No matter how busy you may think you are, you must find time for reading, or surrender yourself to self-chosen ignorance.
My contribution to International Literacy Day. A fairly unknown book by Sir Isaac Newton, which shows that in addition to possibly be the most brilliant scientist in the history of humanity, his curiosity did not stops in Physics. From Wikipedia:
The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms is an approximately 87,000-word composition written by Sir Isaac Newton, first published posthumously in 1728 in limited supply, but since republished in mass paperback format. The work represents one of Newton’s forays into the topic of chronology, detailing the rise and history of various ancient kingdoms throughout antiquity […]
You can dive in it in HTML:
- A Short Chronicle from the first Memory of Things in Europe, to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great.
- Chap. I. Of the Chronology of the First Ages of the Greeks.
- Chap. II. Of the Empire of Egypt.
- Chap. III. Of the Assyrian Empire.
- Chap. IV. Of the two Contemporary Empires of the Babylonians and Medes.
- Chap. V. A Description of the Temple of Solomon.
- Chap. VI. Of the Empire of the Persians.
and also in other formats.
Or even buy a paperback edition from amazon:
Q:"Yep, Einstein [...] didn’t accept Quantum Mechanics at the time..." Hey ScienceIsBeauty, that's just the story you get in poorly researched pop physics books. It's the story many physicists believe, but that's because they learn their history of science from popular science, not historians. Einstein did accept QM, but not Copenhagen interpretation because it wasn't radical enough. It was Einstein who proved entanglement happened! Arthur Fine's book 'The Shaky Game' tells the story well.
Hi, thanks for your comment. Actually I’m almost sure that historians (and philosophers) did not understand Quantum Mechanics either. ;-)
The Einstein’s problem with QM was the probabilistic character of the theory (i.e. the probabilistic character of nature: “God does not play dice”), but this character is intrinsic to nature, inseparable from QM, and involves the falsation of once and for all of Classical Mechanics.
Einstein never accepted this breakdown of Determinism (and neither did with Quantum Nonlocality), with implications not only in Physics but also important philosophical consequences, and died thinking that something was missing in Quantum Mechanics so that the deterministic character of nature might be recover. Well, this has not happened, is not likely to happen, and as I said in my comment, given the enormous accumulation of empirical and theoretical evidence (remember that all Particle Physics, Quantum Electrodynamics and the Standard Model, for example, lie upon Quantum Mechanics), I’m pretty sure that Einstein would not think the same nowadays… although who knows?
I write down your recommendation and I’ll take a look, thanks.
Being patronising doesn’t make you right :-P Just as I said - you repeating a common but false story. It was Einstein who proved mathematically that QM could not be both local and deterministic - so he did accept QM & non-locality.
C’mon, being patronising (and/or sarcastic) doesn’t make you right either. It seems to me that you have skipped the Bohr–Einstein debates, or maybe you think you can still help Einstein win the debate. Well, is not the case. I recommend you this post at The Reference Frame where is explained very clearly why it is not the case.
Also, locality is ensured because the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein accepted “non-locality" (i.e. quantum entanglement) because it was impossible to dodge in the "new" theoretical framework, but he remains skeptics about the "completness" and other stuff of the quantum theory. In other words, he did not quite believe that quantum mechanics was the definitive answer to this alleged “non locality”.
I think all these drawbacks to the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, have been surpassed today, and the proof is that this view of the theory is the most widely used and accepted by the scientific community, and indeed are the other interpretations which often fall headlong into the pseudoscience.
By the way, could you kindly provide some links endorsing your arguments? Thanks.
This swirling landscape of stars is known as the North America nebula. In visible light, the region resembles North America, but in this new infrared view from NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope, the continent disappears.
Yep, you can check it out at this Wikimedia Commons page:
Via Spitzer Wallpapers (NASA)
I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don’t have to waste your time in either attacking or defending.