Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Einstein,Newton,Diracare they really genious?

  1. Jun 4, 2003 #1
    In fact years ago i admired them..but now that i am an university students i have my doubts about them being genious...

    In fact why are they considered genious?..the fotoelectric efect, and the formula F=m.a are in most cases trivial to discover as it is the gravitation formula F=GMm/r**2 trivial from Kepler,s second law.
    The relativity also was discovered by Poincare, and the mathematics they used are trivial..so i think any of us living in the beginign of the twentieth century and having the same opportunities could have also discovered the same...in my opinion people working and being physicist (or mathematicians) nowadays have more merit that the so-considered "genious"..is easy to discover Schroedinguer equation..the imposible thing is to develop quantum gravity....the exigences are not the same..in fact thes peopel were very privileged compared to others and were much luckier than us as to be considered genious..most of the formulae of physics from seventeen to the begining of the twentieth century use trivial mathematics (integration,derivation) so are easy to find..in fact if string theory and quantum gravity used so trivial formulae physics would be over years ago.

    Perhaps it sounds bad and some of them will have lots of critcs for me but i would like you to meditate about this post.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 4, 2003 #2
    sorry,my reply seems to have a little relation with the topic of this thread.i see many of this forum users are from united states.everyone knows US is the heaven for both science and technology and hence for the scientists and the innovative engineers themselves.no wonder americans dominate the list of nobel laureates.my question is how do u view those genius people, i mean if they earn high respect in the society or if they are just crazy thinkers who understand only their matters and fail to make what they discover or invent more applicable in the society(just useful for laboratory experiment) ?what do you think about such investments like space shuttle launching station, sky lab , high energy particle accelerator ,observatorium ,are they worth establishing or are they just a waste of the us budget?

    let me know your opinion
    thanks for your attention
  4. Jun 4, 2003 #3
    It is very easy to see things when someone shows them to you.

    The genius of these men lay in the ability to see what is not shown to them. To think through and formulate the physical properties that, as you have pointed out, are there for anyone to observe.

    We are standing on the shoulders of these men to get a better view of our world.
  5. Jun 4, 2003 #4
    Good point, Artman. I have thought about the same idea. I have learned a lot of concepts in Calculus have taken centuries for people to figure out (and which is based on "lesser" maths that have taken millenia). Does this mean that my intelligence blows these discoverers' intelligence away? No. Like Artman said, it is much easier to understand something when it is explained to you than to come up with it in the first place.
  6. Jun 4, 2003 #5
    do anyone of you know about the einstein's sons,how are they now ,especially the second one,i don't really understand what anomaly he suffers from.
  7. Jun 4, 2003 #6
    I agree, what’s complicated today will be trivial tomorrow. I think that one point eljose79 makes is right. The difference I believe from now verses the past is how complicated it is to be accepted. Today you have to have X amount of people, education, points of view backing you before anybody will consider your ideas at all. I wonder how many truly revolutionary ideas have been wasted because of this. One reason why this sight is so popular is that you can express your ideas and the others analyze and theorize with you, exactly what people like us need.
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2003
  8. Jun 4, 2003 #7
    Hi, ive only just joined this forum literally about 20 mins ago.

    but ive always respected these guys, although paul dirac was just ok!

    But i gotta go with einstein, newton, neils, and the others. If you had spelt genious as genius i might have sided with you, sorry!

    But especially einstein, he was seriously clever. i'd swap brains in a heartbeat.

    Why isnt stephen hawking in your list? now theres a guy living on the fame of hawking radiation! thats all hes done.

    now einstein accomplishments, special relativity! (I doubt that would have been discovered by anyonelse, appart from an experimental physisist) general relativity WOW, the laser, big bang, (photo electric effect You say it as if it wasnt big,) but at the time, it helped clarify the question of light quanta. Brownean motion, the cosmoligical constant (Greatest blunder, now seems correct), E=mc2 the basics of atomic physics. Atomic measurements, and thats all i can remember at the moment

    Man im dyin to double post.

    k, you talk about quantum gravity. No doubt in the future some guy is gonna work the G.U.T out and be an instant genius.

    But say 100 years later some one might say, "that wasnt too hard to work out, i bet i could do it" I think its within us all to work this stuff out, but you cant take away from past genius's credit :frown:
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2003
  9. Jun 6, 2003 #8
    Yes but....

    Do you think so?..in fact i know that some effort in maths must be made to impose the Standard Model..or string theory in higher aspect but do you think someone must be a genious by making this things:
    a)wave duality priciple..only by equating two equations

    b)Bohr,s atomic model by only imposing L=nh/2Pi

    c)Relativity..in fact Lorentz and Poincare developed it before Einstein.

    d)Uncertainty Principle DxDp when it is a trivial consecuence of Fourier analisis.

    In fact some of you have told in the post that someday what we have made today (strings, quantum gravity) will be considered trivial tomorrow..but i do not agree with you in fact the math used is very complicated in my opinion and only a few people can understand it..so it limited our comprension of physics..perhaps if it was more simpler mos of us could discover things is very difficult to develop physics if you do not have knowledge in high level maths...when 100 years ago Einstein and Dirac used a simpler math an this always helps you a lot.
    usually the key in physics is the math used in it...easier math=easy physics.
  10. Jun 7, 2003 #9
    im sorry, but to look at time as a variable *gasp* is complete genius... To hence challenge the fact that space density is constant is also without a doubt genius.
  11. Jun 7, 2003 #10
    Also, Einsteins equations were not completely verified and accepted until the 1990s... A little black book of equations he had still circulates around the world at auctions for 5-10 million has still yet to be fully understood.
  12. Jun 7, 2003 #11
    Re: Yes but....

    Not the physical interpretation though.
  13. Jun 7, 2003 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why is it that Math and Physics are considered difficult subjects? I have helped many people though Calculus and Physics over the years. At some point for each person, I have had to explain that this material is the culmination of 400yrs worth of work of the best minds known to mankind so you cannot expect to learn it easily in a few weeks. Joseph Priestly spend a summer reading a new book by Newton, called Principia Mathematica and with that became a research grade scientist, he was also a noted theologian. How often in this day and age do you see people at the top of two entirely different field?

    Over the centuries mankind has accumulated knowledge which, with each passing generation, grows. It now takes nearly 30yrs to learn a field well enough to make any significant advances.

    Is it possible for someone without the background education to make an advance in an established field? Seems very unlikely to me, as I have said before, to think outside of the box, you need to know where the box is. People with no formal education in math and physics have no idea what is known or not known. Just because you figure something out for yourself, does not mean that it is made trivial by another well established bit of knowledge which you do not possess.

    There are indeed many tremendous advances to be made, but we may be seeing a limiting factor in that it now takes so long to learn the existing state of knowledge. Most of the Physicists I have known have considered the life sciences a bane. Likewise many Life Scientist consider pure Physics a bore. What would happen if someone with a PhD in Physics, went back to school and earned a PhD in a life science? How often has this happened? Can you imagine the possibilities of all this knowledge combined in one brain? Trouble is to complete this task a person would be well over 30 and the rude fact is most major advances are made by YOUNG scientists.

    Now are the men who make these advances genius or not? Well often it is simply being in the right place at the right time. The first half of the 20th century was particularly fruitful, simply because of the work of a few men at the turn of the century, Plank, Einstein and a few others opened doors wide for the growth of knowledge.

    Could it have been foreseen? Consider that the work of Maxwell in the 1860s exposed a rift in physics that existed until Einstein’s work. Imagine that, Einstein healed the rift and suddenly Physics took off into a period of explosive growth, did it take genius to ride the wave of expanding knowledge? What do you mean by genius?

    Consider this, we are currently living with a rift in physics, the universe of Quantum Mechanic does not fit well into the universe of General Relativity. Does not this seem to be a similar situation as to what existed 100 years ago when Newtonian Mechanics and ElectroMagnetism did not fit together? Could the Einstein of 2000 be writing the paper that heals the current rift as I write this? What new and unknown fields will open up with this synthesis? What bit of knowledge are we missing to make it happen?

    Will Eljose79, dismiss the advance as trivial and obvious after the fact?
  14. Jun 7, 2003 #13
    Having read a little bit about some of the discourse upon the differences between works like Einstien, and Shakespear, Scientific Genius and Artistic Genius.

    The most common thing that all Scientific Geniuses have done, is to reveal "Previously Unrecognized, Self Evident Truths" to humanity.

    If you use that criteria, then you will find out who is, and who isn't, truly, a Genius. Cause that is what they did.

    Shakespears Genius is similar inasmuch as he too revealed Self Evident Truths, (SET) just ones that are more difficult to 'quantify' as they were SET's about Human nature.

    In the simplest manner I know, The (Self Evident) Truth itself, is the Genius, all the rest of us simply learning from that.....and some of us being given that opportunity to be the first to learn it.
  15. Jun 8, 2003 #14
    And perhaps..............


    In having had a bit of experiance with a "Previously Unrecognized, Self Evident Truth" it is interesting to observe people when they read such a work.

    Read a quotation in a Readers Digest Encyclopedia once, that talked of the reactions of " Scientific Discovery" sorta like, "At first it was AWE!", then they'all discussed it's merits, and how "seemingly obvious" it really actually was("is"), which gets retired to; "well, it's as if we had known it all along, cause it is self evident" Ya know!

    The "Previously Unrecognized, Self Evident Truth" that went to the Court had, (as little as I can actually prove I know about this) some what of that kind of effect, because what I described was the input/output function of my own brain, verbally, and all qualified as 'truth'.

    So if you were to read it, at first, it sorta strike you a little, as clearly you recognize "something" in the writting, (But your not quite sure 'just what', yet) so you spend a little time, thinking about it, see how it "fits" into you, completely, and recognize your own actions as fitting the appropriate aspects of the description of the input/output of meaning in your own, personal, brain/life.

    So after a little time passes, well you had "known all of this, all along", this was "nothing new", No, YOU had never described it before, but "it is obvious", and "I knew all of that about myself, All Along"

    They tend to get absorped into societies "minds'et" that way, easy to lose(?*) the accreditation for doing that, as people tend to "incoporate knowledge", into themselves, and end up, acting like it was them who discovered/came-up with it!


    (*Stolen from you!)
  16. Jun 12, 2003 #15
    if you think it is all that simple, answer this question please.

    PS you will NOT be the first....

    Simple (not really a) test....

    In the Bible God states that "All of this universe is a part of me, but all of this universe, is not me".

    Answer please. (explain the 'apparent' paradox)

    (As to avoid giving it away "to all", give them a chance to figure it out too, you could PM me, your choice, choose wisely!)

    Show me you too can figure things out.
  17. Jun 12, 2003 #16
    going back to the start

    earlier you lot were saying how basic some of the "genious'" ideas were. (this may have been said b4 but some of the posts r sooooooo long) surely the true genius is explaining something in terms that can can be understood by any one. if someone proves string theory by lots of maths thats hard work. but if someone proves it with little more than calculus thats genius
  18. Jun 13, 2003 #17
    What is "genious" anyway?

    As a trained psychologist, I can honestly say that the ideal of genious relies not on any empirical evidence. Ok, ok. IQ is a good measure, but I have noticed that "in the field" genious and "paper" genious are two different species.

    It is those folks who find a real world problem easily solved - ludicrously obvious - while everyone else is scratching thier heads trying to figure out wtf is wrong in the first place.

    Just like Einstein. We can look back and say "how ridiculously obvious". Hindsight is 20/20 however. It took genious to put 2 and 2 together.

    Anyone can learn the math. They can learn the theories, the expostulations, the rote of learned culture and build upon them. Genious is the ability to synthesize the facts to find a solution that surpasses the norm.

    Montaigne once wrote that all thought, all invention, was the amalgamation of multiple previous ideas into a new "hybrid" idea. Genious, true genious, IMHO, is the ability to introduce new ideas, not based upon previous foundations - arriving as it were "out of the blue".
  19. Jun 13, 2003 #18
    Excellent post, Integral. How do you think it would be possible to "heal the rift" between QM and general relativity? Would you change QM to fit the constraints of GR?
  20. Jun 13, 2003 #19
    Since no one seems to like the first question I posed, lets try this one...............

    It is a Universal Law that "There is an exception to every rule", so, if there is an exception to "every rule", musn't there be an exception to that rule, and (assume) it so, what is it?

    Responces preffered by PM please, no giving anything away to anyone else...but I suppose you can all collaberate, your choice.

    Have FUN!
  21. Jun 14, 2003 #20
    So I posed two questions, simple ones as they have both "already been answered", just not by you, so, why? if your soooo smart, tell me the answers to those two questions.
    (It ain't all that hard,is it?)

    I agree.

    And again. (with a Cheer!)

    And again. (More cheering!)

    Eljose79, care to prove your assertion of just "how trivial" it really is, easy to answer questions being posed, opportunity to prove your Genious.

    YOu can post an answer, if you would prefer, I don't mind.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook