7 ms·
How Did Einstein Think?
- jsejwal 13y agoFrom the article Heat energy is really just a jumbled distribution of energy. The energy is distributed randomly over many molecules, if the heat is in a gas,... From what I remember from my school physics lessons - 1. heat is not "a distribution of something over something" 2. it is also not correct to say "heat is (or is contained) in something". Heat is energy transferred from one body to another because of their temperature difference. Heat is energy in transit.
- carlob 13y agoI seems like interesting material, but why is it typeset this way?
- booop 13y agoI read your comment before clicking on the link and now it's impossible to read.
- daniel-cussen 13y agoI read your comment and now I'm not even clicking the link :)
- gbog 13y agoThat's sad and unwarranted
- laumars 13y agoI was pondering the same thing myself. At points I found it more distracting than anything.
- HCIdivision17 13y agoPerhaps there are/were pictures that aren't loading?
- SonicSoul 13y agoyep. it's hard to get over the whole typography of this essay. huge Serif fonts, pink background on highlighted terms? multiple narrow columns.. it's like staring at the sun
- emini_guy 13y agoTypical HN comment. Pointless nitpicking.
- kafkaesque 13y agoIt seems like if you copy-paste the text into notepad, it pastes correctly. The layout of the text is peculiar, but I can't say it made me not want to read it.
- scott_s 13y agoI figured it was intended to be slides, or printed out on paper.
- niels_olson 13y agoView source. Pretty sure it's hand-written HTML, perhaps based loosely on philg's Software Engineering for Internet Applications reference chapter on HTML: http://philip.greenspun.com/seia/html http://philip.greenspun.com/seia/html I am perhaps a dwindling segment of the population that appreciates the effort.
- maeon3 13y agoI've been working through the following book: http://www.amazon.com/How-Create-Mind-Thought-Revealed/dp/0670025291 http://www.amazon.com/How-Create-Mind-Thought-Revealed/dp/06... And it has a chapter (2 and 3) on stepping through exactly what algorithms and data structures Einstein used to figure out that time itself slows down for you to explain why traveling at fractions of the speed of light does not change how fast light passes you by. More important than guessing time as the variable property, he was expert at creating experiments to disprove his hypothesis. "If this is the case, we should be able to do this exact experiment to expose the exact value for time dilation as you approach speed of light." The book is about creating a program which exposes the operating principles of Einstein's neo cortex that can do what Einstein did. To create simplistic models that explain the underlying principles of physics, and has the ability to say: "If we model the phenomenon like such, than we should be able to observe the following phenomenon". Then to go out and perform a test gathering evidence or disproving it. Then brute forcing this process and selecting for the most simple model that explains all available data. Show all hypothesis that explain all available data, that have not been disproved, sorted by complexity of the model with most evidence collected for it, and least evidence levied against it. If each of these processes could be automated, we could use the world's supercomputers to crunch out 500 years of physics scientific discovery in a few years.
- stephengillie 13y agoEinstein's genius wasn't genesis nor synthesis. His genius was hard work. http://quantumrelativity.calsci.com/Relativity/Chapter1.html http://quantumrelativity.calsci.com/Relativity/Chapter1.html Georg Riemann lived in Germany from 1826 until 1866. He was Gauss' last and most famous student. To finish his doctoral degree, in 1854 Riemann was required to give a lecture. Gauss asked him to lecture on geometry. In this single lecture, Riemann laid almost all of the mathematical foundation for Einstein's General Relativity. Riemann went on to become an important mathematician, but did little work on curved spaces after this one lecture. Einstein took 8 years in a boring patent office to understand what Riemann did in a lazy afternoon.
- snowwrestler 13y agoEinstein's great insight for general relativity was to treat the equivalence of inertial and gravitational acceleration as a physical truth. He did this intuitively, in a lot less time than 8 years. To work out all the consequences of that, he needed the mathematical tools that Riemann (and others) had previously invented. It took so long because, and he said himself, Einstein was not great at advanced math. He needed the math to chase down all the implications, but the insight was not based on Riemann's work.
- robyates 13y agoReminds me of this Gladwell New Yorker article of Early and Late Bloomers: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/20/081020fa_fact_gladwell http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/20/081020fa_fact_... (posted originally in another thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5737724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5737724)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- SatvikBeri 13y agoI would expand that to hard work on important problems. Many scientists worked as hard as Einstein, but few stuck to the major problems as much as he did. After years of no progress most people will opt to solve an easier, lower-priority problem than continue working on a difficult but important one. A good essay on this is Richard Hamming's You and Your Research[0]. A good set of articles focused on the practical issue of overcoming the tendency to focus on easy problems is Eliezer Yudkowsky's Challenging the Difficult series[1]. I particularly like the phrase "Shut up and do the Impossible!" I have found this highly effective in getting myself to work on hard problems (here I'm defining "hard" as problems where my initial reaction is "that's impossible!", or something similar.) [0]: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html [1]: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Challenging_the_Difficult http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Challenging_the_Difficult
- bitwize 13y agoThat's kind of like asking "how did Bruce Lee fight?" innit?
- stephengillie 13y agoWhile most fighters stick with the preset moves they learned in their dojo, Bruce Lee would mix those moves with new moves he created himself. He was so able to understand and control his physical self that he could generate new martial arts moves spontaneously during fights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeet_Kune_Do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeet_Kune_Do
- elleferrer 13y agoWe can see how Einstein thought through this modern day Einstein: meet Jacob Barnett (aka Einstein), a 14-Year-Old Master's degree student on his way to earning a PhD in quantum physics. Truly a genius. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/jacob-barnett-autistic-14-year-old-nobel-prize_n_3254920.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/jacob-barnett-autis...
- mr-ron 13y agoDid you read OP article even? One of the main ideas is that his 'genius' took years of meticulous work.
- alberich 13y agobesides, obtaining a PhD, even at an early age, doesn't make you a genius... well, at least not an Einstein-like genius.
- elleferrer 13y agoI look at it through the way they both think, how they both process information. He's a pretty interesting kid.
- elleferrer 13y agoHe just reminded me of a 'modern day Einstein'. I understand the main point of the article was that Einstein's genius took a lot of hard work, same as the kid. They do have a lot of similarities in their process of acquiring knowledge and understanding.
- Datsundere 13y agoHe is in the process of proving Einstein wrong. Baffling.
- EisMCsquared 13y agoOh god. I am so tired of hearing that bullshit "einstein was wrong" line. People always toss that around as code for "nyah nyah! I'm even SMARTER than einstein" or "hey guys, physics is in crisis mode because einstein was actually dumb. also, the sky is falling." Come on. Wrong about "what"? That you CAN'T transform matter into energy? That heavier elements DON'T form as a byproduct of stellar processes? Okay, guy. Go prove that. Or next time be specific about precisely WHAT will be proven wrong.
- bachback 13y agoAmazingly this article doesn't mention Immanuel Kant. If you read the autobiographical notes, Kant is the first name that appears. And from there it is quite a different step to the theory of relativity.
- Create 13y agohttp://www.giagia.co.uk/2010/03/23/ada-lovelace-day-2010/ http://www.giagia.co.uk/2010/03/23/ada-lovelace-day-2010/
- niels_olson 13y agoThis is more important than anything about Yahoo and Tumblr. I read Isaacson's biography in the hopes of extracting the answer to exactly this question. Upon reading it, I found myself enormously relieved that my approach to Project Euler problems, and math and physics problems in general, follows the same form. This does not seem to be how I approach medical problems. These seem to be quite a bit more like a flow chart, maybe in the best cases it's a Bodie plot. Research, however, does generally seem to follow this mold a bit better.
- B-Con 13y agoThis professor also has a book called "Einstein for Everyone", available for free online here: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/ http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/
- Create 13y agoperhaps not. “I treat my wife as an employee whom I cannot fire.”- A.E.
- Bootvis 13y agoWhat is your quarrel with Einstein? You're not adding much to the conversation in this way.
- Create 13y agoI don't think we should idolize him for everyone to follow. The quote comes from him, not me -- which makes your downvote revealing. But please, do not believe a word from me. Read the full story and perhaps reconsider your stance on Einstein.
- Bootvis 13y agoI can't downvote and, in this case, wouldn't do so even if I could. I respect your opinion and I fully agree with you that in the relation with his wife Einstein was no saint. However, I do not think it is relevant and the quote is also not very obscure. Furthermore, claiming he used tedious propaganda to claim credit is taking it to far without citing sources. I think I would downvote that if I could. From what I've read his insights and work in physics were respected by his peers and revolutionary. So for me how Einstein thought and attacked problems is quite interesting. How he thought about that is something I do want to mimic.
- freehunter 13y agoPerhaps not what? The OP didn't mention anything that "perhaps not" would even be remotely warranted as an answer to. It sounds like you were just looking for an opportunity to discredit the guy and got tired of waiting.
- dmfdmf 13y agoI just finished listening to Walter Isaacson's biography "Einstein" (on CD). What was distinctive about Einstein was not how he thought but what he thought about. His special theory of relativity is a solution to the contradiction between Newtonian dynamics and the new (at the time) Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics. It was a creative solution to a difficult problem. Today we have a similar theoretical contradiction between Einstein's General Relativity (large, galactic scale) and Quantum Mechanics (small, sub-atomic scale) but no one is able to reconcile these two theories and it has been shown that, as formulated, they are mathematically incompatible. For years physicists ignored this problem because satisfying, productive careers in physics could be based on pursuing all the implications of Einstein's ideas and the parallel developments in Quantum Mechanics. This period is now ending and I believe that somewhere in the world is the modern equivalent of a "patent clerk" who is working on a new conceptual approach to physics that will allow the reconciliation of GR and QM.
- saraid216 13y agoWe still have patent clerks.
- Datsundere 13y agoWho is Edward Whitten?
- jerf 13y ago"For years physicists ignored this problem..." Physicits have not been ignoring the problem. String theory is but one attempt to solve the problem. Physicists have failed to solve the problem, but that is not the same thing. Look at all the older dates discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#History (Note I'm not advocating String Theory, just using it to prove my local point here that the problem has not been ignored.)
- dmfdmf 13y agoThe context I was referring to was the era soon after the Einstein-Bohr debates culminating in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. This was an uneasy truce and the attitude at the time was "shut up and calculate" -- meaning shut up about the philosophic meaning and contradictions of the fundamental theories of physics and just apply them or flesh out the implications. This was fine until the late sixties when cosmology and black holes forced the issue of reconciling GR and QM, of which String Theory is one avenue taken. Personally, I think String Theory is a dead-end. However in my original comment when I wrote that the current theories are incompatible "as formulated", I leave open the possibility that a mathematical reformulation, such as String Theory, may resolve the issues. Personally, I think the problem will be solved by a new conceptual approach, on the order of Einstein redefining the meaning of space and time. I also think that it will come from someone outside of or on the fringes of mainstream physics, such as Julian Barbour or someone, like Einstein, just starting their career with nothing to lose on taking on such a grand challenge with no guarantee of success.
- archagon 13y agoIt's odd to me that we don't study creative thinking more. When it comes to technical details, we've got it covered; you can find hundreds of textbooks on any given field, from the arts to the sciences. But the mysterious step that actually lets you recombine that knowledge into new ideas is usually shrugged off as "hard work" or "inspiration". On the other hand, I suppose it's a pretty difficult question to answer. If you were to ask a musician how they compose their music, they would probably talk about scales and chord progressions and improvisation. But the true answer involves a whole lifetime of experiences and memories, filtered in a specific way through the musician's brain to create certain musical effects, themselves based on years of training. To even talk about that would require a lot of introspection. What if we could train ourselves to think like Einstein? What would this do for science? What about Mozart and music?
- tachyonbeam 13y agoThis is true. I got interested in music, wanted to compose electronic music of my own. I went on to read several books about music theory and composition. I then realized that composing good music is extremely difficult, and has very little to do with the study of music theory. I believe most musicians sort of have a recipe book of tricks and patterns they discovered, which they combine with some improvisation. These "known recipes" take a long time, lots of practice and experimentation to acquire, and they are what makes an artist's musical style, or flavor, so to speak. No amount of reading about music theory will give you this. Interestingly, programming might be similar in many ways. People complain when an artist releases an album, and there's only 2 good tunes, the rest are just "filler". People might assume the artist was just lazy or something, couldn't be bothered to put enough work into the album. I think the reason that's so common is that well, it's just that hard to create good music: 2 songs is all the really good music they managed to create in that time. Also makes you appreciate artists who can produce an album full of good tunes, these people are exceptionally gifted.
- samatman 13y agocreative thinking is like all creativity: improvisational shift-reduce combinations on memorized patterns. You combine this analytical intelligence with non-trivial amounts of categorical intelligence and a lot of hard work, you get creative thought in a technical field. It's rare because categorical and analytical intelligence are practically independent variables and you need a lot of both, otherwise you're an accountant or a musician/poet.