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

Scientists who never won a Nobel Prize

wondersofphysics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: Scientists who never won a Nobel Prize

#101

Post by ChrisLomont »

catmistake wrote: post #98
SideQuark wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>time dialation (something completely alien to all before him >Hendrik Lorentz prop Lorentz did not think that time actually dilated; his notion of "local time" he considered purely a mathematical trick, unrelated to actual physics, in the same manner that renormalization sweeps away infinities in a clever manner. Here's the quote: "While for Lorentz length contraction was a real physical effect, he considered the t…

It is in the ballpark. The point is that Einstein did not pull a rabbit out of his hat, others had thought similar weirdness, and Einstein was aware of it.

Claiming as factual all the things you did is not "in the ballpark." It's simply wrong, and oddly skewed to paint the worst possible light with ad hominem, misconceptions, and lies.

Yes, plenty of people were working on similar stuff - this is true for every single case I've ever dug into (Newton, Gauss, Tesla, Einstein, Witten, Feynman, Wright Brothers, Marconi, transistor, laser, fission, fusion, ...), but to claim (as you did) that the person who actually make the breakthrough did not do it (and backing it by lies, as I sourced), is deceitful.

I've yet to see someone create something so vastly improved from the world around them that it would not have been made by another person or group immediately. But that does not mean it's fine to discount the work of the person who did it first, especially if that requires falsehoods.

Re: Scientists who never won a Nobel Prize

#102

Post by catmistake »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #100
catmistake wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also like to point out that Einstein was humble, and the myth of Einstein that developed was not his doing. It was the common man, the everyday people and the press of the time that said, incorrectly, "wow! He is so smart, no one can understand what he is doing!" Which is patently false. Non-physicists could not be expected to understand Relativity. But the physicist peers of Einstein didn't have much trouble wit…

>It is General Relativity that is Einstein's really only major contribution worth noting. Special relativity was a leap no one else was making, despite 20+ years of people knowing enough to make the leap. He also postulated light was made of photons (which was correct) to explain the photoelectric effect, which is another amazingly important thing. That one a Nobel Prize, but according to you, this is not a major con…

I disagree as to your opinions, which seem to just disagree for the sake of disagreement. The elements of Special Relativity were around. I stand by the assertion that someone else would have developed that theory within a few short years had Einstein not. And I stand by the assertion that General Relativity, had Einstein not existed, would have taken several decades before anyone would have fully put it together.

For anything Einstein is given credit for after about 1918, it was just the momentum of his popularity. Anytime another name is on anything, it is that other name that did most of the work, and because it was based on Einstein's earlier work, his name went on it also. And this is absolutely normal and expected in academia. Nearly all physicists do their life's work before they are 30, usually by the time they are 23. Einstein was nearly 40 when he published his Theory of General Relativity, and that is extremely out of the ordinary. You are seeing things, perpetuating the myth, when you place Einstein, the man, central to any breakthroughs after about 1918.

Re: Scientists who never won a Nobel Prize

#103

Post by ChrisLomont »

catmistake wrote: post #102
ChrisLomont wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is General Relativity that is Einstein's really only major contribution worth noting. Special relativity was a leap no one else was making, despite 20+ years of people knowing enough to make the leap. He also postulated light was made of photons (which was correct) to explain the photoelectric effect, which is another amazingly important thing. That one a Nobel Prize, but according to you, this is not a major con…

I disagree as to your opinions, which seem to just disagree for the sake of disagreement. The elements of Special Relativity were around. I stand by the assertion that someone else would have developed that theory within a few short years had Einstein not. And I stand by the assertion that General Relativity, had Einstein not existed, would have taken several decades before anyone would have fully put it together. Fo…

> Einstein was nearly 40 ... extremely out of the ordinary.

Over all Nobel Prizes, it happened around 1/3 of the time. In Physics since 2000, it happened 80% of the time [1]. Care to rethink this claim?

Have you read the original papers? I have. Do you understand the math, and can do calculations related to relativity? I can.

Again the claim General Relativity was not being solved by others? I just demonstrated Hilbert was right on Einstein’s heels, with a paper published right after Einstein, with the same results.

Why stick to that gun when I just cited the evidence, that you can check yourself? The original papers are both online for you to read.

Einstein and Hilbert even worked quite a bit together on it. Of course Hilbert was interested and working on it too.

By several decades do you mean a few months? Is this time dilation?

I get the feeling you do not know either.

[1] https://www.livescience.com/16911-scientific-breakthroughs-g...

Re: Scientists who never won a Nobel Prize

#104

Post by catmistake »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #103
catmistake wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree as to your opinions, which seem to just disagree for the sake of disagreement. The elements of Special Relativity were around. I stand by the assertion that someone else would have developed that theory within a few short years had Einstein not. And I stand by the assertion that General Relativity, had Einstein not existed, would have taken several decades before anyone would have fully put it together. Fo…

> Einstein was nearly 40 ... extremely out of the ordinary. Over all Nobel Prizes, it happened around 1/3 of the time. In Physics since 2000, it happened 80% of the time [1]. Care to rethink this claim? Have you read the original papers? I have. Do you understand the math, and can do calculations related to relativity? I can. Again the claim General Relativity was not being solved by others? I just demonstrated Hilbe…

The specific fallacies you have chosen to employ to attempt support your frail argument are interesting. I have read Special Relativity in translation, it is short enough and there is little math. My German is not even pedestrian, so no, I have not read Einstein's original article on General Relativity.

No, I meant what I said. Special Relativity would have appeared within a few years of Einstein's publication had it not occurred, but for General Relativity derived elsewhere would have taken decades at least. Hilbert didn't have it and wasn't on anyone's heels.

Re: Scientists who never won a Nobel Prize

#105

Post by catmistake »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #101
catmistake wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is in the ballpark. The point is that Einstein did not pull a rabbit out of his hat, others had thought similar weirdness, and Einstein was aware of it.

Claiming as factual all the things you did is not "in the ballpark." It's simply wrong, and oddly skewed to paint the worst possible light with ad hominem, misconceptions, and lies. Yes, plenty of people were working on similar stuff - this is true for every single case I've ever dug into (Newton, Gauss, Tesla, Einstein, Witten, Feynman, Wright Brothers, Marconi, transistor, laser, fission, fusion, ...), but to claim…

No, I was correct. Ad hominem is an attack. I have not attacked you, and I do not see how you could find ad hominem in my replies. Unfounded paranoia is probably not something you should ignore.

My point was very simply was that Einstein did not walk on water nor did he operate in a vacuum. I am not sure why this is so difficult to believe.

Re: Scientists who never won a Nobel Prize

#106

Post by ChrisLomont »

catmistake wrote: post #104
ChrisLomont wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Einstein was nearly 40 ... extremely out of the ordinary. Over all Nobel Prizes, it happened around 1/3 of the time. In Physics since 2000, it happened 80% of the time [1]. Care to rethink this claim? Have you read the original papers? I have. Do you understand the math, and can do calculations related to relativity? I can. Again the claim General Relativity was not being solved by others? I just demonstrated Hilbe…

The specific fallacies you have chosen to employ to attempt support your frail argument are interesting. I have read Special Relativity in translation, it is short enough and there is little math. My German is not even pedestrian, so no, I have not read Einstein's original article on General Relativity. No, I meant what I said. Special Relativity would have appeared within a few years of Einstein's publication had it…

>General Relativity derived elsewhere would have taken decades at least

Is this based on the quality of evidence you used when you claimed people over 40 don't do much science? That turned out to be wildly incorrect.

What do you base the "decades" claim on? There was no new math needing invented, no new empirical evidence needed, no new physics needed, and many people were close at the time, and certainly more and more physicists were heading down the same paths.

BTW, Einstein's most cited paper, by far, is from 1935, written when he was 56. I suspect that's some evidence he did good work after general relativity.

Re: Scientists who never won a Nobel Prize

#107

Post by ChrisLomont »

catmistake wrote: post #105
ChrisLomont wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claiming as factual all the things you did is not "in the ballpark." It's simply wrong, and oddly skewed to paint the worst possible light with ad hominem, misconceptions, and lies. Yes, plenty of people were working on similar stuff - this is true for every single case I've ever dug into (Newton, Gauss, Tesla, Einstein, Witten, Feynman, Wright Brothers, Marconi, transistor, laser, fission, fusion, ...), but to claim…

No, I was correct. Ad hominem is an attack. I have not attacked you, and I do not see how you could find ad hominem in my replies. Unfounded paranoia is probably not something you should ignore. My point was very simply was that Einstein did not walk on water nor did he operate in a vacuum. I am not sure why this is so difficult to believe.

>Ad hominem is an attack.

Ad hominem is not simply an attack; it's disparaging someone to undermine their argument.

>I have not attacked you, and I do not see how you could find ad hominem in my replies.

I didn't say tou attacked me. You threw in Einstein being a womanizer in a discussion about people worthy of Nobel Prizes. I don't think the Nobel comittee takes that into consideration.

>Unfounded paranoia is probably not something you should ignore.

Agreed. Since you brought up unfounded paranoia, and since you thought the ad hominem was about you attacking me when that is not what I wrote, you should get that paranoia checked :)

>My point was very simply was that Einstein did not walk on water nor did he operate in a vacuum. I am not sure why this is so difficult to believe.

I never claimed anything like that. Strawman?

I agree he didn't operate in a vacuum, which is why I think there's ample evidence his work would have been done by others soon after he did it if he did not exist. This is true for just about every person and discovery.

You're the one arguing that all of mankind could not have developed General Relativity for decades without Einstein.

Which is it? Was his work able to be done by others around the same time (i.e., not in a vacuum), or was his work so spectacular and impossible for all of mankind to not be able to produce it for decades (i.e., the walks on water argument)?

Re: Scientists who never won a Nobel Prize

#108

Post by catmistake »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #106
catmistake wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specific fallacies you have chosen to employ to attempt support your frail argument are interesting. I have read Special Relativity in translation, it is short enough and there is little math. My German is not even pedestrian, so no, I have not read Einstein's original article on General Relativity. No, I meant what I said. Special Relativity would have appeared within a few years of Einstein's publication had it…

>General Relativity derived elsewhere would have taken decades at least Is this based on the quality of evidence you used when you claimed people over 40 don't do much science? That turned out to be wildly incorrect. What do you base the "decades" claim on? There was no new math needing invented, no new empirical evidence needed, no new physics needed, and many people were close at the time, and certainly more and mo…

So in one breath you're saying GR would have appeared quickly if Einstein had not described it, and in the other you're saying he was the legend of his myth and productive his entire career.

It is simply my opinion that GR was so amazing, insightful, and non-obvious that it would have taken a similar miracle as Einstein himself for someone else to have intuited it and worked it out, but given enough time, eventually it would have appeared.

BTW, Einstein's most cited paper, by far, is from 1935, written when he was 56. I suspect that's some evidence he did good work after general relativity.

OR it is evidence that he had decent research assistants.

Re: Scientists who never won a Nobel Prize

#109

Post by catmistake »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #107
catmistake wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I was correct. Ad hominem is an attack. I have not attacked you, and I do not see how you could find ad hominem in my replies. Unfounded paranoia is probably not something you should ignore. My point was very simply was that Einstein did not walk on water nor did he operate in a vacuum. I am not sure why this is so difficult to believe.

>Ad hominem is an attack. Ad hominem is not simply an attack; it's disparaging someone to undermine their argument. >I have not attacked you, and I do not see how you could find ad hominem in my replies. I didn't say tou attacked me. You threw in Einstein being a womanizer in a discussion about people worthy of Nobel Prizes. I don't think the Nobel comittee takes that into consideration. >Unfounded paranoia is probab…

Ad hominem is not simply an attack; it's disparaging someone to undermine their argument.

Which is why it is also fallacy. Attacking the man does not undermine the argument, so the argument stands unassailed. Anytime we say "you..." it is the beginning of an ad hominem fallacy. Informal fallacy is invalid argument.

The rest of your last comment is all ad hominem fallacy. It's all you you you with you.

Re: Scientists who never won a Nobel Prize

#110

Post by ycreader »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #63
krnsll wrote: post #13

Freeman Dyson is a glaring miss here. Feynman and Schwinger shared the 1965 Nobel in Physics for their respective perspectives on Quantum Electrodynamics. But it was Dyson who unified Feynman's diagram approach with Schwinger's field model.

Shinichirō Tomonaga also shared the 1965 Nobel for this work, and his work was much more fundamental to QED than Dyson. The Nobel Prize can go to at most three people.

Could you elaborate on about why Tomonaga work was more fundamental to QED than Dyson? Thank you
Post reply on HN