Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Chapter 16. I liked this chapter the best so far of all the rest. It gave a very clear picture of Einstein's many facets....the lover, the husband, father, pacifist, scientist.

I still keep on going back to his popularity. I think in the current world of the Paris Hilton's, Kardashains , and their ilk,, that we currently think are the "notables" I find it fascinating that a man of science was such a celebrity. Were people of the twenties "smarter, wiser, or more savy, in the people they chose to follow? How does that make us look today, I wonder?

I did feel for his wife and son though, although Elsa was "the other woman" at one point so some might say she was getting a little back of what she herself dished out. It still amazes me that women found Einstein so charismatic and alluring. I suppose in the future, people might wonder the same thing about let's say Bill Clinton.

It will be interesting to see, as Einstein's world turns to great turbulence, how his pacifist leanings will survive Hitler if indeed they do. Onto chapter 17....

Chapter 17 ...pretty short but pretty powerful.

So where do you fall into Einstein's religious thinking? I tend to believe that the place outside space is where god exists. It is his kingdom, the unknown, the maybe, the perhaps that I believe is inhabited by god. I think that while we do think we have choices in life, perhaps there are some forces within the universe which, according to Einstein, operate according to rules and not "dice playing" that govern all things. I like to think that "god" has too many other things to do other than meddle in our day to day workings. Human nature has, or at least most often has, a mechanism called a conscious which alerts one to goodness versus evilness. It is within us and part of us and perhaps in a way it is god at work within us.

What do you think? Do you go along with Einstein's thinking on the presence of god?

Chapter 18

Einstein is for a time a man without a country in a way. He has changed his stance on pacifism and is well aware of the path Germany is traveling. I was somewhat surprised by his refusal to go to the Jerusalem University. How very stupid of Hitler and the German government in their zeal to rid the universities of Jewish scholars! In doing so in a way, they secured their failure in Workd War II. I could not help but think how fortuitous this was for the Allies.

It was sad to learn that Einstein would never again see his first wife or his son or even the country of his birth ever again. Hitler sealed Einstein's fate as well as that of many others who would ultimately seal the fate of the war.

Marialyce wrote: I still keep on going back to his popularity. I think in the current world of the Paris Hilton's, Kardashains , and their ilk,, that we currently think are the "notables" I find it fascinating that a man of science was such a celebrity. Were people of the twenties "smarter, wiser, or more savy, in the people they chose to follow? How does that make us look today, I wonder?
--------------

The exact same thing crossed my mind. I am often amazed by the general publics interest in celebrities. It doesn't matter if the person is notorious. Just getting in the limelight seems to be enough. I often say, only half kidding, if someone found the cure for cancer, more people would know the names of the Jersey Shore crowd.

You are ahead of me, Marialyce. I hope to read chapter 14 tonight. So I'll save your posts for answer later.

Starting tomorrow we begin reading/discussing Chapters 16-20.

Chapter 19
This section of reading has been wonderful. There has been so much presented of Einstein the man as opposed to Einstein the genius. I so enjoyed the little anecdotal stories...the little girl with the math homework, the young man getting an A for scoring an interview with Einstein, the sadness he felt upon Elsa's death. All these things made him real, not a person on a high pedestal, one few of us could hope to attain. Presented here has been a real person, oftentimes endearing in his absentmindedness. I like him so much better now...did your attitude change as well?

I like the humanness of this man. I am now anxious to read on. I think Issacson has come into his character so well. He compels us to like Einstein, I think, no matter how we felt about him before.

I was able to catch up a bit tonight. However, before I go on to the next set of chapters, I wanted to go back and note something from chapter 12.

Chapter 12
Page 272

The next morning, before he could depart, a young man tracked him down at Frank's office and insisted on showing him a manuscript. On the basis of his E=mc2 equation, the man insisted, it would be possible to use the energy contain within the atom for production of frightening explosives. Einstein brush away the discussion, calling the concept foolish.

It's hard to believe the E didn't see this application of his discovery. What do you think ?

Chapter 14

I throughly enjoyed the photographs.

Marialyce wrote: "Chapter 16. I did feel for his wife and son though, although Elsa was "the other woman" at one point so some might say she was getting a little back of what she herself dished out. It still amazes me that women found Einstein so charismatic and alluring
----------

I think pictures of him when he was young show an attractive man. Add to that the worldwide fame. I can easily see how women were attracted to him.

Also, as the author notes, as long as people didn't make demands on him, he was quite congenial. That is why at times his behavior towards his family seems so disturbing.

Marialyce wrote: "Chapter 17 ...pretty short but pretty powerful.

So where do you fall into Einstein's religious thinking?
---------------

Interesting chapter.

From what I can gather from this chapter his views are:

1~
Page 390. "You may call me an agnostic."

Definition of Agnostic:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god


2~
P391 Deistic God
"..science can not accept a deity who could meddle at whim in the events of his creation or in the lives of his creatures."

3~
P391
Humans beings in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but are as causally bound as the stars in their motions."

P391
"I am a determinist. Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control.

Definition of DETERMINISM
a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws


Page 393
"I know that philosophically a murderer is not responsible for his crime, he said..."

Chapter 17 ~~ Einstein's God

Do you think in part E would agree with the Watchmaker theory ?

1. The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.
2. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the universe, everything) necessitates a designer.



This link gives a very cogent argument against the watchmaker theory.




Here is a cool YouTube video of Dawkins (God does not play dice) that adds a lot to this chapter.

Alias said: I am often amazed by the general publics interest in celebrities. It doesn't matter if the person is notorious. Just getting in the limelight seems to be enough.

It used to be people became celebrities because of some kind of accomplishment, not in spite of having achieved nothing aside from owning a set a false eyelashes. Until the last 15-20 years, almost all celebrity was based on an accomplishment or capabilities in the arts, or sports, or movies, etc.

Marialyce wrote: "Chapter 17 ...pretty short but pretty powerful.

So where do you fall into Einstein's religious thinking? I tend to believe that the place outside space is where god exists. It is his kingdom, the ..."

I do generally agree with you about the place outside space, and with Einstein in that I think God is outside of human experience, can't be portrayed or envisioned as a human being, and doesn't spend his time overseeing us personally. When Einstein talks about God not playing dice, I don't think he means that EVERYTHING is predetermined, or that human beings don't have free will. I think he means that God has created a perfect machine with invariables that can't be changed by Man, and that in nature, many outcomes can't be altered by human intervention. (And now I sound like a climate change denier, but I'm not at all. There are many things Man can change.) Light can only travel as fast as light can travel, though, and its transmission is governed by invariable rules that Einstein helped us to understand. Before him, we didn't conceive of mass and energy as equal, or of time and space as a continuum. I think I may get ahead of the reading if I say too much more, but I think in his later years, struggling against the new orthodoxy of the Copenhagen group, he was probably right that their conceptualization of the atomic world was not so much wrong as incomplete --and that maybe the ether was a useful concept that had been incorrectly characterized by earlier generations.

Alias Reader wrote: "Marialyce wrote: I still keep on going back to his popularity. I think in the current world of the Paris Hilton's, Kardashains , and their ilk,, that we currently think are the "notables" I find it..."

But in Einstein's day there were plenty of shallow celebrities, too, including flamboyant heiresses and movie stars. Maybe not as many as today, but life is a bit different and so is media. I think of Einstein as his generation's Steve Jobs. He existed alongside of the bubbleheads and appealed to a different bunch of groupies. Of which I am one, on both counts.

Michele wrote: But in Einstein's day there were plenty of shallow celebrities, too, including flamboyant heiresses and movie stars
-------------

However, as the author notes people in general, not movie stars, did not seek out celebrity as they do today. It was thought to be undignified. That is one of the criticisms that is mentioned about E in the book. Personally I wish people were more excited about people in science, medicine etc and less about reality tv stars.

There used to be a commercial that ran in my area. It showed a kid walking to his school bus and people cheering him on. At first you think it has to do with sports, but then you notice that because he had done well in his academics.

Recently Karen Gravano of the reality TV show Mob Wives was at a local indie bookstore. There was such a crowd that only a few could be let in the store at one time. There was a line outside the store to get in. Police were there to control crowds. I would contrast that with my neighbor whose has a family member who is dating someone who works for a man who won a noble prize. I believe it was for stem cell research. He has a book. I don't have the title handy, but I'll post it later. I would bet that if he held a talk at the very same bookstore you would be hard pressed to get more than a handful of people there.

EDIT: this is the book
The Art and Politics of Science~Harold Varmus

Wiki:
Harold Elliot Varmus (born December 18, 1939) is an American Nobel Prize-winning scientist and the 14th and current Director of the National Cancer Institute, a post he was appointed to by President Barack Obama.[1] He was a co-recipient (along with J. Michael Bishop) of the 1989 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovery of the cellular origin of retroviral oncogenes.
Wiki link for more info:

Chapter 20

"I will a little tink"..... Loved it. Can you imagine working with this man? How incredible was it that even when some of his calculations did not work, he was not in the least affected, but maintained a very sunny positive attitude!

Do you think perhaps he really did see the dangers of fission? He was a pacifist at heart, so was it possible he knew what could and did happen?

I am going to try and finish the book. It is fascinating now....

Alias says: Do you think in part E would agree with the Watchmaker theory ?

1. The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.
2. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the universe, everything) necessitates a designer.


Is this the new name for intelligent design? I didn't read the links, Alias, because what you posted that I quoted is clearly part of the core of ID. To answer your question, from a religious point of view, I think E. would say that the order he saw implied, not necessitated, a designer. There are light years of difference between the two. His continuing with the no-dice viewpoint wasn't from a religious perspective, but from what he had seen so far of how the universe seemed to work -- with a simplicity and a type of Newtonian determinism. Or, to put it another way, what he'd observed from science influenced his religious viewpoint, but his religious viewpoint didn't direct his science.

Libyrinths wrote: Is this the new name for intelligent design?
-----------

No, it's not new. It's from Rev. William Paley's book published in 1802. Natural Theology:~William Paley The book posited that "just as finding a watch would lead you to conclude that a watchmaker must exist, the complexity of living organisms proves that a Creator exists."

The theory was later brought to light again in 1986, when Richard Dawkins titled his best selling book The Blind Watchmaker.
The Blind WatchmakerRichard Dawkins

Amazon

Finally I'm all caught up. :)

chapter 19

The TV show The Big Bang Theory was found useful again. :) Page 431 mentions Erwin Schrodinger. Thanks to the show I know about Schrodinger's cat. lol


P445
I have to stay I am somewhat speechless regarding the survey at Princeton which found Hitler to be the "greatest living person". How could this be ?

P445
From the books I've read on FDR and Elanor Roosevelt I was familiar with Marian Anderson. But this is the first I've heard about her and Einstein.

From Wiki:
Anderson became an important figure in the struggle for black artists to overcome racial prejudice in the United States during the mid twentieth century. In 1939, the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) refused permission for Anderson to sing to an integrated audience in Constitution Hall. The incident placed Anderson into the spotlight of the international community on a level unusual for a classical musician. With the aid of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, Anderson performed a critically acclaimed open-air concert on Easter Sunday, April 9, 1939, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.. She performed before a crowd of more than 75,000 people and a radio audience in the millions


Here is the 1939 YouTube of her concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Marialyce wrote: "Chapter 19
Chapter 19
This section of reading has been wonderful. There has been so much presented of Einstein the man as opposed to Einstein the genius. I so enjoyed the little anecdotal stories...the little girl with the math homework, the young man getting an A for scoring an interview with Einstein, the sadness he felt upon Elsa's death. All these things made him real, not a person on a high pedestal, one few of us could hope to attain. Presented here has been a real person, oftentimes endearing in his absentmindedness. I like him so much better now...did your attitude change as well?

-----------------

I totally agree, Marialyce. I am enjoying these chapters quite a bit.

I think when I read that Marian Anderson (chapter 19 - page 445) was refused a room at the Nassau Inn and he offered for her to stay at his home, I softened more towards him. At times he was quite an enigma. Especially where his family was concerned, but I guess most of us are.

Marialyce wrote: "Chapter 18
It was sad to learn that Einstein would never again see his first wife or his son or even the country of his birth ever again.
--------------------

This was very sad. Was it still too dangerous for him to visit his son and wife after the war ? Maybe he felt his fame would cause more harm than good for his son and wife.

As you said, Alias, he was an enigma. He was charming, concerned, outgoing, complex, and loving, but when it came to his family, there was always something that held him back. Maybe it was easier for him to be all these wonderful things with strangers than with family. Who knows why he could give much but could not give his all?

I still like the way Issacson has shown us his faults as well as well as things he did which made him certainly a man to be admired. He was a righteous man, just one who could not seem to love fully anyone else. I admired him also for the Marion Anderson part. He surely understood prejudice. Maybe there was just not enough room in that brain of his for a large amount of emotion to seep through. His brain was too filled up with other things.

I finished the book last night. I really liked it, although I am sure a lot of the science went off in all kinds of quarks and ether and all of those things Einstein so understood. I really liked the end of the book the best, feeling that at that point is where Issacson really "got" Einstein. I have the book Who Got Einstein's Office?: Eccentricity And Genius At The Institute For Advanced Study from my daughter who saw me reading Einstein. It should be interesting I think.

Alias Reader wrote: "chapter 13
The Edison Test. At this link you can take the test

"

Born to late! Apparently i am a genius in light of that exam. Ok, i jest. However, it is interesting that we have discussed education & how the past was better. I wonder, given the elemental state of most of these questions. It seems to me, given the preponderance of geographic questions, that this is where Edison (&/or the test creators) felt citizens should made aware.

Alias Reader wrote: "Chapter 12
page 265

What lies beyond space ? Interesting notion. Any ideas ?"

This is the question, put another way, that kept me awake nights as a kid. I suppose i was asking questions about God & my religion even then. None of my thinking would have been deemed scientific but when leaving God out of the questioning, we clearly see it is.

Since i find myself here, a bit out of order, i'll comment on Chapter 17. It seems to me that Einstein was urging his audience to Define God. Then, ask your question. As an atheist, i feel that way, too. I need to know where the person asking the question is coming from, then i can tell you whether i believe or not. Heck, he would probably also ask an atheist to define her term, too. I am aware of "hard" & "soft" atheism, so i can see that point, too.

It seems to me that if pursued he might end up declaring that those "intangible and inexplicable" somethings he mentioned in his words on religion would end up being science. That once the laws of science were understood, there would be a "God". Meanwhile, i couldn't help but think to myself that i am grateful for the physics which brought this group together to read this book!

deb

Libyrinths wrote: "I think you'll enjoy Ch. 14. u..."

Right you are! And the following one. Indeed, i'm finding the latter chapters more comprehensible. This may be because i am more focused or because, once he got the introductory terms out of the way, i could breeze through chapters using those terms. Regardless, reading these later science chapters has been a pleasure.

I'm still 80 pages from the end. I loved reading in Chapter 20 that Einstein preferred to think of himself not as a conservative (because he didn't embrace quantum theories) but a rebel because he didn't, bucking prevailing fads. I'm sure all former rebels would feel that way when accused of having switched sides later in life. The question is the validity of the self-image. I'm wondering what others here think?

deb

Schedule:

March 23-29 ~~ Chapters 16-20
March 30 onward ~~ Chapter 21-25 plus epilogue.

Madrano wrote: Meanwhile, i couldn't help but think to myself that i am grateful for the physics which brought this group together to read this book!

---------

:)

Alias said: The book posited that "just as finding a watch would lead you to conclude that a watchmaker must exist, the complexity of living organisms proves that a Creator exists."

Oh, I remember now. Thanks. Bad argument, btw. The ID people posit "irreducible complexity", an equally bad argument. Don't get me going on this, LOL!

Madrano said: Regardless, reading these later science chapters has been a pleasure.

Yes, from Ch. 14 on I found the book more fun to read. I particularly appreciated Isaacson explaining what Einstein was specifically working on during this time. Everything else I've read sort of reduced it to one sentence, then said he wasn't successful.

Madrano said: I loved reading in Chapter 20 that Einstein preferred to think of himself not as a conservative (because he didn't embrace quantum theories) but a rebel because he didn't, bucking prevailing fads. I'm sure all former rebels would feel that way when accused of having switched sides later in life. The question is the validity of the self-image

Perhaps it is. But perhaps it's the validity of Einstein's approach as well. The current configuration of quantum theory "works", but newer ideas which haven't been as well-tested are perhaps taking it in a direction which might get closer to what Einstein was trying to get at. Time will tell.

I wanted to mention that Isaacson mentions (and references) several times a book by David Bodanis, E=mc2. I read it a number of years ago and it's a nice, short and easy intro to his ideas of relativity for those who might be interested.

I think we read E=mc²: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation by David Bodanis together. I liked it very much, as i recall. Maybe that was why the science in this book seemed a breeze? I'm no science genius, so i was wondering. LOL!

Last night i finished the book but will refrain from comments on the rest until the appropriate time. However, it was no surprise that Einstein was on my mind when i first awoke today. More specifically, the quote/idea i mentioned yesterday on his thoughts re. God. I realized that if i could only ask only one question of the man, i'd probably ask that very question, "Do you believe...?", rather than define. I'd want to hear it all & feel i could get it asking that way. So, i kinda amend my comment upthread.

deb

Since a few of you have already finished, and this book isn't a "who done it" mystery, I have no problem with people discussing the whole book. Just put the chapter # at the top of your post.

I know from experience as times goes by, we tend to forget what we wanted to say and lose interest, so it's best to post right away. I believe this is one of Einstein's law of physics, too. :)

Madrano wrote: I realized that if i could only ask only one question of the man, i'd probably ask that very question, "Do you believe...?", rather than define.

--------------------

Excellent question, Deb !

These are the discussion questions that I posted in post #3


Discussion Questions * May contain spoilers



1. What kind of mind conceives of thought experiments like wondering what it would be like to ride alongside a light beam? In other words, how would you describe the mind that was Einstein's—even in his youth? (Words like brilliant or genius don't count.)

2.Talk about Einstein as a young man, especially his treatment of his first wife, Mileva and his newborn daughter. What kind of a person was he?

3. Overall, how would you describe the outsized personality of Albert Einstein? Consider for instance his reaction to his parents, as well as his teachers at Zurich Polytechnic. What part does Einstein's rebelliousness play in his ability to formulate his scientific breakthroughs? To what degree does he mature or change over the years?

4. How well does Isaacson deal with the science in this book? Do you find the discussion of Einstein's s discoveries lucid or understandable? Does Isaacson help you grasp the concepts of relativity, or the famous equation E=MC2? Or do you still find them too dense to comprehend?

5. In what way did Einstein attempt to justify religious faith with his understanding of the universe. What did he mean when he said that God "would not play dice by allowing things to happen by chance"? Consider, as well, this statement: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and doings of mankind."

6. Talk about Einstein's world view—the concepts that undergirded his geo-politics and philosophy toward life. Consider, for example, his stances on racial discrimination, Joseph McCarthy, the cold war, nuclear proliferation, and Nazism.

6. Consider Einstein's dismay regarding his role in creating the atomic bomb. especially his comment that "he would never have lifted a finger" to help the U.S. develop the bomb had he known that Germany could not successfully develop one.

7. What surprised you most about Albert Einstein as you read this book?

8. What particular passages struck you while reading the book: something insightful, controversial, or humorous� anything that strikes you.

Libyrinths wrote post #179:
Oh, I remember now. Thanks. Bad argument, btw. The ID people posit "irreducible complexity", an equally bad argument. Don't get me going on this, LOL!
-------------

Yes, I posted a link in my original post #161 where I wrote the link gave "a very cogent argument against the watchmaker theory"

Alias Reader wrote: "These are the discussion questions that I posted in post #3


Discussion Questions * May contain spoilers


1. What kind of mind conceives of thought experiments like wondering what it would be li..."

In reply to Question 1, in developmental psychology, I learned that speech is a necessary precursor to complex thought. It was believed at the time that those who could only think visually could not store or hold in mind as much information as those who could use language. Their mental processes would be limited without words and symbols to chunk information. Having seen what Einstein could do, I wonder if anybody ever asked him to describe his process. Is he really thinking only in pictures, or does he use language internally, too--his own language or one we'd recognize?

Michele

Question 2: What kind of person was he??

I always find myself on Einstein's side, even though I admit he wasn't a very attentive father to his sons. I don't think we have all the information on his relationship to Lieserl - letters are missing and Maric was implicated to the same extent as Einstein, except that she appeared to be more depressed than he afterwards. I think Maric was too much of a distraction all by herself. She needed constant care and feeding - a very high-maintenance lady. I think Einstein could have had a much closer relationship with both of his sons if she were not attached to the deal. I think he avoided her at all costs. I think he did it to maintain his flow. He needed serenity to develop his ideas, and she provided nothing but turmoil. The boys were caught in the crossfire. He would not be the first Dad to give up his kids in order to avoid constant strife with the ex-. Not his finest hour, but maybe necessary to serve his great gift.

More on Question 1:

Interesting, Michele.

Einstein was able to think in more than 3-D, and was able to process a huge amount of information together. He had a great imagination, and was a rebel so he was not constricted by previous things he had learned.

Later, his wife said that he was constantly scribbling things on the back of envelopes. It seemed like his mind was constantly thinking and questioning. He was using the language of sophisticated mathematics to describe his theories.

Madrano said: I think we read E=mc²: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation by David Bodanis together.

I wondered after I posted if we had read that together. I couldn't remember, though. Glad you did!

Alias asked: What kind of mind conceives of thought experiments like wondering what it would be like to ride alongside a light beam?

First, I think this is the sort of thing Isaacson tried to illuminate for us in this book -- what made Einstein Einstein intellectually. (Or, is there hope for any of us?) One of the aspects of his mind which I think is different from most people was his ability to ask questions about things most people take for granted. And THEN, he used his imagination to try to find understanding. As children we might ask questions like "Why is the sky blue?" or "Why is the grass green?". But E. did two things most of us don't do. First, he didn't settle for the answer he got. And secondly, he maintained his ability to ask those same kinds of questions.

Another thing he did well, as most people have noted, was use his ability to create images in order to explore how things worked. Anyone who has tried to create a fictional character has probably tried to imagine that character, feel what it would be like to be that person, predict what behaviors that person would do, how he'd dress, how he'd walk, what kind of thinking, etc. E. did this for the physical world, it seems.

Michele said: He would not be the first Dad to give up his kids in order to avoid constant strife with the ex-. Not his finest hour, but maybe necessary to serve his great gift.


I agree. Not only that, but wouldn't he have just been insufferable if he'd been a perfect husband and a perfect father, and a genius to boot? I'm most relieved to see he had shortcomings.

Michele wrote: In reply to Question 1, in developmental psychology, I learned that speech is a necessary precursor to complex thought. It was believed at the time that those who could only think visually could not store or hold in mind as much information as those who could use language. Their mental processes would be limited without words and symbols to chunk information. Having seen what Einstein could do, I wonder if anybody ever asked him to describe his process. Is he really thinking only in pictures, or does he use language internally, too--his own language or one we'd recognize?
--------------

Very interesting, Michele.

I think it was Liby, who made a comment about current geniuses. I am sure someone has studied them.

Do you think E was more intelligent that anyone else then or since? If not, why do you think most associate genius with him?

Personally I don't think he was any different than other geniuses. I think the fact that, despite his protests to the contrary, he did like the public and he had that quirky way about him that people felt he was accessible.

Here is a interesting short article on what makes a genius.

I was able to finish the book this evening. I'll admit it was a bit of a struggle for me. However, it wasn't an unpleasant one thanks to the friends I had to help me along the way on this reading journey. Thank you!

Chapter 22

Here is a link for the movie mention on page 493

The Beginning or the End
Storyline

Docudrama on the development of the first atomic bomb. Told from the perspective of a film recovered from a time capsule several hundred years into the future, the story is narrated by Robert Oppenheimer (Hume Cronyn) and Major General Leslie Groves (Brian Donlevy) beginning with the Nazis stated goal of developing an atomic bomb. Along with Britain and Canada, the U.S. reacts by beginning its own atomic program. The major developments are all presented: Fermi's successful atomic chain reaction; building the huge complex at Oak Ridge, Tenn.; the production of the first supply of plutonium; the testing in the Nevada desert; and finally the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima.




Wiki on the movie:


Has anyone seen this movie ?

CHAPTER 23 & 24.

I appreciate the comments/replies to the questions. I think one thing Isaacson accomplished in the book was to help us in understanding the workings of Einstein's mind, if only glimpses. As i mentioned when we began, i had given little thought to the process because i don't think any previous author i read took the time to "tease" the idea of that mind and its images.

In chapters 23 & 24 Einstein mentions taking action because he was old; that he could do so, understanding why younger scientists couldn't. I was impressed with this line of thinking, as many might have feared for their reputation's sake. Many older people begin to think about how posterity will view them but it appears Einstein felt it was more important to continue acting/working, rather than consider such iffy propositions, let us say.

Of course, as he noted, his reputation was made. It was probably clear to him that he would be remembered in the same sentence with Galileo, Newton and such. So, the posterity issue was settled. Still, tackling politics could tarnish one's reputation for the time being.

I'm wondering about his popularity. How much did his appearance play into it? Was that "wacky scientist" look something which drew the public to him? Those eyes? Did the public become excited because the press was excited or were they enamored with the "new worlds" science created? Here, i do not think Isaacson helped my understanding of that part of E's mystery.

deb, quickly adding i have not seen that film, nor even heard of it previously

I mentioned that I had read E on another board. Someone who also read this book asked if anyone had read any other books on E that they would recommend.

The person already read Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America with Einstein's Brain and thought it was just okay.

Thanks !

All those brain traveling books would really mostly be about the author, wouldn't they? I'm not interested in that. I suspect this will be my last foray into Einstein. My first & preferred, partly because he knew Einstein was Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel by Banesh Hoffmann. However, it was my first and not in any way as detailed as what we read together. Still, i felt it gave me some insight at the time (1970s). I see from GR reviewers that the consensus is one of being underwhelmed. This is why i mention it but am not at all sure i'd recommend it. For me, in my 20s as i read, it was good.

Deb,would it be OK if I posted your thoughts to the person who was asking about a E book?

A quote from Einstein (after the atomic bombs were dropped) in Chapter 22 that I found very chilling was, "I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth--rocks."

It must have been very difficult for him to want to prevent the Nazis from taking over the world after being a pacifist for so many years.

I finished the book. Everyone's comments made it an interesting experience.