Max Born
In 1929 Einstein, responding to a couple of Born papers regarding the probabilistic nature of the then-new Quantum Mechanics, answered that “God doesn’t play dice”. It is generally felt he was stating his belief that for every observed effect there is a cause, and that one of the main tasks in physics is to determine what the cause-effect laws are. (He was evidently referring to Born’s suggestion that the square of the quantum wave function, |Ψ|2, is only the probability density that a particle will be at a particular location at a specified time.(1))
Niels Bohr was a staunch advocate for the Born point of view. Reportedly when Einstein repeated (at a Physics conference) his opinion about God not playing dice, Bohr barked, “Einstein, stop telling God what to do!”
But all levity aside, who was more plausible? This little article suggests that it was Einstein. For a previous article on this site, titled “Bohr’s H Atom Revisited”, suggests (with the help of a computer) that an electron’s position can be uniquely determined when it moves under the influence of the “fixed” proton’s electric field.
Now Bohr can scarcely be faulted for not knowing about the above. For in 1913 the general expressions for the electric and magnetic fields had not yet been derived (and there were no computers back then). Of course Einstein was equally unaware of these two seminal developments. His statement seems to have been rooted in his staunch, uncorroborated belief that for every effect there is a specific and knowable cause.
As the above-cited article shows, the answer lies in Maxwell’s equations and in the Lorentz force law. And of course Newton paved the way with his assertion that a particle’s motion can be exactly calculated by application of his mechanical laws and the appropriate force law(s). It is a beautiful and reassuring idea which is challenged by quantum theory. The debate over determinism v.s. probability continues unabated as this article is being written.
For the record, the author sides with Einstein on this matter.(2) But he respectfully differs with the great Albert E. on another. Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is a difficult study which, among other things, purportedly explains the subtle precession of planetary orbits.(2) It turns out that this effect can much more easily be explained by a postulated gravitomagnetic field (see the article “On the Spinning Sun-Engendered Mercury Orbital Precession of .43 Arc Seconds per Year” on this website).
Ocham’s Razor, that the simplest solution is the best solution, suggests that gravitomagnetic theory be carefully considered by physics theorists, astronomers and others.
—————————————————————
- The idea, that we can only know the probability that a particle is at a given location at a given time, forms the cornerstone of Quantum Mechanics. Born won the Nobel prize for his suggestion of what the mysterious wave function, Ψ, signifies.
- Gravitomagnetic theory contends that planetary orbital precession is due to a magnetic-like force on a planet in the dipolar gravitomagnetic field of a rotating star. The general rule is :No star rotation, no planetary precession. As the author understands it, General Relativity predicts precession even when the star does not rotate. The precessions are exceedingly subtle to observe, and to some extent the debate between General Relativity and the fledging Gravitomagnetic Theory may be thought to be something of a tempest in a teapot. Stlll, the possibility warrants further consideration.