Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Einstein: Why Did He Wish to Become a Watchmaker?

Quzote:

"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
Albert Einstein

The way I understand his feelings, I would expect that he could have wished to become a Priest, a Philosopher, able to try and convince people to change their mentality. Why a watchmaker?

This is my first post here. Usually I am contributing at the alt.horology NG.

Appreciating your answers

I think Einstein would like to have been a watchmaker because he would be involved with something very definite, ordered, and precise. As it was, he opened up a can of worms which he was never able to reconcile; either on a social level and on the physical level.

As a watchmaker, all would have been simple and straightforward, predictable and understandable. Time would have been fixed, not relative.

Whatcha think?

~samwik

Excellent Samwick. Makes a lot of sense.

Blacknad.

Excellent samwik.

I remember that quote. From what I have read, Al actually said, "...I should have become a SHOEMAKER." Then he thought for a second and said, "No, no, make that a Watchmaker."

swisswatchguy"

"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." Albert Einstein

Assuming your quote is accurate Einstein was giving himself a lot of credit that had to be shared by a platoon of scientists. There is no solid evidence that Einstein would have made a capable watchmaker. How do you comb your hair?

jjw

Good thing you aren't a literalist jjw.

re: "...I would expect that he could have wished to ...try and convince people to change their mentality."

The "heart of mankind" didn't need changing until after his discovery of the "power of the atom," so he wouldn't opt for philosophy.... As a craftsman the secret might still be safe.

I often wonder what theories we might have come up with to explain the space-time distortion effects noticable in satellites if nobody had ever thought of relativity.

Einstein's comment about mankind not changing its way of thinking reminds me of Al Gore's point in "Inconvenient Truth;" where he states that old technology + old habits = predictable consequences, but new technology + old habits = "dramatically altered consequences."

I'm sure there must be some famous quote about how difficult it is to "change the heart of mankind."
Something along the lines of "old habits die hard."

Shock the frog,
~samwik

Samwik:
Your quote:

"The "heart of mankind" didn't need changing until after his discovery of the "power of the atom," so he wouldn't opt for philosophy.... As a craftsman the secret might still be safe."

Possibly your esteem for certain historical figures causes you to over credit your choices. Whose discovery are speaking of? Some one person that could envision the awsome power of the Atom but could not perceive the result of the breaking effort? How many dumb geniusus do you want to envision that wish to escape what not so smarts like me could see like a bill bopard. We should all rejoice that Atoms to not just continually, in sequence, do the things that those geniuses conceived.

In my later years I think we have a little too much worship of people that played a part in things that were due to the work of many. Einstein has an important place in science. Some would like to enhance that spot. Keep it in control.

While some may laud your view SAMWIK I see it as unwarranted favor for an over blown concept. Who works alone and who gets to claim the credits if they are not seeking credits?

Hiya jjw,
Sorry I took so long to respond. Holiday happiness...and dug out from El Blizzardo Diablo (Colorado).

Here's what I came up with:
Wow, I'm no expert in this area, and am just speculating based on the original question from swisswatchguy. I don't hold Einstein in such high esteem (as when I said ?...if nobody had ever thought of relativity.?). I still think he's pretty amazing, along with his wife and many others from that time; and maybe someone else would have come up with relativity, but he did.

You are very correct in pointing out that I'm equating relativity with the success of the Manhattan Project. I hadn't noticed that when writing what I did. Interestingly, (I think it was) Oppenheimer who voiced similar feelings after their success. I wonder if he might have opted to become a watchmaker also.

I do think you might be giving more credit to those ?geniuses? by asking, ?Some one person that could envision the awsome power of the Atom but could not perceive the result of the breaking effort?? -jjw
I guess I'm referring to hindsight. I mean if in the future, higher dimensional physics is used to create some awesome weapon, could we blame Ed Witten for not seeing the results of his ideas. I think it's probably also hard for people who explore the bounds of knowledge to remember what the heart of mankind can encompass.

Interesting question though: Would atomic bomb have been conceived of without relativity?
Any thoughts on this??? Maybe it's already been laid out; but as I say, I'm no expert in this area.
Heck, I sometimes wonder what different (and better?) schemes we (& Einstein too) might have come up with if Newton hadn't come up with that stupid ?gravity? law.

I'm not sure what to make of some of your last comments, but I think I'm ?in control,? as you say. I don't think Einstein was any more ?right? than Newton, but I'm still pretty amazed at what they've all added to our history. Check out some of the Darwin/OOS threads....

I don't hold these guys in reverence, but I do hold them in reference. ~Hey, cute, huh?

~Samwik

Hi samwik:

I have no doubt you are in control.
My comments are intended to be generized even when I fail to do it properly. It is really hard work to attempt to track the threads of scientific efforts that eventually emerge as some one persons apparent success, which it is, but which could not likely happen without the previous long term efforts.

jjw

samwik wrote:
"Interesting question though: Would atomic bomb have been conceived of without relativity?"

I think the answer is no. The ability to conceive of converting mass into energy seems to be wholly his to claim.

During the late 1940's early 1950's the 'Time Life' magazine had on its front cover the picture of a clock showing one minute to twelve to denote the impending neuclear holocast and how close we were to it due to the cold war and arsenal of neuclear weapons the two superpowers (USA and USSR)had. Einstein on seeing this clock at such a precarious time made his famous statement "If only I had known I should have become a watchmaker" wishing he could turn back time knowing that he had helped develop the neuclear bomb and all the potential horrors that it could bring to mankind

I have to disagree with this. If the wish for the destruction of fellow men had not already been in "heart of mankind" the discovery of the power of the atom would have been a harmless step in the progress of science.

The quote although attributed to Einstein would need to be looked at in context. It will most likely be in german and translated.

It is listed as a dubious sourced quote .. unless you have a copy of the source commenting on it is speculation.


"The solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." At least the last sentence appears to have been published in "New Statesmen" April 16, 1955 (or 1965, sources vary). New Statesmen, for those years, doesn't appear to be online yet.

Watchmen quotes it but doesn't source it.

Einstein for obvious reason has massive number of quotes attributed to him that almost certainly he did not say.



http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein lists a massive number under the unsourced list.

Swisswatchguy.
Being an inquisitive type, and having an interest in the concept of time, I took a look at alt.horology. The first thing I saw was: "I will KILL AMERICAN CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS George Bush Jr, Dick Cheney et al."

I wondered what this had to do with horology; then the obvious strick me: the poster is looking to "do time"

In an American prison?.....must be mad!

Bet that was a consolation to the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!!!

Yeah. He'd probably be pleased to learn that.

Actually the thing is and why Preearth's comment is funny.

No one historically actually wrote E=MC2 that is a modern abstraction :-)

What Einstein actually wrote in Annus_Mirabilis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_Papers)

was M = L/c2

L einstein defined as the total energy both mass and radiation in a rather wordy descriptive he says radiation "means electromagnetic radiation, or light, and mass means the ordinary Newtonian mass of a slow-moving object."

The modern extraction we call that total energy E.

So M = E/C2 is what he really meant and would have written and we do the inversion to get rid of the divid sign

so E = MC2.

So if we want to be perfectly correct Einstein never wrote E = MC2 nor did any of historic figures it probably would have been corrected to modern expressions in the 1930's or 1940's by someone publishing a paper citing the original and thats how we come to know it.

But nor did Newton write F = MA in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica)

What he wrote was F = Dp/Dt
Dp = change in momentum, Dt = change in time

The reason is the difference between weight and mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight) :-)

Remember there was no consideration of other planets how could something have a different weight in newtons time and thus his concept of weight and mass were they were identical.

So if we are going to follow Preearth's standards then I guess Newton didn't invent Newtons second law.

There is a fairly decent article a few days ago on the issue in physicsworld but amusing they didn't realize that none of the old historical figures would have ever written E=MC2 so I have doubts even on it's accuracy (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46941).

Trying to read some of these old papers is a nightmare because of what they assume as believed or true.

I can related to the quote



It's not what is written thats complicated it's what science knew and believed at the time when it was written and what the author therefore means.