Comment by bobthechef | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bobthechef | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"It’s hard to think of a more refined brain than Albert Einstein’s,"

What an absolutely silly remark. There were things Einstein was good at, and things he was not. This silly popular image of Einstein as the genius among geniuses is just that: silly and popular. And this appeal to his supposed authority (more like piggybacking off his popular reputation) is just tawdry.

"“writing about music is like dancing about architecture”."

Nothing but obscurantism. If Bach is the quintessential or the best classical composer, then in principle it is possible to explain exactly why, even if you personally may be unable to.

"Living from 1685 to 1750, he had no choice but to write music to the glory of God"

Yes, because, as the sophisticated writers at the BBC insinuate, a composer of Bach's greatness could only have written "to the glory of God" if forced to do so in some way. "Such were the times" they think to themselves. Had he the choice, had he been freed from the backwardness of his culture, surely he would have been outwardly as sophisticated as us!

"Bach’s music was made through faith, but it transcends faith. He humanises the Lutheran theology of his time and makes it approachable. [...] This earthy element to Bach’s epic spirituality is “a wonderful paradox"

A very odd thing to say, and somewhat nonsensical. Transcends faith? And besides, didn't God become Man in the figure of Jesus? Isn't that at the very heart of Christianity? If there is paradox, then it is the paradox of the Incarnation. He may have given a new voice to this mystery, but he did not invent the mystery.

"“So there’s Bach, drenched in grief, sleeping with groupies in the organ loft; a duelling, fighting, hard-drinking rock star with a work ethic that makes Obama look like a bum"

??? If there's anyone hitting the sauce, it's this James Rhodes guy. James, if you're playing is as bad as your vacuous blather, I am gravely afraid for my ears.

> This silly popular image of Einstein as the genius among geniuses is just that: silly and popular.

Uh, Einstein published four papers that revolutionized four areas of physics in one year:

* The photoelectric effect

* Brownian Motion

* Special Relativity

* Mass-Energy Equivalence

Sure, he didn't do it alone. But even publishing one of those papers as part of a group would be an extraordinary feat for a physicist of the time, and he did it again and again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers

It should be noted that his explanation for the photoelectric proved that photons we’re discrete objects, paving the way for quantum mechanics, and his explanation for Brownian motion was the first definitive proof that matter was made up of atoms.

I point this out just because someone unfamiliar with these topics might think that those two papers were some esoteric things that physicists appreciate but most people wouldn’t.

Einstein always gets associated with relativity and e=mc^2, but I’d argue those were not his top accomplishments. The Nobel Prize committee seemed to agree. (He won for his work on the photoelectric effect i.e. quantum mechanics.)

The Einstein Nobel situation was very political. More and more physicists each year thought that Einstein should get it for special relativity, and later for that and/or general relativity.

However, there were a few physicists who thought specially relativity was bunk, and that included some who were very influential, such as 1905 Nobel winner Phillip Lenard. Until experimental proof of relativity was found, they had no trouble keeping the prize away from Einstein.

By 1919, when there was sufficient proof of general relativity that the "it's not been proved" excuse no longer worked, Germany had lost World War I, and a lot of people were looking for excuses to explain that loss, and Jews were a good target. Especially pacifist Jewish scientists like Einstein who had refused to turn their science toward the war effort. The prominent nationalist scientists, like Lenard, saw people like Einstein as practically traitors. They labeled relativity "Jewish Physics", as opposed to correct, "German Physics", and ascribed evil intent to those trying to mislead Germany with their fake Jewish physics. (Lenard went on the become "Chief of Aryan Physics" under the Nazis).

In 1921, the Prize committee did not find any of the nominees that year worthy, and considered not awarding the prize that year. This would make the already ridiculous situation with Einstein even worse--it's one thing to not give Einstein the prize because you give it to someone else. That at least makes some sense--at worst you might be seen as misjudging the importance of the winning work. But to say there is nothing worthy out there at all, when Einstein does not have even one of the arguably 3 he deserves? Absurd!

But giving the prize for relativity would piss off a lot of nationalist and/or antisemitic Germans, both among German scientists and German politicians. In the political climate of Germany at the time, this was not a good thing to do. Germany was still one of the most, if not the most important science countries in the world. Scientists do have to live in the real world, so there was reluctance.

Someone suggested that they give it to Einstein, but make it clear that they are not endorsing relativity, so he got the 1921 prize, "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" with a note that this was "without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future".

Given all that, I don't think you can infer that the Nobel committee giving him the prize for the photoelectric effect necessarily means they thought that it was his top accomplishment.

This is suspiciously close to what I imagine would happen when an advanced time-travelling society sends back an emissary to advance our technology.

Shhhh. You don't want to draw too much attention to yourself now.

I highly recommend you actually read some Einstein; if not his published papers then at least his notes on developing special and general relativity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com