Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Einstein Or Newton

Rate this topic


tommyedison

Recommended Posts

How indeed do we identify which of several men is the greatest genius? The first step is to identify what we mean by genius.

The relevant definition in the Oxford English Dictionary begins

"Native intellectual power of an exalted type, such as is attributed

to those who are esteemed greatest in any department of art,

speculation, or practice..."

So clearly we're talking about some kind of intellectual prowess, and not some characteristic like beauty. But exactly what kind? To answer that, I ask: what is it that man does with his mind; then in identifying genius, I want to look for this in an extreme form.

The essence of human thinking - what sets man apart from other animals - is that he forms and uses concepts. So a genius would be one who is particularly good at this. He can form concepts that other people don't think of. And once he has formed a new concept, he can then more easily think about it - that is: integrate it with other knowledge, project its implications and then form ever higher level concepts.

Thinking is work. Hard work at times. In particular, it gets harder the higher level the concepts are with which one is dealing. This is probably because a concept, to be understood, has to be concretized, i.e., on needs to be able to identify the referents of a concept. And this is harder to do as one gets removed further from perceptual reality.

As an example, take arithmetic and mathematics. Most people can grasp concepts such as addition and subtraction - they're close to perceptual reality. People can see very easily that 2 + 2 + 4. Multiplication and division are a little harder to visualize. Come to algebra, and we're manipulating abstract symbols. Algebra is still tied to reality (of course!), but it's harder to keep the full conceptual chain, all the way back to perceptual reality, in one's mind. By the time we get to calculus, it's still further removed from perceptual reality, and so it's more difficult to understand. One has to do a lot more thinking to keep concepts such as "derivative", "integral" and "limit" clear and firmly grounded, than is necessary for "addition" and "subtraction". (And if one doesn't keep them firmly tied to reality, they become floating abstractions to him.) In other words, to understand a concept, I need to have a sort of mental picture of what it is. And if it's high-level, this picture cannot simply be a group of physical entities, so it takes more effort to grasp the concept.

A genius, then, would be somebody who is like man, but more so. An ideal thinker - one who is very good at doing what man does: forming and using concepts, especially higher-level ones. He's one who, because of the thinking he's done, is better able to concretize these high level concepts.

Note also that concepts don't just exist to be contemplated. Man's mind is his tool of survival, and so concepts, properly used, will contribute to the proper life of a rational man - they'll make his life better because they allow him to better deal with reality.

What about the "great" in "greater/greatest genius"? A great man is one who is worthy of attention or study; somebody who accomplished something of significance. In the case of any great man, part of the his greatness comes not just from the fact that what he did was difficult and original, but also that it is of importance to Man. The more fundamentally important, the greater the genius.

[to be continued....]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Back to the original question: who's the greater genius, Newton or Einstein?

Both men clearly discovered fundamentally important truths about physical reality, which many men were then able to use to create new values. I don't know enough to judge whose ideas are more significant strictly to the field of physics.

But from what I know, I think that Einstein made connections that were more diffficult to grasp. His concepts are higher-level and more difficult to think about and concretize. So I rate him as the greater of the two geniuses.

I base this on my own experiences and my observations of other people.

Much of what is taught in the mechanics portion of high school physics is Newtonian physics.[1] His laws of gravitation and motion are things one can grasp by doing some fairly simple experiments. For instance, we demonstrated the validity of "F = ma" by using roller skate carts, bricks, rubber bands, a meter stick and a stopwatch. All of the concepts needed: force, mass, distance, time, velocity and acceleration can be concretized using these tools which are easy to observe, use and understand. (This is over 30 years ago, but I had a wonderful high school physics teacher!) This is something that a person of average intelligence with an active mind can grasp, because he can see examples of its application in everyday life. Go drive a car or ride a roller coaster, and you can apply Newtonian physics to make sense of what you see and feel. The math required is also not too difficult. To really understand Newtonian mechanics, calculus is good to know, but I learned about the physics before I had any explicit knowledge of calculus - and the resulting physical knowledge was in retrospect pretty good.

But Einstein's ideas are much harder to grasp. I don't understand them fully myself, and my experience is that very few people probably do.[2] They're much harder to tie to what one sees every day. For instance, the theory of relativity includes certain propositions about the behavior of light - what its speed will be when measured in different circumstances. How do you concretize this? It's diffuclt, since we experience the speed of light as just being fast, practically instantaneous, so it's harder to do experiments that demonstrate relativity. What about the idea of time dilation and length contraction? That's difficult for me to even think about, and I have no experiences that I can relate it to. Understanding relativity also requires more mathematics, and here again, this is something that's further removed from reality. How in the world did Einstein ever think of all these things?... I keep asking myself. He had to have been comfortable holding these very abstract ideas in his consciousness and thinking about them.

One could make the argument that Newton's ideas are more fundamentally important to civilization today, in that there is lots of technology we have today that does not depend for its realization on Einstein's theories. So perhaps in that sense, Newton is the greater man, and more worthy of attention, since the impact of his ideas has so far been greater.

So I'll say I think Einstein was the greater genius, in that his ideas are more difficult to grasp and so it was probably harder for him to develop them, but that Newton is more significant in that his ideas have had more impact on civilization.

As for Tesla, his achievements are great, but I don't think they compare in fundamental importance to those of either Einstein or Newton. My understanding is that his discoveries and inventions include rotating AC electrical machinery applying the principle of a rotating magnetic field (including the elegantly simple induction motor), polyphase AC electricity and its transmission and generation. These are important inventions which we use every day but I don't think he achieved the success of the other two men in devising a theory that explained and tied together so much of reality. Its scope was not as broad, so I don't think its impact will ever approach that of the ideas of the other two men.

...

[1] I don't mean to denigrate Newton's achievements at all. As I understand them, they include

- The theory of gravity, including the inverse-square law; the realization that the force that makes apples fall is the same one that keeps planets in orbit.

- Much original work on optics.

- The law of motion often stated as F = ma, including the idea that matter will remain in straight-line motion unless acted upon by a force, and the idea of conservation of momentum.

[2] I don't know if this story is true or not, but what I heard was that somebody once said to Einstein that there only were three people in the whole world who really understood the theory of relativity. Thinking for a few moments, Einstein replied "Who's the third?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only had 2 years of calculus in college, but the discussion in regards to whether Newton or Leibnitz developed calculus caught my attention.

In college several of my mathematics professors suggested that Newton had developed the integral calculus while Leibnitz had devloped the differential calculus.

Is this correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this story is true or not, but what I heard was that somebody once said to Einstein that there only were three people in the whole world who really understood the theory of relativity.  Thinking for a few moments, Einstein replied "Who's the third?"

Partially true, since it was not Einstein who said this. On November 6, 1919, there was a joint meeting in London of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society to evaluate the spectacular confirmation of Einstein's prediction of the deflection of light. The Astronomer Royal, Sir Frank Dyson, discussed the Eddington expeditions and stated "After a careful study of the plates I am prepared to say that there can be no doubt that they confirm Einstein's prediction." The arch etherist, Sir Oliver Lodge, was expected to offer counter arguments, but reportedly just walked out. It was left to Ludwig Silberstein to offer some level of criticism.

After the meeting, Silberstein went up to Sir Arthur Eddington, and complimented him by saying that Eddington was one of the only three people who really understood relativity. When Eddington failed to respond, Silberstein said "Don't be so modest, Eddington." To which Eddington replied "Not at all. I'm just wondering who the third one might be." A biting reply, since Eddington was generally known as being second to grasping relativity, next to Einstein.

However, around the same time there is a similar sort of story that directly involves Einstein just a few days after the scientific meeting mentioned above. The confirmation of Einstein's prediction of the deflection of a light ray grazing the surface of the Sun led to headlines all over the world proclaiming the accomplishment, proclamations similar to the November 7, 1919, headline of the London Times: "Newtonian Ideas Overthrown." A New York Times article headlined on November 10, 1919,

LIGHTS ALL ASKEW IN THE HEAVENS

Men of Science More or Less Agog Over Results of

Eclipse Observations.

EINSTEIN THEORY TRIUMPHS

Stars Not Where They Seemed or Were Calculated to be,

but Nobody Need Worry."

One of the smaller headlines was "A Book for 12 Wise Men," "No More in All the World Could Comprehend It, Said Einstein When His Daring Publishers Accepted It." The story ends with: "When he offerred his last important work to the publishers, he warned them there were not more than twelve persons in the whole world who would understand it, but the publishers took the risk.

This was, at worst, a complete fabrication, or, at best, someone like Einstein pulling the reporter's leg. It is most likely the former, but it started a legend about how difficult it is to understand relativity (which is not true at all).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only had 2 years of calculus in college, but the discussion in regards to whether Newton or Leibnitz developed calculus caught my attention.

In college several of my mathematics professors suggested that Newton had developed the integral calculus while Leibnitz had devloped the differential calculus.

Is this correct?

No. Simply put, Newton dealt with fluents, a flowing quantity, and fluxions, the rate at which the quantity flowed. The relationship between the fluents and the fluxions represents differentiation and integration depending on how you determine one from the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Simply put, Newton dealt with fluents, a flowing quantity, and fluxions, the rate at which the quantity flowed. The relationship between the fluents and the fluxions represents differentiation and integration depending on how you determine one from the other.

Thanks.

Other than my one year of undergraduate physics (*very* basic Newtonian Mechanics), I don't know anything about "fluents" and "fluxions".

We also covered *very* basic relativity (and, from memory) something called "special" relativity, most of which I've forgotten. I do seem to recall that at velocities much less than the speed of light, the equations of relativity essentially reduce to Newtonian mechanics. For this reason I always thought that much of the dispute over whether Einstein somehow *contradicted* Newton seemed senseless. I don't know if my formulation on this is correct, or if this is totally off base.

Sorry for digressing back to Leibniz, but the history and philosophy of science does interest me, in particular during the Enlightenment. What then exactly was Leibniz's role in all of this, if any? Was he somehow dishonest, and tried to take credit for Newton's accomplishments, or was it that he simply developed some particular aspect of calculus independently of Newton?

If anyone has any idea of any details concerning any influences Newton (or Leibniz) may have had on some of the philosopher-physicians during the Enlightenment, (Boerhaave at Leiden, Netherlands; Haller at Goettingen, or Locke at Oxford), I'd like to hear their thoughts as well.

I don't know if I should be discussing this on a different thread, so please let me know if I'm transgressing any forum rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Other than my one year of undergraduate physics (*very* basic Newtonian Mechanics), I don't know anything about "fluents" and "fluxions".
Well, that is not really a surprise since the "fluxion" is archaic terminology. The original fluxion led Newton to heuristic methods for the calculus, which he only later really justified by other means. The technical aspect of Newton's fluxions are mostly of interest to historians of mathematics and science.

We also covered *very* basic relativity (and, from memory) something called "special" relativity, most of which I've forgotten.  I do seem to recall that at velocities much less than the speed of light, the equations of relativity essentially reduce to Newtonian mechanics.  For this reason I always thought that much of the dispute over whether Einstein somehow *contradicted* Newton seemed senseless.  I don't know if my formulation on this is correct, or if this is totally off base.

Better to say that, in general, for small velocities and weak gravitational fields the predictions of special and general relativity approach those of classical physics. The fact of the matter is that even for small velocities and weak gravitational fields there is still a discrepancy between the two, but it is only noticeable in those applications where such great precision is required. For instance, the Global Positioning System (GPS) is a now commonplace source for a wide variety of navigation and location systems. The GPS uses atomic clock standards onboard its many satellites, and the time precision required for the system could not be met unless a variety of relativistic effects were accounted for -- the system would otherwise degrade and become useless in a short period. Yet the speed of the satellites is quite small compared to the speed of light, and the gravitational effects are certainly considered to be rather weak.

Sorry for digressing back to Leibniz, but the history and philosophy of science does interest me, in particular during the Enlightenment.  What then exactly was Leibniz's role in all of this, if any?  Was he somehow dishonest, and tried to take credit for Newton's accomplishments, or was it that he simply developed some particular aspect of calculus independently of Newton?
The Leibniz-Newton priority dispute is unquestionably the most notable and most researched conflict in the history of science. Surprisingly, scholarly research just a couple of decades ago revealed a lot of new information. While this new research added insight into the nature of the character of both Newton and Leibniz, the judgment of history remains in accord with the judgment pronounced almost two centuries ago, which I earlier referenced. To fully understand the issue you really need the broader context of the general conflict that existed between the two. Neither of these two men were easy to get along with, and Newton was extremely sensitive to issues like recognition and priority. Nevertheless, it appears as if each developed their version of the calculus independently, with Newton given the priority.

If you are really interested in learning a lot more about this, there is an enormous amount of literature on the issue. Three good places to start:

Newton and Leibniz, Ernst Cassier, The Philosophical Review, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 366-391, July 1943.

Chapter 14, The priority dispute, in Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, Richard S. Westfall, Cambridge University Press, 1980/1998.

Philosophers at War: The Quarrel between Newton and Leibniz, Alfred Rupert Hall, Cambridge University Press, 1980.

There are many follow up references in these three sources.

If anyone has any idea of any details concerning any influences Newton (or Leibniz) may have had on some of the philosopher-physicians during the Enlightenment, (Boerhaave at Leiden, Netherlands; Haller at Goettingen, or Locke at Oxford), I'd like to hear their thoughts as well.

Have your read Brown's paper on medicine in relation to the Principia? If not, you should enjoy this: Medicine in the Shadow of the Principia, Theodore M. Brown, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 629-648, 1987.

As to Locke, I have not given him the attention in my reading that he most likely deserves. I know that the traditional view is that Newton had a profound influence on Locke, but not vice versa. I have one paper that piqued my interest a while ago, in that it challenges this standard view. But I have only glanced through it and have not really read it yet. It does look interesting though. Locke's Essay and Newton's Principia, G.A.J. Rogers, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol 39, No. 2, pp. 217-232, 1978.

Incidentally, , I usually have a pdf file of most of the papers I reference. So if you have difficulty locating these references just email me at my address below and I can send them to you.

I don't know if I should be discussing this on a different thread, so please let me know if I'm transgressing any forum rules.

I for one am fine with this. Threads often have a way of evolving, but we are still within the province of the science forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I remember when I was younger I had this idea that I thought would revolutionize the world. It was wireless electricity. I told my father and he told me about Testla. He also said that at some point he may have invented a machine that could split the world in half if he had not destroyed it. The latter part I think might be a little exaggerated however it was very interesting. Later on I saw a program about Testla and saw his many accomplishments.

Edited by Hugh Akston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a famous quote that goes something like "If I see farther than other men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." For years, I thought it had been said by Einstein, because his work clearly builds on Newton's. But it turns out Newton said it. Whose shoulders did he stand on (assuming he did indeed invent calculus before Liebniz)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a famous quote that goes something like "If I see farther than other men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."  For years, I thought it had been said by Einstein, because his work clearly builds on Newton's.  But it turns out Newton said it.  Whose shoulders did he stand on (assuming he did indeed invent calculus before Liebniz)?

Newton stood on the shoulders of many giants: Rene Descartes (he studied Descartes' text on Geometric Algebra thoroughly while in university), Galileo Galilei, Tycho Brahe, Aristotle, et. al. The biggest would have been Aristotle, though I don't think Newton would have realized this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Related to the question of who was the greater physicist, the Pedagogically Correct web-site put up an MP3 by David Harriman listing the "Top 10 Discoveries in the History of Physics". Those kids in his class are getting a treat with a teacher like him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who would you consider a greater genius -- Einstein or Newton?

Personally, I consider Newton as a greater genius because I believe that Newton's influence was greater than Einstein's and without Newton's theory, Einstein's theory of relativity would have been impossible as far as I know.

I would put Newton before Einstein for the following reason. Newton had to invent the mathematical tools he needed to express his ideas of motion, right from scratch. Newton invented calculus (so did Leibniz, independently). Einstein, on the other hand, used tools forged by others. Einstein used the geometrical constructions of Riemann and the Tensor Calculus developed by Levi-Civita and others. This does not detract in any way from Einstein's greatness. And Einstein did come up with a better theory for gravitation. It is on the basis of Einstein's relativity theories (there are two of them) that the GPS time corrections are made enabling one to locate himself anywhere on earth to within ten meters.

Newton invented mathematically based physics. While his theories have been falsified* and replaced by better theories and methods, his style of doing physics is still alive and well. He invented the -kind- of physics we have come to know and need. Einstein regarded Isaac Newton as the master.

*Newtonian physics is Galilean invariant. It turns out the world is locally Lorentz invariant. In a very low velocity regime the differences in result are very small. Where masses are great or velocities are sufficiently a large percentage of the speed of light the differences show.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Im amazed that any objectivist would consider Einsteins theory as science. Gravitational lensing is nonsense. engineers "bend light every day in the lab using Induced Electric Dipole Red shift. Einstein and Newton where missing the most powerful force in nature in their celestial mechanics. Electricity is 10 to the 39th power more powerful than gravity. Space is filled with Plasma ,which is ionized gas. When gas is ionized it virtually ignores gravity,[which is by no means constant]. The current state of physics is a result of reified mathematical abstractions,and the failure to dismiss arbitrary unfalsifiable "theories" Big bang cosmology is mysticism. Something from nothing is impossible.[creation ex nihilo] The current B>B> expansion model require the postulation of 95 % invisible undetectable[by prescribed definition other dimensional] Dark [imaginary] abstractions. The Idea that "space time" can "warp" into another dimension ridiculous[not to mention unfalsifiable.] However there is a new breed of folks who give primacy to existence and objective referents in science!

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=66b0jzyh

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill2.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arc...816glmisuse.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arc...22lensagain.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arc...arp-galileo.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arc...09tangleweb.htm

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im amazed that any objectivist would consider Einsteins theory as science.

I object to your approach here, which is presenting a serious challenge to an extremely complex subject in a forum where the vast majority of people are not equipped to understand your objection and thus not able to offer a rational critique of your point. Learning physics takes years and a life time if you're really serious, because of the number of and complexity of integrations the subject requires.

What I'm saying is, if you're going to tell me that "gravitational lensing is nonsense", or anything similar, then you are address an audience that isn't up to speed with the details enough to make a proper assessment one way or the other. You should probably try a physics forum such as PhysicsForums.com, where you will find lots of people who know various aspects of the subject in depth and can intelligently deal with your point. I used to frequent there for work related reasons.

I love physics, and you may have a great point, but you have to respect what science requires, a careful and systematic study of the evidence over years, not a quick read of a few articles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I object to your approach here, which is presenting a serious challenge to an extremely complex subject in a forum where the vast majority of people are not equipped to understand your objection and thus not able to offer a rational critique of your point. Learning physics takes years and a life time if you're really serious, because of the number of and complexity of integrations the subject requires.

What I'm saying is, if you're going to tell me that "gravitational lensing is nonsense", or anything similar, then you are address an audience that isn't up to speed with the details enough to make a proper assessment one way or the other. You should probably try a physics forum such as PhysicsForums.com, where you will find lots of people who know various aspects of the subject in depth and can intelligently deal with your point. I used to frequent there for work related reasons.

I love physics, and you may have a great point, but you have to respect what science requires, a careful and systematic study of the evidence over years, not a quick read of a few articles.

Hi Thales, would you consider that you are implicitly [at least] suggesting that "Reason" has a different function when applied to science. I say this because one does not require , an "euquipment" of some other kind of reason, when applying the proccess of differentiation,and intergration. The concept of non contradiction is a fundamental part of Objectivism ,as well as the Primqcy of existence. All one needs is to grasp the axioms ,to understand that the concepts professed by Gravity only cosmology and quantum physics are inherently ,unobjective ,arbitrary,and contradictory. Occam tells us not to multiply things beyond necessity, when we can demonstrate the very phenomenon as seen in space without the projection of arbitrary, non existen anti concept, we shouildnt.[not to mention participating in faulty meatphysics and episemology}

By the way have you ever gone into a non- objectivist forum and championed Capitalism? This is exactly what happens when one approaches the forums you mentioned. Im here to announce that those who give primacy to objectivity and the need to integrate their concepts with ,reality have a new outlet of expression. Its time to take back the ground stolen by the mass of unfocused minds,who have differed there judgment to "authorities"eintein etc.] whimsical mystics [pythagorean loving mathemeticians etc.]. Prescisly because it has been set up that if one doesnt learn to swim in overly anstract mathematics "first" they cannot qualify" to comment on "science" never mind that Equations say nothing without the context of Objective reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Thales, would you consider that you are implicitly [at least] suggesting that "Reason" has a different function when applied to science. I say this because one does not require , an "euquipment" of some other kind of reason, when applying the proccess of differentiation,and intergration. The concept of non contradiction is a fundamental part of Objectivism ,as well as the Primqcy of existence.

I agree fully with you on that point, but...

All one needs is to grasp the axioms ,to understand that the concepts professed by Gravity only cosmology and quantum physics are inherently ,unobjective ,arbitrary,and contradictory. Occam tells us not to multiply things beyond necessity, when we can demonstrate the very phenomenon as seen in space without the projection of arbitrary, non existen anti concept, we shouildnt.[not to mention participating in faulty meatphysics and episemology}

Here is the problem, physics is a specialized field that requires a great deal of highly complex specialized knowledge. The specific concretes and the specific principles derived from those concretes are unique to that field and it takes years to learn and master a subset of them. Once I master a principle and the arguments for it, then I could appreciate a critique of that principle. However, if you tell me something is amiss with the field, and I don't yet know the field, then I have no way to assess your point without first going to the trouble of learning the field it applies to. And, most people aren't physics majors and so most people aren't going to go to the trouble.

The long and the short of it is that you really have to respect the fact that acquiring knowledge takes time and effort, especially in a very complex field.

By the way have you ever gone into a non- objectivist forum and championed Capitalism? This is exactly what happens when one approaches the forums you mentioned.

Yes, I understand. I think to establish a radical point requires quite a bit of effort and cleverness. It's always been the case. But, I don't think that gets solved here, unless you're looking for physicists on this forum to discuss it with.

Im here to announce that those who give primacy to objectivity and the need to integrate their concepts with ,reality have a new outlet of expression. Its time to take back the ground stolen by the mass of unfocused minds,who have differed there judgment to "authorities"eintein etc.] whimsical mystics [pythagorean loving mathemeticians etc.]. Prescisly because it has been set up that if one doesnt learn to swim in overly anstract mathematics "first" they cannot qualify" to comment on "science" never mind that Equations say nothing without the context of Objective reality.

Okay, it's a given that you have to anchor science in reality, but I'll bet you could not provide the argument against Einstein in the full breadth and depth required for understanding in one essay. I'll bet that if I read it, I'd have to research a lot more of Einstein's and perhaps Newton's work, and I have a fairly solid grounding in Newtonian physics, and some of Einstein’s work and some QM, something I don’t think most people have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...