LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! OMFD! Do you even read anything beyond whatever confirms your delusions? Einstein was awarded the prize in 1921 while Bohr was awarded the prize in 1922 so where did you get this dumb idea they were awarded the same prize in the same year for opposing views?


When you give me 5 scientists saying what you say they said, I will produce evidence for 5 scientific laws. We can see the alacrity with which you answered this particular question because you obviously gleaned it from a poorly written website but you can't find anything to back up your other dumbass take. LMFAO!

Your foolishness makes you speak before thinking. I placed everything in there olodo!
Should I also be responsible for your scholarship?


“Einstein was actually awarded the 1921 prize a year late, due to a technicality.”

7. BOHR WON THE NOBEL PRIZE AT THE SAME TIME—AND IN THE SAME FIELD—AS ALBERT EINSTEIN.

Bohr and Einstein were not only contemporaries; they were good friends who partook in a series of conversations on physics over the course of decades, most notably at the 1927 Solvay Conferences now known as the Bohr–Einstein Debates. They argued two very different positions regarding the observations of electrons behaving as a particle in some experiments and a wave in others, even though an electron shouldn’t be able to be both. Bohr theorized the concept of complementarity to explain the phenomenon—that is, something can be two things at once, but we can only observe one of those things at a time. In establishing a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, Bohr argued that the act of observation of particles brings them into existence, which is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Einstein, on the other hand, argued that particles exist whether or not we actively observe them. (Imagine a very complex version of the “if a tree falls in the forest” question.) Even with their opposing theories, both were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922: Bohr for his atomic model, and Einstein for his work on the photoelectric effect (instead of his then-controversial theory of relativity). So how did the two physicists receive prizes for the same thing in the same year? Einstein was actually awarded the 1921 prize a year late, due to a technicality.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/544594/facts-about-physicist-niels-bohr

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! OMFD! Do you even read anything beyond whatever confirms your delusions? Einstein was awarded the prize in 1921 while Bohr was awarded the prize in 1922 so where did you get this dumb idea they were awarded the same prize in the same year for opposing views?


When you give me 5 scientists saying what you say they said, I will produce evidence for 5 scientific laws. We can see the alacrity with which you answered this particular question because you obviously gleaned it from a poorly written website but you can't find anything to back up your other dumbass take. LMFAO!

Stop acting like a kid. No point is scored for playing tomfoolery!


The 1927 conference on quantum mechanics was held to discuss how the many seemingly contradictory observations could be reconciled. Schrödinger and de Broglie showed up with their ideas. But the eight-hundred pound gorilla was Bohr. In what later came to be called the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohr proposed that wave equations described where entities like electrons could be, but, the entities didn't actually exist as particles until someone went looking for them. The act of observation caused existence. In Bohr's own words, the entities in question had no "independent reality in the ordinary physical sense."

Einstein wouldn't have any of it. An electron was an electron, and just because someone wasn't looking at it, it was still there — wherever "there" happened to be. Late in the conference, Einstein rose to challenge Bohr's views. But that was only the beginning. Until Einstein's death some three decades later, Bohr and Einstein entered into spirited debates — in print and face to face. The debates were gentlemanly. Bohr and Einstein were friends and had great respect for one another. But they were also stubborn.

"It is wrong to think the task of physics is to find out how nature is," said Bohr. Einstein disagreed. "What we call science," he said, "has the sole purpose of determining what is."

Through all its strangeness, Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation remains one of the most widely accepted worldviews of quantum mechanics.

Other common interpretations are seemingly even more bizarre. But they all point to one, simple fact. Our universe, as any physicist will tell you, is a mysterious place. It teases us with unimaginable facts then leaves us to make sense of them. Perhaps someday, we will. But until then, we'll just have to savor the great mysteries that surround us.

https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2627.htm

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! OMFD! Do you even read anything beyond whatever confirms your delusions? Einstein was awarded the prize in 1921 while Bohr was awarded the prize in 1922 so where did you get this dumb idea they were awarded the same prize in the same year for opposing views?


When you give me 5 scientists saying what you say they said, I will produce evidence for 5 scientific laws. We can see the alacrity with which you answered this particular question because you obviously gleaned it from a poorly written website but you can't find anything to back up your other dumbass take. LMFAO!

“Does this mean classical mechanics is wrong? Certainly not; it means that classical mechanics is valid only within certain limits, and those limits happen to encompass everything we experience in our daily lives”

“These and other problems led to the defining development of twentieth-century physics: quantum mechanics. The great problem prior to quantum mechanics was that matter and light had been treated as fundamentally different phenomena: matter was interpreted as classical particles, while light was treated as waves. In quantum mechanics, this distinction is blurred: matter and light each exhibit characteristics of particles and waves. This concept does not exist within the limits of classical “



“Quantum mechanics emerged at the start of the twentieth century, and it was a concept that instigated a radical change in our understanding of the universe. As with any profound concept, its implications rippled from hard science into broader PHILOSOPHICAL issues.”

“The essential lesson of the Bohr-Einstein debate is that science, however rigorous and dispassionate, remains a thoroughly human process.

Some scientists are deeply religious, while others are atheists—just as might be found in any other profession or culture. Some scientists are conservative, while some are liberal. Although scientists are trained to judge evidence objectively, it is all too easy for these and other personal beliefs, or the career-long development of a given idea, to affect a neutral, objective evaluation of the da ta.

This is not to say that Einstein was religious and Bohr was not; that would be a gross oversimplification. The split between Einstein and Bohr centered on profound philosophical differences, and because they were two of the most brilliant minds of the twentieth century, they were each able to construct detailed arguments supporting their points of view. The debate was also respectful and civil; given Einstein and Bohr's respective achievements, there was no need for acrimony. Their debates about the nature of the atom and, by extension, of the underlying structure of the universe, remain one of the essential examples of rigorous testing and cross-examination of a new and controversial idea.”

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/science-magazines/historic-dispute-his-classic-debate-albert-einstein-was-niels-bohr-correct-his-approach-interpreting

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! OMFD! Do you even read anything beyond whatever confirms your delusions? Einstein was awarded the prize in 1921 while Bohr was awarded the prize in 1922 so where did you get this dumb idea they were awarded the same prize in the same year for opposing views?


When you give me 5 scientists saying what you say they said, I will produce evidence for 5 scientific laws. We can see the alacrity with which you answered this particular question because you obviously gleaned it from a poorly written website but you can't find anything to back up your other dumbass take. LMFAO!

“Bohr disliked it because it made the choice of mathematical solution ARBITRARY. Bohr did not like a scientist having to CHOOSE BETWEEN EQUATIONS . This was perhaps the first real Bohr-Einstein debate. ... However, Einstein was right and Bohr proved to be wrong about light quanta.”

This is no hard-science. These are philosophical personal decisions on WHAT TO CHOOSE OUT OF POSSIBLE OUTCOMES.

LordReed:


Bwahahahahaha! OMFD! Do you even read anything beyond whatever confirms your delusions? Einstein was awarded the prize in 1921 while Bohr was awarded the prize in 1922 so where did you get this dumb idea they were awarded the same prize in the same year for opposing views?


When you give me 5 scientists saying what you say they said, I will produce evidence for 5 scientific laws. We can see the alacrity with which you answered this particular question because you obviously gleaned it from a poorly written website but you can't find anything to back up your other dumbass take. LMFAO!

Characteristics of the nature of science

“Science education has defined tenets (characteristics) of the nature of science that are understandable by students and important for all citizens to know. William McComas and Joanne Olson analysed recent science education curriculum documents worldwide and identified 14 statements about the nature of science that are common to most curricula:

Science is an attempt to explain natural phenomena.
People from all cultures contribute to science.
Scientific knowledge, while durable, has a tentative character.
Scientific knowledge relies heavily, but not entirely, on observation, experimental evidence, rational arguments and scepticism.
There is no one way to do science – therefore, there is no universal step-by-step scientific method
New knowledge must be reported clearly and openly.
Scientists require accurate record-keeping, peer review and reproducibility.
Observations are theory laden.
Scientists are creative.
Over the centuries, science builds in both an evolutionary and a revolutionary way.
Science is part of social and cultural traditions.
Science and technology impact each other.
Scientific ideas are affected by the social and historical setting.
Laws and theories serve different roles in science – therefore, students should note that theories do not become laws even with additional evidence.
Simpler still

Some researchers have refined this list to the following five tenets:

Scientific knowledge is tentative (subject to change).
Science is empirically based (based on or derived from observation of the natural world).
Science is inferential, imaginative and creative.
Science is subjective and theory laden.
Science is socially and culturally embedded.

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/412-describing-the-nature-of-science

Nothingserious:


Pls follow the discussion.

I asked whether there are any scientific proofs for all our scientific laws? There are none. We work on the ASSUMPTIONS that they are valid. That’s all. That’s not empirical. If you have any contrary to what I said, present them.
You know what empirical data is when it comes to scientific observations, theories and laws.

Would you like to talk about the reasons strict empirical data change and lead to arbitrary decisions like in the case of Nuel Borh and Einstein? And then later Heinsberg and Junior Bohr. Everyone is using empirical data that should strictly provide a standard non-varying data yet all had varying opinions. Some of these opinions are yet to be agreed in on quantum physics, matter-energy-duality debates.

What is valid to you

Nothingserious:


Your foolishness makes you speak before thinking. I placed everything in there olodo!
Should I also be responsible for your scholarship?


“Einstein was actually awarded the 1921 prize a year late, due to a technicality.”

7. BOHR WON THE NOBEL PRIZE AT THE SAME TIME—AND IN THE SAME FIELD—AS ALBERT EINSTEIN.

Bohr and Einstein were not only contemporaries; they were good friends who partook in a series of conversations on physics over the course of decades, most notably at the 1927 Solvay Conferences now known as the Bohr–Einstein Debates. They argued two very different positions regarding the observations of electrons behaving as a particle in some experiments and a wave in others, even though an electron shouldn’t be able to be both. Bohr theorized the concept of complementarity to explain the phenomenon—that is, something can be two things at once, but we can only observe one of those things at a time. In establishing a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, Bohr argued that the act of observation of particles brings them into existence, which is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Einstein, on the other hand, argued that particles exist whether or not we actively observe them. (Imagine a very complex version of the “if a tree falls in the forest” question.) Even with their opposing theories, both were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922: Bohr for his atomic model, and Einstein for his work on the photoelectric effect (instead of his then-controversial theory of relativity). So how did the two physicists receive prizes for the same thing in the same year? Einstein was actually awarded the 1921 prize a year late, due to a technicality.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/544594/facts-about-physicist-niels-bohr

The dummy here is you. Einstein was awarded the 1921 prize while Bohr was awarded the 1922 prize, your dumb head is now conflating the fact that Einstein was awarded his own prize a year late to mean they were awarded the same prize the same year. Or don't you know that up 3 people can win the same Nobel prize in the same year which is clearly not what happened here. Your delusion factory of a brain will also not let you process the fact the the reasons they were even awarded the prizes were not in conflict, their disagreements lay outside of the reasons why they were awarded the prizes. Einstein was awarded his "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" while Bohr's was "for his services in the investigation of the structure of atoms and of the radiation emanating from them" neither of which countermands the other, unless you don't understand English. Their disagreements was whether Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which centered on his belief of complementarity, was valid in explaining nature. Bohr's arguments eventually won out and became the the foundation for the modern understanding of quantum mechanics but in no way invalidated Einstein's work on photoelectric effect. Your delusion factory of a brain needs to tune up some more to properly process simple facts. Oh yeah you gleaned it from a badly written Web article, figures.

Nothingserious:



Characteristics of the nature of science

“Science education has defined tenets (characteristics) of the nature of science that are understandable by students and important for all citizens to know. William McComas and Joanne Olson analysed recent science education curriculum documents worldwide and identified 14 statements about the nature of science that are common to most curricula:

Science is an attempt to explain natural phenomena.
People from all cultures contribute to science.
Scientific knowledge, while durable, has a tentative character.
Scientific knowledge relies heavily, but not entirely, on observation, experimental evidence, rational arguments and scepticism.
There is no one way to do science – therefore, there is no universal step-by-step scientific method
New knowledge must be reported clearly and openly.
Scientists require accurate record-keeping, peer review and reproducibility.
Observations are theory laden.
Scientists are creative.
Over the centuries, science builds in both an evolutionary and a revolutionary way.
Science is part of social and cultural traditions.
Science and technology impact each other.
Scientific ideas are affected by the social and historical setting.
Laws and theories serve different roles in science – therefore, students should note that theories do not become laws even with additional evidence.
Simpler still

Some researchers have refined this list to the following five tenets:

Scientific knowledge is tentative (subject to change).
Science is empirically based (based on or derived from observation of the natural world).
Science is inferential, imaginative and creative.
Science is subjective and theory laden.
Science is socially and culturally embedded.

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/412-describing-the-nature-of-science

Delusion factory at work. How is this now science has no proofs of scientific laws?

Still waiting for those 5 scientists though.

Nothingserious:



“Bohr disliked it because it made the choice of mathematical solution ARBITRARY. Bohr did not like a scientist having to CHOOSE BETWEEN EQUATIONS . This was perhaps the first real Bohr-Einstein debate. ... However, Einstein was right and Bohr proved to be wrong about light quanta.”

This is no hard-science. These are philosophical personal decisions on WHAT TO CHOOSE OUT OF POSSIBLE OUTCOMES.

You obviously have no idea how science works. You probably think it's like your popes or pastors coming to tell us what your god said that should be taken on faith.

Nothingserious:



“Does this mean classical mechanics is wrong? Certainly not; it means that classical mechanics is valid only within certain limits, and those limits happen to encompass everything we experience in our daily lives”

“These and other problems led to the defining development of twentieth-century physics: quantum mechanics. The great problem prior to quantum mechanics was that matter and light had been treated as fundamentally different phenomena: matter was interpreted as classical particles, while light was treated as waves. In quantum mechanics, this distinction is blurred: matter and light each exhibit characteristics of particles and waves. This concept does not exist within the limits of classical “



“Quantum mechanics emerged at the start of the twentieth century, and it was a concept that instigated a radical change in our understanding of the universe. As with any profound concept, its implications rippled from hard science into broader PHILOSOPHICAL issues.”

“The essential lesson of the Bohr-Einstein debate is that science, however rigorous and dispassionate, remains a thoroughly human process.

Some scientists are deeply religious, while others are atheists—just as might be found in any other profession or culture. Some scientists are conservative, while some are liberal. Although scientists are trained to judge evidence objectively, it is all too easy for these and other personal beliefs, or the career-long development of a given idea, to affect a neutral, objective evaluation of the da ta.

This is not to say that Einstein was religious and Bohr was not; that would be a gross oversimplification. The split between Einstein and Bohr centered on profound philosophical differences, and because they were two of the most brilliant minds of the twentieth century, they were each able to construct detailed arguments supporting their points of view. The debate was also respectful and civil; given Einstein and Bohr's respective achievements, there was no need for acrimony. Their debates about the nature of the atom and, by extension, of the underlying structure of the universe, remain one of the essential examples of rigorous testing and cross-examination of a new and controversial idea.”

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/science-magazines/historic-dispute-his-classic-debate-albert-einstein-was-niels-bohr-correct-his-approach-interpreting

Let this sink into that delusion factory of yours maybe you'll better understand what is going on. Budaatum, truly the letter killeth, he quoted and still could not grasp the implications of what he was quoting.

Nothingserious:


Stop acting like a kid. No point is scored for playing tomfoolery!


The 1927 conference on quantum mechanics was held to discuss how the many seemingly contradictory observations could be reconciled. Schrödinger and de Broglie showed up with their ideas. But the eight-hundred pound gorilla was Bohr. In what later came to be called the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohr proposed that wave equations described where entities like electrons could be, but, the entities didn't actually exist as particles until someone went looking for them. The act of observation caused existence. In Bohr's own words, the entities in question had no "independent reality in the ordinary physical sense."

Einstein wouldn't have any of it. An electron was an electron, and just because someone wasn't looking at it, it was still there — wherever "there" happened to be. Late in the conference, Einstein rose to challenge Bohr's views. But that was only the beginning. Until Einstein's death some three decades later, Bohr and Einstein entered into spirited debates — in print and face to face. The debates were gentlemanly. Bohr and Einstein were friends and had great respect for one another. But they were also stubborn.

"It is wrong to think the task of physics is to find out how nature is," said Bohr. Einstein disagreed. "What we call science," he said, "has the sole purpose of determining what is."

Through all its strangeness, Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation remains one of the most widely accepted worldviews of quantum mechanics.

Other common interpretations are seemingly even more bizarre. But they all point to one, simple fact. Our universe, as any physicist will tell you, is a mysterious place. It teases us with unimaginable facts then leaves us to make sense of them. Perhaps someday, we will. But until then, we'll just have to savor the great mysteries that surround us.

https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2627.htm

Dummy what has a the 1927 conference got to do with the 1921 and 1922 Nobel prizes for physics?

LordReed:


Let this sink into that delusion factory of yours maybe you'll better understand what is going on. Budaatum, truly the letter killeth, he quoted and still could not grasp the implications of what he was quoting.

These things are beyond you. You read your things upside down.
Please let reasonable humans look at the objectivity of scientific methods and the influence of personal preferences and philosophy in choice from possible outcomes.

A fool like you shouldn’t be disgracing himself online always. Again I am not responsible for your scholarship.

LordReed:


Dummy what has a the 1927 conference got to do with the 1921 and 1922 Nobel prizes for physics?

This foolish boy is misbehaving online.
Did you really understand what we have been discussing?
Strict empiricism in scientific data and influence of subjective decisions from possible outcomes.
It’s all written all over my posts but I don’t expect a narcissist kid like you to follow and grasp.

Keep clutching at straws and strawmanning yourself.

It pained you so much that I challenged you to show a single scientific law with scientific proof.
You have wasted many days dancing around 5 scientists even after I said ALL scientists know.

I had thought you would have dropped various links here showing I was wrong. I had also thought you would have shared statements made by your own scientists on it. Why is it so hard for you? I tell you that the book in your hand isn’t a book. Instead of you showing me it’s a book, you are asking me to bring 5 people who also said it’s not a book. Why won’t you show me why it’s a book? Or call your witnesses to help you think I may be crazy?

You are a disillusioned proud fool.

Crystyano:



What is valid to you

What I have posted shows there are no strict empiricism in scientific decisions.
Sometimes human factors and philosophical considerations come in the way and add subjectivity to it.

True or false?

Nothingserious:


These things are beyond you. You read your things upside down.
Please let reasonable humans look at the objectivity of scientific methods and the influence of personal preferences and philosophy in choice from possible outcomes.

A fool like you shouldn’t be disgracing himself online always. Again I am not responsible for your scholarship.

LoL look at this dunderhead. You claimed there is no scientific proof for scientific laws, you claimed that 2 scientists were award prizes for opposing views in the same year but you've been shown to be nothing but a loquacious fraud with little to no understanding of the material you looking at with your own eyes so now instead you shift the goalpost. Fuckarse. LMFAO!

LordReed:


LoL look at this dunderhead. You claimed there is no scientific proof for scientific laws, you claimed that 2 scientists were award prizes for opposing views in the same year but you've been shown to be nothing but a loquacious fraud with little to no understanding of the material you looking at with your own eyes so now instead you shift the goalpost. Fuckarse. LMFAO!

I am just amazed at your tomfoolery!
You didn’t read those things right?
Na waoooo

Nothingserious:


This foolish boy is misbehaving online.
Did you really understand what we have been discussing?
Strict empiricism in scientific data and influence of subjective decisions from possible outcomes.
It’s all written all over my posts but I don’t expect a narcissist kid like you to follow and grasp.

Keep clutching at straws and strawmanning yourself.

It pained you so much that I challenged you to show a single scientific law with scientific proof.
You have wasted many days dancing around 5 scientists even after I said ALL scientists know.

I had thought you would have dropped various links here showing I was wrong. I had also thought you would have shared statements made by your own scientists on it. Why is it so hard for you? I tell you that the book in your hand isn’t a book. Instead of you showing me it’s a book, you are asking me to bring 5 people who also said it’s not a book. Why won’t you show me why it’s a book? Or call your witnesses to help you think I may be crazy?

You are a disillusioned proud fool.

Bwahahahahaha! Fucktàrd I will drop them when you meet the conditions of my challenge to you and your sky daddy.

Nothingserious:


I am just amazed at your tomfoolery!
You didn’t read those things right?
Na waoooo

Fucktàrd you're a loquacious fraud, your pathetic schemes won't help you.

Nothingserious:


What I have posted shows there are no strict empiricism in scientific decisions.
Sometimes human factors and philosophical considerations come in the way and add subjectivity to it.

True or false?

Where can you find strict empiricism?



I can't say whether it's true or false unless you state where YOU can find strict empiricism....


When you state where,
I will assess....


If my assessment is pointless to you,
Then we shall remain divided on a specific case......

Crystyano:



Where can you find strict empiricism?



I can't say whether it's true or false unless you state where YOU can find strict empiricism....


When you state where,
I will assess....


If my assessment is pointless to you,
Then we shall remain divided on a specific case......

Is science done by strict empiricism?
Or are they levels of subjectivity is deciding and outcome from various outcomes?

LordReed:


The dummy here is you. Einstein was awarded the 1921 prize while Bohr was awarded the 1922 prize, your dumb head is now conflating the fact that Einstein was awarded his own prize a year late to mean they were awarded the same prize the same year. Or don't you know that up 3 people can win the same Nobel prize in the same year which is clearly not what happened here. Your delusion factory of a brain will also not let you process the fact the the reasons they were even awarded the prizes were not in conflict, their disagreements lay outside of the reasons why they were awarded the prizes. Einstein was awarded his "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" while Bohr's was "for his services in the investigation of the structure of atoms and of the radiation emanating from them" neither of which countermands the other, unless you don't understand English. Their disagreements was whether Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which centered on his belief of complementarity, was valid in explaining nature. Bohr's arguments eventually won out and became the the foundation for the modern understanding of quantum mechanics but in no way invalidated Einstein's work on photoelectric effect. Your delusion factory of a brain needs to tune up some more to properly process simple facts. Oh yeah you gleaned it from a badly written Web article, figures.

How can something without a scientific proof be a scientific law in the first place?

Something isn't right somewhere......

LordReed:


Fucktàrd you're a loquacious fraud, your pathetic schemes won't help you.

I will continue to torment you with facts while you played around with mockery!

Why Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity

Nobel prizes often attract controversy, but usually after they have been awarded. Albert Einstein's physics prize was the subject of argument for years before it was even a reality

There was a lot riding on Einstein winning a Nobel prize. Beyond his academic reputation, and that of the Nobel Institute for recognising greatness, the wellbeing of his former wife and their two sons depended upon it.

In the aftermath of the first world war, defeated Germany was being consumed by hyper-inflation. The government was printing more money to pay the war reparations and, as a result, the mark went into freefall against foreign currencies. Living in Berlin, Einstein was naturally affected by the crisis.

He had divorced Mileva in 1919, several years after she had returned to Switzerland with the boys, Hans-Albert and Eduard. As part of the settlement, Einstein pledged any eventual Nobel prize money to her for their upkeep. As the hyper-inflation bit ever deeper, so he needed that cash.

By this time, Einstein had a decade's worth of Nobel nominations behind him. Yet each year, to mounting criticism, the committee decided against his work on the grounds that relativity was unproven. In 1919, that changed. Cambridge astrophysicist Arthur Eddington famously used a total eclipse to measure the deflection of stars' positions near the Sun. The size of the deflection was exactly as Einstein had predicted from relativity in 1915. The prize should have been his, but the committee snubbed him again.

Why? Because now dark forces were at work.

Antisemitism was on the rise in Germany; Jews were being scapegoated for the country's defeat in the war. As both Jew and pacifist, Einstein was an obvious target. The complexity of relativity did not help either. Opponents such as Ernst Gehrcke and Philipp Lenard found it easy to cast doubt upon its labyrinthine mathematics.

The situation reached crisis point in 1921 when, paralysed by indecision, the Nobel Committee decided it was better not to award a prize at all than to give it to relativity. The arguments raged for another year until a compromise was reached.

At the suggestion of Carl Wilhelm Oseen, Einstein would receive the deferred 1921 prize, but not for relativity. He would be given it for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, a phenomenon in which electrons are emitted from a metal sheet only under certain illuminations. The work had been published back in 1905.

It has been argued that this work, which introduced the concept of photons, has had more impact than relativity. I'm not sure. With relativity, Einstein gave us a way to understand the Universe as a whole. It was a staggering leap forward in our intellectual capability.

The Nobel citation reads that Einstein is honoured for "services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". At first glance, the reference to theoretical physics could have been a back door through which the committee acknowledged relativity. However, there was a caveat stating that the award was presented "without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future".

To many, and to Einstein himself, this felt like a slap in the face. Hadn't Eddington proved the theory? Yes, but the trouble was Eddington's observations had not been perfect and he had discarded data he considered poor from his final analysis. To some, as related in Jeffrey Crelinsten's Einstein's Jury, this smacked of cooking the books in Einstein's favour. In reality it was just good scientific practice.

There is also another way to read the Nobel caveat. Could it have been that the committee was leaving the door open for a second Nobel prize in the future, once relativity had been more rigorously tested? We will never know. As Einstein's fame spread, so he alienated himself from the physics community by refusing to accept quantum theory. A Nobel prize for relativity was never awarded.

The final twist in this story is that Einstein did not attend his prize giving. Despite being informed that he was about to receive the prize, he chose to continue with a lecture tour of Japan. Partly, this was because he no longer valued the prize and partly it was because he needed to disappear.

German foreign minister Walther Rathenau had been murdered by anti-Semites. In the subsequent investigation, the police had found Einstein's name on a list of targets. In the face of such a death treat, leaving Germany to spend months in the Far East, rather than a few days in Stockholm, must have seemed prudent.

In the end, perhaps the best thing that came out of Einstein's Nobel prize was the money. It went towards keeping Mileva and the boys secure, and became essential when Eduard developed schizophrenia as a young adult and needed to be hospitalised.

The 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded on Tuesday. This week's prize schedule is here. You can watch each announcement live in the viewer below.

Stuart Clark is the author of forthcoming Einstein novel, The Day Without Yesterday (Polygon)

https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2012/oct/08/einstein-nobel-prize-relativity

Nothingserious:


Is science done by strict empiricism?
Or are they levels of subjectivity is deciding and outcome from various outcomes?

I can't say yes or no until you give me examples of your strict empiricism.....

Crystyano:



I can't say yes or no until you give me examples of your strict empiricism.....

Lol!

Keep playing games.
I already suggested you read just read the flow of ideas before now. You will be able to understand what we are discussing.

Your guys claim science is strictly empirical as against religion and philosophy that has elements of subjectivity.

I have dropped so many facts indicating human elements, philosophy, worldview and some elements of subjectivity are involved in sciences.

I also pointed out that even scientific laws have not been scientifically proven but are assumed to be valid. That’s not empirical but we know them to be true.

Is this okay with you now?

Crystyano:



How can something without a scientific proof be a scientific law in the first place?

Something isn't right somewhere......

Are you minding the dolt.

Nothingserious:


I will continue to torment you with facts while you played around with mockery!

Why Einstein never received a Nobel prize for relativity

Nobel prizes often attract controversy, but usually after they have been awarded. Albert Einstein's physics prize was the subject of argument for years before it was even a reality

There was a lot riding on Einstein winning a Nobel prize. Beyond his academic reputation, and that of the Nobel Institute for recognising greatness, the wellbeing of his former wife and their two sons depended upon it.

In the aftermath of the first world war, defeated Germany was being consumed by hyper-inflation. The government was printing more money to pay the war reparations and, as a result, the mark went into freefall against foreign currencies. Living in Berlin, Einstein was naturally affected by the crisis.

He had divorced Mileva in 1919, several years after she had returned to Switzerland with the boys, Hans-Albert and Eduard. As part of the settlement, Einstein pledged any eventual Nobel prize money to her for their upkeep. As the hyper-inflation bit ever deeper, so he needed that cash.

By this time, Einstein had a decade's worth of Nobel nominations behind him. Yet each year, to mounting criticism, the committee decided against his work on the grounds that relativity was unproven. In 1919, that changed. Cambridge astrophysicist Arthur Eddington famously used a total eclipse to measure the deflection of stars' positions near the Sun. The size of the deflection was exactly as Einstein had predicted from relativity in 1915. The prize should have been his, but the committee snubbed him again.

Why? Because now dark forces were at work.

Antisemitism was on the rise in Germany; Jews were being scapegoated for the country's defeat in the war. As both Jew and pacifist, Einstein was an obvious target. The complexity of relativity did not help either. Opponents such as Ernst Gehrcke and Philipp Lenard found it easy to cast doubt upon its labyrinthine mathematics.

The situation reached crisis point in 1921 when, paralysed by indecision, the Nobel Committee decided it was better not to award a prize at all than to give it to relativity. The arguments raged for another year until a compromise was reached.

At the suggestion of Carl Wilhelm Oseen, Einstein would receive the deferred 1921 prize, but not for relativity. He would be given it for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, a phenomenon in which electrons are emitted from a metal sheet only under certain illuminations. The work had been published back in 1905.

It has been argued that this work, which introduced the concept of photons, has had more impact than relativity. I'm not sure. With relativity, Einstein gave us a way to understand the Universe as a whole. It was a staggering leap forward in our intellectual capability.

The Nobel citation reads that Einstein is honoured for "services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". At first glance, the reference to theoretical physics could have been a back door through which the committee acknowledged relativity. However, there was a caveat stating that the award was presented "without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future".

To many, and to Einstein himself, this felt like a slap in the face. Hadn't Eddington proved the theory? Yes, but the trouble was Eddington's observations had not been perfect and he had discarded data he considered poor from his final analysis. To some, as related in Jeffrey Crelinsten's Einstein's Jury, this smacked of cooking the books in Einstein's favour. In reality it was just good scientific practice.

There is also another way to read the Nobel caveat. Could it have been that the committee was leaving the door open for a second Nobel prize in the future, once relativity had been more rigorously tested? We will never know. As Einstein's fame spread, so he alienated himself from the physics community by refusing to accept quantum theory. A Nobel prize for relativity was never awarded.

The final twist in this story is that Einstein did not attend his prize giving. Despite being informed that he was about to receive the prize, he chose to continue with a lecture tour of Japan. Partly, this was because he no longer valued the prize and partly it was because he needed to disappear.

German foreign minister Walther Rathenau had been murdered by anti-Semites. In the subsequent investigation, the police had found Einstein's name on a list of targets. In the face of such a death treat, leaving Germany to spend months in the Far East, rather than a few days in Stockholm, must have seemed prudent.

In the end, perhaps the best thing that came out of Einstein's Nobel prize was the money. It went towards keeping Mileva and the boys secure, and became essential when Eduard developed schizophrenia as a young adult and needed to be hospitalised.

The 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded on Tuesday. This week's prize schedule is here. You can watch each announcement live in the viewer below.
[b][/b]-
Stuart Clark is the author of forthcoming Einstein novel, The Day Without Yesterday (Polygon)

https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2012/oct/08/einstein-nobel-prize-relativity

You're a bumbling loquacious fuckwit. What has this got to do with the discussion?

Nothingserious:


Your guys claim science is strictly empirical as against religion and philosophy that has elements of subjectivity.

Produce where such a claim was made by me.

Nothingserious:


I will continue to torment you with facts while you played around with mockery!

Facts that don't support your assertion that all scientists say there is no proof of scientific law. Even the article you quoted stated that Einstein's General Relativity had been proved by Haddington but your fuckwit brain didn't see that. What a dunce.

Meanwhile, you have mentioned Einstein, Bohr and other scientists several times but are yet to show a single place where any of them said anything about science not having proof of scientific laws. You are such a fuckwit.

Nothingserious:

I asked whether there are any scientific proofs for all our scientific laws? There are none. We work on the ASSUMPTIONS that they are valid.

Sorry, Nothing, but you really don't know what you talk about.

Go through the thread and read Workch on the scientific method. It might help you understand science does not work with "untested and unverified ASSUMPTIONS" as you claim.

In fact, rigorous testing and verification needs to occur before other scientists accept anyone's scientific claims, and only after so doing are they accepted as laws with which actual physical things are built.

You wouldn't get very far building a simple phone on "untested and unverified ASSUMPTIONS", and if you built a house on "untested and unverified ASSUMPTIONS", the rain will fall and the floods will come and the winds will blow and beat on your house and it will indeed fall because you had founded it on sand!

LordReed:


Produce where such a claim was made by me.

So you concede there are elements and levels of subjectivity in scientific researches, outcomes and final decisions?

budaatum:


Sorry, Nothing, but you really don't know what you talk about.

Go through the thread and read Workch on the scientific method. It might help you understand science does not work with "untested and unverified ASSUMPTIONS" as you claim.

In fact, rigorous testing and verification needs to occur before other scientists accept anyone's scientific claims, and only after so doing are they accepted as laws with which actual physical things are built.

You wouldn't get very far building a simple phone on "untested and unverified ASSUMPTIONS", and if you built a house on "untested and unverified ASSUMPTIONS", the rain will fall and the floods will come and the winds will blow and beat on your house and it will indeed fall because you had founded it on sand!

Totally off point.

Are sciences done on strict empiricism and objectivity or are there elements of subjectivity in decisions on outcomes?

LordReed:


Facts that don't support your assertion that all scientists say there is no proof of scientific law. Even the article you quoted stated that Einstein's General Relativity had been proved by Haddington but your fuckwit brain didn't see that. What a dunce.

Meanwhile, you have mentioned Einstein, Bohr and other scientists several times but are yet to show a single place where any of them said anything about science not having proof of scientific laws. You are such a fuckwit.

You have just been cursing up and down but failed repeatedly to make any sense.

You failed to take up the challenge on scientific proof for scientific laws but kept lazily asking for 5 scientists. Should it be hard for you to simply point out a single scientific law that has been scientifically tested?