Albert Einstein may have made the discoveries that led to nuclear and solar power, lasers and even a physical description of space and time, but Sir Isaac Newton had a greater impact on science and mankind, according to a poll published Wednesday.
Posted on 11/23/2005 6:04:12 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Newton, the 17th-century English scientist most famous for describing the laws of gravity and motion, beat Einstein in two polls conducted by eminent London-based scientific academy, the Royal Society.
More than 1,300 members of the public and 345 Royal Society scientists were asked separately which famous scientist made a bigger overall contribution to science, given the state of knowledge during his time, and which made a bigger positive contribution to humankind.
Newton was the winner on all counts, though he beat the German-born Einstein by only 0.2 of a percentage point (50.1 percent to 49.9 percent) in the public poll on who made the bigger contribution to mankind.
The margin was greater among scientists: 60.9 percent for Newton and 39.1 percent for Einstein.
The results were announced ahead of the "Einstein vs. Newton" debate, a public lecture at the Royal Society on Wednesday evening.
"Many people would say that comparing Newton and Einstein is like comparing apples and oranges, but what really matters is that people are appreciating the huge amount that both these physicists achieved, and that their impact on the world stretched far beyond the laboratory and the equation," said Royal Society president Lord Peter May.
Pro-Newton scientists argue he led the transition from an era of superstition and dogma to the modern scientific method.
His greatest work, the "Principia Mathematica", showed that gravity was a universal force that applied to all objects in the universe, finally ruling out the belief that the laws of motion were different for objects on Earth and in the heavens.
Einstein's supporters point out that his celebrated theory of relativity disproved Newton's beliefs on space and time and led to theories about the creation of the universe, black holes and parallel universes.
He also proved mathematically that atoms exist and that light is made of particles called photons, setting the theoretical foundations for nuclear bombs and solar power.
Nope.
Feynman is close, but he would still face stiff competition from Joseph Henry, as well as from Millikan, Compton, Lawrence, Wheeler and Alvarez when evaluating the great American scientists of the past century. And from Murray Gell-Man too, of course.
Interestingly and coincidentally enough, Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born was Olivia Newton John's grandfather.
So, while neither he nor Leibnitz can be credited with coming up with that idea, without which calculus would've gone nowhere, Newton systemized it all and took it much further than anyone else had in the Principia.
Imagine if, instead of two people like Newton and Einstein coming along every thousand years, we had billions of them. I hope genetic engineering can give us that someday!
Well, yes, but the ironic part is that Einstein had a bone to pick with quantum mechanics.
"Most of the modern "stuff" we use every day is due to something called Quantum Mechanics."
Ridiculous.
99.9% of what we do everyday is based upon classical mechanics.
Quantum Mechanics is used only by people working at the extremes.
As I said above, that is changing, as more and more of the QM is getting applied to the practical everyday world, but it is simply preposterous to claim otherwise.
The stuff that QM is used for in the everyday work of practical applications can probably be counted on one or two hands. E.g., superconductors, superfluids. (Unless you are claiming lasers and semiconductors, etc., as in the provenance of QM, which I think is an over extension.)
But quantum chemistry and other such are changing that.
Too many cooks in the kitchen might not be a good thing...
Somebody has to drive garbage trucks, mop the auditorium floor, etc., and I gotta say I'm glad there's people around to do these jobs...
I meant "required" everywhere I wrote "used" in my previous post.
Pascal used them, although he did not publish that, and his notation was his own alone. The ancients used them, too, Achilles and the hare, the motion of the arrow both presenting problems some used to prove the impossibility of motion. Oddly, Achilles caught the hare and the arrow proved useful in practice anyway, which says something about the utility of philosophers when they are not driving trucks.
Well then, you know enough not to judge Einstein without having read his papers, and had you actually read his papers you would not be questioning his absolute pre-eminence in the field.
It is particularly ironic given Einstein'seminal role in demonstrating that quantum mechanics had to be.
But lasers and semiconductors are smack in the middle of the provenance of QM and if you had read the papers of Schawlow and Townes on the one hand, or Bardeen on the other hand, you would understand that point. These things were invented exactly because their inventors were the brilliant and highly able students of those who invented Quantum Mechanics.
His most important work was establishing that E=mxc^2 which has contributed greatly to nuclear Physics.
Great point Sam.
I knew somebody was going to say that, which is why I said bringing up lasers, etc., is expanding the credit for QM.
Lasers were discovered in the course of studying photoelectric effect -- not Quantum Mechanics, per se.
"These things were invented exactly because their inventors were the brilliant and highly able students of those who invented Quantum Mechanics."
I realize why you are saying that. And probably it's right, since these things come out of Planck by way of Einstein.
Even accepting that, lasers, etc., are still a small fraction of doing stuff. In my earlier posts I acknowleged that the category of QM things is growing rapidly. But it is still a fraction of things in the practical world (i.e., applied physics).
And, again, most if not all of these things could be "described" just as effectively by classical physics.
Whoa! I forgot about him. Don Herbert. When I was a kid, he had a 1/2 hour TV show Saturday mornings. He would always be mixing up or making something and a boy or girl (yes, a girl - way ahead of his time) would come strolling in. Watcha doin, Mr. Wizard. Well, Suzie, I've got some Plutonium here and we're going to... He got a lot of kids interested in science. Last I heard, kids could only handle a 5-minute quickie with their rapid fire attentions spans. Is he still on?
Not really - you can't do any particle physics, nuclear physics, astrophysics, or some of the finer calculations in atomic physics without relativity. The theory is very important - not so much to terrestrial engineering applications, perhaps, but in physics research & theory, and space engineering applications, it is indispensable.
In fact the whole of the theory is based on Lorentz transformations but Einstein put it in an intriguing theory.
True (for special relativity). As I'm sure you know, though, special & general relativity were hardly Einsteins only contributions to physics - they're just his most famous.
His most important work was establishing that E=mxc^2 which has contributed greatly to nuclear Physics.
E = mc2 is a direct consequence of relativity theory.
Anyway, the whole business of ranking Newton against Einstein is kind of silly - it's sort of like comparing the batting ability of Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds - both have unique relevance to their respective eras.
In Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, (IIRC), there is speculation that Riemann might have come up with relativity (he died in 1866 at age 40, two years after Maxwell published his equations). He did, after all, develop the geometry needed by Einstein.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.