What is a Parent?

Two events today reminded me about the English summative last year. First being borrowing some Hamlet study guides from the library. Second being family friend coming over and discussing about sets of infinities (Cantor slash is sooo genius). Despite all the agony about writing it as a canon, it turned out pretty well. Thought I'd share it as school is starting soon xD

It is October 6^th, 1975 and Albert Einstein is at the Munich airport first class lounge waiting for his flight to Copenhagen. He is glancing over the current newspaper while sipping a mug of steaming tea. He has been sitting there alone for a few hours due to a flight delay. The door opens and Niels Bohr walks in, also carrying a mug of tea.

Einstein: (looks up) Good day fellow traveler, has the delay affected you too?

Bohr: Good day to you too. Yes it has indeed. I’m thankful that I have finally found the lounge, otherwise I’d likely still be pacing around in the boarding area.

Einstein: How inconvenient! Have there been any updates?

Bohr: I’m afraid not, there is always much uncertainty surrounding flight delays.

Einstein: (mutters to himself) sigh, always uncertainties.

Bohr: (continuing) Is that earl grey tea you are sipping?

Einstein: Haha yes. I always see a dear friend of mine drinking it and now it has become a habit of mine as well. Are you also heading to Copenhagen?

Bohr: Of course, going back to my birthtown you see. It’s been quite a long while since I last set foot there. How about you, what business might you have there?

Einstein: I’m actually paying a visit to my friend’s place of study, the one that I just mentioned. It’s actually the 90^th anniversary of his birth tomorrow.

Bohr: Might…might the place you’re referring to be the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the university?

Einstein: Why certainly, you know of Niels Bohr too?

Bohr: (chuckles) Believe it or not, I AM Niels Bohr.

Einstein: (gasp) I haven’t seen-

Bohr: (cuts Einstein off) Wait, how did you know that I like earl grey as well? (longer pause) My goodness, Albert?

Einstein: Niels! This is certainly an interesting turn of events. It is quite unbelievable that we would meet again just as I am about to visit your institute. I would have never dreamed of, though I am certainly glad to see you.

Bohr: It is great meeting you again Albert! I would have likely never recognized you without your distinct haircut. Oh I have sorely missed you! Though you haven’t changed much in all these years, still so certain about everything haha. I’m telling you, for the umpteenth time, your deterministic view is not the natural way.

Einstein: Oh please, let’s not start this again. Without such resolve, I certainly would not have been able to accomplish everything that I did. Oh, you must have heard that the university has named the institute after you?

Bohr: Yes haha, it’s too great of an honor.

Einstein: Nonsense Niels, when did you become so modest! It has served as the focal point of theoretical physics research for decades. Not to mention that you certainly deserve it, your theories laid the foundation for the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics! Though I must tell you, for the umpteenth time, although the interpretation explains the perplexing experimental results, your probabilistic view is not the natural way.

Bohr: You were the one that said not to start this again. But thank you Albert, you flatter me, living a few more years sure makes a person humble. Though truly, my contributions pale in comparison to yours.

Einstein: If only you were this humble during our debates haha. You know that I respect your theories as much as I oppose their implications. They are certainly as important as mine.

Bohr: Says the man whom the public refers to as ‘the father of relativity’; they never called me the father of quantum physics! Haha, though that’s probably because there are just so many other qualified candidates, great men like Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, and Werner Heisenberg. Even yourself, dear Albert, should be considered one as well; your postulation that light consisted of individual quanta, used to explain the photoelectric effect, is what started it all!

Einstein: Well, like Newton said, ‘If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants’. I could not have viewed photons in that light without the work of all the academics of the past.

Bohr: (laughs) when did you become so clever with words too? Though I must reiterate, your insistence on the probabilistic interpretation of quantum physics being incomplete is wrong. You were fundamentally involved with its development, how can you not see the theory as a child that you have so carefully brought up?

Einstein: Hmm, surely I refine my theories as carefully as I would have brought up my children. But unlike parental love that is unconditional, I realize later that some of my theories are incorrect and I instantly disfavour them. Clearly that is conditional. Remember the cosmological constant that I added to general relativity in order for the equations to result in a static universe? Afterwards I recognized my mistake and immediately removed it.

Bohr: However, like a doting parent, you tirelessly defended your other theories. You recall when you first published your paper on the photoelectric effect and claimed that light can be quantized? Every other physicist, myself included, fervently rejected that notion. Nevertheless, you stood by your theory.

Einstein: Of course I would turn defensive if someone attacked my ideas, certainly anyone would. Besides, all of you should be thanking me for firmly standing my ground.

Bohr: Perhaps it will be easier to answer if we come up with an agreed upon definition of a parent. There are just so many possible angles that you can approach the subject with.

Einstein: It certainly would. If you think back to Newton’s quotation, I think it wonderfully describes what a parent is in the context of your question. (pauses for a while) In that sense, all the great scientists and philosophers of the past would qualify as our parents.

Bohr: They, borrowing your favourite concept, certainly would. Following that logic, a parent in this sense should be defined as the provider of guidance to you through your development, whether physical or intellectual. Therefore, I am correct in titling you a father of quantum physics.

Einstein: No, no! I must object, Niels. If a birth parent abandons his or her child, he or she has also relinquished the right to be called the child’s parent. I have already expressed my disappointment with the theory when you and Max Born declared the first quantum revolution to be over in 1927-

Bohr: (cuts Einstein off) You sure expressed it well, the line in your letter to Born saying ‘I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice’ now appears in many popular science texts.

Einstein: In which you so cleverly replied that He not only plays dice, but He throws them where we cannot see. (Pfft) As I was saying, although my theories continued to contribute to the understanding of quantum physics, as I did see potential in it, I have long diverted from the probabilistic model of the world that it, through the interpretation that you favour, implies. I have abandoned it and so should not be identified as a father of it.

Bohr: I must disagree with that refusal Albert. Haha, look what we end up arguing about even though you were certain to avoid debating around this topic.

Einstein: (sigh) Let’s shift the focus back to what constitutes a parent.

Bohr: Please, let me finish. As I was saying, you sustained your involvement in the development of it even though you deemed that the integral uncertainties in my interpretation are a sign that it only ‘grasped an important fragment of the truth’, which of course is wrong. Anyways, is this not comparable to a mother who raises a child born from accidental circumstances? The fact that she brought up the child despite the unintentional reception makes her worthy of her parental title. Ah, this reminds me of Michelangelo! He was reluctant to paint the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, but that doesn’t make him less of a painter.

Einstein: Of course it does! The will is of upmost importance. For example in football, a game I’m certain that you are familiar with, an accidental goal does not reflect as positively upon the scorer as an intended one. Though, I must admit that you do flatter me with the comparison to Michelangelo. He is certainly one of the great masters and, according to our agreed-upon definition, worthy to be considered our parent.

Bohr: This is an interesting turn of topics, please elaborate on that idea.

Einstein: Pardon my unfamiliarity with the arts, but I believe that he pioneered the Mannerist style. This fits our definition as the style served as guidelines for future artists. In addition, we have also agreed, such a rare occurrence, that the scientists of the past are, in this context, our parents.

Bohr: Haha it is rare that we agreed upon a subject. Michelangelo was indeed a leading scientist of his days, among his many other professions. He was quite a daring person too, studying human anatomy from corpses when it was banned by the Church.

Einstein: There are certainly a lot of obstacles that us scientists have to face, though I imagine it to be more difficult by magnitudes back then.

Bohr: A likely conclusion seeing that the only obstacle we’re currently facing is just an unpredictable flight delay haha. Seems like I’ve ran out of tea, excuse me for a moment. (leaves and returns with a full cup of tea) Speaking of Michelangelo, have you seen his round painting the Doni Madonna?

Einstein: Certainly I have, though I believe most people would know it by Holy Family. Why do you bring that up?

Bohr: Our discussion about parents and Michelangelo reminded me of the subject of the painting. The Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph are the caretakers of baby Jesus, and in accordance to what we’ve agreed upon, they fully qualify as parents.

Einstein: Following that logic, they would certainly qualify. Though what interest me more are the five figures in the background. There has certainly been a lot of controversy surrounding the five naked figures. Some have identified them to be Michelangelo’s statues of pagan gods. They would also constitute a parent, no?

Bohr: I suppose, as each civilization does build upon a previous. Speaking of gods, what interests me more is the true parent of baby Jesus, the Holy Father God. (pauses) I just had such an interesting thought! Pardon my unfamiliarity with religion, but I believe the Bible states that we are all children of God. Oh Albert, you’re going to hate what I’m about to say, but since God also created humans in His own image; therefore, we are our parents!

Einstein: You are right, your conclusion certainly does not sit well with me.

Bohr: (interjects) Perhaps you’ve just been sitting for too long.

Einstein: (sarcastic laugh) Very clever. Though it is certainly in your style to believe in absurdities like these. Please, let me finish. As I was saying, your argument deviates from our agreed-upon definition. You are proposing that because we are a projected image of God, whom is quoted to be our father, then we would be our parents in reality? Ridiculous! Oh Niels, you’re not going to like what I’m about to say, but we are not our parents!

Bohr: Ridiculous not! My argument does not digress from our agreed-upon definition. We do provide ourselves with guidance through our development.

Einstein: Ridiculous so! How are we to provide guidance for ourselves if we have neither insight into nor experience regarding the future?

Bohr: We hypothesize and extrapolate from our past knowledge of course. You are a theorists yourself, how else do we work!

Einstein: Our knowledge is learned from the work of our predecessors, therefore it is others that provide us guidance. Take yourself for example, your atomic model is based on the discovery of hydrogen’s spectral emission lines.

Bohr: Your reasoning is flawed, where would the first piece of knowledge come from then?

Einstein: It does not need to be another human that teaches us. Many discoveries are made by observing the great Mother Nature. Again, take Newton for example, popular account goes that it was a falling apple that inspired his theory of gravity.

Bohr: But it is Newton himself that synthesized those observations into a theory. Nature only provides the raw data, which is completely different from guiding our development.

Einstein: The data certainly guides us through our discoveries! The only way to determine whether a theory is correct or not is to check if it’s predictions matches the known data. Speaking of which, airports keep track of everything, they have massive amounts of data! How is it that the delay is still not fixed!

Bohr: I do wonder about that as well. Perhaps instead of quarrelling, we should analyze this system and devise a better method.

Einstein: Splendid idea, it certainly would be useful and would be a welcoming break from trying to unify gravity and electromagnetism.

Bohr: Oh there’s always a chance of it being more difficult.

Einstein: The probabilistic view is-

Bohr: (cuts Einstein off) We are not arguing about this for god knows how many more hours of this delay there still is.

Einstein: (under his breath) He certainly would know…

Haha, in retrospect, I feel rather silly playing puppetmaster to Bohr and Einstein and talking about their theories that I barely understand.