Antenna Guru

RF is not 'black magic' – It's Synthesis, Optimization, Analysis and Realization.

The Myth of Matter, p. 8

After Einstein

Some people say –perhaps rightly– Einstein didn’t really invent any new theories at all. It’s a fact that other people were working on parts of the same ideas that Einstein put together in his four miracle papers. This complaint reminds me of the Hans Christian Andersen story, “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” On one level, like with Einstein’s work, Hans Christian Andersen’s story was based on a German version of a story that was originally published by a 14th century Spanish author.[1] Did Andersen plagiarize the fairy tale, or did he recast and improve it? (In the original, there was no innocent child calling out the truth of the naked emperor; that was due to Andersen’s creative input alone.)

On another level, Albert Einstein was like Andersen’s child calling out the naked truth. There was no such thing (necessarily) as ‘luminiferous ether’. Nor was there any such thing (fundamentally) as indestructible matter, atomic or otherwise.

Now to get back to the theory of matter and energy, let us spend some time thinking (naively) about their relationship, as proposed by Einstein. Our everyday experience is that we can release energy by converting one type of matter, say gasoline, air and a spark, to another type of matter, like smog, and use some of that energy to annoy other people with powerful low-frequency sound vibrations coming out of the trunks of our cars. But if you could stand it long enough, you would be able to follow that car, collect all the smog, weigh it, and you would find the mass of smog was precisely equal to the combined masses of the gasoline and air wasted by the mobile “music lover” as they converted chemical energy into bad karma. Mass, a.k.a. ‘matter’, would have been preserved; energy would have been preserved. Of course, the usefulness and sanity of having a car with a full tank of gas would be converted into the useless insanity of, …(Hey! Turn down that noise! What? Why you little…! The thermodynamic term for that is ‘entropy’.) … but physically, matter would still be matter and energy would still be energy.

But doesn’t Einstein’s theory propose that it could be possible to rip all that useless, blinking, thumping hardware out of the offender’s car and completely vaporize it into a blinding flash of pure energy – the matter being totally eliminated – that could (in naive theory) be used for constructive purposes (Just think of it next time you are out driving — why, the possibilities are endless!)? The answer is a qualified, patronizing, “Yes,” and the qualification is, “it may be theoretically, but not practically, possible.”[2]

[1] Don Juan Manuel, Tales of Count Lucanor, 1335

[2] Max Jammer, Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy, Princeton University Press, 2000

2 responses to “The Myth of Matter, p. 8

  1. jarrodhart May 7, 2012 at 3:25 AM

    I think our culture likes heroes or at least prefers a simple explanation for how the world works which leads them to simplify ‘who discovered what’. The steam engine comes to mind, it was not invented by James Watt, or any other man, it evolved through many small improvements, some of which were pure serendipity; we like to think, perhaps because we all hope to make big contributions ourselves someday, that pure brain-power and sweat can create a quantum leap in progress.
    On the other hand, while many of Shakespeare’s plays were retellings, you still have to credit him with his choice of words; likewise with the so-called breakthroughs of Einstein, while they may have been ‘ripe’, credit goes to him for plucking the fruit rather than going down to the pub.
    Also, history loves a character and constantly retells the stories of old in ways to please its modern day audience – it is easy to write about Einstein, he has critical mass, and while I’d say Maxwell’s wave equations where a much bigger step in our progress, they are much harder to market that atom bombs and time travelling twins!

    • antennaguru May 7, 2012 at 9:35 AM

      Thanks, jarrodhart, for taking the time. Your comment about hope resonates well… Along the same line of ‘small’ improvements, I think I long ago learned that Maxwell’s contribution was to fix up the work of Faraday, et al., while it was Heaviside who in turn fixed up Maxwell’s inscrutable notation. As a fellow technologist (albeit in a different branch than you), I think you are right about Maxwell’s contribution to our everyday lives (and livelihoods!). Einstein’s miracle year, on the other hand, was more evocative of the mystical, and that is what I want to try to explore in the future. Hope you’ll continue to observe astutely! m.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Crying in the Wilderness

So they said to him, “Who are you? We need an answer! What do you have to say for yourself?”

%d bloggers like this: