PDA

View Full Version : will there ever be another Einstein?



Titana
2005-Nov-09, 06:32 PM
Many physicists say the next Einstein has not been born yet, or is a baby now. Thats because the quest for a unified theory that would account for all forces of nature has pushed current mathematics to its limit. (New math must be created before the problem can be solved).

What do you think?


www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_050418_einstein.html

publiusr
2005-Nov-09, 07:49 PM
I think Andrew Wiles was the closest thing we had to an Einstein, and his proof of Fermats Last Theorum to me represents a greater intellectual achievement than Einsteins E=MC2.

I would actually rank Einstein second to Wiles in those terms, and equal with Valentin Glushko (R-7/Zenit engine designer) in terms of modern influence, right a long with Keldish.

Taks
2005-Nov-10, 01:32 AM
i think there have been many einsteins, and even many of greater intellect. estimates put his IQ in the 160-180 range, which is certainly phenomenal, but not unheard of (marilyn vos savant scored a 228 on the stanford-binet when she was 10).

however, as many threads in these fora have indicated, nailing down IQ or intelligence or brainpower or whatever isn't really an exact science. to do so for someone long since dead that never even took such tests is downright ludicrous.

IMO, einstein had two things going for him. he was brilliant (we can say that easily given his work) and he happened to be implementing his brilliance at the right time on the right subject. the latter makes him stand out above all others of even greater intellect simply because of the fame that followed.

taks

Maddad
2005-Nov-10, 01:51 AM
Einstein rejected the notion that he was a genius. He said that he just stayed with a problem longer than most. Note that after delivering his special theory of relativity in 1905, he worked pretty much continusouly generalizing it before he released the improvement in 1915.

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-10, 03:10 AM
I agree with Taks, Einstein was a great man, but he was a man of his time. If he had been born a little earlier or a little later we would probably not even know his name. The basic groundwork for his theories was in place at the right moment, and no one else had yet solves the problems. The issue is whether we will ever get an issue that is quite as central to a branch of science and quite as visible and important to the general public. The character of the person is also important. I find it doubtful. Watson and Crick determining the structure of DNA probably had a far greater impact on biology than any one of Einstein's theories, perhaps even all of his theories together, yet not very many people have heard of them. Einstein is a wild-haired, goofy looking man who is probably the absolute stereotype mad scientist look. No one could forget his face. I think extremely highly of Watson and Crick, the double helix was a brilliant piece of detective work on their part with not a lot for them to go on (only very crude x-ray crystallogrphay data), but I can't for the life of me remember what either of them actually look like besides that they looked like perfectly ordinary, run-of-the-mill guys.

snarkophilus
2005-Nov-10, 03:21 AM
Einstein rejected the notion that he was a genius. He said that he just stayed with a problem longer than most. Note that after delivering his special theory of relativity in 1905, he worked pretty much continusouly generalizing it before he released the improvement in 1915.

That maybe applies to publiusr's idea of Andrew Wiles. I mean, the guy spent seven years pretty much locked up in his attic working on that problem, plus the time he spent on it in grad school, plus a year and a half of revisions. Sure, he's a genius, but it was persistence (obsession?) that got him the result he wanted.

Will there be someone who makes huge advances in physics, as Einstein did? Of course there will! There will always be more breakthroughs, more big advances, and better understanding of the world. Einstein is special not just because of relativity, but because he had his fingers in a lot of different pies. He'd be famous as a chemist even if he wasn't famous as a physicist. It's just a matter of statistics -- someone will probably make a few big breakthroughs and be put on the same sort of pedestal.

The time is ripe for another big step, too. There are still some important open questions in physics, and a lot of available research for an aspiring physicist with some imagination.

Gullible Jones
2005-Nov-10, 03:34 AM
Geniuses often aren't recognized as such until after their deaths.

At any rate, I'll bet that a lot of the people working on M-theory are intellectual matches for Einstein.

hewhocaves
2005-Nov-10, 05:25 AM
Serendipity plays an incredible role in "genius". I remember once looking at possible locations for a cave whose entrance was 'lost'. Other cavers had been searching for it for about a decade with no success. After staring at the maps for about three months, it suddenly became obvious to me where the entrance had to be. On my first physical trip to the cave entrance area, we found it exactly where I said it would be (and were the first people in that cave in fourty years).

I got a lot of praise for being exceptionally good at finding cave entrances, as if I had some natural gift. To be honest, I just had a lot of good research to work with and a lot of the pieces already in place.

Sometimes it just happens that way. You just try to take advantage of the problems presented.

john

publiusr
2005-Nov-10, 05:55 PM
One of the reason I rank the Soviet Chief Designers so high is due to their access to almost unlimited funds. Einstein and Oppy gave us the nuke, but Glushko gave us the delivery system--and to me that is much harder. It is a shame that Valentin Petrovich is a relative unknown in the West, since he was a better engineer than Korolov, and was a man of culture and distinction.

Keldish's long tenure of steady work coming out of a system that delivered one study after another is significant. He even got a research ship named after him. To this day, the Russians still run gov't operated printing houses, with new titles coming out all the time. Very few are ever translated into English. They recognize that just because a book won't 'sell' doesn't mean that it is unimportant.

There is untapped genius among the former Soviets in many fields thanks to Keldish and others, and it is a shame that it remains so isolated.

Titana
2005-Nov-10, 07:17 PM
Well many people still believe that Einstein remains the formost scientist of modern era and that only Newton, Galileo and Aristotle were his equals.

I do agree with the comments made about that the basic ground work for his theorys was in place at the right moment. I believe that even if Einstein would not have discovered the theorys they were determined to be discovered anyway.

Although i am aware that there are many many misteries about the universe that are still to be uncovered, but what do you think would be the next outstanding discovery that not only would consider the discoverer as the next Einstein but would probably change the way we think about our universe today?



Titana.........

Taks
2005-Nov-10, 07:24 PM
Ramanujan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanujan).

unheralded ability with mathematics. his genius was an ability to "see" mathematical relationships that were proven later.

taks

publiusr
2005-Nov-10, 07:30 PM
I'd put him ahead of Einstein.

The Russians had both brilliance and massive institutions to forward their agendas. The combination was devastating to American pride with Sputnik.

Maddad
2005-Nov-10, 08:25 PM
Geniuses often aren't recognized as such until after their deaths.Einstein attained international recognition almost overnight when they took the pictures that showed the stars had move like he prdicted. The recent application of telegraph helped, along with BlackCat's observation of his ecentricities. I'm somewhat divided though on whether he would have been unknown had he happened along a few years earlier or later. The ideas were attacked so viciously that it may have been a great many years later, decades, before anyone else withstood the pressure to think in more traditional directions.

Gullible Jones
2005-Nov-10, 11:53 PM
Yep, Srinivasa Ramanujan could easily be one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived. You wouldn't believe the uses for some of the stuff he came up with... IIRC, some of it's even used in string theory now.

(And what about Andrei Sakharov?)

snarkophilus
2005-Nov-11, 01:14 AM
Although i am aware that there are many many misteries about the universe that are still to be uncovered, but what do you think would be the next outstanding discovery that not only would consider the discoverer as the next Einstein but would probably change the way we think about our universe today?


A quantum theory of gravity, perhaps? Something that reconciles relativity with quantum theory, anyway.... Either that or a discovery of the nature of mass (either finding the Higgs particle or some other idea), which might be related.

There are still a lot of questions about the nature and structure of black holes that are open, too, and the solution to any could have deep implications.

I don't know if any single discovery will put someone on Einstein's level, though. In terms of popular opinion, you need a number of discoveries. Probably the future famous scientists will be geneticists or computer people.

trinitree88
2005-Nov-11, 03:25 AM
Einstein himself once said the greatest of them all was Lorentz. It was the Lorentz transformations that brought about the Special Theory. He traveled to see Lorentz to firm up all his questions. On other issues he sought out Marcel Grossman to tutor him regularly in the math he needed. At the turn of the century, the Germans arguably were foremost in the world in several fields, physics, chemistry, medicine, engineering....there's no telling where it would have gone had they not fought and lost two world wars. Einstein was privy to the teachings of many of the best minds in Europe...and used his edge with uncanny intuition for picking the solvable problems.
Many today might equate equal status for construction of a unified field theory. Population biologists will say that of all the brilliant people who ever lived, most of them are alive today, due to the growth curve. There are very bright people everywhere today. Listening to them personally is available around every metropolitan area in the world...a resource worth using. While the net offers forums electronically, I would encourage young scientists to also not disregard the traveling speakers who come to small colleges, and major universities to clarify the latest ideas with their colleagues. It was a shock to me to hear two young physics majors at MIT in the physics reading room decide to pass on the weekly Colloquiem by T.D.K.Lee, one day..( He inadvertently enrolled out of high school into the Masters program at Columbia....thereby skipping the undergrad four years....and succeeded without it) followed up with a Nobel for discovering parity effects in K meson decays: the famous Tau-Theta paradox with his buddy, C.N. Yang. His insights into the history of the dead ends and successes of the weak interactions over five decades was nothing short of amazing. Ciao. Pete

Dave Mitsky
2005-Nov-11, 04:25 AM
When it comes to great physicists, Newton and Einstein stand alone at the summit, IMO.

Aristotle was a philosopher and naturalist, and, in fact, his teachings with regard to physics and astronomy (he was a far better biologist) impeded scientific progress for many centuries.

Nobody has mentioned Richard Feynman.

Many modern day theoretical physicists consider Ed Witten to be a scientist of Einstein's caliber.

Dave Mitsky

Atraxani
2005-Nov-11, 10:55 AM
Many physicists say the next Einstein has not been born yet, or is a baby now. Thats because the quest for a unified theory that would account for all forces of nature has pushed current mathematics to its limit. (New math must be created before the problem can be solved).

What do you think?


People rank Einstein as the genius of recent civilization because he was an inspiring and lucid thinker, not because he brought us revolutionary developments. Einstein and Genius have become synonymous, but unfortunately, many groundbreaking thinkers have gone underappreciated. For example, I consider Alan Turing to be one of the greatest geniuses of the 20th century, having given us some crucial insights into computational science, which has arguably brought more change to our society than all of general relativity and quantum mechanics combined.

Also, ideas are less attached to individuals than they once were. Genius thinkers will go underappreciated as universities, groups, corporations, and governments take credit. Developments in physical theory will dwindle and stagnate in coming years, taking a diminishing role in mainstream science.

eburacum45
2005-Nov-11, 07:24 PM
Turing is one of the people that may be remembered thousands of years from now; but the people that will remember him most fondly might be intelligent robots.

Ilya
2005-Nov-12, 04:03 AM
In terms of his influence on physics, I would rate Stephen Hawking equal to Einstein. In terms of mathematical ability, both are below Ramanujan or Paul Erdos.

Vilim
2005-Nov-12, 11:46 PM
In terms of his influence on physics, I would rate Stephen Hawking equal to Einstein. In terms of mathematical ability, both are below Ramanujan or Paul Erdos.

Then again, neither Einstein nor Hawking were/are mathematicians. That is like comparing the mathematical ability of Richard Dawkins to Erdos, it really isn't the point. I would also argue that Hawking is nowhere near Einstein, although he has made several important discoveries he is only famous because he is a great populariser of science.

In any case I don't think Aristotle should be included anywhere near a list of great scientists. His entire world view is at odds with the modern scientific method, he believed that experiment was inherently inferior to thought, as a result he was absolutely wrong in many areas which a simple experiment would have shown.

Unfortunatly he was also fantastically influential and set scientific progress back a thousand years or so.

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-13, 03:45 AM
I love this quote:

Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives’ mouths.

Damburger
2005-Nov-13, 11:20 PM
I really dislike the idea of IQ.

Mine is 152. I found this out when I was 14, and having problems at school fitting in with other kids, and with actually doing schoolwork. Since then I've felt under pressure to be some kind genius all the time. I've been more than average academically because I just can't motivate myself to revise for exams or do coursework.

Look at this table on the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ
This is not exactly atypical. I'm going into the teaching profession, which the table considers a suitable career for those in the 111-120 IQ range. Apparantly I should be the next Copernicus instead of just a maths teacher.

publiusr
2005-Nov-16, 08:13 PM
Yep, Srinivasa Ramanujan could easily be one of the greatest geniuses who ever lived. You wouldn't believe the uses for some of the stuff he came up with...

I wonder if he was the model for Borges' short story "Funes, His Memory."

Benign Terrorist
2005-Nov-16, 08:44 PM
Einstein was a great man, but he was a man of his time. If he had been born a little earlier or a little later we would probably not even know his name.Maybe. Einstein though did have one interesting difference from others of his era. He believed that pure thought was enough to unravel the secrets of the universe. In a way he felt like experimentation was for confirmation after you'd already figured it out. It was an approach that set his direction apart from most others who used experimentation to do the figuring. Tough to know if his advances would have been made had he not banged his head so hard on them.

RBG
2005-Nov-17, 01:02 AM
Idle speculation:

"Einstein" is a word used, by most people, as another word for genius. Would most people have thought the same if instead of the nicely marketable "E=MC^2", his equation turned out to be: E=wex(ico)+ioifjo[[f9pl^2ifo(ri/x^3)gbfkqf]qpjqj]/cmfj(qjoijo^5ccqmcq(p+p^2))+(soopqofpqofkpkpojf[qti8ruq[q[pc]cokp/2orpq(o+24))fkf]kkodk/(opokvpokpo])q[vmjgiiqif7fp(o^34)iokpqdo,]cvfo^3koopo(vj)k+17 ?

RBG

Titana
2005-Nov-17, 04:02 AM
In any case I don't think Aristotle should be included anywhere near a list of great scientists. His entire world view is at odds with the modern scientific method, he believed that experiment was inherently inferior to thought, as a result he was absolutely wrong in many areas which a simple experiment would have shown.

Unfortunatly he was also fantastically influential and set scientific progress back a thousand years or so.



Well, many people consider that Aristotle started off with a revolutionary way of thinking, which have shaped are daily lives. And also consider that everything we know in our modern life has something to do with scientific thought, which Aristotle first introduced.




Titana........

TheBlackCat
2005-Nov-17, 05:14 AM
Well, many people consider that Aristotle started off with a revolutionary way of thinking, which have shaped are daily lives. And also consider that everything we know in our modern life has something to do with scientific thought, which Aristotle first introduced.
Scientific thought requires empirical tests of hypotheses, which Aristotle rejected. I do not see how Aristotle could be credited with introducing scientific thought when he completely rejected the core principle that seperates science from all other disciplines. It is my understanding that overcoming Aristotle's legacy was one of the big challenges that the founders of modern science faced when modern science was first starting.

Maddad
2005-Nov-17, 07:09 PM
Yet Einstein went back to Aristotle for his thinking.

Argos
2005-Nov-17, 07:34 PM
Scientific thought requires empirical tests of hypotheses, which Aristotle rejected. I do not see how Aristotle could be credited with introducing scientific thought when he completely rejected the core principle that seperates science from all other disciplines. It is my understanding that overcoming Aristotle's legacy was one of the big challenges that the founders of modern science faced when modern science was first starting.

I would agree. Aristotle still haunts the world. However, we could say in his defense that he was a pioneer in proposing rational explanations for natural phenomena.

trinitree88
2005-Dec-07, 04:35 PM
[QUOTE=Titana]Many physicists say the next Einstein has not been born yet, or is a baby now. Thats because the quest for a unified theory that would account for all forces of nature has pushed current mathematics to its limit. (New math must be created before the problem can be solved).

What do you think?


Hi Titana. Just a few observations. They won't call you the new Einstein if;
1. You find a nobel laureate's description of a graviton
2. You incorporate the graviton into a unified field theory, using the standard model by Howard Georgi from Scientific American, modified to incorporate the graviton as a Z boson.
3. You submit the theory for publication in a gravity writing forum.
4. The theory successfully predicts physical effects seen and published by researchers from six major independent laboratories around the world. re;SN1987a
5.You find experimental observations of asymmetry in supernovae via their morphological characteristics of their remnants, and the presence of high transverse velocity pulsars not in remnants,coupled with remnants missing pulsars.
6. You give talks on the asymmetry of supernovae due to parity effects ( the asymmetry was originally noted by Schlovskii in circa 1976), and predict that the pulsars will always be ejected from the same magnetic pole of the progenitors...betting a bottle of Chianti on it (Vassar 92)...(chianti showed up mysteriously when Fermi succeeded with his pile).
7. You give talks (with syllabus submitted) correlating pulsar ejection velocities with magnetic field strength, with a coefficient of correlation of 0.70, (Harrison, Cordes) and name the effect the Weak Asymmetric Recoil Phenomena...with proper attribution to Gene Roddenberry. Except WARP 10 is c. WARP 1 is max. ejecta cloud velocity. WARP 0.08 is max pulsar velocity.
8. You show that high redshift objects can be ejected by low-redshift galaxies.This knocks out one leg of the BB. Pulsar 1987a from The Large Magellanic Cloud (when it is found).
9. You show using only known physics, the Hierarchy of Conservation laws, Lorentz Invariance, and within the contingencies of SR, that the wall of the Local Bubble can generate a black-body spectrum of about 2.79 K or a little less, without using dark matter, or dark energy, or inflationary spacetime.This knocks out another leg of the BB. Hoyle, and the Burbidges did the relative abundances of the light isotopes.
10. You modify the heart of the General Theory, by incorporating the trinity of equivalence, the effects of the change in the ambient neutrino flux that when an isotropic flux suddenly becomes anisotropic, it will be concurrent with a gravity wave. You cannot distinguish between an inertial acceleration, a gravitational acceleration due to a nearby mass, or an acceleration due to a passing neutrino burst. (roundly accepted at Williams College).
11. You correlate the known asymmetry of the electromagnetic parity interaction with the proposed electroweak asymmetry to predict maximum ejection velocities of nascent pulsars,and produce the first numerical solution to the Supernova Problem. (Harvard 94).
12. You predict a new light curve to be found by planar eclipsing Cepheids based on their asymmetrical pulsations.
13. You predict infrared bolometric disturbances in R Cor. Borealis type reverse novae, as an indicator of an impending supernova, or of the appearance of iron spectral lines in O,A,B, giants as indicators also.

Nope, what you will get is movies, and TV series. I know Zephram Cochran from Montana. He and I discussed WARP drive on aol years ago. "Sam" on Quantum Leap was a chemistry major.(Me too) Played basketball.(7 years semipro..we were 54-3 our best year) First wife named Sue.(same) Two kids, oldest a boy.(same) Invented WARP.(same) #54 was my buddy Gene's
football number..he wore it playing hoop a lot. Sam flew little airplanes. (Plymouth air Services..Piper Tomahawk). Sam worked on the farm as a boy (yup). His buddy Al carries "Ziggy"..my nickname from Chuck. Sam has a brother in the services..that's be Chris, and an older brother who helps him in his physics work...that'd be Bob. He plays the guitar. (yup) Head first slide in baseball (yup)...the Hanover trophy-winning softball tournament.The intro shows him changing the Hubble parameter..yup, it's wrong...Sam was affiliated with MIT. It goes on & on...right up through Goodwill Hunting. Hollywood?:liar: :liar: :liar: pete.

Fraser
2005-Dec-07, 04:47 PM
I'm sure there are dozens of Einstein-calibre intellects across the planet - we have such a large population on Earth now. The tragedy is that so many of these people are born into poverty and malnutrition and may never get the chance to achieve their potential. Let's hope the Internet and $100 laptops give them a chance to contribute.

trinitree88
2005-Dec-07, 06:07 PM
I'm sure there are dozens of Einstein-calibre intellects across the planet - we have such a large population on Earth now. The tragedy is that so many of these people are born into poverty and malnutrition and may never get the chance to achieve their potential. Let's hope the Internet and $100 laptops give them a chance to contribute.

Agreed. Opportunity, and opening doors is what education is all about (when it works right). I taught for five years in Lawrence, MA, one of the poorest cities of it's size in the country. Great school, and a haven for some poor students, (and some rich students), who knew lives very different outside of school. One young man in particular,a Lawrence native, Ray Nunez, exemplified the opportunistic student. Captain of championship caliber basketball teams, he was always working, and always worrying. The only student I ever had who stayed from 2:00 -4:45 working out kinematic problems until he mastered them. He was an A-student, but never quite totally sure of himself. When 9/11 struck, Ray, nominated as a Boys Club National Student of the Year, was one of the few candidates who had the temerity to fly in the next few days. He won the national honors and got to go to the White House to meet President George Bush. He received a full scholarship to Tufts. It's that kind of stuff you teach for, despite the railings of the detractors. Pete.:)

hhEb09'1
2005-Dec-07, 06:51 PM
Nope, what you will get is movies, and TV series. I know Zephram Cochran from Montana. He and I discussed WARP drive on aol years ago.The inventor of the Star Trek warp drive was on AOL? No way!

Gillianren
2005-Dec-07, 06:54 PM
Nope, what you will get is movies, and TV series. I know Zephram Cochran from Montana. He and I discussed WARP drive on aol years ago. "Sam" on Quantum Leap was a chemistry major.(Me too) Played basketball.(7 years semipro..we were 54-3 our best year) First wife named Sue.(same) Two kids, oldest a boy.(same) Invented WARP.(same) #54 was my buddy Gene's
football number..he wore it playing hoop a lot. Sam flew little airplanes. (Plymouth air Services..Piper Tomahawk). Sam worked on the farm as a boy (yup). His buddy Al carries "Ziggy"..my nickname from Chuck. Sam has a brother in the services..that's be Chris, and an older brother who helps him in his physics work...that'd be Bob. He plays the guitar. (yup) Head first slide in baseball (yup)...the Hanover trophy-winning softball tournament.The intro shows him changing the Hubble parameter..yup, it's wrong...Sam was affiliated with MIT. It goes on & on...right up through Goodwill Hunting. Hollywood?:liar: :liar: :liar: pete.

I may not know much about Einstein, but you've got your Quantum Leap facts substantially wrong in several places. For one, he was only married once, to Donna. He only has one child, a girl named Sammy Jo, who was conceived after he started Leaping. He didn't fly planes. His brother couldn't help him, because his brother (he only had the one) wasn't as smart as he was.

Now. I think Einstein-caliber minds are more common than we think. The issue, to me, is the question of are they all in math-and-science fields?

SolusLupus
2005-Dec-07, 07:05 PM
Am I the only person that doesn't think that being "the next Einstein" is just a matter of being born one?

trinitree88
2005-Dec-07, 07:14 PM
The inventor of the Star Trek warp drive was on AOL? No way!

Yup. Way. Actually, I contacted him after the movie was made. I had submitted an article to Quantum magazine. An editor read and reviewed it, and told me he thought it was unsuitable...which is OK. It was about the Weak Asymmetric Recoil Phenomenon in supernovae. Then an odd thing, he gave me his home address in Montana that I might send summer correspondence to, not the business address in Washington, D.C. Next thing I know the movie is out..Zephraim Cochrane. So I toodled through aol Members, young Mr. Cochran...I believe it was ZepCochran @aol.com...had a burgeoening interest in astronomy. He was ~ 15. I had to be careful introducing myself. We chatted, he lives near the editor...curious. Hmmm.Pete.:shifty:

Titana
2005-Dec-07, 07:41 PM
We have to consider that physics is a much different field today, and I believe that physics has matured to a point where no one person can independently progress . In Einsteins day there were only a few thousand physicist worldwide, but today universities have produced millions.Having that said, there are probably many physicist as smart as Einstein or even smarter out there today, but it would definitely be harder for them to be heard independently. I would say it is because most of the scientist today don't work alone.




Titana..

Taks
2005-Dec-07, 08:06 PM
Now. I think Einstein-caliber minds are more common than we think. The issue, to me, is the question of are they all in math-and-science fields?
well, if you assume a 160 IQ (SD 15) is "einstein level", that works out to about 3 individuals per 100,000 is that bright. that would mean, statistically, there are in the neighborhood of 180,000 folks like this walking about.

how many are in math and science is one consideration, but another, which narrows the field even further, is whether they're really onto the next great "thing" (whatever that may be). by the latter statement, i mean that you could easily have some great mind working in a related field, but he's not necessarily doing any groundbreaking research in which he'll uncover the discovery of the century.

being that intelligent means you'll have better odds of solving the problem when you find it, though it does not necessarily provide a benefit to finding the problem in the first place.

taks

hhEb09'1
2005-Dec-07, 08:30 PM
being that intelligent means you'll have better odds of solving the problem when you find it, though it does not necessarily provide a benefit to finding the problem in the first place.
Not necessarily, I suppose, but for some reason, there are individuals who are accused of cross-discipline cherry picking: using their skills to recognize (and solve) prominent problems in other areas. I always wonder why people who complain about such cherry picking in their discipline don't pick those cherries first?

trinitree88
2005-Dec-07, 10:30 PM
[QUOTE=Gillianren]I may not know much about Einstein, but you've got your Quantum Leap facts substantially wrong in several places. For one, he was only married once, to Donna. He only has one child, a girl named Sammy Jo, who was conceived after he started Leaping. He didn't fly planes. His brother couldn't help him, because his brother (he only had the one) wasn't as smart as he was.
You, of course ,can be right. I don't have the scripts as a resource....though I once owned a copy of the Quantum Leap Book, but never read it. I had seen a lot, but I don't think all of the shows. It may have been the sky-diving , that made me think he flew, (I sky dove at East Taunton airport..1968). I distinctly remember a show about the wife though..I'll hold firm on that one in addition to Donna.. My siblings are all bright. Pete.

trinitree88
2005-Dec-08, 07:36 PM
Not necessarily, I suppose, but for some reason, there are individuals who are accused of cross-discipline cherry picking: using their skills to recognize (and solve) prominent problems in other areas. I always wonder why people who complain about such cherry picking in their discipline don't pick those cherries first?

Cross-discipline cherry-picking is a new expression to me. I could hardly call what I did that. It implies that all the work was done by others to set up an opportunity, that I wandered in and harvested. Let me elaborate.
I developed an interest in photography, during high school years, when a chemistry teacher had my friend Kevin and I batch produce some blueprint paper. Graduated as a chemist, I spent three years on high resolution aerial duplicating films (for the SR-71), paper plates, aluminum plates, and unconventional photosensitive coatings (titanium dioxide).
The interaction of matter and energy,actinic radiation, some solid state physics, oxidation reduction reactions, infrared and visible spectral sensitizing dyes..lots of work. I also worked in X-ray sensitometry, and imaging systems. As an astronomy buff, I read volumes of popular and technical treatise on all parts of the field, but gravitated towards first supernova theory, and as a consequence, weak interactions. When I made the link to Gamow and the SU (5) model as a potential union, I retired from teaching, and funded my own research (along with entrepreneurial work ) for a year, spending hundreds of hours in the stacks at MIT, reading years of Physics Abstracts articles by the thousands, with an opportunity to read the primary journal article right at hand. I taught myself particle physics, conservation law hierarchy, weak interactions, neutrino physics, scattering theory, accelerator experimental abilities, x-ray astronomy, gamma-ray astronomy, supernova remnants, radio astronomy,..anything that made an image, or detected photons or neutrinos..I read it.
Invited by a staff member at MIT, I continued to attend lectures at the Physics Colloquia in astronomy and particle physics,that interested me...John Bahcall, T.D.K Lee, David Schramm, Freeman Dyson, Sheldon Glashow, Murray Gell-Mann, Larry Sulak, Jerome Friedman, Peter Demos, Bruno Coppi, Margaret Geller, John Huchra, Shrinivas Kulkarni, Ernest Moniz, Edmund Berstschwinger, Wolfgang Ketterle, Jaqueline Hewitt, David Arnett...etc. I also attended particle physics symposia, Independent Activity Period talks, high energy astrophysics seminars..and discussed ideas with members of the x-ray astronomy group. I took the Nuclear and Particle Physics Winter Course for High School Teachers at the bates Linear Accelerator, and received the Michelson-Morley Award for best understanding SR and GR.I received a summer appointment as a visiting scientist in 1993, and worked on calibration of the Out-of-Plane-Spectrometer, and dovetailed with members of the Nuclear Interaction Group under Bill Bertozzi at the Cambridge campus, and the Bates Linear Accelerator in Middleton. All work and plenty of time was spent there.
All the while, I participated in regional and national meetings of the American Association of Physics Teachers, presenting papers on unique aspects of weak interactions, neutrino physics, and supernova theory....and I'm not a physicist by degree, so job opportunities frittered away time and again. But,to say that I "cherry-picked" things others set up without doing the grunt work for years, thousands of hours of reading and studying to set a self-consistent theory on it's feet...is patently untrue. It was more like Edison's work ethic. :wall: Pete

It's not going to be another violin-playing German Jew from the patent office in Bern Switzerland. I give kudos where they're due. It's a violin playing (terrible)... high school science teacher from Massachusetts.Ciao. Pete.

Taks
2005-Dec-09, 12:45 AM
Not necessarily, I suppose, but for some reason, there are individuals who are accused of cross-discipline cherry picking: using their skills to recognize (and solve) prominent problems in other areas. I always wonder why people who complain about such cherry picking in their discipline don't pick those cherries first?jealousy, i suppose. that's really a bother, if you think about it.

i mean, really, why be jealous that somebody solved a problem in your area that you didn't get to first? i think true scientist types should strive for answers, not glory. should someone else find the answer first, consider yourself lucky to have one less problem to chase. :)

taks