Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Biulding up a Myth (was: Scientist of the Millennium?



Many of you will agree, I think, that Science is more
like a 'cooperative effect'. Looking for a 'Scientist
of the Millenium' seem to me like pointing out THE nucleation
point, which actually isn't unique, if it exists at all.

This may have the handicap to contribute to the idea
that Science is a group of genius (see 'the obvious ones');
that Relativity was invented 'nihil exo' by Einstein, just
thinking on Maxwell's equation; that Newton did find out
his mechanics and his gravitation just by straightfoward
thinking on the apple that knocked his head.

Altough he (Newton) may be the closest example of that kind
of Myth, his biography has too much of that component
of myth: someone who has read a reliable biography of Newton
can enlighten me? Is it clear if Euler and him, both invented
the derivative independetly? The same may be true for many
others.

Of course, he, the obvoius ones and many more are genius. But
this idea may have the effect of drive off many young students
from physcis and science in general, thinking one has to
be a genius for doing it ("so better I choose history where this
isn't required"). Even worse, this may contribute to the idea
physics (and perhaps, science in general) is not for women. Are
really the obvious ones just male? How much did Einstein's wife
contribute to the photoelectric effect for which, in part, he
earned the Nobel Prize? I have recently read about this, but
unfortunately I can't remember where. May be anyone out there?
This seems part of the myth of Einstein...

May be, the recent history of physcis will change this picture, or
is there, from the rise of QM to the current days, any 'genius'
clearly 'more 'genius' than anyother? We cannot adscribe QM
to only one physicist; neither QFT, nor SM,...can we?


No one knows exactly how we come across our ideas. We make many
associations before a concrete idea nucleates and takes form. Already
Poincare did write about that ("The scientific reasoning" of something
like that) saying something in this sense (I probably -sure- took
the idea from him): Every time he got "stalled" with a problem,
he did something completly different, just to avoid thinking
on it. Later, he would try to solve the problem once again. Many
times the solution came in a moment, but without an explicit
intervention from him.

Any one can remind me of that argument that there is a critical
'mass' of scientists to make science go on?

msantos@etse.urv.es

Plinio said: "There is no such a bad book that has no
profitable sentence"