Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Is There No New "Einstein"?

scribd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: Why Is There No New "Einstein"?

#11

Post by mixmax »

SuperThread wrote: post #10
mixmax wrote: post #5

The simple truth is that great scientist are simply a a rare event. How many scientists with the capacity of Einstein have there been? Newton, maybe Aristotle and Archimedes. That's four in the last two thousand years. The capacity of scientists (genius, output or however you define it) most probably follows a powerlaw with a lot of mediocre scientists, a few outstanding (Louis Pasteur, Henry Cavendish, Louis Maxwell…

There are way more people around now than there were then—the number of people alive today is comparable to the number of people who have died in the last millennium.

Which should amount to an Einstein every millenium or so.

Re: Why Is There No New "Einstein"?

#12

Post by yummyfajitas »

hugh wrote: post #2

This is a very interesting question, but unfortunately in this case the author's answer is just the standard scientist's whine: "There's not enough funding for my kind of research". Better possible answers include: a) The time isn't right for the emergence of another Einstein just now b) There are several around, we're just not paying attention c) Einstein was really more of a media phenomenon than a physicist, and h…

Actually, to my great surprise, "give my field more money" was only one of his suggestions. It was, in fact, the last suggestion of his, and (at least to my reading) least important.

The rest of his answer is quite reasonable, and doesn't even need new money:

1. Seek out people with different points of view and invite them to join the discussion. 2. Give money/influence to individuals, not to large fiefdoms/research programs.

I think he is quite right on this. In at least one area the author mentioned (foundations of QM), even a single person with different views can be beneficial to a department. At Rutgers (where I got my Ph.D.) the math physics group has a single advocate of a deviant view. The department would be weakened if we replaced him with a normal scientist of equal quality.

Diversity of ideas is important, and we definitely don't do enough to promote it.

Re: Why Is There No New "Einstein"?

#13

Post by petercooper »

Two reasons. 1) The achievements of modern day scientists appear less amazing than they really are. 2) The achievements of scientists of the pass seem more amazing than they really were.

There are quite a few candidates for a modern day "Einstein." Stephen Hawking or Michio Kaku, for example.

Re: Why Is There No New "Einstein"?

#14

Post by BrandonM »

brentr wrote: post #4

Scene from the Big Bang Theory: PENNY What's new in physics? LEONARD Really nothing, except for string theory. But only then I can say, "My theory has certain mathematical consistencies"

The Big Bang Theory has surprised me in that it actually has truly intellectual jokes. I thought it would just be another stereotype-promoting, nerd-meets-hottie sitcom, but this one actually has some intelligent humor.

Re: Why Is There No New "Einstein"?

#16

Post by nsrivast »

hugh wrote: post #2

This is a very interesting question, but unfortunately in this case the author's answer is just the standard scientist's whine: "There's not enough funding for my kind of research". Better possible answers include: a) The time isn't right for the emergence of another Einstein just now b) There are several around, we're just not paying attention c) Einstein was really more of a media phenomenon than a physicist, and h…

Lee Smolin's grievances are motivated by a greater concern than simply lack of funding for loop quantum gravity, his primary topic of research. The main problem is the unjustified (given the lack of falsifiable predictions, lack of proper formulation, lack of unique solutions) and unprecedented (given the proportion of string theorists in top-level research institutions) focus on string theories in the current environment. It's about the fate of a discipline, not simply about "not enough funding." See his book The Trouble with Physics for a more passionate defense.

I do agree that the answer to "why no Einsteins" is more complicated that Lee Smolin suggests, though I doubt any of (a)-(e) are true, except maybe (a).

Re: Why Is There No New "Einstein"?

#17

Post by Hexstream »

hugh wrote: post #2

This is a very interesting question, but unfortunately in this case the author's answer is just the standard scientist's whine: "There's not enough funding for my kind of research". Better possible answers include: a) The time isn't right for the emergence of another Einstein just now b) There are several around, we're just not paying attention c) Einstein was really more of a media phenomenon than a physicist, and h…

"Physics is almost over -- there's still things still left to discover, but no surprises on the scale of relativity or quantum mechanics left."

If less than 100% of alien reports are fake/illusions/hallucinations, then we still have to discover faster-than-lightspeed travel and a bunch of other cool stuff.

Re: Why Is There No New "Einstein"?

#18

Post by mechanical_fish »

mixmax wrote: post #5

The simple truth is that great scientist are simply a a rare event. How many scientists with the capacity of Einstein have there been? Newton, maybe Aristotle and Archimedes. That's four in the last two thousand years. The capacity of scientists (genius, output or however you define it) most probably follows a powerlaw with a lot of mediocre scientists, a few outstanding (Louis Pasteur, Henry Cavendish, Louis Maxwell…

How many scientists with the capacity of Einstein have there been? Newton, maybe Aristotle and Archimedes. That's four in the last two thousand years.

Look, I admire these guys as much as anyone. But Zombie Einstein himself would come back from the dead and smack you if he heard you claim that, e.g., Maxwell wasn't as smart as he was. Einstein figured out special relativity by staring at Maxwell's equations, after all.

I also look forward to your battle with Zombie Leibniz, who will be pretty pissed off at your one-sided exaltation of Newton. Although it's understandable that you didn't choose to anger Zombie Newton. Nobody does that and lives.

Having actually met the late Hans Bethe before he died, I assure you that his zombie will pack a mean slide rule. We're talking about a guy who discovered the main sequence, wrote the book on solid state physics, and served as the theoretical lead for the Manhattan project in his spare time.

Indeed, the list of dead scientists who were arguably as capable as Einstein is awfully long. You'd better start running. I hear that the tag team of Zombie Nicola Tesla and Zombie Michael Faraday is deadly even at long range, especially if you aren't properly grounded. And that's just the physicists... can you imagine the sheer size of Zombie Charles Darwin's Army of the Extinct?

Re: Why Is There No New "Einstein"?

#19

Post by bootload »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #12
hugh wrote: post #2

This is a very interesting question, but unfortunately in this case the author's answer is just the standard scientist's whine: "There's not enough funding for my kind of research". Better possible answers include: a) The time isn't right for the emergence of another Einstein just now b) There are several around, we're just not paying attention c) Einstein was really more of a media phenomenon than a physicist, and h…

Actually, to my great surprise, "give my field more money" was only one of his suggestions. It was, in fact, the last suggestion of his, and (at least to my reading) least important. The rest of his answer is quite reasonable, and doesn't even need new money: 1. Seek out people with different points of view and invite them to join the discussion. 2. Give money/influence to individuals, not to large fiefdoms/research…

"... Seek out people with different points of view and invite them to join the discussion ..."

Heretical for Science.

I read this and think of some thinkers below each who are/where persecuted in some way for having unacceptable ideas:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Kosko

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbrot

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

"... Diversity of ideas is important, and we definitely don't do enough to promote it. ..."

True. Sometimes I think working at the edges of problems and across several fields reduces the chances of recognition. But it's here good ideas & people emerge.

Post reply on HN