Einstein: Could he have been the father of QM?

[Swapnil]

Recently, I have realized how much did Einstein contributed, indirectly, to the field of QM. I mean, using his two famous relations $E=mc^2$ (relativity) and $E=hf$ (photoelectric effect), we derived the relation $p = \frac{h}{\lambda}$. Then, by the help of a keen insight from de Broglie, we hypothesized that matter could also behave like a wave (i.e. wave-particle duality) whose wavelength can be given by the relation $\lambda = \frac{h}{p}$. This lead us (i.e. Schrodinger) to develop the concept of matter waves and wave equations that describe those matter waves. And the rest is history...

What do you guys think about this? Are Einstein's contributions to the field of QM significant? Could he have realized the implications of his relations but didn't proceed any further? Could he possibly have been the father of QM if only he had been a little more open-minded?

 

[dicerandom]

Most of the books I've read give Einstein a fair bit of credit for his work on the photoelectric effect. Of course, as seems typical in science, QM didn't really have a single "father", there were many people who contributed various pieces to its development over a period of many years.

I think it's more interesting (not to mention accurate) to study the history of the development of a particular field rather than over simplify matters by declaring one particular person who did early work on it as being the father of it all.

 

[RandallB]

(Could Einstein have been the father of QM?) ...Could he possibly have been the father of QM if only he had been a little more open-minded?

Einstein in 1905 took the Plank idea of a mathematical analogy of quantum units of energy to resolve black body radiation as Plank himself took it, and changed it to a reality in the photo electric effect. With that he became the father of ALL quantum theories.
I’m not sure what you might have expect “in little more open-minded” of him to allow him “discover” QM as a solution to QT. When in his entire life he never accepted QM as a complete and correct solution to QT.
So no, as he never changed his mind even as most everyone else did accept QM, I doubt he would have ever have been of a mind to create the uncertainty principle, nor the de Broglie solution.

 

[selfAdjoint]

So no, as he never changed his mind even as most everyone else did accept QM, I doubt he would have ever have been of a mind to create the uncertainty principle, nor the de Broglie solution.

His view is that he didn't abandon QM, which he continued to be interested into the end of his life (he was enthusiastic about the algebraic approach that started in the fifties). But he couldn't stand the Bohr-Heisenberg-Born version of it, and considering the kind of "interpetations" it has spawned, maybe he had a point? Schrodinger agreed with him and such a mighty figure of modern times as 't Hooft has tried to find alternatives to it.

BTW, don't forget that among his contributions to QM are the formulas for stimulated emission, the germ of lasers and masers.

 

[RandallB]

His view is that he didn't abandon QM, ... But he couldn't stand the Bohr-Heisenberg-Born version of it, and considering the kind of "interpetations" it has spawned, maybe he had a point?

I disagree.
If Einstein were asked to draw a fine line of it, he would acknowledge “the Bohr-Heisenberg-Born version of it” as being QM and they Bohr-Heisenberg-Born are welcome to being the originators of that version.
Einstein’s point would be that there is a difference between QM and QT mainly that QM could not be (note the conviction) a correct and complete version of “it” (“it” = Quantum Theory).
And as you point out several others agreed that Einstein might be right (maybe with a bit less conviction).

So of course he continued to want to fix QT with GR, or Field GR, or field something – as he “knew” in his view that QM was wrong. That is why most (granted not all) scientist consider most of the last half of his life as wasted, because you did not accept QM, and even simply ignored the “speculations” it generated, even where experiments confirmed them, of Strong and Weak forces and the implications of The Standard Model.
He expected that the “Correct Solution” would provide a better view of reality, and endeavored to reach that solution without the use of the ‘incorrect’ QM.

Of course his failure to do so, only enforced the position of Bohr-Heisenberg-Born and proponents that QM is THE solution to Quantum Theory, and the majority today, unlike Einstein, agree to such an extent that the two terms, QM and QT, are consider to mean the same thing.

That is why I see Einstein as the “Father” of QT and never “abandoned” it.
But he never accepted QM to even be able to abandon that.

 

[Karlisbad]

Einstein was the "luckiest" man in history...everyone of us in this forum could have deduced equations for "Photoelectric effect" and "Specific Heat" (Einstein model), without any problem..:tongue2: I'm really asking myself if he was really a genious..do you need to be a genious to deduce $$2+2=4$$?

 

[Careful]

Einstein was the "luckiest" man in history...everyone of us in this forum could have deduced equations for "Photoelectric effect" and "Specific Heat" (Einstein model), without any problem..:tongue2: I'm really asking myself if he was really a genious..do you need to be a genious to deduce $$2+2=4$$?

The fact that you ``could'' have done it, doesn't imply that you would have thought about it. True genius doesn't only consist in solving difficult problems but in tackling the right ones. It is for example well known that Elie Cartan had to explain him some aspects of differential geometry ``more than once''. However, the multitude of physical insights produced by that man about the vacuum, Brownian motion, the equivalence principle as well as some ``practical'' insights in QM (he never thought of his photon model in the silly way people do in these days) makes him a great physicist. If you place his ideas about the photoelectric effect in the correct time spirit, then what he said was perpendicular to all insights at that time : the Newtonian theory of light had been surpressed by Huygens insights for over one century by then. So it is very doubtful to say the least that you would have even considered ``photons''.

Careful

 

[Daverz]

I've wondered why deBroglie didn't come up with the Schrödinger equation when he seemed to have all the ingredients. It seems obvious that if you have a plain "pilot" wave

$\psi = \exp[i(\bold{k \cdot r} - \omega t)]$

with

$p = \hbar k$
and
$E = \hbar \omega$

And assuming non-relativistic motion

$E = \frac{p^2}{2m} + V(x)$

That the wave satisfies

$[-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2 + V]\psi = i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi$

 

[XVX]

It may seem obvious now, but why in the World would one choose a "pilot" wave to represent a particle?

I sense a Bohmian.


I would argue that Max Planck, recognized by the Nobel Prize Organization as the father of QM, is the father of QM.


He was the first to consider quantization, the heart of QM.

 

[vanesch]

He was the first to consider quantization, the heart of QM.

I wouldn't consider "quantization" (= discreteness of quantities) as the heart of QM. To me, it is the superposition principle, the weirdest idea ever thought of: if a thing can be in state A, and it can be in state B, then it can be in both at once.
You have also "quantization" in classical electrodynamics (eigenmodes and all that), and even more in non-linear classical theories.

 

[Karlisbad]

However.. i believe Einstein, Newton and others are "over-valued", one thing is to create the "Standard Model" which requires a great amount of imagination and math, and other think is to take and PDE and call it Schröedinguer equation and almost get the nobel prize or to create an atomic model that only works for Hydrogen..that's very stupid, i you everyone could have invented it, they only were luckier than we are,.. because nowadays.. who's able to solve a math or physics problem without having at least Ph. D in math and phsyics?, however 100 hundred years ago everything was easier..

 

[Careful]

However.. i believe Einstein, Newton and others are "over-valued", one thing is to create the "Standard Model" which requires a great amount of imagination and math, and other think is to take and PDE and call it Schröedinguer equation and almost get the nobel prize or to create an atomic model that only works for Hydrogen..that's very stupid, i you everyone could have invented it, they only were luckier than we are,.. because nowadays.. who's able to solve a math or physics problem without having at least Ph. D in math and phsyics?, however 100 hundred years ago everything was easier..

I think you really do not understand the non trivial work these people have made in THEIR time. Newton basically founded the modern methodology of physics, prior to him natural philosophy was just that : philosophy (nothing better than epicycles). Einstein had the courage to return partially to the Newtonian theory of light which was entirely abandonned ; his invention is of a similar magnetude to a proof in these times that nature is local realistic. If there is something naive, then it is indeed the Schroedinger wave, that is why its inventor came back from some related insights some 10 years after he wrote it down (wish more people would have done it). Now, to say that their work is trivial ``because the math can be done by any grad student in these days´´ is rather arrogant and silly. Moreover, you seem to be taken by the confusion that the next great step in physics needs a major mathematical impetus ; I do not think this to be the case.

Therefore, I do not understand why you value QFT so much; it does not require a mathematical genius to figure out that some steps are really illegitimate (and I for sure think that the physics behind it is incorrect too). Actually, to do path integrals as physicists do them, you only need some integral calculus and Fourier (functional) analysis given that the latter framework has not reached the level of rigor of unbounded operators on Hilbert spaces yet.

Careful

 

[exponent137]

Einstein was the "luckiest" man in history...everyone of us in this forum could have deduced equations for "Photoelectric effect" and "Specific Heat" (Einstein model), without any problem..:tongue2: I'm really asking myself if he was really a genious..do you need to be a genious to deduce $$2+2=4$$?

I think that quantum gravity is also simple as 3+3+3=9, but none has find it.
Superstring is not simple and I think it will not give quantum gravity theory. We need real sociological-psihological analysis of string researchers.

 

[Alkatran]

Watching the professor pull off proof after proof after proof is really easy, and you go back with a certainty that you understand the obviously simple subject matter. Then you try to do it for yourself and realize you can't even prove ~a or a without trying for 10 minutes.

Hindsight is 20-20.

 

[Karlisbad]

Watching the professor pull off proof after proof after proof is really easy, and you go back with a certainty that you understand the obviously simple subject matter. Then you try to do it for yourself and realize you can't even prove ~a or a without trying for 10 minutes.

Hindsight is 20-20.

-Yes of course, perhaps to deduce (in my case at least) Schröedinguer equation it would have taken me 2 or 3 months, whereas he took only perhaps a week but this does not mean i couldn't have made it only it would have taken me more time

- In the case of Newton..Did you know that Fermat wrote the "correct" expression for the derivative before Newton??.. ¡¡¡ and he was only a lawyer¡¡..then shouldn't be so hard, the inverse-square law is just a direct consequence of Kepler's second law and using Normal acceleration.

- If Einstein were so clever..why didn't he find Quantum Gravity? the reply "he didn't believe in QM" is not an excuse, he SHOULD have discovered it in another different way. :grumpy: (unless of course he really weren't much clever than you and me :tongue2: :tongue2: )

 

[Azael]

-Yes of course, perhaps to deduce (in my case at least) Schröedinguer equation it would have taken me 2 or 3 months, whereas he took only perhaps a week but this does not mean i couldn't have made it only it would have taken me more time

- In the case of Newton..Did you know that Fermat wrote the "correct" expression for the derivative before Newton??.. ¡¡¡ and he was only a lawyer¡¡..then shouldn't be so hard, the inverse-square law is just a direct consequence of Kepler's second law and using Normal acceleration.

- If Einstein were so clever..why didn't he find Quantum Gravity? the reply "he didn't believe in QM" is not an excuse, he SHOULD have discovered it in another different way. :grumpy: (unless of course he really weren't much clever than you and me :tongue2: :tongue2: )

So all the people today working on quantum gravity is stupid because they haven't find a working theory yet?

The mathematics wasnt the issue, the issue was to crack a completely new idea and se if it fits with reality.
History of physics is quite interesting and really shows that guys like einstein, bohr, fermi, ect was brilliant. Because they tried ideas no one else even considered.

If you or me where born before bohr I doubt we would come up with the idea that the hydrogen spectrum can be explained by quantised electron orbits around the core.

If the schrödinger equation was so obvious, why did brilliant men like heinsenberg, born, bohr ect miss it?

Maby you can make the next big discovery now today. It should be just as easy as finding the schrödinger equation was for schrödinger.
Im sure it will seem very obvious to people in 100 years and someone will call everyone alive now stupid for not noticing it.

 

[RandallB]

-- If Einstein were so clever..why didn't he find Quantum Gravity?
the reply "he didn't believe in QM" is not an excuse, he SHOULD have discovered it in another different way.

You’re implying that QM has produced a complete description of Quantum Gravity.
If that were so QM would have displaced GR by now – it has not.

To get it right someone must correct GR or QM with the other. Or replace or correct both with something new, as they both can not be correct.

So if Einstein would not be good enough for you, who in history would you bring back to our current time (and modern base of information) is “smart” (creative, insightful) enough to solve this puzzle when no one else can.
Or do you have someone alive now you believe will do so soon once they have a bit more time.

 

[lightarrow]

To Karlisbad
Even the simplest concepts that we have now, weren't clear at all at those days.

 

[selfAdjoint]

-Yes of course, perhaps to deduce (in my case at least) Schröedinguer equation it would have taken me 2 or 3 months, whereas he took only perhaps a week but this does not mean i couldn't have made it only it would have taken me more time

There has just been a derivation of an analytic solution of the tachyon vacuum in string field theory. Since you're so smart why don't you derive it yourself without peeking at the paper? Should only take you a few days if you could have done all the stuff you claim in the past.

- In the case of Newton..Did you know that Fermat wrote the "correct" expression for the derivative before Newton??.. ¡¡¡ and he was only a lawyer¡¡..then shouldn't be so hard, the inverse-square law is just a direct consequence of Kepler's second law and using Normal acceleration.

Perfectly true, but describing Fermat, of Fermat's Last Theorem fame, as "only a lawyer" is a bit like describing Newton as "only an alchemist". And of course neither Fermat nor Newton, nor anyone else in the seventeenth century, had a good understanding of limiting processes.

- If Einstein were so clever..why didn't he find Quantum Gravity? the reply "he didn't believe in QM" is not an excuse, he SHOULD have discovered it in another different way. :grumpy: (unless of course he really weren't much clever than you and me :tongue2: :tongue2: )

Einstein had three wonderful ideas, ideas that won't go away no matter how some people wish they would: Relativity, Dynamic Quanta, and Dynamic Spacetime. Nobody else in the twentieth century, in fact nobody since Newton, had so many. What have you done that I need to know about?

 

[Karlisbad]

* Quoting Self-adjoint : *

" There has just been a derivation of an analytic solution of the tachyon vacuum in string field theory. Since you're so smart why don't you derive it yourself without peeking at the paper? Should only take you a few days if you could have done all the stuff you claim in the past "

Of course but math theory involving the strings or super-strings is harder to understand than for example Sturm-Liouville problems (linear) or PDE--> involved in SE , any college student can understand this, however you won't meet many more graduate (only) students that understand String-theory.. if string theory involved only trivial math calculation (derivatives integrals and so on) anyone could deduce its properties.

Abother quote of Self-adjoint:

Einstein had three wonderful ideas, ideas that won't go away no matter how some people wish they would: Relativity, Dynamic Quanta, and Dynamic Spacetime. Nobody else in the twentieth century, in fact nobody since Newton, had so many. What have you done that I need to know about?"

Yes,but Photoelectric effect was (or could have been derived) from Planck's idea of quanta (the same idea applies to specific heat since Einstein only made the substitution of an integral by a geommetric series, and expanding the potential near its minimum...that's all, the relativity idea and space contraction were derived before einstein by Lorentz and Poincare, and the equivalence principle were proposed by Ernst Mach among others.

Of course i don't want to be misunderstood.. I'm not saying "I'm the biggest genious in the world and Einstein and others were stupid "... i only wanted to express my disagreement with yours about this post :grumpy: give all the possible math in the world and i will be able to solve almost any problem...that's only a question about math.

 

[Locrian]

give all the possible math in the world and i will be able to solve almost any problem...that's only a question about math.

This of course assumes that almost any problem is solvable, which is not as obvious to me as it is you.

 

[selfAdjoint]

* Quoting Self-adjoint : *

" There has just been a derivation of an analytic solution of the tachyon vacuum in string field theory. Since you're so smart why don't you derive it yourself without peeking at the paper? Should only take you a few days if you could have done all the stuff you claim in the past "

Of course but math theory involving the strings or super-strings is harder to understand than for example Sturm-Liouville problems (linear) or PDE--> involved in SE , any college student can understand this, however you won't meet many more graduate (only) students that understand String-theory.. if string theory involved only trivial math calculation (derivatives integrals and so on) anyone could deduce its properties.

Just as I thought. You believe any discovery in the past must have been easy because you have been shown the context and the methods and falsely believe the ease of that applies to the discoverers in their own time. But of course the math and physics of today are too difficult for you. This is twenty-twenty hindsight. For Einstein in 1905, the problems were just as hard - he was at the frontier - as string theory is for string theorists now. You demean the thinkers of the past when you compare their intellectual struggles with the ease of a student today.

 

[Azael]

Of course i don't want to be misunderstood.. I'm not saying "I'm the biggest genious in the world and Einstein and others were stupid "... i only wanted to express my disagreement with yours about this post :grumpy: give all the possible math in the world and i will be able to solve almost any problem...that's only a question about math.

most of the job is formulating the problem in a way that makes it possible to solve.

When bohr got the idea that electron orbits are quantised and assuming that they are stable, it was not hard to work it out mathematicly. But getting the idea in the first place was the tricky part.

Einstein had to throw away physics that had worked well since Newton to formulate his relativity.

Planck only grasped at his quantisation idea as a last effort to explain black body radiation.

Maby many others had the same ideas, but it took those great minds to really examine it and show its validity. If it was as easy as you claim, every physics student back then would have pulled it off.

 

[Daverz]

It may seem obvious now, but why in the World would one choose a "pilot" wave to represent a particle?

Because he (deBroglie) came up with the idea in the first place. I just wonder why he didn't try to write down a wave equation for them.

 

[Alkatran]

give all the possible math in the world and i will be able to solve almost any problem...that's only a question about math.

So, how about that Riemann hypothesis?

You're not only coming off as arrogant, but that special kind of arrogant where everyone else can tell you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[eep]

Karlisbad, where's your ingenious theory?

Oh wait... not so easy, is it?

 

[Karlisbad]

Of course i had some ideas (you'll say "eh but this is all rubbish" )

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GM/0610948 generalization of SE to any arbitrary (non polynomial Hamiltonian)

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GM/0608355 using Borel transform to evaluate functional integrals (second part of paper)ç

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GM/0607095 a (proposed) Hamiltonian H=T+V so its eigenvalues are just the imaginary part of the Riemann zeta function non-trivial roots, the V(x) must satisfy a certain integral equation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GM/0402259 an use of zeta regularization to get a finite meaning for integrals of the form [tex] \int_{0}^{\infty}x^{m}dx m=-1 or m>0

Of course you can make me a lot of criticism..."lack or rigour" "the solution to RH is not complete" and so on, math involved in these papers is very easy (any graduate student could understand this, the same it happened that every student could understand the MATH involved in SR, Bohr model or Photoelectric effect and Specific Heat) if i knew mor mathematics i could solve harder problems.

 

[RandallB]

Yes,but Photoelectric effect was (or could have been derived) from Planck's idea of quanta ...

i'm not saying "I'm the biggest genious in the world ...

But note that Planck understood his own idea as a convenient mathematic analogy and not a description of reality – even his Noble was for work on the plural “quanta”.
It was the “luck” of Einstein to identify the simple reality of an individual “quantum”, much later to be named a photon. In the opinion of a lot us, that insight to make use of such “luck” on Einstein’s part was “Genius”, even if you think it was a simple solution with current information for anyone to solve.

Although you may not be the biggest genius, I’m sure you’re as bright as the “Guinness BRILLIANT! Scientists”.

But allow me to express an opinion that you still can prove yourself more than just BRILLIANT! - and a true “Lucky Genius”!
IMO the biggest solution in physics for our new millennium will at the end of the day be fundamentally as simple as any of the great ones you complain were really so simple to solve.
And the person that solves will have to consider themselves lucky that the clues, any UNDER-graduate student could use solve the puzzle, went laying around for all to see - but left unanswered for that lucky person to solve so simply.

I’ll grant you I may be wrong and the solution may be PHD level complex.
But if I’m right, since you are looking, you need to find this simple thing before someone else does.
My expectation is a lot of current high level genius will be embarrassed and jealous if someone as “lucky” as Einstein finds a truly simple solution.

 

[Careful]

But note that Planck understood his own idea as a convenient mathematic analogy and not a description of reality – even his Noble was for work on the plural “quanta”.

There is no such thing as luck in these matters. Those people first rejected contemporary thinking about these subjects, which required hard work in itself. They had to figure out why things were not being solved in the first place, then they could really see what was lacking in the first place. And, again, this has nothing to do with mathematical complexity.

Careful

 

[Fox5]

There is no such thing as luck in these matters. Those people first rejected contemporary thinking about these subjects, which required hard work in itself. They had to figure out why things were not being solved in the first place, then they could really see what was lacking in the first place. And, again, this has nothing to do with mathematical complexity.

Careful

I'd say it takes a lot of courage and confidence in ones own mathematical ability to throw out contemporary thinking and replace it with something of your own conception. The math may seem simple now, but I don't think performing calculations has ever been considered particularly hard, it's always been about understanding the scope and meaning of the calculations, or even where to begin on them. A computer can do math, but it probably won't be creating general laws to describe the universe.

 

[RandallB]

There is no such thing as luck in these matters.

I think you missed the point of my post here,
what Karlisbad calls "lucky"
you and I and most on this forum call genius.

[Edit] OK I see; you were adding to my comments, not responding to them.

Another good example of “seeing flaws” as you put it, is the biggest flaw of both QM and GR. It has been well known 20th century fact; the two are incompatibility with each other. Yet they both make their best progress by ignoring that flaw and each other as, Astrophysics uses GR and particle physics uses QM.
Neither can be truly correct and complete unless they can correct or replace the other. With over half a century of tremendous effort to fix one to combine them or even replace both them this solution will be the biggest of them all. Some even claim it is impossible to do, But I have no doubt when it does happen, come some even many will say; “shucks, I could have thought of that!”

 

[Careful]

I think you missed the point of my post here,
what Karlisbad calls "lucky"
you and I and most on this forum call genius.

No, actually I just wanted to add something to your post by saying that the progress made by these people just did not originate from wanting to see things differently, but from seeing flaws in existing programs as well as probing for a deeper level of understanding.

Careful

 

[Careful]

I'd say it takes a lot of courage and confidence in ones own mathematical ability to throw out contemporary thinking and replace it with something of your own conception. The math may seem simple now, but I don't think performing calculations has ever been considered particularly hard, it's always been about understanding the scope and meaning of the calculations, or even where to begin on them. A computer can do math, but it probably won't be creating general laws to describe the universe.

True, but at the same time you never throw out contempary thinking away like that. There is always something essentially correct in what is done (even today); it is just that we do not understand yet what is right and what not. I have heard many particle physicists say that they do not really understand what they are doing but they are pretty confident that their results are more or less correct. I entirely agree with this, but I am equally confident that some physical insights behind these calculations are entirely wrong ; the difficulty is to find out why it does not matter that they are so. That is understanding... A beautiful example of this is the radical destruction of the Newtonian insights by Einstein's relativity ; nevertheless a starting point for Einstein was the Laplace equation for Newtonian gravity.

Careful

 

[Karlisbad]

Of course a computer "can" perform calculations (yes if you have a program that worths 10000 $$ such us Mathematica or similar) but can't teach you Diff. Geommetry...if none had explained to Einstein DG we wouldn't have GR today.. we shouldn't forget that "hard math" is still an obstacle to get a theory.

 

[Careful]

Of course a computer "can" perform calculations (yes if you have a program that worths 10000 $$ such us Mathematica or similar) but can't teach you Diff. Geommetry...if none had explained to Einstein DG we wouldn't have GR today.. we shouldn't forget that "hard math" is still an obstacle to get a theory.

Now, with this I agree ... the path from having a good idea to a nice realization of it takes hard work. But the conception of a good idea requires very different skills, lots of time, much patience and persistence ... Once I bought the CD's of ``a beautiful mind'' by silvia nasar and in the part about how nash found the embedding theorem for Riemannian manifolds, the narrator cited the MIT professor Nash was talking to about his approaches to the problem. The text went something like this : ``the thing about nash was that he persisted where everyone would have given up for a long time, most mathematicians can work for a few months on a hard problem and then eventually give up if nothing comes out. But Nash kept on coming back and back, tried over and over again for about one year or so...´´ , the same applies to Wiles and the Fermat theorem and so on.

Careful