Relativity, And All That

Over at Talking Points Memo they are making fun of certain conservatives for being opposed to Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

No one likes making fun of conservatives more than me, of course, but making fun of them for making errors when stepping into the physical sciences is unsportsmanlike: it's the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. Ideologues of all sorts really show their ignorance when faced with differential equations. Besides, liberals make similar mistakes when they step out of their cozy little villages and into the physical sciences, but do I taunt them mercilessly? No, I just roll my eyes, change the subject, and go looking for conservatives who are making asses out of themselves.

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to delve into the History of Physics and find out why Einstein chose the term 'relativity'. The term already had its (for conservatives) negative connotations by the time Einstein came along.

For physics, relativity is a brilliant word, because it effectively conveys the message that the Universe possesses no absolute frame of reference. The only absolute value is the speed of light: everything else, like the passage of time, possesses an elasticity that is unsettling.

Einstein probably chose the word 'relativity' because it's hard to convey all these concepts with any other single word. But I wouldn't put it past that joker Einstein to deliberately tweak conservatives in the process of choosing the term. I'm sure he knew the term would rile conservatives!

In physics classes in U.S. universities, relativity is usually introduced in the sophomore year. The mathematics are startling easy to comprehend; at least, when compared to the morass of quantum physics. But it also means callow young college students no older than twenty can affect a sophistication that they really don't yet possess (they call them 'sophomores' for a reason). And, affecting sophistication, we can all mock conservatives together.

But, like I say, unsportsmanlike.

In comments, two statements stood out:

It is historical fact that the Nazi's had a serious problem with "Jewish physics" (aka relativity and quantum theory). There was a serious movement within the Nazi party to institute German Physics (Deutsche Physik) in place of “Jewish Physics”. The movement failed because the leading German scientists stood against it. At one point Werner Heisenberg’s mother actually called up Heinrich Himmler’s mother to complain about the hard time the Nazi’s were giving her boy.

As an aside, Einstein’s theory describes the natural universe we live in and experience daily. It most definitely does not describe supernatural events, and thus has no relevance to religious miracles, real or imagined. Science says nothing about the supernatural, other than making the fundamental working assumption that it is not necessary to describe the universe.

And:

This mystery isn't that difficult to solve. Sociologist Bryan S. Turner suggested that the relativism of Max Weber (following Nietzsche) was DESCRIPTIVE while the relativism of Derrida was NORMATIVE. What Schlafly is quite ignorantly trying to describe is his opposition to the NORMATIVE use of relativism. Relativity exists because we observe it (including culture and morality and, yes, physical). PRESCRIBING it also exists, in the form of postmodernism. Cultural conservatives erroneously equate the former with the latter, even if they are very complexly--though not necessarily--connected historically.

Wow! I don't even understand that last comment! Which just means, even now, somewhere out there on the Internet, someone is mocking me! Probably some damned sophomore philosophy student with an English minor.