Turns Out Schrödinger, the Father of Quantum Physics, Was a Pedophile
futurism.com
futurism.com
The age of consent in most of the world is averaging 16 but can go down all the way to 14 in, you guessed where: Germany.
Only India, US and a bunch of African countries had 18 or higher as age of consent. Even Ireland has 17. A sensationalist article. How can impregnating a 17 year old in the beginning of the XX century be considered pedophilia is beyond my understanding. It also has the negative effects of diluting the evilness of a terrible thing, into something that is not so outlandish.
> Schrödinger repeatedly sexually abused young women.[42][43][44][45] "The poor things," Schrödinger wrote about the young women and girls he had sexually abused. "They have given me the moments of happiness in my life and themselves the sorrow. Such is life."[verification needed] Schrödinger recorded his sexual "conquests" in a diary he called "Ephemeridae" (mayflies).[citation needed] He justified his preference for young girls by saying that their innocence was the ideal counterpart to his natural genius
The Futurism piece links to https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/how-erwin-s... which starts:
> How Erwin Schrödinger indulged his ‘Lolita complex’ in Ireland / Nobel Prize-winning physicist, who spent 17 years in Ireland, was a serial groomer of girls
I don't have an account to read it.
The https://taz.de/Missbrauch-und-Missachtung/!5823374/ links, according to Google Translate at https://taz-de.translate.goog/Missbrauch-und-Missachtung/!58... says:
> That he was a parthenophile and abusive of girls is absent from most biographies . While his biographers Walter Moore and John Gribbin mention it in their books on Schrödinger, it has been largely ignored. Wikipedia has no reference whatsoever: "Schrödinger and his wife Annie lived in an open relationship - Schrödinger openly had extramarital relationships, for example with the wife of his colleague and friend Arthur March," it says there only.
and mentions:
> Barbara, whose married name was McEntee, died in 1995. Her family only found out about Schrödinger's unwanted attention long after her death. "The subject never came up with my mother, as you can imagine," says her son, Bernard Biggar. He had come across Moore's biography while following a cross-reference to his great-uncle de Brún. In September, after reading an article in the Irish Times about an official cycle route that follows Schrödinger's footsteps through ten stops in Dublin, he asked author Joe Humphreys why he hadn't mentioned Schrödinger's parthenophilia. That was a mistake, Humphreys admitted three weeks ago: "The evidence was obvious," he wrote. "Schrödinger was a serial abuser."
[42] https://taz.de/Missbrauch-und-Missachtung/!5823374/
[43] Joe Humphreys (11 December 2021). "How Erwin Schrödinger indulged his 'Lolita complex' in Ireland". The Irish Times.
[44] staff (January 2022). "Turns Out Schrödinger, the Father of Quantum Physics, Was a Pedophile". Futurism. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
[45] Johnson, Lacy M. (2 August 2021). "Chanda Prescod-Weinstein: "I'm one part of the universe, trying to figure out another part of the universe."". Guernica Magazine. Retrieved 14 January 2021.
[42] An article referring to the Irish times article.
[43] is the Irish times original article i called sensationalist, due to the conflation of 14 to 17 sexual affairs being called pedophilie.
[44] Is the a re-quote of the article of [43]
[45] Is an interview with a third party account with the following to say:
" I can’t remember exactly how he says it, but it’s something like “an unusual interest in pre-teenage girls,” which is new information for me. Literally, 90 percent of the work that I do right now is using the nonlinear Schrödinger-Poisson equation.? " . What’s interesting to me about this is nobody’s going to write about Rovelli’s book and call it a memoir unless that’s what I decide to say in my review. Nobody’s going to call it a biography of Schrödinger. I might say it’s a biography of quantum mechanics, but nobody’s going to say it’s a biography of a person, nobody’s going to say it’s a memoir, nobody’s going to say it’s an autobiography, none of that."
But the [42] you mention seems entirely on point, eg, with 'That was a mistake, Humphreys admitted three weeks ago: "The evidence was obvious," he wrote. "Schrödinger was a serial abuser." '
That's certainly enough to suspect that this is not meant to interpret a cultural difference in the age of consent as pedophilia, but is actually the "the evilness of a terrible thing" you opposed.
I don't know why you thought it was more likely the former.
Great claims require, great evidence, especially on such a delicate topic. If a household scientific name will be judged as pedophile, so be it! But please, get historians and primary source evidence; not a newspaper article behind a paywal.
The sentence you quote is from Joe Humphreys[1] a journalist for the Irish Times itself. I could not find any biography or peer reviews work on Schrodinger by him[1]. Again it is not about whether it is not true or not. The whole article makes a lot of claims which touch very sensitive topics that should be accurately and precisely described with at least mention of original sources or authorities. Unfortunately it seems we have Joe Humphreys' word :(
Which is why jumping to the hypothesis that it was an age-of-consent issue is surely premature.
All pedophiles break the age of consent, but not everyone who brakes the age of consent is a pedophile.
The age of consent is about consenting to sexual activity. A pedophile is someone who feels attraction. If you're a pedophile, that is, you feel attraction to young children, but you seek out treatment and never act on it, then you're not a child molester and haven't broken the age of consent.
It's an important difference, because pedophilia is a mental illness, but because people think of pedophiles and actual child molesters as one in the same, pedophiles are often discouraged from seeking out treatment. We should acknowledge that feelings of attraction to children are beyond one's control, like the urges of an alcoholic to drink.
Given that, we should celebrate alcoholics who recognize that they have a problem, seek out treatment, and stop drinking. They are fighting a difficult battle against a condition they did not ask for. The same with pedophiles - those who seek out treatment and do not harm children should be applauded, not shunned.
Important and relevant: https://www.vice.com/en/article/j5y8zy/the-men-who-call-them...
Is it? I wouldn't think it is any more of a mental illness than having a foot or rape fetish.
One is just morally not questionable.
> Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty.[4] The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) defines it as a "sustained, focused, and intense pattern of sexual arousal—as manifested by persistent sexual thoughts, fantasies, urges, or behaviours—involving pre-pubertal children."[6]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
> Pedophilic disorder is characterized by recurring, intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behavior involving children (usually 13 years old or younger).
* https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/mental-health-disorders/pa...
No, I agree that this was clearly child abuse. The real stinker in this article is using real abuse to legitimize the swipe at James Webb on the end. The real culture war payload.
(James Webb was falsely accused of doing anti-gay purges based on a misattributed quote, but from this article you'd think he was a pedophile too).
Generally this topic perhaps more than any other suffers from semantic ambiguity, due to an unwillingness to put a lot of thought into it and bad faith arguments, which both stem from how incredibly uncomfortable and emotional the real consequences surrounding the topic are.
Examples of distinctions that are usually not made clear in contexts where they should be:
- Abuse vs pedophilia.
- Colloquial vs objective definitions of pedophilia.
- Legal vs moral.
- Feeling vs acting.
- "Prepubescent child" vs "person who has secondary sexual characteristics and/or is fully sexually developed, but whose mind may not yet be - or certainly is not - physiologically and/or sociologically developed enough to express independence in the face of even mild sexual advances from an adult, or to make sound decisions about sex (for sometimes undefinably subjective meanings of 'sound decision')".
People opining on age of consent sometimes have a good point, often not, but I think in either case they are usually honestly trying to bring more clarity to an important topic.
Not really.
First, because “libertarian” and “socialist” aren't opposing poles (libertarian socialism is a thing), and, second, because non-libertarian socialists aren't particularly against (or for reducing the age set in) age of consent laws. And, third, even anarchists, who are the polar extreme of libertarian socialist tend to support age of consent laws, there only consistent opposition to current ones is, as with other laws of current societies, objection to the structural basis on which they are made and enforced, content of the laws aside.
EDIT: Similar things may also be true of libertarians not being as anti-age-of-consent as portrayed as I have noted about socialists; I have had somewhat more contact with broad leftist communities than broad libertarian ones outside of their overlap, so I may be more susceptible to misestimating the prevalence of certain views in the libertarian community because they are highly visible when espoused because of how transgressive they are.
Part of what's strange is how often age of consent comes up in these circles. It's not something most people think too much about. Last time I was worried about age of consent laws was when I turned 18 a few months before my girlfriend.
> tend to support age of consent laws > objection to the structural basis on which they are made and enforced
You'll get a laundry list of reasons why our existing laws are oppressive, passionate assertions that adults and minors can have positive sexual relationships with each other, delineations of pedophilia, ephebophilia, etc. All followed up with a vague caveat that age of consent laws might not be inherently bad, but usually with no attempt whatsoever at suggesting what they should be. Seems a strange place to just stop your little thought experiment.
Then you have people like Vaush who just can't stop saying things like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Cjw7Fq6VA
Age of consent comes up a lot in libertarian (including both right-libertarian and anarchist/libert5-socialist) circles because it's an easy emotional “think of the children” gotcha that the groups are, because of their opposition to status quo government authority subjected to continuously.
It also comes up a lot because libertarian groups (on both left and right) are about fundamentally reorganizing the structure of authority in society, and it's an obvious and (for most) important issue addressed by the status quo system.
People reimplementing (or designing a reimplementation of) a system should spend a lot more time thinking about things the current system treats as a solved problem than end users of the existing system do.
> All followed up with a vague caveat that age of consent laws might not be inherently bad, but usually with no attempt whatsoever at suggesting what they should be.
I've rarely found anyone in either community that wouldn't state their preference on age of consent laws when asked, what they tend not to do is express what they should be for all communities, because they tend to oppose the idea of centralized legal standards for all communities (both left and right libertarians have frequently spoken up to support intervention if the practice in another community is seen as widespread violation of moral consent, but not reducing that to some legalism. I think people have trouble understanding that libertarians have a different view on the relation between morality and law than people who are less libertarian, and therefore mistake libertarian reluctance to demand universal legislation on certain issues with libertine moral neutrality on them.
> Then you have people like Vaush
Vaush is a rather controversial figure among anarchists.
Also small nitpick but one cannot be "more" or "less" ideological, we all are whether we like it or not, it's just the question of which ideology you are. You might say, "well I am not one of those fanatics on either side of the horseshoe," but that doesn't make you "less" ideological, it just defines your ideology.
Ideology =/= belief system. It is rather the implicit, subconscious framing you have to the world that informs the belief system you arrive at ("rationally" or otherwise). So, in fact, denying you have ideology, or having "less" ideology than the radicals, shows that the influence of ideology on you is stronger than otherwise :).
Either way, it would seem in this case it may be both.
Why? This isn't an intellectual debate. We don't need to understand the severity of different types of exploitation to understand that Schrödinger's love for a 12 year old child is heinous.
“Pedophilia” in common use includes both “pedophilia” and “ephebophilia” in the strict sense. There's not a whole lot of value on being excessively particular about this in common speech except when scientific research about things like the immutably of (certain patterns of) pedophilia in the strict sense is used to justify arguments, and particularly public policy, addressing “pedophilia” in the expansive sense. It’s fine for words to have different meaning in different contexts.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Hist...
Seems to be the perspective of his contemporaries as well.
Does creating a list of past greats who did naughty things accomplish anything except maybe to broaden the Overton window for those naughty things? (Hey, if this person's so great and they did it, why shouldn't I?)
I learned last night that Richard M. Stallman (RMS) has articles about him on Vice that are narrowly focused on some of his weighing in on the Epstein case.
While I cannot defend what RMS may have said just as I cannot defend what Schrodinger may have done, I still wish to highlight the absolute toxicity of taboo topics.
On the one hand: These sorts of things become the narrow fixation of moral crusaders who pursue their cause to the extremes.
On the other hand: Outsiders weighing in can be caught in the crossfire and find themselves cancelled by the crusade if they start asking questions or trying to discuss the wider meta of, "What defines this rule? Is it not possible that they are innocent? Does this rule help society? What of false positives?"
... As a result, outsiders know to avoid discussing the moral crusade or the rule for fear of being on the recieving end of the legacy destroying mob's righteous wrath.
We all self censor and avoid asking critical questions to improve our understandings of these events. We live in an age where the devil's advocate as well as the devil are both put on trial.
If you mean https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient..., please note that that article misconstrues what was said.
Both the headline and the article claim that Stallman said Giuffre was "entirely willing;" a read of the provided emails shows otherwise. He said that she probably appeared to Minsky to be "entirely willing;" that Minsky would have been unaware of coercion, not that there was none.
There are absolutely things to object to in what he said, but we should be objecting to what he said, not the words some (apparently) shoddy journalists are putting in his mouth.
I abstain from defending RMS, but it is amazing to me how damaging these moral crusades are. I wonder if my feelings currently are similar to those of the public audience during a witch trial. If the imaginary members of the audience stood up to say that the witchness is a bit absurd, they too would be accused of some relationship to dark magic, etc.
Don't you feel, to some extent, worried that by discussing Stallman's comments and their nuance, you yourself may one day be roasted in the same way the RMS is?
Its incredible.
All the while ignoring that Schrodinger had a diary in which he condemned his own actions and was aware of the hurt he was doing.
This just screams bias.
I find these sorts of engagements interesting at the meta level.
Admittedly it's been a long time since I've studied quantum mechanics! Has the thinking changed?
The Many Worlds interpretation doesn't have the collapse, it says that all the possibilities happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
> In contrast to some other interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, the evolution of reality as a whole in MWI is rigidly deterministic.
There's some wrinkles in that interpretation to preserve the Born rule of observed frequencies.
Dirac, by all accounts, did not have anything like this sort of dark side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac#Personality
Yet Einstein referred to Dirac as "balancing on the dizzying path between genius and madness". ... without it being a dark side.
Maybe something along the lines of "I wouldn't be caught dead sitting on his lap".
:)
Well, never meet your heroes. Its sad to see this a recurring theme in among elites, they think they're special and therefore the rules don't apply to them.
Would be interesting to read the primary source if someone can find it.
The tone of those adverbs is also entirely unnecessary. We already understand: Child sex abuse isn't nice! You don't need to label his every action as diabolical, stomach-churning, and horrifying. Certainly not all within a few sentences of each other.
I hope this isn't the future of science writing.
I fear that the worst case for paywalls is coming to fruition, where the best that will be available for free are articles about articles. If anybody knows of somewhere that I can learn more about this matter, please sound off.
Whatever reason some people are attracted to children, is hard wired into them. It shouldn't be a surprise anymore that some percent of people are like this. That's why I would never allow my daughter to be in the room alone with another adult man. You just can't trust people.
No one? There are some terrible people out there who hide it really well, but this seems like a terrible way to live.
Why even have kids if this is how you feel about humanity?
I get what you're saying but another approach to this would be to teach your child an understanding of how to say "no" and give them the confidence to handle such situations. Obviously if they're like 6 then this may not work well, but a teenager should be able to confide with their parents if they believe they are being groomed.
Yeah, and it's even in a section of the website called "Big Yikes". Ok I get, pedophilia == bad.
But my, aren't we being slowly trained to be hapless outrage porn junkies these days, by the continual barrage of manipulative trigger-articles like these.
I make the claim that rational thought evaporates completely when sex and/or sexuality in any form is the basis of public discourse.
>Schrödinger repeatedly sexually abused young women. "The poor things," Schrödinger wrote about the young women and girls he had sexually abused. "They have given me the moments of happiness in my life and themselves the sorrow. Such is life." Schrödinger recorded his sexual "conquests" in a diary he called "Ephemeridae" (mayflies). He justified his preference for young girls by saying that their innocence was the ideal counterpart to his natural genius. One of his victims, aged between 12 and 17, became pregnant by him, had an abortion and became infertile after the abortion. These acts of abuse were reported in 1989 by Walter J. Moore (1918-2001) in his biography of Schrödinger as a "lolita complex", and described by John Gribbin in his 2012 book as "fondling and cuddling".