confirmed young doctor here, PhD in physics, tenure-track assistant prof (endangered species nowadays)... some of my thoughts:
Newton > Einstein... and pretty much any sane physicist would agree. If you want an actual semi-respected ranking of great physicists, by a great physicist, check out Landau's List (or Landau's genius scale).
Newton however on the humanity side of things was quite a wanker. One of the funniest misunderstandings in the history of science was that Newton's letter to Hooke about "standing on the shoulders of giants" is that Newton was paying homage to Hooke's contributions. Truth be told, Newton was mocking Hooke's physical appearance as Hooke was bent over/crooked, supposedly due to too much time spent on a lathe... who really knows. Newton was saying he stood on the shoulders of Descartes/Galileo/Kepler, can't remember the others. He was essentially calling Hooke a mental midget and making fun of his appearance at the same time. Newton and Hooke had an odd relationship, especially because Newton was nipping at Hooke's heels. Hooke had postulated about gravity following an inverse square law but was focused on proving it experimentally, whereas Newton use Kepler's/Brahe's data/analysis that was already done to confirm the inverse square law. Newton was an analytical powerhouse. Hooke acknowledged Newton's greatness, and Newton was probably hesitant to acknowledge/respect Hooke's because he was more competitive. Lots is also up for debate, as is always in history. To be honest, Hooke's Micrographia >> Newton's Principia in terms of reading value and excitement, despite their total work where Newton > Hooke obviously. I think Hooke is one of the most tragic figures in science... so much is not credited to him. Newton's rings were actually discovered and conceptually explained by Hooke, for example... check out Micrographia. Newton was just badass at beating a topic to analytical death.
The founders of science cannot be given too little credit. I would actually rank Galileo and Kepler right next to Einstein. Galileo's scientific method/detail was groundbreaking and ushered in modern science, and Kepler's insight/reasoning was mindblowing... do some reading on Kepler's thoughts on snowflakes and sphere packing. Totally rad stuff.
Einstein's 1905 might have been the most productive (short period) year in the history of science though. Very impressive.
I always thought it should go like this:
1) Newton
2) Maxwell
3) Faraday
4) Einstein
I don't really know where to put Galileo/Kepler in there. Faraday never gets enough credit... I think he might have been the most creative/intuitive/genius scientist in history. However, nobody can match the impact of Newton.
I was sad to see this thread devolve into religion/science garbage. It is always bizarre to me to see two things that can have such a beautiful effect on people's lives be pit against each other, when to be honest, they are by definition mutually exclusive. Two of the greatest achievements of man, science and religion, have both helped immensely to move humanity away from troglodytic warring nomadic tribes into organized, principled nations. I don't subscribe to a religion, but there is nothing more obnoxious than an evangelical atheist.
If you want a really good read on science, read "Science: a History" by John Gribbin. It is the only history book I couldn't put down.
|