Einstein and the Universe (1922) by Charles Nordmann

Ek mashhoor (prasiddh – famous) German expert (visheshagya – expert) jo mathematical physics (ganitiy bhautik vigyaan) ke bare me likhte hain, unhone relativity (sapatya – relativity) ke theory par likhte waqt kaha tha ki agar unke publishers unhe thoda zyada paper aur printing space dete, toh wo apni baat bina ek bhi mathematical formula ke samjha sakte the.

Aise tareeke se safalta (success) paana aaj bhi mumkin (possible) hai.

Is tareeke ke do fayde hain.

Pehla, inka language (bhasha) bada exact (spasht – clear) aur short (sankshipt – brief) hota hai, jo aam (ordinary) bhasha se possible nahi hota.

Doosra, jab inke symbols (chinh – symbols) ka use hota hai, toh usse aise meaning nikalte hain jo naye ideas (soch) laate hain.

Yeh ideas logical (tarkik – logical) tareeke se nikalte hain, par fir bhi ye naye hote hain.

Agar aam bhasha ko thoda zyada clear banaya jaaye, toh mathematical methods jaise kaam woh bhi kar sakti hai, kam se kam kuchh hissa toh.

Agar aam bhasha kuchh kaam kar le, toh fayda ho sakta hai.

Par dikkat yeh hai ki jab hum mathematical symbols use karte hain, toh hum aksar (aksar – often) galti se soch lete hain ki yeh reality (vastavikta – reality) ko poori tarah se dikhate hain.

Lekin yeh bilkul waise nahi hota.

Yeh hamesha ek abstraction (sankalpana – abstract idea) ko dikhata hai.

Is wajah se aksar aise examples ya metaphors (upmaayein – comparisons) use hote hain jo galat ya adhure (incomplete) hote hain.

Sirf jab hum inko ek wide range ki descriptive (vivranatmak – descriptive) bhasha se explain karte hain, tabhi yeh galat tendency control hoti hai.

Aaj kal kuch naye mathematical physicists (ganitiy bhautik vigyaanik), abhi toh kam hi hain, is baat ko samajhne lage hain.

Lekin English aur German writers ke liye yeh kaam bahut mushkil hai.

Na toh Anglo-Saxon aur na hi Saxon thinking (soch) is kaam ke liye easily fit hoti hai.

Aur France me bhi, jitna mujhe pata hai, abhi tak is par pura kaam nahi hua hai.

Phir bhi, France me aisa attitude (soch) aur expression (abhivyakti – way of saying) ka talent (gun – skill) hai jo is kaam ko hum ya Germans se zyada aasaan bana deta hai.

Baat ko clearly kehna ek quality (gun) hai jo achhe French writers me humse zyada hoti hai.

Isi wajah se hum me se kuchh log bade interest (ruchi – interest) se French translations ka intezaar kar rahe the jisme Einstein ki difficult theory samjhai gayi ho.

M. Nordmann, jo ek qualified (yogya – capable) astronomer aur mathematical physicist bhi hain, unme apni race ka yeh talent bhi hai.

Unki Latin background ke wajah se wo abstract ideas ko simple facts (tathya – facts) se replace kar dete hain.

Unki writing me aise examples hote hain jo theory se zyada real cheezon ki baat karte hain.

Unka language aisa hai jise German me use karna mushkil hota.

Aur hamari English bhi French ki tarah subtle (naazuk – delicate) description dene me kaafi peechhe hai.

Yeh kitab shayad koi Englishman likh nahi sakta tha.

Par dikkat sirf shabdon (words) ki nahi hoti, balki soch (spirit) ki bhi hoti hai.

French author ki clarity (saaf-sutraapan – clearness) aur unki apni expression ki quality (gun) ne hi translator ko yeh kitab English me itni achhi tarah translate karne me madad ki.

Mujhe lagta hai, jab maine yeh kitab French aur English dono me padhi, toh yeh translation kamaal ki lagi.

M. Nordmann ne Einstein ke principle (siddhant – principle) ko aise words me samjhaya hai jisse aam reader kaafi difficulties (mushkilein) cross kar leta hai.

Goethe ka ek rule yaad rakhte hue, jisme kaha gaya tha ki jo kuchh achieve karna chahta hai usse apne aap ko limit (seema) karni padti hai, unhone Einstein ke theory ke har part ko explain karne ka aim nahi rakha.

Par wo kaafi complex (jatil – complicated) baaton ko aam aadmi ke liye easy bana dete hain.

Shayad unka sabse brilliant (shandar – brilliant) kaam Chapter V aur VI me hai, jahan wo naye gravitation (gurutvakarshan – gravity) theory aur uska inertia (gatirodh – resistance to motion) se relation bada clear tarike se batate hain.

Mujhe lagta hai ki Chapter III me jab wo “Interval” (antaral – space-time gap) concept ki confusion par baat karte hain, toh utne successful nahi hote.

Par iska reason yeh hai ki 4-dimensional world (chaar aayami duniya – four-dimensional world), jo Einstein aur Minkowski ke hisaab se space aur time ka base hai, woh khud hi ek unclear (aspasht – unclear) idea hai.

Mathematicians uske baare me bade easy tareeke se baat karte hain aur uske formulas banate hain, lekin woh world measurement (maapan – measuring) aur shape (aakaar – shape) ko ignore karta hai, jo humesha real experience me hota hai.

Isi wajah se woh kabhi-kabhi galti se aise philosophy (darshan – deep thinking) me chale jaate hain jo doubtful (sandehjanak – doubtful) hoti hai.

Isse unke formulas ka practical (vyavaharik – practical) use toh kam nahi hota, par woh reality (vastavikta – reality) ko samjhane ke liye reliable (vishwasniya – trustworthy) nahi hote.

Isliye yahaan humein dikhta hai ki is chhoti si kitab ka writer bhi mushkil cheezon se struggle kar raha hai.

Agar wo is topic ko clearly explain kar sakta, toh karta.

Par phir bhi, abhi tak koi bhi is concept ko clearly samjha nahi paya, siwai ek working idea ke jo bas kaam karta hai, lekin uske visual image (kalpana – imagination) banana mushkil hai.

Par yeh fault M. Nordmann ka nahi hai, yeh to topic ka nature (prakriti – nature) hi aisa hai.

Is topic ke doosre aspects me, wo ek Frenchman ke jaise clear (saaf – clear) tareeke se baat karte hain.

Mujhe aisi koi kitab nahi dikhi jo ek average English reader ko is naye principle ke bare me itna accha samajh de sake.

Yeh principle abhi naye stage me hai, par mujhe lagta hai yeh sirf mathematical physics nahi, balki aur bhi kai knowledge ke areas me soch ko badal dega.

– Haldane