This is curious. He seems to have missed the equation because he wanted relativistic equations. Same as with Schrödinger's initial guess. I wonder how quick we would have found the Schrödinger equation if the discovery of relativity was delayed.sbrothy said:
Not sure if he was the last, what about Bell or Bohm? Many now work on quantum interpretations. Schrödinger is surely one of the last successful ones.sbrothy said:Yes. An Schrödinger was kinda one of the last naturalist philosophers wasn't he? He span widely. His "What is Life?" book springs to mind. Thank God he evaded the Nazis.
It is worse than that. He's got a record of having sexual encounters with minors. Rooms and buildings of some universities are no longer called "Schrödinger" for this reason.Hornbein said:Schrödinger harbored a harem in his home. I don't recall whether the count was two or three. The man who created the Wonder Woman character had a similar lifestyle.
When Schrödinger came up with his equation he didn't know that the values were related to probabilities.
News to me, but if true - and I seldom doubt two members on here being in agreement - that is indeed pretty disgusting. The man just went on my "list".pines-demon said:It is worse than that. He's got a record of having sexual encounters with minors. Rooms and buildings of some universities are no longer called "Schrödinger" for this reason.
I saw a documentary on Einstein and remember Haber having a heart attack. Pretty sure he was portrayed as being remorseful that his talents were used to kill soldiers in the trenches.BWV said:Fritz Haber is a fascinating and tragic figure. On one hand, his eponymous process saved 2.7 billion human lives by some estimates. However he also led the German chemical weapons program in World War One and developed Zyklon B, which the Nazis used some 25 years later to murder his surviving family members
I remember one of the (visitors to the lab) was the great Charles Steinmetz from the General Electric Company. He was one who did not believe in electrons. He could explain all the electrical phenomena in terms of a strain in the Ether. After watching these little oil droplets most of one afternoon, he came and shook my hand and said, shaking his head, "I never would have believed it. I never would have believed it" and then left.
Swamp Thing said:My work with Millikan on the oil-drop experiment
by Harvey Fletcher
(Physics Today, June 1962)
http://www.ub.edu/hcub/hfq/sites/default/files/fletcher.pdf
Video by Dr. Jorge S. Diaz:
To a surprising number of people the idea that the arrival of photons at two separated detectors
can ever be correlated was not ony heretical but patently absurd... If science had a Pope we would have been excommunicated.
Frabjous said:“Landau’s Theoretical Minimum, Landau’s Seminar, ITEP in the Beginning of the 1950’s”
By Boris Ioffe
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0204295
Well, that was 1879. Scientific publishing was different then. A lot more was published.Swamp Thing said:Edwin Hall on his discovery of the Hall Effect:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070208040346/http://www.stenomuseet.dk/skoletj/elmag/kilde9.html
Although published as a scientific paper, it reads in part like a personal narrative... It would be fun if papers were written in that style today. Or like the old Royal Society papers.
Columbia is a university, Colombia is a country in South AmericaFrabjous said:Schwinger’s time at Colombia
https://www.physics.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Schwinger Article.pdf
Chapter 2 of Climbing the Mountain by Mehra and Milton
Source?Hornbein said:I have read that re-analysis of Eddington's eclipse data that allegedly confirmed general relativity were inconclusive.
It has been claimed that Eddington's observations were of poor quality, and he had unjustly discounted simultaneous observations at Sobral, Brazil, which appeared closer to the Newtonian model, but a 1979 re-analysis with modern measuring equipment and contemporary software validated Eddington's results and conclusions.[12] The quality of the 1919 results was indeed poor compared to later observations, but was sufficient to persuade contemporary astronomers. The rejection of the results from the expedition to Brazil was due to a defect in the telescopes used which, again, was completely accepted and well understood by contemporary astronomers.[13]
12. Kennefick, Daniel (5 September 2007). "Not Only Because of Theory: Dyson, Eddington and the Competing Myths of the 1919 Eclipse Expedition". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. arXiv:0709.0685. Bibcode:2007arXiv0709.0685K. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.07.010. S2CID 119203172.
13. Kennefick, Daniel (1 March 2009). "Testing relativity from the 1919 eclipse – a question of bias". Physics Today. 62 (3): 37–42. Bibcode:2009PhT....62c..37K. doi:10.1063/1.3099578.
gmax137 said:Source?
It has been claimed that Eddington's observations were of poor quality,