[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 206 KB, 775x1523, 1356264025365.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6314772 No.6314772 [Reply] [Original]

Who is the greatest genius that ever lived?

Is it Albert Einstein?

>> No.6314793

>>6314772

>Wrong about the big bang
>Never accepted QM
>Believed in God

no

>> No.6314795

gauss in my opinion

>> No.6314800

>>6314795
>gauss
Like evolution?

>> No.6314803

>>6314793
>implying we know what happened
>implying QM is proven
>implying he didn't state his disbelief in god in one of his letters

>> No.6314808

>>6314793
- wrong about big bang
remains to be seen
- never accepted QM
not true, accepted QM but believes there is an absolute truth behind it which we can not pathom as yet.
- Believed in God
Science has yet to disprove God. In fact new scientific theories can be used to argue there MUST be a god. (don't expect an easy answer on this one.)

>> No.6314810

>>6314793
>Believed in God
lol. i bet you think Tesla built a free energy device too.

>> No.6314811

>>6314803
>implying we know what happened
We do.

>implying QM is proven
It is.

>implying he didn't state his disbelief in god in one of his letters
This one's true.

>> No.6314812

>>6314808

>but believes there is an absolute truth behind it which we can not pathom as yet.

>>6314803

>Implying QM is proven


It has been proven that there are no hidden variables, see the bell theorem. What is this 1940?

>> No.6314818

>>6314814
so everybody who uses the word God automatically believes in God?

do you even analogy? fucking retard.

>> No.6314814

>>6314810

>God does not play dice

His quote.

Ge stated his disbelief in God, but when he was confronted with an idea he had no explanation for he pulld the God card.

>> No.6314815

>>6314808
> Science has yet to disprove God

No, it doesn't.

>> No.6314817

>>6314812
>It has been proven that there are no hidden variables,

Haha lol
not even going to answer this one

>> No.6314819

>>6314815
Learn to read first

>> No.6314821

>>6314817
>lol guis, lets trough away locality, then we can make any magical theory we want!

>> No.6314822

>>6314817

You can lol all you fuckng want, it is universally accepted by the greatest minds on the planet and for the last 80 years.

Maybe you know better? Probably since you are anonymous.

I also forgot about Einsteins nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, which is also proven to be wrong.

>> No.6314825

>>6314821
> trough away

>> No.6314826

>>6314822
>I also forgot about Einsteins nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, which is also proven to be wrong.

Wait What??
Source?
Or are talking about sone hypothetical particle?

>> No.6314830

>>6314826

No

Quantum entanglement.

>> No.6314832

>>6314830
> implying anything actually travels in quantum entanglement

>> No.6314835

>>6314832

Information does. If an observer is placed at both ends of an entangled pair and one collapses his particle into an eigenstate, the other person will observe his particle collapse into an eigenstate which makes it like communucation, which happens almost instantly, far more faster than the speed of light.

>http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-entanglement-speed-10000-faster-light/26587/

>> No.6314837

>>6314835

two observers are placed*

>> No.6314839

New fag here, but maybe anon is thinking of tachyonic particles? That still doesn't prove Einstein wrong because c isn't a "speed limit" it is like an asymptote that takes infinite energy to cross.

As for greatest genius, probably Euler but Gauss is up there.

>> No.6314840

>>6314795
probably this

>> No.6314843

>>6314839

Einstein said nothing we can observe can travel faster than the speed of light, but we have observed it, experimentally confirmed.

Look at my post >>6314835

>> No.6314845

>>6314835
thats not how entanglement works. the other person doesn't "observe his particle collapse". that doesn't even mean anything.

>> No.6314847

>>6314840
>>6314795
why gauss?

what about john von neumann? people say he was the fastest mind of all

I really wonder what Einstein was like, if you could notice how intelligent he was if you talked to him or if he was able to solve equations ridiculously fast like neumann, just wondering what exactly made Einstein Einstein

just his 'crazy' ideas?

>> No.6314850

>>6314843
Nothing travels dumbo

there's a causality between the two but nothing travels

>> No.6314852

>>6314845

It does happen that way, simplified, just in order for the observation of the quantum particle to occur the person needs to measure it's polarization. Exactly what they did in the experiment.

>> No.6314851

>>6314839
tachyons dont mean something is traveling faster than light, it means there is an instability in the vacuum. a tachionic field will condense and the resulting particle will be slower than light (like the higgs particle)

>>6314843
1) entanglement doesnt send any information.
2) Einstein said nothing can accelerate from sub light to FTL, and that any FTL thing would violate causality.

>> No.6314854

>>6314850
>>6314851

But if the observer two measures the second particle and sees it's polarization he knows the state of the other particle. That is information traveling and it occured faster than the speed of light.

>> No.6314855

>>6314847
almost yes
in fact einstein had an incredible intuiton, but nothing more
in fact all the maths in his theory was made with lot of help from an italian (i dont remember the name)
im not saying einstein wasnt a genius, just not the biggest one

>> No.6314856

>>6314847

I think Einstein was more a creative mind than a genious, an inventor. I think those two differ.

>> No.6314858

>>6314854
No that is arguing about semantics
If one is x the other is X but
NOTHING travels

>> No.6314859

>>6314855
>with lot of help from an italian
was it Binomi?

>> No.6314860

>>6314852
the experiment is fine, the popsci level description is not.

>>6314854
thats not information traveling FTL, its the exact same as have 1 box with a rat, and one with a cat, mix them up and send the one far away, open your box and you see its a cat. now you instantly know the other one has a rat in it.

>> No.6314862

I think Einstein just had superior understanding to anybody else

maybe he wasn't as good a mathematician as others, but he simply saw through the blurry curtain and saw the world for what it really was

he just deciphered universe's secrets better than anybody else

>> No.6314864

>>6314860

It can be used so that communication occurs faster than the speed of light, and if communication occurs that means there was a transfer of information.

>> No.6314866

>>6314864
>It can be used so that communication occurs faster than the speed of light
no it cant. how do you propose we communicate FTL with it?

>> No.6314867

>>6314847
Because what did Von Neumann actually achieve?

His famous work in computer science is mostly attributable to Eckert and Mauchly
His work on the mathematical basis of Quantum Physics was basically paralled by Dirac.
He worked on the bomb, but only as a small part of a large team.
With the exception of one or two legitimately important contributions, he was mostly just making very minor advances in different fields.

If Von Neumann, why not also Erdos? Or Ramanujan?

>> No.6314870

Gauss
Newton
Archimedes
Euler
Euclid
Neumann

I know them too little to judge, but make your pick.

>> No.6314872

>>6314866

If you had a mechanism that is triggered by a defined state of a particle entangled with your particle, by measuring your particle it would trigger it. Wouldn't this be possible? The problem is the triggering mechanism, but it should be possible.

>> No.6314877

>>6314793
>Believed in God
>no

So what ? Science and belief in god are not mutually exclusive, since they do not answer the same question. Science aim to explain the 'how' where as spirituality / religion / whatever you name it aims to answer the 'why'

For instance, in the bible, you could replace "and god said 'let there be light" by "and god set up really tiny cords of energy with a specific set of rules regarding their interactions"

>> No.6314879
File: 32 KB, 250x250, 1347909283170.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6314879

>>6314870
>Euclid

we don't even know how much of the work is really his

>> No.6314885

>>6314872
not possible to have such a mechanism. (you can measure if it is in a definite state or not, but the measurement wont be able to determine if the other particle has been collapsed to a definite state. if person 1 measures his particle, and thus collapses it to a definite state, person 2 will still see his particle as a non-definite state until he measures it too, then it must be in a definite state because it was measured.

maybe it will help to know that entanglement is completely symmetrical, according to person 1, he measured the particle and person 2s particle collapsed to a particular state. but according to person 2, he measured the particle and person 1s particle collapsed after that. you can only know who was first when you get together again and tell each other when they did the measurements (and even then relativity means you cant be sure who was first in general).

>> No.6314888

>>6314811

>Citation needed

>Citation needed

>Citation needed

>> No.6314896
File: 1.93 MB, 235x240, 1339614729981.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6314896

>tfw you realise God exists

>> No.6314905

>>6314885

I realize that.

How about with an aparatus as in Bells theorem, with multiple pairs, and by measuring the probabilities at your end you can know that the other pairs have been tampered with?

>> No.6314909

>>6314896

It's funny but the existence of God really doesn't interfere with our understanding of the universe and it's creation. Considering that by God you think of the something that started the Big Bang as opossed to that it started from nothing.

God and science aren't mutually exclusive

>> No.6314918

>>6314909
>aren't mutually exclusive
Have you even actually read the bible?

>> No.6314920

>>6314918

Im not talking about the bible fedora

>> No.6314922

>>6314905
what will that help? person a cant change the results just because he measured it.

>> No.6314933

>>6314922

But he knows that the other person has affected the measurement.

>> No.6314937

>>6314933
but he hasnt. measuring the particle doesn't effect the state it collapses into.

>> No.6314965

>>6314909
>>6314896
>>6314877
I like you guys.

>> No.6314976

>>6314772
It depends on the area of study.

>> No.6314978

>>6314976
THE ONLY HONEST ANSWER THUS FAR

>> No.6315025

>>6314937
>effect

>> No.6315032

Einstein is overhyped, imo.

1st. Diraac and Schrödinger
2nd. Feynman
3rd. Lawrence
4rd. Landau
5th. Yukawa

>> No.6315038

>>6315032
just the finding of the photoeffect alone would be enough for him to be famous

>> No.6315040

>>6314772
He certainly wasn't the smartest man who ever lived, if that's what you mean by the question. But my personal favourite genius is Feynman. He's just my favourite kind of guy.
From the perspective of intellectual capacity, it's a bit of a tricky question. You could say that Da Vinci was the greatest genius that ever lived because he knew a huge proportion of what was known at that time. But obviously if you compare the depth of knowledge to a modern scientist like Einstein, Da Vinci falls short.

>> No.6315042

>>6314814
>I come home one day to my loving family.
>Wife, three kids, a fucking annoying dog.
>Wife is making lasagna.
>I Fucking love lasagna.
>Wife tastes lasagna while it's still hot.
>"God damn it!" She screams.
>My wife is an imbecile Spaghetti Monster worshiper.
>I kill my entire family in a berserker fury.
>The Theist and her spawn have been vanquished.

>> No.6315078
File: 19 KB, 250x383, 1351566235211.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6315078

Just a reminder that Feynman had an IQ 125, which is low on /sci/

>> No.6315086

>>6314808
>Science has yet to disprove God.
Science may prove God, not disprove. get your logic straight.

Also
>2014 Common Era
>Still clinging to old myths

>> No.6315090

>>6314808

>In fact new scientific theories can be used to argue there MUST be a god


[citation needed]

Or at least give a name for those theories.

>> No.6315117

>>6315078
is that jack nichelson?

>> No.6315124

>>6314772
Newton

>> No.6315123

>>6315117

That's Richard Feynmensen you pleb

>> No.6315127

>>6315078
If you think about it though Feynman wasn't enormously intelligent, he was just very good at a specific but unique way of thinking

>> No.6315152
File: 175 KB, 532x624, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6315152

Emanuel Swedenborg
>Magnificent literary works
>190 IQ

>> No.6315155

>>6314867
He improved godel's idea into the modern incompleteness theorems.

>> No.6315157

>>6314772
Nicola Tesla. Unique way of thinking, modelling experiments in his mind, invention of majority of modern electronic technologies and a bunch of stuff that hasn't been repeated to date.

>> No.6315167

Perelman