4 ms·

Here's something I'd love for someone to explain about "magicians". I've read that Einstein was a great physicist for his work on relativity. I still don't kn

by ken 7y ago

Here's something I'd love for someone to explain about "magicians". I've read that Einstein was a great physicist for his work on relativity. I still don't know what he actually did. Did he have some mountain of experimental data, to which he found a model which fit? Did he have sub-models which he unified, or simplified? What exactly were his inputs and outputs? In school we're taught that the scientific method involves hypothesis, and experimentation, and confirmation or rejection, but in Einstein's case all I hear about are fully-formed theories -- and then confirmation by others, years after his death. Did he eliminate other possible theories through experimentation, or did he happen to get it right from the start? Was relativity the only possible solution, or was there also some luck involved?

ajkjk 7y ago
Einstein's inputs were a bunch of scattered theories about electromagnetism and thermodynamics -- particularly, Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field, and the empirical description of the photoelectric effect, and Planck's description of blackbody radiation. His outputs were deducing models that elegantly explained these phenomena: that a constant speed of light in all reference frames, as unintuitive as that is, would lead to the equations of relativity, and that energy being transmitted only in discrete quanta would lead to the photoelectric effect and blackbody radiation effects that were observed by others. This was largely not a feat of producing theories on data. It was coming up with a simpler explanation for phenomena which had already been known, but for which existing explanations were far too complex. The amazing part is that he did this four times in one year (1905): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
monocasa 7y ago
For one, Mercury's orbit was pretty confusing, and needed a fudge factor when calculated with existing Newtonian methods. This is why some were so convinced that there had to be a tiny planet Vulcan between it and the sun. When you use Relativistic equations rather than Newtonian, the math just works out clean without a fudge factor.

by ken 7y ago

ajkjk 7y ago

Einstein's inputs were a bunch of scattered theories about electromagnetism and thermodynamics -- particularly, Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field, and the empirical description of the photoelectric effect, and Planck's description of blackbody radiation. His outputs were deducing models that elegantly explained these phenomena: that a constant speed of light in all reference frames, as unintuitive as that is, would lead to the equations of relativity, and that energy being transmitted only in discrete quanta would lead to the photoelectric effect and blackbody radiation effects that were observed by others. This was largely not a feat of producing theories on data. It was coming up with a simpler explanation for phenomena which had already been known, but for which existing explanations were far too complex. The amazing part is that he did this four times in one year (1905): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers

monocasa 7y ago

For one, Mercury's orbit was pretty confusing, and needed a fudge factor when calculated with existing Newtonian methods. This is why some were so convinced that there had to be a tiny planet Vulcan between it and the sun. When you use Relativistic equations rather than Newtonian, the math just works out clean without a fudge factor.