|
I've been reading the latest issue of Discover Magazine, which is
dedicated to Albert Einstein and his work in science. It's a really marvelous
set of articles by all different people, and I've only read maybe half of them
so far. But the one by Lee Smolin, "Einstein's Lonely Path" is particularly
insightful and profound. From my perspective, in my position as both the
daughter and friend of Robert Rosen ("Biology's Einstein", one article,
written about ten years ago, labeled him), I found this piece by Lee
Smolin to be very moving. Fortunately, my father wasn't nearly as lonely in
his personal life as Einstein apparently was, but his professional
experiences were practically identical in a slew of ways. Einstein had higher
highs and lower lows; my father decided early on to avoid the politics of Nobel
prize committees and fame. But the times were different, just one generation
later than Einstein's day, and my father was able to avoid some of those
pitfalls (he probably had Einstein's well-documented experiences to thank
for that, I suspect).
Smolin writes:
"I think a sober assessment is that up till now, almost all of
us who work in theoretical physics have failed to live up to Einstein's legacy.
His demand for a coherent theory [that would apply universally and represent
accurately the Laws of Nature] was uncompromising. It has not been reached-- not
by quantum theory, not by special or general relativity, not by anything
invented since [this guy obviously hasn't read any of my father's
work-- which is outside of physics, but pertains deeply]
Einstein's moral clarity, his insistence that we should accept nothing less
than a theory that gives a completely coherent account of individual phenomena,
cannot be followed unless we reject almost all contemporary theoretical physics
as insufficient.
So is it possible to follow the path of Einstein? To do so, you
cannot be a crank; you must be a well-trained physicist, literate in current
theories and aware of their limitations. And you must insist on absolute clarity
in your own work, rather than follow any fad or popular direction. Given the
pressures of competition for academic positions, to follow Einstein's path is to
risk the price that he paid: unemployment in spite of abundant talent and skill
at the craft of theoretical physics.
... Let us be frank and admit that most of us have neither the
courage nor the patience to emulate Einstein. We should instead honor Einstein
by asking whether we can do anything to ensure that in the future, those
who do follow Einstein's path, who approach science as uncompromisingly as he
did, have less risk of unemployment... and marginalization... of the sort
he suffered. If we can do this, if we can make the path easier for those few who
do follow him, we may make possible a revolution in science that even Einstein
failed to achieve."
This article grabbed me because I believe that my father's work
(collectively "Rosennean Complexity Theory") is the basis for that revolution.
What Einstein was trying to do, and what he kept trying to do, was look at the
relationships between things, but he never formalized that aspect fully enough
for it to sink in, either in Physics or in science in general. But what does
"relativity" mean? He was saying that where things are in relation to other
things (i.e.; the organization) has a significant causal impact that cannot
be ignored if we really want to know why things happen in the universe the way
they do. He had the "unified" theory he had been searching for in his
hands already but he didn't have quite enough time to put all the
pieces together before he died.
My father often mused that Einstein's work made it possible for him
to see the subtle flaws at the bottom of physics far more clearly, because
it stripped away so many of the larger flaws in Newtonian mechanics. I
personally believe that the reason Einstein was stymied in his drive for a
unified theory was due to his lack of experience with biology. Biological
systems are far more complex than atoms, and it is precisely that
complexity which is not addressed by physics. But physicists rarely venture
into biology, as can be seen by some of the things the writer of this article
says. To reiterate: Lee Smolin wrote, "So is it possible to follow the path
of Einstein? To do so, you cannot be a crank; you must be a well-trained
physicist, literate in current theories and aware of their limitations..."
Do you suppose he'll react with horror over the fact that Robert Rosen was a
biologist? What's in a label like that, anyway? Isn't it all part of the same
effort?
I'll have to try and get in touch with him,
methinks.....
Judith
|