Michael Turner
Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:59:32 -0700
> Back on topic, I think that a lot of good ideas that deserve a good long > look never make it to the light of day because they are scuttled by > scientific scrutinity at too early a stage. It is always good to have > some solid science behind you but Einstein was treated no better than > Gold has been when he first proposed his theories. Only by > experimentation was Einsein given any creedence.
Actually, what initially gave Einstein credence was (a) that there were no better explanations at the time for his theories of Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect, and the odd results of Michaelson and Morley, and (b) in at least two his three trailblazing theories he published in 1905, he had the backing of reputable physicists. Millikan verified the quantum nature of the photoelectric effect within 12 years of Einstein's publication. Einstein's model of Brownian motion was almot immediately useful. Relativity took longer (Einstein did NOT get the Nobel for relativity), and if relativity had been Einstein's only ace card, he might have held onto it longer, even at the risk of someone else announcing first. In short, Einstein was a conservative in a field in a stagnation crisis, where there was much theory that didn't match observable reality, and in which something had to be done. And he produced his results in a fairly conservative manner, given the groundbreaking nature of the theories. Quantum theory is particularly interesting in its emergence - both Planck and Einstein agreed that they were looking at mathematical results that had only one merit: their new equations worked, the old equations didn't. They didn't have much else to present, so they presented that - duly noting their discomfort with the results. Within a decade, their queasy offering was well on its way to general acceptance. Physics had no choice. Thomas Gold has enjoyed a few endorsements, but not many, from the mainstream (and I don't know what those endorsers would say now); as well, he's up against theories that already explain an awful lot. > To make a long diatribe short, it's all theory until proof happens. The > catch becomes devising the experiments using sound scientific practice. That's to make a long diatribe too short. Proposing a theory when there are good alternative explanations is an entirely different game than proposing a theory when there are no other explanations. The state of physics in Einstein's early years favored revolutionary conservatism, because there was no other way forward. And Einstein didn't want to be a patent clerk the rest of his life - he wanted to move forward, and in the right way. -michael turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/