Prize and Prejudice

Re: # 19
freethinker:
Definitely Einstein was no plagiarist. But they - Mileva and he - had made an agreement which Einstein and she totally kept for better and worse. Mileva was a imperfect pefectionist (and thus suffered throughout her life) and Einstein was a perfection assuming and appearing imperfection but never gave in to popularity demands. He is described by the following modification of Akbar Allahabadi:
Paalaam hun magar, hun sabit kadam wafaa mein,

---

Hun msl-e-sang-dar, is aastaan pe main.


AND THUS HE SELF-IMMOLATED AT THE TEMPLE OF CAUSALITY!!!!!!!!!!

Re: # 9
All repetitions were not my doing but I can understand your impatience!

Furthermore, it was interesting to read the punjabi urdu!!!

echoboom:

Your take on my article is appreciated. Thanks for your post.

Mohammad Gill

Janab Gill sahib!

This article and another one of a similar kind by you is very entertaining & enlightening.
There is a great shortage of such accounts written by our own. Please develop these a bit more..preferably in form of a book and if possible in Urdu.

To an aspiring student of engineering and science such accounts 1)boost morale--``a Pakistani rubbed shoulders with an einstein`` 2) anecdotal science stories help understand the intricasies of the `system` , and 3) encourage others to take up science as adventurous & thrilling vocation.

May Allah bless you to write more & more effectively on such first-hand observations.

---

On the subject: Scientists and the Nobel Prize authorities are as human & hence as weak in the flesh as the most deprived human on earth. That is the great equaliser which reminds us that no one is worth to be `worshipped`.

The scandals involving the Nobel committee as well as the low-character of some of the recipients is well documented.

It is the work of these giants ( & those who were not so recognised) that is their gift to humanity & the best award one can give to them is to read & understand and carry their work further--even by rendering it obsolete.

Inquirer:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here with me and providing a glimpse of your professional life. I didn`t know that Mileva worked with Lenard for her Ph.D. I read about Maleva only incidentally; I didn`t make any effort in learning more of her academic undertakings; I had a feeling that even though they divorced, Einstein had treated her fairly. I wouldn`t like to jump to a conclusion that he gave the prize check because he knew it was her work. Einstein, from all portents, was not a dishonest person.

I am interested in Albert Einstein because of his son also. Hans Einstein did fundamental work in the mechanics of sediment transportation in rivers. I did my Ph.D work in the related field. Before starting my Ph.D. work, I had requested him to review my first paper and he agreed. But he did not send his comments. I learnt later that he was deadly against the purely empirical work done by Lacey, which I had tried to rationalize using his (Einstein`s) bed load formula. My paper was published. Later I had the occasion to publish a discussion of one of his papers which he had authored in collobaration with one of his students. I had made some critical comments in my discussion, which he gracefully accepted in his published response.

Be well,

Mohammad Gill

Gill Sahab:

Firstly, by some reckonings today is Einstein`s Birthday!

Secondly, thanks for your charitableness in giving me benefit of doubt. I have been interested in Einstein`s thoughts and life for the past fifty years but am by no means an expert on either. (Reminds me a statement of Einstein when he said: I have been thinking about the photon for fifty years but I do not know if now I know much more!! Note the absence of the quotation marks.)

Thirdly, I have formally studied Einstein`s derivation of Brownian Movement and the Special Theory of Relativity but not the General Theory. If you are familiar with Physics as it was tought in India (Pakistan), a generation ago(!!), that means that I have an M. Sc. in Physics. I can vouch that mathematical brain of Einstein could not be bothered much about the use of elementary equation of Planck: E= h x nu. The equation was just given a new look by equating E to Ej-Ei where Ej and Ei are very simply the electronic energy levels in an atom. And it became Ej - Ei = h x nu. Mileva worked under Lenard who was not very fond of jews and she herself had problem in getting along with any one. That is why she returned to Einstein from Lenard without the PH. D. degree. (Related to your interaction with Maharana: Mileva was a very good mathematician but the general problem with the mathematicians is that they necessarily lose touch with practicality and their admirers should understand that while their hero is definitely admirable to the elite, he/she fails to connect with humans!! Hence they are unnoticed!!! Note I am a nuclear engineer now.)

Fourthly, Complete Works of Einstein, consisting of about 50,000 documents, currently being housed at the University at Princeton will be published by a team of Physicists and Social Scientists. My information is derived from the most dramatic findings - about two years ago - from the archives amidst more routine documents.

Finally, please continue your activities at the Chowk because your articles provide many wonderful - though I do not fully agree with you on all issues, as you probably have already surmised with my interactions with you - oases in the sea of banality at the Chowk. I will interact with you once in a while but always interest myself with your thoughts.

Dear Inquirer:

First a couple of corrections. The book to which I referred in my last post is written by Hans Einstein’s wife, Elizabeth Roboz Einstein. Two of Hans students contributed appendices in the book pertaining to Hans’ technical work.

Secondly, Hans was Einstein’s first (eldest) son and not the second one.

Now I am reproducing the following piece from the book.

Did Mileva (Albert Einstein’s wife) Contribute to Albert’s Three Most Significant Papers?

In 1952, R.S. Shankland asked Albert Einstein about his famous 1905 papers and how it was that they all appeared at once. Einstein answered that he had worked on the idea of special relativity for more than seven years. That means that he began to work on special relativity at about the time Mileva returned to ETH from Heidelberg and they started to study together.

From the spring of 1898 until the fall of 1911, Mileva worked daily at the same table with Albert – quietly, modestly, and never in public view. It is unlikely that her contribution to Albert Einstein’s work will ever be determined precisely. However, if we keep in mind that “she was as good at mathematics as Marcel (Grossman),” we may suppose that her part was not small.

There is no doubt that Albert discussed his ideas with Mileva. The paper about the photoelectric effect was the result of about five years of pondering. The citation for the Nobel Prize in physics, awarded to Albert Einstein in 1922, says “for your photoelectric law and your work in the field of theoretical physics.” Einstein accepted the prize check and gave it to Mileva.

This is as far as it goes. I couldn’t access the reference that you provided.

The book that I am referring to is titled “Hans Albert Einstein – Reminiscences of His Life and Our Life Together”, by Elizabeth Roboz Einstein.

I am no authority on Albert Einstein although I have read a few books on his life. I didn’t come across any description which suggested that Mileva did positively contribute to Einstein’s Nobel Prize winning paper. I give the benefit of doubt to you; you may be right. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

freethinker:

I refer you to the publications of Einstein Archives from Princeton University.

Inquirer:

You wrote in your post, ``By the way Einstein had secretly acknowledged that the work on Photoelectric Effect was done by his wife and published in his name due to stupid prejudice against women scientists that was prevalent at that time in the world. `` I want to clarify this point.

It is conjectured by many that Einstein did not give due credit to his wife for work that she was supposed to have contributed. But this is not quite true. Einstein`s second son, Hans Einstein, was a civil engineer. One of his students wrote Hans` biography. It is stated there that Hans also thought that her mother was unfairly ignored. He asked several of his physicist friends to investigate. They couldn`t turn up any credible evidence. So, this is merely a conjecture. There is nothing in it.

Mohammad Gill

Maharana:

I am pleased with your post.

You probably know that Reimann was great Gauss`s student. He did his Ph.D. with him.Reimann`s Ph.D. thesis is said to be only 10 pages long but it was quite fundamental. I am not a mathematician and did not have the occasion to use Reimann`s mathematics.But I like to believ that I have first hand experience of feeling the beauty of mathematics because I have used it in some of my research work.

Reimann was a great mathematician and the mathematicians and the theoretical physicists konw it and they adore him. Einstein`s fame skyrocketed because of his equation

E = m c^2

Mathematicians` work does not touch common man`s life in that way.

Your statement regarding Reimann being born before Newton and Galileo is hypothetical and arguable because there is no way we`d know what would have been achieved. We can probably say safely that Einstein couldn`t have developed relativity had he been born before Reimann. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Freethinker,

The reason for highlighting todays tendency of relying on journal articles is simply the quality of articles. If you pick up most of the journals and check, you can see how well their articles measure up against good quality artcilces which are fewer in number. Also take a peek at the Academia in the US. The motivation for getting published sometimes is also to get tenured. Hence the quality of articles suffer.

As for the Nobel in Mathematics is concerned, I think the whole world is aware of that. I am also aware of the fact that Reimann lived much before Nobel came into effect. Besides, my appreciation for Reimannian mathematics exists only because I`ve had the pleasure of taking certain courses dealing extensively with related math. Once you realise what he has done and proposed non-euclidean geometry with curved continuum, it was easy enough to apply that. In the absence of such math framework, where would general relativity stand? Had it not been for similar mathematicians to create and prove the validity of such math models by logical consistency, no physicist can ever apply such theorems to explain the real world phenomenon. Your statement that Reimann is quoted too is correct, but he;s not even remotely as popular as einstein. Except for people in science or technical disciplines, his contributions to the foundation of relativistic math are not known. The reason for that is not nobel prize alone, but a lack of appreciation of his work by the media which remains grossly ignorant about contributions of mathematicins generally.

You are well aware of course that in theorectical physics, without the proof of experiment, its only the mathematical foundation which makes or breaks the theory. theories of physics often become a special case of a more generalised theory only due to new developments in mathematics. The same is not true for mathematics. Its the only discipline that builds upon previously proven theorems. Once a math theory is developed it stays unchanged for eternity as it depends upon logic alone. Had Reimann lived before Newton or galieleo, do you think the development of classical mechanics would have remained the same?

I use continuum mechanics and finite element analysis routinely for my work. I know that you are an engineer too. Most of the engineers I come across in Aerospace industry inevitably get drawn towards mathematics for its sense of finality and ability to provide a complete understanding of any phenomenon. But I guess we`ll differ on the importance of physics Vs. Math with respect to each other. we all have our inclinations. We should discuss about that in detail some other time, lest we should hijack your board into something else.

Adios

Maharana:

Thanks for your comments.

I beg to disagree with you regarding your comments on publishing journal articles versus publishing a book like Darwin. Darwin did not publish his book for nearly thirty years; he published it when he learned that Wallace had independently developed the `theory of natural selection.

The journal articles provide the new research information to the research scientists more readily and the research work progresses rapidly.

Regarding Reimann, it is not correct to suggest that he is ignored. His work is always quoted. Nobel Prize began much later than Reimann`s time and there is another thing also. Nobel Prize is not awarded for the work done in mathematics.

Regarding your suggestion that the physicists only connect the dots, I must say that that is also arguable. Poincare had proposed his theory of relativity which did not quite measure to Einstein`s work. Einstein suggested that time was relativistic and not absolute, as was commonly believed, even by Poincare. Poincare couldn`t take this revolutionary step which by the way also highlights the difference between a physicist and a pure mathematician. There is no question that Poincare was a great mathematician. It is said that Archimdes knew all the mathematics that had been developed up to his time. The same thing was said about Gauss and Poincare. There is no mathematician now with a similar claim.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Mohammed Gill,

This was a well written peice on an excellent topic.

While it is true that Nobel committee members have been biased for many reasons, finally it is also upto the people and media to give Nobel prize the importance it deserves. It should be a sobre reminder to people judging works only by the awards, about the merits of such a thinking. Einstein at least published his work in journals, Darwin did not even do that. He published his work by way of writing his famous book ``Origin of Species``. In a world today where in scientists are obsessed with publishing their works in a journal as a mark of originality, fewer path breaking theories are emerging.

Ironically, where you feel Einstein was ``cheated`` vis a vis his work on relativity (both special and general) with regards to getting a Nobel, Reimann who laid the mathematical foundation for the non-euclidean geometry rarely gets mentioned for the same work. Somehow, I`m getting more and more inclined to believe that physicists connect the dots created by mathematicians. You must read both Reimann and Poincare`s work to know how they state mathematically pretty much what einstein applied to theorize about the universe.

Hope the world starts recognising that more often too.

Adios

A great read Dr Gill, as always!

I personally think that after Einstein, Sir Richard Feynman is the most influential person, in the 20th Century Physics scenario, but then, thats merely a personal opnion. Dirac, Schrodinger and Heisenberg, are no doubt legenary Physicists, who contributed immensely to the human oulook towards the nature of existance. And, to this day, Nobel Acdemy is more biased towards the experimentalists, something you had a good debate on in one of your earlier articles. Nevertheless, quite an eye-opener.

Anxiously waiting for some more gems of knowledge from your side!

Inquirer,

tu ikko gull baar baar kiyon ghassai jaana?


Gandhi Nehru for peace prize.....he he like rewarding a dacoit for dacoity.


Irrespective of Nobel Prize, the world knows about Einstein. In his case, it is irrelevant. His name has become an immortal amongst humans. The prizes begin with noble intentions, over time, they stagnate into `hijra kikli`. What was the purpose of giving to that woman who had planted some trees in Africa. Politics pollutes.

Charlie,
The 21st century could very well be the century when quantum mechanics would be experimentally observed. Some experiments in nanotech, seem to already suggesting that. We are in interesting times.

Good article from the author.