By Categories: Science


In the spring of 1905, a young man began the journey from obscurity to scientific stardom. Within a decade, he would be hailed as a genius who towered over his contemporaries, even in an era that had no dearth of brilliant minds in science.

[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]

Soon the comparisons would begin to transcend his century, and he would take his place alongside Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin. In that magical year, the 26-year-old Albert Einstein, without a formal academic position and sustained by employment in the Swiss Federal Patent Office, was to publish four epochal papers within the space of seven months in the German journal Annalen der Physik, one of the pre-eminent scientific journals of his time.

Physics would no longer be the same after 1905. The comforting link between mundane sensory experience and the fundamental laws of nature that had existed in Newtonian physics even after the Copernican revolution would now be lost forever.

What did Einstein accomplish in those four papers of 1905?

Three days after his 26th birthday, on March 17, Einstein completed the first of this remarkable series. Published on June 9, the paper was titled “On a heuristic point of view concerning the generation and conversion of light”. This paper was the first shot in the quantum revolution.

In this paper Einstein framed, unambiguously, the hypothesis that light in its interaction with matter behaves like a particle with a discrete amount, or ‘quantum’, of energy proportional to its frequency. Over the next two decades the hypothesis was to be verified experimentally, leading to his Nobel Prize for physics in 1921.

The second paper, published in the issue of July 18, concerned itself with the explanation of Brownian motion, the phenomenon of random motion executed by particles suspended in a fluid. The work was an immediate outgrowth of his doctoral thesis. This paper, as Einstein cheerfully noted in a letter to a friend, once and for all settled the question of the reality of atoms. It also developed methods that lie at the root of modern statistical physics, particularly in the study of systems out of equilibrium.

Some time in mid-May, Einstein had that definite moment of discovery that opened the road to the formulation of the special theory of relativity. The result was the third paper, published on September 26, titled “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies”. It abolished the notion that electromagnetic radiation required some kind of medium, the ‘ether’ as it was known, for its transmission. Einstein also postulated that the velocity of light was always constant, independent of the velocity of the emitter.

In the resulting unification of space and time, Einstein advanced decisively beyond Newtonian mechanics, a process that he was to complete with the general theory of relativity in 1915. The mathematician Hermann Minkowski, one of the few teachers from his university days that Einstein respected, noted in an influential review of the theory of relativity in 1908: “The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.”

In the fourth paper, published on November 21, Einstein announced the result that energy is proportional to mass, as a consequence of the special theory of relativity. The constant of proportionality is the square of the speed of light.

Within months of the publication of these four papers, Einstein had arrived in the academic world of his time. By 1906, he was in correspondence with leading physicists of his day like Max Planck, who was to describe Einstein some years later as a “modern Copernicus”. Three years later Einstein was to leave the patent office to enter the academic world, but the legend of the unknown patent clerk, the lonely genius, who effected a complete revolution in science was born.

In 1915, he succeeded in extending the theory of relativity to matter in acceleration, resulting in a new theory of gravitation, where mass was identified as the curvature of space-time. But this was hard won success, and the final work was built on a succession of earlier papers, some of them in collaboration with Marcel Grossman, his friend from his university days. The confirmation of this theory came from the solar eclipse expedition of 1919, data from which revealed the bending of light from the stars by the sun, which had been predicted by Einstein’s new theory of gravity.

Subsequently, Einstein’s scientific journey was to become more complex and difficult. He never reconciled himself to the eventual form that quantum mechanics took in the hands of Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac, Erwin Schrodinger and Max Born, under the influence of Niels Bohr.

While he was gradually convinced that quantum mechanics was not inconsistent, he nevertheless believed that it was incomplete. Einstein liked even less the application of the methods of quantum mechanics to electromagnetic fields. The man who initiated the quantum revolution remained unhappy with what became of it in the hands of its Jacobins.

Thus began an isolation from the mainstream that was to intensify in his years at the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton in the United States, where he settled after leaving Nazi Germany in 1933. His attempts in his Princeton years to formulate a unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism did not make much progress and was considered a fruitless project by many of his contemporaries.

Twentieth-century science pushed forward far more relentlessly than the science of the 17th or even the 19th century, and the manner in which scientific developments outran Einstein in his later years was not a fate that befell a Newton or a Maxwell in their lifetime.

But Einstein’s larger vision undoubtedly set the agenda, if only in part, for subsequent developments that came much later. The search for a unified theory of all fundamental forces has now become an integral part of the paradigm of fundamental physics. And in partial vindication of Einstein, the integration of quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity on the basis of some fundamental principles remains a challenge despite evidence of some progress in recent decades.

After the spectacular affirmation of Einstein’s theory of gravity by the solar eclipse expedition of 1919, a world wearied by the First World War greeted Einstein as a new popular hero. There was intense interest worldwide in Einstein and his work. In India, it resulted in the publication of the first-ever English translation of the papers of Einstein and Minkowski by Satyendranath Bose and Meghnad Saha, with a foreword by P.C. Mahalanobis.

Even prior to his rise to fame, Einstein had begun to step out into the world of public affairs, signing a manifesto against German militarism in 1917. Einstein was to be a pacifist all his life, except for the period that the Nazis were in power, and was drawn naturally to the ideals of Gandhi.

Though he signed the letter urging the U.S. President to develop the atomic bomb, he was horrified by its use. He was unwaveringly opposed to nuclear weapons and it was a cause that occupied him until the end of his days.

Einstein was one of the few intellectuals in the U.S. to speak up against the anti-communist witch-hunts of the McCarthy era. In 1949, he wrote a short note titled “Why Socialism?” for the inaugural issue of the communist journal Monthly Review. For several years the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) kept him under surveillance. Einstein, though, remained an undaunted champion of civil liberties.

Einstein, born in an irreligious Jewish family, had no great attraction for religion through most of his life. But he was a firm supporter first of Zionism and then the state of Israel and lent his name to several other Jewish causes through the years. Shocked by the Holocaust, which claimed the lives of several of his relatives including two cousins, he shunned all contact with Germany, the land of his birth, except for a few close friends.

What was the origin of Einstein’s willingness to support causes that went against the mainstream and were certainly unpopular with those in positions of power? Perhaps it was an extension of his scientific spirit to the realm of human affairs, as Niels Bohr noted in his obituary on Einstein: “The gifts of Einstein are in no way confined to the sphere of science. Indeed, his recognition of hitherto unheeded assumptions in even our most elementary and accustomed assumptions means to all people a new encouragement in tracing and combating the deep-rooted prejudices and complacencies inherent in every national culture.”

Yet to Einstein himself, despite his considerable involvement in matters other than science, especially in his later years, his scientific work was always to be at the core of his being, the very definition of his persona. His scientific writings number more than 300, a large output even by contemporary standards. In his last days at Princeton, he continued to be held in awe by his scientific colleagues, even if they did not follow what he said. He lived quietly, walking every day between his office at the Institute of Advanced Study and his home, where he was ministered to by his faithful secretary Helen Dukas. To the men, women and children of that little town, the grandfatherly figure was a gentle and benevolent presence.

Einstein died on April 19, 1955, at the age of 75, after a brief stay in hospital following a ruptured aneurysm.


 

 

Share is Caring, Choose Your Platform!

Receive Daily Updates

Stay updated with current events, tests, material and UPSC related news

Recent Posts

  • Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,

    [wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]

    Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.

    This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.

    It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.

    The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.

    Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.

    India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.

    More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.

    An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.

    India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.

    Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.

    And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.

    A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.

    We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.

    We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.

    In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.