The Four Biggest Mistakes Of Einstein's Scientific Life
In science, as in life, you usually get things wrong over and over again before you get it right. That's particularly true whenever you're trying something new; no one is born an expert at anything. We have to accumulate a strong foundation -- a toolkit for problem-solving, if you will -- before we're actually capable of solving something novel or difficult. Yet no matter how good we get at something, we all have limits to how successful we'll ever be at it. That's not a failing on our part; that is life as a limited being. It in no way diminishes our successes, however; those are our greatest achievements as human beings. When we break new ground, push the scientific body of knowledge and our understanding of the Universe forward, it's the greatest advance for all of humanity. Even arguably the greatest genius of all-time, Albert Einstein, made some colossal mistakes that it took others to correct. Here are the four biggest.
Einstein made numerous mistakes in his derivations, although his most famous results turned out to be quite robust. Image credit: Einstein deriving special relativity, 1934, via http://www.relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/einstein_1934_two-blackboard_derivation_of_energy-mass_equivalence.pdf.
1.) Einstein erred in his 'proof' of his most famous equation, E = mc^2. In 1905, his "miracle year," Einstein published papers about the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity and mass-energy equivalence, among others. A number of people had worked on the idea of a "rest energy" associated with massive objects, but couldn't work out the numbers. Many had proposed E = Nmc^2, where N was a number like 4/3, 1, 3/8 or some other figure, but nobody had proved which one was correct. Until Einstein did it, in 1905.
Mass-energy conversion, with values. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user JTBarnabas.
At least, that's the legend. The truth might deflate your view of Einstein a bit, but here it is: Einstein was only able to derive E = mc^2 for a particle completely at rest. Despite also inventing special relativity -- founded on the principle that the laws of physics are independent of an observer's frame of reference -- Einstein's formulation couldn't account for how energy worked for a particle in motion. In other words, E = mc^2 as derived by Einstein was frame-dependent! It wasn't until Max von Laue made the critical advance, six years later, that showed the flaw in Einstein's work: one must get rid of the idea of kinetic energy. Instead, we now talk about total relativistic energy, where the traditional kinetic energy -- KE = ½mv^2 -- can only emerge in the non-relativistic limit. Einstein made similar errors in all seven of his derivations of E = mc^2, spanning his entire life, despite that in addition to von Laue, Joseph Larmor, Wolfgang Pauli and Philipp Lenard all successfully derived the mass/energy relationship without Einstein's flaw.
Recommended by Forbes
SAPVoice: New Research Predicts 30 Percent Of CMOs Will Lose Their Jobs In 2017
The warping of spacetime by gravitational masses, as illustrated to represent General Relativity. Image credit: LIGO/T. Pyle.
2.) Einstein added a cosmological constant, Λ, in General Relativity to keep the Universe static. General Relativity is a beautiful, elegant and powerful theory that changed our conception of the Universe. Instead of a Universe where gravitation is the instantaneous, attractive force between two masses located at fixed positions in space, the presence of matter and energy -- in all its forms -- affects and determines the curvature of spacetime. The density and pressure of the full sum of all forms of energy in the Universe play a role, from particles to radiation to dark matter to field energy. But this relationship was no good to Einstein, so he changed it.
The expansion (or contraction) of space is a necessary consequence in a Universe that contains masses, unless it's incredibly finely-tuned. Image credit: NASA / WMAP science team.
You see, what Einstein had determined was that a Universe full of matter and radiation was unstable! It would have to be either expanding or contracting if it were filled with massive particles, which our Universe clearly is. So his "fix" for this was to insert an extra term -- a positive cosmological constant -- to exactly balance the attempted contraction of the Universe. This "fix" was unstable anyway, as a slightly denser region than normal would collapse anyway, while a slightly less dense than average region would expand away forever. If Einstein had been able to resist this temptation, he could have predicted the expanding Universe before Friedmann and Lemaître did, and before Hubble uncovered the evidence that proved it. Although we do actually appear to have a cosmological constant in our Universe (responsible for what we call dark energy), Einstein's motivations for putting it in were all wrong, and prevented us from predicting the expanding Universe. It really was a great blunder on his part.
Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein together in 1925, engaging in their famous conversations/debates about quantum mechanics. Public domain image.
3.) Einstein rejected the indeterminate, quantum nature of the Universe. This one is still controversial, likely primarily due to Einstein's stubbornness on the subject. In classical physics, like Newtonian gravity, Maxwell's electromagnetism and even General Relativity, the theories really are deterministic. If you tell me the initial positions and momenta of all the particles in the Universe, I can -- with enough computational power -- tell you how every one of them will evolve, move, and where they will be located at any point in time. But in quantum mechanics, there are not only quantities that can't be known in advance, there is a fundamental indeterminism inherent to the theory.
The wave pattern for electrons passing through a double slit. If you measure "which slit" the electron goes through, you destroy the quantum interference pattern shown here. Image credit: Dr. Tonomura and Belsazar of Wikimedia Commons, under c.c.a.-s.a.-3.0.
The better you measure and know the position of a particle, the less well-known its momentum is. The shorter a particle's lifetime, the more inherently uncertain its rest energy (i.e., its mass) is. And if you measure its spin in one direction (x, y, or z), you inherently destroy information about it in the other two. But rather than accept these self-evident facts and try and reinterpret how we fundamentally view the quanta making up our Universe, Einstein insisted on viewing them in a deterministic sense, claiming that there must be hidden variables afoot. It's arguable that the reason physicists still bicker over preferred "interpretations" of quantum mechanics is rooted in Einstein's ill-motivated thinking, rather than simply changing our preconceptions of what a quantum of energy actually is. SMBC has a good comic illustrating this.
The particles and forces of the Standard Model. Image credit: Contemporary Physics Education Project / DOE / NSF / LBNL, via http://cpepweb.org/.
4.) Einstein held onto his wrongheaded approach to unification until his death, despite the overwhelming evidence that it was futile. Unification in science is an idea that goes back well before Einstein. The idea that all of nature could be explained by as few simple rules or parameters as possible speaks to the power of a theory, and simplicity is as strong an allure as science ever had. Coulomb's law, Gauss' law, Faraday's law and permanent magnets can all be explained in a single framework: Maxwell's electromagnetism. The motion of terrestrial and heavenly bodies was first explained by Newton's gravitation and then even better by Einstein's General Relativity. But Einstein wanted to go even farther, and attempted to unify gravitation and electromagnetism. In the 1920s, much headway was made, and Einstein would pursue this for the next 30 years.
Glashow, Salam and Weinberg at the Nobel Prize ceremony in 1979 for electroweak unification. Image courtesy of http://manjitkumar.wordpress.com
But experiments had revealed some significant new rules, which Einstein summarily ignored in his stubborn pursuit to unify these two forces. The weak and strong nuclear forces obeyed similar quantum rules to electromagnetism, and the application of group theory to these quantum forces led to the unification we know in the Standard Model. Yet Einstein never pursued these paths or even attempted to incorporate the nuclear forces; he remained stuck on gravity and electromagnetism, even as clear relationships were emerging between the others. The evidence was not enough to cause Einstein to change his path. Today, the electroweak force picture has been confirmed, with Grand Unification Theories (GUTs) theoretically adding the strong force to the works, and string theory finally, at the highest energy scales, as the leading candidate for bringing gravity into the fold. As Oppenheimer said of Einstein,
During all the end of his life, Einstein did no good. He turned his back on experiments... to realise the unity of knowledge.
Even geniuses get it wrong more often than not. It would serve us all well to remember that making mistakes is okay; it's failing to learn from them that should shame us.http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/12/29/the-four-biggest-mistakes-of-einsteins-scientific-life/#9727ea9889e5
非常に興味深く読みました：
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics\\
}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\
Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\
\date{\today}
\maketitle
{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall introduce the zero division $z/0=0$. The result is a definite one and it is fundamental in mathematics.
\bigskip
\section{Introduction}
%\label{sect1}
By a natural extension of the fractions
\begin{equation}
\frac{b}{a}
\end{equation}
for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we, recently, found the surprising result, for any complex number $b$
\begin{equation}
\frac{b}{0}=0,
\end{equation}
incidentally in \cite{s} by the Tikhonov regularization for the Hadamard product inversions for matrices, and we discussed their properties and gave several physical interpretations on the general fractions in \cite{kmsy} for the case of real numbers. The result is a very special case for general fractional functions in \cite{cs}.
The division by zero has a long and mysterious story over the world (see, for example, google site with division by zero) with its physical viewpoints since the document of zero in India on AD 628, however,
Sin-Ei, Takahasi (\cite{taka}) (see also \cite{kmsy}) established a simple and decisive interpretation (1.2) by analyzing some full extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2). His result will show that our mathematics says that the result (1.2) should be accepted as a natural one:
\bigskip
{\bf Proposition. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ such that
$$
F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)
$$
for all
$$
a, b, c, d \in {\bf C }
$$
and
$$
F (b, a) = \frac {b}{a }, \quad a, b \in {\bf C }, a \ne 0.
$$
Then, we obtain, for any $b \in {\bf C } $
$$
F (b, 0) = 0.
$$
}
\medskip
\section{What are the fractions $ b/a$?}
For many mathematicians, the division $b/a$ will be considered as the inverse of product;
that is, the fraction
\begin{equation}
\frac{b}{a}
\end{equation}
is defined as the solution of the equation
\begin{equation}
a\cdot x= b.
\end{equation}
The idea and the equation (2.2) show that the division by zero is impossible, with a strong conclusion. Meanwhile, the problem has been a long and old question:
As a typical example of the division by zero, we shall recall the fundamental law by Newton:
\begin{equation}
F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}
\end{equation}
for two masses $m_1, m_2$ with a distance $r$ and for a constant $G$. Of course,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r \to +0} F =\infty,
\end{equation}
however, in our fraction
\begin{equation}
F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{0} = 0.
\end{equation}
\medskip
Now, we shall introduce an another approach. The division $b/a$ may be defined {\bf independently of the product}. Indeed, in Japan, the division $b/a$ ; $b$ {\bf raru} $a$ ({\bf jozan}) is defined as how many $a$ exists in $b$, this idea comes from subtraction $a$ repeatedly. (Meanwhile, product comes from addition).
In Japanese language for "division", there exists such a concept independently of product.
H. Michiwaki and his 6 years old girl said for the result $ 100/0=0$ that the result is clear, from the meaning of the fractions independently the concept of product and they said:
$100/0=0$ does not mean that $100= 0 \times 0$. Meanwhile, many mathematicians had a confusion for the result.
Her understanding is reasonable and may be acceptable:
$100/2=50 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by 2, then each will have 50.
$100/10=10 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by10, then each will have 10.
$100/0=0 \quad$ will mean that we do not divide 100, and then nobody will have at all and so 0.
Furthermore, she said then the rest is 100; that is, mathematically;
$$
100 = 0\cdot 0 + 100.
$$
Now, all the mathematicians may accept the division by zero $100/0=0$ with natural feelings as a trivial one?
\medskip
For simplicity, we shall consider the numbers on non-negative real numbers. We wish to define the division (or fraction) $b/a$ following the usual procedure for its calculation, however, we have to take care for the division by zero:
The first principle, for example, for $100/2 $ we shall consider it as follows:
$$
100-2-2-2-,...,-2.
$$
How may times can we subtract $2$? At this case, it is 50 times and so, the fraction is $50$.
The second case, for example, for $3/2$ we shall consider it as follows:
$$
3 - 2 = 1
$$
and the rest (remainder) is $1$, and for the rest $1$, we multiple $10$,
then we consider similarly as follows:
$$
10-2-2-2-2-2=0.
$$
Therefore $10/2=5$ and so we define as follows:
$$
\frac{3}{2} =1 + 0.5 = 1.5.
$$
By these procedures, for $a \ne 0$ we can define the fraction $b/a$, usually. Here we do not need the concept of product. Except the zero division, all the results for fractions are valid and accepted.
Now, we shall consider the zero division, for example, $100/0$. Since
$$
100 - 0 = 100,
$$
that is, by the subtraction $100 - 0$, 100 does not decrease, so we can not say we subtract any from $100$. Therefore, the subtract number should be understood as zero; that is,
$$
\frac{100}{0} = 0.
$$
We can understand this: the division by $0$ means that it does not divide $100$ and so, the result is $0$.
Similarly, we can see that
$$
\frac{0}{0} =0.
$$
As a conclusion, we should define the zero divison as, for any $b$
$$
\frac{b}{0} =0.
$$
See \cite{kmsy} for the details.
\medskip
\section{In complex analysis}
We thus should consider, for any complex number $b$, as (1.2);
that is, for the mapping
\begin{equation}
w = \frac{1}{z},
\end{equation}
the image of $z=0$ is $w=0$. This fact seems to be a curious one in connection with our well-established popular image for the point at infinity on the Riemann sphere.
However, we shall recall the elementary function
\begin{equation}
W(z) = \exp \frac{1}{z}
\end{equation}
$$
= 1 + \frac{1}{1! z} + \frac{1}{2! z^2} + \frac{1}{3! z^3} + \cdot \cdot \cdot .
$$
The function has an essential singularity around the origin. When we consider (1.2), meanwhile, surprisingly enough, we have:
\begin{equation}
W(0) = 1.
\end{equation}
{\bf The point at infinity is not a number} and so we will not be able to consider the function (3.2) at the zero point $z = 0$, meanwhile, we can consider the value $1$ as in (3.3) at the zero point $z = 0$. How do we consider these situations?
In the famous standard textbook on Complex Analysis, L. V. Ahlfors (\cite{ahlfors}) introduced the point at infinity as a number and the Riemann sphere model as well known, however, our interpretation will be suitable as a number. We will not be able to accept the point at infinity as a number.
As a typical result, we can derive the surprising result: {\it At an isolated singular point of an analytic function, it takes a definite value }{\bf with a natural meaning.} As the important applications for this result, the extension formula of functions with analytic parameters may be obtained and singular integrals may be interpretated with the division by zero, naturally (\cite{msty}).
\bigskip
\section{Conclusion}
The division by zero $b/0=0$ is possible and the result is naturally determined, uniquely.
The result does not contradict with the present mathematics - however, in complex analysis, we need only to change a little presentation for the pole; not essentially, because we did not consider the division by zero, essentially.
The common understanding that the division by zero is impossible should be changed with many text books and mathematical science books. The definition of the fractions may be introduced by {\it the method of Michiwaki} in the elementary school, even.
Should we teach the beautiful fact, widely?:
For the elementary graph of the fundamental function
$$
y = f(x) = \frac{1}{x},
$$
$$
f(0) = 0.
$$
The result is applicable widely and will give a new understanding for the universe ({\bf Announcement 166}).
\medskip
If the division by zero $b/0=0$ is not introduced, then it seems that mathematics is incomplete in a sense, and by the intoduction of the division by zero, mathematics will become complete in a sense and perfectly beautiful.
\bigskip
section{Remarks}
For the procedure of the developing of the division by zero and for some general ideas on the division by zero, we presented the following announcements in Japanese:
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 148} (2014.2.12): $100/0=0, 0/0=0$ -- by a natural extension of fractions -- A wish of the God
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 154} (2014.4.22): A new world: division by zero, a curious world, a new idea
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 157} (2014.5.8): We wish to know the idea of the God for the division by zero; why the infinity and zero point are coincident?
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 161} (2014.5.30): Learning from the division by zero, sprits of mathematics and of looking for the truth
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 163} (2014.6.17): The division by zero, an extremely pleasant mathematics - shall we look for the pleasant division by zero: a proposal for a fun club looking for the division by zero.
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 166} (2014.6.29): New general ideas for the universe from the viewpoint of the division by zero
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 171} (2014.7.30): The meanings of product and division -- The division by zero is trivial from the own sense of the division independently of the concept of product
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 176} (2014.8.9): Should be changed the education of the division by zero
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
S. Koshiba, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M. Yamane,
An interpretation of the division by zero z/0=0 without the concept of product
(note).
\bibitem{kmsy}
M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
A new concept for the point at infinity and the division by zero z/0=0
(note).
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{taka}
S.-E. Takahasi,
{On the identities $100/0=0$ and $ 0/0=0$}
(note).
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
For the procedure of the developing of the division by zero and for some general ideas on the division by zero, we presented the following announcements in Japanese:
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 148} (2014.2.12): $100/0=0, 0/0=0$ -- by a natural extension of fractions -- A wish of the God
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 154} (2014.4.22): A new world: division by zero, a curious world, a new idea
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 157} (2014.5.8): We wish to know the idea of the God for the division by zero; why the infinity and zero point are coincident?
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 161} (2014.5.30): Learning from the division by zero, sprits of mathematics and of looking for the truth
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 163} (2014.6.17): The division by zero, an extremely pleasant mathematics - shall we look for the pleasant division by zero: a proposal for a fun club looking for the division by zero.
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 166} (2014.6.29): New general ideas for the universe from the viewpoint of the division by zero
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 171} (2014.7.30): The meanings of product and division -- The division by zero is trivial from the own sense of the division independently of the concept of product
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 176} (2014.8.9): Should be changed the education of the division by zero
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
S. Koshiba, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M. Yamane,
An interpretation of the division by zero z/0=0 without the concept of product
(note).
\bibitem{kmsy}
M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
A new concept for the point at infinity and the division by zero z/0=0
(note).
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{taka}
S.-E. Takahasi,
{On the identities $100/0=0$ and $ 0/0=0$}
(note).
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.
私は数学を信じない。 アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don't believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。
1423793753.460.341866474681。
Einstein's Only Mistake: Division by Zero
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿