Choas vs Einstien

[DarknessDreams]

recently been having an arguement with the mrs about einstiens theory of everything( which i think is rubbish).

basicaly he believed that the whole of the universe etc is predictable and if we knew what was at the beginning we could fundamentaly know everything that was going to happen to everything including us our behaviour the whole kitten caboddle.
and im sorry i cant except this i firmly believe that everything is a balance and that chaos has to exist in the universe and that einstien had only invented his own personal paradox that cannot exist.

Any comments

[A_Non_Ymous]

When you speak of Einstein's "theory," it's misleading, because one naturally assumes ab initio that you're referring either to the Special or General Theory of Relativity. As a result, your statement of Einstein's position sounds rather reductionist and a little unfair, as well as a bit of misdirection.

A careful reading of your diatribe makes it appear that instead, you're objecting to Einstein's adherence to the deterministic view inherited from 19th Century physics, and his rejection -- at least in the beginning -- of quantum theory, in particular the principle of uncertainty. "God does not throw dice!" I've always suspected "he" would prefer roulette instead. Many people claim that the uncertainty principle "philosophically" undercuts determinism at its root. I'd say that's true, in part, but there are other objections, too, which are perhaps better when we talk about physical principles.

Einstein's objections to the principle of uncertainty and what it entailed produced an extremely fruitful debate between him and Niels Bohr. I heard from my university professor in advanced physics (who was present at a lot of the debates in the '40s) that Einstein eventually came to accept the validity of the principle of uncertainty and quantum theory, but that it made him uncomfortable, and he loved to try to pick holes in it -- probably a matter of intellectual self-preservation.

Einstein knew there were major problems with reconciling GTR and quantum theory. As they were originally stated, they couldn't BOTH be true. Yet they both seemed to work. He couldn't see his way out of this problem.

It wasn't until the 1970s that people started to reconcile the differences between the theories. Hawking and Penrose, among others, made large contributions in this area. This is a complex area of discussion, and I don't think it's what you are interested in.

To recap: the degree to which Einstein accepted the notion of physical and philosophical determinism isn't taken seriously, and isn't his "theory" -- it was one of his personal opinions, unsupported by mathematical rigor. It has no impact on his scientific work. It's more a question of intellectual history and biography.

Is someone making a row over this issue these days? It strikes me as strange that this bizarre side issue should arise.

LSN

[Poetgrrl]

Re: Choas vs Einstien

basicaly he believed that the whole of the universe etc is predictable and if we knew what was at the beginning we could fundamentaly know everything that was going to happen to everything

"As above, so below," suggested the Alchemist after reading the preceding messages.

Go ahead, snicker at Alchemy (i giggle a little too when i try to decipher) but I see a truth in that Hermetic statement. Perhaps if we understood the things at work in the heavens (meaning, the universe), if we (below) could grasp it, understand it completely and wholly, we will therefore understand...everything.

Perhaps Einstein had a little draught of Alchemy when he wrote it his theory of Everything. 8) *shrugs*

[Anonymous]

basicaly i was just putting it a laymans terms as theory of everything.
On a philosophical level he argued that the whole universe was built on order everything is precise and predictable, basically.

Idont agree with this, i believe that the universe contains aspects of both order and chaos, i would still believe this even if i hadnt read any of the eternal champion storys etc.

I was only asking for comments on if others agree with me or not as i cant find many people to discuss this with so as the theme in this place ranges so much i asked here,

[DarknessDreams]

forgot to sign in


actualy in the hospital just before einstiens death he was working on his theory of everythin and is classed as an unfinished paper.


if the universe was predictable( which means we know everything), then that prediction would have to be pedictable and so would that prediction and so would that one ..........
therefore i believe that there lies an eternal paradox in this idea einstien was trying to prove.
I belive that inorder to predict the universe there has to be a little chaos to help it along which then becomes more like probability one of the bases of quantum theory and simply put what is probability if not a simple and safer form of prediction.

[Poetgrrl]

this is deep science and these theories are so massive for most of us. here was a challenge for Einstein, something probably just out of reach and i wonder if it really irked him. or did he enjoy the chase?

anyway. let's say the theory of everything is proved someday. someone (and their long-suffering team of assistants and family members) defines all physical phenomena and erases paradox. my question would then be, how will this help humanity?

*goes back to pondering how to win the lottery* ;)

[Anonymous]

the only thing i can say is if his theory was proven and we some how new everything ( putting my own feelins aside the i dont belive in einstiens theory) i dont think it could help because if we new everything there would be no point to existance, you could say thats its to experience events but how could you exeprience anything if you already know the outcome there would be no surprises.

it could be said " i stand in permenent surprise because i have never seen this world before even though i see it everyday, at each moment the universe is destroyed and reborn every moment, so every new moment is new and different than the moment before it"

i got this idea from a book an hope i get it across

so acording to einstine we would know what comes next and where would be the point in it? the fun? you would never neeed to read another novel again as youd know what happens in the end!

my point is time always changes if we knew everything and could predict everything why would time need to exist anymore? the moment would cease to exist?

light and darkness exist together, so why cant chaos and order exist together aswell, we need alittle of both to exist.

so my answer is i dont think it could help it would destroy all meaning to life and existance( and be extremely boring)

[DarknessDreams]

the only thing i can say is if his theory was proven and we some how new everything ( putting my own feelins aside the i dont belive in einstiens theory) i dont think it could help because if we new everything there would be no point to existance, you could say thats its to experience events but how could you exeprience anything if you already know the outcome there would be no surprises.

it could be said " i stand in permenent surprise because i have never seen this world before even though i see it everyday, at each moment the universe is destroyed and reborn every moment, so every new moment is new and different than the moment before it"

i got this idea from a book an hope i get it across

so acording to einstine we would know what comes next and where would be the point in it? the fun? you would never neeed to read another novel again as youd know what happens in the end!

my point is time always changes if we knew everything and could predict everything why would time need to exist anymore? the moment would cease to exist?

light and darkness exist together, so why cant chaos and order exist together aswell, we need alittle of both to exist.

so my answer is i dont think it could help it would destroy all meaning to life and existance( and be extremely boring)

damn forgot to log in again

[mordenkainen]

Er, no. A determinist weltanschauung does not entail that we can ever know everything. Determinism does not exclude chaos: if it was ever to be proven that the universe is indeed strictly deterministic, most things would remain unpredictable because of the almost infinite number of factors that can influence one particular event. Basically, being able to know everything would require that you already knew everything.

[Michael Moorcock]

My keyboard has been away from this computer, so I arrive a little late to this discussion. Einstein's no longer taken as gospel any more than Newton is these days. That's to say, they are highly respected as contributors to the study of physics, but understood not to have been right about everything. Has anyone read Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds ?
I have only read the excellent piece by him in Prospect (highly recommended newish magazine which is how I'd have liked NW to develop if they'd only add fiction!). Anyway, to quote him 'Quantum Theory and Einstein's relativity theory are opposites. The former governs the world of the very small, the peculiar subatomic realm of electrons and quarks. Relativity theory rules the world of the very large -- of black holes and expanding universes. Relativity, therefore, is not suited to explaining the instant of the big bang, where the universe was smaller than a subatomic particle. At this moment we would expect radiation effects to dominate over gravity, and hence w4e need a quantum description of gravity. Indeed, one of the greatest challenges facing physics is to unify these theories into a single, coherent theory of all the forces in the universe. Physicists today are groping for this 'theory of everything'. Many proposals have been made over the past half century, but all have been shown to be inconsistent or incomplete. So far, the leading -- in fact, the only -- candidate is string theory.' Check out string theory.
Again it's interesting to see how poetry, fiction and physics so frequently echo one another. From a distance, I'm sure future historians will see this age as having a number of ideas commonly found in the arts and sciences, maybe even religion. Even Stephen Hawking is (at last) beginning to say he got it wrong here and there. It always seemed to me that his popular work had an oddly retrospective air. I suppose it's as well that a popular audience should at least catch up with the mid-20th century. :D

[Theocrat]

My keyboard has been away from this computer, so I arrive a little late to this discussion. Einstein's no longer taken as gospel any more than Newton is these days. That's to say, they are highly respected as contributors to the study of physics, but understood not to have been right about everything. Has anyone read Michio Kaku's Parallel Worlds ?
I have only read the excellent piece by him in Prospect (highly recommended newish magazine which is how I'd have liked NW to develop if they'd only add fiction!). Anyway, to quote him 'Quantum Theory and Einstein's relativity theory are opposites. The former governs the world of the very small, the peculiar subatomic realm of electrons and quarks. Relativity theory rules the world of the very large -- of black holes and expanding universes. Relativity, therefore, is not suited to explaining the instant of the big bang, where the universe was smaller than a subatomic particle. At this moment we would expect radiation effects to dominate over gravity, and hence w4e need a quantum description of gravity. Indeed, one of the greatest challenges facing physics is to unify these theories into a single, coherent theory of all the forces in the universe. Physicists today are groping for this 'theory of everything'. Many proposals have been made over the past half century, but all have been shown to be inconsistent or incomplete. So far, the leading -- in fact, the only -- candidate is string theory.' Check out string theory.
Again it's interesting to see how poetry, fiction and physics so frequently echo one another. From a distance, I'm sure future historians will see this age as having a number of ideas commonly found in the arts and sciences, maybe even religion. Even Stephen Hawking is (at last) beginning to say he got it wrong here and there. It always seemed to me that his popular work had an oddly retrospective air. I suppose it's as well that a popular audience should at least catch up with the mid-20th century. :D

"String theory". Hmm.. Maybe the 'kalevala' creation story was right.
I find the theory interesting really. Taoism seems also to be getting viable data from mathematicians. In that things are not really things.
But only manifestations of our own values. Coming from emptiness itself.
I hope this makes sense? :roll:

[A_Non_Ymous]

Actually, there are numerous string theories. It's unclear which set of conditions chosen might be correct. The generalisation of string theories (which have been shown to be equivalent) is called M-theory.

Brian Greene wrote a decent popularisation of the (then) state of the art called The Elegant Universe. It came out a few years ago. Greene is an important contributor in M-theory. His book tries to simplify the explanation as much as he can. Michio Kaku's book, that Mr. Moorcock mentioned, is interesting, too. But a problem is that this area of physics is undergoing rapid development. Kaku's book is getting a bit venerable -- although it's still interesting. In fact, I gather Greene came out with a new book on the subject last year, but I haven't perused it. It's not precisely my area of expertise, although I follow it with some interest. One of the interesting aspects of M-theory is that physicists are, in effect, being forced to invent or open up some new areas of mathematics to develop it. This doesn't happen all that often. Newton developed differential and integral calculus to describe the problems in motion and ballistics he was interested in, but most physicists since about 1800 have had ready made tools at hand. Einstein, for example, had Riemann's work to draw on to describe the system he described in the General Theory of Relativity.

(Curiously, Einstein didn't really know Riemann's work; his friend, Marcel Grossman, suggested it as the right tool for the job. Einstein didn't know sh*t from shinola about this area of math, and had to try to learn it from scatch. Einstein had what is called in French a forte tأ?te when it came to learning mathematics: he never wanted to learn something unless he thought it was useful. This is, in truth, an absolutely idiotic notion, because thought and experience show that one can never predict what might be useful in this way. Mathematicians, of course, develop a lot of apparatus without thought to vulgar utility. Grossman spent several years trying to tutor Einstein in Riemann geometry, but Einstein never entirely mastered the mathematical tools in question. Consequently, he made a lot of errors that didn't go unnoticed. Eventually, David Hilbert cleaned up the mess for Einstein. Hilbert made an amusing comment at the time, about how every student on the streets of Heidelberg knew more mathematics than Einstein, but that they lacked his physical insight.)

It still strikes me as odd that Einstein's incomplete, and generally thought to be misdirected work on a unified field theory (as it was called in those days) is coming up. It's not really at the stage of a full-fledged theory because he couldn't develop it beyond a certain point. There are too many holes. Perhaps it's coming up because this year is the 50th anniversary of his death. Einstein had great physical insight, but his unwillingness to accept fully the quantum theory led him into a rat hole. Remember that Einstein was unaware of a lot of developments in physics associated with the strong and weak nuclear forces. This is because most of the work that made sense of these forces was done after his death. So he was trying to develop his "case" with insufficient evidence. We may have insufficient evidence today, but perhaps the mathematical tools of M-theory will be ready when we are able to devise tests for some of the conditions predicted by M-theory. This may be a while...

To say that Einstein was out in left field during his final quest for a UFT is not an attempt to run him down. It's just recognising the limits of his accomplishment. His fundamental notions developed in the General Theory of Relativity are still considered valid, but they're separate from his attempts at a unified theory. Most people in physics would say his attempts to unify matters were premature.

The way he held on to the end, trying (in his subtle way) to find a path out of the complexities of quantum mechanics was a bit sad.

The short summary: Einstein wasn't an oracle, despite popular delusions to the contrary.

LSN

[A_Non_Ymous]

By the way, I wish the name of this thread would be changed to correct the spelling of
"chaos" and "Einstein." It's really strange and distracting in appearance, to the point of appearing dyslexic. :?

No criticism. It's easy to mistype something if in a hurry.

LSN

[Pietro_Mercurios]

By the way, I wish the name of this thread would be changed to correct the spelling of
"chaos" and "Einstein." It's really strange and distracting in appearance, to the point of appearing dyslexic. :?

No criticism. It's easy to mistype something if in a hurry.

LSN

There's something very apt about the, 'Choas' and 'Einstien' spellings, though. Especially considering Einstein's own reputed problems, with dyslexia. Why should it always be spelled, 'Chaos', after all? :)

There's a theory and evidence, that Einstein's extraordinary "physical insight" into physics, may have been as a result of dyslexia. Increased spatial awareness is supposed to be one of the possible side effects, or symptoms.

The fact that Einstein seems to have extended his spatial awareness out into four dimensions, in the way that he did, seems quite remarkable. Especially, since his problems with mathematics may have been part of his problem with Dyslexia ( Dyscalculia?). Perhaps, he faltered with quantum mechanics because he was unable to 'see', or visualize, in some sort of concrete way, what their effects might actually look like in a theoretical space with more than 4 dimensions?

Quantum Mechanics works, but so far, it seems, it goes so far beyond what humans can physically imagine, into higher dimensional (7, 9, and 11 dimensional polyballs, superstrings, etc) space, that there gaps in our understanding about what actually happens, in getting from one quantum state, to another. Quantum mechanics only fills them in with the most abstract maths. Which is why the wildest speculations and vivid imaginations of the most imaginative science fiction writers have helped theoretical physicists, even spurred them on, by keep the foaming froth of the Multiverse afloat, as something we can at least dimly perceive and imagine how such things might actually work.

:D

More info about Dyslexia, Einstein and 'Spatial Awareness':

http://www.diversity-whatworks.gov.u...exia/index.asp

http://pmct.org/helpsucceed/dyslexia.html

[A_Non_Ymous]

The fact that Einstein seems to have extended his spatial awareness out into four dimensions, in the way that he did, seems quite remarkable. Especially, since his problems with mathematics may have been part of his problem with Dyslexia ( Dyscalculia?).

I don't think this is true, precisely. Einstein didn't really have any problems with mathematics. He was quite good at it. The problems that arose for him in connection with Riemann geometry were a result of a personality trait that led his professor, Minkowski, to call him a "lazy dog." He wasn't lazy, really, but from the things I've seen from his correspondance, as well as reports from others, I'd say he was bull-headed. He early conceived the notion that the mathematics that MUST explain the universe had to be simple. He laughed and scoffed at Minkowski's elegant mathematical recasting of SR, saying (stupid sounding) things about it being something only mathematicians could understand, and not being of any real use. He had to eat crow a few years later, when he discovered Minkowski's formalism was ESSENTIAL to the development of GR. Einstein general behavior (cf. Minkowski's "lazy dog") was to refuse to learn something if he didn't think it was useful.

He was, in certain ways, dogmatic. If his physical insight caused him to "feel" that something didn't fit, he'd fight it tooth and nail -- hence, the brouhaha over quantum mechanics. Fortunately, Niels Bohr was equal to the task of standing up to him, and gradually, enough evidence piled up to cause Einstein to back off; he didn't really give up, of course, and he still hated quantum theory (it didn't "smell" right), but he was taken less and less seriously. (There are still a few physicists who argue that the indeterminacy that arises in quantum mechanics is due to what are called "hidden variables." This isn't widely accepted, but the search goes on.)

Einstein was not, I think, led astray by the inability to visualize the higher dimensions of string theory that (are thought) to govern behavior at the quantum level. The higher dimensions argument mostly arose after his death, and it's not clear anyone was thinking seriously about the subject in those terms back then.

LSN