5 ms·
Take this as a biased personal opinion from a professional physicists, not necessarily representative of the field as a whole: Einstein's insights were on a sca
by krastanov 3y ago
Take this as a biased personal opinion from a professional physicists, not necessarily representative of the field as a whole: Einstein's insights were on a scale quite a bit beyond what anyone else has done since then. That level insight happens very rarely in history, comparable to Euclid being a monumental figure for millennia. Nobel prize winners are smart, but there are two or three of them a year.
- School-Cotton 3y agoHow do you compare Einstein to Newton, in terms of how much each advanced physics?
- krastanov 3y agoI would say Newton provided a similarly important discontinuous leap in our understanding of nature. I want to be careful though. As some sibling comments mention, these discoveries of these great people were indeed "in the air" of their time. They will have happened. But it would have taken many more great scientists and more time. For instance, I believe there are incredibly deep insights today derived from the mixture of quantum mechanics and information science. More deep insights are imminent and inevitable. But there is hardly one towering figure to do them all in one sweeping motion the way Einstein or Newton or Euclid did (to name a few easy examples).
- rramadass 3y agoI believe Newton was much more important than Einstein in the history of Science. Essentially he laid the starting point for "Modern" Physics/Mathematics and everybody since then has been following on from there. For me there are only three Scientists who could be called as truly "tectonic inducing" in the history of Modern Science. In order of ranking; 1) Isaac Newton. 2) James Clerk Maxwell. 3) Albert Einstein.
- Keyframe 3y agoI'd put Faraday up there as well.
- mitthrowaway2 3y agoAbsolutely. Faraday was in a league of his own and his considerable acclaim still doesn't do him justice.
- drumhead 3y agoNewton was more important I think. He basically invented physics as we know it. He didn't have the 200 years or so of work in the field that Einstein had to build on. He was effectively starting from scratch. He's the point at which the modern world starts, when humanity started to understand the world around them instead of letting themselves be subjects of superstition.
- rand0mx1 3y agoDo you forget Galileo's work regarding Motion?
- sclarisse 3y agoRelativity is insane. Einstein literally rewrote the formula for “add two velocities together”. You know, like 20 km/s + 20 km/s, WHICH YOU WOULD THINK just turns into 40km/s, but it’s actually ever so slightly less. It goes really deep in terms of what it affects in physics.
- eru 3y ago> Einstein literally rewrote the formula for “add two velocities together”. No, he didn't. There's a reason we are talking about the Lorentz transformation, not the Einstein transformation. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformat... > In physics, analogous transformations have been introduced by Voigt (1887) related to an incompressible medium, and by Heaviside (1888), Thomson (1889), Searle (1896) and Lorentz (1892, 1895) who analyzed Maxwell's equations. They were completed by Larmor (1897, 1900) and Lorentz (1899, 1904), and brought into their modern form by Poincaré (1905) who gave the transformation the name of Lorentz.[3] Eventually, Einstein (1905) showed in his development of special relativity that the transformations follow from the principle of relativity and constant light speed alone by modifying the traditional concepts of space and time, without requiring a mechanical aether in contradistinction to Lorentz and Poincaré.[4] Minkowski (1907–1908) used them to argue that space and time are inseparably connected as spacetime. Einstein did great work, no doubt. But his work was still a product of his time, and was 'in the air'. If it hadn't been for Einstein, other people would have made similar discoveries soon. They were already in the process, after all. However I suspect, it would have probably taken several great scientists and a few more years.
- heyoni 3y agoBut that’s kind of the point with Einstein. Work was going towards the aether and in the wrong direction. It was a leap rather than an incremental or logical next step to come up with relativity.
- eru 3y agoYou might like https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/524058/are-lorentz-aether-theory-and-special-relativity-fully-equivalent https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/524058/are-loren...
- JackFr 3y agoNewton.
- antod 3y agoWell if it takes Newton to act as an example of "That level of insight happens very rarely in history", then the point stands. Unless that was what you were getting at?
- eru 3y agoWell, Leibniz was a contemporary of Newton who could rival him.
- krastanov 3y agoI know Leibniz did important work in calculus. But what about gravity, mechanics, and optics? Newton revolutionized quite a few things.
- eru 3y agoHave a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz for some other things Leibniz did. > Main interests > Mathematics, physics, geology, medicine, biology, embryology, epidemiology, veterinary medicine, paleontology, psychology, engineering, linguistics, philology, sociology, metaphysics, ethics, economics, diplomacy, history, politics, music theory, poetry, logic, theodicy, universal language, universal science > Notable ideas > Algebraic logic, Binary code, Calculus, Differential equations, Mathesis universalis, Monads, Best of all possible worlds, Pre-established harmony, Identity of indiscernibles, Mathematical matrix, Mathematical function, Newton–Leibniz axiom, Leibniz's notation, Leibniz integral rule, Integral symbol, Leibniz harmonic triangle, Leibniz's test, Leibniz formula for π, Leibniz formula for determinants, Fractional derivative, Chain rule, Quotient rule, Product rule, Leibniz wheel, Leibniz's gap, Algebra of concepts, Vis viva (principle of conservation of energy), Principle of least action, Salva veritate, Stepped reckoner, Symbolic logic/Boolean algebra, Semiotics, Analysis situs, Principle of sufficient reason, Law of continuity, Transcendental law of homogeneity, Ars combinatoria (alphabet of human thought), Characteristica universalis, Calculus ratiocinator, Compossibility, Partial fraction decomposition, Protogaea, Problem of why there is anything at all, Pluralistic idealism, Metaphysical dynamism, Relationism, Apperception, A priori/a posteriori distinction, Deontic logic, Well-founded phenomenon Both Leibniz and Newton did a lot of interesting things, with only some (but very notable!) overlap. I particularly like Leibniz's calculator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepped_reckoner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepped_reckoner and Newton's telescope.
- eru 3y ago> Einstein's insights were on a scale quite a bit beyond what anyone else has done since then. I wouldn't quite say 'anyone else'. There's always John von Neumann.
- mjhay 3y agoHis relatively young death was such a tragedy. Von Neumann's intellect really was superhuman.
- krastanov 3y agoThat is a great point to bring up! I do not necessarily disagree, but there are gradations, and some contemporary geniuses disagree with your assertion: Wigner may have said it best: "Einstein's understanding was deeper even than von Neumann's. His mind was both more penetrating and more original than von Neumann's. And that is a very remarkable statement."
- eru 3y agoMaybe. But von Neumann also revolutionised more fields than Einstein. I guess which one you want to put on a higher pedestal depends on various judgement calls.