Jews Create Their Own Legends

by Chris Verral

The Case of Einstein

In popular culture, as well as in academic circles, Einstein's name is synonymous with genius. " Are you some kind of Einstein?"

The purpose of this article is to examine closely Einstein's work and explore Einstein as a phenomenon.

His Early Life

He was born is Switzerland, did not do very well in school. He failed his entrance exams to Zurich Polytechnic Institute. In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich. This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. Most of the literature about his life tends to ignore the fact that he failed mathematics. It is rather curious that someone of his stature would fail mathematics. He then entered a lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at the engineering school!

Unable to go to the school as he had wanted, he got a job at the patent office in Berne. He was to be a technical expert third class, a rather low class. This could have been due to anti-Semitism of that era. Even after publishing his so-called groundbreaking papers of 1905 and after working in the patent office for six years, he was only elevated to a second class standing. The work he was doing at the patent office was not quantum mechanics or theoretical physics, but was reviewing technical documents for patents of everyday things. He would work at the patent office until 1909, all the while continuously trying to get a position at a university, but without success. Among the general population Einstein is known for his theory of relativity (although most people don't really know what that is), and he is credited with the equation most are now familiar with: E=mc2; that is, energy in body of mass m is equal to its mass times the square of speed of light.

I will now comment on his scholarly work and its relation to the work of other scientists, as well as curious and unexplained events related to his work. There are five major papers and results that established Einstein's fame. These are:

  1. The foundation of the photon theory of light (1905);

  2. The equivalence of energy and mass (1905);

  3. The explanation of Brownian motion in liquids (1905);

  4. The special theory of relativity (1905);

  5. General theory of relativity (1915).

The foundation of the photon theory of light (1905)

The main point of Einstein's paper, and the point for which he is given credit, is that light is emitted and absorbed in finite packets called quanta. This was the explanation for the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard, worked on understanding this phenomenon. Lenard was the first to show that the energy of the electrons released in the photoelectric effect was not governed by the intensity of the light but by the frequency of the light.

However, the two men who are considered to be the originators of quantum theory are Wien and Planck. They were colleagues, and generally are viewed as the fathers of modern-day quantum theory. By 1900, Max Planck, based upon his and Wien's work, had shown that radiated energy was absorbed and emitted in finite units called quanta. The only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein's work of 1905 was that Einstein limited himself to talking about one particular type of energy, namely, light energy. But Planck had deduced the general principles and equations governing the process by 1900. Einstein himself admitted that the obvious conclusion of Planck's work was that light also existed in discrete packets of energy. Thus, nothing in this paper of Einstein's was original.

To this day I am puzzled by the importance given to this and the paper on special theory of relativity. While results in both papers are of great importance, THEY HAD BEEN KNOWN. Indeed, the work of Planck, Maxwell, Wien, Lenard and almost all physicists of the era originated in attempts to understand light. With his famous equations (Maxwell's equation of electromagnetic fields), light was considered just another electromagnetic field with frequency in optical range. Therefore, all of the deductions made by Planck and Wien would also apply to light.

So why isn't Planck credited with quanta theory even though he observed it experimentally and later developed its foundation?

This is the only explanation that I have found so far: "Not even Planck dared to take quantum hypothesis seriously at the time. The only person to take it seriously was patent examiner, Einstein. In his 1905 papers he proposed something related that was even more drastic." The problem with this assertion is that there is no basis for it. So far I have not found any documents or articles or "confessions" by Planck -- or that matter any of his contemporaries -- to suggest that Planck had reservations about his theories. On the contrary, Henry Poincaré, one of the foremost mathematicians and physicists of that era, gave numerous lectures about Planck's quanta theory. In short, there is no evidence of any sort suggesting any reservations on Planck's part. Planck was the typical of German scientists of his time, in that they simply worked and published quietly in academic circles and did not venture outside of the closed walls of University and academia.

What rubbish! The man (Planck) experimentally observes the quanta phenomena, derives the mathematical theory of quantum physics, but somehow he doesn't believe in it, and the patent clerk "with his deep insight" sees it ever so clearly! Why not? -- he was a genius, he could see things so clearly! Who needs experiments? Who needs mathematics? And what was "even more drastic"? The more drastic was the part about light emitting energy in quantas. In Planck and Maxwell's world, light is simply another form of electromagnetic field.

Last -- and in my opinion the most important point -- regarding the quanta phenomenon, is the complete lack of explanation or development of a theory in Einstein's work as to how quantum energy is discharged. Perhaps Einstein was not aware of Rutherford's work.

Now if I somehow "observe" the quantum phenomena, it would seem natural to ask what is causing it, to give a picture of it, a model, if you will. There is absolutely no indication of any such explanation given by Einstein. Rutherford had taken Planck's mathematical theory and developed a model of the atom in terms of electrons orbiting the nucleus and shells (orbit). In his theory, when energized electrons are excited, they hop into higher shells (excited states) and then release phonons (called photons if the released energy is light energy in quantum) when they drop back to their ground states (original shells). This is an important point that I believe is turned upside down by Einstein's promoters. I will explain this.

Planck, after developing his quanta theory, showed some dissatisfaction, for although his mathematics fit well with his experimental observations of quantum effect, he was unable to give the physical picture of it as Rutherford did above. It is this sense of incompleteness that Planck felt in his work that has been twisted into "his lack of complete trust in quanta theory." Apparently, the fact that Einstein did not bother about physical explanation of quanta effect is to be an attributed to his deeper insight, What crock of a shit.

The equivalence of energy and mass. E=mc2 (1905)

Einstein derived these equations from Maxwell's equation. It took him three pages.

The deduction is rather simple and quite obvious, and a better mathematician would have simply stated the deduction in half a page. Maxwell, who was an excellent mathematician, certainly knew about this, as well as many other physicists. However, they did not make any claims because (it was stated in their papers) they had no experimental method to verify this. Unlike theoretical physicists of today, physicists in late 19th century did not put forth claims without experimental evidence.

Some justifications that attribute the mass-energy formula to Einstein are based on his presumed confidence and boldness in his belief in this relationship because he had "deeper insight to nature of matter" (he was a genius you know!). However, in scientific community "deeper insight" must be backed by evidence (experimental evidence). In short, theoretical prediction of mass-energy relationship is due to Maxwell, and the clinching argument should be attributed to the scientist who comes up with an experiment verifying this relationship.

So why Einstein is given credit for this mass-energy formula? This is the explanation that I found. Einstein found this (mass-energy relationship) to be true in the form of light -- "he changed the special case to universal law."

How did he find it to be true for the case of light? He was a patent clerk, working in an office. I doubt that patent office would had a sophisticated physics lab. This is really absurd. Einstein's college friend Grossman, who had helped him to obtain his job as patent clerk, was in touch with Einstein during this time. Grossman was aware that mass-energy equivalence had been observed, and numerically verified in Kirchoff's examination of the so-called "black body" radiation in a cavity.

Two final points regarding the mass-energy relationship: (1) this relationship can be obtained from Maxwell's equations, and that is what Einstein did. It can also be obtained more directly and even by a first year student in mathematics or physics from the so-called Lorentz transformations. This is of some importance, because Lorentz transformations connecting time and space in different inertial frames are the foundation of the special theory of relativity - the theory attributed to Einstein. Einstein presented his special theory of relativity before his presentation of mass-energy formula. This seems really out of focus. Maxwell's equations are partial differential equations, and require more than average mathematical sophistication, as well as use of formulas of classical dynamics from physics. On the other hand, I can present Lorentz transformations to a first year student in college who has a sound grasp high school algebra and first two laws of Newton, and he/she will be able derive the mass-energy relationship.

(2) Aside from the lack of physical evidence, another reason that men like Planck and Maxwell, unlike Einstein, did not so boldly put forth the mass-energy relationship was the problem of matter. Matter is the offspring of field. What is commonly called matter is by its nature atomic. Atoms and electrons are not, of course, ultimate invariable elements, but they are themselves distributed continuously and subjected to minute changes of fluid character in their smallest part. Maxwell and Lorentz theories cannot hold for the interior of the electron; therefore, from the point of view of ordinary electrons, one must treat the electron as something given a priori, as a foreign body in the field. In non-technical terms, in Maxwell and Lorentz theory, matter is not diffused and distributed, but invariable and indivisible. In other words, the question of "what is matter?" should have been resolved before "talking about it in precise terms." But our genius could not be bothered by these side issues. It wasn't until 1916 when Mie proposed a more general theory of electrodynamics by which it seems possible to derive matter from field. This allowed the deduction of mass-energy formula from either Lorentz' or Maxwell's equation. Thus mass-energy relationship could be explained physically, not just as a consequence of mathematical manipulation.

To be continued...


Tell a friend about this article:

Back to VNN Main Page