A Graphic Novel Review: LOGICOMIX

A mind all logic is like a knife all blade - Rabindranath Tagore

I never read Graphic Novels, although I did thoroughly enjoy the first couple volumes of Conan. But the more I read in this medium, the more I understand just how effective they are in entertaining, informing, and keeping my attention. By accident, I walked past the Graphic Novel section at Barnes & Noble and my eye briefly scanned a black book with a silver title and a somewhat interesting image. It was called "LOGICOMIX: an epic search for truth”, co-written by Apostolos Doxiadis (a mathematician from Columbia University) and Christos H. Papadimitriou (professor of computer science at Berkley), illustrated by Papadatos and DiDonna (if that matters, since I don’t know many Graphic Artists).

LOGICOMIX gives us a very loose biography of the great logician, mathematician, social activist, and philosopher Sir Bertrand Russell, and his interactions with Gottlob Frege (logician and philosopher), George Cantor (creator of set theory), Ludwig Wittgenstein (genius philosopher), Alfred North Whitehead (mathematician and philosopher), Kurt Godel (mathematician and philosopher), David Hilbert (genius German mathematician: tried to base all math on axioms), and Henri Poincare (genius French mathematician: tried to base math on intuition).

We watch the cloistered Russell as a child growing up under the dictatorship of his grandmother (his grandfather John Russell was Prime Minister of England before his death). Before his grandfather’s death, Russell snuck away from the suffocating eye of his grandmother and found a paradise of books in John Russell’s library, some of which were good to read, and others forbidden. Haunted by strange sounds in the night, Russell’s imagination was plagued by thoughts of ghosts and monsters. But as he grew in stature and wisdom, he broke away from the shackles of superstition and his slave-master, the grandmother. Throughout his life, Russell would be afflicted with a paranoia about mental illness and insanity, which the study of logic doesn’t help to cure.

Russell became obsessed with finding out how he could get certain knowledge about the world. For a crucial part of his life, he thought he found an answer in the study of mathematics and logic. As a philosophy major, I found this part the most interesting. The later years of the 19th century up until the second world war were filled with mathematical and philosophical geniuses that were all arguing about one central thing. What exactly is mathematics? Are numbers real? What is the best theory to explain mathematics? What justifies our axioms of mathematics? How do we prove our axioms? All of this gets very complex very quickly, so perhaps I can pinpoint one issue and how it progressed.

Enter George Cantor, inventor of set theory, a proposed way to ground mathematics, a proposed theory to explain mathematics. The year is 1873, and Bertrand Russell would have been a year old. Very briefly, the theory said that understanding mathematics means understanding sets, and sets (very briefly) are collections, collections of anything and everything, from objects to people to insects to books to numbers themselves. In 1893, Frege used set theory to invent first-order predicate logic, which supplements Aristotle’s logic. For example, instead of saying “Socrates was a Man”, Frege would say: “There exists an X such that X is a man and X is Socrates.” There’s a reason for that but I won’t get into it for spacial reasons.

But then Russell comes along and ruins everything with his paradox. Russell asks: “If there are sets, can’t there be sets of sets?” Example: I can have the set of insects and the set of animals, but can’t I also have the set of all the sets of animals and insects? Seems innocent enough. What if we go further? Consider: the set of humans isn’t a human: it’s a set. Simple. But this is a kind of set. What kind of set? The kind of set that doesn’t include itself. So, Russell asks: can’t there be a set of ‘these kinds of sets’: namely, the sets of all those sets that don’t include themselves? There’s the paradox! If there is such a set, then it’s not a member of itself; but if it’s not a member of itself, it IS a member of itself. Everything fell like a house of cards. This is just one out of a sea of stories LOGICOMIX documents in a clear, entertaining, and informative way.

You’ll see the story of Russell’s landmark book Principia Mathematica, the attempt to base mathematics on logic, to make mathematics an extension of logic. There is the child prodigy Kurt Godel who was one of the few to read all three volumes of The Principia from cover to cover, understand everything, discover the few axioms that Russell takes for granted, and come up with his Incompleteness Theorem, which does to The Principia what Russell’s paradox did to Frege’s set theory. All of this and a lot more.

There’s three main story lines.The overarching story represents the authors trying to get an expert consult up to speed because of a case of writer’s block. The authors and the consult banter back and forth about why they should even write this in the first place, whether anyone will want to read it, or whether they got a view of Russell’s correct, or whether this whole thing is a waste of time. The first half of the novel is retrospect, tracking their steps up to the present, seeing if they can turn something as abstruse as logic and mathematics into something somewhat engaging.

In the second story line, we switch back and forth between the real time of the authors and the imagined time of a speech Russell is giving to an audience of world war II-era pacifists on the importance of logic in social and political affairs. Finally, in the third story line, the speech sets up the imaginary reminiscence of his childhood, an autobiography Russell tells the audience, where we see him grow up from a child to the adult he now is. Though some of the character’s personalities were exaggerated with poetic license, I saw how the Graphic Novel is an excellent medium, though the bubbly text is hard on the eyes at times. What the authors lack in substance throughout the book, they make up for in an appendix, providing brief bios of all the main players and brief blurbs on the major philosophies involved.

Great introduction to Christian Mysticism!

“In the middle of the night when all things were in a quiet silence, there was spoken to me a hidden word. It came like a thief by stealth.” Meister Eckhart in a four-sermon cycle, quoting the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 18, verses 14 to 15.

“The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism”, edited by Bernard McGinn, is a thick anthology of excerpts gleaned from a huge variety of Christian mystics. McGinn is the Naomi Shenstone Donnelly Professor Emeritus at the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, and he does a masterful job writing introductions to all the major sections of the book. In the main introduction, McGinn defines Christian mysticism (and mysticism generally) and outlines the map that details his voyage through this vast ocean of tradition.

I had no idea that Christian Mysticism was so prevalent, or that its subject matter was so attractive, or so rich in wisdom, until I perused this book! The book is divided into 3 main parts. Part 1 deals with the Foundations of Mystical Practice, which contains 5 sections (Biblical Interpretation, Ascetism, etc . . ) Part 2 deals with the Aspects of Mystical Consciousness (Love and Knowledge, Positive and Negative ways to God, Encountering Christ). Part 3 deals with Implications of the Mystical Life (Contemplation and Action, Mysticism and Heresy). McGinn chooses mystics that you’ve probably never heard of (I sure hadn’t!): Francis De Sales, John Ruusbroec, Catherine of Siena, John Tauler, Therese of Lisieux, Maximus the Confessor, Nicholas of Cusa, etc. And we have works and writings that I didn’t have a clue about: The Spiritual Canticle, The Little Book of Enlightenment, Homily, Story of a Soul, The Fire of Love, Vision and Rapture, Spiritual Friendship, The Mind’s Journey into God, The Ladder of Perfection, The Way of the Pilgrim, The Clock of Wisdom, and so much more!

In the introduction, we find that the main ingredient (according to McGinn) in Christian mysticism is self-transformation, which is fueled by a particular understanding of Man, God, and the relation between the two. We tend to think mysticism is reserved for the few: that it is primarily an Augustine hearing the voice of an angel, or Aquinas seeing Jesus come down from the crucifix, or some extraordinary transformation of consciousness, leading you do see the Heavenly Hosts, like Elijah or John, the granting of a vision, or stuff along those lines. From a psychological point of view, the mystics penetrated into the deepest caverns of the heart, of the human condition, of human nature; and reading them illuminates some of that mystery.

But there is a use of the word in Greek that McGinn wants us to notice: this use means ‘hidden’. This use of the word referred to the hidden meaning of things, of Scripture, of the surface: there is the literal meaning and then there is the hidden one, the mystical one, the one that gives dogged seekers a clue to the meaning of life, of God, Man, how to attain God, how to truly live, what life is all about, what the Christian life was all about. Mediating on this hidden meaning meant receiving meaning: the Spirit would grant the one who yearns and desires in this medium an understanding of divine things that the rational and discursive intellect cannot on its own grasp. The Scripture is the gift, cloaked in a literal form; but meditation on the shell leads the Spirit to introduce us to the core, the hidden realm, the secret kingdom, or what St. Teresa of Avila called ‘the Interior Castle’.

We need to understand something very clearly, though. Traditionally, this wasn’t the vocation of the few. Of course, visions are the prospect of the few; but mystics wouldn’t equate visions with the elemental core of mysticism. Christian mysticism was the calling of all who are Christians, all who are supposed to crave God, who yearn after Him, who desire to know Him. It is a journey to God, a path, an individual path, a path peculiar to the individual, a path we need to travel. Our road-map is the Scripture and our guides are the mystics; they tell us what they saw, what they’ve learned - and the elements in our own mystical journey are all the factors that we encounter in our experience, and how all those millions of factors affect our consciousness, and lead us to the Scriptures again, leading us again to dig and dig and travel, to run the race, to plumb the abyss, to shine more light on the cave of the Self, to climb the ladder higher and higher.

There is no point going on a journey somewhere if we don’t know where we’re going. So, why go on the mystical journey? According to all the mystics, and Scripture, we go on the mystical journey to meet God, to see Him, to be in union with Him, to merge with Him, to be one with Him, to be granted a vision of Him, to be touched by Him, to experience Him: this is the meaning of life, as the meaning of the seed is to sprout out of the ground, and blossom, stretched toward the life-giving sun.

McGinn notes that it is fascinating to study the language of the mystics. God is not part of a scientific theory, and He is not appropriately in what Wittgenstein would have called the scientific language-game. As the mystics have gotten closer and closer to God, their language becomes more and more personal, more interpersonal, and those kinds of metaphors abound, which is probably why they abound in Scripture.

The author also lays particular emphasis on mysticism being less of an experience and more of a renewed state of consciousness. Experience might mislead, because we tend to think of sensations, perceptions, etc. But mysticism is supposed to actually create new categories of understanding in the mind, and these categories actually make an effect on the private consciousness, an effect that puts one in touch with a new reality, a reality that can’t be directly talked about, referred to in language, defined clearly, a reality that can only be hinted at in the arts, poetry, metaphor, literature, music, painting, or film.

Think of the mystical endeavor like any endeavor. To swim across the English Channel, we’ll need to train our muscles and our cardiovascular system, eat right, diet, etc. To make a voyage around the world, we’ll need supplies, maps, knowledge of the sea, knowledge of ships, a crew, a captain, food, etc. The mystical voyage or journey is the same, and this why a lot of mystics convey the vital importance of the Christian disciplines, of silence, fasting, prayer, meditation, ritual, study, Christian virtues, taming the passions. A paradox: in the literature, the mystics seem to be the ones most filled with joy. Thus, a primary ingredient in mysticism is the proper transformation of the Self, and the journey prepares for this like rain prepares for the sprouting of the flower, and of course, the Spirit is the one who brings the rain.

Bernard McGinn has compiled a great amount of writings from a great amount of mystics. His introductions are an educational experience, and the book as a whole is a great place to begin to understand the Christian mystical tradition.

Slide Guitar vs. Guitar Solo

There was time a time when country music was a four letter word for me. If I was accused of listening to anything with a slide guitar and bad lyrics I was ready to punch that redneck in the mouth. As far as music was concerned my tastes could be summed up with a quote from Jack Black's School of Rock "It doesn't matter if it is good, it only matters if it rocks!"

I owe my love for classic rock and drum and guitar solos to my dad. Some of my fondest memories growing up was when I happened to be riding with him and we would listen to the classic rock station. Anything from AC/DC to Deep Purple would send him into a trance. He would put his hands through the steering wheel and keep time on the dashboard. He never missed a beat.

But, as I got older, my tastes began to change some. I began to look forward to, not the guitar solo but a particular line of the song. This was a monumental change for me. This became a problem, if anyone is a serious student of classic rock, you know that its not necessarily Wordsworth penning those lyrics. A lot of times it is drug induced free association. Don't get me wrong, I like to drop acid and shoot heroin with the best of them, but when it comes to poetry I am looking for something a little deeper.

It began with Johnny Cash. I was introduced to his concert at Folsom Prison. I listened to his lyrics and his rebelliousness. This guy seemed to embody the emotion of the guitar solo. It was slippery slope from there, Willie Nelson was the gateway to Kris Kristofferson, Waylon Jennings and George Jones. Slowly, I began to discover contemporary bands that claimed these men as influences and my music catalog would never be the same. Bands like Wilco, My Morning Jacket. Singer songwriters such as, Ryan Adams and M.Ward.

But, what is it about these guys? For me, I believe it is there ability to tell a story. I love a good story. I'll take it from anywhere in any form. A friend, Newspaper, Novel or Short. What I was given when I discovered this music was morality, decisions, family problems or just plain murder. There is a certain amount of wisdom that these guys impart to the listener.

What do you do when a girl breaks your heart? Whiskey

There is something profound here.

Brief thoughts on Anger

When angry, count to four. When very angry, swear. - Mark Twain

I’ve been thinking about the emotion called anger, usually leading to the desire for revenge for a perceived injustice. This blog is just sort of haphazard collection of random thoughts on the psychology of it. It is one of the seven deadly sins. What makes us insult, gossip or complain about someone else? Perhaps we are insulted first. But suppose we don’t want to confront the person. We give them the ‘silent treatment’. We choose not to talk to them. We said something and now the person has avoided us, avoided looking at us, or won’t talk to us. This is annoying. What have we said? Why do people put others down? That is interesting. We make the conscious decision to demean someone. We talk about someone behind their back? Is this a catharsis? Does it make us feel better or worse? We’ll blackmail and manipulate. Example: we’ll feign being hurt to get the other person to feel bad or show compassion. We con another; we’ll steal something from the person that angered us. We’ll deliberately say things ‘under out breath’, so the other will hear the grumblings and yet we retain plausible deniability.

What is most interesting is this: haven’t we noticed that some will aggravate ‘in order to’ entice anger - and when there is anger, we then patronize. We say: calm down, I was just joking. This is designed to make the other not only feel angry (unpleasant) but petulant. This gives the manipulator the foothold to point out how they’re acting like a child, thus provoking more anger. Also, there’s the person who knowingly says or brings up something that will provoke others besides himself: the one who stirs the pot. What drives this person? Or suppose we find out that someone’s wits aren’t as sharp as another, who excels at insult. The only weapon may be to fake cry. And what a weapon!

Think about the tactic we use when we apologize! Isn’t there a way we can say we’re sorry and use it as a weapon? We’ll say it too much: or, we’ll say it to make the other feel like they’re letting an issue linger too long, which gives us the opportunity to patronize them on the art of ‘letting go of the subject’, or ‘dropping the subject’. We’ll wrong someone knowingly and when anger is provoked, we use the word ‘sorry’ like a panacea. Any further discussion is evidence that the other ‘won’t drop it’. After all, if the person is sorry, they’re sorry, and that’s the end of it. How about the nit-picker, the perfectionist, the one it is impossible to please? Or - even more interesting: the slacker whose sloth is on purpose, and is designed to get a rise out of the criticizer!

Or what about the person who is scolded - rightly - for laziness? This person can then begin to help too much to prove how their previous sloth was justified. This then begs the patronizing question: do you want my help or not? Then there’s the evasive one: the one who is not confrontational and yet puts a burden on everyone around her - she will not argue with you, nor confront you, nor cause any conflict. The fight will happen and instead of settling it will ‘admit you’re right’: not because you are right, but because they know that’ll hopefully make you feel to be a ‘know-it-all’, which sets up the perfect opportunity for the ‘victim’ to lecture you about whatever it is the fight or issue was about.

There’s the more direct kind of anger: picking on others, being a bully, abusing, threatening, slamming or throwing things around, road rage, yelling, ignoring. Seneca - stoic philosopher - thought rage a temporary madness. That’s why the Romans always beat the Germans: the Germans were mad, the Romans tactful. Aristotle saw some utility in it: it prompts some to answer an injustice. Kant thought someone who was never angry was ‘unmanly’, as did Hume.

The Classical Music of Today

I have always had a private passion for movie scores, the background music in a movie, today’s classical music. If done properly, it is absolutely arresting. Some scores will always be remembered with the movie and can’t be appreciated without the movie. This depends, though. In my case, the ‘Farewell Duet’ in the movie Edward Scissorhands is just breathtaking. In this case, I make no associations between the music and the movie, since I discovered the music first.

I feel things that no other kind of music can arouse: the xylophone, the high accompanying chorus, the staccato strings, the rising and falling of the central theme. I feel like I’m being carried up the crest of a tidal wave and gently sat down on the shore of my own private island, and awaiting me is the Fountain of Youth or that Something I’ve been searching for my entire life, that Well at the World’s End, beyond the frontier, that Undiscovered Country. It starts off quiet, slow, brooding, lifted and carried by the horns, and the flutes are its laurels, sprinkled with the chorus, and then it settles back down, only to be whisked away again, as if on a magic carpet out of an Arabian desert of the spirit, and onto the roof of some enchanted castle. More importantly, I feel like the old ache I’ve felt, a pain (the pain we hide) is - for only a moment - touched by an invisible hand, and I taste the beginning of what it means for ‘every tear to be wiped away’.

There is also the movie Conan: The Barbarian. Again, the music! Set aside the movie for a moment. The music! It was conducted by the great Basil Poledouris. Listen to the ‘Anvil of Crom’! The drum beats rhythmically, the bard’s stirring prologue, and then that HORN, that majestic HORN! I wish with Nietzsche I didn’t have to write this blog, but for some angel to sing it! Then it shifts. The drums cease. A melody enters lead by the strings and carried by the horns and lifted to a peak and then descending. Oh how Dionysus is shaken and fluttered! The deep has been opened up. But it is tempered and transformed by that melody, as if to say: this steel being forged in the fire is forged for a reason, the crafting of a beautiful blade, a sword that you alone were meant to wield, to slay the monsters you alone were meant to slay.

Oh, and then Poledouris’ ‘Riders of Doom’, music that strikes like lightening in a clear sky, that overwhelms like an avalanche. The floodgates of the spirit of the muse are opened! The high horn is the switch! The chorus! Oh, the chorus! Ancient Greek Tragedy! Womb of music! Odin! Zeus! Sophocles! The wrath of Achilles! War! Fury! Wrath! The symbols clash! The drums are beaten! I stand before the music like one standing before an overpowering might: awe, tears, fear, terror, tremendous terror! I think of the titanic forces of the spirit and music releases it like a ferocious lion out of a cage. I feel energy, a life-force, like I’m merging with a great power, a muse, and I’m riding it like a Pegasus - I’m lead to the gates of Hades and I soar over the dead like a glider swoops down over fields of corn in wide open spaces! Passion! Passion! Words are like broken toys! Just listen! Whereof I cannot speak I must remain silent.

Or, how about Alan Silvestri’s ‘No Words’, which dovetails into “Small Moves”, from the movie Contact? The orbed electric piano hovers over an abyss of unspeakable beauty, and the music echos our anticipation; we rise and rise as if coming up over the edge of a huge cliff, and we see it! No pretension. It is not loud: just the soothing tune of a tender piano. This streams gently over to “Small Moves”. The music evokes a void. It warms us like a blanket and the wonder is so engulfing we just gaze. The uninterrupted beginning is broken by a delicious splash of strings. Then it stops: the piano enters like a woman gracefully walking on a river. All of the music comes together like a flock of seagulls. We are on the beach of our consciousness, looking out onto the ocean we shall all one day have to cross, and one day! - cross over into . . . Well, you know.

Einstein and Relativity: Part 2

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity. - Albert Einstein

Now we come to the much more interesting - yet challenging - Special Theory of Relativity (STR). Lets focus on the first point we should keep in mind.

Imagine a juggler on a pier (Adam), and imagine another juggler in a boat traveling 5 mph away from the pier (David). Suppose they are both juggling eggs. We thus have two frames of reference: the one on the pier and the one on the boat. What is interesting is this: ‘relative’ to both frames of reference, Adam and David’s eggs are moving in the same way. Even though the boat is ‘moving’ and the pier is ‘stationary’, both Adam and David can both say they are stationary. Why? Because Adam and David are in different frames of reference. And the laws of physics stay the same in any and every moving frame of reference.

Look at it this way. You’re driving down a superhighway going 80 mph. You look out the window as the asphalt and the trees race by. But then your attention shifts to inside the car: everything seems to be at rest relative to inside the car. Suppose you have a quarter and you drop it in your lap. Relative to the frame of reference ‘outside’ the car, the quarter actually traveled 80 mph! But relative to the frame of reference ‘inside’ the car, the quarter didn’t go anywhere - it just gently landed on your lap. But if you roll down the window and put the quarter an inch outside the window, it doesn’t any longer fall straight down (as it is did on your lap, and as it would do if it was just an inch inside the window): it is sucked outside the car, careening along the side of the road.

All of this is really cool, and it’s been known since Galileo. But Einstein asked a very simple question: how does ‘light’ play into all this? Remember, that light travels 186,000 miles per second! Lets put Adam and David in a rocket ship. Suppose Adam raced along at 60% the speed of light; and David sped along at 90% the speed of light. According to Einstein, both Adam and David would still measure light passing by them at a constant rate of 186,000 milers per second! No matter how fast you go (and even if you're standing still), light goes by you at the same speed. Isn’t that strange? How is this possible?

Lets look at this more closely. What is speed, exactly? It’s a measure of the amount of distance you cover in a certain time. Since the speed of light is constant, something else has got to give, something else has got to change. And what is it that has to change? TIME! Time, according to Einstein, begins to actually change. A paradox is this: if Adam is traveling in his rocket ship 80% the speed of light, and David is traveling in his rocket ship 50% the speed of light, the time for Adam and David would be different!

To test this groundbreaking hypothesis, Einstein began asking questions about something called ‘simultaneity’. What does it mean for two events to happen at the same time? Can two events happen at the same time for David, and yet those exact same two events NOT happen at the same time for Adam? Yes! Einstein concocted a really cool thought-experiment that is now very famous. Lets explore it!

In our minds, lets imagine a railroad track with two poles erected on one side (an equal distance away: lets say 20 feet away from each other), and another pole placed at their midpoint. Suppose Adam stands at the midpoint with what is called a ‘right-angle mirror’. This mirror allows Adam to see both the left and the right poles at the same time (without having to turn his head!). Next, imagine that a bolt of lightening strikes both of the poles at the same time, and Adam is able to see this using his handy-dandy right-angle mirror. To Adam, the light (from the lightening) travels toward him over the same distance (he is at the midpoint) at the same speed (185,000 miles per second). So far so good.

But now Einstein wants us to focus on David, who is coming down our railroad track on a train. Einstein asks: how would David experience the bolt of lightening hitting the two poles? Does the lightening hit both the poles at the same time to David, like they did with Adam? Hanging out of the train window, David is also armed with his handy-dandy right-angle mirror. As the train passes by the midpoint (where he can wave to Adam who is on the ground), David sees the bolt of lightening hit the pole he is moving toward first (pole A), and then he sees the bolt hit the pole he moving away from (pole B). Why? According to Einstein, it’s a matter of distance - the light coming from A doesn’t have to travel as far as the light coming from B: the train is moving toward A!

Einstein picks the point of view of David who is on the train. Remember, everything is relative to a frame of reference. To Adam, he is stationary and the train is moving past him. But to David, he is stationary and the poles are moving past him. So, Einstein ponders: the lightening would have needed to strike A first and then B (to David) ‘in order that’ Adam see the lightening strike A and B at the same time. This allows the light time to catch up to Adam in time, in time for Adam to see the poles struck at the same time.

To Adam’s frame of reference, the poles WERE struck at the same time; to David’s frame of reference, the poles WERE NOT struck at the same time. But to Einstein, there is no privileged frame of reference! And therefore Einstein concluded: TIME IS RELATIVE (play the soundtrack from 2001: A Space Odyssey in the background!).

Here we come full circle. According to STR, the faster you move, the slower time moves. So what follows! The faster your movement (the closer you got to the speed of light), the slower your clock would tick. But remember what Einstein said in his General Theory of Relativity! Space and Time aren’t two separate realities: there’s just one - space/time. Therefore, not only would time go slower (in your frame of reference), you would actually begin to SHRINK, relative to an observer outside your frame of reference.

All this begs the most fascinating question in the theory: what exactly would occur, what would it be like, to ride a beam of light? This is impossible - at the speed of light, there is no length! You’d shrink to nothing, and time itself stops ‘flowing’ (but don't tell that to Captain Kirk!).

Einstein’s fame exploded when he applied STR to Mass and Energy: E=MC2. So, what does that mean? If you take any object, there is contained in that object ‘energy’. That ‘Energy’ is equal (=) to that object’s Mass multiplied by the speed of light ‘squared’ - that’s a lot of Energy! After all, the Energy that explodes from an Atomic bomb is just the energy exploding from one teeny tiny atom! And, thus, if Mass contains Energy, then Energy has Mass! For example: this means the Earth is struck by 4 and 1/2 ‘pounds’ of sunlight every second!

Summary: Einstein was a beast!

Einstein and Relativity: Part 1

“Imagination is more important than Knowledge.” Albert Einstein.

Have you ever wondered what the General Theory of Relativity is? In this blog, I'm going to put all this prolixity in my own words. Essentially, it is a theory about gravity. For a long time (and thanks to Newton), people thought of gravity as a force. We toss up a ball, it reaches an apex, and then it seems like some force pulls it back down to us. A force made the apple hit Newton on the head. A force keeps us on the ground so we don’t float out into space.

Think of the orbit of the moon around the world, or any moon, or any orbit for that matter. Suppose you tied a 5-foot rope to a ball and then set the ball down beside you: there the ball would sit, with the rope dangling from your hand, and yet (remember) connected to the ball. Suppose further that you pick the ball up using the rope and start to rotate faster and faster. The ball would begin to ‘orbit’ around you. In this analogy, gravity is the rope. Newton would say: the earth’s gravity is greater than the moon’s, and that’s why the moon orbits the earth - in the spirit of Jimmy Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life, the Earth through a lasso around the moon!

Or, do you remember the ride at the Roller-Coaster Theme Park that spun around at a high speed? We would press our backs up against a mat around the perimeter of the ride, and as the the ride would spin faster and faster we would feel more and more pressure up against the wall. Newton would also like this analogy. That’s why everything on Earth stays on the ground: the Earth is spinning very fast. Airplanes actually ride gravity like a surfer catches a wave: they don’t actually defy gravity, but use it, harness it, to become airborne.

Enter Albert Einstein. Einstein changed everything. For instance, up until Newton, everyone thought of Space and Time as two distinct realities. Space was understood using the metaphor of a spatial container (Newton) or particular points on a graph (Leibniz). Time was understood using the metaphor of already existing dominos, and time’s ‘flow‘ was understood using the metaphor of the point during which the domino falls and hits the one in front of it.

But not Einstein. According to him, there aren’t anymore two distinct realities: Space and Time - there is just one: space/time. And space/time should be understood using the metaphor of a fabric, with space and time interwoven together. Think of a trampoline. If you stand in the center, there’s a big hollow there. Now, think of our solar system. The sun is in the center of a huge, space/time fabric that is like the fabric of a trampoline, making a huge hollow. The reason why the planets revolve around the sun is because they’re making revolutions along the space/time fabric ‘because of’ the hollow.

Every single object - ants, trees, you, me, cell phones, Obama, mites, spiders - make tiny hollows or dents in the fabric of space/time! Everything stays on the Earth because the Earth makes the biggest dent in space/time compared to anything else on Earth, and the dent is big enough to do this.

Lets go little further in understanding something else. If the metaphor of a fabric is accurate (and it probably is - it’s had a near perfect history of predictive value), something else is possible: wormholes. If Einstein’s theory is right, there are dents in this fabric everywhere; but what if a part of the fabric at one end ‘folds over’ and meets the ‘underside’ of another part of the same fabric? And what if at that point of mutual contact, we could travel - instantaneously - to another part of space/time literally billions of light years away? There would be paradoxes, and I’ll get into those in more depth later. But quickly: the moment you arrived there - according to the theory - everyone you knew would have been dead for a while. And yet: if you went back through a second later, you would have aged a second, and perhaps everyone else would have aged 50 years. So, what to you took a second, took for them 50 years. But this gets into the Special Theory of Relativity, which is a little harder to understand, but I’ll get to it in the next blog!