Einstein Year

[scumdeeforever]

thumbs up, or yawn?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4148943.stm

[tintin]

As an [Associate] Member of the Institute of Physics I wholeheartedly support this initiative. It will raise the profile of Physics and Science in general, while making people realise exactly how much science affects their everyday lives.

[hr]http://www.livejournal.com/users/mat_salleh

[themushroomgod]

Clearly we'd be better off with a Mendelev year, as chemistry is the best science.

[hr]Ooh! A Monkey!

[Pan]

pfft. yeah right.... :p

[Atangaladhion]

I think a Srinivasa Aiyangar Ramanujan Year would be better, simply for the fun of watching News Presenters try and say it.

[RichZ]

[s]themushroomgod wrote on 15:47, 10th Jan 2005:
Clearly we'd be better off with a Mendelev year, as chemistry is the best science.

Errrr.....WHATEVER!!! But it's not Mendelev year is it, it's Einstein year cos Physics is the best science! So there! Next you'll be saying that an Arts "degree" is just as good as a Science one! Honestly - some people eh! Tut!

[themushroomgod]

Well excuse me if I'd rather be blowing something up than scribbling maths all day. Which brings to mind an excellent quote:

"Its only a science if it can take a creature, give it three extra legs then blow it up"

Thus we can prove that psycology and maths (and hence physics) are mere pseudosciences compared to the might of the chemist's science.

[hr]Ooh! A Monkey!

[Atangaladhion]

Maths certainly isn't a science. It's much better than that.

[scumdeeforever]

what difference does it make which is the "best" science?! this is one of the nerdiest arguments I have ever read i my life, its things like that that give science students a bad rep! grow up! i'm sure there are valid arguments to back up every science being "best", but seriously, all that matters is that you like yours!

and your argument isn't gonna effect the fact that its not Mendelev year, its not Srinivasa Aiyangar Ramanujan year, its not Freud year, its not Laplace year, its EINSTEIN year (or the year of physics). so grow the hell up, and wait for your turn.

its not like we need a Chemistry year, or a Biology year, or a Psychology year, because those are subjects that are still reasonably popular. The whole point of physics year is to get people, particularly school kids, interested in physics and maths again, because the schools aren't doin it. Never know though, next year it may be time for the year of Geology!

What exactly is goin on for said year anyway? Anyone heard anything?

[the-enemy]

how about a year of Paper Science! does anyone know which uni offers that as a degree?

[papercutheart]

Manchester Institute of Science and Technology?

[themushroomgod]

Physics is more popular than chmistry. It doesn't make you smell, and you get lots of money to study physics. Since the RSC went (semi) bust, chemist's dont get so much money any more. you also don't get those "dying science" press reports for physics, like you do for chemistry.

[hr]Ooh! A Monkey!

[JonCore]

In reply to the above post, Physics does often suffer from the "dying science" reports also, due to views on searches for theories of everything and studying the phenomena of emergence. See "Horgan, J., The End of Science, Addison-Wesley, 1996".

In answer to some fool's post about Mendeleev year, it's Mendeleev. He also did nothing of any note in 1905 and 1905 has no relevance to him. 2005 is Einstein year because it is the 100 year anniversary (centenary if you will) of his publishing of his 'Special Theory of Relativity', which changed the face of physics irrevokably. As such this is Physics' year to shine, and other sciences, be they pseudo-sciences or not, will no doubt have their own years, as centenaries of important discoveries, etc..

I do Physics: simultaneously the best and worst thing ever...

[themushroomgod]

Let's not forget that Einstein wasn't that great. He didn't believe in wave - particle duality, the Heisenbery Uncertinty princliple, and added a constant to his equations to conform them to a model of the universe he personally believed in. Not excactly what you'd call scientific.

[hr]Ooh! A Monkey!

[Dirac]

[s]themushroomgod wrote on 13:20, 20th Jan 2005:
Let's not forget that Einstein wasn't that great. He didn't believe in wave - particle duality, the Heisenbery Uncertinty princliple, and added a constant to his equations to conform them to a model of the universe he personally believed in. Not excactly what you'd call scientific.

[hr]Ooh! A Monkey!


Your argument is poor.
He did not reject quantum mechanics wholly, infact he played a vital role in its early emergence i.e. the photoelectric effect.
He did not like the way everything seemed to be based on probabilities, as he said "God doesn't play dice".
Secondly Einstein referred to the cosmological constant he introduced into his field equations as the greatest mistake he had ever made, yet now the inclusion of such a constant is considered as an important part of modern theoretical physics, i.e. Branes, M-theory etc.

Also what does this statement mean "Not exactly what you'd call scientific" ?
You say it as if he introduced it to be awkward?
So its not exactly scientific to do work based on what you percieve to be the case around you? How then do you expect science to evolve?

[Dirac]

[s]themushroomgod wrote on 13:20, 20th Jan 2005:
Let's not forget that Einstein wasn't that great.

[hr]Ooh! A Monkey!


No, you mean he was not perfect.

I think someone who enhanced our perception of reality as much as he did is indeed great.

Are you familiar with much of Einstein's work?