Einstein vs Newton: Who is the Superior Physicist?

[Pythagorean]

I was going to post the epic rap battle for Einstein and Newton, but it did not pass initial review.

 

[DennisN]

I'm always reluctant to compare different persons at different times in history, since they belong to different historical contexts. So there will be no vote on this from me .

That clocks in motion slow down I can accept
but that actual time progresses at a variable rate I cannot. So to me it's still an unsolved riddle. In my simple mind, time should be the 'universal frame of reference' he sought [...] just i'd sure like to find a layman's explanation as to why time has to vary instead of c .. That'd be one less riddle on my bucket list.
Surely there's a few out there?

Suggestion: Try questioning the idea of a universal clock which governs everything (absolute time). That was the final nail in the coffin for the Newtonian me.

Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, [...] (Newton, Principia, p.77)

Try question if this idea is really motivated, and, as said by someone else before, you could start a thread in the relativity forum about it (if you haven't already).

 

[WannabeNewton]

I've always wondered what the fascination is of the laypeople with Einstein. There have been tons of threads on this before. Einstein is nothing compared to Newton, as far as contributions to science go; Einstein is extremely overrated in the public sphere. There are so many scientists who have come and gone who deserve so much of the needless attention that is given to Einstein by laypeople. Not only that, but all these discussions always seem to revolve around Einstein the relativist, but Einstein's contributions to statistical mechanics/thermodynamics are what illuminate his true glory.

 

[DennisN]

I've always wondered what the fascination is of the laypeople with Einstein. There have been tons of threads on this before.

Fame, I presume, and that he is historically pretty close to us in time. That's my guess. What also bothers me is that when giants like these are compared, a lot of other important scientists tend to be forgotten .

 

[ZombieFeynman]

Fame, I presume, and that he is historically pretty close to us in time. That's my guess. What also bothers me is that when giants like these are compared, a lot of other important scientists tend to be forgotten .

I think this is the key point. All of these people's work is incomparable.

Why don't people rave about Gibbs? His contributions to science were incredible!

Or what about Bardeen? Laughlin? Landau? Anderson? Wilson?

Not as famous, certainly, but who is to judge?

The problem as I see it with people so eagerly proclaiming Newton as king is that once he had his laws of motion and universal gravitation, no one else could invent them. Science is cumulative, you can only progress on the shoulders of others, giants or otherwise.

 

[Pythagorean]

What's impressive to me about Einstein is that he did research from Brownian motion to photoelectric effect, laser states, solid state energies, to relativity (both special and general) and conceived of the thought experiment that suggests gravity perturbations should travel near the speed of light. He was all over the place.. maybe that was common for the time, I don't know.

It's true that it's not a huge step mathematically from some of the stuff developed at the time (like the retarded potential) to relativity, but Einstein was also very eloquent and philosophical in his discussions and he was popular for his humanitarian views too. They all put his scientific mind into context.

My picture of Newton is an uptight wig that tortured people on the rack for disagreeing with him. I can imagine Newton thrusting his mind into mathematics like priest whips themselves for atonement, self-punishing, monstrous work, abandoned by mother, angry and burying.

I'm not saying that my characterization of either is completely true, but I think this more subjective qualities go along way in forming opinions on seemingly irrelevant merits.

 

[DennisN]

What's impressive to me about Einstein is that he did research from Brownian motion to photoelectric effect, laser states, solid state energies, to relativity (both special and general) and conceived of the thought experiment that suggests gravity perturbations should travel near the speed of light. He was all over the place.. maybe that was common for the time, I don't know.

Yes, I agree, of course he was impressive.

My picture of Newton is an uptight wig that tortured people on the rack for disagreeing with him. I can imagine Newton thrusting his mind into mathematics like priest whips themselves for atonement, self-punishing, monstrous work, abandoned by mother, angry and burying.

Newton the Inquisitor. Nobody expects the Newtonian Inquisition!

 

[atyy]

Landau famously ranked Newton 0 and Einstein 0.5 on a log scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Landau#Landau.27s_List

I vote Clausius #2 for his discovery of entropy.

 

[dkotschessaa]

Fame, I presume, and that he is historically pretty close to us in time. That's my guess. What also bothers me is that when giants like these are compared, a lot of other important scientists tend to be forgotten .

I've conjectured that we probably have Newtons and Einsteins all over the place, but we have so many of them that nobody takes notice. I don't believe, as some popular theories suggest, that genius is a thing of the past.

 

[Pythagorean]

My personal favorite is Poincare (whom Einstein seemingly considered a pioneer of relativity).

 

[Enigman]

ARCHIE AND THE TWO LEOs ROCK!
-----------------------------------
(Leonardo da vinci &Galileo I mean)[/size]

 

[WannabeNewton]

It's true that it's not a huge step mathematically from some of the stuff developed at the time (like the retarded potential) to relativity, but Einstein was also very eloquent and philosophical in his discussions and he was popular for his humanitarian views too. They all put his scientific mind into context.

He was also stubborn in his philosophical and scientific beliefs and more than once proven wrong. Newton at least had the godly status to warrant his nature.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

My personal favorite is Poincare (whom Einstein seemingly considered a pioneer of relativity).

For SR, Poincare was a pioneer, along with Lorentz. As far as GR goes, David Hilbert could have claimed priority or at least parity with Einstein. And don't forget Bose in Einstein-Bose statistics or Rosen and Podolsky in EPR. The photoelectric effect however was all Einstein's afaik, and it was for this that he won the Nobel in 1921.

 

[Enigman]

He was also stubborn in his philosophical and scientific beliefs and more than once proven wrong. Newton at least had the godly status to warrant his nature.

Abstract

Newton grew up with a vulnerable and eccentric character besides having a low self-esteem, and he was someone who only uncommonly developed any close relationships. On review it is argued that his distrust and suspicions of others, and the fear that he might be harmed by criticism and his discoveries stolen, followed from his mother's separation from him in childhood and not, as has been claimed, from the developmental disorder of Asperger's syndrome. It is further firmly argued that his ‘madness’ of 1692 and 1693 was due to mercury poisoning from his alchemical experiments and not to clinical depression.

http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/62/3/289.full

 

[DennisN]

Science is cumulative, you can only progress on the shoulders of others, giants or otherwise.

I agree. Here's another giant AND pioneer: Antoine Lavoisier. How often do we hear about him?

 

[ZombieFeynman]

He was also stubborn in his philosophical and scientific beliefs and more than once proven wrong. Newton at least had the godly status to warrant his nature.

Einstein's stubbornness and unwillingness to accept quantum mechanics led to many experiments and ideas that greatly solidified the foundations of quantum mechanics. You should read about the EPR paradox, Bell's Inequality, and Alain Aspect's experiments. Although he was proven wrong, his objections to the early quantum theory served the theory well in the end.

We are reminded often of Arthur C Clarke's first "law" of predictions:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Also, WBN, your hero worship of Newton seems to be as much of a caricature as others' worship of Einstein.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Einstein's stubbornness and unwillingness to accept quantum mechanics led to many experiments and ideas that greatly solidified the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Did I say his faults were necessary restricted to QM? I don't recall ever saying that. I don't know why you assumed such a thing. He was wrong about certain philosophical aspects of GR as well as cosmological models. I can think of many scientists who deserve way more attention than him e.g. the great Michael Faraday. As I said earlier, Newton had a great many faults but his achievements more than dwarf them.

 

[Enigman]

I don't remember Einstein ever being stubborn in his (non-scientific) philosophical believes. The amount of logical clarity he brought to the topic was astonishing- even when the topic was something as personal as Why Do They Hate The Jews.

 

[Enigman]

I've always wondered what the fascination is of the laypeople with Einstein.

Einstein didn't get it either...

Isn't it strange that I who have written only unpopular books should be such a popular fellow?
--

 

[Caveat]

It's cause Einstein was Jewish. Not to mention his prediction of that eclipse was front page News in the 30's or something.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I don't remember Einstein ever being stubborn in his (non-scientific) philosophical believes.

I didn't say non-scientific, I said in GR. He had stubborn beliefs about e.g. Mach's principle and tried to force it into the formalism of GR and failed.

 

[Enigman]

There was also his legendary division by zero...
Einstein probably got a bit insecure after that:

SIR WILLIAM Rothenstein was in Berlin doing a portrait of Einstein. The mathematician was always accompanied to the studio by a solemn, academic looking individual who sat in a corner throughout the sittings. Einstein, not wishing to waste any time, was putting forth certain tentative theories, to which the silent companion replied only by an occasional nod or shake of the head. When the work was concluded, Rothenstein, who was curious, asked Einstein who his companion was.
"That's my mathematician," said Einstein, "who examines problems which I put before him and checks their validity. You see, I am not myself a good mathematician .

 

[dkotschessaa]

This is a rare thing, what has happened in this thread for me...

I started it thinking that "there's no answer, but it's fun to think about."

But at this point, having thought about it and read the posts, I am beginning to think that in terms of sheer brainpower, it is indeed Newton.

Though as I said, historically I feel more connected to and inspired by Einstein. And I feel that Einsteinyness is somewhat achievable for individuals, whereas you're either a Newton or a non-netwon.

 

[TrickyDicky]

There was also his legendary division by zero...
Einstein probably got a bit insecure after that:

These are quite hilarious and meaningful (supposing they are real) anecdotes that I had never read about, can you give the references (both of the quote and the "legendary division by zero") that you got them from?
Thanks

 

[Enigman]

These are quite hilarious and meaningful (supposing they are real) anecdotes that I had never read about, can you give the references (both of the quote and the "legendary division by zero") that you got them from?
Thanks

http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html
I am really not sure about the authenticity and may just end up making a fool of myself...
Ah well: division by zero is what is supposed have led him to the idea of cosmological constant which was then corrected by Alexander Friedmann who showed the General relativity actually predicted an expanding universe. I called it legendary as there was quite a talk about this back in high school. (but it just might be a hoax now that I think of it.)
I will try to verify this from other sources, let me see what I can find...

 

[Enigman]

Okay as for the division by zero it seems all references trace back to the book Einstein: The Life And Times (Robert Clarke)
He divided both sides of an equation by an expression which may be under some conditions may be zero.
Edit:Can't seem to find a better reference for the second one, will try later as for now :zzz:

 

[dkotschessaa]

I suppose we are veering slightly off topic, but my favorite Einstein anecdote is probably (as quoted here)

One day, the story goes, Albert Einstein was playing string quartets with his friend Fritz Kreisler, the great Viennese violinist. Einstein went wrong. "You know, Albert," said Kreisler, "your trouble is that you can't count."

 

[TrickyDicky]

http://oaks.nvg.org/sa5ra17.html
I am really not sure about the authenticity and may just end up making a fool of myself...
Ah well: division by zero is what is supposed have led him to the idea of cosmological constant which was then corrected by Alexander Friedmann who showed the General relativity actually predicted an expanding universe. I called it legendary as there was quite a talk about this back in high school. (but it just might be a hoax now that I think of it.)
I will try to verify this from other sources, let me see what I can find...

Okay as for the division by zero it seems all references trace back to the book Einstein: The Life And Times (Robert Clarke)
He divided both sides of an equation by an expression which may be under some conditions may be zero.
Edit:Can't seem to find a better reference for the second one, will try later as for now :zzz:

Thanks a lot!