Einstein, Relativity & Modern Physics with Hans G. Schantz, Part 1.

were talking offline after we finished the last show. And he has other interests. Thinks I'm not. I can't say I'm a science person or physics, but I've done some interest People have talked about Einstein, some questionable ideas about how valid he is. But anyway, we're going to talk

about this. And his name is Hans G. Shan's last name was spelled Atcha and Tz And if you're watching this on Rock Finn, Rumble or Act, you'll see that he works for and with the Society for Post Quantum Research in His website is the SPQR dot com and also ATHERSR dot substack dot com. So I put those links in the show notes. But he has a bunch of slides, and like I said, I'm not really I think this is optimal in a way because I don't know that much about kind of modern physics. But he

can talk more about that. So Hans Schanz, welcome back to the show.

a business, production control, project management, things like that. But as I got near the end of that, I realized no one was going to hand me a copper mine or a steel mill or a trans continental railroad, and if I wanted to run a business, I was going to have to invent something or come up with some concept that I could wrap a business around. That got me into physics. I finished a second undergrad bachelor's degree in physics and liked it so much I went all

the way through grad school getting a PhD in theoretical electromagnetism. Well, then I had the unwelcome discovery that what physicists regard as electromagnetism is a bit different than the practical, everyday electromagnetism that electrical engineers put to practical use. So I had to do a bit more of training and get myself up to speed before I land ended a job doing ultra wide band antenna design. It was a great job.

I learned a lot. I was able to synthesize a lot of my theoretical physics ideas with some practical applications, and learn not just about how antennas work, but how electromagnetism works, and develop some ideas for how that all plays out. I left the ultra wideband business to do a startup at last. With some friends, I co founded q Track Corporation. I invented a way to do indoor location using low frequency near field signals. The conventional way

uses high frequency signals. They tend to bounce around. It makes it really hard to tell where whatever it is you're tracking is. We used signals down in the AM broadcast band, very long wavelength, very low frequency, and built a product that was able to track people to an accuracy of about fifty centimeters a couple feet or so. It was used in about a third of US nuclear plants,

a bunch of industrial customers. It gave me an opportunity to master another realm of electromagnetism, the whole area of near field electromagnetism and how these short range, long wavelength, low frequency links work. Well. That was kind of a hand in hand and mouth existence. Never terribly successful. We ultimately had to sell out, and I've been working in the defense industry since then. But it gave me an opportunity to write a book about ultra wide band antennas,

The Art and Science of Ultra wide Band Antennas. If you're interested in time tomain electromagnetism, you might want to look that title up. And it helped me appreciate that physicists really don't understand very well how electromagnetism really works.

And I can go into the details later but that led me on a quest to try to understand where physics went wrong, how we got the premises that we have on how things work, why things like pilot wave quantum mechanics have been largely ignored in favor of less reasonable interpretations not only of relativity but of quantum mechanics. And that led me to a historical study to try to track that down. And the central figure involved in

that process is Einstein. And I think I've come up with exactly what went wrong and how Einstein led physics the wrong way and tried to save it at the end, but his dream has not yet been realized. So that is what I will be discussing the presentation today.

It was a remarkably creative and clever thing to do. But in inverting the hierarchy and making it a top down theory like that, he believed that no mechanism was necessary and that it was a complete waste of time to talk about that, that we should focus only on the observables. And that's been an idea that has plagued physics ever since.

is in what medium is it waving? And you know, the answer to that was this mysterious medium called the ether that somehow was able to support all of these waves that you know, insanely high frequencies and insanely fast velocities, and yet was so immaterial that you planets would go through it without being slowed down in the least, and

that it was very hard to detect. And that's the paradox that people were wrestling with when Einstein came around and said, you know, let's not worry about how electromagnetism works. Let's just deduce how electromagnetism works for moving bodies from these two simple principles.

fast enough to generate radio waves. Now relatively low frequency radio waves of tends to maybe one hundred killer hurtz or a little more than that, And because the wavelengths were so long, the a lot of the RF involved, particularly in and near the antenna, would involve near field phenomenon that are not at least at the time, we're not very well understood. Now I know there is. I'm

trying to remember the gentleman's name. I think maybe Eric Dollard, who has done some investigation, has some interesting results and claims there that I haven't really dug into. I do think the process of radiation is an under examined phenomenon, and I should probably come back maybe in a few months when I have a presentation ready to talk about my understanding of electromagnetism and how it works, or we can get into this a little more deeply. But yes,

these are definitely under examined phenomenon. We'll see a little bit about Einstein and the spooky action in a distance in the talk, and longitudinal in scaler waves an interesting topic. I'm looking on trying to do a paper on that in the next few months. I think a lot of it is overhyped. There are longitudinal waves in electromagnetism, but those waves will aren't really important by the time you get more than a wavelength or two from a small transmitter.

Now there's this scalar wave theory that supposes there are undiscovered terms are ignored terms, and the laws of electromagnetism that allow your supposed scalar waves to generate from zero point energy create effects at a distance. But I have yet to see a coherent account of how they're made and how they're detected and what their link law is. That has convinced me there's much behind that notion. But I'll be looking into that, hopefully soon. It's on my

to do list to look into that further. Excellent, Okay, let's do it. Let's let's go into the Stein's great Well. What I'll do is I'll begin with kind of the conventional perspective that you'd probably get in the physics class about relativity and about Einstein. Then I'll talk about some of the less appreciated aspects of Einstein's career and the relativity of history and development. I'll talk about his person life.

I'll talk about how the Eclipse of nineteen nineteen was a major event in promoting Einstein and bringing his theory to prominence. About the esthetics of relativity and the critics of relativity. It's fascinating looking at how the publicity behind Einstein and relativity rolled out. And I'll take a closer look at Einstein's trip to America in nineteen twenty one. I'll talk about some of the very contentious arguments between advocates of what was called Deutsche physic German physics versus

Jewish physics. And finally, i'll talk about some of the lessons here for the foundational narratives that govern physics. And I'm really happy to be able to present this to you and to your audience, because there are a number of really intriguing suggestions about how Einstein and the campaign to promote him may have had taught to more occult

or esoteric groups. And I want to lay out some of the clues I haven't been able to track down and hope that maybe someone in the audience will have some insights and we'll get back to me and clear this up. So let me begin by talking about relativity.

In eighteen eighty seven, to researchers Michaelson Morley set up an interferometer to basically bounce light back and forth on a path on paths at right angles to each other, and they assumed that they would see light moving slowing down depending on which way the interferometer was changed or was oriented, and what they discovered was a null result that the change in the speed of light on the two different directions was much less than they were expecting. Now.

It wasn't a zero result, but it was a lot smaller now. Heaviside a couple of years later predicted that a moving electrified sphere would contract along its axis of motion, inferring that from the laws of electromagnetism. A researcher named Fitzgerald came up with the idea that the interferometer itself might be contracting as it moves through the ether. Larmore, British physicist, did a lot of work on radiation and

other subjects. He predicted the concept of time dilation and started developing transforms to discuss how electromagnetism changes with moving bodies. Lorentz described them in coordinate transformations, and in nineteen oh four a French scientist, Henri puan Care developed the term the principle of relativity, and he predicted that we would have to have a new mechanics where light is where

velocity is strictly limited to the speed of light. So that is the context in which an obscure no one had ever heard of impatent clerk in Burned, Switzerland named Albert Einstein wrote a paper in nineteen oh five suggesting that we could explain all of these phenomenon the Lorentz transformations from just two principles, first that the laws of physics are identical to all observers in non accelerating inertial frames, and second that the speed of light is the same

for all observers, independent of the relative motion of the various light sources. And from those principles he showed that you could derive the Lorentz transforms and the relativistic mechanics that Puan Care had begun exploring. Well, this gets us to the discussion we were having before we got started on induction versus deduction, and I like to think of it in terms of a Platonic versus an Aristotelian approach

to science. And that's a little controversial because people will use Plato and Ara Stytle as archetypes with different shades of meanings. So I want to be clear what I mean when I talk about Aristotelian physics. A lot of people will look at it in terms of the medieval schoolmen with their logical syllogisms, and that's not the sense

in which I'm talking about something that's Aristotelian. By Aristotelian, I mean using induction in order to come up with basic principles, whereas a Platonic approach, you're using fundamental axioms or principles in order to work out predictions that you can then say, validate in an experiment. A good way to look at that is to see how Aristotle and

Plato used their approaches in practice. Like if you take a look at their analysis of politics, Plato started from ideals of human justice and behavior and human character and deduced how the philosoph of her king should rule the society. Aristotle, on the other hand, gathered the constitutions of over one hundred different governments and broke down and start analyzing what worked and what didn't. And that's a good example of

Plato's deductive approach versus Aristotle's inductive approach. But it really is a cycle, and you need a balance of induction, looking at new phenomenon, coming up with new principles, and to complement that that taking those principles, working out consequences

of them, and then testing them. And I would argue that today physics has gone way on the Platonic side where we've taken a lot of these principles, including the principles that Einstein identified, and are taking them as axiomatic and not doing the inductive investigation necessary to try to develop new principles or possibly question the principles that we have. That's a theme of my work on my fields and energy substack.

on this new curve. Space time geometry. I won't bother going into the Tensor math because it gets kind of complicated, but I think the best shorthand explanation of it was coined by John Wheeler, who said space time tells matter how to move, and matter tells space time how to curb, and that basically explains the fundamental concept behind general relativity.

There are a bunch of interesting details about that gamma or the lamba you see, the cosmological constant and universe and cosmology that I'm going to have to skip for now. But when Einstein came up with that theory, the question arose how to test it. He was able to show that his theory would match the observed Perihelian advance that had been observed in the planet Mercury, and it predicted

that the Sun would bend light. So people were going out to eclipses and trying to take pictures of the Sun during an eclipse and see if the starfield behind

the Sun was distorted. It's a very tricky thing to do because you don't have a lot of time to take the picture, and you got to get it right the first time, and you're packing up all your equipment and going to the jungles of Brazil, or one group went to a German expedition went to Crimea in nineteen fourteen, and World War One broke out before they were able to take their data. All kinds of hazards that experimenters ran into trying to test this and take some measurements

and see if they could validate it. So ultimately, in nineteen nineteen it was confirmed. So if you look at Einstein's career, he started off as a patent clerk in nineteen oh five with four great papers, the Special Relativity paper. He did a paper on the photoelectric effect, on the energy mass equivalents equals mc squared and on the atomic theory in nineteen fifteen. He came up with general relativity in nineteen nineteen that was confirmed by Dyson and by Eddington.

Looks like some of my newspaper clippings got over the text. But in nineteen twenty one he had a triumphant US tour and ended up winning the Nobel Prize. In nineteen twenty two, he came up with Einstein Bow's statistics to

govern the statistics of bodies under quantum mechanics. In nineteen twenty seven was really one of the pivotal moments in physics history at the fifth Solve conference, where Einstein maintained that God does not play dice with the universe, and Boor's answer allegedly was that Einstein should stop telling God what to do. Boror ultimately triumphed in the physics community with his Copenhagen interpretation in nineteen thirty three. When Hitler

came to power, Einstein fled Germany. In nineteen thirty five, from Princeton, where Einstein had ended up, he wrote a fascinating paper that ended up being I think it's his most cited paper today and it's one of the ones that today still has some of the greatest interest. It's called the EPR paper after the initials of the authors Einstein, Podolski and Rosen, and Einstein argued that quantum mechanics was

not complete. Basically, he argued that there was there were, it would have to be hidden variables to account for certain behavior, and quantum mechanics to avoid the concept of spooky action the distance. In nineteen thirty nine, he collaborated with a friend of his, Leos Zillard, to write a letter to President Roosevelt, suggesting that the US should start an atomic bomb research project, which did happen, of course, led to the Manhattan Project, and in nineteen fifty five

he ended up dying in Princeton. So that is the conventional biography that you would get if you asked your physics teacher to explain Einstein's career. And what I want to do now is go a little further in depth into his personal career and some of the personal background. And Einstein credited an Austrian physicist named Ernst Mock with

inspiring a lot of the ideas behind relativity. He said that it was mock who, in his History of Mechanics, shook his dogmatic faith in classical mechanics, and that the book exercised a profound influence upon him. Mack had a what came to be known as a positivist approach to science. He argued that the world isn't composed of things, but

of sensations, that it's our observations that matter. He argued that atams aren't things, they are a mental model for classifying our observations, that we can't ascribe any reality to them. He argued that it really doesn't matter. It doesn't make any sense to talk about whether the Toolemaic versus the Copernican model of the solar system, that one is right

versus the other. They're both just ways to organize the data of our observations we make of the planets, and that it doesn't make sense to talk about one being real versus the other. And that idea developed into logical positivism, and it was a great influence not only on Einstein,

but on the physics community in general. The quote by James Jenes is really kind of telling, where he argues that physics has driven us to the positivist conception that we cannot understand what events are, but can only describe them in terms of mathematical terms organizing our observations, and that as we dig into it is really a reversal

of cause and effect. It was more Mock and Einstein having adopted those principles which drove the interpretation of physics, and not the discoveries in physics which drove the adaptation of those principles. But what we'll see that as we get a little deeper into what's going on here. Now, what's really interesting is if you go back can read

Einstein's paper. And Max Borne, his friend and fellow physicist, pointed out that many people will have looked up Einstein's paper, and when you read it, you will notice that it doesn't have a single reference to the prior literature. It's like it just appeared out of nothing from Einstein's imaginative creative intelligence. And of course Born pointed out that that

is not true. A real interesting, fascinating sidelight. Einstein skipped his math classes and got a friend to take notes, and that was pretty much the only way he was able to pass his undergraduate math classes. His professor was Hermann Minkowski, who ended up developing the space time geometry that we now use and is sometimes confused as being

something Einstein did. Minkowski said that Einstein always cutting lectures, I really would not have believed him capable of it, of developing relativity, And he also said for me, Einstein's success came is a tremendous surprise. For in his student days, Einstein had been a lazy dog, never bothered about mathematics at all. So there's been some question about whether his wife may have been involved in assisting him. It's really hard to sort that out. I don't have a firm

opinion on it. There's a lot of people who've argued that one way or the other. But what has become known as their letters have become public in recent years is in nineteen oh two, Malava, who was then his girlfriend and fellow student, gave birth to their daughter, Leseral, and no one really knows what her fate is. It's not recorded in any of the letters. We don't know if she died in infancy of scarlet fever. That's one hypothesis.

Some people argue that she was adopted. We don't really know for sure, but Apparently Einstein had a daughter with his girlfriend, Maliva before they got married. They were married in nineteen oh three. In nineteen oh four, their first son, Hans Albert, was born. In nineteen ten, their second son, Edward was born, and in nineteen twelve Einstein began an affair with his first cousin, Elsa. He ended up moving

to Berlin in nineteen fourteen. He stayed in Berlin, Malava had had enough at that point he had been very dictatorial and abusive. There are letters that he wrote to her with his demands of how she should run the household if she wanted to remain in it. So she ended up going to Zurich with the boys, leaving Einstein there. Finally,

in nineteen nineteen, Einstein divorced Malava and married Elsa. One interesting highlight that really stuck with me is, you know, it's important to understand Edward developed schizophrenia and had to be institutionalized when he was in his early twenties, and in nineteen thirty nine Einstein was busy helping Jews escape from Germany. Malabar wrote him, Now she would have been safe.

She was a Serbian Orthodox Christian. You know, even if Switzerland had fallen to the Nazis like neighboring Austria did. She'd probably been okay, but her half Jewish son, Edward, who was in the mental institution. He would never have made it to a concentration camp. The Nazi policy was they just shocked mental patients out of hand for eugenic reasons. So she asked Albert to help get Edward out of Switzerland, to get him safe to America, and he didn't do anything.

He refused to help. So, you know, his personal life was pretty questionable. But there's been a mythos built up around Einstein as being the ultimate wise sage and benevolent figure. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem has earned an estimated quarter billion dollars licensing his image, everything from Little Einstein's toys

to all kinds of promotional uses of the Einstein name. Recently, a physicist argued that the relationship between Einstein and the press is a case in which a scientist's fame triumphed over the substance of his work. And I think that as we develop the story a little further, you'll see how that turns out.

But then two teams from England, one went to Brazil and one went to an island off the coast of Africa, and they through some pretty questionable means that a lot of people have commented look very suspicious selectively throughout some of the results, and the results that were left confirmed Einstein's theory, and they went full speed ahead saying that

with complete confidence the theory had been confirmed. Now, a lot of people spend a lot of time arguing that I think it's kind of a waste of time to argue about the possible chicanery involved in the nineteen nineteen results, because it was definitively confirmed in subsequent eclipses in nineteen twenty two and nineteen twenty nine. So if there was some kind of selective editing or selection of the data,

it didn't it doesn't affect the overall result. So his biographer, Abraham Pace said that November sixth, nineteen nineteen, that was the day the results were announced. He called it the day on which Einstein was canonized, which I think is a jact just privigious term. Oh yeah, he's one of the saints of the modern day religion of scientism. And the New York Times had the headline you see there

about lights all askew in the heavens. This started the myth of only twelve men alive could understand relativity, and scientists were a gog at the results. The Times of London also promoted this revolution in science, new theory of the universe, Newtonian ideas overthrown. And there was this a kind of famous photograph of a rather brooding Einstein on top of the cover of the Berliner Illus Street. I

don't even try the German pronunciation. They're a major German magazine, and the you can't really read the German below Einstein, but it reads a new greatest in world history, Albert Einstein, whose research means a complete re evaluation of our view of nature and is equivalent to the discoveries of Copernicus and Kepler and Newton. So, you know, as I started to, uh you dig into this, it was fascinating seeing, you know,

who was promoting Einstein and and what their their reasons were. Uh. You know, The New York Times worked very hard to be a paper of record and be impartial, but it had Jewish ownership and occasionally, uh you know, Adolf Hawke's who was the editor and publisher, he would push Jewish

causes very heavily. The New York Times did a lot of publicity on the Leo Frank case, which was just a few years before this, and really heavily pushed Einstein, which we'll see further when we talk about Einstein's visit to the US in nineteen twenty one.

Einstein had been a good German one who was a pacifist, who disapproved of the war, and so it was kind of a way of contributing to the internationalization of science. It was fascinating to me. Just a few months after they were busy promoting Einstein very heavily. That's when The Times published the Protocols of Zion at least initially when

they were regarding them as being the legitimate publication. Then they published a debunking of them a year or so after that, but they were very involved in the promotion of Einstein. And it kind of goes back to some interesting speculations I've seen from Richard Pohe recently wrote a book about how the British invented Communism, and he argued that they were responsible for bifurcating Judaism into the Bolshevik branch and supporting it in Russia and into the Zionist branch.

Some interesting speculations that may be involved in the promotion of Einstein, but that takes us a little far afield here, So as you continue looking at some of the over the top headlines about the learned being confound owned, one of the popular spokespersons for physics of the day was

Oliver Lodge. He had done some of the pioneering work on radio and in developing Maxwell's equations, and ironically, at the meeting where Einstein's where the general relativity results were first published, everyone was expecting him to speak, and he rose and left because he said he had another engagement and offered half hearted refutations. It was peculiar seeing how limply one of the champions of the ether theory just

folded in the face of these results. So one of the things I think isn't widely appreciated is how even physicists regarded relativity and one's appreciation of it as being almost an issue. Jay Robert Oppenheimer said that Einstein's work was widely understood and applied in the physics community, but there were always those who didn't like it, as there are those who might not like the painting of Seshon

or the quartets of Beethoven. Max Bourne said that the foundation of general relativity appeared to me then and still does as the greatest feat of human thinking about nature, the most amazing combination of philosophic penetration, physical intuition, and mathematical skill. But he acknowledged its connection with experience is slender. It appeared to me like a great work of art

to be admired and enjoyed at a distance. Ernst Rutherford, who was one of the pioneers of nuclear physics and something of a relativity skeptic, said he made the offhanded compliment that the theory of relativity, quite apart from its validity, cannot but be regarded as a magnificent work of art. So the fundamental concept here is, you know, physicists, even if they used the Renz transforms and some of the principles that arose from relativity, did not necessarily appreciate the

esthetics of relativity. And that really gets back to the whole top down versus bottom up approach to science, whether it should be deductive from basic principles like Einstein did, or inductive looking at electromagnetic phenomenon and deriving the you know, the appropriate transforms and conclusions from that and you know, the the unprecedented publicity campaign really antagonized a lot of Einstein's contemporaries, and Einstein really through fuel on the fire.

He had a number of critics, Probably the single most prominent was a Nobel laureate named Philip Leonard, who took issue with relativity. Leonard and another optical physicist, Ernst Gerk,

they both challenged Einstein's priority. They pointed out people had come up with the formula for light bending around the sun before he did that Puan care had largely developed the theory and advance of Einstein, and Einstein's response to this was to write a dialogue that looked suspiciously like a takeoff of Galileo's system of the two worlds, and it was a dialogue between a critic and a relativist with a touch of condescension towards the simplicity arguments that

the critic was unable to understand, and that was about as endearing to Einstein's critics as Galileo's version of the same kind of approach was to the pope at the time. So it was not a good way to win friends and influence people by implying that they were stupid and slow for not being able to understand you. So one of the really fascinating things is in ninety teaen twenty a physicist named Paul Well, not even a physicist. No one really knows what his background was. He claimed to

be an engineer. There's no record that he was ever an engineer. He seems to be a kind of grifter and con artist named Paul Wayland claimed to be the head of what he called a working group German Scientist for the Preservation of Pure Science. And he wrote a very inflammatory letter in August of nineteen twenty claiming that relativity was scientific hypnosis and a big hoax and it

was all plagiarized. And a few weeks later he rented the Berlin Philharmonic Hall, which is was one of the premier event spaces, huge capacity, and hosted a public presentation on relativity. He gave a very inflammatory talk. Geek also made a presentation that was a lot more academic and

matter of fact. Einstein attended and laughed and plained he found it very amusing, but he was obviously very disturbed by it because he then threatened to leave Berlin, and he wrote what even his friends regarded as an angry and vicious polemic, and chose Leonard to blame for the presentation, even though Leonard was not there and was not involved. Some of Leonard's writings were distributed, but he had not been involved in it. And then Leonard took personal offense

at Einstein's comments. That was really the start of the feud that they had. There was a meeting a few weeks later that I'll pick up a bit later, But it's kind of important to understand the attitude toward publicity at the time. Einstein was getting all of this intense publicity on the cover of magazines, articles lauding him as the greatest thinker ever and above Newton and Kepler and

Galileo and so forth. This was at a time when his friend Max Bourne wrote a book on relativity and he thought, let me put a photo of Einstein in the book, and their mutual friend Max van Lowie was just utterly scandalized at this act of promotion. It was it was too far for a popular book let alone what purported to be a professional text in relativity to have this dramatic glamour shot of Einstein on it, and Born promptly deleted the figure from the future additions so

as not to engage in that shameless promotion. It's fascinating looking at all of the early nineteen twenties promotion of Einstein, because we today are so jaded and skeptical and capable of exercising a lot more discernment on the propaganda that is coming down the pike and being thrown at us.

Not that we're always capable of resisting it, but it's fascinating to look at the nineteen twenties when all these techniques were new, and how comparatively crude and heavy handed they were, because you can really see the propaganda machine in action when you look at these things now. This is one of the most fascinating aspects of the promotion of Einstein. Mysterious gentleman named Alexander Muskowski. He described himself

as being an adherent of the Cult of Einstein. He was an author of a number of books and novels. He wrote books on jokes, he wrote books on the occult and on sin's fiction. Of course, when I heard he was an occult author, that immediately perked up my antenna's and I looked into that a bit, and I'll talk more about what I found in the dead ends I reached. But he had a lot of long conversations with Einstein and collaborated with Einstein on a very fawning

biography of Einstein. You know, it scandalized Einstein's friends. They urged Einstein to stop the publication. He made a half hearted effort, but you know, most of the biographers who've discussed this agreed that, you know, he kind of let it, let it happen, and it was over the top. There are some some phrases in it that are just, you know, very much, you know, exaggerated and caused a lot of

problems and caused a lot of offense. One of Einstein's contemporaries, the mathematician Felix Line, said, in his personal utterances, Einstein is always so charming, quite unlike the foolish publicity circus set in motion for him. And when I looked into Moskowski, yeah, of course, when I see someone has written books on the occult, my initial reaction is, Okay, what a cult

group was the guy involved with? Near as I can tell, he was involved with a group called Geselle Schaft der Freunde, which was near as I can tell, just a fraternal, self help professional organization of Jewish businessman, mostly in Berlin. But when you take a look at some of this early history of Einstein, it's said that Puan care attributed the discovery of relativity to Einstein, and Moskowski said so, but it wasn't mentioned at all in puan Carey's nineteen

eight books. We have this account from Moskowski that he went and he heard this talk by puon Carey on relativity. And even though pwon Carey had not really mentioned or given credit to Einstein in his book just a couple of years earlier, according to Moskowski, he had spoken of Einstein in such terms that Muskowski became obsessed with understanding

Einstein and the importance of his ideas. He reported that puon Carey was filled with misgivings and obviously very stressed about the potential of Einstein's revolutionary approach to threaten science as currently understood, but we only have his word for it.

He reported that puon Carey had lauded how wonderful Einstein's creativity was in a letter of recommendation, which normally you would think those kinds of letters are kept private, but Muskowski got behold of it somehow without disclosing how he got it, and reprinted the letter without any details of

who it was to or how he got it. And he was the author of one of the most over the top articles, the one that appeared behind that cover photo of Einstein, and wrote that biography that all of Einstein's friends were concerned and appalled about how flattering and sympathetic it was. And with ponkar A dead in nineteen eleven, it would be very hard to challenge what he had to say. So he very clearly was working extremely hard

to promote Einstein and develop this legend behind him. But I haven't been able to come up with any ties. Further so, if you or any of the audience have any ideas of whether he might have been involved in a broader effort to promote Einstein in particular, be interesting to run that down. But I pretty much reached a dead end on that.

in Jerusalem. He's a fascinating character. He did a lot of very important chemical work for the British. He came up with an organic process for generating actone, which was kind of new and in chemical engineering at the time, and that being a very critical war chemical. So there's some thought that some of the British support, in addition to the Rothschild angle, that some of it might have been paying back the favor of Weitzmann for his contributions. Well.

In nineteen nineteen, a German Zionist named Blumenfeldt, Kurt Blumenfeldt recruited Einstein and got Einstein interested in Zionism. In nineteen twenty, Einstein was trying to raise money. This was before he got his Nobel Prize winnings, you know, supporting the ex wife and kids in expensive. Zurich was kind of tough. The hyperinflation was just starting to It hadn't really hit full blast, but it was in process. He didn't have

a lot of money. He solicited a bunch of American universities asking for fifteen thousand dollars per lecture, got rebuffed and decided to go to Belgium, to Leiden and attend the Salve Conference instead. Well, Blumenthal persuaded Einstein to join Weizman on a fundraising tour to the US. A lot of Einstein's colleagues were very upset. Fritz Haber, who I'll talk more about later, fascinating character. He was an assimilated Jew,

he'd converted to Christianity. He regarded it as akin to fraternization with the enemy, hanging out with the you know, the British and the Americans. Walter Nernst was upset because he was one of the co founders of the Salve Conference, but amid the post World War One tensions, you know, the Belgians were not inclined to invite any Germans to the conference except for Einstein because of his international reputation, and he was angry that Einstein backed out and that

Germany would be unrepresented. Einstein declared that he was annoyed by the undignified assimilationist cravings and strivings which he has observed in so many of his Jewish friends. So when Einstein came to Mamerica with the Zionist Party, over five thousand people were there at the docks to greet the party, and it turns out they were there to greet the Zionists that the Eastern European and Russian Jews in New York had. You know, their newspapers had promoted the Zionist mission.

It was very popular with that element of the Jewish culture at the time, and that was what motivated this turnout. Well at the non Jewish reporters who were present saw this huge crowd and they were asking you who they were there for, and you know, people were talking about Weitzman, but they'd never heard of Weitzman, but they had heard of the Einstein guy. So it got misinterpreted as people there to celebrate the scientific achievements of Albert Einstein. So

kind of a case of mistaken identity. Now there was another dynamic at play was kind of fascinating. The more establishment assimilated American Jews, the ones running New York Times controlling the media, were very skeptical of the Zionist program. There was a bit of a rift between the longtime establishment Jewish community and the newcomer Russian, Eastern European Jewish community. You know, the newcomers were in favor of the Zionist cause.

The more established assimilationist American Jews were willing to charitably support their brethren in Palestine, but they weren't interested in promoting the concept of an independent Zionist state in Palestine. So that tension played out in the trip and is part of why Einstein got promoted. He was promoted to

distract from the Zionist mission. Walter Isaacson, who wrote a biography of Einstein, declared that Einstein's trip to America triggered the kind of mass hysteria that would greet the Beatles four decades later, and that of course got me thinking about some of the speculations about the Beatles and their

popularity and how that might have been engineered. And when I started digging into the question of whether there was some engineering involved in the mass and unprecedented publicity Einstein got when he arrived in America, I landed at a gentleman named Edward Burnez, who's no the father of propaganda and public relations. He started off his career as a

theatrical publicist on Broadway. His first big triumph was in nineteen thirteen he promoted a book called or a play called Damaged Goods about a man with syphilis who has a child and passes on the syphilist child. Know, of course, talking about sexually transmitted diseases in Broadway plays was you know, beyond the pale at the time, and you know, no

one would would support the play. He generated or created an organization to promote it as an educational exercise, and he got support from Rockefellers and Vanderbilts, and you know, even a young Franklin delan Or Roosevelt signed on backing

this and ultimately got the the play produced. That really, that starting point in his career kind of illustrates, you know, not only his effectiveness at promoting his clients, but how he often mixed his political activism as kind of a side interest with his publicity projects that he took on.

When World War One broke out, he started the in on the US Committee on Public Information that was the American War Propaganda Group, and he declared that the war opened the eyes of the intelligent few to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind, and that is what he set out to do by founding one of the first

public relations consulting groups in America. Unlike a conventional public relations expert, who would you take a reporter out to lunch and try to wheedle and cajole him into printing a press release or talking with an editor about, Hey, why don't you promote my client? For these reasons, his approach was to create events and circumstances which newspapers are

compelled to notice as news. Some of those examples include when he got married, he wanted to promote his wedding, and instead of just submitting a wedding announcement to The New York Times, he got his wife to go to the Waldorf Astoria and register for the honeymoon suite under her maiden name, which ended up causing a lot of pearl clutching and publicity. Over two hundred newspapers reported the scandal, and the August Hotel ended up allowing that to happen,

and what are we? What have we come to? And so on and so forth. Uh The Waldorf Astoria was one of his clients, and he ended up promoting the cause of feminism. Uh you know, he was an early supporter of women's rights and feminism, so that was another uh politically charged tuffer in. To his credit, he coined the or. He started the art of celebrity endorsement. He got Calvin Coolidge elected in part because he got a bunch of Broadway actors to come to the White House

for a pancake breakfast. He was instrumental in getting women smoking. He got a bunch of women to smoke cigarettes up and down New York Smith Avenue on Easter Sunday, which got a lot of press. And then when the owner of Lucky stro Ike's complained women still weren't smoking enough because they didn't like the packaging, Burne said, well, that's easy. Changed the color of your packaging. And the owner of Lucky strike said, no, we spent a lot on this packaging.

You changed the colors that women like so Brenez went often did that. He got parish fastened designers to adopt green as the color of the season, even held a green ball to promote the color of green. A bacon manufacturer hired him to promote bacon and he came up with the idea of setting up a medical educational group where doctors promoted the idea of a hearty breakfast. So

the American eggs and bacon breakfast. That's Brene's handiwork, still in operation a century later, promoting sales of bacon.

well have been involved in the publicity tour. Whether he was or not, it was clearly an example of the kind of events and circumstances publicity that was his hallmark. And he also commented the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratics society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism constitute the ruling power of the country. So very prescient. He's well worth studying, and his book Propaganda is a

very short and easy read. I recommend it. So I want to go ahead and kind of speed up a bit on the publicity that was.

high school science project. What he did was take a radioactive substance, sodium twenty two, that emits positrons basically antimatter versions of electrons, and they immediately annihilate and they create an entangled pair of gamma rays, and he was able to set up a pair of Geiger tubes to measure those and to count the number of coincidences and demonstrate that there was a statistically improbable number of coincidences that

demonstrated that quantum entanglement was happening in the system. So it's really a very cool little experiment he was able to pull together because normally the laboratory equipment to do any sort of experiment with quantum entanglement is at least thirty to fifty thousand dollars if you want to look at single photon measurements. But if those photons are gamma ray photons, then you can use a Geiger counter tube.

It's not all that sensitive, but you're able to do an enough you'll get enough data to get a meaningful result off of it. It's based on, or was inspired by, a Scientific American article by it's listed there. I think it was George Musser in a few years ago. And yeah, he's the author of that book Spooky Action at a Distance, which I would recommend. It's a good book if you want to understand how quantum entanglement works from a layman's perspective.

But he described this experiment and we unfortunately the equipment that he used is no longer available, so we had to cobble together a set of equipment that Corbyn was able to put together for his science project.

is one of the key ideas behind cryptography. I'm kind of skeptical about quantum computing, particularly when you consider that the biggest number that has been successfully factorized using quantum computing is fifteen. So I think there's a long way to go there, and a little skeptical about some of the premises underlying quantum computing. But I think that the fields and energy approach to electromagnetism and quantum mechanics could

allow us to leap frog some of those limitations. And why I set up the Society for Post Quantum Research and kind of hearkening back to a more classical motif in physics.

you know, at Princeton instead of being involved. There's the conventional wisdom is he had this brilliant youth where he came up with relativity and probably the last significant thing he did was the Bow's Einstein statistics, and he just couldn't keep up with the creative new ideas and quantum mechanics, and you know, even his EPR paper, well that was just the you know, the the last cry of the angry old man arguing that the Copenhagen interpretationists needed to

get off his lawn. You know, he really wasn't taken seriously. And my perspective, is i'll get into the next time, is that he came to realize that his approach to relativity, focusing on observables was wrong, and that a you know, the causal connectedness of reality was very important. That God didn't play Guy didn't play dice with the universe, and it's important a lot of people's conceptions of quantum mechanics.

They'll focus on things like Schrodinger's cat being the live and dead until you open the box and look in, or this concept of spooky action at a distance. And both of those concepts were reductio ad absurdums that were invented by Schrodinger in Einstein, respectively, to show how ludicrous the conventional interpretation was. So we'll get to that here in part two.

check that out too. I'll put a link in the show notes for this, and then we'll I'll start put something together for June and we can go back into the rest of these slides. So it's Hans G. Shaantson S C, H A N t Z. And the title for the talk today was Einstein, Relativity and Modern Physics Thanks so much.