Royal Astronomical Society isn't interested in Sir Patrick Moore's residence

"Sir Patrick Moore astronomy centre plans scrapped, says Brian May"

Brian May has confirmed that Sir Patrick Moore's home will not be converted into an astronomy centre, despite his close friend's wishes.

by

Rhiannon Williams

September 19th, 2013

The Telegraph

 Sir Patrick, who died last December aged 89, said he hoped that his West Sussex home would one day be converted into an astronomy centre in his name.

The thatched cottage, known as Farthings, was the filming location for The Sky At Night during the last ten years of the astronomer's life, due to his ill health.

The Queen guitarist, who has described Sir Patrick as a "father figure", told the Daily Mail :"I'm afraid there isn't going to be a museum at Farthings. It hasn't worked out.

"We are going to commemorate Patrick in a section of the Science Museum. It will probably be called The Sir Patrick Moore Area. Patrick was a dear friend and a wonderful man. I still miss him."

The astronomer suffered from a wartime spine injury and arthritis in the years before his death.

May, who has a PhD in astro physics, told The Telegraph last year that the Royal Astronomical Society had rejected the treasures left behind by Sir Patrick.

At the time he said: “You’d think the Royal Astronomical Society would be interested, but they’re, like, 'Oh, we’ve got an awful lot of stuff already'

"Patrick leaves behind him a wonderful library and all these amazing things from astronomers he met. You think it might be easy to give it to a museum, but they’ll stick it in a cupboard somewhere and no one will see it.”

Sir Patrick Moore [Wikipedia]


Use the blog's search engine for more articles.

We are running out of plutonium

"NASA’s Plutonium Problem Could End Deep-Space Exploration"

by

Dave Mosher

September 19th, 2013

Wired

In 1977, the Voyager 1 spacecraft left Earth on a five-year mission to explore Jupiter and Saturn. Thirty-six years later, the car-size probe is still exploring, still sending its findings home. It has now put more than 19 billion kilometers between itself and the sun. Last week NASA announced that Voyager 1 had become the first man-made object to reach interstellar space.

The distance this craft has covered is almost incomprehensible. It’s so far away that it takes more than 17 hours for its signals to reach Earth. Along the way, Voyager 1 gave scientists their first close-up looks at Saturn, took the first images of Jupiter’s rings, discovered many of the moons circling those planets and revealed that Jupiter’s moon Io has active volcanoes. Now the spacecraft is discovering what the edge of the solar system is like, piercing the heliosheath where the last vestiges of the sun’s influence are felt and traversing the heliopause where cosmic currents overcome the solar wind. Voyager 1 is expected to keep working until 2025 when it will finally run out of power.

None of this would be possible without the spacecraft’s three batteries filled with plutonium-238. In fact, Most of what humanity knows about the outer planets came back to Earth on plutonium power. Cassini’s ongoing exploration of Saturn, Galileo’s trip to Jupiter, Curiosity’s exploration of the surface of Mars, and the 2015 flyby of Pluto by the New Horizons spacecraft are all fueled by the stuff. The characteristics of this metal’s radioactive decay make it a super-fuel. More importantly, there is no other viable option. Solar power is too weak, chemical batteries don’t last, nuclear fission systems are too heavy. So, we depend on plutonium-238, a fuel largely acquired as by-product of making nuclear weapons.

But there’s a problem: We’ve almost run out.

“We’ve got enough to last to the end of this decade. That’s it,” said Steve Johnson, a nuclear chemist at Idaho National Laboratory. And it’s not just the U.S. reserves that are in jeopardy. The entire planet’s stores are nearly depleted.

The country’s scientific stockpile has dwindled to around 36 pounds. To put that in perspective, the battery that powers NASA’s Curiosity rover, which is currently studying the surface of Mars, contains roughly 10 pounds of plutonium, and what’s left has already been spoken for and then some. The implications for space exploration are dire: No more plutonium-238 means not exploring perhaps 99 percent of the solar system. In effect, much of NASA’s $1.5 billion-a-year (and shrinking) planetary science program is running out of time. The nuclear crisis is so bad that affected researchers know it simply as “The Problem.”

But it doesn’t have to be that way. The required materials, reactors, and infrastructure are all in place to create plutonium-238 (which, unlike plutonium-239, is practically impossible to use for a nuclear bomb). In fact, the U.S. government recently approved spending about $10 million a year to reconstitute production capabilities the nation shuttered almost two decades ago. In March, the DOE even produced a tiny amount of fresh plutonium inside a nuclear reactor in Tennessee.

It’s a good start, but the crisis is far from solved. Political ignorance and shortsighted squabbling, along with false promises from Russia, and penny-wise management of NASA’s ever-thinning budget still stand in the way of a robust plutonium-238 production system. The result: Meaningful exploration of the solar system has been pushed to a cliff’s edge. One ambitious space mission could deplete remaining plutonium stockpiles, and any hiccup in a future supply chain could undermine future missions.

**********

The only natural supplies of plutonium-238 vanished eons before the Earth formed some 4.6 billion years ago. Exploding stars forge the silvery metal, but its half-life, or time required for 50 percent to disappear through decay, is just under 88 years.

Fortunately, we figured out how to produce it ourselves — and to harness it to create a remarkably persistent source of energy. Like other radioactive materials, plutonium-238 decays because its atomic structure is unstable. When an atom’s nucleus spontaneously decays, it fires off a helium core at high speed while leaving behind a uranium atom. These helium bullets, called alpha radiation, collide en masse with nearby atoms within a lump of plutonium — a material twice as dense as lead. The energy can cook a puck of plutonium-238 to nearly 1,260 degrees Celsius. To turn that into usable power, you wrap the puck with thermoelectrics that convert heat to electricity. Voila: You’ve got a battery that can power a spacecraft for decades.

“It’s like a magic isotope. It’s just right,” said Jim Adams, NASA’s deputy chief technologist and former deputy director of the space agency’s planetary science division.

U.S. production came primarily from two nuclear laboratories that created plutonium-238 as a byproduct of making bomb-grade plutonium-239. The Hanford Site in Washington state left the plutonium-238 mixed into a cocktail of nuclear wastes. The Savannah River Site in South Carolina, however, extracted and refined more than 360 pounds during the Cold War to power espionage tools, spy satellites, and dozens of NASA’s pluckiest spacecraft.

By 1988, with the Iron Curtain full of holes, the U.S. and Russia began to dismantle wartime nuclear facilities. Hanford and Savannah River no longer produced any plutonium-238. But Russia continued to harvest the material by processing nuclear reactor fuel at a nuclear industrial complex called Mayak. The Russians sold their first batch, weighing 36 pounds, to the U.S. in 1993 for more than $45,000 per ounce. Russia had become the planet’s sole supplier, but it soon fell behind on orders. In 2009, it reneged on a deal to sell 22 pounds to the U.S.

Whether or not Russia has any material left or can still create some is uncertain. “What we do know is that they’re not willing to sell it anymore,” said Alan Newhouse, a retired nuclear space consultant who spearheaded the first purchase of Russian plutonium-238. “One story I’ve heard … is that they don’t have anything left to sell.”

By 2005, according a Department of Energy report, the U.S. government owned 87 pounds, of which roughly two-thirds was designated for national security projects, likely to power deep-sea espionage hardware. The DOE would not disclose to WIRED what is left today, but scientists close to the issue say just 36 pounds remain earmarked for NASA.

That’s enough for the space agency to launch a few small deep-space missions before 2020. A twin of the Curiosity rover is planned to lift off for Mars in 2020 and will require nearly a third of the stockpile. After that, NASA’s interstellar exploration program is left staring into a void — especially for high-profile, plutonium-hungry missions, like the proposed Jupiter Europa Orbiter. To seek signs of life around Jupiter’s icy moon Europa, such a spacecraft could require more than 47 pounds of plutonium.

“The supply situation is already impacting mission planning,” said Alice Caponiti, a nuclear engineer who leads the DOE’s efforts to restart plutonium-238 production. “If you’re planning a mission that’s going to take eight years to plan, the first thing you’re going to want to know is if you have power.”

Many of the eight deep-space robotic missions that NASA had envisioned over the next 15 years have already been delayed or canceled. Even more missions — some not yet even formally proposed — are silent casualties of NASA’s plutonium poverty. Since 1994, scientists have pleaded with lawmakers for the money to restart production. The DOE believes a relatively modest $10 to 20 million in funding each year through 2020 could yield an operation capable of making between 3.3 and 11 pounds of plutonium-238 annually — plenty to keep a steady stream of spacecraft in business.

Neurons in court?

"The Day When Neurons Go on Trial"

by

Jim Dwyer

September 17th, 2013

The New York Times

Here are law students on a Tuesday morning in 2013, hearing that researchers hope over the next decade or so to map the wiring of the human brain, seeing how individual cells link to bigger circuits. A decade is a sprint, less time than since 9/11, to use one benchmark.

The scientists want to lift the hood and get a look at the human mind. The students, in a seminar at Fordham University School of Law taught by Prof. Deborah W. Denno, wonder what that will mean for the law.

Over and over, they put questions to a guest speaker, Joshua R. Sanes, director of the Center for Brain Science at Harvard, about the implications for society if and when brain science can identify with confidence a propensity for violence, or for lying.

He bats it right back at them.

“You tell me,” Dr. Sanes said. “It’s a huge issue. I wish I had something smart to say.”
Last year, President Obama announced that the federal government would create a Brain Initiative to speed up the development of tools that can track how the brain works and how it breaks. It is not hard to imagine the benefits, beginning with more carefully targeted treatments for people afflicted with psychiatric ailments. “There has not been a brand new type of drug for antidepression or autism or schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or O.C.D. in something like 25 years,” Dr. Sanes said. “This is where we have to make a long-term investment and come up with some new types of help because what we are doing isn’t working.”

Work on animals has shown in broad strokes how information gets into the head and processed, but current imaging tools cannot keep up with the brain’s processing speed, or are not powerful enough to follow the molecular transactions involved in passing information and creating thought.

Dr. Sanes has made close study of the retina, which he calls “a beautiful part of the brain.” He rates the human eye as a 100-megapixel camera, with 100 million light-receptor cells. The eye also has layers of cells assigned to detecting color contrasts, edges and various motions, especially of objects rising up.

From all these cells, the brain gets 30 different representations of an image, which it — somehow — assembles into a coherent whole. “You’ve never seen reality the way it is,” he said. “By the time it gets to the brain, it has been decomposed. The brain just throws away 90 percent of the information, because the brain’s job is to keep you alive.”

That means editing out information that does not pertain to predators or to prey. “At some point, we developed a cortex,” Dr. Sanes said. “The cortex is kind of in charge of making us think we’ve actually seen something.”

Many discoveries have been made during treatment of certain epileptic patients who can only be helped if a doctor severs misfiring parts of the brain. Because the brain has no pain receptors, patients are awake and can describe what they are experiencing as their neurons are stimulated — something a mouse cannot do.

And it turns out that there is a Jennifer Aniston neuron.

The neuroscientists “found a neuron that would fire when it saw a picture of Jennifer Aniston,” Dr. Sanes said. “It wouldn’t fire for any of the other people from ‘Friends’ or a table or a car.”

What evolutionary edge a person gets from such a neuron awaits more study.

It is now believed that diseased circuits caused diseased brains, which we experience as psychiatric disorders, Dr. Sanes said. A student, Brittany Taylor, asked what such broken structures would mean if they cause somebody to commit a crime. “Are we going to look at that as a mitigating circumstance, or are we going to have to change our culpability standards completely?” she asked. What if other parts of the brain were involved, or if environmental factors were influencing the neurons? Could someone say with confidence that the neurons made him do it?

“Science has a limit,” Dr. Sanes said. “You’re going to have all this information and you’re not going to know.”

But he assured them that they needed to be ready. Knowledge from the human genome project of the genetic code, will amplify — or complicate — brain mapping efforts, which are known as the Human Connectome.

“Fifteen years from now, somebody is going to say it’s the 489th neuron from the back of your ear that made you do it,” along with a mutant gene, Dr. Sanes said. “That’s going to be hard to dismiss.

“You guys have got a lot of work to do.”

51 years, 7 nominations...comedian Bob Newhart finally received an Emmy

"Emmys: Bob Newhart Celebrates First Win With Beer, Pizza"

by

Lesley Goldberg

September 16th, 2013

The Hollywood Reporter

It took 51 years and seven nominations, but comic legend Bob Newhart finally has his Emmy.

The actor, nominated for his guest role in CBS' The Big Bang Theory, collected the statuette Sunday -- marking the former Bob Newhart Show and Newhart star's first win in the category after receiving one nom for the former and three for the latter. The former stand-up comedian resurfaced after Newhart closed up shop with a guest role in ER that earned him his fifth nomination in 2004. That was followed by a supporting actor in a mini for the TNT telepic The Librarian in 2009. His win Sunday came for playing Professor Proton, a hapless former TV scientist on the Chuck Lorre comedy about a group of lovable dorks.

"I'm amazed all the attention this is getting," a humble Newhart told The Hollywood Reporter on Monday of his first career Emmy win -- a feat that came 51 years after his first nomination. Below, Newhart talks with THR about why it took so long for the TV Academy to recognize his work, his return date to Big Bang and just how he celebrated the victory.

The Hollywood Reporter: What was the first thought that went through your head when your name was called?

Bob Newhart: I was right in the front row and my first thought was, "Boy, I hope I can make it up those stairs!" I'm 84 and you worry about things like that. And then I successfully negotiated the stairs, and there was the Emmy. It suddenly dawned on me that I'm going to have one of those. Then I looked and saw the audience, and they were standing up. That really got to me. When you see 6,000 people and they're standing up because they like your work … I kind of lost it then. The standing ovation really was the wild moment.

Where does the Emmy win rank in terms of your career highlights?

The award is from your peers, and it's the old joke about you a charity calling and saying, "We’d like to name you man of the year because of your sensational career in comedy and you’ve entertained people for over 50 years.” You say, "I’m sorry I can’t make it." And they ask if you have Jerry Lewis’ number. That’s one kind of award. This one’s from your peers, and it’s a very special award, and it's them [the TV Academy] saying that they think I'm pretty good.

What does this Emmy win, 51 years after your first nomination, mean to you?

It's kind of a haze. The whole evening, everybody kept telling me I would win, and I kept asking, "How do you know?" It's a really tough category; Nathan Lane is brilliant at what ever he does, and you’ve got Louis C.K., who is about as hot as you can possibly get, as well as Justin Timberlake, Will Forte and Bobby Cannavale. It was a very strong group. I was all right with the fact that I wasn't going to win it. It's a very trite thing to say that it’s just an honor to be included but it's true; it’s trite because it’s true.

Why do you think it took so long for the TV Academy to recognize your work?

Coming from the stand-up world, you're not coming from the school of dramatic arts. I think there's as tendency to think of stand-up people like Jerry Seinfeld, Ray Romano, Roseanne, Brett Butler and all the people who came from the stand-up world to think that's "Bob being Bob," and you can't give an award to Bob for Bob being Bob. It's a lot tougher than it looks. Everybody can't act; in terms of the 300 million people who live in the U.S., there are damn few people who can act. I always hated when the studios just kind of said that anybody can act. You look at people like Spencer Tracy, Henry Fonda -- and I'm just talking about the male actors -- there aren’t a lot who can act. It's a very special talent, and I wish it were recognized as a very special talent. It isn't because the people make it look so easy. It's a blessing. I don't think anyone is entitled to [an Emmy]. I think you earn one. I said last night that in the previous cases where I lost it's because there was somebody better in the group. It's the logical explanation of why I've never won because there was always somebody better for whatever group you were included in. Three of the nominations were for dramatic shows -- ER, NICIS and The Librarian -- and three were for comedy, which seemed to be the TV Academy saying, "Why don’t you just stick to drama?"

What did you do to celebrate after the ceremony was over?

My wife and I didn’t have any real plans. We went to the afterparty because we were both hungry. She and I we went to the Bel-Air hotel, and we each had a beer and piece of pizza.

How has today been for you? Has it sunk in yet?

We got some calls from people, CNN, and then I heard from my secretary that the Today Show and Al Roker apparently was very nice talking about my getting the Emmy. I really haven't had a chance to celebrate, but that isn't us.

Have you heard from everyone at The Big Bang Theory?

I haven't heard from Chuck Lorre yet; I’ve gotten several emails from Kunal Nayyar (Raj), who was very nice, as well as from Kaley Cuoco (Penny) and Johnny Galecki (Leonard). Last night we only had 40 seconds, though I asked [Emmys producer] Spike Jones Jr. to give me a little more time. I'd been up seven times for this and asked him to stretch it a bit.

Have you heard from any of your former Newhart or Bob Newhart Show colleagues since you won?

I haven't but I know I will be because we've remained in touch. I heard from Tim Conway and his wife and Steve Lawrence and Eddie, who were dear friends from the stand-up days and the nightclub days. Bill [Daily] is in New Mexico but Marcia [Wallace] is here and Jack Riley is here and so is Peter [Bonerz].
Do you know where you’re going to put the Emmy?

Somewhere prominently! (Laughs) I don't know exactly. That's up to my wife. I always kid her about it; she thinks it's ostentatious to put your awards out there, except for my Mark Twain award; that was a statue that fit the decor of the living room, which is why it's in a prominent place in the house. But I don’t know where she’s going to put the Emmy.

Have you already spoken to Big Bang Theory producers about when you'll be returning about returning as Professor Proton?

We were already in talks. I'm scheduled to do the next episode in October, which means probably sweeps and it’ll probably be on in November. We were already talking about two more appearances.

"Bob Newhart on His 'Big Bang Theory' Gig: 'It's Like Going Back in Time'"

by

Lesley Goldberg

May 1st, 2013

The Hollywood Reporter

Comedy legend Bob Newhart heads to CBS' The Big Bang Theory on Thursday with a role that was a long time coming. Co-creator/executive producer Chuck Lorre had been courting the Newhart icon for years, constantly going after the six-time Emmy nominee for a role on one of his shows before coming up with the winning role: Professor Proton, an influential character from Leonard (Johnny Galecki) and Sheldon's (Jim Parsons) childhood.

Before accepting the role, Newhart laid out two conditions that would bring him to his first half-hour comedy gig in years -- it had to be for more than a one-off and his scenes had to be performed in front of a live audience, the only way Newhart says he operates.

The Hollywood Reporter caught up with Newhart to discuss his comedic return, the appeal of TV's No. 1 scripted comedy and what the future holds for the good professor.

The Hollywood Reporter: The Big Bang Theory marks your first half-hour comedy appearance in some time. Why this show?

Bob Newhart: I've been approached for other projects -- some pilots -- and that's too much. Emotionally, I couldn't go through another pilot to series, it takes too much out of you and it's for the younger people today. When I look at a show, I look at it from a writing standpoint. I've said all along that I stumbled on the formula of an incredible cast and great writing, and then take all the credit myself -- it's worked in three different permutations. I know Chuck Lorre personally and am familiar with his work­­ going back to Roseanne and Cybil. The Big Bang Theory is well written and it has an incredible cast. It's intelligent, which is a vanishing commodity. It's setup joke, setup joke, setup joke. When we were doing The Bob Newhart Show and Newhart, we'd take a minute to set up a joke, but it paid off because the reaction was huge. But there seems to be a rhythm now in sitcoms -- setup joke, setup joke, setup joke. As a result, the audience doesn't know what the joke is but they know it's coming because that's where it always goes. There's an internal rhythm. That's one of the reasons I took The Big Bang Theory.
 
THR: Lorre has said he's been pursuing you to appear on one of his shows for a long time. How did this guest gig come to pass?

Newhart: Chuck was on the lot when we were doing The Bob Newhart Show and at lunch, he'd come to our stage and sit there. We've been going back and forth, and we never could find a project that we could both agree on until The Big Bang Theory. He said to me fairly recently, "What would it take for you to do one of my shows?" There aren't too many producers who can use that phrase. He suggested Big Bang Theory and I had only two things that were paramount: No. 1, my scenes had to be taped live. There's a tendency to pre-tape a lot of stuff and put a laugh track on it and you lose something. With Newhart, Lucy, Honeymooners, Mary Tyler Moore, and All in the Family it was always done in front of live audience. I always felt that the live audience gives it adrenaline. That's the only way I function. No. 2, I wanted it to be a semi-recurring role. He was fine with both and later called me with the story of Professor Proton. In my era, it was Don Herbert -- he was Mr. Wizard and he did all these experiments for kids with common things around the house. It turns out that Sheldon and Leonard grew up on that show, and that made them want to become scientists. They found out that Professor Proton still does children's shows and they hire him to come and do what he thinks is a children's show, but it turns out to be a show for these two grown people. They're both very enthusiastic and Penny is amazed by one of the things he does.
 
THR: Walk us through your day on the set. What was it like?

Newhart: I asked Chuck, the writers and our director if they were going to announce I'm in the show before the taping. I was a little nervous that the live audience wouldn't recognize me and there would just be silence. They said, "We'll come up on you," and thankfully they recognized me; they applauded and stood up. That was very nice. It's amazing how close the set resembled Stage 17 at Radford, where we did The Bob Newhart Show and Newhart. It was like going back in time. It was a relief. You never presume anything. At least in comedy, you get that beaten out of you. You may have done 20 great shows in a row and come to one, and it doesn't work. You never presume anything. After the taping, they had me come out last and the audience all stood up and applauded. That was it until I went in later to tape a different end tag. It was a great experience and took me back in time. I don't know what's happening because us old codgers -- Betty White, Mary Tyler Moore, Cloris Leachman and Valerie Harper -- we're having a revival, I guess!

THR: Did you realize how much you missed it? Did you feel similar pressure?

Newhart: I'm realistic. I have no desire to go back on a weekly basis. It's for young people. Emotionally, it's very tough. I've always said people say on a dramatic show, "I was crying. It was so emotional when he went and grabbed that little girl from a burning building and handed her over to her mother." In comedy, the best thing you can say is, "I think it's funny." There's a tension and adrenaline rush when you're doing it in front of a live audience.

THR: How has comedy changed since The Bob Newhart Show?

Newhart: There's a rhythm with setting up jokes, which the audience wanted. I don't know which came first -- if the producers and writers decided that was way to go and audience went along with it or if audience wanted it to go that way and producers and writers realized it. Obviously, it's changed in terms of the material you can deal with. I loved Everybody Loves Raymond. It was a beautifully cast show. They dealt with material that Standards and Practices would have said, "This is a joke. You're not really going to do that, are you?" That's the nature of comedy. Today there are fewer and fewer sacred cows. In fact, I don't who the scared cows are anymore or if there are any because the networks have to compete with cable and cable doesn't have those restrictions.

THR: While ratings are down across the board, Big Bang Theory continues to grow -- a rare feat today. What is it about this show that works?

Newhart: It's beautifully cast, has great writing and it's intelligent. There was a longing for something intelligent -- to credit the audience being intelligent. It doesn't talk down to the audience at all. When we were on -- along with Mary Tyler Moore and the murderer's row of All in the Family, M*A*S*H and Carol Burnett -- we'd get almost Super Bowl numbers and there were only three of us. We'd get 44-45 shares, but there was some competition from cable. Now I look at the ratings and it's the first time I saw that No. 6 was The Bible on the History Channel. I've never seen a cable show that high in the national ratings. And people find the shows they like.
 
THR: You've earned six Emmy nominations in your illustrious career. Is it your hope that Big Bang be the lucky seven that you end up winning?

Newhart: (Laughs) They want me to put my appearance in the show up for a guest performance and they feel strongly about this particular episode. I will.

THR: Will you return to Big Bang?

Newhart: It's a recurring part. I'll probably do two episodes next year.

THR: Would you want to do more than that?

Newhart: I don't know how many legs this character has. That's up to them. We'll talk about it if they feel they want more. That's strictly up to them. I didn't just want to do a one-shot. I wanted to make it semi-recurring. At this point, that's what it was. It was very enjoyable. I loved it.

Bob Newhart [Wikipedia]

Albert Einstein, Mary Baker Eddy...metaphysics

 

"On Albert Einstein’s Interest In The Metaphysics Of Mary Baker Eddy"

by

William S. Cooper

University of California, Berkeley

        In the voluminous literature on Einstein, even his religious sentiments have not escaped scrutiny.  It is known that in his youth he received Jewish training at home and Roman Catholic teaching at school, that he respected the medieval theologian Maimonides, that he believed in an impersonal God which he compared to the God of Spinoza, that he admired the Society of Friends, and that he said he never prayed in his life.  These and other aspects of his personal theology are touched upon in many sources, perhaps most exhaustively in Max Jammer’s book Einstein and Religion.[1]

        An intriguing facet of his religious outlook--one that seems to have been generally overlooked in the scholarly literature--is his apparent interest in the metaphysical system of the New England religious leader Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Science movement.  My purpose in this note is to gather together some of the evidence that suggests this interest.

INDICATIONS OF HIS INTEREST

        Late in his life Einstein attended the Wednesday noonday meeting of a Christian Science church in New York City.  After the service he was greeted by George Nay, a German-speaking editor and lecturer on Christian Science.  Nay had heard of earlier visits to the church by Einstein and had been hoping to encounter him.  During their conversation Einstein said, among other things, “Do you people realize what a wonderful thing you have?”  The encounter is described by Robert Peel, author of a well known three-volume biography of Eddy, who states that he heard it directly from Nay.[2]  It is also recorded in the church archives in Boston in the form of a brief description of the encounter signed by Nay.  The conversation was witnessed by a party still living who is able to fix the date as April 28, 1954.[3]

        The church in question is Fifth Church, near Grand Central Station.  Einstein is reported to have attended the meetings of this church repeatedly, including at least some visits prior to 1952.  Church members were able to point out the seat in which he habitually sat on those occasions.[4]  He was also seen in attendance at Wednesday evening meetings of the Christian Science church in Princeton, his town of residence at the time.[5]

        He also visited Christian Science reading rooms.  Mary Spaulding, wife of the noted violinist Alfred Spaulding, was serving as attendant at the reading room on Madison Avenue near 43rd St. during one of these visits.  She recorded some complimentary remarks that he made to her about Science and Health, Eddy’s major work, including the comment  “. . . to think that a woman knew this over eighty years ago”.[6]   Spaulding’s memory could have been selective when she wrote down what he had said, but there is no reason to suppose she fabricated the entire incident.  He is reported to have visited another New York City reading room as well.[7]  In addition he made repeated use of the reading room in Princeton.  An informant relates that a librarian in the Princeton reading room told her that Dr. Einstein was one of their most frequent visitors, and that he would often spend an hour or more reading Science and Health.  In that case too, generous remarks made by him about that work were recorded by the attendant and are still available.[8]

        An artist who lived in Princeton in the late forties and early fifties recalls seeing Einstein in the Princeton reading room. She writes:[9]

On one occasion, when I was in the Reading Room and Professor Einstein was studying there, we both happened to leave at the same time.  He greeted me politely and then went over to get his overcoat.  He then walked over to the attendant, took out his pipe from the pocket and said to her, “If it wasn’t for this pipe, I would join your church.”  He smiled and walked out.

(Christian Scientists abstain from the use of tobacco.)  Caution is called for concerning this remark of Einstein’s.  It could have been intended playfully.  Also, it has to be weighed against others such as the one he made later to the Canadian astronomer A. V. Douglas: “If I were not a Jew I would be a Quaker”.[10]   But however the remark about the pipe is construed, it is a clearly recollected instance of his use of a Christian Science reading room.

        John Arthur Arnold, a reporter for the St. Louis Post Dispatch and other newspapers and later a ghost writer for Washington politicians, helped Einstein perfect the English in some of his speeches after the war.  Arnold had for personal reasons become bitter about Christian Science and had authored a pamphlet attacking organized religion in general and Christian Science in particular.  On one occasion while visiting Einstein he showed him this pamphlet.  Einstein responded that the pamphlet was most unfair and that he had a great deal of respect for Christian Science.  This surprised Arnold, who had assumed Einstein knew little or nothing about the religion.[11]

        In his biography of Eddy,  Peel characterized Einstein’s interest in Christian Science as “slight but recurrent.”[12]  Unfortunately Peel does not explain his reasons for thinking the interest to be slight.   Peel states that Einstein was introduced to Eddy’s ideas “apparently for the first time” after World War II by the famous Austrian stage and screen actress Elisabeth Bergner.  However, there are indications that Einstein’s familiarity with the  subject predated that meeting.  Paul S. Seeley related in a public lecture that “a close family friend of Mrs. Seeley and myself” (Bergner) who had known Einstein well in Europe became interested in Eddy’s ideas.  On visiting America near the end of the war she made an appointment to see Einstein at Princeton, curious to ascertain his attitude toward her new religious conviction.  She laid before him her copy of Eddy’s book Science and Health and asked in effect, “How about it?”  He immediately recognized the book and impetuously replied “Blessed art thou!”.  If accurate this account implies prior knowledge and a positive assessment.[13]    As a further clue to the timing, one report would place the beginnings of his interest as far back as the early 1930’s.[14]

        A more consequential point of early contact concerns Einstein’s son, Hans Albert, and his family.  They lived in Greenville, South Carolina, from 1938 to 1943.  According to local newspaper accounts, the senior Einstein was a frequent visitor to the town during that period.  Walter Isaacson, in his biography of Albert Einstein, writes

    . . . Hans Albert became, under the influence of his wife, a Christian Scientist.  The rejection of medical care, as sometimes entailed by that faith, had tragic results.  A few months after their arrival their 6-year old son Klaus contracted diptheria and died.  He was buried at a tiny new cemetery in Greenville. [15]

How this tragedy affected Einstein’s religious views we can only guess, except that the occasion would surely have provided both motive and opportunity for his finding out more about the faith in question from his family.  According to Isaacson, “[Einstein’s] relationship with his son became increasingly secure and even, at times, affectionate.”  Later Hans Albert became a respected professor of hydraulic engineering at the University of California, Berkeley.

        Because so much time has gone by since Einstein was with us, care is needed in separating fact from legend.  In an effort to screen out the purely legendary, all evidence mentioned here has been restricted to that of eyewitnesses or parties who received their information directly from an eyewitness.  Caution is needed in dealing with recollections that are decades old.  Nevertheless it can be said that the clues that do survive, taken collectively, point to the likelihood that Einstein had more than a casual or passing curiosity about Eddy’s metaphysics.

HIS OBJECTIONS TO RELIGION

        So far as I have been able to discover, Einstein never commented in writing on Eddy’s metaphysics, and in conversation spoke about it only in generalities.[16]   That is unfortunate, for one is left wondering just what it was about her ideas that he found worthy of contemplation.  Eddy wrote much about the illusory nature of matter.   Did he see some deep connection between her ideas and his advanced physical theories?  Here the historical traces fail us.  However, it is possible to surmise at least that her system overcame some of his more basic objections to conventional religion.

        Einstein had his criticisms of traditional religious beliefs and did not hesitate to articulate them.  So when it is suggested that he might have had a sympathetic interest in a particular system of religious thought, the question naturally arises as to how he could possibly take it seriously in the light of his general religious objections.  In the case of Christian Science however the answer is simple enough.  That particular religious system is relatively free of the particular dogmas he explicitly rejected.

        Consider for instance the question of God’s existence.  Einstein never denied the existence of a deity and always protested against being regarded as an atheist.[17]   However, he did deny vigorously the existence of a personal God.  He said “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly”.[18]   Again, he said “The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.”[19]   Though castigated for it by religionists of both Jewish and Christian persuasions, he steadfastly maintained this position.  He went so far as to add “The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God . . .”.[20]

        In Eddy’s metaphysics God is defined in terms of abstract synonyms including ‘Truth’, ‘Mind’, and ‘Principle’.[21]   None of the synonyms is suggestive of a personal God in the sense of a deity with the characteristics of a human personality.  Moreover there are passages in her writings which explicitly reject any notion of a personal, anthropomorphic God.  She writes,  “Mortals believe in a finite personal God; while God is infinite Love, which must be unlimited”[22] ; “A personal God is based on finite premises, where thought begins wrongly to apprehend the infinite . . .”[23] ;  “We must learn that God is infinitely more than a person, or finite form, can contain”.[24]  Evidently Eddy was as averse as Einstein to a naive personification of the Deity.

       Einstein wrote, “I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures . . . ”.[25]   On another occasion he observed wryly, “I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of his children for their numerous stupidities, for which he himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only his nonexistence could excuse him.”.[26]  Eddy too, decades earlier, had found the idea of a punitive God incredible.  She wrote “In common justice, we must admit that God will not punish man for doing what He created man capable of doing, and knew from the outset that man would do.”[27]  And in similar vein, “It would be contrary to our highest ideas of God to suppose Him capable of first arranging law and causation so as to bring about certain evil results, and then punishing the helpless victims of His volition for doing what they could not avoid doing”.[28]   Einstein would surely have concurred.

        Einstein did not believe in petitionary prayer.  He rejected it as a relic of the primitive belief in a personal God.  He said of the traditional concept of God that “Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes”.[29]    In a letter to Leo Szilard he made the arresting comment, “So long as you pray to God and ask him for some benefit, you are not a religious man”.[30]   His position is not far from Eddy’s when she wrote “The mere habit of pleading with the divine Mind, as one pleads with a human being, perpetuates the belief in God as humanly circumscribed,--an error which impedes spiritual growth”.[31]   Though she placed great emphasis on prayer, Eddy held that its purpose is to improve one’s own thinking, not to change the divine Mind:  “God is not moved by the breath of praise to do more than He has already done.  . . .   Prayer cannot change the Science of being, but it tends to bring us into harmony with it.  . . .  He who is immutably right will do right without being reminded of His province”.[32]  

HIS PHILOSOPHICAL LEANINGS

        Einstein had his favorite philosophers.    Skeptics might wonder how a mind sophisticated enough to appreciate these famous thinkers could also find merit in Eddy’s writings.  But on comparing the actual positions of the writers in question, certain parallels emerge.

        Einstein expressed respect for Moses Maimonides, a leading medieval Jewish philosopher.  He praised him as “one of those few who exerted a crucial and fruitful influence on their contemporaries and thus on later generations as well”.[33]  Maimonides’ influential work Guide for the Perplexed, which was found among Einstein’s possessions, argues strongly and at length that God is incorporeal and incapable of being described in terms of ordinary material or human attributes.  Eddy was equally emphatic.  She writes, for instance, that “Christian Science strongly emphasizes the thought that God is not corporeal, but incorporeal . . .”.[34]   On a related topic, Maimonides attached much importance to the unity or indivisibility of the Deity, as did Eddy.[35]

        As a young man Einstein found time to attend a discussion group on Baruch Spinoza.  He read Spinoza’s works repeatedly and said more than once that his own ideas were close to those of Spinoza.[36]   While Eddy’s God is no carbon copy of Spinoza’s,[37]  there are some resemblances.  Both are incorporeal and impersonal.  Both are seen as undergirding the order and harmony of a lawful universe.  Both constitute a sole universal substance, one of Eddy’s defining phrases for God being in fact “all substance”.[38]    Both conceptions reject the dualism that would regard mind and matter as two real, distinct substances.

SUMMARY

        Lest the impression be left that Einstein and Eddy were in full agreement about everything, it should be added that at times Einstein expressed some notions that would be hard to reconcile with Eddy’s metaphysics.  For example, some interview material suggests that, at a younger age at least, he believed sensation to reside in matter, contrary to her teaching.[39]  His understanding of her writings could have been idiosyncratic, his agreement with them might have been only partial, and his generous comments about them in conversation have to be considered in the light of his natural politeness.    Nevertheless Eddy’s metaphysical system stands in general sympathy with his stated reservations about popular religious thought, concerns itself with the derivative character of matter, and shares some ground with some of his favorite philosophers.  At a minimum, we may conclude that for him it came closer than more traditional Judeo-Christian creeds to his expressed ideal of a ‘cosmic religion’.  To that extent at least his special interest in it is explainable, and future historians might well ponder its significance.
 Acknowledgements

 I am indebted to Prof. Max Jammer for searching the Einstein Archives in Jerusalem for relevant correspondence, to Robert Hough of Alameda, California for collecting pertinent press reports,  to Lee Johnson and Judith Huenneke for guidance to associated documents in the church archives, to Bill Sweet of Spindrift Research and Keith Simon for directing me to living witnesses, and to the witnesses themselves for their recollections.

NOTES

[1]  Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999).  Prize for Outstanding Books in Theology and the Natural Sciences, Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, Berkeley, California.

[2]  Robert Peel, Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), pp. 28, 201 n. 16.

[3]  Date according to George Millar of 34 Esmond Rd, London, England (telephone interview July 2001).  Millar saw Einstein conversing with Nay and spoke with Nay immediately after their conversation.

[4] Marcyne Johnson of Tucson, Arizona, who attended the church in the period 1952-53, remembers being told at that time of frequent Wednesday visits by Einstein by at least two eyewitnesses who had vivid recollections of his attendance and where he sat (telephone interview, June 2001).  Also Rosemarie Bettinson of Bronx, N.Y., long-time clerk of the church, recalls being told by eyewitnesses of Einstein’s attendance (telephone interview, June 2001).

[5]  Virginia E. Bailey of Floral Park, N.Y., attests to having seen Einstein at Wednesday services in Princeton and in the Princeton reading room  (letter to Robert Hough, March 12, 2001).

[6]  David L. Keyston, The Healer: The Healing Work of Mary Baker Eddy, 2nd ed.  (Seattle, Wash.: Healing Unlimited, 1996), p. 189.

[7] Frederic Stoessel of Las Vegas, N. M. states that while living in New York City in about 1954 he saw Einstein chatting with the attendant of the reading room then on Central Park South, and immediately afterward confirmed with the attendant that it had indeed been Einstein (letter to Robert Hough September 1, 1999;  telephone interview August, 2001).

[8] Elizabeth Earl Jones, Reminiscences of Elizabeth Earl Jones,  c. 1986, excerpts quoted in Keyston, The Healer, p. 189.

[9] Quoted from Bailey letter (see note 5).

[10]  Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1971), p. 622.

[11]  As related by Arnold’s daughter Genevieve Arnold of Atlanta, Georgia (telephone interview, June 2001).

[12]  Robert Peel, Mary Baker Eddy:  The Years of Authority (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977), p. 497 n. 22.

[13] Paul Stark Seeley, “Spiritual Forces Bring Mankind’s Liberation,” public lecture printed in The Christian Science Monitor, October 20, 1965.

[14]  Harold W. Stewart of Alameda, California states that his mother was a member of the Christian Science church in Pasadena, California in the 1930’s and 40’s.  She told him of visits Einstein was reported to have made to the church.  Since Einstein’s stays in Pasadena while at Cal Tech all fell in the time period 1930-1933, the church visits presumably took place in that period (interview, August 2001; also letter to Robert Hough, November 11, 1999 ).

[15]   Isaacson, W.  Einstein:  His Life and Universe,  New York, N.Y., Simon & Schuster, 2007, p.  444.

[16]  In this connection, Prof. Max Jammer informs me that in the Albert Einstein Archives at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem there are essentially no documents indicative of Einstein’s attitude toward Eddy or his interest in Christian Science.

[17]  Jammer, Einstein and Religion,  149-151.

[18]  Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Albert Einstein: The Human Side (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1979), p. 43.

[19]  Einstein’s reply to Beatrice F., quoted in Jammer, Einstein, p. 121 .

[20]  Albert Einstein,  Out of my Later Years [essays] (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.

[21] Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (Boston: Christian Science Publishing Society, 1913), p. 465.

[22]  Ibid., p. 312.

[23]  Eddy, The People’s Idea of God, 1909, reprinted in her Prose Works other than Science and Health (Boston: Christian Science Publishing Society, 1925), p. 3.

[24] Eddy, Miscellaneous Writings, 1897, reprinted in Prose Works, p. 16.

[25]  F. Herneck, “Albert Einstein’s gesprochenes Glaubensbekenntnis”, Naturwissenschaften , 1966, 53 : 198.   Excerpt translated in Jammer, Einstein,  p. 72.

[26]  Alice Calaprice, The Expanded Quotable Einstein (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000), p. 201.

[27]  Eddy, Science and Health, p. 357.

[28]  Ibid., p. 230.

[29]  Einstein, Later Years, p. 26

[30]   Jammer, Einstein and Religion, p. 149.

[31]   Eddy, Science and Health,  p. 2

[32]   Ibid., p. 2.

[33]  A. Einstein, “Moses Maimonides”, talk delivered in 1935, in Essays in Humanism (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950, 1985), p. 115.

[34]   Eddy, Science and Health, p. 116 (italics hers).

[35]   Ibid., pp. 132, 335, 336.

[36]  Jammer, Einstein and Religion, p. 144.

[37]  For Eddy’s statement of her differences with Spinoza see her No and Yes, 1887,  reprinted in Prose Works, p. 24.

[38]  Eddy, Science and Health, p. 587.

[39]   William Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man.  (Brookline Village, MA: Branden Press, 1983).

Remarkable engineering feat

"Costa Concordia in Italy freed from rocks"

September 16th, 2013

BBC NEWS

Engineering officials in Italy say they have succeeded in lifting the cruise ship Costa Concordia free of rocks, 20 months after it ran aground.

Efforts to right the ship, one of the largest and most daunting salvage operations ever undertaken, are continuing through the night.

The vessel has been detached from rocks and moved on to a platform constructed on the sea bed, officials said.

Thirty-two people died when the ship ran aground off the Tuscan coast.

The bodies of two of those killed in the January 2012 disaster, by the island of Giglio, have never been found. There are hopes that they may be located during the operation, although officials said on Monday there was no sign of them so far.

Engineers have never tried to lift such a huge ship - over 951 feet long (290m) - so close to land.

By Monday evening, the vessel had rotated by 20-21 degrees, the officials said.

This means that there is another 44-45 degrees to go before it is upright. However, the officials hope that once it has risen by 24 degrees, the ship will begin righting itself thanks to gravity and to metal boxes attached to the side and filled with water.

The start of this huge operation was potentially the most problematic phase, and the stage that worried the engineers the most, says the BBC's Alan Johnston at the scene.

But now the ship has been broken away from the reef on which she has been lying, the hope is that it will now be possible to rotate the wreck more easily, he adds.

The Italian Civil Protection Authority said the sea and weather conditions had mostly been right for the attempt, but the operation had to be delayed by three hours because of an overnight storm.
Huge challenge

The storm delayed the positioning of a barge carrying a remote control room close to the shipwreck, from where engineers were using pulleys and counterweights to move the Concordia from the steep underwater incline it is resting on.

Sergio Girotto, an engineer working on the project, told reporters on Monday the operation was going smoothly.

"Everything is going according to plan, we are following the plan to sequence. There is no problem whatsoever."
 
The ship could be seen emerging from the water as operators worked to hoist it upright.

Footage from the scene of the salvage operation clearly shows the watermark on the part of the ship that has been submerged for the past 20 months.

More than 50 enormous chains and winches are being used to break the ship - twice as heavy as the Titanic - away from the reef on which it has been lying and roll her up onto her keel.

Engineers will try to roll the ship up using the cables and the weight of water contained in huge metal boxes welded to the ship's sides - a process called parbuckling.

This procedure must be carried out very slowly to prevent further damage to the hull, which has spent more than 18 months partially submerged in 15 metres (50ft) of water and fully exposed to the elements.

Only after the ship is back up on her keel will it be possible to inspect it fully and begin to plan the next stage - the effort to repair and re-float it and eventually tow it away to be destroyed.

The head of the operation, Nick Sloane, told the AFP news agency that it was now or never for the Costa Concordia, because the hull was gradually weakening and might not survive another winter.

If the operation goes wrong, environmentalists warn that toxic substances could leak out into the sea.

There are also concerns that filthy water trapped in the rotting, rusting wreck will pour out as the ship rises.

But booms and nets have been put in place to try to combat any pollution threat in what is a marine national park.

Five people have been convicted of manslaughter over the disaster, and the captain, Francesco Schettino, is currently on trial accused of manslaughter and abandoning ship.

Giglio mayor Sergio Ortelli said that the removal of the Costa Concordia would bring an end to "a huge problem that we have in our port and that we want to solve as soon as we can".

"Islanders can't wait to see the back of it," he said.

On Sunday, prayers for the operation were said during Sunday Mass on the island.

The small island's economy depends hugely on tourism and the presence of the wreck has discouraged visitors.

The salvage project has so far cost more than 600m euros ($800m; £500m) and is expected to cost much more before the operation is complete.

12/12...Sunday, September 22nd, 2013...20:44 UTC...Autumnal Equinox

Equinox [Wikipedia]


Chromatography and Fall