In this blog post, we examine why Einstein never fully accepted quantum mechanics and ponder whether his stance was stubbornness or perseverance.
Among the scientists who lived in the same era as Werner Heisenberg, there is one figure we know well: Albert Einstein. He is the famous scientist who opened a new chapter in physics by proposing the theory of relativity. However, when quantum theory was first proposed, Albert Einstein took a position of vehement opposition. He was dissatisfied with the Uncertainty Principle from the start and endeavored to devise experiments to prove the theory could not hold. Yet his efforts repeatedly ended in failure. Even after many years had passed, Einstein never changed his view throughout his life. Regarding this, Werner Heisenberg wrote the following in his book Physics and Beyond.
“I could feel anew how difficult it is to abandon the representations that have been the basis of our thinking and the foundation of scientific research up to now. … (omission) … Albert Einstein was not prepared to remove the very footing he stood upon.”
In other words, it can be interpreted that Einstein refused to abandon his view due to his attachment to his own theory, accepting quantum theory only as a provisional explanation and not recognizing it as the ultimate explanation.
The real major issue was the confrontation between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein. The well-known Bohr vs. Einstein debate refers to Einstein repeatedly raising objections to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and Bohr countering these objections. Since Bohr and Werner Heisenberg shared the same position within the Copenhagen interpretation, Heisenberg can also be seen as taking the opposing stance to Einstein.
From a scholar’s perspective, when a new theory emerges that challenges the very concepts upon which one’s research is based, is it right to abandon the old concepts early and embrace the new theory? Of course, if it becomes clearly evident that the theory one believed in was wrong, it is necessary to discard it. However, readily abandoning existing theories is a matter that requires careful consideration. At the very least, until the conclusion that the existing theory is wrong is clearly established, an effort to fight against it is necessary. In a situation where a new concept dominates people’s minds, should one simply follow the majority opinion?
In a democratic society, following the principle of majority rule may seem natural. However, this is ultimately a method used to gather opinions within society; it is not suitable as a factor determining the direction of academic research. Scholars should not simply align their research direction with what others think. Scholars need faith in their own theories, and it is crucial that this faith is not easily shaken.
However, what matters most is the impact each attitude has on scientific progress. Consider the attitude of staying faithful to existing paradigms, exemplified by Albert Einstein. This attitude can delay the discovery of new facts. Ultimately, it can lead to a narrowing of the research scope. Yet, it offers the advantage of enabling deeper exploration through stable research. The potential to discover previously unknown facts through in-depth research also increases. Modern science has advanced beyond past levels, and the reality is that discovering new facts is difficult without deep research. Therefore, staying faithful to existing research can actually be more effective for new discoveries.
If research is conducted within flawed concepts, the deeper one delves, the greater the likelihood of encountering obstacles that existing concepts cannot explain. This is precisely the moment to seek something new. Clinging to old concepts despite the emergence of new ones can become an obstacle to scientific progress.
As Werner Heisenberg stated, suddenly abandoning a belief one has held dear is extremely difficult. Nevertheless, this is a process every scholar must experience at least once. The crucial factor here is the appropriate timing for abandoning a concept. Whether this timing stems from persistence or stubbornness becomes a vital judgment criterion. If one refuses to abandon a theory they believed in, even when a new concept has emerged resolving previous contradictions, most scholars have accepted the new theory as established doctrine, and the new concept has been proven correct, it would be called stubbornness. Conversely, if the new concept is incorrect, it will be recognized as perseverance.
Of course, one cannot say Albert Einstein’s attitude was correct. His refusal to acknowledge facts that became self-evident until his death was nothing but stubbornness. However, from a scholar’s perspective, even when a position refuting one’s own theory emerges, it is necessary to persistently strive to prove the theory’s validity until the appropriate moment, rather than abandoning it immediately. Isn’t this attitude more desirable, and isn’t it the posture of a scholar who can contribute to the advancement of science?
Albert Einstein’s attitude was stubborn. However, I believe it was better that he did not readily accept new concepts rather than immediately abandoning his own claims. Therefore, I would like to evaluate Albert Einstein’s attitude not as pure stubbornness, but as persistence.
