Einstein or Newton

[Toehammer]

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.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Toehammer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Good post, inclined to agree on Faraday needs more credit if for no other reason than the great boon that electrolysis is to humanity ^^

[Toehammer]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Good post, inclined to agree on Faraday needs more credit if for no other reason than the great boon that electrolysis is to humanity ^^

Every time I come up with a new idea in my own research (nanoparticle self-assembly/electrical charging/synthesis) I have to make sure Faraday didn't do it first. Faraday's conceptualization of "lines of force" (fields) essentially postulated non-infinite propagation velocities, i.e. no "action at a distance". This might be the true foundation of all modern physics. It is no coincidence that Einstein had pictures of 3 physicists on his wall to draw inspiration from: Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday.

Maxwell was so impressive. Read Freeman Dyson's article "Why is Maxwell's Theory so hard to Understand?" http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.or...manArticle.pdf Maxwell held Faraday in the highest regard as well. Dyson's article points out something very important: that scientists should blow their own trumpets, and as he says: "If Maxwell had had an ego like Galileo or Newton, he would have made sure that his work was not ignored. Maxwell was as great a scientist as Newton and a far more agreeable character..." Read the article; it explains eloquently how fields and the quantum mechanical wave function are just as difficult to understand because we can't actually measure them directly. I honestly believe if Faraday was around during the development of quantum mechanics he would have come up with a better formulation for the wave function than we have now, just like he did with fields, which is what made Maxwell's work possible. yeah... not to mention that Faraday had unquantifiable influence on modern industry...

post too long, abort!

[AzzarTheGod]

Good posts past 2 pages.

Faraday was the dogs dog.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Originally Posted by Toehammer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Every time I come up with a new idea in my own research (nanoparticle self-assembly/electrical charging/synthesis) I have to make sure Faraday didn't do it first. Faraday's conceptualization of "lines of force" (fields) essentially postulated non-infinite propagation velocities, i.e. no "action at a distance". This might be the true foundation of all modern physics. It is no coincidence that Einstein had pictures of 3 physicists on his wall to draw inspiration from: Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday.

Maxwell was so impressive. Read Freeman Dyson's article "Why is Maxwell's Theory so hard to Understand?" http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.or...manArticle.pdf Maxwell held Faraday in the highest regard as well. Dyson's article points out something very important: that scientists should blow their own trumpets, and as he says: "If Maxwell had had an ego like Galileo or Newton, he would have made sure that his work was not ignored. Maxwell was as great a scientist as Newton and a far more agreeable character..." Read the article; it explains eloquently how fields and the quantum mechanical wave function are just as difficult to understand because we can't actually measure them directly. I honestly believe if Faraday was around during the development of quantum mechanics he would have come up with a better formulation for the wave function than we have now, just like he did with fields, which is what made Maxwell's work possible. yeah... not to mention that Faraday had unquantifiable influence on modern industry...

post too long, abort!

That was a pretty entertaining post , lol. I'll send a retort when I get home, on your knighting for Faraday

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Originally Posted by Chaboo_Cleric [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That was a pretty entertaining post , lol. I'll send a retort when I get home, on your knighting for Faraday

Going back to the mentions of Faraday and Maxwell:


First Maxwell was a renown mathematician. Whereas, Faraday was was virtually uneducated. He had an ace up his sleeve. Thomas West, who writes on dyslexia, points out that Faraday showed a full set of typical symptoms. He had terrible trouble with spelling and punctuation. His memory played tricks on him. He couldn't handle mathematics.

He had one more typical dyslexic trait: a powerful visual sense. He forged a finished image in his mind's eye, then he broke that image down into parts that people could understand. Maxwell tells us that Faraday built a mental picture of lines of force, filling space, shaping themselves into lovely arrays.

Nothing about Michael Faraday's life matched our aggressive images of Victorian science. He belonged to an obscure and very gentle religious sect. Science was a pleasure and it was worship. He was plain-spoken, but he electrified audiences with a simple passion for what he was doing.

Faraday drives his biographers crazy with the seeming irrationality of his thought processes. How can you start with the finished skyscraper, then build the foundation below it?

Now I run my eye over Maxwell's book on field theory. He converted Faraday's vision of force fields into mathematical language. Then he plotted the equations. They form wild graceful spider webs. And we see at last what Faraday had seen first.

Just remember Maxwell was needed to translate Faraday's second sight. Only when he did could it display its lovely surrealistic graphical form so the rest of us could see it, as well.

So overall, we can look at Faraday as a savant ( with creative genius) ,but totally lost in his own mind. Maxwell, however, did far more , despite basing a lot of his science of Faraday's distorted Savant way of thinking. Thank god for his translation....

This being just one of the examples in contrast between the two scientists. More so on their character, as oppose to their works. I prefer Maxwell a bit more to Faraday , plus Maxwells reasoning behind using preferred Newton displacement in his theories, gives Newton more swag , for being on top of the list.

[Toehammer]

Originally Posted by Chaboo_Cleric [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Going back to the mentions of Faraday and Maxwell:


First Maxwell was a renown mathematician. Whereas, Faraday was was virtually uneducated. He had an ace up his sleeve. Thomas West, who writes on dyslexia, points out that Faraday showed a full set of typical symptoms. He had terrible trouble with spelling and punctuation. His memory played tricks on him. He couldn't handle mathematics.

He had one more typical dyslexic trait: a powerful visual sense. He forged a finished image in his mind's eye, then he broke that image down into parts that people could understand. Maxwell tells us that Faraday built a mental picture of lines of force, filling space, shaping themselves into lovely arrays.

Nothing about Michael Faraday's life matched our aggressive images of Victorian science. He belonged to an obscure and very gentle religious sect. Science was a pleasure and it was worship. He was plain-spoken, but he electrified audiences with a simple passion for what he was doing.

Faraday drives his biographers crazy with the seeming irrationality of his thought processes. How can you start with the finished skyscraper, then build the foundation below it?

Now I run my eye over Maxwell's book on field theory. He converted Faraday's vision of force fields into mathematical language. Then he plotted the equations. They form wild graceful spider webs. And we see at last what Faraday had seen first.

Just remember Maxwell was needed to translate Faraday's second sight. Only when he did could it display its lovely surrealistic graphical form so the rest of us could see it, as well.

So overall, we can look at Faraday as a savant ( with creative genius) ,but totally lost in his own mind. Maxwell, however, did far more , despite basing a lot of his science of Faraday's distorted Savant way of thinking. Thank god for his translation....

This being just one of the examples in contrast between the two scientists. More so on their character, as oppose to their works. I prefer Maxwell a bit more to Faraday , plus Maxwells reasoning behind using preferred Newton displacement in his theories, gives Newton more swag , for being on top of the list.

I didn't say Faraday > Maxwell. My original ranking (opinion) was Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, then Einstein. Maxwell was a beast, and I do believe right next to Newton. Maxwell was much more of a mathematical powerhouse than Faraday, as you mention. However even his original mathematical formulation of electrodynamics, just like Faraday's lines of force, were a bit ahead of their time, and that is why it was difficult to present them to the common scientist (even physicist). Faraday had brilliant ideas that people were sorting out after he died. Maxwell's very confusing original equations were clarified by work of Hertz, Heaviside, Lorentz, and Einstein to an extent (by using them as a basis/assumption for relativity). The way we learn the 4 vector equations today (or 1 if you know differential geometry) today don't really resemble Maxwell's originals. So just like you argue that Maxwell illuminated Faraday's confusing skull-trapped ideas, following generations sorted out Maxwell's mess as well.

It is always difficult to deconstruct the work of true geniuses, and usually requires another genius. Faraday -> Maxwell -> Hertz/Heaviside/Lorentz/Einstein. Also, the perception that prophetic scientists sometimes seem to have irrational thought processes, does not make it a fact. To call him a savant and saying he was totally lost in his own mind is a matter of opinion. According to many accounts, he was an excellent and simple orator, and demonstrated his ideas and experiments with profound clarity. I wasn't alive, so I don't know... but Maxwell even gave most of the credit to Faraday for electromagnetic theory, just as Newton acknowledged Kepler/Galileo/Descartes for his success, and despite Faraday's poorly developed mathematics, Maxwell claimed Faraday was truly a remarkable mathematician that would influence the future. Anyone who has grown up with this concept of fields, which Faraday seemed to conjure out of thin air, knows Faraday's impact on mathematics/physics. Maxwell's formulation of electrodynamics is the most important moment in the history of mankind since Newton, but it all depended on Faraday's concept of fields.

[Toehammer]

There is a lot of anger/incredulity in your post, so I have to do a point-by-point response.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For your jumbled wall of text, it strikes me as odd, I'll go back over it this evening when I have time to address some of it and capsulate a readable reply.



But for this, it strikes me as really odd. We're not even a type 1 civilization. Not even close to a type 1 civilization yet. It's really really odd that you try to counter even this if truly being into science, then speak of star dust as some counter argument. Are we just arguing for arguing sake now? This is mainstream stuff, and it's seriously odd it seemed to go over your head as well.

Not jumbled at all. Who gives a sh*t if we are Type 1, Type 2, Type qr94et? We have never detected any life outside of Earth. That makes us the biggest kid on the block. You probably should say, "we may be small.” The bottom line is we have no friggin idea what the next 100 years will be like, all this oracle-like crystal ball reading about the Type X future is just (science) fiction. It is such an egotistical human belief that we can even comprehend what the world will look like down the road. Hey we could reach Type QRT future even faster than you realize… nobody knows. Show Einstein a modern computer and his brain would shoot out his nose.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I still don't know what to make of this ... Wat??

When I say quantum, I'm clearly not speaking of the atomic level, not the atom. Have you ever heard of the subatomic? Even in my second paragraph, I mentioned it again with quantum physics. You're trying to convince me that an atom is on the quantum level??? Bro, are you like a time traveler from the 1950's? Einstein only laid the foundation for quantum physics, but his study was on the atomic level.

No, I don’t need to convince you that an atom is at the quantum level. Scientific experiments can speak for me. In fact, molecules are “on the quantum level”. Educate yourself on “macroscopic cat states”. They have done double-slit experiments with bucky-balls: 60 atoms of carbon. Since I don’t do research on quantum optics anymore, I haven’t followed the PhysRevLett/Nature/Science literature on macroscopic cat states closely in the last 10 years or so, but people are constantly breaking the limit. So yes, atoms are quantum. Subatomic, yes, also quantum. Also, Einstein laid the first floor for quantum physics, but Botlzmann/Planck/Faraday/Thomson laid the foundation.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You say we are made up of star dust, but can you even explain the atom?? Though we know the atom exists, and daaaang the amount of energy contained in just one, but explain to me how the atom is almost all empty space yet matter can be solid? And really, when you start to look into quantum theory, your looking into a whole universe of things within an atom, maybe even around it. You can see that with your human vision??? What do we need CERN for then? hehe. And even CERN is like a plastic toy hand shovel in a sandbox. Shoot I think it was a type two civilization can build a sphere around a star and capture it's energy (Dyson sphere), and there are 5 theorized levels of civilization. We're not even at 1.

Yes, I can explain the atom, in fact very well. Atoms are in fact not hard. They are soft. The hard-sphere approximation, though highly useful, is a crude mathematical tool. You are confusing the words hard and solid. Solid usually refers to a phase of matter where atoms are fixed in 3d space (not necessarily crystalline) such that they can be modeled with a moment of inertia (i.e. the solid can be translated/rotated without deforming the solid, or, rather shifting the spatial arrangement of atoms) . Hard refers essentially to stiffness, or in more layman 1D terms, a spring constant. Even monoatomic gases have non-zero compressibility. This was one of the problems quantum (statistical mechanics) solved.

To make it as simple as possible for you, look at the radial position expectation value of the only electron in a ground state of hydrogen. Now look at hydrogen gas, H2, which has a compressibility. The fact H2 is compressible shows that it is not hard. Even monatomic gases are compressible. There is no such thing as perfectly hard. The empty space and the finite speed of light mediating the electrodynamic interactions between nucleus (positive) and boundary (electron orbitals) cause the atom to be soft.

I don’t know what you mean by whole universe in the atom. But no, I cannot see atoms with my eyes. If again you restrict yourself to only being able to see things with your eyes, well I am lost for words. Science has broadened our senses dramatically. Go use an infrared scope/binoculars.

CERN is a friggin goliath. Yes, compared to a hypothetical Dyson Sphere, it is small scale. Why are we back to this Type XYZ sci-fi stuff again? In hindsight even Dyson wishes his name wasn’t attached to the concept. He took the idea from a 1930s sci-fi novel. If you are having trouble grasping the atom, then you can completely abandon the idea of a Type 1/2/3 civilisation that depends on the trust in quantum mechanics to build these futuristic sci-fi wet dreams.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And you kinda throw around the word evolution, maybe you didn't understand my meaning of macro-evolution? We've never witnessed macro-evolution, only micro-evolution. They are not the same thing, nor both contained in the word evolution as some generic term. It's all just neo-darwinism, as much as a matter of faith to science as it is to the jehovah witnesses faith (which is facepalm too). But don't say the wrong thing in science circles, you might get excommunicated. Wow, science operates like a modern religion too, or more like a cult.

I don’t know anything really about the direct observations of macro-evolution. As you mention micro-evolution has been observed. I agree with you 100% that a lot of belief in science is faith-based, but that is because humans perform science, and the emphasis/duty placed on scientists to replicate experiments has been disappearing at a scarily rapid pace; this is mostly due to the time that tenure and funding in academia saps away from critical lab time spent working to verify/invalidate other people’s ideas/experiments. I place the blame on the skewing of academia towards a business model, the funding agencies, and the lack of scientific knowledge displayed by the public, and hence their general misunderstanding of high-risk high-reward research.

Yes, you are 100% right that it is dangerous in science to go against the grain and that a cult-like mentality can form. It is not dangerous to say the wrong thing though, as long as you are young in your career. Make as many mistakes as possible as soon as possible. However, every single noble-prize winning physicist I have talked with is most interested in wild ideas, sort of on the fringe. Science is always firmly anchored to experimental fact, so the theory/experience must match up. To push the boundaries of knowledge, science must constantly excommunicate “crazies", only to pull them back in once their mad scientist ways are vindicated by experiment. This is why I believe great scientists are the most creative people, much more so than artists/musicians. The world is so wacky it is much more intriguing than painting or prose.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh and yes, dark ages. Most certainly. Geez, how can you not recognize that potential. No time in known history were we able to do soooo much damage than we are today. And not just from releasing the energy from atoms, but as well releasing genetic mutations never seen on Earth to this day, all emerging from a lab. Dark Age is an understatement, really. Humanity has lost it's mind.

I think my point about science -> dark ages was misunderstood. All I am trying to say is that neither science nor religion leads to dark ages. People abusing the power of science or religion leads to dark ages. I don’t want to start a gun control argument, but guns have potential to lead to bad things, but only in the wrong human hands. Same thing with science/religion. Humanity may pull the nuclear trigger, and might have poor foresight with what their inventions could inspire in the hands of bad people. But it is better for good people to develop the technology and lead the way than stick their head in the sand, ignore the burgeoning science, and then plead with the crazy evil scientists once the doomsday technology has been fully developed. Yes, sometimes science gets out of control, but it is foolish to think we have lost our mind any more than previous generations. Of course their is potential… there is always potential. As I stated above: "Religion didn't lead us into a dark age, and science never will. That mantle solely rests on the shoulders of good/bad, wise/foolish, and humble/vain humans. Science and religion, though created by humans, cannot impose anything on us unless we allow it.” Cart before the horse man.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Originally Posted by Toehammer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I didn't say Faraday > Maxwell. My original ranking (opinion) was Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, then Einstein. Maxwell was a beast, and I do believe right next to Newton. Maxwell was much more of a mathematical powerhouse than Faraday, as you mention. However even his original mathematical formulation of electrodynamics, just like Faraday's lines of force, were a bit ahead of their time, and that is why it was difficult to present them to the common scientist (even physicist). Faraday had brilliant ideas that people were sorting out after he died. Maxwell's very confusing original equations were clarified by work of Hertz, Heaviside, Lorentz, and Einstein to an extent (by using them as a basis/assumption for relativity). The way we learn the 4 vector equations today (or 1 if you know differential geometry) today don't really resemble Maxwell's originals. So just like you argue that Maxwell illuminated Faraday's confusing skull-trapped ideas, following generations sorted out Maxwell's mess as well.

It is always difficult to deconstruct the work of true geniuses, and usually requires another genius. Faraday -> Maxwell -> Hertz/Heaviside/Lorentz/Einstein. Also, the perception that prophetic scientists sometimes seem to have irrational thought processes, does not make it a fact. To call him a savant and saying he was totally lost in his own mind is a matter of opinion. According to many accounts, he was an excellent and simple orator, and demonstrated his ideas and experiments with profound clarity. I wasn't alive, so I don't know... but Maxwell even gave most of the credit to Faraday for electromagnetic theory, just as Newton acknowledged Kepler/Galileo/Descartes for his success, and despite Faraday's poorly developed mathematics, Maxwell claimed Faraday was truly a remarkable mathematician that would influence the future. Anyone who has grown up with this concept of fields, which Faraday seemed to conjure out of thin air, knows Faraday's impact on mathematics/physics. Maxwell's formulation of electrodynamics is the most important moment in the history of mankind since Newton, but it all depended on Faraday's concept of fields.

Cool response. It's nice to see someone contribute their own thoughts and feelings into this thread with some knowledge. Now let's move forward to your quantum mechanics feelings

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Toehammer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Dyson's article points out something very important: that scientists should blow their own trumpets, and as he says: "If Maxwell had had an ego like Galileo or Newton, he would have made sure that his work was not ignored. Maxwell was as great a scientist as Newton and a far more agreeable character..."

Indicating sperglords are good (i.e. Galileo/Newton).

I feel like there is less respect for sperglords than ever in 2016 because it is an inherently disrespectful society. Academia exists but it is no longer as respected as it was by the $$$ and the magnates/oligarchy who place more emphasis on vice and ability to buy vice. Society has become one big advertisement for business/finance/law and respect for academics has fallen to the wayside.

This seems like a step backwards culturally from the time of Newton, as it takes strong egos away from science (strong egos solve problems, strong egos invent cures) and puts them in other areas where they can attain what society has advertised.