Shulou(Shulou.com)11/24 Report--

This article comes from the official account of Wechat: back to Park (ID:fanpu2019), the original title: "A description of Einstein's first thesis by Luo Changhai", author: Lu Changhai

Einstein's first paper has no real value, but it is published in the Almanac of Physics, which is at the forefront of witnessing and even creating the revolution in physics, which is metaphorical to Einstein's academic career.

In a letter to his girlfriend Mileva Mari Marieke on October 3, 1900, Einstein wrote: "the results I recently discovered in Zurich about capillarity, though simple, seem completely novel." This is the earliest conclusive written record of Einstein's capillarity research [Note 1].

Einstein's study of capillarity led to his first paper, Folgerungen aus den Capillarit ä tserscheinungen, published in the Yearbook of Physics (Annalen der Physik) a few months later.

Founded in 1799, the Yearbook of Physics is one of the most senior physics journals in Germany. "conclusions from capillarity" were received and published on December 16, 1900 and March 1, 1901, respectively. In the more than a decade after that, the journal will usher in a series of important papers by Einstein (including special relativity and general relativity), and in the year when "conclusions from capillarity" were published, there are only 40 pages short of the page number. Published is Max Planck's famous paper on the Law of Energy Distribution of normal Spectra (ber das Gesetz der Energieverteilung im Normalspektrum), which ushered in the quantum age.

It can be said that the Yearbook of Physics at that time was at the forefront of witnessing and even creating a revolution in physics.

Einstein's first paper, published in such a journal, is metaphorical to Einstein's academic career-although it has no real value except that it is "Einstein's first paper" and has a special layer of pure historical significance.

On the other hand, any scientist's first paper may carry some weight for the author himself-at least temporarily or in stages. Because even for a figure like Einstein, his vision is not "in one step", but there is a process of evolution and promotion. Therefore, before and after the publication of the first paper, Einstein took it very seriously and placed high hopes on it.

One sign of this high hope is that he sent his paper to some well-known physicists-partly to know their comments and partly as a "stepping stone" to find a job.

The first recipient is Austrian physicist Ludwig Bolzmann (Ludwig Boltzmann). As early as December 20, 1900, before the paper was published, Mileva mentioned in a letter to a mutual friend of her and Einstein that a copy of the paper had been sent to Boltzmann. Einstein's high hopes for the paper were also reflected in Mileva's words-because she wrote: "you can imagine how proud I am of my lover." And "this is not an ordinary paper, but very important."

Boltzmann became a recipient so quickly-even before the paper was published-probably because Einstein's paper inherited Boltzmann's theory of molecular motion in the theoretical framework (which required eyesight at that time, because the evidence for the existence of atoms and molecules was still weak at that time. And there are some heavyweights-- two of whom will be mentioned later-- who don't recognize the reality of atoms and molecules, so they want to know his comments for the first time. However, it is not known whether Boltzmann took advantage of the opportunity to "take a peek at it". There is no reply from Boltzmann in the documents included in the complete works of Einstein, and the background introduction written by the editor does not mention that Boltzmann has made any comments on Einstein's paper on any occasion.

In addition to Boltzmann, another heavyweight recipient is the German chemist Wilhelm Ostwald of the University of Leipzig (Leipzig University). Einstein sent Ostwald a hard copy of the paper, the month it was published. In the letter written at the time of the gift, Einstein said: "your work on general chemistry inspired me to write the enclosed paper." the date of the letter is March 19, 1901. At that time, Einstein was in a state of "graduation and unemployment", so using the opportunity of sending papers, he also "incidentally" asked about the possibility of being an assistant to Ostwald, and said: "the reason for taking the liberty of making such an inquiry is that I have no other way out, and only this type of position can give me the possibility of further improvement."

Ostwald did not reply.

The future master of physics did not give up on the excuse that he was "not sure whether his address was included in the letter" (according to the version of the complete works of Einstein, the letter actually included the address). On April 3, 1901, he wrote another letter to Ostwald, "taking the liberty to present the address". Ten days later, Einstein's father-without Einstein's knowledge-also wrote a letter to Ostwald asking for help from Ostwald for Einstein's situation.

Those letters were sunk into the sea.

It is not known whether Ostwald has read a paper sent by Einstein. But even if you read it, you probably won't be interested, because Ostwald is a so-called "energeticist" who believes that the main body of the world is energy rather than matter, disagrees with the reality of atoms and molecules, and is deeply hostile to the theory of molecular motion inherited by Einstein's papers. Not only that, he also made a clear criticism of the use of molecular motion theory to explain capillarity (which is the main idea of Einstein's paper-it has also been used by predecessors, not original). It is believed that it contains too many assumptions, "it is not so much clarification as ambiguity". Therefore, Einstein sent the paper to Ostwald with a sense of bumping into the muzzle of a gun, and it is not difficult to understand that the other party did not reply.

A little later than the gift to Ostwald, on April 12, 1901, after learning that Kamerlingh Onnes, a Dutch physicist at University of Leiden, had an opening for a teaching assistant position, Einstein also sent him a printed paper as a "stepping stone" to apply for the job. Einstein also specially attached a blank postcard with a self-written return address to make it easier for Anness to reply.

Onness didn't reply either. The blank postcard attached by Einstein was later collected in the Museum of the History of Science in Leiden.

Now that we talk about these follow-up events related to Einstein's first paper, let's also talk about what Ostwald and Onness later thought of Einstein. Both men had outstanding academic careers (Ostwald won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1909 and Onness won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1913), and both later spoke highly of Einstein. In 1909, Ostwald became the first person to recommend Einstein to the Nobel Committee (on the grounds of special relativity). Over the next few years, Ostwald continued to recommend Einstein, comparing him to Copernicus and Darwin in his 1912 recommendation-probably the first person to make such a high opinion of Einstein. In 1920, Onness joined the list of references, together with Dutch physicist Hendrik Hendrik Lorentz and others, recommended Einstein (on the grounds of general relativity) and called him the first-rate person of all physicists in history.

Ostwald and Onness's admiration for Einstein shows that they are calm and sincere in knowing people and making decisions. This frankness and sincerity also shows from one side that their neglect of Einstein's letter of "stepping stone" to Einstein's first paper in 1901 may not really find that paper of any value [Note 5].

If so, they actually made a correct judgment-because the paper really had no real value.

At this point, it's time to give a brief introduction to the details of that paper.

The starting point of that paper is the empirical fact that the surface tension of the liquid-or, equivalently, the mechanical work required to increase the free surface of the liquid by a unit area-is related to temperature. Using this empirical fact, Einstein made a basic judgment, that is, "We have no choice but to assume that the surface change is related to the heat exchange and that the surface has its own heat capacity." On the basis of this judgment, Einstein used the method of thermodynamics and through some simple deductions based on the first and second laws of thermodynamics, some relations that the total energy (that is, the sum of mechanical work and heat) required to increase the free surface of a liquid by a unit area as a function of temperature are obtained.

On the other hand, as the main part of the thesis, Einstein calculated the above total energy based on the theory of molecular motion. In this calculation, in Einstein's own words, he was "guided by the analogy with gravity" and made an assumption about the potential energy of interaction between molecules, assuming that this potential energy has a form similar to that of gravitational potential energy, that is, it is only related to the distance between molecules, except for a constant used to define the zero point of potential energy. It is proportional to the product of a characteristic constant of two molecules-similar to the gravitational potential energy that is only related to the distance between objects and is proportional to the mass product of two objects.

Specifically, Einstein assumed that the potential energy P of the interaction between molecules has the following form:

P = P ∞-C1 ·c2 ·φ (r)

Where P ∞ is the constant used to define the zero point of potential energy, φ (r) is a function which is only related to the molecular spacing r but independent of the type and properties of the molecule, and C1 and c2 are the characteristic constants of the two molecules. Einstein further hypothesized that the characteristic constant of a molecule is similar to the mass in its analogy of gravitational potential energy and can be obtained by the addition of the characteristic constants of the parts of the molecule, that is, the atoms. In other words, if the characteristic constant of each atom is known, the characteristic constant of the molecule can be obtained by adding the characteristic constant of the atoms that make up the molecule.

Einstein's assumption is that with the help of experimental data about capillarity, he can determine the characteristic constants of each molecule by comparing the results obtained by thermodynamic methods and molecular motion theory. and then calculate the characteristic constants of each atom that can best fit the molecular characteristic constants by addition. This idea is put into practice in this paper, and the characteristic constants of hydrogen (H), carbon (C), oxygen (O), chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br) and iodine (I) are calculated concretely. The fitting error ranges from a few percent to dozens of percent. Because there was little understanding of molecules and atoms at that time, the understanding of their properties was even less. In that case, determining the characteristic constants of molecules and atoms once gave Einstein a "magnificent feeling" (as evidenced by snippets of letters-which will be quoted later).

This is roughly what Einstein's first paper was all about.

For a master like Einstein, all aspects of him are carefully explored by researchers, and the origin of the ideas of each paper is the top priority, and the first paper is no exception. However, because the paper had no real value, Einstein himself paid no attention to it after his short high hopes dissipated and stopped talking about it in his later memories. Therefore, Einstein researchers of later generations can only take a painstaking path to search for factors that may have influenced the origin of his ideas from circumstantial evidence or materials that Einstein has come into contact with. Among them, the more likely are the following:

Ernst Mach's Mechanik, a masterpiece fully titled Mechanics: an introduction to the critical History of its Development (Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung: Historisch-kritisch dargestellt), Einstein may have read it as early as 1897 because of the recommendation given to Michele Besso by his best friend Mi. Although Mach holds philosophical opposition to the reality of atoms and is one of the most important and fiercest opponents of atomism, Mechanics briefly introduces the use of intermolecular forces to explain the shape of liquids.

Heinrich Friedrich Weber (Heinrich Friedrich Weber) Physics course-Weber is a professor of mathematics and technical physics at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. His course deals with intermolecular forces, and his influence on Einstein is evidenced by the latter's notes (see [Note 1]). Although there are still some inconclusive points, it is not a problem to be listed as a more likely factor.

Ostwald's works on General Chemistry-this factor is evidenced by Einstein's letter (that is, "your work on general chemistry inspired me to write the attached paper" quoted above), which is considered to be the General Chemistry textbook (Lehrbuch der allgemeinen Chemie) published in 1891. The book has a chapter on capillarity, and Einstein cited experimental data from the book.

Herman Minkowski (Hermann Minkowski), a professor of mathematics at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, gave a lecture on capillarity between April and July 1900, during Einstein's last semester at the Federal Institute of Technology. Minkowski had a strong interest in physics for a long time, and later his work on the theory of relativity was even better known than his mathematical work. Minkowski's dabbling in capillarity is by no means general, and later wrote an entry for the highly authoritative Encyklop ä die der mathematischen Wissenschaften in 1906. An Einstein classmate at the Federal Institute of Technology recalled that Einstein was impressed by Minkowski's speech and called it "the first mathematical physics lecture we heard at the Institute of Technology" in an article provided to the Swiss writer Carl Seelig.

Boltzmann's Theory of Gas (Gastheorie)-Boltzmann's work is probably the most influential factor in Einstein's first paper, because it not only systematically expounds the theory of molecular motion, but also deals directly with capillarity and even introduces its possible relationship with intermolecular forces. Einstein's favor for this work is evidenced by his letter (see [Note 1]).

4 after introducing the general content and possible origin of Einstein's first paper, let's talk about its defects. Richard Feynman, an American physicist, once said, "follow a theory far enough until you can see everything-- including all its difficulties, and you may have some sense of accomplishment." Feynman's remark is aimed at Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, which is one of the most beautiful classical theories. although Einstein's reputation is still above Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, his first paper can never be compared with Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. but since readers have followed this article so far, talking about the shortcomings of that paper may inspire some "sense of achievement".

There are many defects in Einstein's first paper. One of the primary defects is that it is "guided by the analogy with gravity", which assumes that the potential energy of interaction between molecules is similar to the potential energy of gravity and can be described by a function that is only related to the distance between molecules and has nothing to do with the type and properties of molecules. This assumption is defective because intermolecular forces-especially in cases where molecules such as liquids are closer to each other-are much more complex than gravity. This complexity can not be covered simply by replacing the inverse square relationship between gravity and distance with a more general function (which Einstein has already done). It is closely related to many factors such as the type, properties and spatial orientation of molecules (for example, the effective range of intermolecular forces is closely related to molecular types, and functions independent of molecular types and properties cannot cover this relationship). In addition, the interaction potential energy between molecules is not simply proportional to the product of the so-called characteristic constants of two molecules, let alone from the addition of the characteristic constants of the atoms that make up the molecule. Therefore, being "guided by analogies with gravity" is misleading-or at least very rough.

Second, in the specific calculation, Einstein adopted what is now known as the "mean field approximation" (mean-field approximation), which treats each molecule as infiltrating in the mean field formed by the interaction of other molecules. Although this is a commonly used approximation, and even today there is still an opportunity to exert its talents in dealing with certain problems, it is not very applicable to the study of capillarity, and it has been questioned at that time.

Of course, Einstein was not unaware of the shortcomings of the paper. In fact, even if it is not out of theoretical critical vision, it is not difficult to deduce some assumptions or approximate roughness or inapplicability from the fitting results. For example, the error of some fitting is as high as dozens of percent. To make matters worse, Einstein assumed between the lines that the intermolecular force was attractive (what he called "molecular attraction"), but the calculated characteristic constant of the hydrogen atom was negative, corresponding to the repulsive force-- and not the kind of repulsive force that should occur at a short distance, but represents the mutual attraction between the hydrogen atoms (because the characteristic constants of the two hydrogen atoms are negative and the product is positive. Corresponding to mutual attraction, hydrogen atoms and other atoms repel each other (because the characteristic constants of hydrogen atoms are negative, the characteristic constants of other atoms are positive, the product is negative, corresponding to mutual repulsion). Einstein did not comment on the results, but perhaps because of these unsatisfactory aspects, he admitted at the end of the paper that "for the time being, it must be regarded as completely uncertain about whether and how our forces are related to gravity." He also pointed out that φ (r), which has nothing to do with molecular properties, "should be understood as an approximate hypothesis". This caution in wording sets the stage for the subversion of the theme of the paper-as "complete uncertainty" becomes more and more clearly "certainty"-nothing more than a "certainty" error.

In addition to the above major defects, there are many technical flaws in Einstein's first paper. For example, he did not realize that the two methods he used to derive a proportional coefficient were thermodynamically equivalent under the approximation he used (which was quickly pointed out by a commentator who did not think highly of his paper); for example, in the expression of surface potential energy, an one-dimensional integral to coordinates is mistaken into a three-dimensional integral, so that even the dimensions are wrong. As for smaller flaws, such as symbolic errors (in an energy expression), subscript errors (in a thermodynamic relationship), missing half parentheses (in an integral expression), and so on, you can "throw the pot" to the editor.

Although Einstein's first paper had many defects and had no real value, it represented, to a certain extent, one of the main areas of interest of Einstein in that period, namely, the theory of molecular motion. That interest lasted for several years after that. In addition to the first paper, the second paper included in the complete works of Einstein is "on the thermodynamic theory of the potential difference of fully dissociated solutions of metals and their salts and on an electrical method for studying molecular forces" (Ueber die thermodynamische Theorie der Potentialdifferenz zwischen Metallen und vollst ä ndig dissociirten L ö sungen ihrer Salze und ü ber eine elektrische Methode zur Erforschung der Molecularkr ä fte Published in 1902), the third paper Kinetische Theorie des W ä rmegleichgewichtes und des zweiten Hauptsatzes der Thermodynamik (1902), the fourth paper Eine Theorie der Grundlagen der Thermodynamik (1903), and the fifth paper Zur allgemeinen molekularen Theorie der W ä rme (1904). And many of Einstein's comments on other people's papers in those years also involved the theory of molecular motion. That interest even converged and spanned 1905, the famous Einstein's "miracle year" (Annus Mirabilis).

During the period when he was most enthusiastic about the theory of molecular motion, on April 14, 1901, shortly after the publication of his first paper, Einstein wrote a famous sentence in a letter to his classmate and good friend Marcel Grossman (Marcel Grossmann)-- perhaps Einstein's earliest "golden sentence": "recognize unity from complex phenomena that seem unrelated to direct observation of the senses." It was a magnificent feeling. " Although Einstein's "unity" here refers to the relationship between intermolecular force and gravity (in the original words in the letter, it is "the inherent kinship between molecular force and Newton's super-distance force"), but the pursuit of that "magnificent feeling" based on "unity" ran through Einstein's life and created his greatest achievement. It also led to his "Waterloo" in his later years.

In the above-mentioned letter to Grossman, Einstein also said that it was possible to use his research on molecular forces to write a doctoral thesis. The idea was later put into practice and submitted to Alfred Kleiner, an experimental physicist at the University of Zurich. Einstein was so confident in the doctoral thesis that he declared in a letter to Mileva on November 28, 1901, "I don't think he dared to reject my paper." In a letter to friends at the end of the same year, Mileva also said that Einstein had completed a beautiful study and submitted a doctoral thesis, "probably getting a doctorate within a few months." In terms of time, the doctoral thesis is significantly earlier than Einstein's second paper, so there should be a big overlap with the first paper in content.

But the doctoral thesis was withdrawn before it entered the defense process. The 230 francs application fee paid by Einstein for his doctorate was also refunded by the University of Zurich-the complete works of Einstein included a receipt signed by Einstein for a refund (the receipt shows that Einstein paid the application fee on November 23, 1901, and the receipt itself was dated February 1, 1902).

Why was the doctoral thesis withdrawn? The complete works of Einstein provides two contradictory statements. One statement appeared in the notes on the receipt, citing Rudolf Kayser, the husband of Ilse Einstein's stepdaughter Ilse Einstein, saying it was because Boltzmann's theory was "sharply criticized" by Einstein, and Kleiner rejected the paper out of respect for Boltzmann. Another theory appeared in an editor's note entitled "Einstein on Molecular Force" (Einstein on Molecular Forces), citing emails from Einstein to Mileva that showed that Kleiner did not read Einstein's doctoral thesis in time (and therefore did not refuse). Since the paper was withdrawn soon after, in January 1902, the editor speculated that "it may have been requested by Einstein."

Which of the two statements is right or wrong? I think the latter is more likely. In fact, the former statement is quite nonsensical, although the doctoral thesis no longer exists, but Einstein's first paper, which should overlap with it, did not "sharply criticize" Boltzmann's theory (on the contrary, it was deeply influenced by Boltzmann). It is impossible for Kleiner to reject the paper out of respect for Boltzmann. However, whatever the reason for the withdrawal of the doctoral thesis, its premature death probably confirms to a large extent that Einstein's first paper has little real value.

Einstein's peak achievements in the field of molecular kinematics were on the Motion of suspended particles in static liquids (Ü ber die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der W ä rme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Fl ü ssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen), published in 1905, and Eine neue Bestimmung der Molek ü ldimensionen, published in 1906. The former is one of the four major papers in Einstein's Miracle year. The latter makes its author "Dr. Einstein".

After that, Einstein's interest in the theory of molecular motion, especially intermolecular forces, waned significantly, and he regretted his lack of work in his first paper. In 1907, Einstein wrote a relativistic review for the Jahrbuch der Radioaktivit ä t und Elektronik at the invitation of experimental physicist Johnannes Stark (Johannes Stark). When asked about his other papers, he sent a number of published papers on December 7, 1907, but omitted the first two, calling them "worthless". Albrecht F ö lsing, a physicist-turned-science biographer, echoed Einstein's "self-blackening" of the two papers in his nearly 900-page biography of Albert Einstein: a Biography in 1998, saying: "if they were not written by Einstein, these two papers would have disappeared into the abyss of the history of science forever."

Of course, despite a marked decline in interest, Einstein studied the theory of molecular motion and even intermolecular forces sporadically in the years that followed. In 1911, he published the last paper related to the topic discussed in the first paper, namely, surface tension and the theory of molecular motion. In this paper entitled "Bemerkung zu dem Gesetz von E ö tv ö s", Einstein revised the expression of the surface potential energy in the first paper we listed earlier, in which even the dimensions are wrong. But although it had something to do with the first paper, which was the perfect time to correct the reputation of the old work, he didn't even mention it. On the one hand, it shows that Einstein has no interest in his first paper and doesn't even bother to correct it. On the other hand, it also shows that Einstein is very inconsiderate and even quite casual in citing literature. If this is in today's fierce academic competition, do not quote their own old work but return, once the omission of other people's papers, I am afraid it will cause an uproar, and even be regarded as "academic misconduct."

6 the academic aspects of Einstein's first paper are roughly finished. At the end of this paper, I will briefly describe a feature of the logical structure of this paper.

Those who are familiar with Einstein's philosophy of science may know that Einstein has a classification of physical theories, that is, physical theories are divided into two categories, one is called "constructive theory" (constructive theory), and the other is "fundamental theory" (principle-theory). An article published in the The Times in 1919 entitled "what is the Theory of Relativity?" (What is the Theory of Relativity?) In his article, Einstein defined these two kinds of theories as follows: the constructive theory is based on a relatively simple formal system. Try to construct images for more complex phenomena "; the principle theory is to" use analytical rather than comprehensive methods, "... The elements that form their foundation and starting point are not hypothetically constructed, but are found in experience and are the general characteristics of natural processes. That is, principle. Einstein also listed the theory of molecular motion and thermodynamics as typical examples of two kinds of theories. The former uses molecular motion, a "relatively simple formal system" as a starting point, to "construct images" for macroscopic phenomena. The latter tries to start from several "basic principles, that is, the laws of thermodynamics, which are not hypothetically constructed, but discovered in experience." Macroscopic phenomena are studied through "analytical rather than comprehensive methods".

One of the logical structure features of Einstein's first paper is that it happens to be the fusion of "constructive theory" and "principle theory". And it happens to be the fusion of two typical examples listed by Einstein-- the theory of molecular motion and thermodynamics-- and the results are obtained through the comparison of these two kinds of theories.

Einstein also commented on the characteristics of these two kinds of theories, summed up the characteristics of "constructive theory" as "complete, adaptable, and clear", and the characteristics of "principle theory" as "logical perfection and reliable foundation". In contrast, the characteristics of "constructive theory" focus on skill and practicality (that is, the so-called "strong adaptability"). Once it loses its practicality, the skills in "construction" often lose its value; the characteristics of "logical perfection and reliable foundation" of "principle theory" are more robust from the point of view of demonstration and reasoning. This is not difficult to understand, because since the "principle" is "found in experience and is a general feature of natural processes", it takes it as a starting point and uses an "analytical rather than a comprehensive method". According to the definition, it has the dual advantages of demonstration and reasoning, thus obviously more robust. Einstein's first paper can be said to be an example: what is relatively valuable is the part of the "principle theory", that is, the corollary of the laws of thermodynamics, and one of the equations is even called the "Einstein's equation equation" [7]-- of course, the name of the equation is an honor to ordinary scholars, but nothing to Einstein, in fact. When it comes to the "Einstein equation", few people think of the equation in his first paper (or even that paper), but often think of the generalized relative field equation or mass-energy relation.

Annotation

1. Of course, just like the text itself ("what I recently found in Zurich.") It shows that Einstein's study of capillarity was carried out before the letter was written. The word "conclusive" is emphasized because there are earlier but less conclusive records. For example, in Einstein's lecture notes for Weber's winter semester in 1897 and 1898, there was a short note on intermolecular forces that read, "Research! vacation." In addition, in a letter to Mileva in mid-September 1900, Einstein praised the "gas theory" (Gastheorie) of the Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, calling it convincing in explaining physical phenomena through molecular motion. Since "explaining physical phenomena through molecular motion" is Einstein's main idea for studying capillarity, and intermolecular force is one of the starting points for that study, the above comments and letters may be related to the study of capillarity. it's just that the relationship is not conclusive-- because capillarity is not mentioned directly.

two。 "normal spectrum" is Planck's term for the radiation spectrum in a perfect reflection cavity, the so-called blackbody radiation spectrum, which is not very common, and Planck himself has used it only a few times.

3. Einstein's father's letter, in the words of Einstein's old aide Banesh Hoffmann, not only shows the father's love for his son, but also reveals the hardships of Einstein's state of mind during that period (which is relatively obscure in Einstein's own letters). For example, he wrote: "my son is deeply saddened by his current unemployment, thinking that his career has been derailed and that his marginalization is getting more and more serious day by day."

4. Mr. Qin Guangen wrote Einstein (China Youth Publishing House, 1979), which mentioned that Einstein met Anness at the Solvay Conference (Solvay Conference) in 1911, and the latter said to him, "now it's time for me to be your teaching assistant." I still keep the postcard you wrote ten years ago. In the future, I will send it to the museum to show future generations how confused I was as an old man. " I can't find the original source of this passage, so I can't quote it as a source. But Mr. Qin's Einstein is the earliest I have ever read, and it is also my favorite and most impressive biography of Einstein when I was a child. I would like to mention it here as an excuse for nostalgia and as a thank you to Mr. Qin Guangen, who brought me pleasure in reading. At the same time, from my later understanding of Einstein's materials, I can judge that although Mr. Qin's book is a children's book, it is not necessarily an exception (for example, Einstein saw that Onness was a historical fact at the Solvay Conference in 1911, and "send it to the Museum in the Future" is also consistent with the actual destination of postcards). Readers who know the origin of the original are welcome to write to correct it.

5. The reason why it is only "possible", apart from being guessed and therefore impossible to be sure, is that it is impossible to know for sure whether they have read Einstein's papers-if not, value judgment is impossible.

6. The Encyclopedia of Mathematical Science mentioned here is an encyclopedia of respectable and moral people. Its editor, Felix Klein, is the leading mathematician of Gottingen, the mathematical "holy land", and is described by biographer Constance Reid as the king of Gottingen and even the god of Gottingen; its author list is like a "star record" of mathematical physicists. Many of its "entries"-- such as Wolfgang Pauli's Relativit ä tstheorie, Paul Ehrenfest's Conceptual basis of Statistical methods in Mechanics (Begriffliche Grundlagen der statistischen Auffassung in der Mechanik), and Max Born's solid Atomic Theory (Atomtheorie des Festen Zustandes)-- have been written independently. And it is still a masterpiece to this day.

7. Curious readers may want to know what kind of equation this is in the form of d (γ + ω 0) / dT =-Td2 γ / dT2. Where γ and ω 0 are the mechanical work and heat required to increase the free surface area of the liquid by one unit, respectively, and T is the temperature.

reference

A. Calaprice, et al., An Einstein Encyclopedia, (Princeton University Press, 2015).

[2] R. W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, (Avon Books, 1971).

A. Einstein, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein (vol. 1-15), (Princeton University Press, 1987-2018).

A. F ö lsing, Albert Einstein: a Biography, (Penguin Books Ltd., 1997).

[5] P. Frank, Einstein: His Life and Times, (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1947).

[6] H. Gutfreund and J. Renn, Einstein on Einstein: Autobiographical and Scientific Reflections, (Princeton University Press, 2020).

[7] W. Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe, (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, (Oxford University Press, 1982).

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.