Einstein's Greatest Mistake - with David Bodanis
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лис 2016
- Albert Einstein is widely considered to be the greatest genius of all time. But in the final decades of his life, he was mostly ignored by his colleagues. Writer David Bodanis explores the genius and hubris of the titan of modern science.
Watch the Q&A: • Q&A - Einstein's Great...
Subscribe for regular videos like this: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
David's book "Einstein's Greatest Mistake: The Life of a Flawed Genius" is available to purchase now - geni.us/nExwU6B
Widely considered the greatest genius of all time, Albert Einstein revolutionized our understanding of the cosmos with his general theory of relativity and helped to lead us into the atomic age. Yet in the final decades of his life he was also ignored by most working scientists, his ideas opposed by even his closest friends. Bestselling author of E=mc², David Bodanis, discusses Einstein's Greatest Mistake, a brisk, accessible biography of Albert Einstein that reveals the genius and hubris of the titan of modern science.
David Bodanis was born in Chicago, lived in France for a decade, and makes his home in London. He studied mathematics, physics and history at the University of Chicago, and for many years taught the "Intellectual Tool-Kit" course at Oxford University. He is fascinated by story-telling and the power of ideas.
Subscribe for regular science videos: bit.ly/RiSubscRibe
The Ri is on Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and Tumblr: / ri-science
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/home/editorial-po...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link. - Наука та технологія
Albert's work is the best example of the power of deductive reasoning i can think of. He asked a simple question, proposed a simple answer, and followed it to it's logical conclusion, which turns out to be a very powerful expression of reality.
hope it was that simple.
It wasn't anything of the sort. Einstein was terribly wrong about a lot of things, a notorious affair loving cheater, and a plagiarist who got into several priority disputes. Even when many scientists tried to convince Einstein was wrong on several points about general relativity and quantum mechanics, he'd only admit he was wrong several years later.
I think David Bodanis At 14:20 made a great mistake (and he repeats it again seconds later): during the 1919's expedition, Sir Eddington and others, proved that light (NOT time) bends because of gravity. That was the definitive confirmation that Einstein' theory was right, But NOT the confirmation that time slow down in presence of gravity.
I agree completely! As I listened to David Bodanis explain the eclipse experiment I became very annoyed because it was obvious to me he was misleading the audience who must have been very confused because what he was saying could not have made any sense. I could not watch the rest of the presentation.
Space time bends, light goes in the geodesic of the curved space time. So technically light didn’t bend :), and he is correct. But sure he could have explained it better.
I loved this lecture, very informative! Nice to hear someone focus on the human side of genius. We quickly grow used to changed circumstances, and we forget that human beings - often individuals working largely alone - can be the cause of seismic worldwide change … and that these individuals can have hard times, limitations, can put on blinkers (just like anyone else) that somehow limit in some small way their enormous contribution, leaving room for those to come to expand upon their innovation. A very nice take on Albert Einstein and his era.
(It’s interesting, going through the comments, trying to guess the private agendas of people complaining about one aspect or another of this lecture: I suspect more than a few of them were drawn to the title hoping this was to be a “debunking” of Einstein’s findings, and a defense of their own pet quack theories? I guess I’m not sorry they’re disappointed, but I’m surprised they’d tune into a video from a channel devoted to legitimate science expecting to hear that magnets provide limitless energy or that Tesla was murdered for discovering this, etc. Maybe review the video you actually saw, rather than comparing it to the one you’d hoped to see?)
A compelling summary Sir.
Excellent insights and observations !
great share. thanks
I Have a problem with what he says at problem about 18 minutes, Light from a distant star is bent when it passes close to an object like the sun, but so does light from a point right behind the star so the star does not move in respect of its direct background which together with it, rather seems to move a bit while the sun "passes" as far as i can see.
It was a clumsy explanation.
I enjoyed David Bodanis' lecture, he did what a lot of other '''experts'' can't do, it was humorous and aimed at the general public.
So lets have less of all you dissenters even my lady friend enjoyed. A pointer; I have read all of the available literature on Albert Einstein, both biographical and technical, and I can tell you it would take months if not a year or two to even summarize his work and life.
"In 1905, he came up with .. he clarified what happens when electrons hit metals." Um, I think you mean photons buddy.
Yes---pretty weak in other ways, too.
Well, we usually surmise what happens to photons by looking at electrons: we look at the particles we can and derive from them the rules by which we believe particles behave generally. Electrons are pretty easy to shake loose and - pew! pew! pew! - fire at a metal plate. While we _can_ increasingly, now, isolate and manipulate other particles, electrons _have_ generally been the go-to for experiments, and if someone’s talking about an older experiment in particle physics, it’s a good guess they’re talking about one conducted with electrons fired at a metal plate. Not knowing the time code of what comment you’re referring to, and not having myself noticed the lecturer say what you quoted, I’m just taking a guess at what he said, at its context, and at what he may’ve meant. But maybe he misspoke, perhaps? If you _do_ have a time code, I’d be curious to go back and watch the segment you’re referring to!
@@danopticon min.0:57
Back in the 80's we were all looking at electron guns.
Photoelectric Effect
I liked the talk!
Very good, really enjoyed, thank you for upload. A suitable tabloid newspaper review might read "Ping Pong Prof Chucks Chocs to Boffins"
Boffins are experts. It's safe to say the audience are not already experts, else they would be giving the lecture instead of listening to it.
Well, let's make something clear, both relativity and quantum theories have Einstein as instrumental in the foundation of both theories. Although Einstein was most famous for his theory of relativity, the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics was officially awarded to Einstein for his work on quantum theory. Einstein made many important contributions to this field, the first of which was his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect. From 1905 to 1923, he was one of the only scientists to take seriously the existence of light quanta, or photons. In 1916 Einstein came up with the theory of stimulated emission based on the quanta of light. This theory is what makes lasers possible today. Even today with the most recent discovery of the Higgs-Boson particle at CERN you see Einstein’s huge influence in Quantum Physics. The Higgs particle is called a Boson thanks to the work of Bose-Einstein statistics. In 1935 Einstein and his team discovered quantum entanglement which is the basis of Quantum computers. So, to say that Einstein was opposed to the weirdness of the small and was stuck with classical physics is wrong. Did he like his own findings? No. Did that stop Einstein from to doing research on it? No. Did Einstein miracle year stop in 1905? No. Nevertheless, Einstein was strongly opposed to the new version of quantum mechanics developed by Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schroedinger and its uncertainty principle. Even today, there is still deep dissatisfaction among many physics about the probabilistic quality of today's quantum mechanics. It feels too much like an engineering solution rather than a physics solution in that we've given up on finding deeper principles of nature and left it to probability tables and chance.
Einstein didn't believe in known quantum theories.
RAZTubin Blindstein was à fraud and a plagiarist! As a 2nd rate patent clerk he stole the ideas of Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Poincaré' and others. It's also an established and documented fact that Olinto De Pretto discovered e = mc2 years before Blindstein! Mr. Fudge Factor was a Quantum denier too - right up till his death. Einstein was a great showman though - the wild hair idea he borrowed from certain composers, or sticking his tounge out while making goofy faces for photographers etc. A real clown!
@@lisasilvas5914 unless you have some evidence to back up your ranting, it appears that lisa needs a boy friend.
RAZTubin @the wiizzard Certainty - but I suggest you Google 'Einstein was a Fraud' for starters. You'll see tons of proof there! Then check Olinto De Pretto and you'll see it's a documented fact he discovered e = mc2 years before Blindstein took credit - as usual
tbh he should get like 5 nobel prizes.
At the IAS, Einstein had a long relationship with Kurt Gödel. I've read _Turing's Cathedral: The Origins of the Digital Universe_ (2012) by George Dyson, and some of Freeman's own recounts of his time at the IAS, so I'm not longer sure from which source I picked this up, but even during Einstein's intellectual isolation from most of the physics community, he had a constant stream of important people in the arena of global arms control making a pilgrimage to Princeton to confer with Einstein, sometimes on an almost daily basis. I got the feeling from one of these Dyson accounts that half of Einstein's time was devoted to quiet diplomacy, where he was anything but isolated. _Turing's Cathedral_ is a good read for those who are interested in this sort of thing. An excellent wine pairing is to read it alongside _Big Science: Ernest Lawrence and the Invention That Launched the Military-Industrial Complex_ (2015).
Apple Force ( formerly known gravitational force ) is invisible energy that takes any shapes if it should and through which every single object is being compacted to their common center. If there was curved of Apple Force in the center of the solar system, there would have been compacted forces among the lines of the series of the centrifugal forces evident, resulting intensifying of the planetary Apple Forces and for which mass would have been compacted and be exploded. Water would have act like rock without being cold. Furthermore, any planet would not be rotated either for counter centrifugal force resistance with planetary densifying Apple Forces.
Bodanis' book ""E=MC2 a Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation" is awesome.
I hope it's better than his horrific speaking ability.
47:51 What is he referring to? Please help me. Thank you
He is referring to entanglement, or the property exhibited by two quantum particles that remain entangled through their properties even at long distances. Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance.” This entanglement causes a conundrum with relativity because nothing can travel faster than light, however entangled quantum particles communicate instantaneously.
Someone will always be there to make the next step for a better understanding of our being and everything what surrounds us, from the smallest to the biggest. So let's move on to prove we're just at the beginning of a great project ment for us.
Ideas are flying through the air, dont fly with them, catch them and make them real, that's what it's all about.
well done guys
Wasn't the German mathematician David Hilbert just weeks away from cracking general relativity at the time Einstein published ?
I came up with the notion of fire and the wheel. Wait till these ideas get out!
A very good speaker.
I watched 27 mins and then started skipping parts to see what I was looking for. What was Einstein's greatest mistake and why is it wrong? I didn't see that in the video.
It is mentioned. He says god does not play dice, about quantum mechanics and was wrong with his Initial ideas. Look the Video again, from minute 34 or so
It was that he did not believe in quantum mechanics.. at first. I guess he understood later he was wrong.
His theory predicted space should be expanding but current experimental evidence said it wasn't so he adjusted his theory to match the data. After the discovery that it WAS expanding he overcompensated and became TOO confident in his physical intuition. I'm sure the odds didn't seem too bad at the time since he had already almost singlehandedly created ONE completely new theory. Anything less probably felt like busywork to him.
@@hgrgic This is a fallacy. He was against just accepting the behaviors of QM and instead wanted people to continue to theorize and explore what was actually going on to enhance our understanding. For decades since Copenhagen physicist were ridiculed for trying to understand the fundamental concepts. It's only recently become acceptable to be like Einstein (and Schrodinger) and try to ask what is actually going on with the wave function and not just accept that its square defines the probabilities and that "measurement" causes its collapse.
I think he meant to say Maxwell not Einstein when giving credit for cell phones and cameras
awesome
Im wondering how epic whould it be to create gps system, put all of the satelites into the space, without knowing general relativity and than figure out that there is something wrong with the satelites and with the time we thing we know... yeah this would be epic :P
hahaha agree, everyone would jump on that problem.
I'm here!!
Albert Einstein what do you think about landing on the moon
this dississshhh-tant stwwarrrr light!
Traitor.
Working for, among all people in the world, Americans.... Seriously!
Congratulations for your New World success in Hiroshima.
I'd say, you were pretty right about infinity!
+Einstein
What's that got to do with anything? Looks like you are getting senile.
Moreover, it's no excuse.
Hi Al!
Taking Einstein's observation of slowed time in fields of acceleration to the natural limit; the operation of a lens is a controlled use of this property, and that is an integral component of the universe as a whole, in other words, the integration/interpenetration of time rates is a lens of time information/history, that shapes the universe to the focus of connection, now. WYSIWYG when...
Good talk but I found all the props etc distracting.
Because clearly you are easily distracted...................LOOK OVER THERE! .......See..........I told you!
It's funny, Einstein is still heralded as having opened a new frontier in physics, but in reality he was the last of his kind -- the last classical physicist. (or at least the last one who became famous for figuring out something significant about classical physics.) Relativity is the ultimate formulation of classical physics; everyone who came after Einstein had to deal with quantum physics instead.
"Truth is One perceives itself as Two and then some for Love". - Wald Wassermann, Physicist
This talk was underwhelming, to say the least.
its just that he talks about things that are not related to the actual subject, and gave too much time and atention to said stuff rather than focusing on the subject which is like the las 10 or 15 minutes of the entire talk.
The weak trump joke put the cherry on it....
He's a charming man and the lecture looked fun but I feel like he took a bit too long getting to the point.
Terrible speaker, endlessly redundant, disorganized, painful to listen to.
Did he reach to the point?
It's almost like the speaker was trying to get the audience to realize that Einstein's work doesn't exist in a vacuum, that there were all kinds of other events interacting with it at the same time. Y'know, like an allegory for quantum physics itself.
You are correct
27:50 shots fired LOLOLOLOL
I've had a thought that black holes maybe a balance valve between alternate universes
Interesting idea. Figure out the math and publish it in a scientific journal.
his ping pong thing was really bad, he should have been hitting the ball on 1, he kept hitting it on 3 or 4, totally blew the explanation...
Quite apart from the fact that if you were accelerating toward the ball you would also be accelerating toward the "one, two, three, four" so the explanation (of Lorentz or maybe Michelson, not Einstein) is just inane.
Yep. That was clearly aimed at the 'laymen', the mathematically illiterate amongst us. And that's me. And I found it incomprehensible. He just didn't seem to know what he was talking about and he certainly didn't make anything clear to me.
photons are mass less particle/waves right . how is energy transported in a massless state ?
How? A particle in motion stays in motion until interacted with, so it just keeps going through space When particles are massless, it moves at the speed of light. All Energy Has Mass, but a massless particle is one that doesn't interact with the higgs field. The more a particle interacts with the higgs field, the "harder" that particle is to accelerate, which is the definition of Mass.
Photons don't have mass, but they do have momentum. It is momentum that transports energy, not mass.
I think Fay Dowker did a better job on explaining the theory.
Wow , if it wasn't for him , it would take 100 years for the others !
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons.
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons.
Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
If Einstein didn’t make it as a. physics theoretician he could have made as a stand up comedian.
If you want to experience a really good physics talk at the RI (instead of the bashing of a dead colleague): ua-cam.com/video/RwdY7Eqyguo/v-deo.html
dead colleague? Einstein?
Who was bashing a dead colleague ?What dead colleague ?
Did you watch the video?
Takes too long to get going. I had to skip ahead.
Time slows down and gets faster at the same time in different places with same energy phenomenon is erroneous concept. Time is constant and with which you must compare more than two or more events.
Please explain why internet wouldn't exist without lasers...
What's up with that constant blinking?
Dry contact lenses, probably. I used to have that problem before I switched back to glasses.
Really? This is the first time you two see someone with a tic?
Well, I think this is a clever way to misdirect the gravity/mass theorized relationship with a 'curvature of time' instead of the 'curvature of the fabric of space/time.' It completely ignores that this theorem would negate E=MC² and since C² is variable and not a constant. Trying to reify 'Time' as an object is just another miraculous creation like the similarly miraculous 'Fabric of Space' out of Zero. Act One: In-the-beginning there was nothing, no material sources and only pointless space; zero (0). Act Two: Then the space was provided with points which caused a fabric of space with the time between those points. Act Three: Then the material sources, the mass of the universe removed before, are replaced and curve the pointed space/time; both in time and physically. All a creation out of Zero ... Now, the God of Science is Einstein, since deity is a unicorn ... and circular logic is now the primary tool of cosmology ...
wuuuuut?
Given we still don’t understand the behaviour of quantum mechanics and that much of it cannot be proven is it entirely possible they Quantum mechanics are off track? A better theory that unifies gravity and includes predictable forces or particles may be developed that could show what is beyond the Higgs or that the Higgs is not important at all. Electrons may even be shown from another angle to show why they behave the way they do and have more of predictable nature that doesn’t place the current emphasis on quantum superposition I.e. Schrodingers cat might be pre determined based on another factor we currently aren’t measuring or are able to understand how to measure. Given Einstein has been vindicated numerous times, even despite his own occasional self doubt, probability would say he will be vindicated again one day.
Great minds make Great mistakes too.
I try to combine the cosmological constant and the schrodinger solution on the planck scale.
I used planck units.
At the end I went back to SI units to compare with the measured vacuum energy density (0.63 10^-9 J/m^3.)
Combine:
1) Einstein, cosmological constant
2) Schrödinger solution
3) Planck units
Result:
- vacuum catastrophe solved?
1)Einstein, cosmological constant
Λ = (8π 𝐺 ƐΛ)/(𝑐^4)
Planck units:
G=1
c=1
Λ (6.1871424 10^34)^-2 = (8π ƐΛ [planckEnergy/planckVolume]
1.1056 10^-52 (6.1871424 10^34)^-2 = 8π ƐΛ
0.001149 10^-120 = ƐΛ
0.1149 10^-122/ ƐΛ = 1
2)Schrödinger solution, n=1
(ℎbar^2 𝑛^2 𝜋^2) / (2𝑚𝐿^2) = E
Planck units
hbar=1
n=1
m= mplanck =1
L= Lplanck=1
0.5 𝜋^2= E
1= E/0.5 𝜋^2
3)Einstein, Cosmological Constant = Schrödinger solution
0.1149 10^-122/ ƐΛ = 1 = E/0.5 𝜋^2
0.1149 10^-122 0.5 𝜋^2= ƐΛ Eplanck
Eplanck =1
0.1149 10^-122 0.5 𝜋^2= ƐΛ
0.567 10^-122 = ƐΛ [planckEnergy/planckVolume]
0.567 10^-122 1.9561 10^9 /(1.61625502 10^-35)^3= ƐΛ [J/m^3]
ƐΛ = 2.627 10^-9 [J/m^3]
Measured: 0.63 10^-9 [J/m^3]
I am looking forward to your response.
This was a mixed bag. I think pointing out Einstein's isolation is good and interesting. However, the title is misleading at best, there's mistakes in the science, and I've seen and heard much better explanations of a lot of the ideas. A few did help me understand things better for example I never heard of the way he started thinking about relativity's equation as just G=T. The props are just a stylistic choice, to me. It makes some of the audience more interested at the chance of making them more focused on chocolates than the talk.
Max Born was Olivia Newton John's grandfather, not Niels Bohr.
The Sagnac experiment indeed proves that the speed of light is not invariant c. The relativistic derivation produced to show that the Sagnac effect is in fact relativistic is nothing but a crafty mathematical trick. Houdini method.
I've never been able to get a explanation of the Sagnac effect that I could understand AND be satisfied with. I am a layman. No mathematician or physicist. I would much like to hear your take on it.
The event between Bohr and Einstein is a routine story told in many books, but this lecture reverses it's character. It is always Bohr who challenges Einstein several times in a conversation, and Einstein's off-the-cuff thoughts are demolished by Bohr without hesitation. Bohr leaves Einstein with the challenge, but Einstein later does think up something not instantly refutable. Bohr took some hours of thinking to counter, but only because uncertainty combining with Relativity was a surprising thought at the time. Bohr was mildly impressed that Einstein could think of anything that would take so long as hours for Bohr to resolve.
The picture with Einstein smiling next to the sombre Bohr does not indicate something about this conversation. Einstein smiled easily, and smiling for people who were always taking pictures was practically an involuntary reflex. Bohr always looks severe in pictures, like he did in that picture.
In short, the angle this lecturer imposed on the story is deceptive. I wonder if he garbaged up the whole book like this.
If one is accelerating, one will feel the effects of force, and one will detect the Doppler effect when observing any non-accelerating light sources. If instead one is feeling the force of gravity, one will NOT detect the Doppler effect when observing non-accelerating light sources. Thus they can not be view as equal.
I've usually enjoyed the caliber of talks given by the Royal Institution, but this was a embarrassment. For the entire talk, I kept wondering whether this was a prank and he was just trolling the audience.
I heard someone else in some UA-cam video say that geniuses, the ones who make huge scientific breakthrough, have greater persistence than other mortals...but he was probably much more intelligent too, haha, despite his claims...
He was better than most people at math, what we would call "excellent", but that's not to say that he wasn't worse than many a mathematician of his day, say David Hilbert, haha...he struggled with the mathematics-part of relativity, had to learn new mathematics...David Hilbert almost "cracked" it first as a result...so maybe that idea of Einstein not being terribly good at math was partially spawned from all of that...him not being as good as some prominent mathematicians of his day...
John Nash supposedly tried to show him he was wrong about something or something, haha...Einstein wasn't pleased...not sure what exactly it was...they refer to that in the film A Beautiful Mind, which isn't to say that it didn't really happen, I think Ron Howard was talking about it, the actual event referred to, seemingly amused, that pseudo-conflict with Einstein...he thought Einstein was wrong about something, maybe it had to do with his relativity, not sure...
This is certainly a different style of lecture from the majority of ones that I've seen. But I've also seen a lot of lectures from historians who are particularly focused on trying to humanize their subject. They tend to go similarly to this one, a bit whimsical, a bit light. Seems pretty standard practice for such pursuits. Afaik, most of the lectures are from very ambitious serious scientists, but this guy gives off that laid back kinda looney historian vibe to me.
E=MC squared is Wrong. How do you knoiw tje spped light? To know you must measure it. How did you measure it? Another thing, how do you know that the speed of light is contact? What it it varies by 1 cm? I cm is nothing. Quantim Physics. In the World nothing is CONSTANT.
It has never been measured, apparently. See youtube 'veritasium'. That is: "in ONE direction'. Only ever in two directions. There and back. Common sense says it is the same both ways. But you know science - don't trust common sense, check it, prove it, for often we've found the 'common sense' or 'intuitive' answer is wrong. Hence they consider it a valid point: it has never been measured (in one direction).
Time will never be the same! Einstein started describing Time-Space but later changed it to Space -Time under pressure of other scientists. time-factor-theory.com is based entirely on ideas I found in Einstein's writings that he later abandoned for the more commonly accepted Space -Time! Please support this idea or at least comment as to why you disagree. See website for never before seen ideas. Even Wikipedia has now (years after I published it) added a "version" of this idea to Wikipedia! They couldn't add it as explained on my website since I own the copyrights. (At least for next 50 or so years).
Mr. Bodanis, if you didn´t know: You can´t even send a satellite in orbit (GPS) with the gravity theory of Einstein! You have to use Newton equations! Don´t you think that´s says it all?
Uh, no. Newton's Laws of Motion don't predict the effect of Earth's gravitational frame-dragging on the motion of satellites, nor the effect of orbital speed on satellites' internal clocks. These things have to be actively compensated-for to make GPS satellites work correctly.
Albert Einstein made no mistake. E=mc^2 is not yet conpletely explored. Start there.
Indeed, Lorentz had all the building blocks for the relativity theory. Einstein stayed over at Lorentz home often when he visited him in Haarlem. They where friends and Einstein looked up to him and was a father to him. Lorentz was very modest and try to heal the wounds between scientists after WW1. He did not dare publishing the relativity theory yet. Eistein worked it out .
Just one thing: it is not true that without Einstein we would not have cellphones today. Without Einstein, somebody else would have figured out everything that he did. He just was the first to be at that right intellectual place at the right time.
what you say is a theory, the reality is another.
You, sir, are an amazing storyteller
Someone else ould have come up the ideas.
a flawed genius? like what do you mean... flawed...?!
I suppose you could listen to the lecture and find out.
No internet, cellphones and GPS without Einstein's thinking? Does this man know how sience works? Probably not.
He was a genius and so was Newton full-stop.
2 monsters of physics for sure.
And 2 plus 2 equals 4.
The props and theatrics were totally misplaced and distracting. I had to skip parts after 24 minutes to find Einstein's mistake.
I never found it. What was it/is it supposed to be? All I know is there's periodic reports of yet another 'confirmation' that Einstein was right. Usually something to do with astronomical observations.
I guess there will be uncertainty at quantum scales, simply because real numbers don't exist in nature and to get 100% accuracy, we need arithmetic on real numbers
We should be cautious of people talking about the history of people and events since it
can be easily slanted by love,hate , imagination and so on.
The media can control the way we see the world .
Sadly the speaker did not understood that General Theory of relativity is not about 'squeezing' time, it is about non-existence of time as a real thing. It explains how time is a relation between point of view and change.
what? Time most certainly exists in Relativity. All relativity does is explain exactly what time is, which is a dimension of space, hence why it is referred to as Space-Time now. Time is the 4th dimension of space and can be manipulated just like the other 3 dimensions, length, width, and depth.
ROFL. The ENTIRE point of GR by Einstein is that time is just a relation of change between things, not a dimension in any sense. If time is a dimension, there is infinite number of dimensions of time, because time is different from each and every point of space. And you, Sir, are welcome to embrace this and thus reduce your cognitive dissonance.
Just to add, what do you think length, width, and depth are if not a relation of view? GR proved that as you warp space, so too do you warp time. a straight line becomes a curved line and has to travel a longer distance to get from A to B. Time becomes warped in the exact same way, and slows down in the exact same proportion (this is why you cannot move faster than the speed of light, your time slows down more and more until it completely stops, just like on the event horizon of a black hole). This proves that time isn't a separate entity from space, but just another dimension within space, ergo Space-time.
Please, PLEASE, learn the fundamentals at least before you start saying non-sense, especially about someone who is intelligent enough to be doing a lecture at the Royal Institute. The very place Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell to name a few all spoke at. These people are literally some of the best minds on the planet in their fields, so show a little respect.
Time is not a dimension dude. You don't quite get it. There is only space. The entire word 'time' should be dropped from the english language to avoid confusion! When you measure 'time' you are only measuring the distance that some object has moved
Your (Piotr’s, ii ii’s) statements are such a nonsense, they are not even wrong. If you really take the time to *study* this, you will learn that general relativity (GR; which is not solely Einstein’s work) describes reality as a potentially curved, 3+1-dimensional manifold, which means that it has 3 spatial dimensions and *one* temporal dimension, called “time”. Nowhere does it speak of “a relation of change between things” or “infinite number of dimensions of time”. (_Gravity_, or gravitational forces, is what does not really exist according to GR, instead.) See e.g. . As for “cognitive dissonance”, you should read .
gravity has to be on the electromagnetic spectrum. i think when energy is in the form of mass it emits a bunch of what do you call it... rays or feilds that either attracts or repels things, rays or feilds that could be found on the electromagnetic spectrum. dont worry ive been know to be wrong a lot. I think we cant see those feilds or rays what ever its called, its because we dont have the right type of prism. I have never seen a prism made of diamond or anything better than diamond. the spectrum is probably way bigger than what i was ever taught anywhere in mylife.
Gravity does not "have to be" on the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic spectrum is only for the electromagnetic force. If you want to know more about measuring gravitational waves propagating through space, go read about LIGO.
Why is Einstein's wife not referenced....she was a driving force behind many of "his" ideas!
Because Albert's ideas were his ideas. You probably also think the Fanny Mendelsohn wrote Felix's compostions. And Anne Hathaway wrote King Lear!
I like to hear thoughtful criticisms that take us to more knowledge, not less. That's not happening here. Science is currently a religion trying to 'prove' Einstein's gravitational hypotheses, which even he was doubtful about.
you cannot be more wrong.
Do you know is the most challenged theory of all time? and still working, anyone that breaks it, will get a Nobel Prize. please educate yourself and stop saying nonsense.
They need forward and reverse ARROWS between the G & T ??????
Tests: you can't change the light constant if its constant. So it must be true.
Go read about the Michaelson-Morley Experiment. They did, in fact, test and prove the constancy of light speed -- decades before anyone had written any math that predicted such a thing.
David is my man!
in the begining he talkin about tesla.
General relativity: the theory of perfectly straight lines in bending space. It is difficult to ponder a more philosophically untenable mass of error and fallacy.
@Dirk Knight What does your unsupported hypothetical drivel have to do with what I stated? Is it a poor attempt at an ad hominem attack due to me rejecting one of your religious beliefs?
@Dirk Knight I understand you do not have any balls.
🖤
4:54 He starts to judge Einstein on the basis of a pic?? To me, its idiotic.
lol
no, probably picked the pic that best resembles best his last 20 years of life. how bout that? stop being so assuming
@@muzzletov A pic tells whole life of 20 years?
@@ashish19 you just dont want to understand solely to not be wrong -.- no. Its the theme of his last years, supposedly
@@muzzletov Have you, or has the speaker, looked into Einstein's mind in the last years? How are you sure that this picture tells his last years?
It’s a tragedy how some of the commenters missed the whole point. Wonderful lecture
I wonder how many teachers will teach this information to their young "Students"?????
E²=mc² is not correct formula for this explanation.
Mass does NOT change.
Please issue a correction for this video as this is a major mistake.
ArcStealth, I hope he did not write E² = m c², too. Because the correct equation is E = m c², but only if either E is rest energy (E := E_0) and m is (rest) mass (m := m_0), or E is total energy and m is “relativistic mass” (m = m_rel; from the energy-momentum relation E² = {m_0}²c⁴ + p²c², E = γ m_0 c²). Therefore, regarding your statement about mass, it is correct if one means (Lorentz-)invariant/rest mass m_0 by that, as is common in modern physics; it is not correct if one means the deprecated “relativistic mass” m_rel = γ m_0 as the Lorentz factor γ = 1/✓(1 - v²/c²) is a function of the relative velocity v, thus _not_ Lorentz-invariant.
Thomas Lahn exactly! Lol
Thats the matter...THE THREE PILLARS OF BEING
The present, the common and the mutual complement.
Everything is now at the same time and it is a lot at the same time, although the possibly previous nothing from which everything should come, but is so poor and without energy. So much power can not have made that boundless being necessary to appear. But it is the entity anyway just momentary, a fictional Augernblick, but in a moment that lasts because there is no opposition to him which can put him in the place.
Purely fictional to the effect factor for also fictional, that is that flesh of the present which ultimately consists of nothing more than from the recognition of others.
The vain dream each other to effectiveness.
This trick creates the world that remains out of nothing, in the groundless immaterial and stays there effortlessly and therefore tirelessly.
The now, the time, the space, the energy, all these units of measurement are not concrete.
There are the present, the moveable, the united, the structure-builders that complement each other in their respective contexts.
This makes nature complex enough and it must be whimsical anyway, after all, it has transcended nothingness infinitely, it is not just a one that can never arise through any amount of zeros, it is suggestive and that makes the difference in comparison with any building block models.
The now knows no stretch, the now is whole, the now does not draw into the borderlessness, on the contrary, it is completely dense and close and purely fictional.
But this term is not reality, it's just a conceptual tool. The true substance is called wholeness. But this is both comprehensive and concentrated at the same time and is therefore irritating, because any other conceptuality fails.
The term wholeness perfectly corresponds to our soul. Nothing is closer and more certain, but as soon as we stop thinking about anything, it runs from our fingers.
What is the repulsive force that is causing the Expansion of the Universe?
It's the same natural entropic forces that keep in return and temporary the stuff ( matter ) together.
That's why there's no "gravity" ( there's no gravity attraction ) in the calssical way and Newton and Einstein are fundamentally wrong.
Not as an approximate method of practical calculation but as a real phenomena which are behind their true causes.
Lol..Ineffective explanations to such a beautiful concept.
If this is what his book is like, count me our, or out, if you like.
And de Broglie-Bohm theory? Einstein ghost is still over us. His somewhat rationalist way of dealing with reality could still be proven to be superior. What do you say about this NASA's article from this month? One could start from point "10. Discussion".
arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/1.B36120
exactly Jean Bricmont proves that almost all physicists don't understand quantum physics. Hilarious!
I wonder why he thinks the internet needs lasers.
He looks like an older version of Larry Page
I think he invented the scanner. I can, now but a single banana, and not the bunch. Such a good invention.....not.
why the sun have sunglasses? to protect itself from the sun?
I'm guessing he didn't have a scientific-grade sun pillow made specifically for this presentation, but instead bought a pre-made consumer-grade pillow from a store.
Very disappointed this even made it on the Royal Institute. First of all, he clearly doesn't understand the actual science, then he fails to realize Einstein's contribution to quantum mechanics.
I think the speaker has a lisp
Lorenz equation is the Einstein equation! It´s the same math. Even a high school student can se that! Now to the million dollar Q. Who was first? Answer: Einstein was second! Do you get it? Einstein has stolen it from Lorenz.
He makes it quite clear in the lecture that Lorenz was also working on what we now call Special Relativity. Einstein's unique accomplishment was General Relativity, which nobody else was working on.
Einstein's biggest mistake was accepting G in general relativity, meaning he is wrong for gravity and since protons dont reach anything like infinite momentum in particle accelerators or lose their dimensions so special relativity is wrong. Luckily the photoelectric effect is right and he deserved his Nobel Prize. Nice comedy and storytelling from you though.
Einstein, Einstein....,
Everyone talk about Einstein, but no one mention his wife contribution to his scientific achievement.
Why?
Can the person at the back of the audience please stop shining their torch directly into the presenter's eyes!?!?
He probably had dry contact lenses. I used to have that problem before I switched back to wearing glasses.
um. did it really take 50 minutes to say that quantum did not play nice with General?
No, it didn't. But then again, did you really need to watch a 50 minute lecture to tell you a single fact you already knew?
@@deusexaethera To be fair I expected it to be about something pivotal, informative or at the very least vaguely "new" on the subject when the realization hit home that this was going no-where but the obvious. That did not happen.
@@twobob: That's the downside to already knowing a lot about a topic -- new revelations are hard to come by.
@@deusexaethera In general these lectures surprise, educate or at least entertain. This was frankly none of that. Slow, uninspiring; it felt like reading Wikipedia.
Einstein was right to not accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. It must have taken great courage to go against the currently accepted wisdom but he was right to do so. Once the correct revisions are made to current theories of physics it will be clear that the Special theory and the General theory of relativity are the only one's left standing. Well done Einstein.
www.academia.edu/5038836/The_Unification_of_Physics
Richard
If what you say were true, you could not have written it, because your computer, which is based on QM, would not have worked. IOW, by making the argument this way you have already refuted it.
+Thomas Lahn
Sorry mate but you are wrong. That personal computer you are using is not working because of QM but because of the electromagnetic force. It is ok if you don't understand how computers work, most people don't but please do not write nonsense.
Pot calling the kettle black. Read up on QED some time, right after you studied computer science (like me).
I skipped this lecture because I didn’t like the Pharmaceutical Sponsor. Gotta draw the line.