Einstein's credibility

At age 37, Albert Einstein put the finishing touches on General Relativity. That accomplishment, combined with Special Relativity, would have been reason to spend the rest of his life on a Greek Island drinking Ouzo and playing badminton.

At age 37, Albert Einstein put the finishing touches on General Relativity. That accomplishment, combined with Special Relativity, would have been reason to spend the rest of his life on a Greek Island drinking Ouzo and playing badminton. Einstein, however, spent his last years searching for a grand unification theory that would combine the opposing realms of relativity theory and quantum mechanics into a single theory of everything.

Einstein conceded the power of quantum mechanics, and who couldn't? Few realms of modern technology have not been touched by what was gleaned from the new understanding of the world of the quantum. That didn't mean he liked the theory, which compared to the elegance of Relativity theory can seem as random as a ten-story pinball machine.

In fact, Einstein tried many times to fight the notion that a particle didn't have a precise position or velocity until it was tested. "God doesn't play dice" was his famous response, and he hoped to prove that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle wasn't a reflection of reality, but a fudge which masks our own testing limitations.

Now, there are two ways Einstein's colleagues could have responded to this. They could deal with the arguments on their own merits, considering the logic of them to determine if the criticism was valid. Or, they could recognize that Einstein, as the father of Relativity theory, had a certain vested interest in defending it, and thus discount the arguments on the basis of Einsteinian bias.

Clearly, science favors the former, because the goal of the scientific process is to determine what is. The motivations of the speaker doesn't matter the slightest bit, because they don't make his arguments any more or less right.

If a doctor discovered the cure for cancer, would it matter that he worked for Pfizer? If someone posts an article in the Wall Street Journal defending the Central American Free Trade Area, does the fact that he is an employee of the World Bank affect the truth of his argument?

I am, as of May 23rd, a Microsoft employee (as I explained before, and is noted in my bio). That simple fact doesn't have anything to do with whether what I say is right or wrong.

Please try to remember that.