Did I say that?...an Einstein quote

Linus Pauling's diary entry for November 16th, 1954.

"Einstein Likely Never Said One of His Most Oft-Quoted Phrases"

by

Rebecca J. Rosen


August 9th, 2013

The Atlantic

On the list of tales we like to tell about Albert Einstein, the story of his "biggest blunder" is near the top. It begins with a problem that was bugging Einstein: How could his theory of general relativity be true and, yet, the universe stable? If his theory was right, the universe would have collapsed -- it could not possibly remain fixed, as physicists at the time believed it was.

To make his equations work, in 1917 Einstein introduced an additional term into them, expressed by the Greek letter lambda-- the "cosmological constant." The new term represented a repulsive force that would counter gravity's attraction, leaving the universe intact.

But in the years that followed, evidence mounted that the belief in the universe's motionlessness was wrong: The universe was, in fact, expanding. Had Einstein stuck with the equation before him, he might have been the one to intuit this central feature of the cosmos, but instead he concocted a contrivance in order to preserve a false assumption. Einstein, the story goes, called it the "biggest blunder" of his entire life, and that phrase (or close variations of it) has been repeated thousands of times, in books and journal articles across the disciplines.

The only problem is: Einstein may never have uttered the phrase "biggest blunder."

Astrophysicist and author Mario Livio can find no documentation that puts those words into Einstein's mouth (or, for that matter, his pen). Instead, all references eventually lead back to one man, physicist George Gamow, who reported Einstein's use of the phrase in two sources: his posthumously published autobiography My World Line (1970) and a Scientific American article from September 1956.

This, for reasons Livio recounts in detail in his new book Brilliant Blunders, is some seriously thin sourcing. For one, Gamow, brilliant physicist though he might have been, had a bit of a reputation for, shall we say, antics. Once, for example, Gamow had teamed up with a student of his named Ralph Alpher to write a paper. "He then realized," Livio told me, "that if he were to add as a co-author another known astrophysicist, whose name was Hans Bethe, then the three names would be Alpher Bethe Gamow, like alpha beta gamma, even though Hans Bethe had nothing to do with that paper." (His first wife, Livio writes, once remarked, "In more than twenty years together, Geo has never been happier than when perpetuating a practical joke.")

Knowing this about Gamow made Livio suspicious. What are the chances that Gamow, this ham, was retelling Einstein's confession with veracity? Not good, Livio found.

Livio looked at almost every single paper that Einstein ever wrote, including making a trip to the Einstein archive in Jerusalem to look at the collection personally. "And nowhere did I ever find the phrase 'biggest blunder', " Livio told me. "I didn't find it -- anywhere."

So he turned his attention to the correspondence between Einstein and Gamow, and it is at this point that Gamow's story begins to look even worse. "When might Einstein have used this expression with Gamow?" Livio writes in the book. As Gamow tells it in his autobiography, he and Einstein were quite close, with Gamow visiting the aging scientist every other Friday as the liaison between the Navy and Einstein during World War II. "He describes what good friends they were, how Einstein would greet him in one of his soft sweaters, and so on," Livio explains.

"Well, guess what," he continues. "I discovered a small article published in some obscure journal of the Navy by somebody named Stephen Brunauer," a scientist who had recruited both Einstein and Gamow to the Navy. In that article, Brunauer wrote, "Gamow, in later years, gave the impression that he was the Navy's liaison man with Einstein, that he visited every two weeks, and the professor 'listened' but made no contribution -- all false [emphasis added]. The greatest frequency of visits was mine, and that was about every two months." Clearly, Livio says, Gamow exaggerated his relationship with the famous physicist.

The correspondence between Einstein and Gamow seems to confirm this. The letters are quite formal, not those of the sort that would pass between intimate friends. Einstein was polite but not particularly effusive. "So wait a second," Livio says doubtfully, "Einstein never used this phrase with any more intimate colleagues, but he used it with Gamow?"

"Look," Livio emphasized to me, "it is impossible -- absolutely impossible -- to prove beyond any doubt that somebody did not say something. I don't claim that I proved it. But I think that it is highly unlikely that Einstein ever used this phrase."

Moreover, this is not to say that Einstein was at ease with the cosmological constant. "I'm not saying he didn't regret it," Livio says. "He definitely regretted it. He wrote about that to a number of friends. He thought it was ugly."

But to say it was his "biggest blunder" implies a level of regret that it seems Einstein did not feel. By contrast, when he did write about the error (which, it should be noted, in more recent years, has turned out to be less clearly an error than Einstein thought, but that's a whole other story), he did so with a dispassionate tone that conveys comfort with the notion that science would overturn some of his work. In a 1932 paper with Willem de Sitter, Einstein wrote, "Historically the term containing the 'cosmological constant' ? was introduced into the field equations in order to enable us to account theoretically for the existence of a finite mean density in a static universe. It now appears that in the dynamical case this end can be reached without the introduction of ?." And that was that.

There was, however, one regret that stood out for Einstein, and it had nothing to do with the elegance of his calculations. After a visit with the scientist at Princeton on November 16, 1954, Linus Pauling wrote in his diary: "He said that he had made one great mistake -- when he signed the letter to Pres. Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but that there was some justification -- the danger that the Germans would make them."

Scientific mistakes, Einstein's attitude implies, resolve with time. Mistakes of conscience, on the other hand, well, those are harder to undo.

Henney Kilowatt--Linus Pauling

Linus Carl Pauling
February 28th, 1901 to August 19th, 1994

Henney Kilowatt
1959

I am sure that most are familiar with Linus Pauling for several major features: His innovative research regarding chemical bonding [quantum chemistry], his participation in the "double helix" research [suggesting a helical structure for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)], his activity with Einstein, Bertrand Russell and eight others to sign the Russell-Einstein Manifesto in 1955 [nuclear weapon constraints], and his promotion of Vitamin C. But he was also involved in the electric automobile--the Henney Kilowatt.

In the late 1950s, Pauling became concerned with the problem of air pollution—particularly with the growing smog problem in Los Angeles. At the time, most scientists believed that the smog was due to chemical plants and refineries, not gasoline engine exhaust. Pauling worked with Arie Haagen-Smit and others at Caltech to show that smog was a product of automobile pollution instead of factory pollution. Shortly after this discovery, Pauling began work to develop a practical and affordable electric car. He joined forces with the engineers at the Eureka Williams company in the development of the Henney Kilowatt—the first speed-controlled electric car. After researching the electrophysics underlying the initial Kilowatt propulsion system, Pauling determined that traditional lead-acid batteries would not provide the power necessary to give electric cars the performance necessary to rival traditional gasoline powered cars. Pauling accurately predicted that the low top speed and the short range of the Henney Kilowatt would make them impractical and unpopular. Pauling insisted on making the car more practical before releasing it to the public, and recommended that the project be discontinued until the appropriate battery was available commercially. Unfortunately, the Eureka Williams Company insisted that production plans for the car proceed; as Pauling predicted, the model experienced dismal sales.--Wikopedia.

And:

Henney Kilowatt was the world's first transistor-regulated electric car. It was a project of National Union Electric Company and Henney Motor Company, a coachbuilder known especially for their conversions of Packards to ambulances, hearses and limousines. The tooling and parts for the car were purchased from Renault, therefore the car looks virtually identical to Renault Dauphine. The electric propulsion system was designed and built by Eureka Williams, manufacturer of vacuum cleaners.

Production started in 1959, initially with a 36-volt system of two sequential 18-volt batteries. This solution was soon deemed impractical as the car had a range of only 40 miles and top speed of around 40 mph. For the 1960 model year Henney was fitted with a 72-volt system consisting of six 12-volt batteries. This allowed the car to reach 60 mph and drive over 60 miles on a single charge.

During the two-year production run, 100 rolling chassis were produced, of which only 47 were completed as functional cars and sold. 32-35 cars were sold to electric utility companies and only 12-15 to general public. The company continued to promote the Kilowatt in 1961 in hope of finishing and selling the remaining 53 chassis, but only a few cars were sold. The main problem was that the 72-volt system was too expensive and complicated to attain the targeted $3600 tag price.

It is estimated that between 4 and 8 cars still exist.Among them are the very first two cars - the prototype and the s/n 0001 - which for 45 years had been stored by a former company engineer, and a few years ago sold with less than 500 miles driven.

Nuclear weaponry

"Russell-Einstein Manifesto"

A Plea for Nuclear Arms Control

July 9, 1955

Perry W. Bridgman
Max Born
Frederic Joliot-Curie
Albert Einstein
Leopold Infeld
Herman J. Muller
Linus Pauling
Cecil F. Powell
Joseph Rotblat
Bertrand Russell
Hideki Yukawa

"Here, then, is the problem," the Manifesto stated, "which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war."

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto makes the following points:

1.) Scientists have special responsibilities to awaken the public to the technological threats, particularly nuclear threats, confronting humanity.

2.) Those scientists with the greatest knowledge of the situation appear to be the most concerned.

3.) Nuclear weapons endanger our largest cities and threaten the future of humanity.

4.) In the circumstance of prevailing nuclear threat, humankind must put aside its differences and confront this overriding problem.

5.) The prohibition of modern weapons is not a sufficient solution to the threat; war as an institution must be abolished.

6.) Nonetheless, as a first step the nuclear weapons states should renounce these weapons.

7.) The choice before humanity is to find peaceful means of settling conflicts or to face "universal death."

"There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death."

"The Russell-Einstein Manifesto"

I was doing some research on ancient metallurgy, especially in India, and discovered an interesting statement: "...none of the Rajput cannons were ever used to confront the British who succeeded in conquering the sub-continent without ever having to fight against the country's best equipped armies, thus demonstrating that technological progress is not an end in itself." [Rajput were Hindus of the warrior caste dating back to the 7th century. "Rajput" is a Sanskrit word meaning "son of a king (rajputra)" and the dominant people of Rajputana--Rajasthan. The emphasis is on the phrase "...demonstrating that technological progress is not an end in itself." Development of nuclear weapons and storing a pile of the weapons to detour hostile nations may be futile for a nation may be brought to its knees by lesser skillful or sophisticated technologies.

The old bromide "might makes right" is becoming antiquated and doesn't fit well into a mature species that mankind will eventually reach. Having the biggest stick [nuclear weapons] doesn't appear to persuade or subjugate terrorists. Maybe North Korea, but that may well be unfound hysteria on the communist regime. "First strike" capability is real and awesome. But, that had better be based on better intelligence than currently demonstrated; a truly thinking administration that suppresses personal agendas.

"The B61 is a tactical thermonuclear gravity bomb which can be carried aboard a variety of strategic and tactical aircraft (including the B-52 and B-2A bombers and the F-16 fighter). First deployed in 1968, an estimated 3,000 weapons in nine different versions (designed by Los Alamos National Laboratory) were ultimately built, with yields ranging from 0.3-300 kilotons. Seven of these versions remain operational, including the B61-11, deployed in 1997."

I suppose one has to draw the line somewhere...when do nuclear weapons verge on the ridiculous--such as the B61?

"It is scientifically and technically possible to build an earth penetrating device that could bury a B617 warhead 30 meters into concrete, or 150 meters into earth, before detonating it. The device (based on knowledge and technology that are available since 50 years) would however be large and cumbersome. Better penetrating materials, components able to withstand larger stresses, higher impact velocities, and/or high explosive driven penetration aids, can only marginally improve the device. It is concluded that the robust nuclear earth penetrating (RNEP) program may be as much motivated by the development of new technology directly applicable to next generation nuclear weapons, and by the political necessity to periodically reassess the role and utility of nuclear weapons, than by the perceived military need for a weapon able to destroy deeply buried targets. Funding for a nuclear “bunker buster” warhead has been dropped from the U.S. Energy Department’s 2006 budget, according to information released on October 26, 2005. However, like other major political issues, the project of earth penetrating warheads is a recurring subject, which has to be assessed in the context of an evolving technological and strategic environment, that is becoming particularly complex because of the advent of fourth generation nuclear weapons and new nuclear weapon States."

"B61"

"The B61 (Mk-61) Bomb"

Secrets of society? Who knows and even scarier, a thermonuclear weapon that has fallen from the limelight. Anyone remember the "cobalt bomb". This was proposed by Leo Szilard and was supposed to be the ultimate "doomsday" weapon virtually destroying everything on Earth. Not very practical from a "winner take all" strategy, but it did theoretically establish some fear. Below is a link to a good explanation of regular thermonuclear weapons including the "Co-60" bomb.

"The Never-Tested Doomsday Bomb"

The "neutron bomb":

"In strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armored ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days."

It appears that the basic targets are ground troops and armored vehicles that would normally be resistant to a conventional thermonuclear weapon generating heat and initial blast. But this weapon can produce huge quantities of neutrons which are absorbed by the armored vehicles. Understand that the M-1 tank is partially constructed of depleted uranium and with a heavy bombardment of neutrons fission would ensure that the vehicle would become radioactive. Still a nasty weapon and certainly confined to conventional warfare which may become nonexistent.

"Neutron bomb"

Hans Bethe felt "the most intense relief" that atomic weapons he helped develop had not been used since WWII – but horror that thousands more had been built.

"Hans in War and Peace"

You know...we talk about the terrible power of nuclear weapons, but none of us has ever experienced such a weapon...only by proxy. If we felt the heat, the wind, the blinding flash, the storm of debris, the radiation, we may try a bit harder to resolve this issue.

One may discuss many issues here and on different levels. Is the bulk of weaponry "defensive" or "offensive" and just to what degree of sophistication and lethality is needed to protect, destroy, persuade? Having thousands of nuclear weapons is absurd. Historically, the awesomeness of a nation's strength was measured by military might and the technologies at the military's disposal. The Hittites had the advantage of iron; the French armies were devastated by the English longbow; the Japanese brought to defeat by nuclear weapons. "Might" doesn't always make "right". There are no nations today save North Korea [and their threats are mere sabre rattling; pleas for global acceptance; ranting of an insane dictator] that pose a serious threat. The current threats are the idiotic terrorists that have lost all sense of rationality and think they can change powers by violence. They are a disgrace to their faith, ethnicity, and value of life. Their tactics of raw violence will dissolve into global jadedness and the acts will become superfluous. Surely, the citizens of this world can do a whole lot better than indulge in pettiness and the realization of a dominate regime that relishes subjugation and manipulation. That is corrupt power and cupidity at its worst. Nuclear parody is long gone. But understand this, great sums of revenue are generated during war time--commerce in a nasty way.

Here are two famous letters composed with the assistance of Leo Szilard, submitted to President Franklin D. Roosevelt regarding the production, proliferation, and use of atomic weapons.

Albert Einstein's letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt, August 2, 1939

Albert Einstein
Old Grove Road
Nassau Point
Peconic, Long Island

August 2, 1939
F. D. Roosevelt,
President of the United States,
White House
Washington, D. C.

Sir:

Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in a manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future. Certain aspects of this situation which has arisen seem to call for watchfulness and, if necessary, quick action on the part of the Administration. I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following facts and recommendations:

In the course of the last four months it has been made probable - through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America - that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium,by which vast amount s of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.

This new phenomena would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable - though much less certain - that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, m ight very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by air.

Page 2

The United States has only very poor ores of uranium in moderate quantities. There is some good ore in Canada and the former Czechoslovakia, while the most important source of uranium is Belgian Congo.
In view of this situation you may think it desirable to have some permanent contact maintained between the administration and the group of physicists working on chain reactions in America. One possible way of achieving this might be for you to entrust with this task a person who has your confidence and who could perhaps serve in an inofficial capacity. His task might comprise the following:

a) to approach Government Departments, keep them informed of the further development, and put forward recommendations for Government action, giving particular attention to the problem of securing a supply of uranium or for the United States;

b) to speed up the experimental work,which is at present being carried on within the limits of the budgets of University Laboratories, by providing funds, if such funds be required, through his contacts with private persons who are willing to make contrib utions for this cause, and perhaps also by obtaining the co-operation of industrial aboratories which have the necessary equipment.

I understand that Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium from the Czechoslovakian mines which she has taken over. That she should have taken such an early action might perhaps be understood on the ground that the son of the German Under-Secretary of State, von Weizsacker, is attached to the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute in Berlin where some of the American work on uranium is now being repeated.

Yours very truly,
Signature
(Albert Einstein)


Albert Einstein's second letter [actually the fourth] to Franklin D. Roosevelt, March 25, 1945.

Albert Einstein
112 Mercer Street
Princeton, New Jersey
March 25, 1945
The Honorable Franklin D. Roosevelt
The President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Sir:

I am writing you to introduce Dr. L. Szilard who proposes to submit to you certain considerations and recommendations. Unusual circumstances which I shall describe further below induce me to take this action in spite of the fact that I do not know the substance of the considerations and recommendations which Dr. Szilard proposes to submit to you.

In the summer of 1939 Dr. Szilard put before me his views concerning the potential importance of uranium for national defense. He was greatly disturbed by the potentialities involved and anxious that the United States Government be advised of them as soon as possible. Dr. Szilard, who is one of the discovers of the neutron emission of uranium on which all present work on uranium is based, described to me a specific system which he devised and which he thought would make it possible to set up a chain reaction in unseparated uranium in the immediate future. Having known him for over twenty years both for his scientific work and personally, I have much confidence in his judgment and it was on the basis of his judgment as well as my own that I took the liberty to approach you in connection with this subject. You responded to my letter dated August 2, 1939 by the appointment of a committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Briggs and thus started the Government's activity in this field.

The terms of secrecy under which Dr. Szilard is working at present do not permit him to give me information about his work; however, I understand that he now is greatly concerned about the lack of adequate contact between scientists who are doing this work and those members of your Cabinet who are responsible for formulating policy. In the circumstances I consider it my duty to give Dr. Szilard this introduction and I wish to express the hope that you will be able to give his presentation of the case your personal attention.

Yours very truly,
Signature
(Albert Einstein)


Further reading...

"A Critical Look at the Bush Administration Energy Department’s Nuclear Weapons Complex and the First Decade of Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship"

"E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century"

"More Than 470 Physicists Sign Petition To Oppose U.S. Policy On Nuclear Attack"

"Nuclear Options"

"Our Hidden WMD Program/Why Bush is spending so much on nuclear weapons"


Additional materials...

See this other "Philosophy of Science Portal" blog topic:

Andrei Sakharov vs Edward Teller


An audio presentation from NPR:

"Scientists Work on New Nuclear Weapons"


Free online book:

The Nuclear Seduction: Why the Arms Race Doesn't Matter—and What Does