
Is Einstein the last genius? - nreece
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthSci/Is_Einstein_the_last_genius/articleshow/3805812.cms
======
helveticaman
Am I the only one who doubts that popular vote can accurately select the
greatest (or last) "genius"?

I mean, it's not like the mainstream has a better grasp of the relative
magnitudes of the achievements than the physics or math communities. Why would
they be right about Einstein? From my limited understanding of the matter, I'd
venture that Newton was a greater genius for his time. In mathematics, Andrew
Wiles and Gregory Perelman solved more vexing problems than Einstein did in
physics. Is Einstein overrated?

~~~
nebula
I agree with you that popular vote is not something that can accurately select
the "greatest genius". I'm also skeptical of these "greatest"/"No.1" rankings
as far as Scientists go; no matter who does the selection. You can definitely
say that Einstein, Newton and a bunch of others are great scientists and
contributed greatly to the progress of science. Why does one have to come up
with rankings? these are more of a media hype in my opinion.

 _"I'd venture that Newton was a greater genius for his time."_

I don't want to get into the trap of Newton Vs Einstein debate; However here
are some reasons that IMO make Einstein's contribution to science a very
important:

When Newton declared that he was "standing on the shoulders of giants", it was
literally true. Galileo with his experimental physics, and Kepler's work on
planetary motion had pretty much figured out everything necessary for Newton's
work on gravitation. Newton had to formalize these things and put a framework
around. Newton's work here was incremental.

OTOH, when Einstein entered the scene, Physics was in trouble. There were many
things that classical physics couldn't explain. Though earlier works had
pointed at the dichotomies in classical physics, no one was able to come up
with a consistent theory to explain things. At this point in time, Einstein
came with his fresh ideas and explained so many fundamental things like "what
is gravity". Another important thing to note here is that the concepts
Einstein came up with are not something that could have been learnt from
observations of the world around us. ["like deducing Earth's gravity from an
apple that fell on one's head"]. In that respect Einstein's contributions are
really important; It's not often that one comes up with a grand theory about
how the universe works by pure imagination and the universe obeys the theory.

Also, AFAIK, Newton is at least as popular as Einstein with the masses.

~~~
quantumhobbit
I agree that Einstein is better, because we can point to other geniuses of
Newton's time who would have replicated his results. Leibniz for Calculus and
Lorentz or Hamilton for mechanics. I'm not aware of anyone who could have come
up with Einstein's Relativity or his explanation of the photo-electric effect
in the early 1900's. Most of the experiments he used were decades old and no
one else could piece them together.

~~~
nebula
Though I don't know of any names, I think Einstein's explanation of photo-
electric effect is not completely out of this world or without precedents.
Quantization was known though it was not applied to light earlier; Light's
particle nature was considered earlier, though the double slit experiment
convinced everyone that it's a wave. If I remember correctly Newton was of the
opinion that light is particle in nature. Though it might have been hard to
make the jump, I would assume that some smart guy would have been able to put
these together and explain photo-electric effect, if Einstein hadn't. In a
sense this achievement is more or less on the expected lines of progress for
science.

However Relativity is a huge leap in my opinion.

------
ionfish
Presumably this doesn't include mathematicians, since there would doubtless be
any number of counterexamples if it did (Grigori Perelman springs to mind).
Clearly maths and science are group enterprises, and always have been.
Regardless of scientists' institutional affiliations, human knowledge must be
transmitted once discovered. The point the article makes is that the process
of scientific discovery itself is generally no longer one pursued by lone
individuals. This may in fact be accurate; however, this is more a shift in
degree than in kind. Einstein, after all, worked with plenty of people:
Planck, Schrödinger, Grossmann, and of course Podolsky and Rosen. His most
important theoretical breakthroughs may have been made alone, but they were
the result not merely of prior discoveries and theories (both physical and
mathematical) but of collaborations with his contemporaries. Experimental
verifications of his predictions were, and continue to be, carried out by the
scientific corpus.

------
flashgordon
Well does it really matter? Why the focus on "genius"? Why not just focus on
hard work and doing as much as you can without worrying about factors you cant
control?

------
vitaminj
John von Neumann was widely considered a genius, though he was probably more
Einstein's contemporary outliving him by only two years.

------
GavinB
There are more people of that level of intelligence, they just don't stand out
as much because there are so many and their work is more obscure.

I suppose it's a legitimate question whether anyone will ever achieve the same
public mythology that Einstein has, but I wouldn't bet against it.

~~~
Shamiq
Are you saying there was a proportional increase caused by population growth?

What do you think about increases due to stability in the West, better quality
food, better quality healthcare, and taller giants upon whose shoulders we can
stand?

(About the last one, I mean that as a collective whole, we have much more
specific scientific knowledge than our predecessors)

~~~
GavinB
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and however many yesses are required to agree with all
those things.

We also shouldn't forget the opening of more intellectual jobs to women,
minorities, poor people . . . well, it use to be that only the aristocracy had
a shot at being scientists.

------
revolutiongroup
Einstein's creative/innovative genius is what he's known for - If you're going
by IQ alone, people like Bobby Fischer and Ted Kazinsky(sp?) would end up as
the most amazing brains in recent history. They probably had more raw
processing power than Einstein, though they couldn't function in society. John
Nash is another.

What is genius?

~~~
antiform
I'm curious about your Ted "Kazinsky" comment. Are you talking about the
Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski? If so, I would like to know why him, of all the
brilliant people in recent history? I know he was a precocious mathematician,
and very gifted academically, but I could think of a dozen more people with
similar—if not better—credentials than him.

------
wynand
Paul Erdős was at least as deserving of the title "genius" and died quite a
bit later (1996). He was a highly productive mathematician until late in his
life.

------
jamesbritt
Feynman for the win

