
Why Is There No New "Einstein"? - neilc
http://www.scribd.com/vacuum?url=http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/no-new-einstein.pdf
======
hugh
This is a very interesting question, but unfortunately in this case the
author's answer is just the standard scientist's whine: "There's not enough
funding for my kind of research".

Better possible answers include:

a) The time isn't right for the emergence of another Einstein just now

b) There are several around, we're just not paying attention

c) Einstein was really more of a media phenomenon than a physicist, and he
wasn't really any more of a genius than several of his contemporaries, and
several of ours.

d) There are so many more physicists nowadays than there were a hundred years
ago that it's harder for one to stand so far above the others

e) Physics is almost over -- there's still things still left to discover, but
no surprises on the scale of relativity or quantum mechanics left.

I'm not actually arguing for any of these possibilities right now, just saying
that they are possibilities more interesting than Lee Smolin's "can has more
money?" article.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Actually, to my great surprise, "give my field more money" was only one of his
suggestions. It was, in fact, the last suggestion of his, and (at least to my
reading) least important.

The rest of his answer is quite reasonable, and doesn't even need new money:

1\. Seek out people with different points of view and invite them to join the
discussion. 2\. Give money/influence to individuals, not to large
fiefdoms/research programs.

I think he is quite right on this. In at least one area the author mentioned
(foundations of QM), even a single person with different views can be
beneficial to a department. At Rutgers (where I got my Ph.D.) the math physics
group has a single advocate of a deviant view. The department would be
weakened if we replaced him with a normal scientist of equal quality.

Diversity of ideas is important, and we definitely don't do enough to promote
it.

~~~
jamesbritt
"Diversity of ideas is important, ..."

Wouldn't that be, diversity of _informed_ ideas is important?

Why might it be that people with the background to have an informed opinion on
something do not show greater diversity in those opinions? (Or maybe they are
there, and politics keeps them out of the inner circle?)

~~~
yummyfajitas
>Why might it be that people with the background to have an informed opinion
on something do not show greater diversity in those opinions?

For one reason or another, one viewpoint gets a leg up on the other one. After
this, life is easier for those with the mainstream viewpoint, and new people
join the establishment.

Case in point: I'm working on a paper right now in foundations of quantum
mechanics. I did most of the work with Bohmian mechanics as my mental model
(as a result of being exposed to a "deviant"). That viewpoint helped a lot,
and I probably wouldn't have built my model without it. Note that the model is
completely justifiable without it, but it's an unmotivated magic trick.

I've given talks about it from a non-standard perspective. People attack that.
I've also talked about it, pretending it's black magic that yields a result
everyone knows. People love that.

The result is the same, but I have an easier time promoting it if it looks
mainstream.

It's no wonder people stick to the establishment. Even I'm going to stick to
the establishment when it comes time to submit the paper.

------
mynameishere
Well, when you compare the free, male, non-laboring population of Ancient
Athens with the entire educated population of the world today, you have to
wonder where all the Socrateses, Platos, Aristotles, Aristophaneses, etc, etc,
etc, are hiding. Using the roughest possible statistics, every mid-sized town
should have a few.

~~~
nostrademons
When you compare the educational prerequisites needed to discover something
_new_ nowadays and the educational prerequisites needed in Ancient Athens, you
have your answer.

Most reasonably bright high-school kids can understand Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle, Archimedes, etc. A few can even rederive their findings; there were
a couple times when I was growing up when I had this great insight, only to
find out that it had been discovered by a dead Greek guy 2000 years ago. But
unfortunately, discovering the same stuff that the ancient Greeks discovered
doesn't count as noteworthy anymore. The bar's been raised a little higher.

Same goes for most fields. Lots of college CS students can implement a Lisp
interpreter now; it was a big deal when McCarthy did it in 1960. When
Tchaikovsky wrote his violin concerto, he gave it to the best concert
violinist of his day, who took one look at it and replied "This is
unplayable." Now it's standard repertoire for dedicated high-schoolers.

------
petercooper
Two reasons. 1) The achievements of modern day scientists appear less amazing
than they really are. 2) The achievements of scientists of the pass seem more
amazing than they really were.

There are quite a few candidates for a modern day "Einstein." Stephen Hawking
or Michio Kaku, for example.

------
mixmax
The simple truth is that great scientist are simply a a rare event. How many
scientists with the capacity of Einstein have there been? Newton, maybe
Aristotle and Archimedes. That's four in the last two thousand years.

The capacity of scientists (genius, output or however you define it) most
probably follows a powerlaw with a lot of mediocre scientists, a few
outstanding (Louis Pasteur, Henry Cavendish, Louis Maxwell) and only one true
genius for every two centuries. Since we had a genius that broke through in
1905 we will statistically have to wait for quite a while for the next one.

~~~
mechanical_fish
_How many scientists with the capacity of Einstein have there been? Newton,
maybe Aristotle and Archimedes. That's four in the last two thousand years._

Look, I admire these guys as much as anyone. But Zombie Einstein himself would
come back from the dead and smack you if he heard you claim that, e.g.,
Maxwell wasn't as smart as he was. Einstein figured out special relativity by
staring at _Maxwell's_ equations, after all.

I also look forward to your battle with Zombie Leibniz, who will be pretty
pissed off at your one-sided exaltation of Newton. Although it's
understandable that you didn't choose to anger Zombie Newton. Nobody does that
and lives.

Having actually met the late Hans Bethe before he died, I assure you that his
zombie will pack a mean slide rule. We're talking about a guy who discovered
the main sequence, wrote the book on solid state physics, _and_ served as the
theoretical lead for the Manhattan project in his spare time.

Indeed, the list of dead scientists who were arguably as capable as Einstein
is awfully long. You'd better start running. I hear that the tag team of
Zombie Nicola Tesla and Zombie Michael Faraday is deadly even at long range,
especially if you aren't properly grounded. And that's just the physicists...
can you imagine the sheer _size_ of Zombie Charles Darwin's Army of the
Extinct?

~~~
mixmax
If you ever write a book on popular science in that prose please let me know.
I wan to buy it.

~~~
mechanical_fish
Well, one of my favorite science books ever is _Molecular Biology Made Simple
and Fun_ , and it reads kind of like this.

The science in the book is 100% serious, too, and at the approximate level of
an intro course in college. I faked it for three years as a biophysics postdoc
with the help of that book. Admittedly, the molecular biologists chuckled at
my understanding of their field, the way you would chuckle at a precocious
four-year-old, but at least I had a vague idea of _what_ I didn't know.

~~~
kirubakaran
Thanks a lot. I was looking for a book like that.

------
ionfish
Luboš Motl has several responses to this question on his blog:

<http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/06/why-no-new-einstein.html>

[http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/09/why-no-new-einstein-
ii.htm...](http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/09/why-no-new-einstein-ii.html)

This one isn't directly addressed to the Smolin piece, but it addresses the
"No New Einstein" question:

[http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-physicists-and-
populis...](http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/bad-physicists-and-
populism.html)

------
brentr
Scene from the Big Bang Theory:

PENNY What's new in physics?

LEONARD Really nothing, except for string theory. But only then I can say, "My
theory has certain mathematical consistencies"

~~~
BrandonM
The Big Bang Theory has surprised me in that it actually has truly
intellectual jokes. I thought it would just be another stereotype-promoting,
nerd-meets-hottie sitcom, but this one actually has some intelligent humor.

------
ken
It's a "scribd.com" link, but it looks like now it's smart enough to not
bother with the wonky Flash plugin for Mac users, and just send us to the PDF.
Yay!

~~~
kingnothing
I don't think so; I got a PDF as well in Opera and Firefox on Ubuntu.

------
optimal
New Einstein dropped out, built and sold his "Hot Physicist or Not?" startup,
and now just likes to kick back and listen to some choons.

------
tyohn
There is one - J. Craig Venter. I know he's not a physicist but I think the
comparison is valid.

------
tocomment
two words: computer science. All our great minds are busy learning how to
program.

~~~
brent
That's actually quite funny. I met a prominent CS professor at a major school
(think top 10) who admitted he doesn't know any programming languages (C,
java, etc.).

