Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> wrote: > * Tim Josling wrote:
> > But as anyone who has had any role evaluating new ideas will know, most of > > them are rubbish. For every theory of relativity there are a thousand > > perpetual motion machines.
> In case there is any confusion about relativity and `newcomers', > Einstein wasn't. He *was* quite young, but theoretical physicists > typically are, but he wasn't some kind of outsider, as the myth often > has it.
This is probably preaching to the choir, but what I think happens is that newcomers, who have just come to a reasonably complete understanding of a field, sometimes have groundbreaking ideas. You can't generally have a groundbreaking idea without that understanding. Or you might have the idea before that, but you've got to go through the study to find out whether it's potentially groundbreaking and worth pursuing, or a dead end that somebody worked out 50 years ago, or even one that becomes obvious to a person with complete knowledge.
It's true that the great ideas often come from relative newcomers, and sometimes the old guard has to die or retire before they are accepted, but that doesn't translate to the modern idea (which I don't think Tim J. holds) that it's all about luck and "fresh thinking" -- that any layperson with a passing interest can foment a scientific revolution as easily as a PhD in the field. To borrow from Edison, you can have the 1% inspiration, but you don't know what to do with it unless you've done the 99% perspiration.
Newcomers with great ideas are not laypeople who've read aught but an introductory text in a field. They are people who have ravenously devoured a broad section of the canon (whether formally, or informally), and emerge at the end with an idea (of which 1 in 10000 might be of real importance). Often they are people who are already deeply accomplished in another field. Great revolutions have happened when experts in one field study another that turns out to be related in an important way that it took an expert in both to first understand.
The value of "newcomers" who make advances is not generally the value of some mythical tabula rasa, but instead the value of their very real and deep accumulation of knowledge outside the field, -- knowledge that turns out to hold a clue to something new. The outsider's advantage is in their *knowledge* of other things, not their lack of knowledge of the subject.
m...@panix.com (Michael Sullivan) writes: > Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> wrote:
> > In case there is any confusion about relativity and `newcomers', > > Einstein wasn't. He *was* quite young, but theoretical physicists > > typically are, but he wasn't some kind of outsider, as the myth often > > has it.
> This is probably preaching to the choir, but what I think happens is > that newcomers, who have just come to a reasonably complete > understanding of a field, sometimes have groundbreaking ideas. You > can't generally have a groundbreaking idea without that understanding.
Yes, but this is only part of the story. Ground-breaking ideas usually come from attacking an interesting problem that turns out to be *solvable* with modern machinery. Newcomers, even well- prepared ones, cannot ferret out the manageable problems from the unmanageable ones. That's what an advisor is there for :-)
> Or you might have the idea before that, but you've got to go through the > study to find out whether it's potentially groundbreaking and worth > pursuing, or a dead end that somebody worked out 50 years ago, or even > one that becomes obvious to a person with complete knowledge.
Which is why it's so important to ask around (judiciously) before committing all that time and energy into a potential dead end.
> It's true that the great ideas often come from relative newcomers, and > sometimes the old guard has to die or retire before they are accepted,
But by the early 1900's, the scientific community at-large had progressed far beyond this feudal state. In Einstein's case, he was not ostracized as a young academic; he simply hadn't done anything worthy of merit prior to 1905. The importance of his 1905 thesis was recognized immediately.
More than a few years ago I had the opportunity to attend a graduate seminar on analytic number theory. The professor was/is a preeminent mathematician, and he is interested in solving the Riemann Hypothesis (RH). One day he started off be telling the class (which of course included other members of the faculty) that he just received a 200+ page manuscript from a physicist/friend who claimed to have a proof of RH. The professor mused that Riemann's zeta is a function of _s_, and no one could possibly solve RH without knowing *that*. (Naturally the physicist's manuscript starts off by defining zeta as a function of "z". The professor's delivery of the "punch line" was far better than I'm describing here.)
Now after the class was over, one of his students wanted to meet with him to discuss a thesis problem. But the professor told him that he didn't have time that day because he was going to mine the manuscript for new ideas (it turned out that there were plenty of interesting ideas in the paper). To my mind, this is the sort of behavior that distinguishes a serious professional from his peers. Poking a little fun at someone's naivete is just fine, but missing out on a potentially pregnant idea just because it isn't neatly packaged is plain old stupid.
[...]
> The value of "newcomers" who make advances is not generally the value > of some mythical tabula rasa, but instead the value of their very real > and deep accumulation of knowledge outside the field, -- knowledge > that turns out to hold a clue to something new. The outsider's > advantage is in their *knowledge* of other things, not their lack of > knowledge of the subject.
> Actually, I think he was the typical outsider /before/ he > published "Zur Elektrodynamik von bewegten Körpern". All > his fellow students were given jobs at the university after > their exams, but Einstein had to leave.
I don't think so. He didn't get a position after 1900 because he didn't do very well at ETH. He worked with a number of people from 1900 to 1905, notably Grossman. Various people tried to find him an academic position, but it was (and is, and not surprisingly so) hard to find one based on claimed genius but poor concrete results. Following the three papers of 1905 he was pretty rapidly offered positions.
Between 1905 and ~1920 he worked *intensively* with a number of other people, notably Grossman (whose contribution to GR is terribly underrated by people not very familiar with the history of the subject) to develop the mathematical framework needed for GR (tensor analysis, to which he was introduced by Grossman). After 1920 he was involved pretty closely in the group of people doing QM &c. By 1930 or so he had withdrawn somewhat, but he was 50 in 1929 - very old for a theoretical physicist to be doing new work. As some older scientists had been unable to accept GR in 1915, he, himself now an older scientist, had been unable to accept QM.
The claim (in another article in this thread) that he was given the Nobel prize belatedly and for the only paper that people could understand is just silly. Nobel prizes are almost always given many years after the work concerned in any case, and, despite the glamour surrounding relativity, the discovery and explanation of the photoelectric effect was *extremely* important, as it led directly to QM. The special relativity paper of 1905, while obviously important, actually contained almost no new concrete results - the Lorentz transformations were already known at that point. What the work he did in 1905 did do was to provide a good `physical story' for special relativity, and to begin the process that led to general relativity 10 years later. It would have been very hard for the prize to have been given for special relativity, as many people had a claim (notably Lorentz, who was still alive). It would have been downright impossible to award the prize for GR as at that point the theory had hardly any experimental tests, despite its obvious attractiveness. His explanation of the photoelectric effect may in fact have been the most inspired work Einstein ever did.
My point is not that Einstein wasn't a genius - he *clearly* was - but that his work was done in the heart of the physics community not as some lonely outsider. It's far more romantic to view him as an outsider, of course, but it's not really true.
There is an excellent scientific biography of Einstein, I think by Abraham Pais, called `Subtle is the Lord'.
I'm about to be away for a while so I won't be able to followup to any responses to this.
* Tim Bradshaw | Between 1905 and ~1920 he worked *intensively* with a number of other | people, notably Grossman (whose contribution to GR is terribly underrated | by people not very familiar with the history of the subject) to develop | the mathematical framework needed for GR (tensor analysis, to which he | was introduced by Grossman).
Another person whose work and influence is grossly underrated, is his wife.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
> | Blankly saying "You are wrong; you are an idiot" may not be optimal.
> But nobody /does/ that.
*You* do this. Often.
> People do get a few > chances to understand but they are given technical replies, not touchy- > feely handholding, as befits a technical forum.
Based on this and you other postings, you seem be believe that because this is a technical forum, one can ignore the fact that the participants are human beings with human feelings.
I have found that even in technical forums this is not the case.
> Is paying attention and checking that you what you say is factually > correct really too much to ask of you, Tim? Could you please explain > what you expect people to do when you repeat lies about them?
I have been paying attention and I certainly have not been telling lies about people.
Looking back over your past postings, few contained useful information. Welcome to my killfile.
> > But as anyone who has had any role evaluating new ideas will know, most of > > them are rubbish. For every theory of relativity there are a thousand > > perpetual motion machines.
> In case there is any confusion about relativity and `newcomers', > Einstein wasn't. He *was* quite young, but theoretical physicists > typically are, but he wasn't some kind of outsider, as the myth often > has it.
> --tim
Sorry I was using relativity as an example of a good theory - whether Einstein was an outsider I don't know. He certainly knew how to manage his public image.
A better example might be Pasteur and his germ theory of disease.
Music is a good example. Oldies often produce the best music but innovations tend to come from youngsters.
Tim Josling wrote: > Music is a good example. Oldies often produce the best music but innovations > tend to come from youngsters.
Hmmm. I feel myself delving into the realms of the overly litigeous but I can think of a large number of musicians or composers who would have done themselves a real favour by taking up pyrography or growing ugly ear hair at the age of about 35 -- Felix Mendelssohn, Bob Dylan, John Lydon and so on. Clearly there are counter arguments -- JS Bach and Alfred Brendal -- but for me it about balances out.
Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> writes: > > Actually, I think he was the typical outsider /before/ he > > published "Zur Elektrodynamik von bewegten Körpern". All > > his fellow students were given jobs at the university after > > their exams, but Einstein had to leave.
> I don't think so. He didn't get a position after 1900 because he > didn't do very well at ETH.
The main reason was that he seriously aggravated Weber. Mileva also suspected anti-semitism.
> He worked with a number of people from 1900 to 1905, notably > Grossman.
Grossman was a very close friend at ETH. His detailed class notes allowed Einstein to skip most of his classes to study the literature at home. You are correct about his being underrated. His role appears to be friend, teacher, and sounding board, not collaborator.
Einstein's intellectual network was primarily the "Olympia Academy", a group of friends with similar interests founded by Habicht, Solovine, and Einstein; Besso, Grossman, and, as Erik points out, Mileva.
"It was while at Bern that Einstein did some of his most creative work even though he was afforded no contact with the leading physicists of his day." [0]
"Working dutifully at his job Einstein reserved his iconoclasm for the evenings and weekends which he devoted to physics." [1]
It's well known that Einstein came to appreciate this situation because it gave him the freedom to work independently and without distractions.
> Various people tried to find him an academic position, but it was > (and is, and not surprisingly so) hard to find one based on claimed > genius but poor concrete results. Following the three papers of > 1905 he was pretty rapidly offered positions.
He was not offered a position for four years after that. His subsequent ascent was rapid:
U. Zurich Associate Professor 1909 U. Prague Full Professor 1910 ETH Zurich 1912 U. Berlin / Kaiser Wilhelm Institute 1913
> Between 1905 and ~1920 he worked *intensively* with a number of > other people, notably Grossman (whose contribution to GR is terribly > underrated by people not very familiar with the history of the > subject) to develop the mathematical framework needed for GR (tensor > analysis, to which he was introduced by Grossman). After 1920 he > was involved pretty closely in the group of people doing QM &c. By > 1930 or so he had withdrawn somewhat, but he was 50 in 1929 - very > old for a theoretical physicist to be doing new work. As some older > scientists had been unable to accept GR in 1915, he, himself now an > older scientist, had been unable to accept QM.
> The claim (in another article in this thread) that he was given the > Nobel prize belatedly and for the only paper that people could > understand is just silly.
Yeah, that was way overstated. I should have said something like, "could agree on." There were a lot of physicists who didn't understand or accept SR. Even Planck, Einstein's first major promoter, never accepted the elimination of the ether in SR. Note that Einstein's Habilitationsschrift to U. Bern (a copy of the SR paper) was rejected in 1907 with the comment by one reviewer "I cannot at all understand what you have written." [2]
The Nobel citation reads, "...for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect." "This general statement on Einstein's scientific work permitted the Swedish Academy to avoid taking a `stand on the relativity theory'." [3]
S. Arrhenius' presentation on the occasion stated, "It will be no secret that the famous philosopher Bergson in Paris has challenged (Special Relativity)." [4]
> Nobel prizes are almost always given many years after the work > concerned in any case, and, despite the glamour surrounding > relativity, the discovery and explanation of the photoelectric > effect was *extremely* important, as it led directly to QM. The > special relativity paper of 1905, while obviously important, > actually contained almost no new concrete results - the Lorentz > transformations were already known at that point. What the work he > did in 1905 did do was to provide a good `physical story' for > special relativity,
This is an understatement of the importance of the SR paper, which abandoned the mechanistic approach to electrodynamics adopted by Lorentz and his associates, abolished the necessity for an ether, established that space and time are relative concepts, and began the association of physical theory with space-time geometry, a necessary precursor for the development of GR. The concepts in this one paper have affected virtually all fields in physics.
> and to begin the process that led to general relativity 10 years > later. It would have been very hard for the prize to have been > given for special relativity, as many people had a claim (notably > Lorentz, who was still alive). It would have been downright > impossible to award the prize for GR as at that point the theory had > hardly any experimental tests, despite its obvious attractiveness. > His explanation of the photoelectric effect may in fact have been > the most inspired work Einstein ever did.
> My point is not that Einstein wasn't a genius - he *clearly* was - but > that his work was done in the heart of the physics community not as > some lonely outsider. It's far more romantic to view him as an > outsider, of course, but it's not really true.
He was not an outsider in the sense of some kook who comes up with a theory without bothering to master the field or be consistent with its experimental results. Einstein was fully up to speed on Electrodynamics and the work of Maxwell (whose theory was not taught at ETH!!), Hertz, Lorentz, and Mach, among others, and the major experimental results. His specialty at the Patent Office was electromagnetic machinery.
He was an outsider in the sense that prior to 1905 he was working essentially by himself without contact or correspondence with the players in his field. He was still virtually unknown to the physics community, despite having published five papers on thermodynamics in Ann.d.Physik. If Einstein was "in the heart" of physics, then where were Lorentz and Abraham?
He was definitely /not/ an outsider after 1910, though his theories were controversial and met with limited acceptance at first.
> There is an excellent scientific biography of Einstein, I think by > Abraham Pais, called `Subtle is the Lord'.
Yes, really excellent, thankfully back in print. Pais has another one on quantum theory called "Inward Bound."
> I'm about to be away for a while so I won't be able to followup to > any responses to this.
It will keep ;-)
KBK
[0] J. T. Cushing, Philosophical Concepts in Physics, p. 227 [1] A. I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905 - 1911), p. 7 [2] ibid. p. 4 [3] ibid. p. 257 [4] ibid. p. 248
Your observational skills are clouded by your emotions to such an extent that you believe you see things you feel should exist, but they do not.
| Based on this and you other postings, you seem be believe that because | this is a technical forum, one can ignore the fact that the participants | are human beings with human feelings.
Your inability to understand what you read suggests that you should return to children's books for the time being.
| I have been paying attention and I certainly have not been telling lies | about people.
That is, you are so unable to examine your own thinking and feelings that you do not even know when you are lying.
| Looking back over your past postings, few contained useful information. | Welcome to my killfile.
Great! I love not being read by assholes.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
>>>>> "TJ" == Tim Josling <t...@melbpc.org.au> writes:
TJ> Music is a good example. Oldies often produce the best music TJ> but innovations tend to come from youngsters.
I started out prepared to disagree with this, but then I reconsidered. The simple fact is, not everything that is new and innovative is good, just as not everything that is good is new and innovative. Given a choice, I'd go for good.
Richard Fateman <fate...@cs.berkeley.edu> writes: > The reason I'm writing here, is that it would also seem appropriate > to direct students to read comp.lang.lisp to see some informed > discussion of various issues related to Common Lisp.
I tell my students (Ohio State University, "Programming in Lisp") to read comp.lang.lisp.
I tell them it's Usenet, where people need to have thick skin. I tell them not to make assertions they cannot back up. I tell them to study everything that Erik Naggum says on any technical topic.
Then I tell them they can do whatever they want, adding that if Usenet is too much for them to handle, they probably should become farmers, because working in technology is no place to work if one wishes to avoid opinion, confrontation, or hubris.
-- Matt Curtin Interhack Corporation +1 614 545 HACK http://web.interhack.com/ ObPlug: Author, /Developing Trust: Online Privacy and Security/ (Apress, 2001) There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don't.
Stig Hemmer <s...@pvv.ntnu.no> writes: > Approximately 188.5.
(* 365 (- 188.5 (* 30 2 pi))) => less than two days
^^ really?
no wonder thievery and provacative lying is the norm (again). no wonder powers that be can slam you upside the head, in secret (again). no wonder ignorance of process means only burning monks mean anything (again).
