4 ms·

> Most of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics can't be attributed to any of them, and even then it only covers physics Einstein is one of the founders of quan

> Most of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics can't be attributed to any of them, and even then it only covers physics Einstein is one of the founders of quantum mechanics (1921 Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect). And Newton founded calculus - which procedes any ability to mathematically describe natural observations.

tonmoy 10y ago
"Founder of quantum mechanics"? He just theorized the photoelectric effect and he opposed basic principles of quantum mechanics all his life! And you didn't even mention great minds like Placnk, Faraday, Tesla, Rutherford, Pauli, Heisenberg (I can literally keep going) in your original "list of only true scientists". Moreover, saying newton "founded" calculus to mean that all theories that need "ability to mathematically describe natural observations" is same as crediting all theories to al-Khwarizmi because he "founded" algebra!
- mcarlise 10y ago
  Your making very large leaps and bounds here. And misquoted a lot of what I said. "Founder of quantum mechanics" - I didn't say founder. I said one of the founding members; Planck, de broglie, einstein, von Neumann. I don't see how quantum mechanics materializes without the foundation created by these thinkers. > "list of only true scientists" I didn't say list of true scientists. And you inserted 'only' as if I made the claim that this list is comprehensive (i.e. these are the only scientists that ever existed). But rather these scientists paved the way for a lot of scientific advancement in the last two centuries. Lastly, which this one is more my fault - I clearly didn't explain my thought. Newton's association with calculus was to refute your claim that he only had an influence in the field of physics (he was the Lucasian professor of mathematics after all). Alternatively, your "quotation" of founded (twice) is smug; and condescending. Further, none of this tit for tat banter is contributing to anything of real or inherent value. Perhaps our time is suited better on something else?
  - tonmoy 10y ago
    I guess you are right, this banter does indeed not help us learn anything. The quotation for the second founder was to refer to the fact that some (maybe inaccurately) dispute Newton's credit for calculus and I really did not mean to be smug. The point I wanted to make would be that a lot of good scientists work very hard to progress science forwards and we just hear the names of some rock-star scientists only. Saying other scientists do not do contribute as much (or even at all) is incorrect in my opinion.
    - mcarlise 10y ago
      >Saying other scientists do not do contribute as much (or even at all) is incorrect in my opinion. I did not mean to blanket that other scientists do not contribute. And you might be right, my sentament was certainly fast paced and not perfectly thought out. I do go back and fourth on this idea. Sometimes I think that 90% of the science community could disspear and nothing substantial would be lost. Other times I think that that 90% largely contributed to the critical mass needed for a limited number of works to be celebrated over a long period of time. And provide many contributions that are not seen (apparently relativity was floating around in papers for almost a decade before einstein's 1905 paper). > did not mean to be smug I might have been overly sensitive. I mistook the double use of 'founded' as an attempt to challenge my contextual understanding over the controversy of both calculus and alegbra (which I'm not expert on either topic by any stretch). I certainly do not want you thinking that I do not appreciate any criticism of my arguments or opinions. I just felt the last comments of ours was going towards a path of 'who did what when', and 'what magnitude of work', etc...

tonmoy 10y ago

"Founder of quantum mechanics"? He just theorized the photoelectric effect and he opposed basic principles of quantum mechanics all his life! And you didn't even mention great minds like Placnk, Faraday, Tesla, Rutherford, Pauli, Heisenberg (I can literally keep going) in your original "list of only true scientists". Moreover, saying newton "founded" calculus to mean that all theories that need "ability to mathematically describe natural observations" is same as crediting all theories to al-Khwarizmi because he "founded" algebra!

mcarlise 10y ago
Your making very large leaps and bounds here. And misquoted a lot of what I said. "Founder of quantum mechanics" - I didn't say founder. I said one of the founding members; Planck, de broglie, einstein, von Neumann. I don't see how quantum mechanics materializes without the foundation created by these thinkers. > "list of only true scientists" I didn't say list of true scientists. And you inserted 'only' as if I made the claim that this list is comprehensive (i.e. these are the only scientists that ever existed). But rather these scientists paved the way for a lot of scientific advancement in the last two centuries. Lastly, which this one is more my fault - I clearly didn't explain my thought. Newton's association with calculus was to refute your claim that he only had an influence in the field of physics (he was the Lucasian professor of mathematics after all). Alternatively, your "quotation" of founded (twice) is smug; and condescending. Further, none of this tit for tat banter is contributing to anything of real or inherent value. Perhaps our time is suited better on something else?
- tonmoy 10y ago
  I guess you are right, this banter does indeed not help us learn anything. The quotation for the second founder was to refer to the fact that some (maybe inaccurately) dispute Newton's credit for calculus and I really did not mean to be smug. The point I wanted to make would be that a lot of good scientists work very hard to progress science forwards and we just hear the names of some rock-star scientists only. Saying other scientists do not do contribute as much (or even at all) is incorrect in my opinion.
  - mcarlise 10y ago
    >Saying other scientists do not do contribute as much (or even at all) is incorrect in my opinion. I did not mean to blanket that other scientists do not contribute. And you might be right, my sentament was certainly fast paced and not perfectly thought out. I do go back and fourth on this idea. Sometimes I think that 90% of the science community could disspear and nothing substantial would be lost. Other times I think that that 90% largely contributed to the critical mass needed for a limited number of works to be celebrated over a long period of time. And provide many contributions that are not seen (apparently relativity was floating around in papers for almost a decade before einstein's 1905 paper). > did not mean to be smug I might have been overly sensitive. I mistook the double use of 'founded' as an attempt to challenge my contextual understanding over the controversy of both calculus and alegbra (which I'm not expert on either topic by any stretch). I certainly do not want you thinking that I do not appreciate any criticism of my arguments or opinions. I just felt the last comments of ours was going towards a path of 'who did what when', and 'what magnitude of work', etc...