Good Morning...a really smart guy is born

[Okla-homey]

March 14, 1879, Albert Einstein is born.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9247/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

On this day 127 years ago in March 14, 1879, Albert Einstein is born, the son of a Jewish electrical engineer in Ulm, Germany. Einstein's theories of special and general relativity drastically altered man's view of the universe, and his work in particle and energy theory helped make possible quantum mechanics and, ultimately, the atomic bomb.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/4949/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzein.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Site of Einstein's birth in Ulm, Germany. The house is gone and a McDonalds stands in its place.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2176/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzei.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Einstein as he appeared when he worked his "day job" in the Swiss patent office in Bern

After a childhood in Germany and Italy, Einstein studied physics and mathematics at the Federal Polytechnic Academy in Zurich, Switzerland. He became a Swiss citizen and in 1905 was awarded a Ph.D. from the University of Zurich while working at the Swiss patent office in Bern.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2443/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Albert Einstein's Swiss passport, issued on 23rd June 1923. Born in Ulm, Germany, Einstein was granted Swiss citizenship in 1901 and held on to it until the end of his life.

That year, which historians of Einstein's career call the annus mirabilis--the "miracle year"--he published five theoretical papers that were to have a profound effect on the development of modern physics.

In the first of these, titled "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light," Einstein theorized that light is made up of individual quanta (photons) that demonstrate particle-like properties while collectively behaving like a wave. The hypothesis, an important step in the development of quantum theory, was arrived at through Einstein's examination of the photoelectric effect, a phenomenon in which some solids emit electrically charged particles when struck by light. This work would later earn him the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics.

In the second paper, he devised a new method of counting and determining the size of the atoms and molecules in a given space, and in the third he offered a mathematical explanation for the constant erratic movement of particles suspended in a fluid, known as Brownian motion. These two papers provided indisputable evidence of the existence of atoms, which at the time was still disputed by a few scientists.

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/8339/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz15.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Einstein's fourth groundbreaking scientific work of 1905 addressed what he termed his special theory of relativity. In special relativity, time and space are not absolute, but relative to the motion of the observer. Thus, two observers traveling at great speeds in regard to each other would not necessarily observe simultaneous events in time at the same moment, nor necessarily agree in their measurements of space.

In Einstein's theory, the speed of light, which is the limiting speed of any body having mass, is constant in all frames of reference. In the fifth paper that year, an exploration of the mathematics of special relativity, Einstein announced that mass and energy were equivalent and could be calculated with an equation, E=mc2.

Although the public was not quick to embrace his revolutionary science, Einstein was welcomed into the circle of Europe's most eminent physicists and given professorships in Zurich, Prague, and Berlin.

In 1916, he published "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity," which proposed that gravity, as well as motion, can affect the intervals of time and of space. According to Einstein, gravitation is not a force, as Isaac Newton had argued, but a curved field in the space-time continuum, created by the presence of mass.

An object of very large gravitational mass, such as the sun, would therefore appear to warp space and time around it, which could be demonstrated by observing starlight as it skirted the sun on its way to earth.

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4949/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzein.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
farked...but he probably would agree with the sentiment

In 1919, astronomers studying a solar eclipse verified predictions Einstein made in the general theory of relativity, and he became an overnight celebrity. Later, other predictions of general relativity, such as a shift in the orbit of the planet Mercury and the probable existence of black holes, were confirmed by scientists.

During the next decade, Einstein made continued contributions to quantum theory and began work on a unified field theory, which he hoped would encompass quantum mechanics and his own relativity theory as a grand explanation of the workings of the universe.

As a world-renowned public figure, he became increasingly political, taking up the cause of Zionism and speaking out against militarism and rearmament. In his native Germany, this made him an unpopular figure, and after Nazi leader Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany in 1933 Einstein renounced his German citizenship and left the country.

He later settled in the United States, where he accepted a post at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. He would remain there for the rest of his life, working on his unified field theory and relaxing by sailing on a local lake or playing his violin. He became an American citizen in 1940.

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/7113/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

In 1939, despite his lifelong pacifist beliefs, he agreed to write to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on behalf of a group of scientists who were concerned with American inaction in the field of atomic-weapons research. Like the other scientists, he feared sole German possession of such a weapon.

Einstein's letter to President Roosevelt

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/8302/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzaefdr13he.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2017/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzae.gif (http://imageshack.us)

After the war, he called for the establishment of a world government that would control nuclear technology and prevent future armed conflict.

In 1950, he published his unified field theory, which was quietly criticized as a failure. A unified explanation of gravitation, subatomic phenomena, and electromagnetism remains elusive today. Albert Einstein, one of the most creative minds in human history, died in Princeton in 1955.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2908/insane7zo2ha.jpg

[sooneron]

I bet I'd own his *** in Trivial Pursuit 20 anniv edition!

[Harry Beanbag]

I bet he could get higher than a 6 on the Wonderlic.

[slickdawg]

Man, he's smart, SMRT!

[12]

Just how bored do you figure he was in the Swiss patent office.

[Czar Soonerov]

He had great hair!

[soonerjoker]

Will Rogers & my oldest uncle were also born in 1879.

[Howzit]

I have a suit just like this...


http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2176/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzei.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)

[sooneron]

I have a suit just like this...


http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/2176/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzei.jpg (http://imageshack.us/)
you and Lid, both!:texan:

[Ike]

It should be also be noted that for quite some time, Einstien was a very vocal opponent of the very idea of quantum mechanics. Schrodeinger's famous (and very unlucky) cat was born through an argument between Einstien and Schroedinger over what Einstien thought was the ridiculousness of the idea of a superposition of states. (the cat being both simultaneously alive and dead, until somebody checked) In fact, many of Einstiens most glowing sucesses in the realm of quantum mechanics were the products of him attempting to prove the theory wrong, or at least, ridiculous. But when technology finally caught up a bit, many of the strange and 'spooky' phenomena predicted by Einstien that would come about as a result of quantum mechanics were indeed confirmed.

[Okla-homey]

He was also an avowed socialist, which just goes to show even brilliant minds shouldn't be considered absolute authorities. Nice theory but completely impractical until humans overcome the great curse of greed which, BTW, judging from the way he lived his life, he had.

[Ike]

He was also an avowed socialist, which just goes to show even brilliant minds shouldn't be considered absolute authorities. Nice theory but completely impractical until humans overcome the great curse of greed which, BTW, judging from the way he lived his life, he had.


thats true. I think he probably fell victim to the same kind of thing that lots of smart people do, in thinking that there is no reason for everyone else to be that much different from themselves. It's common, especially if the study of people isn't your first area of expertise. No one can be an authority on everything...not even Einstein.

[Okla-homey]

Isn't it rather ironic that the enemies of the modern state of Israel seek the means to destroy it using a terrible weapon made possible by the theoretical work of a great Jewish mind and an unabashed champion of Zionism?

[Ike]

Isn't it rather ironic that the enemies of the modern state of Israel seek the means to destroy it using a terrible weapon made possible by the theoretical work of a great Jewish mind and an unabashed champion of Zionism?


a little bit. His wasn't the only one either (great Jewish mind that is). Oppenheimer, Bethe (Don't know if he was Jewish, but his mother was), Bohr, Feynman, Pauli, Teller.
All of these men made very significant contributions that led to the development of the first A-Bombs and H-Bombs. granted, that not all of them were champions of zionism. Does that make it more ironic though, that a great many of the fathers of nuclear weapons were Jewish?? I don't know, but it certainly makes me wonder just a little bit. Perhaps many Jewish scientists had fewer hangups in developing such a weapon during the time of Hitler and WWII than some of their counterparts who were less directly affected by the policies of Hitler. I don't know.

[Okla-homey]

a little bit. His wasn't the only one either (great Jewish mind that is). Oppenheimer, Bethe (Don't know if he was Jewish, but his mother was), Bohr, Feynman, Pauli, Teller.
All of these men made very significant contributions that led to the development of the first A-Bombs and H-Bombs. granted, that not all of them were champions of zionism. Does that make it more ironic though, that a great many of the fathers of nuclear weapons were Jewish?? I don't know, but it certainly makes me wonder just a little bit. Perhaps many Jewish scientists had fewer hangups in developing such a weapon during the time of Hitler and WWII than some of their counterparts who were less directly affected by the policies of Hitler. I don't know.

Well at least in Einstein's case (as you can tell from the letter) and his post-war pacifism, he was most seriously concerned about the weapon ending up in the wrong hands.

That said, I believe he also stated he did not approve of its use in 1945 against the Japanese. That's a tough one. As you know, conventional wisdom tells us that many allied troops' lives were saved by avoiding the need to invade, but at great cost to the lives of many thousands on non-combatants.

I guess if "the chickens ever come home to roost" the militant Muslim enemy will cite the same argument in support of its use against any of our great cities.

Nevertheless, the nuke genie is out of the bottle. It sure was a lot simpler during the Cold War when the two bulls of the woods were constrained by mutually assured destruction.

My great fear in the current situation is that the most fanatical would choose to use a nuke even if swift and certain nuclear retaliation were guarenteed as evidenced by the way they suicidally fight us.

[Harry Beanbag]

As you know, conventional wisdom tells us that many allied troops' lives were saved by avoiding the need to invade, but at great cost to the lives of many thousands on non-combatants.

The invasion of Japan would have most likely resulted in millions of dead civilians. The use of the bombs was best for both sides.



My great fear in the current situation is that the most fanatical would choose to use a nuke even if swift and certain nuclear retaliation were guarenteed as evidenced by the way they suicidally fight us.

That is scary because we would really have nowhere to send a nuke retaliation anyway.

[skycat]

My great fear in the current situation is that the most fanatical would choose to use a nuke even if swift and certain nuclear retaliation were guarenteed as evidenced by the way they suicidally fight us.

The difference being, at least what I hope to be the difference, is that the leadership is not suicidal. Sure they have no regard to the lives of their young followers, but the people at the decision making level try very hard to stay out of harms way.

That would be signifigantly harder to do if we started throwing nuclear weapons around.

[Ike]

Well at least in Einstein's case (as you can tell from the letter) and his post-war pacifism, he was most seriously concerned about the weapon ending up in the wrong hands.

That said, I believe he also stated he did not approve of its use in 1945 against the Japanese. That's a tough one. As you know, conventional wisdom tells us that many allied troops' lives were saved by avoiding the need to invade, but at great cost to the lives of many thousands on non-combatants.

I guess if "the chickens ever come home to roost" the militant Muslim enemy will cite the same argument in support of its use against any of our great cities.

Nevertheless, the nuke genie is out of the bottle. It sure was a lot simpler during the Cold War when the two bulls of the woods were constrained by mutually assured destruction.

My great fear in the current situation is that the most fanatical would choose to use a nuke even if swift and certain nuclear retaliation were guarenteed as evidenced by the way they suicidally fight us.


yep. the biggest problem with nuclear technology (and in reality, any technology whatsoever) is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep it from eventually landing in the wrong hands. once something has been demonstrated as possible (in this case destroying vase areas of land and everything on it), it's really only a matter of time before the ability to do is common knowledge, at least to every nation state. we can do things that can delay its fall into the wrong hands, or stymie our enemies in their quest to attain it, but the natural end result is that anyone who really really wants, will, in the end, get it. I think it is impossible to stop the eventual dissemenation of information and technology. we can only hope to delay it, and hope that by the time it reaches the hands of those who would place no value in a policy of mutually assured destruction, that we have sufficently advanced our own technology to be able somehow nullify the effect of our enemies attainment of such a powerful weapon.

[Okla-homey]

The invasion of Japan would have most likely resulted in millions of dead civilians. The use of the bombs was best for both sides.



I tend to agree, but there is quite a bit of modern scholarship that seems to indicate that they may have thrown in the towel had we merely demonstrated a NUDET and afforded a commission of Imperial Japanese officials to observe the effects. I guess we'll never know for sure.

[skycat]

The invasion of Japan would have most likely resulted in millions of dead civilians. The use of the bombs was best for both sides.

I took a WWII history course in college where the idea was presented that the Japanese were preparing to issue a surrender due to increasing threat of Soviet military involvement. However, so this idea goes, we wanted no part of a Japanese surrender tendered to the Soviets.

The professor was luke-warm on this theory at best, and I don't remember if there was much in the way of primary sources to back it up.

Even if you dismiss that idea, was the bombing of Nagasaki required? I'm not certain that we couldn't have waited more than three more days in between attacks.

I'm not saying that the use of atomic weapons was completely unjustified, but I do think that this is a part of our history that we should keep looking at and evaluating, as the decision to use such weapons is a grave one indeed.



That is scary because we would really have nowhere to send a nuke retaliation anyway.

Indeed, that is a monumental problem.

[Harry Beanbag]

I tend to agree, but there is quite a bit of modern scholarship that seems to indicate that they may have thrown in the towel had we merely demonstrated a NUDET and afforded a commission of Imperial Japanese officials to observe the effects. I guess we'll never know for sure.


I think you can throw that out the window with the simple fact that we had to drop two of the suckers for them to quit. Is modern scholarship another term for revisionist history?

[Ike]

I tend to agree, but there is quite a bit of modern scholarship that seems to indicate that they may have thrown in the towel had we merely demonstrated a NUDET and afforded a commission of Imperial Japanese officials to observe the effects. I guess we'll never know for sure.


I also tend to agree with this (that merely demonstrating a nuke device to the Japaneese might have ended the war), but at the same time we have to remember that this was not a gaurantee. It's possible that we would have also needed to show that we had the capacity to make more in short order, as they might have thought that they could easily weather one or two or some other small number which they might have thought we had, and still be able to win before we could make more. I don't know much about that though. Regardless, I don't know if anyone in Truman's shoes would have made a different decision with the information available to him at the time. I imagine that it was one of the single most difficult decisions to ever come from the White House.

[Okla-homey]

The difference being, at least what I hope to be the difference, is that the leadership is not suicidal. Sure they have no regard to the lives of their young followers, but the people at the decision making level try very hard to stay out of harms way.

That would be signifigantly harder to do if we started throwing nuclear weapons around.

That's a good point. The leaders can probably justify ensuring their own survival in the belief that the average guy strapping a bomb belt to himself needs the enlightened guidance of those more mature in their faith and more educated in the ways of militant Islam.

Remember though, Hitler stayed in Berlin -- cowardly refused to die at the city gates, but he stayed and knew he faced certain death at the hands of the attacking Red Army. Similarly, Arafat stayed put while his palace crumbled.

Thus, it seems the ones who are motivated by principle are more likely to die in place. The ones who just dig power, like Saddam and the minor Nazis, head for the hills.

[Okla-homey]

I also tend to agree with this (that merely demonstrating a nuke device to the Japaneese might have ended the war), but at the same time we have to remember that this was not a gaurantee. It's possible that we would have also needed to show that we had the capacity to make more in short order, as they might have thought that they could easily weather one or two or some other small number which they might have thought we had, and still be able to win before we could make more. I don't know much about that though. Regardless, I don't know if anyone in Truman's shoes would have made a different decision with the information available to him at the time. I imagine that it was one of the single most difficult decisions to ever come from the White House.

Yep, as I recall there was also this huge concern. What if it just went "pop" instead of KA-FLIPPIN'-BOOM? That, and as you point out, we just had two ready when we nuked Hiroshima.

[Harry Beanbag]

I took a WWII history course in college where the idea was presented that the Japanese were preparing to issue a surrender due to increasing threat of Soviet military involvement. However, so this idea goes, we wanted no part of a Japanese surrender tendered to the Soviets.

The professor was luke-warm on this theory at best, and I don't remember if there was much in the way of primary sources to back it up.

Even if you dismiss that idea, was the bombing of Nagasaki required? I'm not certain that we couldn't have waited more than three more days in between attacks.

I'm not saying that the use of atomic weapons was completely unjustified, but I do think that this is a part of our history that we should keep looking at and evaluating, as the decision to use such weapons is a grave one indeed.



I've read that the bombs actually had little to do with Japan's surrender. The Soviets were absolutely obliterating the Japanese army in Manchuria and they didn't want to be occupied by the Soviets.

The Soviets continued their assault even after the surrender and would have taken the Korean Peninsula if American troops hadn't landed there in early September.

[OU Adonis]

Lid wouldn't be caught without a bowtie