1  2  Next

The British scientist beats the German scientist.

The Times November 24, 2005

Newton trounces Einstein in vote on their relative merits
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent



HIS most famous equation, E=mc², is 100 years old, and 2005 has been named Einstein Year in his honour, but Albert Einstein has been trounced in a scientific beauty contest held to celebrate his own greatest achievements.

The most famous head of hair in science was soundly beaten by Sir Isaac Newton yesterday in a poll on the relative merits of their breakthroughs, with both scientists and the public favouring the Englishman by a surprisingly wide margin.

Asked by the Royal Society to decide which of the two made the more important contributions to science, 61.8 per cent of the public favoured the claims of the 17th-century scientist who developed calculus and the theory of gravity. Among 345 Royal Society scientists who voted, the margin of support for Newton was greater still, with 86.2 per cent deciding that his work was more important than Einstein’s. The vote was closer over who made a bigger positive contribution to humankind in general. Newton was again twice the winner, but with only 50.1 per cent of the public vote and 60.9 per cent of the specialists’.

The results of the online poll were revealed last night at a Royal Society debate on the two physicists’ claims to being the greatest of all. Sir Isaac was a elected a fellow of the society in 1672, while Einstein was voted a Foreign Member in 1921.

The poll was held as part of the celebrations of Einstein Year, which marks the German-born scientist’s annus mirabilis of 1905, when he published three papers that laid the foundation of modern physics.

Along with the special theory of relativity and its signature E=mc² equation, Einstein proved the existence of atoms and explained how light could have the properties of both waves and streams of particles.

Jim Al-Khalili, a professor at the University of Surrey, who proposed Einstein at the debate last night, said: “Within just a few months during 1905, Einstein published several papers that were to change the face of physics. He proved mathematically that atoms exist. He proved that light is lumpy. It is made up of tiny particles we now call photons and not continuous waves. He then published two papers on his theory of relativity, giving us a new view of reality itself.”

Einstein should also be favoured, he said, for finding the gaps in Sir Isaac’s theories. “He explained that Newton was wrong about the meaning of space and time,” Professor Al-Khalili said.

Sir John Enderby, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Bristol University and Vice-President of the Royal Society, argued Sir Isaac’s corner. He said that Principia, Sir Isaac’s great work, was a foundation stone of the modern scientific method.

Sir John said: “This book set out the mathematical principles of ‘natural philosophy’ and showed how a universal force, gravity, applied to all objects in all parts of the Universe.

“This amazing insight once and for all ruled out the belief that somehow laws related to Earth-bound objects were in some sense inferior to those which governed the heavens.”

Lord May of Oxford, the president of the Royal Society, said: “Many would say that comparing Newton and Einstein is like comparing apples and oranges, but what really matters is that people are appreciating the huge amount that both these physicists achieved, and that their impact on the world stretched far beyond the laboratory and the equation.”

THE RESULTS

Royal Society scientists

Newton 86.2%
Einstein 13.8%

Members of the public

Newton 61.8%
Einstein 38.2%



thetimesonline.co.uk

   

Well, i think that part of the reason is because Newtons stuff is practical now. There are currently few uses for Einstiens work where as nealry all engineering is based on Newtonian physics. But in 100 years, Einstien may well be seen as more important

   

another one of your "britain is better than the rest of the world" threads....

   

Theres nothing wrong with being patriotic, ans since neither one is Canadian what does it matter? And at the time of Newton, we were part of the Empire. In any event, GB reports news, he may be biased in what he reports, in this case the survey itself may have been conducted poorly. But the fact remains that in a survey people liked newton better than eisnstien (unless the story was faked of course).

   

Starting to look like great Briton could use a flamer medal as that's all he's doing is flaming.

I'll be back after my chinese food pig out to nominate you for the medal.

   

One of the great things about science is that the validity of good science is determined by neither vote nor popularity.

   

Newton is a past president of the Royal Society. This is likely to have skewed the results of the test.

Shame.

   

Hard to vote Einstein with this guy staring you down:

   

Particularly when you're trying to be his successor.

   

Error.

   

Could it also be that Newton's work encompassed his life time, whereas Einstein's major work was a relatively brief period, after which, he had no major publications?

   

Is he deserving of a flamer medal?

He may be a topic jedi but most of his topic's are all about how great the UK is and how bad the rest of the world is compared to the Uk.

I've rebutted a few of his posts but it seem's once his topics are posted he ignores them and focus's on posting more pro British/anti everyone else topics as fast as he can pull them off Guardian.

So I'm trying to be fare and asking for an opinion......should I nominate GB for a medal?

I know what those flamer medals do to a guy(Avro )so I hate to nominate someone who wasnt worthy of it or who couldnt handle the prestige that went along with it.

Flame or no?


Talk to me folks. I hate to nominate someone if it's wrong or I am.

   

Could be, except that isn't true.

Nor is it relevant to the value of their work.

   

Not if the comparison is based on scientific accomplishment... validity doesn't depend on the amount of sweat invested.

Einstein was only 26 when he released his first three papers (in 1905), and he was intimately involved in theoretical physics until his death in '55, though some say he was a little behind the front line by then...

   

If he does exactly what you describe, I don't see how's that's flaming.

It might be something else, but it isn't that.

   

1  2  Next