Is There a Correlation Between Cognitive and Artistic Talent in Great Minds?

[wisp]

Was Einstein really a genius or just someone clever with new ideas?
SR is really a simple theory and uses many ideas from other scientists.
Clearly he was creative, but was he a genius[?]

 

[suyver]

I consider Einstein a genius. Not just because of SR, but also because of GR, the photoelectric effect, his proof of the Brownian motion, his contributions to laser-theory, ... ... ...

 

[selfAdjoint]

The ideas in Einstein's early papers on special relativity were absolutely original, and were recognized as such. The Lorentz transformations were a given, and only Einstein gave an account of how they arise operationally. Lorentz didn't attempt to explain them, and Poincare confined himself to there mathematical properties until after Einsteins's papers had appeared.

It's pretty much the same story with general relativity. Einsteins's years long search for this theory (roughly 1910 to 1915) aroused the interest of the Gottingen mathematicians. Hilbert and Noether especially started to work on the ideas. And modern research has shown that the idea flow went from Einstein to Hilbert and not the other way around.

Very few physicists in history have had as many and as important good ideas as Einstein. In addition to his relativity work he is one of the chief founders of quantum theory (photoelectric effect, quantum of radiation, stimulated emission).

 

[pmb_phy]

Originally posted by wisp
Was Einstein really a genius or just someone clever with new ideas?
SR is really a simple theory and uses many ideas from other scientists.
Clearly he was creative, but was he a genius[?]

Only in retrospect does it look so simple. The consequences of SR back then were radically different than current notions about time and space. And let's not forget GR. According to Einstein SR was child's play according to SR.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by pmb_phy
Only in retrospect does it look so simple. The consequences of SR back then were radically different than current notions about time and space. And let's not forget GR. According to Einstein SR was child's play according to SR.

Einstein was the first to tell us that green isn't green, its orange. What, time isn't absolute? Absurd! Yeah, that's pretty radical.

 

[TeV]

Originally posted by wisp
Was Einstein really a genius or just someone clever with new ideas?
SR is really a simple theory and uses many ideas from other scientists.
Clearly he was creative, but was he a genius[?]

Define a genius.
If Einstein is judged by his contributions to our understanding of physics there's no doubt.The greatest physicist of the last century.I think Einstein was asked the same question by journalist when he came to US.He answered aproximately:~"No, I'm not".Another side of his personality reflecting his geniality.

 

[wisp]

Define a genius.

Genius is a very great ability or skill in a particular subject or activity.
A genius is a highly talented, creative, or intelligent person.

To the media Einstein was a gift. He had the idealistic look of a "mad" scientist - white hair sticking up, deep thoughtful expression, someone lost in their own thoughts, and he had the look of a genius.

He meet the criteria for the definition of a genius. But one thing we all take for granted is that almost everyone assumes his theories are true.

What would we think of Einstein if we found the fundamental basis on which be built his theories were false, and both SR and GR were falsified. Would he still be a genius?

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by wisp
He meet the criteria for the definition of a genius. But one thing we all take for granted is that almost everyone assumes his theories are true.

What would we think of Einstein if we found the fundamental basis on which be built his theories were false, and both SR and GR were falsified. Would he still be a genius?

Would you consider Newton to be genius, then? I believe some of his laws and rules are wrong, according to Einstein's work (in some cases, that is). Does that take away from Newton's momentous accomplishment?

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by wisp
He meet the criteria for the definition of a genius. But one thing we all take for granted is that almost everyone assumes his theories are true.

It's worth noting that scientists continue to test Einstein's theories.

What would we think of Einstein if we found the fundamental basis on which be built his theories were false, and both SR and GR were falsified. Would he still be a genius?

Of course. Genius does not require omniscience.

 

[pmb_phy]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Einstein was the first to tell us that green isn't green, its orange. What, time isn't absolute? Absurd! Yeah, that's pretty radical.

What kind of argument is that supposed to me??

It was a huge feat to realize that time slows down with speed and that gravity curves spacetime - what in the heck does this have to do with colors?

I see that hide sight is 20/20 since it appears that you think you could have easily figured out SR and GR. Is that correct?

To me that's genius! In fact if I were to define the term "genius" it would use Einstein as a template.

 

[Nereid]

Unless I'm mistaken, Russ and pmb_phy both agree that Einstein was a genius.

So do most (all?) others who've contributed to this thread.

However, they don't all have exactly the same reasons.

wisp wrote (Nereid's emphasis): But one thing we all take for granted is that almost everyone assumes his theories are true.

Just a small comment: IMHO, very little, if any, of Einstein's theories were (or are) assumed to be true. They have been tested in the crucible of experiment and observation, and have passed with flying colours.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by pmb_phy
What kind of argument is that supposed to me??

I wasn't being sarcastic: it was absurd (until we had enough evidence to show it was true) and it was radical.

I was agreeing with you.

 

[pmb_phy]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I wasn't being sarcastic: it was absurd (until we had enough evidence to show it was true) and it was radical.

I was agreeing with you.

Ah! Okay. Thanks. I didn't get the "green" thing but now I do.

 

[apollo389]

I was just thinking about this today...
There is no doubt in my mind that he is a genius. However, I researched him a bit in elementary school... and if I remember correctly his brain was larger in mass than the average person. Also, most people think about complex things in a series, like long division. Most people also process things like their heart beat, very simple things (directions for your way to work), etc. in parallel; they can do a few at the same time. Some people have suggested that Einstein thought about these things not in a serial manner but in a parallel manner. That's just my two cents.

 

[Janitor]

On another website discussion page out there in web space that rarely strays onto the topic of science, someone opined that Einstein was not very good at quantum physics. I think she is off base. Einstein was one of the first, after Planck but before Bohr, to make contributions to quantum theory. He was still contributing in the 1920s (?) in his work with Bose. I think it is more fair to say that Einstein never believed quantum theory was the ultimate physical theory, than to say that he wasn't able to understand it as well as his peers.

 

[wisp]

Would you consider Newton to be genius, then?

Definitely, Newton invented Calculus, defined the laws of motion, determined the law of gravitation...
Einstein's GR does predict the behaviour of gravitational systems better Newton's model. But Newton was unaware or the effects of relativity. A modern combination of Newton's ideas on gravity coupled with Einstein's relativistic effects could give the true model of gravity.
Anyway, I guess Einstein and Newton were both geniuses, even though their theories were different and one is more wrong than the other.

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by wisp
He meet the criteria for the definition of a genius. But one thing we all take for granted is that almost everyone assumes his theories are true.

What would we think of Einstein if we found the fundamental basis on which be built his theories were false, and both SR and GR were falsified. Would he still be a genius?

Originally posted by wisp
Einstein's GR does predict the behaviour of gravitational systems better Newton's model. But Newton was unaware or the effects of relativity.

I think you answered your own question then.

 

[Haelfix]

In my opinion Einstein is the largest genius to ever grace physical science. Yes larger even than Newton. He is up there with the ancient greeks and galileo in my mind in the pantheon of the elite.

Newton was a brilliant mathematician, and his work stemmed b/c he understood and created calculus. But a lot of it in retrospect seems highly logical, one can trace back the steps of each of his proofs and say *wow that was really smart, but if I was smart I could do that too*.

Einstein however had a grasp of the intuitive, that just eclipsed anyone that came before or came afterwards. Who would have thought SR was the way it was on an operational lvl. It takes a great intellectual leap to come up with that, I look back and try to trace the thought process... and I fail miserably, I don't think I ever could have come up with that. There are mathematicians who I consider like that too, Gauss/Riemann/Cartan/Cantor. Minds that are just .. beyond anything I could ever hope to be.

Its worth noting, Einstein also had a sense of statistical mechanics (I consider him one of the top 5 pioneering figures in the field) that was incredible. It takes a huge genious to be able to intuitively grasp the interaction of a many body problem.. He seemed to be able to do it effortlessly.

From 1905 to 1920 he just dominates physics.. Many of the great results of that time stem from conversations with Einstein.

Even today, in our understanding of QM, Bohmian mechanics for instance derives its thought from conversations with Einstein

 

[Janitor]

Is there much support here for the idea that Paul Dirac and Wolfgang Pauli were not all that far short of Einstein in genius?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Surely so. And then there were Feynmann, and Schwinger (an authentic child prodigy, making discoveries at 17) and... the moderns. But for all their greatness, quantum mechanics has been a collective effort.

 

[Janitor]

I remember reading somewhere--maybe it was in one of Abraham Pais's books--that Pauli had a huge ego, but even so he seemed a little in awe when in the presence of Einstein, despite the verbal jousting that he might carry on with E.

 

[DrChinese]

Newton and Einstein were two of the greatest minds of all time, the shining stars of human potential. I can't imagine a debate over whether they were geniuses.

A common definition of genius is someone in the top 2% of population with respect to IQ. Is there a question on this point? Another common definition is someone who develops original and groundbreaking ideas/art/etc. Is there a question on this point?

wisp, I wonder if your question is truly about Einstein or somehow relates to a question about yourself.

 

[wisp]

wisp, I wonder if your question is truly about Einstein or somehow relates to a question about yourself.

My question was about Einstein. I have a great respect for the way he developed his theories and his creative talent. I wonder what would happen to his reputation if the fundamental principles on which his relativity theories are founded were proven false. Would his reputation as a genius be destroyed?
From the feedback received it looks his reputation as a genius will stand.

 

[yogi]

Whether or not SR and GR are eventually replaced by better descriptions of reality - is immaterial - one definition of intelligence is ability to make the best decision upon the facts available - And Einstein did that - he had a few experiments, MMx, and some others - and he took what he had and formulated - would he have reached different conclusions had he known about expansion at the time of GR, or the CBR at the time of SR - who knows. What he did was bold and resourceful - moreover he continued to ponder his own contributions throughout his life - he was not only a genius in physics - but his insight into philosophy and his phrasing of ideas ranks him among the great thinkers of the 20th century. In his own words: "If my theory of relativity turns out to be correct, Germany will claim me as one of their own and France will say I am a citizen of the world. If it turns out to be incorrect, France will say I am a German, and Germany will say I am a Jew."

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Einstien was a genius because he did what all of the people who have, historically, been recognized as geniuses, have done, he brought out a "Previously Un-Recognized Self Evident Truth"...(PURSET)...E=mc², Newton: "An object in motion..." all of the 'rest of them' as you would all know of them...

That is probably the best definition of "A Genius"...see's (First) what everyone else missed...or didn't see, or couldn't... (whatever)

 

[StarThrower]

The term 'genius' is meaningless. Either you have absolute intelligence or you do not have absolute intelligence. I never met Einstein, but based upon his theory of special relativity, he did not have absolute intelligence. Or to say this the way Hintikka would, "Albert Einstein was not logically omniscient."

Addendum:

What he did do that was good, was get physicists to pay attention to an area of physics that had not yet been properly logically worked out... the physics of simultaneity.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by StarThrower
The term 'genius' is meaningless.

I beg to differ. I found a definition HERE

1. a. Extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
b. A person of extraordinary intellect and talent: “One is not born a genius, one becomes a genius” (Simone de Beauvoir).
c. A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140.

2. a. A strong natural talent, aptitude, or inclination: has a genius for choosing the right words.
b. One who has such a talent or inclination: a genius at diplomacy.

Quite the contrary, the word has a pretty clear and unambiguous meaining.

 

[Andre]

Wow, what a brilliant thread.

Russ you said,

As Nereid likes to harp on, common sense is something that happens in your head and is completely unrelated to physics: physics is about experimentation, data, theory, prediction. You cannot dismis a theory that makes accurate, testable, repeatable predictions

I consider that the most valuable quotation here. agree 100%, absolutely. Credit for Nereid, I guess. I'd like to quote that a lot.

I do seem to observe that the thread is wandering off course slightly. The question is not if Special Relativity (I don't like abbreviations) is right or wrong but if Einstein was a genius or not.

Yes but with restrictions according to some analysis:

Everybody thinks that Albert Einstein's IQ was very high, but this is definately not the case, his adult IQ was just above 160. He was definately a genius, but this was not primarily due to his IQ, but his amazing level on transcendental thinking. Transcendental (= raised, sublime) thinking means that he can raise his thinking (i.e. the paths it takes) above the ordinary level. Basically it means that he was extremely creative and imaginative. An IQ score is a combination of brainspeed and brainpower. You have a certain amount of time to take an IQ test, but if you don't mind the time and just make the test and take more time than allowed, you can score up to 30 points higher. So Albert Einstein's IQ was just above 160 (which is also very high) but he takes his time and he raises his thinking to an amazing level and then you can compare him to somebody with an IQ of 200. So Einstein had a lot of brainpower but his brainspeed compared to brainpower was low.

The expression here is an amzing ability for 'thinking out of the box' I believe the expression is. You can exercise that by assuming the opposite and toy with that idea. Translate that to modern ideas and I advise to read scientific publications as follows:

skip the abstract, discusion and conclusion. Read only the method and test results then figur out for yourself what conclusions to draw from the raw data.

Next Check the conclusions with your own

Now cancel "common sense that only exist in your head" and assume that the opposite is true.

Attempt to use "physics, about experimentation, data, theory, prediction." to explain the opposite and you may be surprised.

Then forget all about it. Nobody is interested in paradigm shifts and you would hate to be called strawman or crackpot.

Anybody interested in the story of Einstein, Charles Hapgood and the Earth Crust Displacement?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

well, one way, or the other, he is recognized 'as such'...because of his work...

 

[Janitor]

Here's another question, but I won't bother to start a new thread on it.

Take a hundred average Joes/Janes off the street at random, and give them each a week to come up with the best they can do at writing a comedy sketch, executing an oil painting, writing a song. (Give them the tools they need such as paper, a canvas and brushes and tubes of paint, staff paper and piano.) Then imagine that Einstein had been asked to do the same--or to bring it up to modern times, imagine Steven Weinberg or Ed Witten being asked to do the same.

Have a distinguished panel of professional comedy writers, painters, and songwriters judge all the resulting material, without telling the panel that one of the "competitors" was a famous physicist. That is, keep the identity of the entrants hidden from the judges.

Any guesses as to how the physicist's work would rank against the others? I myself would speculate that any of the physicists I named would turn in work that would be judged as being in the top half. I think that would be true even if, prior to that time, the physicist had not ever handled a paintbrush or played an instrument.

In other words, I am guessing that the genius they had for contemplating nature would have some carry-over into other creative outlets.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The usual expectation, based on the hypothesis that artistic talent is independent of cognitive talent would be that the great man's efforts would be close to average. But in fact great men had have more than average talents in the arts. Einstein was a bit better than a putzer at the violin, and delighted to play duets and quartets. Feynmann, in addition to his famous bongo efforts, was fairly skilled at an artist, doing fair portraits (which ain't easy).

So I think there is a connection between cognitive talent and artistic talent.