I thought he understood it, but just didn't like that idea. And so he didn't dedicate the resources of his mind to come up with a theory wherein it was true.
And apparently he wasn't smart enough to create a Unified Field Theory to explain how the universe is run.
It sounded like you knew. We don't really know. We just know it happens - not much more than Einstein knew. But he showed that it must occur. See the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen paradox.
Neither has anyone else; at least not one that can be tested. It has even been suggested in physics circles that a unified theory isn't possible; that for some reason the idea itself is fundamentally flawed.
I have read that Einstein needed his wife to do some of his math. She was a better mathematician than he was.
Strictly speaking, spooky action at a distance, or entanglement, is nothing more than a mathematical equation that describes an isolated [not measured] two-particle system. But unlike cause and effect events we observe all around us, where A leads to B leads to C through a logical sequence of physical interactions, entanglement defies explanation beyond a purely mathematical one. We just know it happens. We have interpretations but nothing like a definitive explanation that is philosophically satisfying.
Erwin Schrodinger, the dirty old man, was inspired to save Quantum Mechanics while entangled with a beautiful young maiden, while hidden away from his wife, in the Swiss Alps. So it can be said that entanglement led to entanglement. http://pangrammaticon.blogspot.com/2015/12/schrodingers-mistress.html For this reason I always have a beautiful young mistress. You never know when the next great theory might come along.
I agree that we really don't know....but apparently there is much more to learn other than the theory of relativity. Einstein didn't care for that 'spooky action.' I really don't blame him. He didn't have the scientific research we have today regarding accelerators that are able to smash atomic particles.
What he didn't like was that QM says the universe is fundamentally random - God doesn't play dice with the universe. What is not as well know is what Niels Bohr's reportedly replied: Don’t tell God what to do!
Frankly I think it's a matter of what we don't know . We like to think that we understand everything but we really don't understand anything at all . Which which is evident by the constant discoveries as we looked further and further into the particles that make up Atoms.
Who says we understand everything? Well, some people do from time to time. But not the greats. At a deeper level we don't know if we understand anything. We have mathematical models that accurately predict real-world events. These models are falsifiable, meaning then can be proven false if false, but that doesn't mean they represent the essence of existence. They may merely be models that work. There may be a deeper reality we can never know. We can interpret these mathematical models, ie. Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, and perhaps String Theory or Loop Quantum Gravity, or perhaps even the Many Worlds Theory... but we can never know if we are interpreting reality or just the model. We only know that QM and GR will, within their domains, predict the correct results 100% of the time.
Yes, that is your perception.....that your measurements reflect reality. Measurements have been found to be relative.
He understood it, he just argued against it since while it was indicated in the math...the whole idea seemed cobblers to him. Much the same way that the idea of Supermassive Black Holes was indicated in the math but were cobblers to just about every other astrophysicist out there. Then we started finding the damn things...all over the place. We now know that they're responsible for the formation of galaxies.
That's a bit of a myth. That myth came about when someone noted that Einstein wrote Mileva Marić in 1901 and said, “How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have brought our work on relative motion to a triumphant end!”. Those who knew them said that her involvement was that of proofreader and just someone to listen to his ideas. And no he wasn't a bad math student. That myth comes from when the school he attended switched their grading scale around. In the first semester of Aargau Cantonal School, the highest grade on a scale of 1-6 was a 1. Second Semester onward the scale flipped and the highest grade became a 6 and the lowest was a 1. So in the first semester he got a 1 in math and in the subsequent semesters he got a 6. Basically getting high marks through out his time at that school. And yes he did fail his entrance exams to Swiss Federal Polytechnical School. But the bits that failed him were about Swiss history which as a student of a German secondary school...he was ill prepared for. Had he stayed in Switzerland...the professors would have allowed him to audit the classes until he could get caught up on the History and re-apply.
I read it was more than that. Yes, this is entirely false. Anyone who has studied GR would know that.
That is why I said it depends on your frame of reference as well - your relative state of motion to that observed. Perception means that it is subject to interpretation. That is false.
The problem with that one is that while it can be argued as to the level of involvement in his theories before 1905...there is the simple fact that he did a lot of work and sorted out a lot of stuff after 1905...when he divorced her. So regardless of her involvement...he was still a genius and still more than capable of working out some really next-level stuff (for the era) on his own.
Yes, I wasn't trying to promote the bad at math myth. IIRC, he gave her the money from his Nobel Prize. But that had more to do with the divorce. I have always wondered why he never got a Nobel for Relativity.
