Einstein’s Scientific Imagination and Principles of Research
Tags: Physics, Mathematics, Imagination, Einstein, Science

Albert Einstein is considered to be the most famous genius in the scientific community. Best known for his theories of relativity and the photoelectric phenomena- for which he was awarded the 1921 Nobel prize in Physics, Einstein barely did any experiment, in fact, most of his discoveries were done based on some weird but mind-bendingly intriguing thought experiments. But what exactly were the principles of Einstein’s research? And what made it possible for him to unravel some of the most important mysteries of the universe? I’m going to shed light on some of Einstein’s thoughts with regard to scientific thinking and imagination.

Albert Einstein During His Visit to Paris in 1922

The statements and remarks presented in this article were delivered by Albert Einstein himself at a celebration of Max Planck’s sixtieth birthday (1918) before the Physical Society in Berlin. Published in Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam: Querido Verlag,1934.

Max Planck (1858–1947) was for many years professor of theoretical physics at the University of Berlin. By far the most outstanding of his contributions to physics is his quantum theory, which he advanced in 1900 by providing the theory of blackbody radiation — the theory that provided the basis for the whole development of modern quantum physics. Planck is considered, for this reason, as one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics. Next to Planck it was Einstein who did the pioneering work in the young field, above all in his theory of light quanta or photons (1905) and his theory of specific heats (1907). Einstein’s early contributions to quantum theory include his heuristic suggestion that light behaves as if it is composed of photons, and his exploration of the quantum structure of the mechanical energies of particles embedded in matter. It was he who perceived more than anyone else the fundamental and pervasive character of the quantum concept in all its ramifications.

Einstein starts the address by comparing science with a temple and the scientists with the people who offer products of their brains and intellect for the development of the temple of science. He then makes a remark on Max Planck, considering him as one of those who are always left inside the temple of science and who are primarily responsible for the development of science to a great extent.

In the temple of science are many mansions, and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them thither. Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present and past times, left inside. Our Planck is one of them, and that is why we love him. I am quite aware that we have just now light-heartedly expelled in imagination many excellent men who are largely, perhaps chiefly, responsible for the building of the temple of science; and in many cases our angel would find it a pretty ticklish job to decide. But of one thing I feel sure: if the types we have just expelled were the only types there were, the temple which consists of nothing but creepers. For these people any of human activity will do, if it comes to a point; whether they become engineers, officers, tradesmen, or scientists depends on circumstances.

Credit: Doreen Spooner / Getty Images

He describes the reason behind why some people are always left inside the temple of science and are never expelled by the angel of Lord. He then sheds light on an important philosophical remark about what leads men to indulge themselves into the world of discoveries in science and the sense of beauty and impression in arts — into the world of objective perception and thought.

Now let us have another look at those who have found favor with the angel. Most of them are somewhat odd, uncommunicative, solitary fellows, really less like each other, in spite of these common characteristics, than the hosts of the rejected. What has brought them to the temple? That is a difficult question and no single answer will cover it. To begin with, I believe with Schopenhauer that one of the strongest motives that leads men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one’s own ever shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from personal life into the world of objective perception and thought; this desire may be compared with the townsman’s irresistible longing to escape from his noisy, cramped surroundings into the silence of high mountains, where the eye ranges freely through the still, pure air and fondly traces out the restful contours apparently built for eternity.

Einstein explains the importance of an individual when one tries to speculate the world and the universe one lives in, be it painter, a scientist, or a philosopher- everyone tries to create their own versions of comprehensibility of the cosmos. Addressing some of the very important questions that might come in mind after all these interesting thoughts: What place does a physicist’s picture of the world hold among all the pictures out there? How is a physicist’s scientific imagination limited? What are the things that need to be kept into account by a scientific mind in order to formulate a subtle and complete theory?

With this negative motive there goes a positive one. Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world; he then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it. This is what the painter,

the poet, the speculative philosopher, and the natural scientist do, each in his own fashion. Each makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life, in order to find in this way the peace and security which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience. What place does the theoretical physicist’s picture of the world occupy among all these possible pictures? It demands the highest possible standard of rigorous precision in the description of relations, such as only the use of mathematical language can give. In regard to his subject matter, on the other content himself with describing the most simple events which hand, the physicist has to limit himself very severely: he must content himself with describing the most simple events which can be brought within the domain of our experience; all events of a more complex order are beyond the power of the human intellect to reconstruct with the subtle accuracy and logical perfection which the theoretical physicist demands. Supreme purity, clarity, and certainty at the cost of completeness. But what can be the attraction of getting to know such a tiny section of nature thoroughly, while one leaves everything subtler and more complex shyly and timidly alone? Does the product of such a modest effort deserve to be called by the proud name of a theory of the universe?

Einstein, c. 1952–1955

Einstein describes the primary method of formulating the scientific principles and physical theories which are complete, comprehensible and utterly distinct- the method of deduction. He further explains that these principles and laws cannot be formed by logical methodologies but by the role of mere intuition that rests on the sympathetic understanding of one’s experiences. Such approach to deduction, formulation and comprehensibility does provide several explanations for a single theory and multiple understandings of the same phenomena. However, there’s always one that stands out as superior than the rest.

In my belief the name is justified; for the general laws on which the structure of theoretical physics is based claim to be valid for any natural phenomenon whatsoever. With them, it ought to be possible to arrive at the description, that is to say, the theory, of every natural process, including life, by means of pure deduction, if that process of deduction were not far beyond the capacity of the human intellect. The physicist’s renunciation of completeness for his cosmos is therefore not a matter of fundamental principle. The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. In this methodological uncertainty, one might suppose that there were any number of possible systems of theoretical physics all equally well justified; and this opinion is no doubt correct, theoretically. But the development of physics has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself decidedly superior to all the rest. Nobody who has really gone deeply into the matter will deny that in practice the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system, in spite of the fact that there is no logical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles; this is what Leibnitz described

so happily as a “pre-established harmony.” Physicists often accuse epistemologists of not paying sufficient attention to this fact.

Einstein then ends the address by mentioning some gentle remarks about Max Planck and how his contributions to science, to physics in particular, are crucial and stand out in terms of scientific significance. Einstein addresses Planck by mentioning the fact that he has played an important role in approaching and solving some of the greatest problems in science and wishes him success in his attempts to unify quantum theory with the theory of electrodynamics.

The longing to behold this pre-established harmony is the source of the inexhaustible patience and perseverance with which Planck has devoted himself, as we see, to the most general problems of our science, refusing to let himself be diverted to more grateful and more easily attained ends. I have often heard colleagues try to attribute this attitude of his to extra-ordinary will-power and discipline-wrongly, in my opinion. The state of mind which enables a man to do work of this kind is akin to that of the religious worshiper or the lover; the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart. There he sits, our beloved Planck, and smiles inside himself at my childish playing about with the lantern of Diogenes. Our affection for him needs no thread-bare explanation. May the love of science continue to illumine his path in the future and lead him to the solution of the most important problem in present-day physics, which he has himself posed and done so much to solve. May he succeed in uniting quantum theory with electrodynamics and mechanics in a single logical system.