Early Thoughts on Einstein's Relativity Theory

In an effort to understand Einstein's relativity theory, I am making the effort to understand what exactly Einstein proposed in his own words. Einstein's publication, Relativity" The Special and General Theory, is meant for as Einstein stated, "those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus". I figure this is a good way to learn the theory.

Slowing I am making my way through Einstein's relativity. Thus far, I can understand why people like Stark would have viewed relativity in a negative light. Physics until Einstein's relativity theory was based on absolute truths. Something was either right or wrong. Everything could be quantifiable. If it could not be quantifiable it was not science (I may be generalizing here). Einstein's relativity certainly called into question this view of science.

Reactions by physicists who opposed relativity are understandable. Although only about one third of the way through the book, I fail to understand where relativity and science meet. To me relativity sounds more like a philosophy other than a branch of science. Some points I can understand in Einstein's argument. For instance, the only way to determine if something is simultaneous is to observe it. I cannot understand thus far how relativity fits into a scientific context. Einstein talks about the relativity of the conception of distance. Basically, you can stand in a train and measure the length of the train and get a fairly accurate measurement of the train's length. Yet, according to Einstein if you observe the train from the embankment, you will get a totally different measurement due to differing velocities and points of view. I don't think I fully understand everything here, but the main point I want to make is this, in a scientific setting most experiments are controlled, so the absolute length and size of particles/materials in the experiment should be known. There is no need to have to apply Einstein's relativity to understand the size of whatever is being used in the experiment.

After saying all that, maybe Einstein's whole point of the relativity theory was that particles of atoms are so small that the traditional means of observation and measurement are not sufficient and physicists need to employ the relativity principles to accurately access the world of subatomic particles. Which, if true, means the entire foundation of subatomic physics at the time would be totally of base. Hopefully as I review some of the concepts and read further some of this will clear itself up.

At Least It's Not a Nuclear Weapon....

I found this interesting after writing about why scientists after WWI did not impose a moratorium on scientific research for military purposes. Obviously today a great deal of effort goes into controlling and preventing countries from acquiring the science, materials and expertise needed to assemble a nuclear weapon. What happens when "conventional" weapons become just as destructive as nuclear weapons though?

Enter Russia.

This week Russia tested the most powerful conventional weapon in history. A bomb with the capabilities for similar destruction of a nuclear weapon, but without any of the environmental side effects (ie radiation) that comes with a nuclear weapon. It even is complete with its own mushroom cloud. Basically, besides the technical aspects of the bomb, it is exactly like a nuclear weapon (minus the environmental destruction). Reading the brief article and a few others about the subject it seems there is an understanding within politicians, scientists, and military leaders that nuclear weapons are perceived as bad because of the long term environmental damage they cause. One Russian official says, "At the same time, I want to stress that the action of this weapon does not contaminate the environment, in contrast to a nuclear one". I do not know where politicians can view a nuclear weapon (this new bomb is pretty much a nuclear weapon) as a usable military weapon only because there is no long term environmental damage. Throughout history this seems to have been the case. World War II and the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo are examples of horrific actions with "conventional weapons" few people in the public know of today. Yet, everyone knows of nuclear weapons and the terror associated with them.

I just cannot comprehend how the development of a "conventional nuclear bomb" could be allowed when the development of nuclear weapons is such a hot button issue. So, if North Korea or Iran wanted to create a bomb similar to Russia's would we allow them to do so?

I don't know just really confused why a country would invest so much money (I'm assuming large sums of money were necessary) to sidestep a technicality to create a nuclear weapon. ANYWAYS, here's the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070912/wl_nm/russia_bomb_dc_5

Just Some Thoughts

After reading about the scientific community after World War 1 and participating in the subsequent class discussion, I am a little confused. I can understand why portions the scientific community had wanted to exclude German scientists from post-war activities. Science created the mechanisms of war that caused the large loss of life, poison gas, improved artillery, tanks, and aircraft. To prevent countries from rearming its military, shunning that country's scientific community makes sense. The way through which the Allied powers sought to exclude the German scientists from the international community is what I find puzzling.

During the debate of whether German scientists should be allowed to participate in the scientific community two opportunities were missed to control scientific research in military weaponry. At issue for the Allied scientists was what measures should be taken to punish the German scientists for their actions during the war, and adhering to what is generally accepted among the scientific community that research should be shared among all scientists so that more is accomplished. I am curious whether a solution allowing German scientists to remain amongst the international community and open to interact with other scientists on various projects, but were excluded from participating in any research into military technologies. Germany could still do scientific research for military purposes, but was prohibited from receiving any international research that could be used for military reasons. I am just curious as to whether such a solution was put forth.

To take it one step further, given the destruction of World War I, was there ever a major push for an international moratorium on scientific research for military purposes? In retrospect it is difficult to determine what kind of effect such a ban would have been. On the one hand the development of newer, deadlier, weapons would be minimal. Yet, at the same time categorizing what is for military reasons and what is not would be a difficult decision to make (airplanes for example are for military and commercial purposes). Would we not have airplanes if there was such a ban on scientific military research? Not to mention the difficulty of enforcement. Just an interesting point I was thinking about doing the reading and wondering if it was ever considered.