other poor
I think you've got it wrong. Einstein effectively wasted his old age in a misdirected search for the theory of everything precisely because he rejected the messy realities of the quantum world, where all you can predict are statistical expectations. Quantum electrodynamics isn't actually completely incomprehensible, but it is certainly full of counter-intuitive features.
------- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
real
Euler wins hands down. E = mc^2 only has to be true in this particular universe.
------- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Could be worse...just look at all the crap Tesla left us. People are still wandering around trying to make something useful out of his mess.
Albert did the easy bit : E = m*c^2
Just look at the horrible incomprehensible mess he bequeathed us other poor mortals to sort out . . . .
I read in sci.electronics.design that snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote (in ) about 'Albert Einstein', on Sun, 6 Feb 2005:
It is, if you really understand it. (;-)
==========================
"Probability and Statistics" is by far the most neglected subject in our infants, primary and secondary schools and universities. Six and seven-year olds are capable of grasping the essentials.
It is but another relatively simple branch away from arithmetic into Mathematics in general.
Yet it embraces ALL the clues to the Secrets of our Universe.
It can be assumed Einstein's statistical education suffered in his youth. If only Sir Ronald Fisher's head and his could have been brought together in Einstein's later life who knows what might have transpired.
As it was, Fisher, these days a little heard of genius, devoted his mathematical efforts to the more mundane subjects of medicine, disease, the weather, agriculture and food production, and genetics.
In his spare time he enjoyed himself, in his quiet way, by tearing to shreds the 'old-wive's tales' of traditional statisticians and gamblers.
In the meantime, the mysteries of the Universe remain unsolved. They never will be. Only an imaginary non-existent God knows the answers.
And I'm quite happy with that.
When I was taking classes I thought the worst thing about quantum mechanics was that it worked. That meant I had to learn it.
Eh? That would be SHOCKLEY, not Schottky.
Actually, Shockley may have been technically correct about racial differences, just not politically correct in his method of expression.
...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | |
NO!
It was Euler who did the easy bit telling us how the five primary mathematical constants [ j, pi, e, 0 and 1 ] are related.:
exp(jpi) + 1 = 0
By introducing the imaginary to the real and leaving the solution of real problems to the rest of us.
I wonder, which is more fundamental E = mc^2 or exp(jpi) + 1 = 0?
-- Pete
I read in sci.electronics.design that Peter O. Brackett wrote (in ) about 'Albert Einstein', on Sun, 6 Feb 2005:
.... might not be true in another universe;
.... is true irrespective of where you are.
e raised to the power of j * Pi = minus 1 is known as the Eutectic Point of Mathematics.
It introduces negative quantities.
The phrase was stolen from metallurgists.
"The profoundest of all infidelities is the fear that the truth will be bad!" -Herbert Spencer
...Jim Thompson
Oh dear. This is simply irrelevant, and does a major disservice to the dude. It don't look like you really understand the issues involved. Just saying, its "statistical" doesn't bring out what the fundamental problem
*is*.Suppose we knew *exactly* the position and momentum of a particle at time t0. QM says the new position and momentum cannot be known exactly. This means cause and effect has *failed*. This is *key*. It says that the particle could be in a new state for *no* reason whatsoever. This is what is hard to deal with. That things can happen with no cause. That is, there is no way to determine *why* a particle is in one position rather then another.
Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
Tsk! Tsk! You think I care ?:-) Although, the way things have been going, I might qualify for Haarvaahd ;-)
...Jim Thompson
Oh, my! You'll never be the president of a university! Tsk! tsk!
Hey Reg:
So then... who was the greatest, Euler or Einstein?
Me? I vote for Euler!
-- Pete
He also left us much that was very useful.
Schottky did a lot of the work on semiconductors but he was a flaming racist and left some nasty ideas behind.
Edison made a practical electric light but he had a recifier tube in his hand and missed the point. If he hadn't electronics would have been several years ahead.
Remember what they told us in driver's ed. You can be right and you can be dead-right! Shockley *was* a jerk, but that didn't mean he was all wrong either.
Of course in IL the _Rules_of_the_Road_ said that if someone took your right-of-way, let them have it! (the '!' was an editorial comment)
Heheh- you and the other eugenicists (Seim) ...
Yes, my error.
No.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required