Slashdot Mirror
Einstein Has Left the Building
Ant writes to tell us of an interesting editorial by John Horgan that is being run by the New York Times asking "will there ever be another Einstein?". The author looks at why Einstein holds such a hallowed position in public opinion and why it will be so hard for any one physicist to attain the same level of fame today. From the article: "The paradoxical answer, Gleick suggested, is that there are so many brilliant physicists alive today that it has become harder for any individual to stand apart from the pack. In other words, our perception of Einstein as a towering figure is, well, relative."
From Wikipedia:
Show me the "brilliant physicists" that have published four papers in one year, each individually deserving of a Nobel Prize.
This is pretty obvious. While many people were studying physics while Einstein worked, the mathematical methods they used tended to be relatively primitive. A precocious undergraduate can easily understand the state of physics up to Einstein's first few papers. This is not to say that Einstein wasn't insightful. He certainly was. However, we're now studying the fruits of his insights, and it takes a few years of graduate school to become an expert in even a small field. If there is a next Einstein, I foresee people studying him for years after becoming a Ph.D. before they become "experts."
After all, I am strangely colored.
What about Hawking? You can't tell me many lay people with no interest in science don't at least know of him.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
...they become infinitely massive. Hawking achieved 99.99999% of Einstein's fame and he ended up in a wheelchair from the stress.
Its very easy to say today that Einstein's works are simple and obvious. Thats because they are first year teachings for most students today. However, we stand on the shoulders of giants. Someday a lot of things will seem very obvious, and those people who do the hard work of making that so will be worth of comparison with Einstein.
I would argue two points.
First, once you get an iconic person, that's it. The game is up for quite a while. Ever notice how all the caricatures of muscle-types take after Governor Arnold? Or how all psychiatrists take after Freud? This is not because we haven't had people with more muscles (we have) or analysts who have not helped larger numbers of people. When you have an icon, you might as well keep it. It's a reference that everyone already "gets".
Second, I would argue that as time goes on, it becomes harder and harder to dominate a field. Look at da Vinci. He was a brilliant man to be sure. But if he were alive today, he'd never have been able to master so many fields. There is just so much research out there about the most minute aspect of any field that no one would have time to keep up. And why would we idolize the guy worked in one very small subset, when these people of past years could dominate so many fields? In a way, they had it easy. Anything they looked at represented a new area of science much the way that any explorer who sailed from Europe a thousand years ago would have been able to claim a new territory. It's much harder now; I've tried!
Also, for those of you who have read the story, I suppose the article should not have asked "Will there be another Einstein?", but rather "Will there be another ThatGeek?". And no, there won't be as I've already registered the nick.
What are you eating? isItVeg?.
What are you, an immortal vampire or something?
I can't say much in regards to Einstein, but I know that it is getting harder to point out musical geniuses, because the bar is constantly being raised. There are thousands of violinists, who are perfectly happy to practice all day to produce perfect performances. Anything less and they simply won't be noticed. I heard a professional musician comment, some years ago, that nobody stands out any more, because so many are at the level of Heifitz.
:)
I played the violin for about 15 years, and had to stop, because for me the strain of a performance + the need for constant practice overshadows the joy received from playing. I now play quite happily at the back of the second violins in an orchestra - room for fun, and mistakes are rarely heard
Anyway, my point is, perhaps something similar is happening in the field of science.
Consciousness is a myth. Trust me.
Show me modern physics papers that contain math that most people with any scientific or engineering background can understand, and that are just a few pages long.
The unsolved problems that people are working on today are much more complex, so comparing the rates at which they are solved is meaningless.
When I was slogging through my 250 page PhD dissertation, I came across an article about disserations of such famous people as Schroedinger and other physicists of the 1920's - whose entire dissertations were about as long as Section 1.1 of my introduction.
Trying to compare now and then is all but irrelevant.
This is not to say that Einstein wasn't insightful
At first, he was a troll.
Then he became interesting.
But he was very underrated.
His theories were all flamebait.
But he was very informative.
And insightful.
Once in a while, funny.
And now he's getting overrated?
Wow!
I dunno. One of the things that made Einstein great, from the scientific point of view, is that he cleared away a great deal of 19th-century complexity in optics and mechanics and replaced it with a theoretical framework of such dazzling simplicity that anyone could grasp its basic principles, but of such power that understanding its full implications demands high intelligence and decades of sustained study.
It's like the way Copernicus swept away the huge complexity of the Ptolemaic astronomer's theory of planetary orbits, all those cycles and epicycles, with the simple and powerful idea of the elliptical orbit. Or how Mendeleev replaced the 18th century's bewildering lists of correlations between chemical properties of substances with the simple and powerful organizational principles of the Periodic Table.
Even in my own experience as a theoretician I find the truly brilliant ideas are not complex. They're insights that drastically simplify and clarify. They're the kind of things that, when you understand them, make you slap your head in awe and envy.
So, from this point of view, the hideous complexity of modern high-energy physics theories could well be a sign that they lack brilliance, that another Einstein is needed to clear away all the baroque epicycles, so to speak, and replace it all with something beautifully simple and far more powerful.
Of course, this might not be true -- it might instead be the case that the basic structure of the universe is simply too complex for ordinary humans to understand even its principles. But I find this hard to believe (for no logical reason, I admit).
So I personally disagree with Mr. Horgan. I think he's just channeling Albert Michelson in 1896 ("The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered....Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.") Like Michelson, Horgan thinks that because no revolution has happened in 50 years one will never happen. But it was almost 300 years between Newton and Einstein. So I'd give it another century or two before giving up.