t follows I shall explain brie fly and in an elementary way why I considerthe methods of quantum mechanics fundamentally unsatisfactory

herefore inclined to believe that the description of quantum mechanics inthe sense of Ia has to be regarded as an incomplete and indirect description of reality,to be replaced at some later date by a more complete and direct one.

It follows that every statement about S2 which we arriveat as a result of a complete measurement of S1 has to be valid for the system S2, evenif no measurement whatsoever is carried out on S1. This would mean that allstatements which can be deduced from the settlement of ψ2 or ψ2' mustsimultaneously be valid for S2

This is, of course, impossible, if ψ2, ψ2', etc. shouldrepresent different real states of affairs for S2, that is, one comes into conflict with theIb interpretation of the ψ-function

an operation, however, can have no direct in fluence on the physical realityin a remote part R2 of space

Einstein cannot accept the fundamental fact of "entangled" systems explained to himby Schrödinger, that they cannot be separated

principle II, i.e. the independent existence of the real stateof affairs existing in two separate parts of space R1 and R2

from the point of view of quantum mechanics alone, this does not presentany difficulty. For, according to the choice of measurement to be carried out on S1, adifferent real situation is created, and the necessity of having to attach two or moredifferent ψ-functions ψ2, ψ2', ... to one and the same system S1 cannot arise.

sulting ψ2 depends on this choice, so that di fferent kinds of (statistical)predictions regarding measurements to be carried out later on S2 are obtained,according to the choice of measurement carried out on S1

This means, from the pointof view of the interpretations of Ib, that according to the choice of completemeasurement of S1 a different real situation is being created in regard to S2, which canbe described variously by ψ2, ψ2', ψ2'', etc

Any "measurement" instantaneously collapses the two-particle wave function ψ12.There is no "later" collapse when measuring the "other" system S2

make the assertion that the interpretation of quantum mechanics(according to Ib) is not consistent with principle II

llowing idea characterizes the relative independence of objects far apart inspace (A and B): external influence on A has no direct influence on B; this is known asthe 'principle of contiguity', which is used consistently only in the field theory. If thisaxiom were to be completely abolished, the idea of the existence of (quasi-) enclosedsystems, and thereby the postulation of laws which can be checked empirically in theaccepted sense, would become impossible

Anessential aspect of this arrangement of things in physics is that they lay claim, at acertain time, to an existence independent of one another, provided these objects 'aresituated in different parts of space'. Unless one makes this kind of assumption aboutthe independence of the existence (the 'being-thus') of objects which are far apart fromone another in space which stems in the first place from everyday thinking - physicalthinking in the familiar sense would not be possible. It is also hard to see any way offormulating and testing the laws of physics unless one makes a clear distinction of thiskind

the concepts ofphysics relate to a real outside world, that is, ideas are established relating to thingssuch as bodies, fields, etc., which claim a 'real existence' that is independent of theperceiving subject

we assume (in the sense of interpretation Ib) that the ψ-function completely describes a real state of affairs, and that two (essentially) differentψ-functions describe two different real states of affairs, even if they could lead toidentical results when a complete measurement is made. If the results of themeasurement tally, it is put down to the influence, partly unknown, of the measurementarrangements

According to this point of view, two ψ-functions which differ in more thantrivialities always describe two different real situations

italone does justice in a natural way to the empirical state of affairs expressed inHeisenberg's principle within the framework of quantum mechanics

(b) In reality the particle has neither a definite momentum nor a definite position;the description by ψ-function is in principle a complete description. The sharply-defined position of the particle, obtained by measuring the position, cannot beinterpreted as the position of the particle prior to the measurement. The sharplocalisation which appears as a result of the measurement is brought about onlyas a result of the unavoidable (but not unimportant) operation of measurement.The result of the measurement depends not only on the real particle situationbut also on the nature of the measuring mechanism, which in principle isincompletely known. An analogous situation arises when the momentum or anyother observable relating to the particle is being measured. This is presumablythe interpretation preferred by physicists at present

According to this point of view, the ψ-function represents an incompletedescription of the real state of affairs. This point of view is not the one physicistsaccept

der a free particle described at a certain time by a spatially restricted ψ-function (completely described - in the sense of quantum mechanics). According tothis, the particle possesses neither a sharply defined momentum nor a sharply definedposition. In which sense shall I imagine that this representation describes a real,individual state of affairs?

I imagine that this theory maywell become a part of a subsequent one, in the same way as geometrical optics is nowincorporated in wave optics: the inter-relationships will remain, but the foundation willbe deepened or replaced by a more comprehensive one.

Einstein’s objectively real view that aparticle has a position, a continuous path, and various propertiesthat are conserved as long as the particle suffers no interaction thatcould change any of those properties

It is impossible to predict in which of the two beams thephoton will be found

s Einstein’s “objective reality”sees it, an individual photon is always in a single quantum state!

This is to remind us that Einstein had long accepted thecontroversial idea that quantum mechanics is a statistical theory,despite the claims of some of his colleagues, notably Born, thatEinstein’s criticisms of quantum mechanics were all intended torestore determinism and eliminate chance and probabilities.

t was as important for him to improvise on the piano as it was for himto work on his physics. ’It is a way for me to be independent of people,’ he said.’And this is highly necessary for the kind of society in which we have.’5

PBR cite the above paragraph fromEinstein's 1935 letter to Schrödinger saying that for the same state of B there are twoequally justified ψB"

But note that the general ideathat two distinct quantum states may describe the same state of reality has a longhistory going back to Einstein. For example, in a letter to Schrödinger containing avariant of the famous EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) argument, Einstein argues fromlocality to the conclusion that [... quoting Einstein's argument]. In this version of theargument, Einstein really is concerned with the idea that there are two distinctquantum states for the same reality, and not with the idea that there are two differentstates of reality corresponding to the same quantum state (the more commonlyunderstood notion of incompleteness)".

wouldmean that in that case connections between Nature’s choices of the outcomesof measuring q2 or alternatively p2 cannot be assumed not to depend uponwhether q1 or p1 is measured

we're getting nowhere because the thinking that we're using to address the uh the problems is the same thinking that's creating them

However, in his 1920 speech given at the University of Leiden, he proclaimed in German, "According to the General Theory of Relativity, space without aether is unthinkable." [25].

Salesforce promotes Einstein GPT as the world’s first generative AI tool for CRM. Built on the GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) architecture and integrated in all of Salesforce Clouds as well as Tableau, MuleSoft, and Slack, Einstein GPT is capable of generating natural language responses to customer queries, creating personalized content, and even drafting entire email messages on behalf of sales representatives.

Einstein declared after he studied ‘ Holism and Evolution ’ that two mental constructs would direct human thinking in the next millennium* his own theory of relativity and Smuts> of ‘ holism ’ .

“A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, ‘Universe’, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.”

Indeed he identified Smuts as one of ten people in the world who, he believed, truly understood relativity.

In 1929, Einstein received a telegram inquiring about his belief in God from a New York rabbi named Herbert S. Goldstein, who had heard a Boston cardinal say that the physicist’s theory of relativity implies “the ghastly apparition of atheism.” Einstein settled Goldstein down. “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world,” he told him, “not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”

May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.

1954 letter Einstein

How Einstein Reconciled Religion to Science

Here itmay be noted parenthetically that Einstein was not sympathetic to thequantum-potential point of view, primarily because he insisted on a descriptionof physical reality in space-time with only local interactions.

Albert Einstein asserted that‘Education is what remains when we have forgotten everything that has beenlearned at school.’

• Daily writing prevents writer’s block.• Daily writing demystifies the writing process.• Daily writing keeps your research always at the top of your mind.• Daily writing generates new ideas.• Daily writing stimulates creativity• Daily writing adds up incrementally.• Daily writing helps you figure out what you want to say.

There is, of course, a certain connection between those elements and relevant logical concepts. It is also clear that the desire to arrive finally at logically connected concepts is the emotional basis of this rather vague play with the above-mentioned elements. But taken from a psychological viewpoint, this combinatory play seems to be the essential feature in productive thought — before there is any connection with logical construction in words or other kinds of signs which can be communicated to others.

scanned for solutions to long-standing problems in his reading,conversations, and everyday life. When he found one, he couldmake a connection that looked to others like a flash of unparalleledbrilliance

“Combinatory play,” said Einstein, “seems to be the essential feature in productive thought.”

The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious.

trailblazing physicist David Bohm and Indian spiritual philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti sat down for a mind-bending, soul-stretching series of conversations about some of the most abiding human concerns: time, transcendence, compassion, death, the nature of reality, and the meaning of existence.

In other fields, you can get going after a relatively short time. In mathematics, you can find reputation-making problems that you can actually attack after just a couple of years of college. It is very unlikely that you will make a significant contribution to Shakespeare scholarship before 30. And you’ll read a lot more. Which brings me to the question, once you know what your interests are, how much should you read? How much should you slow down your reading as you age? What is the most fertile ratio of reading to creating? The answer can be tricky. As fields mature, and apparently unsolvable controversies start to dominate (such as has happened at the edge of physics, around superstring theory), a high-paradigm field can become low-paradigm. Subfields can differ: “systems engineering” is lower-paradigm than electrical or mechanical engineering. But Einstein is right about one thing: the “living vicariously” part. That, rather than sheer quantity of reading, is actually the critical part. Depending on what problem you are trying to understand or solve, your reading may take you the rest of your life, or be done in two years. But how you read can determine whether you become a pedantic bore who contributes nothing, or somebody who makes new contributions.

In his reply to Einstein,

“We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it.”