Many students who discover, for the first time, the way that a concept’s meaning can subtly change from one context to the next, are so taken with this that they jump to the relativistic conclusion, namely, that new contexts change a concept in such a manner that, in the new context, it is incomparably different in meaning from the context where it first appeared. Against this, Derrida (1982: Signature event context, in Margins of Philosophy, Trans. Bass, A. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp 307-330) has argued that contexts are “unsaturable” in the sense that their meaning cannot, once and for all, be determined or “closed-off”, without subsequent developments impacting on them in a complexifying manner. This does not mean, as many of Derrida’s detractors believe, that he denies the possibility of arriving at meaningful interpretations, but it does imply that, to arrive at a responsible interpretation, one often has to follow the links of inscription and re-inscription of concepts rather scrupulously to uncover the complex, meaning-altering connections between one context and the next.
The manner in which newly established, but “unsaturable” contexts are continually re-inscribed in new, equally unsaturable contexts, where their initial meaning is both preserved and changed in the manner of a quasi-Hegelian “Aufhebung” (“quasi-”, because there is never any question of teleological progress towards any final, all-encompassing synthesis), is strikingly demonstrated by events in the subsequent theoretical history of Einstein’s famous equation at the heart of his special theory, namely E=mc squared.
Einstein had already upset the theoretical physics-applecart by positing an equivalence between energy and mass multiplied by the colossal figure of the speed of light squared (Bodanis, 2001: E=mc2). But not long afterwards, he himself was led to re-inscribe this formula in a more encompassing field – that of “general” relativity – as a result, it seems to me, of some further lateral thinking on his part concerning the implications of his formula regarding gravity and the behaviour of light. It had been well-known in physics that light has no mass or weight (Coles, 2000: Einstein and the Birth of Big Science, Cambridge: Icon Books), but consists of photons (conceived of as “pure” energy), in the language of physics. But if there is an equivalence between energy and mass (multiplied by c squared), then one might expect to find that light, too, behaved like ordinary, “massive” bodies in fields of gravity.
This thought is linked to the insight, in physicist Bodanis’s words (2001: 205), ” … that the more mass or energy there was at any one spot, the more that space and time would be curved tight around it”. In Newton’s physics, and even in Einstein’s special theory, light was thought of as proceeding along straight lines, but if space and time were to curve under the influence of mass or energy (these being equivalent), then light could be expected to curve as well. These considerations resulted in Einstein’s formulation of his more complex general theory of relativity in 1915, in which E=mc squared was inscribed in relation to other components. Bodanis explains (2001: 205-206):
“The equation that summarises this has great simplicity, curiously reminiscent of the simplicity of E=mc2. In E=mc2, there’s an energy realm on one side, a mass realm on the other, and the bridge of the “=” linking them. E=mc2 is, at heart, the assertion that Energy = mass. In Einstein’s new, wider theory, the points that are covered deal with the way that all of “energy-mass” in an area is associated with all of “space-time” nearby, or, symbolically, the way that Energy-mass = space-time. The “E” and the “m” of E=mc2 are now just items to go on one side of this deeper equation.”
What one witnesses here is the curious “logic” of lifting a signifier (in this case a composite one, namely E=mc squared) from one context and “grafting” it onto another: it remains the same AND simultaneously changes through being inscribed in a new context. Without retaining the meaning that it has in the special theory, it could not be fruitfully transposed to the wider context of the general theory of relativity, but at the same time, by being related to space-time, as well as the gravity and acceleration of the “real” physical world (instead of the conditions of pure theory and thought of the special theory), it also changes by being enriched by and enriching those concepts together with which it has been woven into a new, more complex chain of meanings.
Needless to say, like all scientific theories, Einstein’s new, general theory required confirmation through testing – it had to be “falsifiable”, in Popper’s terms, even if it were confirmed in the end. How this happened, and who was involved, is fairly well-known; suffice it to say that it entailed testing the theory in terms of the prediction that light would be curved by passing close to a massive body such as the sun – something that could only be done by measuring the deviation, if any, of the light indicating the positions of distant stars in relation to the sun (which could, for obvious reasons, only be done during a solar eclipse) from their positions at night.
But Einstein’s theory was, and has since been confirmed on many occasions; the important point for my present purposes being that this inscribed the signifier “Einstein”, as well as that of “relativity” and of E=mc squared yet again in a new context, because, as Bodanis (2001: 213-217) and Coles (2000: 56-61) both show, without the spectacular media-communication of the confirmation of his theory’s “prediction” that light would be found to “curve” around the sun, Einstein’s name, as well as the term “relativity”, would not have become household words. Again, grafting these signifiers onto new (historical) contexts, their meanings have been amplified by paradoxically remaining the “same” and changing.
Moreover, the “sliding of the signifier”, E=mc squared, along various chains of signification did not end there, nor does one have any reason to suspect that it will ever stop its historical and/or theoretical sliding or drifting. I shall mention only four more such instances of grafting E=mc squared onto new contexts. First, Cecilia Payne’s “discovery”, through her reflections on E=mc squared in the 1920s, that (contrary to what physicists believed until then), the sun does not consist largely of iron, but its colossal energy-output is due to its predominant hydrogen mass; second, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar’s discovery, through similar reflections, that about 6 billion years from now, the sun and all the planets in our solar system, will end in fire and ice when the final energy-outbursts of our sun will occur; and third, Fred Hoyle’s lateral use of E=mc squared, together with the notion of implosion, in the 1940s to solve the tantalising riddle of the origin of life through the creation of carbon, oxygen, iron, and so on by imploding and exploding stars.
Ironically – the fourth instance of re-contextualising Einstein’s fecund formula – Hoyle’s creative reflections on the link between E=mc squared and the origin of life had as their point of departure his awareness of the formula’s integral importance in the development of an atom bomb (a source of death on unprecedented scale) in America’s so-called Manhattan Project. Without the theoretical implications of E=mc squared the atom bomb would be unthinkable. It is not possible to recount all the stages and dramatic events of the race between Germany – with none other than Werner Heisenberg leading the Nazi project – and America here (Bodanis, 2001: 93-169); the point is that E=mc squared has been inscribed in meaning-preserving and meaning-modifying contexts of the most diverse kinds imaginable, on the spectrum stretching from life to mega-death, without ever reaching “context saturation-point”.
This is a modified excerpt from my paper, “The contemporary context of relativity and relativism”, reprinted in Philosophy and Psychoanalytic Theory, Peter Lang Publishers, 2009.
This excerpt gives new meaning to the famous quote:
“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough” ~Einstein
I have a simple question…
Are you sure?
@ Barry: If you had read the piece well enough, you would have noticed that the “simple” statement that Bert elaborates on here (in broadly poststructuralist terms) is the apparently paradoxical claim: “Things change (in new contexts) only because they remain the same.” More than 2000 years ago, Plato already realized this, when he asked what it was in things that remained the same through change, and what it was that changed. His answer, as you probably know, was couched as an elaborate metaphysical system of a-temporal Forms (that which remains the same, or Being) and its relation to the flux of the experiential world (of Becoming). But you would presumably also agree that even when something can be stated in such simple terms, it often hides complex relations. That is true of Einstein’s relativity physics, too.
Maria, I’ve always had a keen interest in Einstein, physics etc. however I’ll be the first to admit that I’m hardly an expert or even a genius for that matter.
I’ve read this “modified excerpt” as well as I could a couple times and I honestly can’t understand 90% of what he’s trying to explain here.
Also, I’ve read several of Stephen Hawking’s books for eg. and have had no trouble understanding his explanations.
Unless I’m missing something, I think Einstein meant what he said otherwise it would be a contradictory message. I doubt he intended it to be a riddle.
That things change while they remain the same and vice versa, is well known, in Taoism for one. Context-saturation too can, on a structural level of complexity be argued as never reaching saturation point; not so however in daily practice when for instance operating a machine while under the influence of mind altering substances. Bert Oliviers “present purpose” highlights an interesting aspect of something that is very common to all things in life. We all can think of daily situations where, put into different contexts, the same things change while remaining the same. It is also, as the author points out, a basic entry qualification for students of literature on their way to figuring out that there is no such thing as a “meaningful interpretation” per se but only the ever changing contextualization in which interpretations are placed and/ shifted to and from. – George Bernard Shaw put it succinctly: “The purpose of life is a life of purpose.” Or with Wittgenstein: “Die Welt ist alles was der Fall ist.” (“The world is everything that is the case.”) Einstein might have liked both these statements addressing the paradox of our human condition that things are what they are even when they are not what they are and that all meaning we give to things are aspects of contextualizations. And in answer to Barry’s (cheeky) question: Life is a riddle and there are many ways to skin a cat.
Barry, at no point did Bert claim that Einstein did not mean, simply, what he said. I suspect you are looking at this from an engineer’s perspective. Bert is not. I suspect your trouble in understanding him is due to a lack of understanding of the context of this blog. This is not an insult. We all have different fields of knowledge.
I did not say “from a scientist’s perspective” because, in my opinion, scientists and philosophers have much in common in the formulation of our ideas about the nature of things. Engineers work with “what”, to the best of our knowledge, “is”. Scientists and philosophers work with “what is” and “what might be so” from the “what is” that we have already established.
I think it’s the context that eludes you, not the content.
So Einstein said “If you cannot eplain it simply, you do not understand it well eough”. My take on this quotation raised by Barry is that ” explaining simply” and ” understanding well enough” are relative concepts that should not be taken out of context.
A good explanation is one that does justice (that is does not misrepresent the ideas being presented) while being economical. For example a specialist in general relativity can present the main arguments of this theory to non specialists who nonetheless have some understanding of physics.The extent to which the arguments of general relativity can be explained in a concise way such that it can be understoood by an intelligent but “physics illiterate” person is severely limited.
Walt
I agree it was rather cheeky of me.
Also, thanks for your comment. I kind of understand what this article is about now.
Thanks guys for the input.
The point I was trying to make was that one doesn’t have to make something so complicated that most people don’t know what is going on.
I think this is what Einstein had in mind when he said “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”
I do however understand that this paper was probably not intended to be understood by the general public, but more likely advanced experts in this field.
Philosophy, is it, I think, lol
Let me just say that I already know most of the physics aspects written in this article.
It’s the relation to philosophy, I think the author is trying to put across, that I’m still trying to get my head around.
To be honest, every time I tried to read this article all I could really see is “E=mc squared, E=mc squared, E=mc squared” which I found disturbing and confusing at the same time.
I conclude that this is probably a theory or some kind of thought experiment by the author relating E=mc2 to philosophy in a rather interesting fashion.
Could someone please try explain to me the importance or lack thereof of physics and philosophy (The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence) etc. when we die.
Isn’t all this just a complete waste of time? What is the purpose? Is there a purpose?
Or is this simply intellectualized wishful thinking much like religion but with less boundaries.
If we indeed have a soul that continues to exist after we physically expire, is our present knowledge transferable or do we tap into some kind of universal knowledge?
If so, what is the importance of philosophy right now? Do you see it as some kind of insurance in case there’s no such thing as universal knowledge?
Does reality and the physics that we are seemingly aware of change completely if we continue to exist in soul form?
I’m asking these questions in the hope of some philosophical answers/opinions.
I think I’m beginning to understand this now. Interestingly enough, I dreamt about this the whole of last night.
I realize that this is not really about “Einstein” at all, as the equation E=mc2 is not equal to Einstein.
I think I would have been less confused if the Title was “E=mc2 in new contexts”
Anyway, thanks for the article as I now have an interest in Philosophy which I always thought was a complete waste of time, which it probably is, however the subject is so intriguing that I can’t dismiss it entirely.
After pondering the initial apparent complexities of this article and after doing some simple research I realized that I am in fact a Philosopher by nature.
Now, I just have to find the time to try and juggle my various interests which will be the hardest part, as “time” (whatever that means) is not on my side.
fyi, I’m a musician/guitarist and computer expert (somewhat).
@Barry:
The ideas of Derrida et al are for the most part more banal than they would like them to be. This necessitates them being presented in a veneer of complexity to give those who cannot criticise ideas in their own terms a sense of legitimacy.
Explanations for those concerned with episteme instead of doxa can be found here:
Explaining Postmodernism (free download).
Fashionable Nonsense (deals with the problems you are hinting at, although not relevant to this blog post).
This blog concerns basic semiotics. There is a signifier, or a sign, and a signified, or interpretation of the sign. The signifier is connected to the signified by someone deriving meaning from the sign. Derrida claims that this is non-exhaustive, so it’s turtles all the way down. The same sign means different things to different people. A sign does not imply a particular signified (which is why I can interpret Deleuze and Guatarri as radical capitalists).
E = mc² here is the signifier. To scientists, it wasn’t ‘taken out of context’, but merely followed Einstein’s roadmap. Not the most suitable device to clarify semiotics concepts, but the post is about them and not about clarifying physics concepts.
@Garg Unzola
Interesting, cheers
Wow, Barry, I’m surprised and impressed by your persistence, or perseverance, in coming to grips with this post! Socrates remarked that philosophy creates a “wholesome unrest in the soul”, which seems to be what you have experienced. The sense of philosophy, among many other things, is that the process of reflecting and looking for answers (which will inevitably lead to more questions) is immensely rewarding – possibly because it takes you out of the usual, humdrum situation where (most) people simply accept the answers that convention offers them. Which is why philosophers – note: not necessarily those who “teach” philosophy – are usually quite suspicious of what masquerades as (politically) “correct”, conventional, and fashionable.
@ Barry – As your plea is for clear thoughts, clearly put, let me have a go.
There are two options open to you: believe in god, in which case you put yourself, as the preachers always tell us, in his hands and all your questions will be answered eventually; and if you find you can’t do that, which is a matter of faith, realize that you are on your own and you must believe in yourself.
What is most important of all though is, while listening to what everyone else tells you, not to believe anything anyone else tells you. You will be amazed to hear this, and many here will be enraged to hear me say this, but philosophers make things up.
That is what philosophy is for: to make you think.
Heh, Garg, my first thought upon reading the word “Einstein” in this article’s summary was Sokal.
Thanks for an interesting post, Bert.
If you want to piss off conservatives quote Einstein in terms of spirituality and quantum physics. Conservative scientists know quantum mechanics is the death knell of their life’s work and narrow belief system. A whole ‘new world’ that has always existed awaits the searcher who experiences expanded awareness and higher states of consciousness.
Wow, this is awesome
Initially, I was thinking that my “manic” comments were unecessary.
The truth is I’ve learned so much from this that I’m overjoyed as to how it turned out.
Thank you everyone for your help, Maria, Walt, Jens, Thandinkosi, Garg, Paul, Ladyfingers and Bert. Thank you all.
Take Care and Much Happiness
Peace
@Barry:
You could be forgiven for thinking that philosophy is a complete waste of time. I had a keen interest in philosophy until I reached university and became exposed to postmodernist ideas, which was somewhat sobering.
As a computer expert, you work with Aristotle’s philosophy in a box every day. There are some philosophical implications resulting from computers and their impact on societies and cultures. It’s not necessary to be familiar with the philosophy behind it in order to benefit from them, but it couldn’t hurt to know about Claude Shannon’s information theories, or the halting problem and others, which concern philosophy fundamentally.
Physics in particular has devastating results for philosophy and vice versa. Poincaré was greatly interested in these issues, but since he was both a philosopher and a scientist, his insights are more creditworthy and clear than postmodernist or poststructuralist thinkers in my view.
I would change the saying to:
“People and Human Nature remain the same, whatever else does or does not change”
How can even the religious argue that? If Man was made in the Image of God, he had to have been the same since the beginning did he not?
As for “if you can’t explain it simply you don’t understand it” the Chinese have a saying:
“what can’t be explained in 500 words is not worth explaining”
@Barry
A last word of advice. Do not rely on everyone’s generosity next time. Things can get pretty ugly on this site.