# Max Born Albert Einstein Letters of Friendship

Max Born is Olivia Newton John’s grandfather. How wonderful for her.

This link is to an article about their friendship. Refer https://archive.org/stream/TheBornEinsteinLetters/Born-TheBornEinsteinLetters_djvu.txt Here is a quote below:

In spite of their scientific differences Born and Einstein sustained a rare and close friendship for more than forty years, until Einstein's death in 1955 (Max Born was to live until 1970). For long periods these letters were the only link between them. Whether they are commiserating over the plight of German Jews in exile, or delighting in the plays and poems of Bern's wife Hedwig, or exchanging sharp and often witty comments about their scientific colleagues, the two men reveal throughout the essential warmth and generosity of their personalities. As Bertrand Russell writes in his foreword: 'In an age of mediocrity and moral pygmies, their lives shine with an intense beauty. Something of this is reflected in their correspondence, and the world is richer for its publication'.

The other appears to reveal a critique. However, from clashing ideas great insights emerge. It is not about sedating opposition, it is about welcoming critique as a means of forcing us to go deeper. That is the purpose of opposition. See below.

It is hard to understand as a lay person is my response.

return to homepage The Born-Einstein
The correspondence between Max Born and Albert Einstein has been available for several decades now. Unfortunately, as edited by Born and others, it has stood mainly as propaganda in favor of the Copenhagen Interpretation. I will show several ways it does this, but like many other documents on this subject, it does so mainly by force of numbers. That is, the Copenhagen Interpretation has been a triumph of democracy rather than of science. Einstein was simply outnumbered or outvoted. In this correspondence, it is Einstein against Born, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, etc., etc.* The letters make this perfectly clear, as we see the cabal attack and then expel its smartest member—a member they are clearly incapable of understanding. But I will not limit my attack here to Born. As is my normal procedure, I will attack in all directions nearly simultaneously. What this means is that the letters give me another opportunity to show how Relativity is flawed. I will be able to use many quotes of Einstein to show the contradictions in his groundwork and in his math. As proof of my first point, let us go to letter 65, where Born tells Einstein that Rumer has noticed that, “the assumption of a Riemann space leads inevitably to certain assumptions about the matter tensor and fairly necessarily to a curious new kind of field theory of matter.” Now, this is precisely the sort of statement that Einstein would have leapt on. Much of what Born tended to say either left Einstein exasperated or speechless, as we see from the terseness of Einstein’s other responses, but this quote would have interested Einstein immensely, since it led into a very fruitful discussion. And yet we find no response from Einstein. Born’s letter is dated October 6, 1931. The next letter from Einstein is May 30, 1933, in response to another letter of Born’s. That is more than a year and a half. Any astute reader must be left with the impression that at least one letter has been lost or destroyed. This impression is reinforced by a comment of Born added to letter 57, 1927, where he says, “He (Einstein) had tried a different, non-statistical, interpretation of Schrodinger’s wave mechanics and was submitting a paper about it to the academy. I cannot remember it now; like so many similar attempts by other authors, it has disappeared without a trace.” I find this comment astonishing. How could a paper by Einstein on this subject disappear without a trace? How can we imagine that any paper by Einstein would disappear without a trace? That is like asserting that a painting by Leonardo had disappeared without a trace—not by theft or loss, but by total disinterest. I ask, is that at all likely? No. Without high levels of suppression, it is beyond belief. After all, we are in possession of similar papers by Bohm and many others—scientists of a much lower stature. Even if Einstein’s paper was complete drivel, it would still be worth a fortune simply because it had his name on it. If Einstein’s paper has been buried, it has been buried on purpose. In fact it leads to another very curious omission in the letters. In December 1926, Einstein had said, “I am working very hard at deducing the equations of motion of material points regarded as singularities, given the differential equations of GR.” Then, in January 1927, Einstein’s last letter on this subject said, “I show that one can attribute quite definite movements to Schrodinger’s wave mechanics, without any statistical interpretation.” Einstein included a draft of this paper for Born. This caused Born’s response just quoted, about this paper being lost, by him and by history. But not only was the paper lost, the correspondence of that time was lost, too. An interval of almost three years suddenly opens up in the letters. Einstein’s letter 57 is undated, and his next letter is from December of 1929. Born is forced to explain, “Whether letters have been lost, or whether silence really reigned, I do not know.” And added to letter 60 is this from Born, “The letter in which Einstein criticizes a passage in my book seems unfortunately to have been lost.” Unfortunate and convenient, I would say. It is beyond belief that Born would have had no comment on this subject himself, disregarding the loss of Einstein’s letters in this period. Born was always delighted by a letter from Einstein and never once failed to respond—except this one time. We are supposed to believe that he has nothing at all to say about this and that he remembers nothing of it? And that he is both content and unsurprised that Einstein’s paper and subsequent letters have disappeared with a trace? It is simply not credible. Other passages also act as propaganda, even when letters are not being suppressed. In letter 60, Born paraphrases Dirac: the difficulties of QED [like infinite renormalization] “lie partly in the fact that Schrodinger’s equations, and not those of Heisenberg, were used as a starting point.” Here is a direct quote from Dirac: “For the purpose of setting up QED, Schrodinger’s is a bad theory, Heisenberg’s a good one.” As a sort of clarification of this assertion, Born comments on Schrodinger’s mechanics in this way: “The common objection is that one needs waves in spaces of many dimensions, and this canot be visualized.” But later Born admits that “Schrodinger himself had shown the mathematical equivalence of wave and matrix mechanics.” So there are two glaring contradictions here. First, if wave and matrix mechanics are mathematically equivalent, there can hardly be a great deal of difference in choosing between the two for setting up QED. Of two maths that are really equivalent, one can hardly be good and the other bad. In fact, the simpler and more transparent math should always be preferred, given equivalence. This certainly applies to Schrodinger’s equations, not Heisenberg’s. Second, it is interesting here that a lack of visualization is a minus for Schrodinger but a plus for Heisenberg. The Copenhagen Interpretation—which everyone knows is connected to matrix mechanics—forbids its adherents from trying to visualize quantum motions and interactions. They treat its mathematical purity as its main selling point: the fact that it cannot be visualized is its main esoteric draw. It must be accepted simply because the math demands it. But then these same purists turn around and complain that Schrodinger does not offer us an easy visualization? The double standard could not be more transparent.
But let us move on to more substantive questions. Let us start with the introduction to the letters by Kip Thorne. Thorne says, “If future experiments were to reveal a non-zero aether drift, then Einstein’s relativity would crumble.” This quote shows the degree to which Relativity is still misunderstood. Thorne, like all standard-model contemporary physicists, believes that relativity depends on the Michelson-Morley null outcome, but I have shown that this is completely false. The M/M null outcome was due to a faulty conceptualization and a bad diagram and has nothing at all to do with the strength of relativity. Relativity is the Doppler Effect on clocks and other visual data, and the abstraction that has come to be called the aether is beside the point. You can have SR with or without an aether, depending on how you want to do your math. Besides, SR has already been proved without M/M, from mountains of other experiments and data–from pulsars to accelerators. This fact is well-known and I am not stating anything revolutionary or offensive. The reason I mention it is to show that even this recent introduction is riddled with fundamental misunderstandings. The universities apparently could not come up with anyone familiar enough with relativity to write a sensible introduction. This is not a surprise to me, but it should be a surprise to many people. This is proved even more forcibly by the next quote from the introduction: “GR predicts that light rays passing near the sun are deflected half by the sun’s gravitational pull and half by its warping of space.” This sentence is absurd. It is like claiming that you fall down half because I push you and half because you feel pushed. What kind of logician believes that a cause and its effect are two different forces? It is the gravitational pull that warps the space in the first place. If gravity causes only half the deflection, what causes the warp? On the other hand, if gravity causes the warp, why would it affect space but not light rays in the space? Thorne’s statement is just asinine, and it is difficult to comprehend how such gloriously faulty reasoning can end up in any book, much less a high-end physics book. Thorne will answer that he is quoting Einstein directly: Einstein said just that in Since we are speaking of GR, let us look closely at the theory once more. In Born’s commentary to letter number 1, 1916, he says, “The existence and size of a gravitational field inside a small space can thus be assumed only in relation to a certain (accelerated) system of reference.” This is indeed the whole point of Einstein’s box in space, but Einstein does not follow this procedure himself. For instance, given a person standing on the earth, what system is accelerated? Einstein does not allow the system of reference to accelerate. He does not allow the earth to accelerate toward the person, to create the force. And, the person here is not a system of reference. The person is a test particle. Einstein gives the acceleration to the person, which totally destroys his hypothesis and his postulate. Einstein states a revolutionary axiom and then does not follow it. He pointed out that giving the acceleration to the test particle begged the question (correctly) and then went ahead and continued to flagrantly beg that question on the very next page. By refusing to give the acceleration to the system of reference, Einstein completely bypasses the relativity he had just asserted in the equivalence example. There is no inertial motion in GR, since neither the test particle nor the system of reference is actually accelerating (not relative to eachother and not relative to space or any other system). What I mean is that according to Einstein the person or test particle is not accelerating either toward or away from the earth. Instead, he creates a mathematical equilibrium between the particle and the field. The curvature of an orbiting particle, for instance, is not an acceleration in GR, since according to Einstein a curve is equivalent to a straight line. A straight-line velocity has no acceleration in a Euclidean field, and in a Riemannian field a stable orbit has no acceleration. A curve has no acceleration. That is why an orbiter can “feel no forces”. No acceleration, no force. No force, no acceleration. Einstein’s theory actually does away with the centripetal or gravitational acceleration. His person or test particle has no acceleration relative to the field, since the field is already curved and the particle is just following a zero-force trajectory. And the earth has no acceleration relative to the field, since Einstein has created the field as an extension of the earth. What Einstein does is assume curvature. Curvature is his postulate, not relativity or equivalence. If you study his progression of argument, it is clear that the postulate of equivalence is a dead-end. He proposes it only to drop it and take up the new postulate of curvature. Nor does equivalence act as a lead-in to curvature. There is no connection and Einstein does not even attempt to create one. He simply jumps from one idea to another. Equivalence is offered on one page and curvature on the next, with no transition. Once we have curvature, we don’t need equivalence anymore, and it is not only not carried along by the argument, it is contradicted, as I have shown. Curvature trumps and contradicts equivalence, since equivalence concerns accelerations and curvature does away with accelerations. Even with curvature, we get no foundation. Einstein’s choice of math becomes his explicit axiom of curvature, but he provides us with no reason for this choice. As I have shown extensively, equivalence actually implies that we do not have to choose curvature, but Einstein implies, without argument, the reverse. He implies that we must choose curvature. The Riemann space he chooses allows him to do all this almost invisibly. With tensors, you can create curvature without having to define it, notice it, or justify it. To say it another way, a Riemann space automatically supplies you with curvature–curvature with no cause, no force, and no acceleration. I hope you can see that this is very dishonest, both mathematically and physically. Take a similar case. Let us say that I discover a particle that moves in a zigzag. I want to explain why it does so. One way would be to show the mechanical causes of the motion. This is old physics. But the new physics just asserts a math where the zigzag is the default motion. Then nothing has to be explained mechanically. The choice of math is the whole explanation, and physics is redundant. Physics used to be the answer to the question, “what is happening?” But according to the math of GR, nothing is happening. Einstein has created a curve that is equivalent mechanically to straight-line motion for Newton, so nothing needs to be explained. In these letters, Einstein rightly complains of the mathematical presumptions of QED, but he does not appear to see how presumptuous the tensor field is. Notice that Einstein never provides a mechanism for the creation of curvature. This is his implied mechanism: gravity creates curvature. But gravity IS curvature, according to Einstein. He says both things. So gravity is the
This paragraph of Pauli is absolute jactation. Let us pull it apart. Pauli considers empirical data—the outcome of real experiments—to be ”creation”—outside the laws of nature. But if nature did not create this data, who or what did? We know Pauli does not mean God, and he explicitly rules out the observer. So Pauli has given us a verb with no noun. We have data that takes on the character of a miracle, since it arrives uncaused. Facts are neither objective nor subjective here. Instead, Pauli solves the old dichotomy—splits the old dilemma—by giving us a third undefined category: data created by no one and nothing. Previously, physics was understood to be the description of and explanation of experimental facts like position and time. But for Pauli, this sort of physics is outside the laws of nature. So everything we see and experience is outside the laws of nature. [Can you imagine a greater physical contradiction, a greater assault on the old definition of physics?] The laws of nature say ”something” about statistics, but Pauli does not say what that something is. But apparently the laws of nature concern only the math, the math is statistical, and the math does not apply to empirical reality. In Pauli’s physics, niether the math nor the natural laws apply to empirical or observed reality. Observed reality is a sort of parallel universe or concurrently running movie, one that is self-created, obeys no natural laws, has no math or explanation, and has no possible causal, logical, or definitional link to the statistical world of QED. In a pinch, one can philosophically achieve the empirical world by the squeeze-play called decoherence, but this is only a paper moon. One gets the impression that this feint is reserved for the public, and that the question never really comes up for the clergy of QED. Pauli doesn’t need decoherence, since for him there is no reality that needs explaining. The observable is simply a ghost, and one doesn’t need to waste time explaining ghosts. But I say that rather than decoherence, they should call it incoherence, and include all of QED’s foundations–such as they are–in it. Pauli’s sentences on the subject are incoherent. They are bafflement—gibberish posing as human language. For Pauli, an observed fact is not just indeterminate, subjective, or imprecise. Pauli transcends all historical dialectic at once, telling us that the real world is not the subject or object of natural laws, is not created by God, the observer, or any other entity or cause, is neither precise nor fuzzy, determinate or indeterminate, real or unreal. For the new physicist, the observed world is a nothing, a non-question, an extraneous detail. But the one great paradox—the paradox not even paraded around as a sign of distinction—is that this same new physicist claims to be an experimentalist. For instance, Feynman always boasted that QED matched experiment, so it was good enough for him. But how can he know that QED matches experiment, when all experiment is observed data, and the observed world is a creation not subject to natural laws? To put it another way, how can you dismiss all data as an uncaused ”creation” and then use that data to confirm your theory? The new physicists want to accept only the statistical data, ignoring the direct empirical data. But they never appear to notice the necessary link between the two. What is the statistical data except a mathematical distillation of large amounts of observed data? In letter 116 Born says, “Concepts which refer to things that cannot be observed have no place in physics.” Pauli, Feynman, Gell-Mann, Thorne, and all the rest would agree. But since when are probabilities observable, or quanta? These physicists appear to think that mathematics is an observable object. Then, to add to the absurdity, they claim that observed things are things that have decohered from statistical blurs, and that these observed things exist outside the natural laws, creations of nothing and no one. So, to recap: If that is not the strangest circle of reasoning I have ever seen, it is close. It is the about the most monstrous stringing together of contradictions one can well imagine. The new physicist thinks he has done some sort of metaphysical cleaning of his data by refusing to look directly at it. Look directly at it, or at any specific piece of it, and it is worthless, sullied by the human eye and mind. Look at it through the pristine window of probabilistic math, and it is pure and unsullied once more, no longer corrupted by the sin of reality and the hazy penance of the physical. In the same letter to Born, Pauli also falsely characterizes the difference between classical mechanics and QED. He states that with classical mechanics, repeated measurements with limited accuracy can replace one measurement of high accuracy [as with path of a planet, he says]. But this is false. The path of a body cannot be determined from one measurement, no matter how precise. As I show in my SR papers, any motion requires at least two measurements, and these measurements cannot be done simultaneously. To measure motion you must measure both length and time, and you cannot measure them both during the same observation. This rule is basically equivalent to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but it applies to macro-observations as well as to quantum observations. Pauli also misunderstands QED, since he says that the repetition of measurements of a given accuracy is of no use at all predictively, since the HUP determines a specific inaccuracy. He says that “this destroys the possibility of using all previous positional measurements to within these limits of error.” No, the HUP actually puts into equation form the rule that you cannot see beyond the accuracy of your tools, a thing that was already known in classical mechanics and macro-measurement. Heisenberg gives us an equation to calculate our maximum accuracy, given the width of our tools and observables. But this in no sense rules out the repetition of measurements, retaining old data, or using it predictively. The only old data that is ruled out is old data that claims a greater accuracy than the tools allow. But this is true in the macro-world just as in the quantum world, and it has nothing to do with statistics. In fact, this is precisely my argument against the current interpretation of the calculus, which claims a precision beyond the accuracy of its tools. Calculus now claims an infinite accuracy, which is an accuracy beyond the reach of any possible tools. In truth, QED as built by Bohr and Heisenberg and Pauli and all the rest does not even assume there IS a path, given a body. QED does not allow them to build an orbit, since no two positions can be connected. The quantum leap, to be consistent, must apply not only to a leap from shell to shell but also from one orbital observation to the next orbital observation, and the new scientists admit this and accept it. Pauli’s quote implies that the HUP forces them to admit it and accept it, and that this in itself rules out repetition and prediction based on it. But this is not true. Pauli’s choice to believe this is a philosophical choice, not a mathematical one. Your math and tools both have limits to their accuracy and usefulness, and it is wisdom to know this. But beyond this limit, the math and tools have nothing to say, neither positively In letter 86, even Einstein signs on to this Humean philosophy. He says, “I am well aware that no causality exists in relation to the observable; I consider this realization to be conclusive.” This is thought by many to be straight out of Hume, but a close reading of Hume will show that he never went this far himself. What Hume showed is that you cannot prove that causality exists. It is neither an In misunderstanding Hume, the new physicists have, in effect, outlawed making certain assumptions. Einstein agrees that causality is one of these assumptions we are no longer allowed to make. But he is wrong in this. Physics and science cannot proceed without making mechanical assumptions. Causality is not only allowed, it is likely to be a necessity of all mechanics. Other similar assumptions include the assumption that contact transmits force, that motion must be caused, and that acceleration must be caused. This does not mean that these assumptions are true or that they are prolegomena to all future physics or metaphysics, or that they are preconditions of all human thought. They are simply among the most fruitful assumptions that we have yet made; and if they have not been proved, they have certainly not been disproved. They are both unfalsified and heavily fortified. It has been claimed that some of the experimental outcomes of QED falsify causality or continuity or other historical assumptions of classical mechanics, but in each case the outcomes yield equally well or better to other interpretations. The rush to interpret these outcomes in novel ways is simply due to malaise, or perhaps to careerism. Novelty now sells, and the most logical answer is considered to be the most boring and the least salable. The magazines (both popular and professional) aren’t interested in logic, rigor, or consistency. They are interested in seeing the past overturned. They are interested in the continued and continuous revolution, even if it has to be manufactured.
Now let us return again to GR. I begin by looking at another quote of Born: “It seems to me I have followed Einstein’s own way of thinking in accordance with his theory of relativity, which recognizes the impossibility of locating any point in time and space absolutely….” I said above that the cabal were incapable of understanding Einstein, and this is a perfect example of that. Here, in 1950, Born shows that he still completely misunderstands relativity. His comment is simply false. Relativity does not do this. Relativity is a matter of This is not just Born’s error, since most standard-model physicists misunderstand relativity in the same way. They think that relativity justifies or underwrites or invents all sorts of contemporary fuzziness and subjectivity, when it does nothing of the sort. Relativity, either Einstein’s or mine, says that you must choose a place of measurement and stick to it. But it never says that this place of measurement is arbitrary, or that it is ultimately unconnectable to any other place, or that one place is as good as any other. Yes, you can measure from any point you like, but some points will be better, in that they are easier or that they give you information that will be privileged in some way. In fact, relativity is the exact opposite of fuzzy or subjective or “relative” in the new-age sense, because it demands even more rigor in defining your terms and fields and in being aware of how your mathematical manipulations are affecting your axioms. With Newton and Galileo you could let all that slide, since the whole universe was one co-ordinate system. With relativity, you can’t even look at an illustration in a book without considering who is illustrating what from what perspective. As I showed in my paper on the interferometer, you have to do a transform on the historical illustration to make sense of it—a transform no one ever did before I noticed that it was necessary. Here is another interesting subject in GR revealed by this correspondence: I began this paper by quoting from Rumer, who claimed–if you will remember—that a Riemann space led to a curious sort of matter tensor. What did Rumer mean by this? I will gloss it for you in such a way that you will be glad you didn’t search for Rumer’s own explanation, which is far from clear. It may be that I am adding content as well as clarity to Rumer, but I think history will forgive me for it regardless. Since an orbiting body is feeling no forces, a body in freefall must also be feeling no forces. But if this is true, then the body can be experiencing no acceleration. According to the necessary interpretation of GR, the apparent acceleration is only a relic of classical observation, due to the fact that the measurer is not in the same relativistic field as the body in freefall. Only by assuming that space at 1000 ft is the same as space at 10 ft can a measurer achieve an increasing velocity with time. But in GR the curvature of the field means that the values of time—and thereby velocity and acceleration—must change as the free-falling body gets nearer to the earth. And according to this curvature of the field, the body must have a constant velocity. Stated in this way, you can see why Einstein’s theory seemed so imaginative at first. GR does away with acceleration by creating a curved field. But this only solves half the problem–one might say the lesser half. We have no acceleration, so we don’t appear to require a force. But with no force or acceleration, it is impossible to explain why the body began falling in the first place. Einstein explains how a test body approaching a gravitational field radially could keep a constant velocity all the way to the center of the “well”. But given a test body that is PLACED at a given altitude, Einstein cannot explain its initial impetus toward the earth. A falling body will keep falling in a Riemannian field, but a body that is not falling will not BEGIN falling. The centripetal force is gone, and the mechanics of the field does nothing to impel the body nearer the earth. GR explains motion in the field mathematically, but it does not explain the impulse to motion. This impulse to motion is the primary fact of gravity. This, I assume, is Rumer’s problem with the matter tensor, since matter no longer acts inertially. With no forces, no accelerations, no centripetal force, and no impulse to motion, it becomes impossible to define matter in the old way–or in a new way that is consistent. According to Newton mass was a resistance to a force; mass was defined relative to force and acceleration. Einstein has done away with both force and gravity, so that gravitational mass is now doubly redundant. A body cannot resist being accelerated when it is not being accelerated. It cannot resist a force in a field of no forces. In this state of affairs, calling the matter tensor “curious” is a gigantic understatement. Remember that I have directly quoted above where Einstein brags about killing the phantom which is the inertial field. Well, you can hardly kill the inertial field and keep inertia, but Einstein tries to perform this miracle. He has, in fact, ditched them both, but he continues in other places to talk about using his math to show the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. Yes, he achieves this equivalence, but he does so by jettisoning all three. Zero=zero=zero. With one stroke of his sword he kills mass, inertia, and gravity. His single postulate of curvature (choosing the Riemann field) achieves the triple murder under cloak of night. They are all equivalent in limbo. This is perhaps the central reason my theory of gravity is preferable to Einstein’s. One might say that Einstein’s math is equivalent to mine in many instances, since it achieves the same numbers for bending of starlight and such things. In fact, I have already admitted this. In my merry-go-round example I show that GR is math done from the point of view of a child on the ride, while my simpler math is done from the point of view of the parent watching the ride. However, my mechanics and metaphysics are capable of explaining the impetus to motion in a gravititational field and Einstein’s are not. Since Einstein cannot explain the single most fundamental observed fact of gravity–the impulse to motion–I don’t see how anyone can claim that GR is a success. So it is not a matter of taste whether you choose my math and theory or Einstein’s. It is not a matter of taste whether you choose to be the parent or the child. Some will say that my no-force argument against Einstein can be turned against me, since my field also has no forces. But this is not true, since although I do not have primary forces as the first cause of the gravitational field, I still have real accelerations and secondary forces caused by those accelerations. This gives me the equivalent of inertial fields, which allows my theory to easily dovetail with classical mechanics. I do not achieve an equivalence of mass and inertia by doing away with both. I define both in terms of the same motion, unifying them at the foundational level. Einstein postulates curvature, which makes inertia and force redundant. I define and resolve all my forces into straight-line motion, expressed spherically. This gives me a mechanically expressed, rectilinear gravitational field that achieves all the numbers of GR, at the same time that it provides a logical and complete picture of physical interactions, with no paradoxes and no difficult math.
There is another way that Einstein failed, and to see it we need to return to his quote above, where he says, “I am working very hard at deducing the equations of motion of material points regarded as singularities, given the differential equations of GR.” Here we find confirmation of a claim I have made in my GR papers. Einstein is trying to use “material points” or singularities in his field equations. This was the common goal at the time, and still is. Born says the same thing of GR in his comment to letter 73: “The movement of mass points is determined by the geodetic lines of the space-time world.” But this is precisely why Einstein failed to produce a unified field theory. It is also why QED requires renormalization. I have spent an enormous amount of time in my papers addressing the use of points in field equations (or any differential equations), and I did so specifically to solve these two problems. The unification of the fields fails from both ends, and it is the fault of the point from both directions. Born calls the mathematical entity a mass point and Einstein calls it a material point, but in both cases their terms are just contradictions. A mass-point is an oxymoron, since there can be no mass at a point. A point is not a material object, not even potentially or as an axiom or as a variable or as a function. In every case it is a logical error, no more and no less. The other thing that prevented Einstein from achieving any sort of unified field was that his kinetic energy equation was wrong. The thing he had most confidence in was his biggest mathematical stone in the road. All he needed was a subtle tweek to his kinetic energy transforms and a unified field theory would be in his grasp. I have at last provided that subtle tweek, and the unified field theory is now a reality. Other tweeks were required as well, but throwing out the point and correcting the kinetic energy equation were among the most important. I mention this because it addresses an important claim in the introduction to the letters. Kip Thorne adds a bit of zest by talking of gravity waves, although they play no part in the correspondence. He offers us the famous Einstein-Infeld-Hoffman method and tells us that it relies on an expansion of powers to find the motion of planets. Newton’s equation is the first order and binary pulsars have required the EIH method to be carried up through order five. Gravity wave observation requires order 12, we are informed. At this we are expected to gasp. I do gasp, but only at the idiocy of it all. This expansion of powers relies once again on the expansion of the kinetic energy equation, which I have shown is the outcome of bad math. Once Einstein’s equations are corrected, Newton’s equation resolves directly and evenly into the relative transforms, with no margin of error and no expansion of powers.
I would like to touch on one final subject before I close. Einstein believed, and stated in these letters, that theorizing should be a private spare-time occupation, in order to preserve ones independence. Born commented on this: “What he did not consider, however, was the organizational rigidity of almost all professions, and the importance which individual members of a profession attach to their work. No professional pride could develop without it. To be able successfully to practice science as a hobby, one has to be an Einstein.” Although I may agree with the last sentence here, in the main Born completely misunderstands Einstein, as usual. He says that Einstein did not consider all this, when clearly this is precisely what Einstein did consider. It was in reaction to this organizational rigidity and self-conscious group pride that Einstein made his comments in the first place. Einstein knew that real thinking could not get done in such a social or professional situation, and that is why he recommended the avoidance of professionalism and science as a group activity. This recommendation might be called one of Einstein’s greatest insights, since he perfectly predicted the future of physics and its takeover by professionals–particularly university professionals. It does indeed still take an Einstein to do what he did, which is simply to say that it will always require a genius to do the work of a genius. Unfortunately, the demands of the new professionalism currently make the sort of independence Einstein enjoyed all but impossible. A hobbyist is now predefined as a crank, and there is no room even in the margins for an Einstein. The margins have been closed to suit the needs of the careerists.
*The only major ally for Einstein in these letters is Schrodinger, and Schrodinger gets attacked in the same dishonest ways, as I show.
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these “unpublishable” things. Don’t be confused by paying Melisa Smith–that is just one of my many |