Sponsored By

Sign in to follow this  
tg1911

Einstein Was Right

Recommended Posts

Actually Einstein didn't agree with this:

"I cannot seriously believe... (in the quantum theory) because the theory cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance."

Those are some of his actual writings on this subject when the theory was put forward in 1925.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~ Welcome to the board, JeffroTa! :)

I'm curious, where did you find that quote, because it seems to contradict what he says here in 1949 to his critics, when he's discussing the building blocks of matter, and how some of the apparent discrepencies were resolved using the statistical quantum theory, in spite of his belief that the statistical quantum theory was incomplete.

Quote: Source: From Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (1949), from The Library of Living Philosophers Series;

Published: by Cambridge University Press, 1949. Including Neils Bohr's report of conversations with Einstein and Einstein's, reply reproduced here.

I now come to what is probably the most interesting subject which absolutely must be discussed in connection with the detailed arguments of my highly esteemed colleagues Born, Pauli, Heitler, Bohr, and Margenau. They are all firmly convinced that the riddle of the double nature of all corpuscles (corpuscular and undulatory character) has in essence found its final solution in the statistical quantum theory. On the strength of the successes of this theory they consider it proved that a theoretically complete description of a system can, in essence, involve only statistical assertions concerning the measurable quantities of this system. They are apparently all of the opinion that Heisenberg's indeterminacy-relation (the correctness of which is, from my own point of view, rightfully regarded as finally demonstrated) is essentially prejudicial in favour of the character of all thinkable reasonable physical theories in the mentioned sense. In what follows I wish to adduce reasons which keep me from falling in line with the opinion of almost all contemporary theoretical physicists. I am, in fact, firmly convinced that the essentially statistical character of contemporary quantum theory is solely to be ascribed to the fact that this [theory] operates with an incomplete description of physical systems.

Above all, however, the reader should be convinced that I fully recognise the very important progress which the statistical quantum theory has brought to theoretical physics. In the field of mechanical problems - i.e., wherever it is possible to consider the interaction of structures and of their parts with sufficient accuracy by postulating a potential energy between material points - [this theory] even now presents a system which, in its closed character, correctly describes the empirical relations between statable phenomena as they were theoretically to be expected. This theory is until now the only one which unites the corpuscular and undulatory dual character of matter in a logically satisfactory fashion; and the (testable) relations, which are contained in it, are, within the natural limits fixed by the indeterminacy-relation, complete. The formal relations which are given in this theory - i.e., its entire mathematical formalism - will probably have to be contained, in the form of logical inferences, in every useful future theory.

What does not satisfy me in that theory, from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Suzanne:

The quote comes from "The Born-Einstein Letters", Irene Born published in 1971. Although I actually got it from an article called "Spooky Actions at a Distance: Mysteries of the Quantum Theory" by N. David Mermin in the 1988 edition of "The Great Ideas Today, Britannica Great Books."

That quote was written many years before the article that you quoted, back when the first unified quantum theory was put forward.

Even in your article you can see that he agreed that the results of quantum theory calculations seemed to be correct but that there was no way to explain or actually show how things got from start to result, only that the result could be correctly predicted.

He was always uncomfortable with this. It is clear in the last paragraph of your article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
capt. kirk was also uncomfortable with this therory even after scotty explained how it worked.

I thought it was McCoy who was uncomfortable with transporters :)

(Oh God, I just lost all respect for myself.)

Edited by jcl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
capt. kirk was also uncomfortable with this therory even after scotty explained how it worked.

I thought it was McCoy who was uncomfortable with transporters :)

(Oh God, I just lost all respect for myself.)

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, I just increased my respect for you! I'm a closet Trekkie!

Beam me up, Scottie!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*tenmm extends hand* :) Welcome to the closet fellow trekkie.

As I recall Mr. Scott was non to fond of working on a buggy trasnsporter.

But on a side note it would be handy on the Holidays,no driving in snow storms,no delays at the airport, I could "put up" with scattering my atoms around for that. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, JeffroTa, for providing your source of reference.

~ I may have misinterpreted your original comment to imply that he recanted his quantum theory altogether.

I agree with you that he never reconciled to being unable to resolve or explain the "entanglement" phenomenon or "spooky action at a distance", (hence his reference to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle), and that's why he declared his quantum theory to be incomplete.

I also agree with you, that he was frustrated over the lack of tangible "effect" evidence to examine and experiment on, so as to substantiate his "cause" premise, (in spite of the fact that off-shoot research based on his theory proved to be correct.)

~ But ultimately, I think that he would have been surprised and delighted by the invaluable contribution made by that "pesky entanglement dilemma" in the success and development of...quantum teleportation. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this