: It was universally accepted that the essential point of the

creation account in Genesis is the idea of the emergence of the

universe into existence rather than its eternity. Philosophers and

scientists did not consider the fact that Genesis implies a creation

in 6 days, or that the creation took place a few thousand years ago

rather than a few billion years ago to be of essential significance to

the story.

Irony: some years later people began to claim the big bang theory is a

disproof of Genesis. And the essential reason for this claim is that

Genesis implies a creation in 6 days, and that the creation took place

a few thousand years ago rather than a few billion years ago! And n

return some religious authorities began to see as a religious threat

to the Bible a theory which was really its greatest support!

Somehow the anti-Biblical elements co-opted the religious

authorities and helped turn the tables, so that instead of being a

proof of the philosophical validity of the Bible, the big bang theory

became viewed as a central element in disproofs of the Bible!

……………………

This implication that the universe had a beginning rather than

being eternal was distastefully religious to many scientists: the big

bang theory was taken by many as a vindication of Biblical creation.

For some ironic reason it then turned into the classic alleged

disproof of breishis. I think that at first people correctly felt that

the major difference between breishis and science/philosophy was the

eternal/created debate that had lasted for thousands of years: Rambam

vs Aristotle. Once the novelty wore off, people looked at the details

and saw a discrepancy between the alleged 6,000 years and 15 billion

and that is when it began to be viewed as a conflict. This whole 6,000

year age is a red herring, probably more of a treife herring at

that.since it was Christian theologians who stressed the age more than

we did (eg Bishop Usher…).

…………………

Outline of In-Depth Topics

Physics

&#61656; Cosmology

&#61656; Quantum Physics

&#61656; The Big Bang Theory

Philosophy

&#61656; Free will, determinism and randomness

&#61656; Meaning and Purpose

Einstein’s Views

Einstein’s philosophical/scientific views regarding:

&#61656; the eternity of the universe;

&#61656; randomness

&#61656; free will

Einstein’s philosophical/religious views regarding:

&#61656; The Bible

&#61656; Meaning/purpose

&#61656; Moral responsibility

&#61656; The human mind/the cosmic mind

&#61656; God’s omnipotence, human free will, and human moral

culpability.

The Bible

&#61656; The Creation account

&#61656; The meaning of the creation and Garden of Eden accounts;

&#61656; The interrelationship of creation and Garden of Eden

accounts.

&#61656; Relevant Kabbalistic interpretations of the creation and

Garden of Eden accounts.

A Critique of Einstein’s philosophical/religious views regarding God’s

omnipotence, human free will, and human moral culpability.

What does the universe have to be like to support FREE WILL,

creativity, meaning, purpose etc? [And E.’s statements re mind knowing

the universe etc ]

………………….

Part III:

Einstein’s moral philosophy,

and the relationship of moral responsibility and free will.

Einstein Quotes

Einstein did not accept the idea of a personal God who can

intervene in history etc:

“I can if the worst comes to the worst, still realize the that

the Good Lord may have created a world in which there are no natural

laws, in short, a chaos. But that there should be statistical laws

with definite solutions, i.e. laws which compel the Good Lord to throw

the dice in each individual case, I find highly disagreeable” C414-

15

Me: so it is the intervention of God in the world which is his

major objection? Gods caring about events in the universe, and

involvement in them?

He needed the order to be implicit in Nature, so must be

determinism.

Determinism therefore no God: His belief in determinism and

fairness was so strong that he could not accept the idea of a personal

God :

(or vv? Ie no God therefore determinism?)

QUOTES

"What is the meaning of human life, or for that matter, of the life of

any creature? To know an answer to this question means to be

religious. You ask: Does it make sense then to pose this question. I

answer: The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow

creatures as meaningless is not merely unhappy but hardly fit for

life."

E.’s statements re the Fairness of God

"The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal

operation of the law of causation ...a God who rewards and punishes is

inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man’s actions are

determined by necessity, external or internal, so that in God’s eyes

he cannot be responsible any more than an inanimate object is

responsible for the motions it undergoes."

"[T]he idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just,

and omnibeneficient personal God....[has] decisive weaknesses...

[I]f this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence,

including every human action, every human thought, and every human

feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think

of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an

almighty Being? In giving out punishments and rewards he would to a

certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be

combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him"

Although he believed in moral responsibility, he did not

believe in free will:

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity

of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room

left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different

nature."

"We have penetrated far less deeply into the

regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply

enough to nevertheless sense at least the rule of fixed

necessity...."

Free Will: he felt we are puppets

" .... the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal

causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary as the

past." "everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by

forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect

as well as for the star. human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we

all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an

invisible piper”

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all

that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and

actions of human beings”

C 38/502 (NOTE: I can tag my significance of humanity stuff to

this)

Clark: E believed that if virtue pays, it is in this world, and it is

due to cause/effect. C38 AR: LIKE KARMA ETC

Of course even with q randomness we are still puppets since

our actions are determinism/random…

Had Einstein believed in FREE WILL:

he would not feel that randomness was impossible, or inconsistent with

the existence of an Order, since free will requires a multitude of

possibility plus a mechanism of choice of one among these many, and

randomness is simply the multitude of possibility with no particular

choice, so if free will could exist, it is conceivable that randomness

exists.

he would have not felt that the randomness of quantum physics

was a threat to the moral order, or to the underlying

comprehensibility of the universe;

Had Einstein believed in a personal God rather than being Spinozist:

So that God is not the same as NATURE but is rather the

designer of nature, and so there are elements beyond the human – if so

the lack of ‘reality’ as perceived by humans would perhaps have

bothered him less.

…………………………..

So again his intuition was incredible, and his ability to

apply it to a physical conception of nature was impeccable, but his

intuition led him astray in the end.

…………………

As opposed to the existential anguish of many philosophers

caused by their belief that the universe was meaningless

and 'uncaring', Einstein, felt secure and comforted in the knowledge

that there existed an Absolute, Objectively existent universe. [See

Schilpp's "Einstein".] To Einstein, whose beliefs were of the

Spinozistic pantheistic variety, such a universe was an acceptable

substitute for the Biblical Gd he had rejected. However,

the 'Copenhagen interpretation' of quantum physics - which postulates

that particles can be said to exist in the classical sense only when

their properties are being measured - must certainly have threatened

this picture of an Absolute and Objectively existent universe, and we

can thus perhaps infer that it therefore threatened the very existence

of Einstein's "god" as well. We can therefore speculate that this is

perhaps why Einstein fought so hard against the Copenhagen

interpretation. [See Schilpp.]

Einstein and Chumash

Einstein could not accept a personal God because he could not imagine

moral responsibility if that were the case, since all would be God’s

doing. The first prakim of breishis deal with the idea that there is a

creator, a personal God, that the universe has a beginning, and with

the free will and moral responsibility of humanity. EXPLAIN.

Was Einstein familiar with Chumash? (Insert QUOTES)

E’s father Hermann E considered ritual laws etc “an ancient

superstition” C25. Nevertheless:

• Yes, he studied Torah at a young age "I had attained a deep

religiosity by the age of twelve”. However Einstein writes that

later : Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached

the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be

true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking."

• This is not to say that if Einstein had been a member of the

AOJS he would have come up with SR, GR and the big bang theory and

quantum teleportation….. Of course if Einstein had taken the cr and

eden accounts as literally describing physical events he would

probably not have come up with any beautiful theories like the big

bang, or quantum teleportation either, however had he been exposed to

a more sophisticated understanding of Breishis perhaps he would have.

• What can be a more sophisticated reading of these accounts?

What DOES the creation account mean? Need mesorah, kabbalah etc. I

think the meaning has to do with free will, creation, creativity,

meaning, purpose, existential loneliness, problem of evil, the

unfairness of being created and having moral responsibility etc. SEE

MY BH article, and THE RETRO UNIVERSE.

……..

Note: It is interesting that Hawking also : in private

conversation with him, no free will and his well known no boundary

idea …..

……………

If we want to come up with a theory of the EXTERNAL universe,

what are the most fundamental….s,t,m,e.

Einstein related s+t, in SR 1-v2, invariants, like a rotating

stick (vector); all on x, or all on y, or some on x and some on y, but

length is invariant.same for three dimensions. Turns out that the same

is true for s t considered as a four-d space; some essential element

is invariant, the rest is arbitrary (the components).The

transformations of SR comeout of this picture.

Then m+e in e=m(c2). M/e transform into each other,

quantitatively they are equal (units)

• GR then related all four: curvature of spacetime= (e,m

density, pressure density)

• Turns out that the effect of this curvature, for particles

moving on geodesics, is observed as what we call ‘gravity’..

• What is also radically different from Newtonian grav is that

spacetime is dynamic, not simply the arena in which objects move or

gravity operates.

• In fact the Einstein equations for the universe as a whole

imply that spacetime is expanding. The metric dist bet two galaxies

increases (except for their motion).

• Implication: long ago the universe was smaller, a point.ie the

universe BEGAN at some time in the past – 15 billion yrs approx. ie a

creation! Finally science sides with Rambam against Aristotle:

• however Einstien’s intuition and belief system was against

this: he believed in the eternal Aristotelian view of the universe.

What did he do? He modified his equation! (In a legitimate way).

• Then Hubble via telescope observed the red shift: explain:

proof that the galaxies are separating, all from us – accepted

implication is that the universe is expanding. the big bang theory was

born. (I am leaving out the contributions of Friedmann, RW, Lemaitre,

Gamow etc)

• Had Einstein accepted the idea of creation as opposed to

eternity he would have been known as the discoverer of the big bang,

and he could have predicted the expansion of the universe, and this

would have been confirmed by telescope, making for a sectacular

confirmation of his equations! …… And that’s why there is no one

person known as the discoverer of the big bang!

• What an amazing thing that such an incredible concept can

arise from equations, stimulated by intuition and pursuit of symmetry

and beaty, and then find experimental confirmation, This is not Greek

speculation or dry experiment, but a combination. …. And he missed it

….Einstein called this his greatest blunder ……

Also: QUANTUM PHYSICS implies that one has to give up one of

either locality or reality (or contrafactualdefiniteness). Einstein

could not accept this, and believed – religiously one could say – that

the universe had to be comprehensible to humans, had to be

fundamentally ‘real’, and local. He had many discussions with Neils

Bohr on the subject of quantum physics and in the end Bohr always

defeated his arguments. He (with P+R) came up with a beautiful thought

experiment that he felt proved his point: however the EPR experiment

was carried out and proved him wrong! It is now a landmark experiment,

and the basis of all the ‘teleportation’ you may have heard about.

Einstein was very involved in the debate as to whether or not events

had a real existence when not being measured.

……….

E to Born: “You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete

law and order in a world which objectively exists...I firmly

believe...” C421

God/Creation

“I want to know how God created the universe. I am not interested in

this or that phenomenon....I want to know His thoughts, the rest are

details” C37

“what we (physicists) strive for is just to draw His lines after

Him..like retracing a geometrical figure..”C37

Einstein’s Blunder &#61663; Related by &#61664;

&#61663; Underlies both &#61664;

&#61663; Commonality&#61664; God Who Plays Dice

Cosmology

(An application of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity) E.

made great contributions

but missed important aspect Quantum Physics

(Einstein won Nobel prize for an essential aspect of this theory, but

rejected its fundamentals!)

Large scale q cosmology (strings)

Multi-d’l theory Beyond spacetime Small scale

Physics Static vs dynamic

Spacetime;

universal origin Cause-effect Determinism/randomness

Philosophy creation/eternity acausality FREE WILL

Religion creation account Juxtaposed in Genesis:

United in Kabbalah: Multi-d’l theory, beyond spacetime Eden

Metaphysics universe has purpose meaningful activity

Creativity thought: art/science etc decision (free

will choice): ethical/moral

Creation: Cosmology/

Einstein’s theory of GR God: Creation via Will

For a model of creation (or almost creation) and of free will it will

be necessary to have a theory combining GR and Quantum Physics.

Human: FREE WILL choice, creativity (image of God)

Free Will:

Quantum Physics:

book/chapter titles

Einstein in Eden (Einstein in Paradise)

Einstein as Mystic

“Genius and Genesis”:

Einstein and Biblical Belief

The Bible and Einstein

Biblical Creation and Einstein’s Blunder

Biblical Creation, Universal Expansion and Einstein’s Blunder

Einstein’s Worldview and the Bible

Einstein’s View of the Bible

God, Einstein, Feynman and Hawking

God and Einstein

Einstein’s God

Einstein’s God and Moses’ Book

Einstein’s Skepticism and Biblical Belief

Einstein and Moses, two Jewish Geniuses

Einstein, Feynman and Hawking meet Genesis

Einstein and Other Prophets

……………………………………………………………………………………….

E

I

T N

S

…………

File: Cosmic Religious Belief: Einstein etc Home PC

Einstein defends his use of the term religious to define himself, even

if he does not accept a personal god etc, because of his ethical

beliefs and his belief in the rationality of science:

Indirect quote:

‘Science determines what is, religion involves the determination of

what ought to be, the determination of ethical aims.’

Direct quote:

“I have found no better expression that ‘religious’ for confidence in

the rational nature of reality as accessible to human reason”

[From Ein letter to Solovine:9120-121

of Jammer Ein and Relig]

…………….

File: “Einstein’s Religion” : home PC

Einstein’s “Religion” is far from Naive

People tend to dismiss Einstein’s religious beliefs as na&#1503;ve, and

perhaps logically inconsistent. However they do deserve greater

scrutiny.

At first glance the Spinozic conception of God seems empty, as totally

synonymous with the laws of nature. However Einstein stated clearly

that he believed in the existence of a Mind ..... of the ultimate

unknowability of the universe, .... of the need for morality (but

separate from religion?) .......

He simply did not attribute human characteristics to this Mind, nor

did he believe in divine communication with humanity in the form of

speech etc, but he did feel that it was the ... inspiration .....

guided scientists to the great discoveries ....

What is inconsistent in this?

And if one would ask: well what relevance does this God have to our

lives, Einstein could answer that God does not exist to be of

relevance to us, nor should we expect to understand God’s motivations

or actions etc.

Einstein simply tells us facts about the universe, facts he knows via

contemplation, observation, deduction, experiment etc: that there is a

Cosmic Mind, that the universe is expanding etc - what the relevance

of all this is to humanity is not an issue, it may have no relevance,

it is simply true. And, if we do not like that morality has no

anchoring in Einstein’s religion, this is not a failure of that

religion. It is sophisticated and minimalistic, far from na&#1503;ve.

To him morality follows from logic and observation of human nature (or

at least of his analysis of his own nature!) (we can check to see if

this belief is consistent).

His religion is minimalistic in the extreme. It is religion because it

involves unproven beliefs about the universe etc, it involves the

belief in a God-like entity....

His religion does not involve morality, ritual, revelation (other than

the basic revelation of the existence of the Cosmic Mind) etc, but is

no less a religion for all that.

He had his goals and drive in life, and his convictions, without

connection directly from his religion; for most people their religion

gives them these; for us they are seemingly necessarily connected,

whereas for him they seemed not to be, at least according to his

claims. One suspects however that his feeling for the dignity of life

etc was affected by his religious beliefs.

Perhaps we feel that he should have tied one to the other, and

determined what religious beliefs are implied by these humanistic

beliefs; if it is true that life is precious etc then what does this

necessarily imply about the universe or the cosmic Mind or its

connection to human minds ..... (i.e. his religion may be

sophisticated but too minimalistic - it is perhaps missing something

and therefore inconsistent.)

File: “Einstein det morality, creativity”

Truth can exist only if there is creativity, i.e. no full determinism.

In a fully deterministic universe when people discuss whether there is

a true morality etc, whether one ‘ought’ be ‘good’ etc, there is no

independent meaning to all this - the entire discussion is

preprogrammed into the universe, into the minds of the discussants. As

well as for this written discussion.

What would it mean to ask if it were ‘true’ that there is or is not

meaning to morality? Even the conviction of truth or untruth is a

feeling determined by the universe.

There can be true meaning to independent truth only if there is true

acausal creativity, so that the mind can arrive at concepts

independent of the preprogramming of the universe.

However of course even in a totally determined universe the feeling

can arise in a mind that there IS indeed meaning to independent truth.

And the counter-arguments to the effect that this is simply a

preprogrammed feeling are themselves subject to the same charge - if

the universe has programmed someone to present this challenge.

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

Einstein stated that one ‘ought’ be good, while he at the same time he

insisted that the universe is totally deterministic, and that there

cannot be a God who punishes for infractions since people have no

choice in their actions. Why ought one to be good - one either is or

one is not. And if one wants to be good it is because this is

programmed into one by the universe.

And if Einstein wanted to educate people to be good, then he desired

this because he was programmed to be like that.

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

If we are part of this determined universe then there is no objective

meaning to our opinion of whether there is meaning ..... and if we

have independent opinios, i.e. we have creative thought, then we are

outside that deterministic universe, but what does it mean to have two

universes, with observers from one looking at inhabitants of the other?

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

E said: there cannot be a God who punishes for infractions since

people have no choice in their actions.

First of all this is not a proof, maybe God does punish even if we

have no choice, and maybe God is bound by a different concept of

justice and can do so, or God is not just.

So Einstein was saying that no God can exist who is not bound by

Einstein’s concept of justice.

via Natalie Lyons of Templeton Press: Physicist requesting help with grant application

Wed, Jan 11, 2006, 6:38 AM

to scienceandreligion

I will very greatly appreciate any assistance you can provide.

The attached file "Templeton Proto-Application" should be read first;

the projects mentioned there are explained in more detail in the other

two files.

Thank you so much,

Dr Avi Rabinowitz

Grant Application: Received? Thanks!

Tue, Jan 17, 2006, 9:31 AM

to scienceandreligion

Hi.

I sent in a proto grant application a few days ago in order to solicit

comments which would help me hone it - I would greatly appreciate

knowing whether or not it was received.

Thanks so much,

Dr Avi Rabinowitz

...

Your reply re my "Einstein's Blunder" manuscript

Tue, Jan 24, 2006, 1:05 AM

to Natalie

Natalie Lyons

Editorial Assistant

Templeton Foundation Press

Hi!

Thanks very much for your kind and encouraging words about the project.

Following the acquisitions board's suggestion you relayed to me, I

turned to the Foundation for support. Specifically, I e mailed a draft

proposal (three brief files) to scienceandreligion@templeton.org : see

attached file "Templeton ProtoApplication", and the two other files

with explicit descriptions of the two projects.

As you can see I included some of our corrrespondence in the proposal.

I later sent an e mail requesting confirmation of receipt, but didn't

receive any.

I would be very grateful for your assistance in this matter - could I

perhaps ask you to forward the files to the appropriate address?

Thank you very much,

Dr Avi Rabinowitz

...

Templeton Grant information, and partial outline of the book(s)

Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 11:36 PM

to elschucking, schucking, me

Prof Schucking, hi.

Thank you so much for offering to write a letter for my grant

application.

Attached are two files: one is some information culled from the

Templeton website, and the other is a description of non-technical

contents of the proposed book(s) - I didn't write up the aspects which

we discussed dealing with what Einstein assumed and why, questions I

had addressed to Holton etc.

The proposed book is heavily 'religious', and somewhat philosophical,

rather than scholarly scientific. I'd certainly welcome your advice

about the tone and content.

I had written to The Templeton Press in the summer regarding

publishing the book, and enclosed an outline similar to the one I'm

attaching, and in response they wrote the two e mails whose text I

enclosed below.

I'll call you to follow up on this and to set up an appointment.

Thanks again so much,

Abe/Avi

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

The text of two Templeton Press e mails to me:

"Dear Dr. Rabinowitz,

After an initial review of your book proposal for Einstein's Blunder

and the God Who Plays Dice, the acquisitions board would like to

review your

book's table of contents and sample chapters. On first look, this

book's subject matter aligns well with the Press's mission, and we

would like

to send it out for review.

However, I must clarify the advance that you mention in your proposal,

and whether or not this book proposal is contingent upon a large one.

We would be happy to continue to review your interesting book, and if

you could send us additional materials including an explanation

detailing what support you are requesting, we can continue to evaluate

your book for publication by Templeton Foundation Press.

........

Dear Dr. Rabinowitz,

Upon reviewing your proposal, the acquisitions board recommended that

I refer you to the John Templeton Foundation in regards to seeking a

grant to support your work. While the Press would happily consider

publishing this book upon its completion, we do not grant money to

individuals to work on book projects. To find out more information

about the grant process at the John Templeton Foundation visit its Web

site at

www.templeton.org.

Best of luck to you as you work on this very interesting project.

Best regards,

Natalie Lyons

Editorial Assistant

Templeton Foundation Press

Tue, Feb 21, 2006, 11:36 PM

to elschucking, schucking, me

Prof Schucking, hi.

Thank you so much for offering to write a letter for my grant

application.

Attached are two files: one is some information culled from the

Templeton website, and the other is a description of non-technical

contents of the proposed book(s) - I didn't write up the aspects which

we discussed dealing with what Einstein assumed and why, questions I

had addressed to Holton etc.

The proposed book is heavily 'religious', and somewhat philosophical,

rather than scholarly scientific. I'd certainly welcome your advice

about the tone and content.

I had written to The Templeton Press in the summer regarding

publishing the book, and enclosed an outline similar to the one I'm

attaching, and in response they wrote the two e mails whose text I

enclosed below.

I'll call you to follow up on this and to set up an appointment.

Thanks again so much,

Abe/Avi

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

The text of two Templeton Press e mails to me:

"Dear Dr. Rabinowitz,

After an initial review of your book proposal for Einstein's Blunder

and the God Who Plays Dice, the acquisitions board would like to

review your

book's table of contents and sample chapters. On first look, this

book's subject matter aligns well with the Press's mission, and we

would like

to send it out for review.

However, I must clarify the advance that you mention in your proposal,

and whether or not this book proposal is contingent upon a large one.

We would be happy to continue to review your interesting book, and if

you could send us additional materials including an explanation

detailing what support you are requesting, we can continue to evaluate

your book for publication by Templeton Foundation Press.

........

Dear Dr. Rabinowitz,

Upon reviewing your proposal, the acquisitions board recommended that

I refer you to the John Templeton Foundation in regards to seeking a

grant to support your work. While the Press would happily consider

publishing this book upon its completion, we do not grant money to

individuals to work on book projects. To find out more information

about the grant process at the John Templeton Foundation visit its Web

site at

www.templeton.org.

Best of luck to you as you work on this very interesting project.

Best regards,

Natalie Lyons

Editorial Assistant

Templeton Foundation Press

Einstein project Templeton application to AOJS etc

Thu, Mar 16, 2006, 12:43 AM

to me

send copy of grant application Templeton to yossi and x bennet and rav

nachman, yossie will print and send (mail) it.

Rav Nachman can read EInstein ms and recommend re what to include, the

order of material etc, not line editing.

Send talking points in e mail re Joel

I'll send to T press, then commercial press, hopefully they'll provide

editorial help

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

Add to proto-application

This application is being submitted by the AOJS, sci/relig....etc...

Prof E L Schucking is a prominent specialist in GR..Einstein papers

project etc, you can write to him to confirm that he feels I can do

this project.....he will be happy to write a note in response to you.

I expect to consult with Prof Jammer, Prof x....

......

to Rav Nachman, Elliot, Nissan etc, the rest of the board

hi

I'm interested in applying to the Templeton foundation for a grant to

help support writing the Einstein Blunder book. The professor with

whom I did my Phd at NYU am with whom I'm pursuing some research now

has some interest in aspects of the subject matter and will write some

letter in support of the project. He's a world-renowned expert in

general relativity and worked as an editor on the Einstein papers, and

I expect that his name in connection with the project will help.

The subject matter of the book is not really physics, and there's no

original physics research involved, nor would it even be

considered 'academic' in most secular universities and so I don't

anticipate applying for the grant within the rubric of a university.

However having this professor's name attached to the project in some

way will lend it a measure of university-affiliated support.

The Foundation generally funds people and projects affiliated with

universities or organizations, rather than individuals, and the AOJS

as an organization devoted to religion and science is certainly a

logical and appropriate choice, and the application should perhaps be

from the AOJS rather than from myself. Rabbi Cohen ok'ed that and

asked that I send a copy of the application to you and to him, and

mentioned that the AOJS can then send it in to the Foundation.

As a first step however, I'd like to solicit assistance in the actual

application for the grant. The Foundation web site states that it is

open to receiving drafts of applications and then commenting on them

in order to help the applicants with the process. I've written

material which can serve as a proto-application, and perhaps if it was

submitted via the AOJS the process can begin.

I'm sending in the material now so that you all can take a look at it,

but I would wait with the initial submission until the professor's

letter is in.

Thanks,

Avi

Publishers for Einstein Blunder book

• AOJS
• via TzviHirsh Vinogradov: Bnei Noach
• Templeton foundation

...

Your manuscript submission

Natalie Lyons <nlyons@templetonpress.org>

Tue, Jul 26, 2005, 8:56 PM

to me

Dear Dr. Rabinowitz,

After an initial review of your book proposal for Einstein's Blunder and

the God Who Plays Dice, the acquisitions board would like to review your

book's table of contents and sample chapters. On first look, this book's

subject matter aligns well with the Press's mission, and we would like

to send it out for review. However, I must clarify the advance that you

mention in your proposal, and whether or not this book proposal is

contingent upon a large one.

We would be happy to continue to review your interesting book, and if

you could send us additional materials including an explanation

detailing what support you are requesting, we can continue to evaluate

your book for publication by Templeton Foundation Press.

Best regards,

Natalie Lyons

Editorial Assistant

Templeton Foundation Press

300 Conshohocken State Road, Suite 550

West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19426

Phone: 484-531-8380

Fax: 484-531-8382

nlyons@templetonpress.org

www.templetonpress.org

...

Avi I Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>

Wed, Jul 27, 2005, 2:01 AM

to Natalie

Natalie Lyons,

Editorial Assistant

Thank you so much for your very encouraging reply.

I will be happy to put together the material you requested, and to

reply in detail to your questions.

Thanks again,

Avi Rabinowitz

...

Re: Your reply re my "Einstein's Blunder" manuscript

Einstein Blunder Book. ms, publishers, AOJS etc

x

Avi I Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>

Thu, Sep 29, 2005, 12:14 AM

to Natalie

Natalie Lyons, hi!

Thanks again for your encouraging reply.

I have a tentative list of topics and some of the written material

meant for the book, however putting together actual chapters will take

some time, and unfortunately it is hard to continue this project in a

serious manner without any support.

My appointment for physics research has expired, I'm finishing the

text book I was working on (introduction to general relativity) and

I'm looking to start a new project/new position and I'd like it to be

this one, but there are very few sources which would support work of

this kind: it's not formal philosophy, it's not physics, and while the

connection to religion can scare off most scientific grant sources,

the open-minded approach to religion will scare off most religious

sources.

I've been working on this (and related research in cosmology) for a

few months since I wrote to you, it is very time and energy consuming,

and I can see that writing this book will have to be instead of a

position in physics research or teaching, not as a side-line to one.

And so, I cannot wait until sample chapters are ready in order to

apply for support, since I would require support in order to spend the

requisite time to begin putting all this together into actual

chapters, including sample chapters. Therefore, I'd like in the

meantime to submit some of what I already have.

If the acquisitions board is sufficiently interested in the material,

I'd wish to discuss - with the appropriate persons - the issue of

support, eg a grant, in order to dedicate myself full-time to: the

research and concentrated thinking required for this project;

discussions with physicist colleagues, philosophers, and theologians

of all the issues involved; the actual writing, including fleshing out

all the sketchy ideas in the outlines I'm sending.

I'm attaching several files:

1) "Einstein Book, overview, topics, intro, discussions": this file

will provide a good idea of where I'm headed with all this, though I

recognize that covering all these topics may require enough material

for a series of books. The beginning of the file is clearer than the

later parts, which are more like notes than an overview.

2) "Edited Web Einstein quotes": my brief (telegraphic) notes/comments

on some Einstein quotes. These may be in the most part be too

telegraphic to be understood by readers other than myself - though I

hope your experts will be able to glean from them the direction I am

takling. They are initial elements of my commentary on relevant

Einstein quotes, and will, when fleshed out, form part of the book.

3) "Retro(active) Un(iverse) material for Einstein book": the table of

contents, Introduction and Epilogue of a manuscript I wrote several

years ago some of whose contents I wish to cannibalize for this book

(though I'd like to publish that mansucript as well).

I certainly am open to - and indeed welcome - editorial input

regarding the scope of the book, the tone, the level, as well as

regarding its approach, and I would also be very happy to meet with

the relevant persons in order to discuss this matter further.

Thanks so much,

Avi

SEE THREE FILES BELOW WHICH WERE ATTACHED TO THIS EMAIL

requesting confirmation of receipt of previous e mail

Fri, Oct 7, 2005, 5:20 AM

to Natalie

Hi!

Sorry to trouble you, I just wanted to know whether or not you

received my e mail sent Wednesday Sept 28, with several attached files.

Thanks so much,

Avi

...

Natalie Lyons <nlyons@templetonpress.org>

Fri, Oct 7, 2005, 3:35 PM

to me

Dear Avi,

I apologize for not getting back to you. Yes, I received your e-mail and

the acquisitions board will be reviewing the documents you sent to us

later in the month.

Best regards,

Natalie Lyons

....

RE: Your reply re my "Einstein's Blunder" manuscript

Natalie Lyons <nlyons@templetonpress.org>

Thu, Oct 20, 2005, 8:25 PM

Dear Dr. Rabinowitz,

Upon reviewing your proposal, the acquisitions board recommended that I

refer you to the John Templeton Foundation in regards to seeking a grant

to support your work. While the Press would happily consider publishing

this book upon its completion, we do not grant money to individuals to

work on book projects. To find out more information about the grant

process at the John Templeton Foundation visit its Web site at

www.templeton.org.

Best of luck to you as you work on this very interesting project.

Best regards,

Natalie Lyons

Editorial Assistant

Templeton Foundation Press

PS meeting Oct 05 re my Ein book

Thu, Oct 20, 2005, 2:16 AM

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.

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

e mail to Marvin Kruger re EInstein Book and Templeton

Thu, Oct 20, 2005, 2:18 AM

to me

Marv, hi!

Long time no etc.

Are you in NY at all nowadays?

I'd love to speak to you re this project I'm working on: I spoke on

this topic several times at the Assoc Orth Jewish Scientists (AOJS)

annula convention several times, and this year did so again after they

agreed to publish the book I'm preparing on the subject.

However I also recently sent some material to the Tempelton Press and

I told them I'm looking for grant support not just a publisher, they

expressed interest and wanted to see sample chapters (see their

attached e mail), but I don't have those yet so I sent some files of

preliminary material, see attached (the 'Retro Un' file is not as

relevant).

I'm sure you have very interesting things to say about this topic.

BTW I read Jammer, its a much different approach than mine. And I read

Goldman, but I don;t understand what he's talking about, I wrote him a

few years back and didn;t understand his reply.

My reply to the Templeton editorial person - see attached - was

probably a bit hysterical, I should have made it more reserved, but I

did want to convey a sense of immediate need...I hope it doens't put

them off.

Anyways, your comments are always insightful and much appreciated.

Maybe reply by e mail at first and then we can talk on the phone.

There's a conference at NY next month re EInstein, Gerald Holton and

Schucking starring, befor eknowing this I had written to Holton becaue

of his article re 'EInstein's second paradise': he said he'd look my

stuff over and comment but it'll take a while. Now that I saw that

Schucking has an interest in EInstein stuff not pat of GR I spoke to

him by phone re my ideas g and we're meeting on Monday afternoon re

this - first time I spoke to him about stuff not directly related to

GR!

Thanks a lot,

hope to see you sometime,

Abie/Avi

...

Re: Spinoza/Einstein: 5 questions: can we talk on the phone?

Einstein Blunder Book. ms, publishers, AOJS etc

x

Avi I Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>

Thu, Oct 20, 2005, 7:44 AM

to Gerald

Prof Holton, hi

>in this extreme overload-year I won't get to it for some time.

Thanks for agreeing to look at the material. I look forward to seeing

you at NYU. In the meantime I can boil it down to a few questions: if

verbal answers are preferable, we can talk on the phone.

1) a) In your opinion did Einstein truly believe in an extra-

human "source of order" 'infinite mystery' which the human mind

detects? Or could one say the following: Einstein's rational brain

told him his belief in "source of order" etc was simply programmed

into his brain via evolutionary biology and did not reflect a physical

actuality and so whereas he deeply believed it, he did not take the

source of order etc seriously as an existent [ie it is not 'the source

of order' which has to be accounted for by physics, but rather it is

only the belief in that source of order which has to be accounted for,

and that by psychology, evolution etc, not physics].

b)If Einstein believed there was indeed some actual source of order,

and it was sufficiently physical that the human brain could detect it,

would it not be necessary to take this into account in a truly

complete theory of cosmology (and of the human brain)? (what

implications would this have re the mind/body issue?)

2) After the discovery of the expansion of the universe did Einstein

speak exlicitly about changing his philosophical views as a result [eg

a Spinozist view re the eternity of the universe]?

3) One would certainly consider cosmology as a fundamental issue of

science to be investigated in its own right and deserving a serious

consistent treatment but it seems almost as though Einstein saw it

only as a particular solution of his equations: do you feel this is

so? if yes, Why?

[Could it be that he felt that without a unified field theory he

wouldn't be able to come up with a complete cosmological theory? Or

did he abandon the topic due to psychological frustration that he had

so seriously 'blundered'?]

4)If the universe is static, then due to Machian arguments Einstein

felt the spatially-closed universe was preferable to one which is flat

at infinity. However it's unclear why Einstein assumed the universe is

static: because he assumed there's no static solution or because he

preferred a non-static one for philosophical reasons, or because he

felt the stars' observed velocity was too small for a dynamic

universe.

If he put a cosmological constant into his equation in order that

there be a static solution, would this not imply that he knew there

was a non-static solution to the equations without the c.c.? ie

perhaps the Friedmann solution? If so, even if he felt the

observational evidence or philosophical reasons militated against it,

why would he not even mention it - would not the existence of such a

solution be of scientific importance?

5) Would you agree that the common denominator between Einstein's two

significant 'mistakes' are the issue of non-causality (whatever the

correct term): he rejected free will and believed in determinism and

so rejected quantum indeterminism; he rejected cosmological non-

staticity which implies 'creation', which is a seemingly non-

causal 'beginning', and preferred instead the eternal universe.

(Interestingly these two philosophical topics, creation and free will,

are dealt with in the first two stories in Genesis, with which he must

have been quite familiar)

Thank you very much

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

Dr. Avi Rabinowitz

(212) 749-2773

----- Original Message -----

From: Natalie Lyons <nlyons@templetonpress.org>

Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:56 pm

Subject: Your manuscript submission

> Dear Dr. Rabinowitz,

>

> After an initial review of your book proposal for Einstein's

> Blunder and

> the God Who Plays Dice, the acquisitions board would like to

> review your

> book's table of contents and sample chapters. On first look, this

> book'ssubject matter aligns well with the Press's mission, and we

> would like

> to send it out for review. However, I must clarify the advance

> that you

> mention in your proposal, and whether or not this book proposal is

> contingent upon a large one.

>

> We would be happy to continue to review your interesting book, and if

> you could send us additional materials including an explanation

> detailing what support you are requesting, we can continue to

evaluate

> your book for publication by Templeton Foundation Press.

>

> Best regards,

>

> Natalie Lyons

>

> Editorial Assistant

> Templeton Foundation Press

> 300 Conshohocken State Road, Suite 550

> West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19426

> Phone: 484-531-8380

> Fax: 484-531-8382

> nlyons@templetonpress.org

> www.templetonpress.org

from:

Avi I Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>

to:

shmukler@osresearchllc.com

date:

Aug 6, 2005, 2:24 AM

subject:

eager to hear comments

mailed-by:

nyu.edu

eager to hear comments

Sat, Aug 6, 2005, 2:24 AM

to shmukler

Moshe, hi.

Have you had a chance to read any more?

Thanks,

Shabbat shalom

Wed, Jun 22, 2005, 1:23 AM

• Ask Schucking family if they have interest since it quotes PS, and I can also insert audio of discussions with him.
• Bohm foudation if I find the audiotape.
• Aish? RAJE? Einstein foundations?
• .....
• Jewish Lights Publishing
• Princeton University Press
• HarperCollins Publishers
• Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group
• Harper San Francisco Edition Description: HARPERCOLL
• Basic Books
• HarperCollins Publishers
• Bantam Books, Incorporated
• The Random House Publishing Group
• Penguin Group (USA)
• Dell Publishing Company, Incorporated
• Avalon Publishing Group

...

The material was delivered as a lecture on several occasions:

video uploaded from my camera, which was not at a good angle, and which lost power towards the end, and in any case there was no time to give the entire lecture, so the second half of this video is taken from the lecture in Odesa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lrzsKHHuLw&feature=youtu.be

......

the video of the lecture near Odesa. Today, there was no time do do everything, so this part 9:50-13:30 was done in one minute, and 13:30-end was partly not said.

The other material is here: Bible's Creation account isn't about "The Beginning" so no conflict with science.Russian&Hebrew by avirab

8:02

What's Shabbat if God created the universe via a big bang,not in 6 days? Russian &Hebrew

The videos are art of my "Science and Religion" playlist (my physics lectures are on different playlists, for example this one on general relativity).

One video has been posted on Youtube, and I hope to post the rest soon. It can be accessed by googling the deliberately-provocative title "scientists understand Genesis, theologians don't" or by going to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KtNLshCf5A .

Video on Youtube of the Stern/YU Science club lecture "Einstein's blunder, the big bang and Torah"

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

In Russian

Preview YouTube video Ошибка Эйнштейна и Большого Взрыва; ирония: физиков поняли Библию больше, чем теологов

Ошибка Эйнштейна и Большого Взрыва; ирония: физиков поняли Библию больше, чем теологов

Preview YouTube video Ошибка Эйнштейна, и Большого Взрыва. (Немного об общей теории относительности,)

Ошибка Эйнштейна, и Большого Взрыва. (Немного об общей теории относительности,)

Preview YouTube video Библейская история творения не о «начале», поэтому нет конфликта с наукой. Русский и иврит

Библейская история творения не о «начале», поэтому нет конфликта с наукой. Русский и иврит

Preview YouTube video Что такое Шаббат, если Бог создал Вселенную через большой взрыв, а не через 6 дней? Русский и иврит

Что такое Шаббат, если Бог создал Вселенную через большой взрыв, а не через 6 дней? Русский и иврит

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

I inserted on this website files from emails with subject heading including the word "Blunder" or "Einstein's Blunder"

• Einstein's Blunder. Cosmological Constant. PS.Fwd: PS meeting transcript: Einstein, c.c., Spinoza: attached file: "Taped meeting with PS Aug '05
• Einstein Blunder material
• Einstein blunder GR bookF H LeM

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

Many emails with attached files have subject heading with "Einstein" or "Einstein's" but without "Blunder". See lists of all these emails in the inserted file below:

Einstein Blunder excerpts from "Events Israel '07" (Also re FW book etc, some of which might be meshed into the Einstein book)

During the Second World War, Gamow worked on the atom bomb project. After the war, he turned to Physics and began to wonder about the origin of elements in the early Universe.

An Infant Universe

It was while trying to answer this question, Gamow reasoned that first there must have been an infant Universe. Next, he said that this baby Universe must have been very, very hot. After this he argued that this was the ideal setting for the cosmic cooking of elements; that was Gamow’s line of reasoning. All this happened around 1948 or so.

It was only after Gamow’s seminal work that physicists began to accept the notion that the Universe did have a definite birth. Later, thanks to a casual remark by the British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, the term Big Bang gained currency and came to be associated with the primordial event that signified the birth of the Physical Universe. By the way, Hoyle never believed in the Big Bang himself, and he, in fact, introduced the term somewhat in a sarcastic vein in a popular talk on Science over the BBC; but the name has stuck, and the belief in the concept too!

……..

Marketing the book:

web sites re Bohm and re Wheeler, Leibowitch etc should be notified that the book has previously unpublished material of theirs.

Websites re Einstein should have blurbs enticing readers.

…………

Possible order of material in the book

• The most catchy part may be the material re Einstein's Blunder, and so the book can begin with this. then perhaps some of the conversations with Bohm, Hawking etc.
• Then material re reductionism, determinism etc and what I mean by true FW. Then re meaning/purpose/morality..
• Then my material from the end of the B'ohr Hatorah Free Will article re collapse of wave function and free will and origin of universe.
• Then my critique/analysis of Einstein quotes and the quotes from various books.
• Then my more technical speculations re FW.

.………..

• Listen to tape of Bohm conversation, and add material to notes as relevant.
• Type conversation notes with Yeshayahu Leibowitch and Bohm and ask people who are very familiar with their work whether there's anything there that wasn't previously published.
• D Christodoulou (DC) had interesting things to say (brief typed note), and Hawking expressed himself, as did Wheeler, both verbally, and Davies and Finkelstein via letter. These and also the conversations with Komar, and notes re Zurek etc are interesting not only for the new approaches in them but also in terms of a sample of what physicists believe, a kind of sociological record which makes for an interesting element of a book.
• There are various photocopies of books which contain what I call the great fallacy, that purpose or free will etc exist in deterministic universe etc. Of course there are great philosophers who said things like this, but I am interested in presenting the views of physicists and popular writers on this topic: so the book would have a short quote from the first philosopher to express this idea (I don’t need to reproduce material that is in other books), and then these quotes that I have collected. One needs to judiciously excerpt the relevant sentences/phrases, not the entire photocopied material. Also, some of the material may be on the web and so one can google for the author's name and key words from the quote and then copy/paste it from there instead of typing it.
• My handwritten material is on two topics: one binder on Free Will (FW), another binder on Morality, Meaning, Purpose. There's overlap between these two topics because without FW of the 'real type' there's no 'real' morality etc. The FW binder material is more regarding technical questions on the nature of FW, relation to quantum physics, logic etc. The first step in all this is to read the material I've printed on this subject, re FW and re Morality/Purpose etc in the Retroactive Universe manuscript and accompanying additional pages, and re FW in the Free Will book material, and in my Free Will article in B'ohr Hatorah, and re atheism and objective morality etc on my website. Then to read the handwritten material and see what is not typed, and mark it "not yet typed", with the date.
• To the editor who is familiar with the literature, including the popular philosophical literature and what is on the web on this subject: Whatever I said typed on not that is said better elsewhere should not be included in the book. Whatever I said in the untyped material that is original or nicely phrased and therefore should be in the book, needs to be typed first of course – it can be specific sentences, or phrases, or an entire set of pages. Perhaps the philosophy editor will already have marked certain parts as interesting or original, or has categorized a piece as "interesting example of a known idea" and given a source for the idea – in that case a quote from the source should be in the book, followed by my example. Perhaps the quote can be found on the net.
• The finished book is not meant as a professional text or article, but rather as a popular book.
• It only has to be as good in content as the other such books on the market.
• I will have it edited for style at a later stage; the editing required at this stage is for content, what to include of my stuff, what material to include from others, and this requires someone familiar with the philosophical and popular literature and who can also surf the web to find related relevant material. The next step, not necessarily for the same editor is to make decisions about which order to place it all in order to have an interesting book that is coherent and flows, this does not need a philosopher but rather an editor familiar with philosophical scientific material. Then when it is all in a complete manuscript, it will need editing for style, which perhaps could be done by any competent literary editor.

…………….

Ask what their approach is to mind/body and free will.

Explain that I need their input not their agreement to my approach.

It is not meant as a professional text or article, but rather as a popular book.

It only has to be as good in content as the other such books on the market;.

I will have it edited for style at a later stage.

categories: original idea, original example of known idea, interesting critique of source, lively phraseology, better explanation. Discard known ideas, known examples, explanations better presented elsewhere etc.

• patience
• ability to decipher my scrawl
• temperament to help me find use in material rather than in proving it is no good
• ability to transcend their own approach in philosophy
• careful: marking each section of each paper with relevant category, comment; keeping record of sources matched to texts.
• organizational skill: helping me make a book out of it.

In house: try one or two handwritten pages from both binders.

Tell him to read:

• my BH FW article: on my website?
• my material re morality, atheism (on web site?)
• my FW/Meaning/Purpose/Morality chapters from retro un on website
• Einstein book material
• references which agrees with my way: whitehead quote, eccles, [and article by DaichesRaphael? in Munson book?] Sperry quotes (old Evo book?)

Explain overlap of books: FW book, Morality/Purpose/Meaning book, Adam/Eve/RetroUn book, Einstein book. Atheists, Reform etc.

Help me prepare articles for submission to professional journals, Zygon, websites? Put together book/monograph: FW/Morality etc

……...

my report to self on Big bang Einstein blunder lecture to bnei noach via ZviHirsh & father Vinogradov, in Jlm

• bumped into ZH V on light rail, he invited me to lecture, we made up to mee
• at first i thought he meant lecture re bnei noach or of applicability to them , but i asked him, if chumash stuff more general is intereting, , at meeting h clarified , do big bang lecture i gave in odesa.
• so i agreed, 9:15 am! started 9:30, so was time pressure at end,
• Went very well, almost didn;t give the punchline last minute they needed to get to the bus. said last 10 miuntes in one minute, left out some. but the lecture in odesa video has it all so i sent the link to that to ZH V.
• One of the attendees sitting in th front who seems to understand some hebrew bec he odded sometimes, maybe not, invited me , in russuan, deltiberately in front of the camera so i think he want sot show that to others, for chanuka, they have a conference, and it is over shabbos too, invited me to speak.
• I said sounds interesitng, i probably have imte chanuka, not sure if in US or israel, they said they'll fly me from wherever.
• I said i have itme chagim, maybe succos, summer etc.
• ZH had said to me beforehand that his plan was (I asked him to be specific) that the people there would hear me and like me and invite me and pay me to talk, I told him he thinks three steps ahead, it is good that I knew what was his intnt.
• Unfortunatley he felt ill as it turns out and was in hospital overnight and so wasn't at the lecture., but later was ok.
• So he was right about the process, they indeed invited me.
• He had also mentioned they could give money to publish my book - he had asked whether I had written, I mentioned articles and unpublished book ms's, said noone wanted to publish for 3,000 readers, so he said they might.

...

Link to youtube video of Jerusalem lecture in Russian re Big Bang Einstein Blunder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lrzsKHHuLw&feature=youtu.be

..

email: "Photo Einstein TMOR, 5th edition, cosmology calculation, metric, first 2 pages" (of that section of his book)

.......

e mail to Marvin Kruger re EInstein Book and Templeton

AR to AR. SORT

x

Avi I Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>

Thu, Oct 20, 2005, 2:18 AM

to me

Marv, hi!

Long time no etc.

Are you in NY at all nowadays?

I'd love to speak to you re this project I'm working on: I spoke on

this topic several times at the Assoc Orth Jewish Scientists (AOJS)

annula convention several times, and this year did so again after they

agreed to publish the book I'm preparing on the subject.

However I also recently sent some material to the Tempelton Press and

I told them I'm looking for grant support not just a publisher, they

expressed interest and wanted to see sample chapters (see their

attached e mail), but I don't have those yet so I sent some files of

preliminary material, see attached (the 'Retro Un' file is not as

relevant).

I'm sure you have very interesting things to say about this topic.

BTW I read Jammer, its a much different approach than mine. And I read

Goldman, but I don;t understand what he's talking about, I wrote him a

few years back and didn;t understand his reply.

My reply to the Templeton editorial person - see attached - was

probably a bit hysterical, I should have made it more reserved, but I

did want to convey a sense of immediate need...I hope it doens't put

them off.

Anyways, your comments are always insightful and much appreciated.

Maybe reply by e mail at first and then we can talk on the phone.

There's a conference at NY next month re EInstein, Gerald Holton and

Schucking starring, befor eknowing this I had written to Holton becaue

of his article re 'EInstein's second paradise': he said he'd look my

stuff over and comment but it'll take a while. Now that I saw that

Schucking has an interest in EInstein stuff not pat of GR I spoke to

him by phone re my ideas g and we're meeting on Monday afternoon re

this - first time I spoke to him about stuff not directly related to

GR!

Thanks a lot,

hope to see you sometime,

Abie/Avi

...

Einstein's Mistakes: Physics Today article and letters

Tue, May 9, 2006, 1:18 AM

to me

Einstein's Mistakes: Science sets itself apart from other paths to

truth by recognizing that even its greatest practitioners sometimes

err.

Steven Weinberg : Physics Today November 2005, page 31

Albert Einstein was certainly the greatest physicist of the 20th

century, and one of the greatest scientists of all time. It may seem

presumptuous to talk of mistakes made by such a towering figure,

especially in the centenary of his annus mirabilis. But the mistakes

made by leading scientists often provide a better insight into the

spirit and presuppositions of their times than do their successes.1

Also, for those of us who have made our share of scientific errors, it

is mildly consoling to note that even Einstein made mistakes. Perhaps

most important, by showing that we are aware of mistakes made by even

the greatest scientists, we set a good example to those who follow

other supposed paths to truth. We recognize that our most important

scientific forerunners were not prophets whose writings must be

studied as infallible guides—they were simply great men and women who

prepared the ground for the better understandings we have now

achieved.

The cosmological constant

In thinking of Einstein's mistakes, one immediately recalls what

Einstein (in a conversation with George Gamow2) called the biggest

blunder he had made in his life: the introduction of the cosmological

constant. After Einstein had completed the formulation of his theory

of space, time, and gravitation—the general theory of relativity—he

turned in 1917 to a consideration of the spacetime structure of the

whole universe. He then encountered a problem. Einstein was assuming

that, when suitably averaged over many stars, the universe is uniform

and essentially static, but the equations of general relativity did

not seem to allow a time-independent solution for a universe with a

uniform distribution of matter. So Einstein modified his equations, by

including a new term involving a quantity that he called the

cosmological constant. Then it was discovered that the universe is not

static, but expanding. Einstein came to regret that he had needlessly

mutilated his original theory. It may also have bothered him that he

had missed predicting the expansion of the universe.

This story involves a tangle of mistakes, but not the one that

Einstein thought he had made. First, I don't think that it can count

against Einstein that he had assumed the universe is static. With rare

exceptions, theorists have to take the world as it is presented to

them by observers. The relatively low observed velocities of stars

made it almost irresistible in 1917 to suppose that the universe is

static. Thus when Willem de Sitter proposed an alternative solution to

the Einstein equations in 1917, he took care to use coordinates for

which the metric tensor is time-independent. However, the physical

meaning of those coordinates is not transparent, and the realization

that de Sitter's alternate cosmology was not static—that matter

particles in his model would accelerate away from each other—was

considered to be a drawback of the theory.

Figure 1

It is true that Vesto Melvin Slipher, while observing the spectra of

spiral nebulae in the 1910s, had found a preponderance of redshifts,

of the sort that would be produced in an expansion by the Doppler

effect, but no one then knew what the spiral nebulae were; it was not

until Edwin Hubble found faint Cepheid variables in the Andromeda

Nebula in 1923 that it became clear that spiral nebulae were distant

galaxies, clusters of stars far outside our own galaxy. I don't know

if Einstein had heard of Slipher's redshifts by 1917, but in any case

he knew very well about at least one other thing that could produce a

redshift of spectral lines: a gravitational field. It should be

acknowledged here that Arthur Eddington, who had learned about general

relativity during World War I from de Sitter, did in 1923 interpret

Slipher's redshifts as due to the expansion of the universe in the de

Sitter model. (The two scientists are pictured with Einstein and

others in figure 1.) Nevertheless, the expansion of the universe was

not generally accepted until Hubble announced in 1929—and actually

showed in 1931—that the redshifts of distant galaxies increase in

proportion to their distance, as would be expected for a uniform

expansion (see figure 2). Only then was much attention given to the

expanding-universe models introduced in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann,

in which no cosmological constant is needed. In 1917 it was quite

reasonable for Einstein to assume that the universe is static.

Figure 2

Einstein did make a surprisingly trivial mistake in introducing the

cosmological constant. Although that step made possible a time-

independent solution of the Einstein field equations, the solution

described a state of unstable equilibrium. The cosmological constant

acts like a repulsive force that increases with distance, while the

ordinary attractive force of gravitation decreases with distance.

Although there is a critical mass density at which this repulsive

force just balances the attractive force of gravitation, the balance

is unstable; a slight expansion will increase the repulsive force and

decrease the attractive force so that the expansion accelerates. It is

hard to see how Einstein could have missed this elementary difficulty.

Einstein was also at first confused by an idea he had taken from the

philosopher Ernst Mach: that the phenomenon of inertia is caused by

distant masses. To keep inertia finite, Einstein in 1917 supposed that

the universe must be finite, and so he assumed that its spatial

geometry is that of a three-dimensional spherical surface. It was

therefore a surprise to him that when test particles are introduced

into the empty universe of de Sitter's model, they exhibit all the

usual properties of inertia. In general relativity the masses of

distant bodies are not the cause of inertia, though they do affect the

choice of inertial frames. But that mistake was harmless. As Einstein

pointed out in his 1917 paper, it was the assumption that the universe

is static, not that it is finite, that had made a cosmological

constant necessary.

Aesthetically motivated simplicity

Einstein made what from the perspective of today's theoretical physics

is a deeper mistake in his dislike of the cosmological constant. In

developing general relativity, he had relied not only on a simple

physical principle—the principle of the equivalence of gravitation and

inertia that he had developed from 1907 to 1911—but also on a sort of

Occam's razor, that the equations of the theory should be not only

consistent with this principle but also as simple as possible. In

itself, the principle of equivalence would allow field equations of

almost unlimited complexity. Einstein could have included terms in the

equations involving four spacetime derivatives, or six spacetime

derivatives, or any even number of spacetime derivatives, but he

limited himself to second-order differential equations.

This could have been defended on practical grounds. Dimensional

analysis shows that the terms in the field equations involving more

than two spacetime derivatives would have to be accompanied by

constant factors proportional to positive powers of some length. If

this length was anything like the lengths encountered in elementary-

particle physics, or even atomic physics, then the effects of these

higher derivative terms would be quite negligible at the much larger

scales at which all observations of gravitation are made. There is

just one modification of Einstein's equations that could have

observable effects: the introduction of a term involving no spacetime

derivatives at all—that is, a cosmological constant.

But Einstein did not exclude terms with higher derivatives for this or

for any other practical reason, but for an aesthetic reason: They were

not needed, so why include them? And it was just this aesthetic

judgment that led him to regret that he had ever introduced the

cosmological constant.

Since Einstein's time, we have learned to distrust this sort of

aesthetic criterion. Our experience in elementary-particle physics has

taught us that any term in the field equations of physics that is

allowed by fundamental principles is likely to be there in the

equations. It is like the ant world in T. H. White's The Once and

Future King: Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory. Indeed,

as far as we have been able to do the calculations, quantum

fluctuations by themselves would produce an infinite effective

cosmological constant, so that to cancel the infinity there would have

to be an infinite "bare" cosmological constant of the opposite sign in

the field equations themselves. Occam's razor is a fine tool, but it

should be applied to principles, not equations.

It may be that Einstein was influenced by the example of Maxwell's

theory, which he had taught himself while a student at the Zürich

Polytechnic Institute. James Clerk Maxwell of course invented his

equations to account for the known phenomena of electricity and

magnetism while preserving the principle of electric-charge

conservation, and in Maxwell's formulation the field equations contain

terms with only a minimum number of spacetime derivatives. Today we

know that the equations governing electrodynamics contain terms with

any number of spacetime derivatives, but these terms, like the higher-

derivative terms in general relativity, have no observable

consequences at macroscopic scales.

Astronomers in the decades following 1917 occasionally sought signs of

a cosmological constant, but they only succeeded in setting an upper

bound on the constant. That upper bound was vastly smaller than what

would be expected from the contribution of quantum fluctuations, and

many physicists and astronomers concluded from this that the constant

must be zero. But despite our best efforts, no one could find a

satisfactory physical principle that would require a vanishing

cosmological constant.

Figure 3

Then in 1998, measurements of redshifts and distances of supernovae by

the Supernova Cosmology Project and the High-z Supernova Search Team

showed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, as de

Sitter had found in his model (see the article by Saul Perlmutter,

PHYSICS TODAY, April 2003, page 53). As discussed in figure 3, it

seems that about 70% of the energy density of the universe is a sort

of "dark energy," filling all space. This was subsequently confirmed

by observations of the angular size of anisotropies in the cosmic

microwave background. The density of the dark energy is not varying

rapidly as the universe expands, and if it is truly time-independent

then it is just the effect that would be expected from a cosmological

constant. However this works out, it is still puzzling why the

cosmological constant is not as large as would be expected from

calculations of quantum fluctuations. In recent years the question has

become a major preoccupation of theoretical physicists. Regarding his

introduction of the cosmological constant in 1917, Einstein's real

mistake was that he thought it was a mistake.

A historian, reading the foregoing in a first draft of this article,

commented that I might be accused of perpetrating Whig history. The

term "Whig history" was coined in a 1931 lecture by the historian

Herbert Butterfield. According to Butterfield, Whig historians believe

that there is an unfolding logic in history, and they judge the past

by the standards of the present. But it seems to me that, although

Whiggery is to be avoided in political and social history (which is

what concerned Butterfield), it has a certain value in the history of

science. Our work in science is cumulative. We really do know more

than our predecessors, and we can learn about the things that were not

understood in their times by looking at the mistakes they made.

Contra quantum mechanics

The other mistake that is widely attributed to Einstein is that he was

on the wrong side in his famous debate with Niels Bohr over quantum

mechanics, starting at the Solvay Congress of 1927 and continuing into

the 1930s. In brief, Bohr had presided over the formulation of

a "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics, in which it is

only possible to calculate the probabilities of the various possible

outcomes of experiments. Einstein rejected the notion that the laws of

physics could deal with probabilities, famously decreeing that God

does not play dice with the cosmos. But history gave its verdict

against Einstein—quantum mechanics went on from success to success,

leaving Einstein on the sidelines.

All this familiar story is true, but it leaves out an irony. Bohr's

version of quantum mechanics was deeply flawed, but not for the reason

Einstein thought. The Copenhagen interpretation describes what happens

when an observer makes a measurement, but the observer and the act of

measurement are themselves treated classically. This is surely wrong:

Physicists and their apparatus must be governed by the same quantum

mechanical rules that govern everything else in the universe. But

these rules are expressed in terms of a wavefunction (or, more

precisely, a state vector) that evolves in a perfectly deterministic

way. So where do the probabilistic rules of the Copenhagen

interpretation come from?

Considerable progress has been made in recent years toward the

resolution of the problem, which I cannot go into here. It is enough

to say that neither Bohr nor Einstein had focused on the real problem

with quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen rules clearly work, so they

have to be accepted. But this leaves the task of explaining them by

applying the deterministic equation for the evolution of the

wavefunction, the Schrödinger equation, to observers and their

apparatus. The difficulty is not that quantum mechanics is

probabilistic—that is something we apparently just have to live with.

The real difficulty is that it is also deterministic, or more

precisely, that it combines a probabilistic interpretation with

deterministic dynamics.

Attempts at unification

Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics contributed, in the years

from the 1930s to his death in 1955, to his isolation from other

research in physics, but there was another factor. Perhaps Einstein's

greatest mistake was that he became the prisoner of his own successes.

It is the most natural thing in the world, when one has scored great

victories in the past, to try to go on to further victories by

repeating the tactics that previously worked so well. Think of the

advice given to Egypt's President Gamal Abd al-Nasser by an apocryphal

Soviet military attaché at the time of the 1956 Suez crisis: "Withdraw

your troops to the center of the country, and wait for winter."

And what physicist had scored greater victories than Einstein? After

his tremendous success in finding an explanation of gravitation in the

geometry of space and time, it was natural that he should try to bring

other forces along with gravitation into a "unified field theory"

based on geometrical principles. About other things going on in

physics, he commented3 in 1950 that "all attempts to obtain a deeper

knowledge of the foundations of physics seem doomed to me unless the

basic concepts are in accordance with general relativity from the

beginning." Since electromagnetism was the only other force that in

its macroscopic effects seemed to bear any resemblance to gravitation,

it was the hope of a unification of gravitation and electromagnetism

that drove Einstein in his later years.

I will mention only two of the many approaches taken by Einstein in

this work. One was based on the idea of a fifth dimension, proposed in

1921 by Theodore Kaluza. Suppose you write the equations of general

relativity in five rather than four spacetime dimensions, and

arbitrarily assume that the 5D metric tensor does not depend on the

fifth coordinate. Then it turns out that the part of the metric tensor

that links the usual four spacetime dimensions with the fifth

dimension satisfies the same field equation as the vector potential in

the Maxwell theory of electromagnetism, and the part of the metric

tensor that only links the usual four spacetime dimensions to each

other satisfies the field equations of 4D general relativity.

The idea of an additional dimension became even more attractive in

1926, when Oskar Klein relaxed the condition that the fields are

independent of the fifth coordinate, and assumed instead that the

fifth dimension is rolled up in a tiny circle so that the fields are

periodic in that coordinate. Klein found that in this theory the part

of the metric tensor that links the fifth dimension to itself behaves

like the wavefunction of an electrically charged particle, so for a

moment it seemed to Einstein that there was a chance that not only

gravitation and electromagnetism but also matter would be governed by

a unified geometrical theory. Alas, it turned out that if the electric

charge of the particle is identified with the charge of the electron,

then the particle's mass comes out too large by a factor of about

1018.

It is a pity that Einstein gave up on the Kaluza–Klein idea. If he had

extended it from five to six or more spacetime dimensions, he might

have discovered the field theory constructed in 1954 by C. N. Yang and

Robert Mills, and its generalizations, some of which later appeared as

parts of our modern theories of strong, weak, and electromagnetic

interactions.4 Einstein apparently gave no thought to strong or weak

nuclear forces, I suppose because they seem so different from

gravitation and electromagnetism. Today we realize that the equations

underlying all known forces aside from gravitation are actually quite

similar, the difference in the phenomena arising from color trapping

for strong interactions and spontaneous symmetry breaking for weak

interactions. Even so, Einstein would still probably be unhappy with

today's theories, because they are not unified with gravitation and

because matter—electrons, quarks, and so on—still has to be put in by

hand.

Even before Klein's work, Einstein had started on a different

approach, based on a simple bit of counting. If you give up the

condition that the 4 × 4 metric tensor should be symmetric, then it

will have 16 rather than 10 independent components, and the extra 6

components will have the right properties to be identified with the

electric and magnetic fields. Equivalently, one can assume that the

metric is complex, but Hermitian. The trouble with this idea, as

Einstein became painfully aware, is that there really is nothing in it

that ties the 6 components of the electric and magnetic fields to the

10 components of the ordinary metric tensor that describes

gravitation, other than that one is using the same letter of the

alphabet for all these fields. A Lorentz transformation or any other

coordinate transformation will convert electric or magnetic fields

into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, but no transformation

mixes them with the gravitational field. This purely formal approach,

unlike the Kaluza–Klein idea, has left no significant trace in current

research. The faith in mathematics as a source of physical

inspiration, which had served Einstein so well in his development of

general relativity, was now betraying him.

Even though it was a mistake for Einstein to turn away from the

exciting progress being made in the 1930s and 1940s by younger

physicists, it revealed one admirable feature of his personality.

Einstein never wanted to be a mandarin. He never tried to induce

physicists in general to give up their work on nuclear and particle

physics and follow his ideas. He never tried to fill professorships at

the Institute for Advanced Studies with his collaborators or acolytes.

Einstein was not only a great man, but a good one. His moral sense

guided him in other matters: He opposed militarism during World War I;

he refused to support the Soviet Union in the Stalin years; he became

an enthusiastic Zionist; he gave up his earlier pacifism when Europe

was threatened by Nazi Germany, for instance urging the Belgians to

rearm; and he publicly opposed McCarthyism. About these great public

issues, Einstein made no mistakes.

Steven Weinberg holds the Josey Chair in Science at the University of

Texas at Austin, where he is a member of the physics and astronomy

departments and heads the physics department's Theory Group.

References

• 1. The set of mistakes discussed in this article is not

intended to be exhaustive. They are a selection, mostly chosen because

they seemed to me to reveal something of the intellectual environment

in which Einstein worked. In PHYSICS TODAY, March 2005, page 34, Alex

Harvey and Engelbert Schucking have described an erroneous prediction

of Einstein regarding the rates of clocks on Earth's surface, and in

his book Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Addison-

Wesley, Reading, PA (1981), p. 328, Arthur I. Miller has discussed an

error in Einstein's calculation of the electron's transverse mass.

• 2. G. Gamow, My World Line—An Informal Autobiography, Viking

Press, New York (1970), p. 44. I thank Lawrence Krauss for this

reference.

• 3. A. Einstein, Sci. Am., April 1950, p. 13.

• 4. Oddly enough, at a conference in Warsaw in 1939, Klein

presented something very like the Yang–Mills theory, on the basis of

his five-dimensional generalization of general relativity. I have

tried and failed to follow Klein's argument, and I do not believe his

derivation makes sense; it takes at least two extra dimensions to get

the Yang–Mills theory. It seems that scientists are often attracted to

beautiful theories in the way that insects are attracted to flowers—

not by logical deduction, but by something like a sense of smell.

• 5. E. Hubble, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 15, 168 (1929).

• 6. A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. 607, 665 (2004) [SPIN].

…………

LETTERS

The Value of Einstein's Mistakes

April 2006, page 10

Steven Weinberg's love for and knowledge of history inform his

instructive sampling of Albert Einstein's mistakes (PHYSICS TODAY,

November 2005, page 31). One mistake, or at least one tantalizing

omission, seems worth adding to the collection. In a May 1905 letter

to Conrad Habicht, Einstein wrote that he thought his revolutionary

contribution was the hypothesis that light consists of particles.1

Consider his lifelong passion for unification, as in his resolution of

the clash between Isaac Newton's mechanics and James Clerk Maxwell's

electrodynamics (with the special theory of relativity modifying the

former). It is hard to believe that Einstein did not worry about

reconciling the well-established wave aspects of light with his new

particle hypothesis. If he had pursued that connection, he could have

developed one-photon quantum mechanics in 1905 or shortly afterward,

by combining the Poynting-vector expression for the power intensity of

light with his own relation between frequency and energy of a particle

to obtain the photon-number intensity of a light beam. The wave

equation is the Maxwell equations, and the probability interpretation

pops up immediately.

Many observers have said that general relativity was one advance that

would have taken a very long time without Einstein, but we have no

direct test for that statement. However, if you accept my argument

that Einstein could have developed the first true quantum mechanics,

then we can say exactly how long it took the physics community to

catch up—20 years for Heisenberg's matrix mechanics and Schrödinger's

mathematically equivalent wave mechanics.

Reference

• 1.A. Einstein, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, vol.

5, English translation, Princeton U. Press, Princeton, NJ (1995), p.

20.

Alfred Scharff Goldhaber

(goldhab@insti.physics.sunysb.edu)

C. N. Yang Institute for

Theoretical Physics

Stony Brook University

Stony Brook, New York

As Steven Weinberg points out, it's a good thing for people to

understand that even the greatest scientists make mistakes. However, I

think Weinberg grossly understates the issue. Maybe his article should

have been titled "Einstein's Published Mistakes."

The practice of science, as PHYSICS TODAY readers surely know,

involves making mistakes, realizations, corrections, and more

mistakes. Trial and error is a fundamental part of the process. I

think that point deserves emphasizing. Too many of our schoolchildren

learn to avoid invention and new thinking because they have been

convinced that making mistakes is shameful.

Tom Cornsweet

(tomc@vispath.com)

Prescott, Arizona

In his thoughtful and timely article, Steven Weinberg analyzes some

of Einstein's mistakes and notes some others. Another fundamental

conceptual mistake is hidden in Einstein's celebrated 1905 paper on

relativity.

In a lengthy discussion in the first part of that paper, Einstein

showed that the speed of light can be made constant by adopting a

clock synchronization based on two-way light signals. With that

synchronization, measurements of the one-way speed of light become

logically circular, and Einstein later declared that the constancy of

the speed of light was "neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about

the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make at my

free discretion to arrive at a definition of simultaneity."1

However, Einstein overlooked that the validity of Newton's laws at low

speeds in each reference frame permits the use of simple mechanical

methods of synchronization, such as slow clock transport or sound

signals. Einstein's synchronization procedure with light signals is

thus superfluous—it plays no fundamental role and is merely the most

convenient of several possible synchronization procedures.

Furthermore, if clocks are synchronized by slow clock transport or by

some other mechanical procedure, then measurements of the one-way

speed of light are not logically circular, and those measurements

provide an unambiguous experimental test of the constancy of this

speed. In fact, clock transport has been used in such experimental

tests.2,3 Einstein should have considered the implications of

alternative synchronization procedures for the conceptual foundations

of relativity, and he should have recognized that the constancy of the

speed of light had to be established by experiment, not by

stipulation.

References

• 1.A. Einstein, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, vol.

6, English translation, Princeton U. Press, Princeton, NJ (1996), p.

439.

• 2.T. P. Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D 42, 731 (1990) [MEDLINE].

• 3.P. Wolf, G. Petit, Phys. Rev. A 56, 4405 (1997) [INSPEC].

Hans C. Ohanian

(hansohanian@cs.com)

University of Vermont

Burlington

Steven Weinberg writes, "Einstein rejected the notion that the laws of

physics could deal with probabilities, famously decreeing that God

does not play dice with the cosmos. But history gave its verdict

against Einstein—quantum mechanics went on from success to success,

leaving Einstein on the sidelines."

Einstein did not reject quantum theory merely because it is

probabilistic. He wrote: "There is no doubt that quantum mechanics has

seized hold of a beautiful element of truth, and that it will be a

test stone for any future theoretical basis."1 Nor was Einstein

unilaterally opposed to God playing dice. He expected God to either

play dice all the way or not at all. If individual events were totally

undetermined, then the overall events should also be undetermined, and

not display remarkable regularity. "In for the penny, in for the

pound," he wrote. Thus, a more accurate quote from Einstein about God

and dice playing is the following:

"That the Lord should play with dice, all right; but that He should

gamble according to definite rules, that is beyond me."1

Reference

• 1.A. Einstein, quoted in J. Wheeler, W. Zurek, Quantum Theory

and Measurement, Princeton U. Press, Princeton, NJ (1983), p. 8.

Ravi Gomatam

(rgomatam@bvinst.edu)

Bhaktivedanta Institute

Mumbai, India

I enjoyed Steven Weinberg's article except for the not-so-subtle knock

on religion at the beginning, where he refers to "other supposed paths

to truth," and the subhead, "Science sets itself apart from other

paths to truth by recognizing that even its greatest practitioners

sometimes err." If the point of the article is to show the superiority

of science over other "supposed paths," Weinberg confuses the issue by

ending with the claim that Einstein "made no mistakes" in his

decisions about "great public issues," including his opposition to

militarism, his refusal to support the Stalinist Soviet Union, and his

enthusiastic Zionism. Since none of those public issues are ones in

which science alone can provide answers, how did Einstein achieve such

infallible knowledge about them without relying on paths to truth

other than science? With all due respect for his undoubted genius in

science, I think Weinberg's hostility to religion is blinding him to

errors in elementary logic.

Ron Larson

(rlarson@umich.edu)

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor

How unfortunate that Steven Weinberg chose to insert a criticism of

religion—"other supposed paths to truth"—in his article. That Einstein

was not infallible seems to have little relevance to the question of

whether the prophets of various religions are infallible, and the

latter question seems to have little place in a piece about Einstein.

Brian C. Hall

(bhall@nd.edu)

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame, Indiana

While I very much enjoyed Steven Weinberg's article "Einstein's

Mistakes," I am puzzled by the author's statement about quantum

mechanics: "The difficulty is not that quantum mechanics is

probabilistic—that is something we apparently have to live with. The

real difficulty is that it is also deterministic, or more precisely,

that it combines a probabilistic interpretation with deterministic

dynamics."

Quantum mechanics is an acausal deterministic theory in the sense that

a physical system's state (mathematically described by a state vector)

at a given initial time determines its state at a specified later

time, but its state is not in one-to-one correspondence with sharp

values of all its dynamical variables; that correspondence is

probabilistic. Therefore events, identified by sharp values of those

variables at one spacetime point, are not causally connected with

other events. That is something we have to live with.

Why does the combination of these two attributes—acausality and

determinism—constitute a special difficulty? Weinberg asks, "So where

do the probabilistic rules of the Copenhagen interpretation come

from?" Why do they have to come from anywhere other than from human

brains? Nature exists out there, independent of human thought, but its

mathematical description surely is a human construction rather than an

immutable law given to us on a stone tablet.

Roger G. Newton

(newton@indiana.edu)

Indiana University

Bloomington

Einstein should be allowed his mis- takes, like the rest of us, and

Steven Weinberg understandably points out only the most newsworthy. I

write to point out another misunderstanding—mistake, if you will—in

Einstein's work only because it is often found in the literature

today.

Einstein described diffusion as the motion of neutral particles on

atomic (Brownian) length and time scales. He used a stochastic

differential equation—a Langevin equation—in the high-friction limit

to describe diffusive trajectories. Einstein did not discuss how his

treatment could accommodate macroscopic boundary conditions or produce

macroscopic flow, which is, after all, what Fick's law of diffusion is

all about.

Langevin equations, in the spirit of Einstein's work, are widely used

today to describe the motion and fluctuations of density of charged

particles in, for example, aqueous solutions. The electric force in

those equations is usually described by a steady function.

Fluctuations in number density of charged particles are allowed in

Einstein's treatment but fluctuations in net charge and electric

potential are not. Traditional Langevin equations of Brownian motion

seem inconsistent with the idea that charge creates electric force and

so are unlikely to be helpful, at least in my view. It is hard to

imagine systems in which the number density of ions can fluctuate

while the number density of charge does not.

I believe Einstein's description of Brownian motion must be coupled to

equations describing the electric field when the diffusing particles

have significant charge. An equation is needed to show how the charge

on one particle creates force on another. The ink particles studied by

Robert Brown were surely charged. The fluctuating electric field and

stochastic flow can be computed from the density of ink particles,

ions, and solvent molecules by solving Poisson's or Maxwell's

equations together with flow equations. (Spatially inhomogeneous

boundary conditions are needed to force the macroscopic flow described

by Fick's law.)

This so-called self-consistent treatment of diffusion and the electric

field is used in computational electronics to design the transistors

and integrated circuits of our electronic technology.1 Diffusion and

the electric field have not been treated self-consistently in most of

computational chemistry and biology—for example, in simulations of

molecular dynamics of ions or proteins—although such treatments are

found in analyses of ionic motion through protein channels.2–5

References

• 1.S. Selberherr, Analysis and Simulation of Semiconductor

Devices, Springer-Verlag, New York (1984); C. Jacoboni, P. Lugli, The

Monte Carlo Method for Semiconductor Device Simulation, Springer-

Verlag, New York (1989); see also [LINK].

• 2.M. G. Kurnikova, R. D. Coalson, P. Graf, A. Nitzan, Biophys.

J. 76, 642 (1999) [INSPEC]; W. Im, B. Roux, Biophys. J. 115, 4850

(2001).

• 3.S. Aboud, D. Marreiro, M. Saraniti, R. Eisenberg, J. Comput.

Electron. 3, 117 (2004) .

• 4.T. A. van der Straaten, G. Kathawala, R. S. Eisenberg, U.

Ravaioli, Mol. Simul. 31, 151 (2004).

• 5.B. Corry, S.-H. Chung, Eur. Biophys. J. 34, 208 (2005) .

Bob Eisenberg

(beisenbe@rush.edu)

Rush Medical Center

Chicago, Illinois

The fascinating article recounting Einstein's mistakes at different

stages of his career goes beyond the usual focus on the cosmological

constant and quantum mechanics. In particular, the discussion of

Kaluza–Klein theory examines Einstein's later attempts at a

unification theory. But in the course of developing general

relativity, Einstein made another assumption, which he later tried to

revisit—one that future generations may come to regard as Einstein's

greatest "mistake."

Curvature of spacetime is, of course, related by general relativity to

the presence of mass-energy. This curvature, though it plays out in

the arena of four-dimensional spacetime, corresponds to our intuitive

understanding of geometric curvature in three dimensions. General

relativity also makes a crucial assumption that another geometric

object, called the torsion, vanishes. That is not the only assumption

that could have been made, however, and as Einstein explored

extensions of general relativity after 1915, he reevaluated his

initial assumption.

In the 1920s and 1930s, Einstein collaborated1 with the eminent French

mathematician Elie Cartan, who was responsible for much of the

foundation of 20th-century differential geometry. As early as 1922,

Cartan tried to explain to Einstein that a different type of

curvature, which could be called a total curvature and which contains

the traditional curvature as a piece, vanishes. With this condition,

called teleparallelism (TP), the torsion need not vanish. Einstein and

Cartan explored the implications of TP for generalizing general

relativity beyond the gravitational field, but ultimately abandoned

that route. Unfortunately, the tools Cartan himself offered to

differential geometry were insufficiently mature at that stage to be

exploited by Einstein even if the physicist had been able to fully

understand them.1

Teleparallelism does offer advantages, including a greater

mathematical richness than general relativity and a potential

resolution of mathematical issues related to the nature of

conservation laws in general relativity.2,3 Wielding the methods of

modern differential geometry that Cartan first introduced, physicists

in the past couple of decades have elaborated unified theories with TP

as an important component.3,4 For instance, TP and another geometric

ingredient5 lead to the "natural" incorporation of electromagnetism in

one such theory, fully within the tradition of the geometrical

paradigm of Einstein.3

TP may ultimately prove to be a better assumption for a geometric

theory. If so, it would still be an extreme excess of Whiggery, to use

Weinberg's wonderful phrase, for those future generations to fault

Einstein for his choice in general relativity. The very mathematical

concepts, let alone the tools, behind TP did not even exist in 1915

when general relativity was unveiled to the world.

References

• 1.J. G. Vargas, D. G. Torr, Found. Phys. 29, 145 (1999)

[INSPEC].

• 2.J. G. Vargas, D. G. Torr, Gen. Rel. Grav. 23, 713 (1991).

• 3.R. E. Becker, in High Frequency Gravitational Wave

Conference, May 6–9, 2003, R. Baker Jr, P. Murad, eds., Mitre Corp,

McLean, VA (2003), paper HFGW-03-123 and references therein.

• 4.For a unified theory based on teleparallelism, see [LINK].

• 5.J. G. Vargas, D. G. Torr, J. Math. Phys. 34, 4898 (1993)

[SPIN].

Robert E. Becker

(roberte.becker@prodigy.net)

York, Pennsylvania

Weinberg replies: I thank the writers of these letters for their

thoughtful remarks. Alfred Goldhaber offers a fascinating speculation,

that Einstein might have developed modern quantum mechanics by

building on his 1905 introduction of the quantum of light. However,

there would have been an obstacle in his path: a shortage of relevant

data. By concentrating on atoms rather than photons, de Broglie, Bohr,

Heisenberg, and Schrödinger were able to find guidance and

confirmation from the huge amount of spectroscopic data already

available to them. I can't think of any way that the quantum theory of

light itself could have found similar quantitative support from

experimental data in the 1900s or 1910s.

Tom Cornsweet wisely reminds us that the published literature gives

only a limited insight into the work of scientists. Real historians,

unlike me, try to go deeper by studying diaries, letters, and personal

reminiscences, but some aspects of the past can never be recovered.

As far as I have thought about the matter, I agree with Hans Ohanian

about the synchronization of clocks. I have not emphasized this point

when I have taught relativity theory, preferring instead to take

Lorentz invariance as a starting point.

I do not know of any evidence that Einstein would have been content

for God to play dice all the way, as suggested by Ravi Gomatam.

Einstein did acknowledge the many successes of quantum mechanics, but

as far as I know he always hoped that those successes could be

explained on the basis of a thoroughly deterministic theory.

Ron Larson takes me to task for my "not-so-subtle knock on religion."

I certainly never intended my remark to be subtle. The reason that I

did not mention religion is that I intended to knock reliance on any

supposedly infallible authority—in other words, not only the

attribution of infallibility to the Bible or Koran, but also to Das

Kapital, Mein Kampf, or Mao's little red book. I did not say that

science gave Einstein guidance on public issues. The reason I said

Einstein made no mistake on the issues I mentioned is not that I

thought he was infallible, but that I thought he was right.

It is of course true, as Brian Hall says, that Einstein's fallibility

does not in itself show that religious prophets are fallible. My point

was that, in recognizing that even Einstein was not infallible, we

physicists set a good example. While it doesn't prove anything, our

example may have some beneficial moral influence. As to whether this

sort of remark belongs in an article about Einstein, it seems to me

that part of the justification of pure scientific research lies in the

impact it has on the culture of our times. Anyway, some of us unpaid

contributors to PHYSICS TODAY take our compensation in the opportunity

that publication gives us to express our personal views on one thing

or another.

To answer Roger Newton, the difficulty that I find with quantum

mechanics is that its rules tell us how to use the wavefunction to

calculate the probabilities of various values of dynamical variables,

but the apparatus that we use to measure these variables—and we

ourselves—are described by a wavefunction that evolves

deterministically. So there is a missing element in quantum mechanics:

a demonstration that the deterministic evolution of the wavefunction

of the apparatus and observer leads to the usual probabilistic rules.

Did Robert Brown study the motion of ink particles, and did they carry

a significant electric charge, as Bob Eisenberg says? I thought that

Brown chiefly studied pollen grains and dust particles, but whatever

they were, I suppose the particles may have been charged, and if so,

then the effect of electric forces on Brownian motion should be

examined.

I may be missing the point of Robert Becker's remarks, but I have

never understood what is so important physically about the possibility

of torsion in differential geometry. The difference between an affine

connection with torsion and the usual torsion-free Christoffel symbol

is just a tensor, and of course general relativity in itself does not

constrain the tensors that might be added to any dynamical theory.

What difference does it make whether one says that a theory has

torsion, or that the affine connection is the Christoffel symbol but

happens to be accompanied in the equations of the theory by a certain

tensor? The first alternative may offer the opportunity of a different

geometrical interpretation of the theory, but it is still the same

theory.

Steven Weinberg

(weinberg@physics.utexas.edu)

University of Texas at Austin

Stanger My e mail to him re Einstein/Retroactive Un

AR to AR. SORT

x

Avi I Rabinowitz <air1@nyu.edu>

Sat, Jul 16, 2005, 1:20 AM

to me

jstanger@egsllp.com

Jeffery, hi!

Thanks very much for your interest.

I have material which went through several evolutionary phases: it

started as a book - "The Instant Universe" - dealing with the apparent

contradictions between big bang/evolution and Torah, and the article

you read was based on that material. Then it became a book about free-

willed consciousness, purpose etc and involved creation/Eden as well,

though it wasn't sepcifically about supposed science-

religion 'contradictions', and the name changed to "The Retroactive

Universe". Now I'm trying to put it all into a different rubric, a book

using some of Einstein's ideas as backdrop, to be called "Einstein's

Blunder and the God who plays Dice", using this material and much else.

I want to publish all three separately.

I'm sending two documents:

1) an 11 page preliminary outline of the Einstein book, it is somewhat

of a skeleton for an outline or notes rather than an essay in itself,

so it is not exactly self-explanatory, the book will go into detail and

explain.

2) 290 or so pages of "The Retroactive Universe". I would greatly

appreciate any comments which would help me pull it together into a

coherent interesting book. I also would appreciate any comments which

could help me in constructing the Einstein book.

Thanks so much,

Avi

"Big Bang & Einstein" lecture, with preface re Noah, Yefet & the Greeks, to Bnei Noach in Yerushalayim: two versions:

Thu, Oct 25, 2018, 2:37 PM

to me

avirab science & religion playlist:

"Big Bang & Einstein" lecture to Bnei Noach in Yerushalayim:

Begins with a a few minutes about the Nations of the world, about Yefet (son of Noach), and Noach's descendant Yavan, and his descendants the Greeks. The Russian translation of the ending is missing.

Two versions:

• Has more material : it is missing the ending in Russian so I added some video on the same topic from a lecture given at a retreat (lager) near Odesa, making it longer :
• Better sound and visual, and has more of the ending in Russian, but NOT all of it (this video is not on MY playlist).