> Einstein's science I suggest has significant idealist features.
>
> His reliance on thought experiments presupposes an ideal simple logical
> structure to the universe. His lifelong search for a unified field theory
> is of the same character.
>
> His difficulty in accepting empirical evidence in support of quantum
theory
> is essentially idealist.
Einstein was a firm believer in the Platonic religion of geometry. He wanted a purely geometrical theory of the universe, while quantum physics sought out a materialistic theory. Einstein referred to geometry as "marble" and particles as "wood." He believed in a universe of marble that merely takes on the illusion of wood.
The rift between geometry and particles has apparently been solved by superstring theory. According to this theory, every type of matter is simply a different resonance of tiny, vibrating strings. Just as the voice resolves itself into discrete notes, superstrings take on a particular sequence of vibrations, corresponding to the various types of particles. The important thing is that the movements of the strings are self-consistent rather than force-consistent. Nothing outside of the string causes it to vibrate the way it does. Rather, its vibration arises from "within." Once self-consistency is posited, then the math describing the primary manifestation of the strings turns out to be *exactly* the same set of equations Einstein wrote out years ago for gravity.
But superstring doesn't vindicate Einstein over quantum physics. Instead it unites them. Michio Kaku offers a nice metaphor to explain this. The universe was originally a perfect gem, smooth (marble) on the outside and rough (wood) on the inside. All the current fields, such as gravity, electro-magnetic, "strong" and electro-weak, were unified into a single field-- that is, the "gem" had an unbroken outer surface. But it existed in nine spatial dimensions. A fraction of a second after the big bang, the gem exploded. Six of the dimensions contracted while the other three expanded. The exploding gem littered our three dimensional universe with its fragments, the smooth sides of which are the various fields, while the rough sides are the atoms.
> The proprositions that time can run backwards is not unique to him but is
> common to the simplistic mathematical modelling of that approach to
> science, and I suggest is a fundamentally idealist, non-materialist
> assumption. (i.e. I suggest that along with a basic assumption that
reality
> exists, a materialist approach needs to posit that time runs forwards, and
> cannot run backwards.)
Einstein equated time with space for the simple reason that they can both appear on the same graph. If you want to graph velocity, let x equal space and y equal time. You can see how easy it is to fall into the trap of regarding time as essentially equivalent to space. Past and future are reduced to left and right, but for some mysterious reason we're stuck in our awareness of what lies to the "left" while always being oriented toward the "right." If we would only see with God's eyes, we'd see all of time laid out just like space, and we could move about it however we pleased. Einstein once said, "People like us, who believe in physics, know the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." This is a beautiful example of auto-deconstruction. If time is an illusion, how can it be "stubbornly persistent"? What is it persisting through?
Actually, Einstein had nothing to say about time. He was describing an ideal abstraction of time. He could never get inside time but could only describe the way things in space relate to it. A clock in a rocket traveling near the speed of light will tick more slowly. Does that mean time itself has slowed down inside the rocket? No. It just means that the way the rocket relates to time differs from the way the rest of the universe relates to it. Time is not merely its exterior, i.e. its relation to space. Time is absolute, as demonstrated by the living occupant of the rocket, whose intrinsic sense of time is unaltered, regardless of the velocity.
Many contemporary physicists believe they've stumbled upon the key to building a time machine that will take us into the past. With enough energy, we ought to be able to initiate a "wormhole," the near end of which is stationary while the far end travels near the speed of light. This means that the far end is traveling through time more slowly than the near end. Since the wormhole is merely stretching a tiny bit of space, when you enter the near end you pop out almost instantaneously on the other end, no matter how far it's traveled. Let's say you inititate the wormhole at twelve o'clock. At one o'clock, it's still only 12:30 at the far end, which is going through time only half as quickly. Thus, if you enter the wormhole where it's stationary, you'll emerge from the far end half an hour earlier. But have you really traveled backward in time? Not really. It just means you've gone back in time *relative to the other end of the wormhole.* You cannot go backwards through absolute time. You cannot come out of the far end of the wormhole at a moment prior to the construction of the wormhole itself.
> His assertion that the speed of light never changes is arbitrary and
> strange. It seems to me linked to the idealist thread I am suggesting
> existed in his thinking.
The mistake here is believing that laws of physics are absolute. Really a better word would be "habits" of physics. Every so-called "law" of physics had to be established historically. There's no transcendent "ideal" realm from which laws could be given prior to the big bang.
Ted