On the Misconceptions about Einstein Roger J Anderton R.J.Anderton@btinternet.com

There are misconceptions about Einstein as Robert Resnick gives his account of some

of the misconceptions in the Journal of Chemical Education. It highlights that there

was not agreement in Academia regarding Einstein’s relativity; it thus seems odd that

a theory (theories) which were not agreed as to what was really meant was fostered

upon us in the physics education system. It is my contention that something

ambiguous such as Einstein’s relativity would therefore only have had a corrupting

effect on physics. It should have been clearly defined; because when clearly defined it

could then be clearly tested. But instead we have something ambiguous that is not

clear as to what it really means.

The first misconception that Resnick [1] points out is that – it’s falsely believed

Einstein received Nobel Prize for his theory of relativity – in fact he did not.

The citation for the Nobel Prize was really for “his [Einstein’s] services to theoretical

physics and in particular for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.”

The usual explanation for why Einstein did not get the Nobel Prize for Relativity and

instead got it for something else is as Resnick notes false.

The false explanation is according to Resnick – “…in his will, Alfred Nobel had

stipulated that the prize should be awarded for a recent discovery in physics from

which mankind had derived great benefit and that there was doubt whether a theory

[Einstein’s relativity], no matter how important, could qualify. However, the law of

the photoelectric effect was only one prediction of another theory of Einstein’s, the

quantum theory of light. In Einstein’s quantum theory, though, ‘facts were

discovered’- that is, statements were made from which observable phenomena could

be deduced directly.”

And Resnick notes that this is false because the reasons for dismissing Einstein’s

Relativity as worthy of a Nobel Prize could equally apply to Einstein’s quantum

theory of light. Resnick says: “Of course, one could argue the same for the theory of

relativity except that the train of reasoning in the case of some ‘facts discovered’ from

relativity might be considered less direct.”

Thus if the usual explanation for why Einstein did not get the Nobel prize for

Relativity were true, then he would similarly have not received the Nobel prize for his

quantum theory of light’s photoelectric effect.

Resnick then points out the real reason why Einstein did not get the Nobel Prize for

Relativity: “The truth is, as observers at the time and since have pointed out, that

relativity was then regarded as very controversial, both scientifically and politically. It

had been widely attacked and was not exactly easy to understand, and the Swedish

Academy used the expedient of subtle distinctions to award Einstein the prize while it

avoided expressing any opinion on a controversial theory. Millikan’s recent brilliant

experimental verification of every aspect of the photoelectric laws – as he said

‘contrary to my own expectations’ – and his characterization of the ideas as

‘Einstein’s bold, not to say reckless, hypothesis’ provided both an ample and a safe

reason for awarding Einstein the prize….. Einstein’s quantum theory of light enters

into the work of several of the later Nobel laureates, so the Academy could not have

waited any longer to recognise Einstein.”

Einstein being awarded a Nobel Prize for quantum theory’s photoelectric effect has

had a corrupting effect on physics as well, which will be explained anon.

As regards Einstein’s Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect, Resnick says:

“.. in the official document of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, dated

December 10, 1922, it was stated that the prize was bestowed ‘independent of the

value that may be credited to the relativity and gravitation theory after eventual

confirmation.”

Resnick notes Einstein totally ignored this and treated the Nobel prize as an award for

relativity – “Einstein’s visit to Gotborg, Sweden, in July 1923, when he gave his

delayed Nobel Prize Lecture, Einstein totally ignored the cautious wording of the

citation and spoke on…. the theory of relativity.”

So, the points to highlight:

1. Einstein’s relativity was controversial both scientifically and politically – and

could not be agreed upon, hence he was not awarded the Nobel Prize for it.

2. A false explanation is generated by the pro-Einstein fan-group to try to cover

up the real reason why Einstein did not get the Nobel Prize for his relativity.

3. Einstein completely ignores he did not get the Nobel Prize for his relativity

and falsely acts like he did, that generates a false picture which can deceive

the casual student. It’s like he is deliberately trying to confuse things.

This adds up to corrupting physics, but there is still more input-

Now the awarding of Einstein a Nobel Prize for his quantum theory of light also

corrupts physics on many counts. This is because there is for one thing the same type

of philosophic outlook that Einstein used in his quantum theory as he used in Special

Relativity, so the controversial in his relativity is still in his quantum theory.

As Resnick notes – subsequent Nobel prizes were issued based on Einstein’s quantum

theory; so “it” is being built upon. Einstein himself later rebelled against this physics

theorising approach with his famous sayings like ‘God does not play dice.’ [2] So

even Einstein did not agree with the route that physics took based on his ideas.

As well as the many problems in conceptual understanding of Einstein’s quantum

theory (same or similar to the conceptual problems of understanding Einstein’s

Relativity). Dirac received a Nobel Prize for supposedly joining Quantum theory with

Einstein’s Relativity. So despite resistance against giving Einstein a Nobel Prize for

his Relativity, it was still indirectly later honoured by the Nobel award system,

making it something that is being built upon. But Dirac had not really joined Quantum

theory with Einstein’s Special Relativity. [3] So the whole system is being built upon

mistakes, and the real issue of the “controversy” (point 1 above) is not met—i.e. the

physics theorising is being built upon something that was never agreed upon.

How something terrible as that has occurred is dealt with by the second

misconception.

Second misconception is according to Resnick – that only a few people understood

Einstein’s general relativity and that it is unintelligible.

Resnick says: “When Einstein first advanced the theory this might not have been

considered an exaggeration, and this view, propagated by journalists, enhanced the

fame with the general public.”

Resnick also notes: “….this belief in the unintelligibility of general relativity persists

among educated persons even today, though in less damaging and narrower forms, to

be sure.”

Resnick adds: “Moreover, not everyone accepted Einstein’s theory as valid. Several

eminent scientists gave it faint praise or disagreed with it.” But notes: “Today courses

in or those containing general relativity theory are readily available, and published

articles involving general relativity are of the order of 1000 per year.”

The points now to highlight are:

4. Einstein’s relativity was initially unintelligible, and some people today still

think it’s unintelligible. My contention is – that is because it is unintelligible.

As per point (1) it was controversial and could not be agreed upon, because of

that it is made unintelligible.

5. Resnick tries to excuse it that Einstein’s relativity is now dealt with in many

texts and taught. My contention is – such a thing should not have been done

until it was agreed upon what was meant by Einstein’s relativity. Because it

was not agreed upon, all of these 1000s of articles on Einstein’s relativity are

giving numerous different opinions as they try to make sense of Einstein. That

is not good for physics to have such ambiguity.

How this could come about, Resnick refers to Chandrasekhar.

According to Chandrasekhar quote: “The meeting of November 6, 1919, of the Royal

Society also originated a myth that persists even today (though in a very much diluted

version): ‘Only three persons in the world understand relativity.’ Eddington explained

the origin of the myth. Thompson, as President of the Royal Society at that time,

concluded the meeting with the statement: ‘I have to confess that no one has yet

clearly succeeded in stating in clear language what the theory of Einstein’s really is.’

And Eddington recalled that as the meeting was dispersing, Ludwig Silberstein (the

author of one of the early books on relativity) came up to him and said: ‘Professor

Eddington, you must be one of the three persons in the world who understands

general relativity.’ On Eddington demurring to this statement, Silberstein responded.

‘Don’t be modest Eddington.’ And Eddington reply was, ‘On the contrary, I am trying

to think who the third person is!’ The myth that general relativity is a difficult theory

to understand did immeasurable harm to the development of the theory. The fact is

that the theory of general relativity is no more difficult than many other branches of

physics…”

I shall now dissect what Chandrasekhar says:

“Thompson, as President of the Royal Society at that time [1919], concluded the

meeting with the statement: ‘I have to confess that no one has yet clearly succeeded in

stating in clear language what the theory of Einstein’s really is.’”

That is the central point of this article—Einstein’s relativity is not clearly defined

hence ambiguous and hence unintelligible. Thompson concluded that in 1919. Physics

should not have been built on that! But it was built on it contrary to commonsense; by

the mistakes of awarding Einstein the Nobel Prize, by the mistakes of misconceptions

about Einstein presented to the public, by the mistakes of thinking something

unintelligibly meant it was the sign of genius instead of what it really was namely

unintelligible and numerous other mistakes.

Chandrasekhar: “And Eddington recalled that as the meeting was dispersing, Ludwig

Silberstein (the author of one of the early books on relativity) came up to him and

said: ‘Professor Eddington, you must be one of the three persons in the world who

understands general relativity.’ On Eddington demurring to this statement, Silberstein

responded. ‘Don’t be modest Eddington.’ And Eddington reply was, ‘On the contrary,

I am trying to think who the third person is!’”

Silberstein wrote an early book on relativity as noted above, and if we look at what

Silberstein says he disagrees with Einstein on that issue. It was fundamental in

physics to try to get agreement as to what Einstein’s relativity means, so that we can

have a clearly defined theory. But those disagreeing with Einstein like Silberstein end

up getting ignored, and often instead misrepresented as supporting Einstein.

Chandrasekhar: “The myth that general relativity is a difficult theory to understand

did immeasurable harm to the development of the theory. The fact is that the theory of

general relativity is no more difficult than many other branches of physics…”

That is Chandrasekhar’s opinion. What is really the problem is that the controversy in

the subject of Einstein’s relativity is glossed over when it is presented to physics

students. There was much disagreement with Einstein in 1919; why that was the case

is not dealt with. If a balanced presentation were given as to what the critics had to

say then the students would get a better insight into the issues and why there is so

much confusion in physics.

Einstein himself eventually decided he did not understand his own theory (theories) of

relativity and said: “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I

do not understand it myself anymore.” [4]

So what the students should be presented with is- Einstein did not understand his

theories, which means to me that it no longer made sense to him and many people

could not make sense of them. And so – they were never properly accepted; thrashing

out the differences of opinion never happened. By not doing that a mess was created.

The perception by many people is that if a subject is "unintelligible" then it’s very

complicated and the person who came up with it was extremely clever; i.e. they bow

to authority and consider themselves not clever enough to understand complicated

things.

The alternative was -- it was "unintelligible" because it was "unintelligible."

Sadly the publicity campaign went for the interpretation it was "unintelligible"

because it was "clever"; instead of what it really was - it was "unintelligible" because

it was "unintelligible".

It tells us more about the psychology of people than anything about physics.

And so it persists into the present day-- those opposed to Einstein's relativity and

those supporting Einstein's relativity-- but the "real" issue is no-one can agree what

"it" is because it’s ambiguous.

Epilogue

Going over the essential issues again:

It was decided that Einstein's relativity was not clearly defined.

That means it was ambiguous; "they" (physics community) could not decide what

precisely "it" was.

Being vague and ambiguous it was of course then "unintelligible."

Meaning that only a select few could supposedly understand it.

While for the majority - "they" didn't know precisely what it was.

Example of how that confusion can occur -- some said by Einstein (1905) that aether

did not exist; some by Einstein (1920) that aether existed.

i.e. you could be a follower of different versions of Einstein; you might think Einstein

was correct in 1905 and wrong in 1920 or vice versa or something else and still think

you followed Einstein.

In Einstein’s famous paper on SR he says, Einstein (1905): “The introduction of a

``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous..” [5]

This gets interpreted by many Einstein followers as Einstein meaning that aether does

not exist, and gets repeated as such in many SR texts. Highlighting also the

“interpretation problem” with Einstein; maybe he did not mean in his 1905 persona

that it be interpreted that way; who knows; Einstein never made it clear.

Later he says; Einstein (1920) : “According to the general theory of relativity space

without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation

of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time

(measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical

sense. “ [6]

This raises many problems for instance – SR is supposed to do without ether, and the

earlier theory of Lorentz was similar to SR but had ether; so was AE now thinking the

correct theory was Lorentz theory not SR. On numerous issues like this AE is unclear

what he thinks and keeps changing his mind anyway, leading to him finally saying he

didn’t understand his theory (as noted).

According to Lorentz theory article: What is now called Lorentz Ether theory

("LET") has its roots in Hendrik Lorentz's "Theory of electrons", which was the final

point in the development of the classical aether theories at the end of the 19th

and at

the beginning of the 20th

century. An extension of the theory was developed in

particular by Henri Poincaré, who coined the name "The New Mechanics". One of its

features was to explain why no experiments had been able to detect any motion

relative to an "immobile" aether, which was done by introducing the Lorentz

transformation. Many aspects of Lorentz's theory were incorporated into special

relativity (SR) with the works of Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski. [7]

So Lorentz ether theory might be really what Einstein came to believe instead of SR;

but this article’s aim is not to go into that problem; only to highlight the ambiguity

that Einstein left us.

Another example is the cosmological constant. In this example Einstein admits to

being wrong, but the physics community is left wondering when he was wrong.

According to Einstein – he first thought the cosmological constant was non-zero then

changed his mind to think it was zero. .

Maggie Wittlin says: The great physicist called the inclusion of a cosmological

constant in his general relativity equations the “biggest blunder” of his life. But

perhaps Einstein shouldn’t have been so hasty with his self-criticism. A new study,

the most precise of its kind to date, shows that Einstein’s cosmological constant may

explain one of the greatest mysteries in modern physics: dark energy. [8]

Einstein has been given too many privileges-- been allowed to say one thing and the

complete opposite.

Meaning mainstream decides to build on something ill-defined.

Side note

The other misconceptions that Resnick notices are not so important; and for the fourth

misconception – I think Resnick does not deal properly with namely, the relationship

to Relativity and Relativism.

References

[1] Journal of Chemical Education 1980, 57 (12), p 854-- DOI: 10.1021/ed057p854

Publication Date: December 1980 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed057p854

[2] http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/ae63.htm

[3] The Myth of Dirac supposedly combining Special Relativity with Quantum

Mechanics, Roger J. Anderton http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/anderton69.pdf

[4] In A. Sommerfelt "To Albert Einstein's Seventieth Birthday" in Paul A. Schilpp

(ed.) Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, Evanston, 1949.

http://math.furman.edu/~mwoodard/mqs/ascquote.html

[5] ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, By A. Einstein

June 30, 1905 http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

[6] Ether and the Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein :An address delivered on May

5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html

[7] Lorentz ether theory

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1094601

[8] Einstein Wrong About Being Wrong, by Maggie Wittlin "

SEEDMAGAZINE.COM October 17, 2010 http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/einstein_wrong_about_being_wrong/

c.RJAnderton2010-10-17