What's new

Einstein made Major Blunders Too

.
A tabloid will now decide the towering feats of that great scientist ?

A lot of descriptions given in the article is patently wrong.

It starts by saying Einstein got relativity wrong ???? :lol:

Well, he had two revisions to it and the General Theory of relativity was the ultimate outcome of it. Think about it. You moving at speed of light and the jay walker on the street will both perceive speed of light as same.

It's totally counter intuitive and you need tremendous mathematical and creative firepower to propose and prove such a thing.

Also a great scientist will NEVER accept something empirically until he/she designs an experiment to observe it. The technology was not mature enough to test them. A reason why Einstein didn't accept a lot of implications of it like black hole etc.

Till late 80s some stupid scientists were still apprehensive of relativity. Now a days (read GPS) is a live example of relativity making lives simpler.

@Spectre
 
.
A tabloid will now decide the towering feats of that great scientist ?

A lot of descriptions given in the article is patently wrong.

It starts by saying Einstein got relativity wrong ???? :lol:

Well, he had two revisions to it and the General Theory of relativity was the ultimate outcome of it. Think about it. You moving at speed of light and the jay walker on the street will both perceive speed of light as same.

It's totally counter intuitive and you need tremendous mathematical and creative firepower to propose and prove such a thing.

Also a great scientist will NEVER accept something empirically until he/she designs an experiment to observe it. The technology was not mature enough to test them. A reason why Einstein didn't accept a lot of implications of it like black hole etc.

Till late 80s some stupid scientists were still apprehensive of relativity. Now a days (read GPS) is a live example of relativity making lives simpler.

@Spectre

Well said, had it been the top physics journals like Physics Review, American Journal of Physics etc or even a magazine like scientific american I would have given the OP a read.

It goes without saying that the theory would be tweaked and tinkered with but the fundamentals would remain same for some time to come.
 
.
W
A tabloid will now decide the towering feats of that great scientist ?

A lot of descriptions given in the article is patently wrong.

It starts by saying Einstein got relativity wrong ???? :lol:

Well, he had two revisions to it and the General Theory of relativity was the ultimate outcome of it. Think about it. You moving at speed of light and the jay walker on the street will both perceive speed of light as same.

It's totally counter intuitive and you need tremendous mathematical and creative firepower to propose and prove such a thing.

Also a great scientist will NEVER accept something empirically until he/she designs an experiment to observe it. The technology was not mature enough to test them. A reason why Einstein didn't accept a lot of implications of it like black hole etc.

Till late 80s some stupid scientists were still apprehensive of relativity. Now a days (read GPS) is a live example of relativity making lives simpler.

@Spectre

Well the famous e=mc^2 has been proven wrong practically as scientists managed to throw subatomic particles at speed more than light and they did not changed their state.
 
. .
his major blunder was to have 2 wives , and still he's an icon of science and nerd culture , in america ! i wonder how you can be a nerd and have 2 wives , a russian and a german ! even mark zuckerberg's wife is asian
 
.
W


Well the famous e=mc^2 has been proven wrong practically as scientists managed to throw subatomic particles at speed more than light and they did not changed their state.

E=MC^2 is still standing. It was a calculation mistake that caused the initial stir.
 
.
A tabloid will now decide the towering feats of that great scientist ?

A lot of descriptions given in the article is patently wrong.

It starts by saying Einstein got relativity wrong ???? :lol:

Well, he had two revisions to it and the General Theory of relativity was the ultimate outcome of it. Think about it.

@Spectre

That's a bit inaccurate - the special and general theories were not two different revisions, with one being a revised and corrected form of the other. Both are equally true. As the names suggest, the 'general' theory happens to be more inclusive and applicable to more situations than the special theory, which applies to the special cases where the effects of gravitation can be ignored.

The truly astonishing thing about Einstein's special relativity is that he required nothing more than high school level mathematics, to revolutionize our understanding of the universe and all physical phenomena. That minimalism was Einstein's hallmark.
 
.
That's a bit inaccurate - the special and general theories were not two different revisions, with one being a revised and corrected form of the other. Both are equally true. As the names suggest, the 'general' theory happens to be more inclusive and applicable to more situations than the special theory, which applies to the special cases where the effects of gravitation can be ignored.

The truly astonishing thing about Einstein's special relativity is that he required nothing more than high school level mathematics, to revolutionize our understanding of the universe and all physical phenomena. That minimalism was Einstein's hallmark.

Read lorentz transformations. It took einstein's genius to realize the implications of it.
 
.
W


Well the famous e=mc^2 has been proven wrong practically as scientists managed to throw subatomic particles at speed more than light and they did not changed their state.

No, that has not happened yet - faster than light travel has not been experimentally observed.

But do note that faster-than-light is not impossible for some kinds of particles. It would not contradict relativity, and definitely not the "e=mc^2" equation. The nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors that we have wouldn't work, if that equation were untrue.
 
.
No, that has not happened yet - faster than light travel has not been experimentally observed.

But do note that faster-than-light is not impossible for some kinds of particles. It would not contradict relativity, and definitely not the "e=mc^2" equation. The nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors that we have wouldn't work, if that equation were untrue.

What he is talking of are special theoretical particles called tachyons !
 
.
Knowledge is an evolutionary process, a continuous pursue toward the thruth. Albert Eienstien gives his contribution to the mankind whatever was possible for him, under the technology available at that time. He is not a God, but his intention was also not to fool the People. For Years , I too was confused with various questions I had in my Minds. Earlier when I was small, I used to ask my father lots of questions, later my teachers/professors, and now search Internet for hours to get lot of questions around my head. The theorem/theory such as the quantum or the relativity was right at that time, because thats what could be derived at that time, but doesn't makes it the perfect.


Field of dreams
In Einstein's day, the strong and weak forces had not yet been discovered, but he found the existence of even two distinct forces—gravity and electromagnetism—deeply troubling. Einstein did not accept that nature is founded on such an extravagant design. This launched his 30-year voyage in search of the so-called unified field theory that he hoped would show that these two forces are really manifestations of one grand underlying principle. This quixotic quest isolated Einstein from the mainstream of physics, which, understandably, was far more excited about delving into the newly emerging framework of quantum mechanics. He wrote to a friend in the early 1940s, "I have become a lonely old chap who is mainly known because he doesn't wear socks and who is exhibited as a curiosity on special occasions."

Einstein was simply ahead of his time. More than half a century later, his dream of a unified theory has become the Holy Grail of modern physics. And a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics community is becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide the answer. From one principle—that everything at its most microscopic level consists of combinations of vibrating strands—string theory provides a single explanatory framework capable of encompassing all forces and all matter.

A Theory of Everything would unify all the fundamental interactions of nature: gravitation, strong interaction, weak interaction, and electromagnetism. Because the weak interaction can transform elementary particles from one kind into another, the ToE should also yield a deep understanding of the various different kinds of possible particles. The usual assumed path of theories is given in the following graph, where each unification step leads one level up:

Lot of questions in my mind got some answer from the String Theory.
String theory is sometimes described as possibly being the "theory of everything."


A theory to end theories


For the first time in the history of physics we therefore have a framework with the capacity to explain every fundamental feature upon which the universe is constructed. For this reason string theory is sometimes described as possibly being the "theory of everything" (T.O.E.) or the "ultimate" or "final" theory. These grandiose descriptive terms are meant to signify the deepest possible theory of physics—a theory that underlies all others, one that does not require or even allow for a deeper explanatory base.

In practice, many string theorists take a more down-to-earth approach and think of a T.O.E. in the more limited sense of a theory that can explain the properties of the fundamental particles and the properties of the forces by which they interact and influence one another. A staunch reductionist would claim that this is no limitation at all, and that in principle absolutely everything, from the Big Bang to daydreams, can be described in terms of underlying microscopic physical processes involving the fundamental constituents of matter. If you understand everything about the ingredients, the reductionist argues, you understand everything.
 
Last edited:
.
W


Well the famous e=mc^2 has been proven wrong practically as scientists managed to throw subatomic particles at speed more than light and they did not changed their state.
Sir learn some relativistic mechanics before you make such erroneous statements.

What he is talking of are special theoretical particles called tachyons !
Never been experimentally detected, indeed they are the prediction of a brilliant Indian physicist who was woefully denied the Nobel prize for his work in quantum optics.
 
.
Scientists could have derived E=mc^2 without Einstein. But they would not have grasped the physics behind the mathematics the way Einstein did. Consequently it would have taken many decades longer to develop the General Theory of Relativity - if, indeed, the need for it would have been recognized at all.
 
.
Never been experimentally detected, indeed they are the prediction of a brilliant Indian physicist who was woefully denied the Nobel prize for his work in quantum optics.

Who's that ? Never heard of any !
 
.
Back
Top Bottom