Comment by peterwwillis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by peterwwillis | Hacker News Reader

"Der Urquell aller technischen Errungenschaften ist die göttliche Neugier und der Spieltrieb des bastelnden und grübelnden Forschers und nicht minder die konstruktive Phantasie des technischen Erfinders"

- Albert Einstein

https://www.ige.ch/en/about-us/einstein/einstein-at-the-pate...

"He was denied any teaching position from just about every major University in Europe. This was mostly based on the fact that Albert approached Physics as a "New age day dreamer" (e.g.: thought experiments) rather than primarily from mathematical models or experimental insights. One way he dealt with the rejections was through a discussion group he formed with other workers at the Patent office that he self-mockingly named "The Olympia Academy", which met regularly to discuss science and philosophy. They studied the works of Henri Poincaré, Ernst Mach, and David Hume, which influenced his scientific and philosophical outlook."

https://www.quora.com/How-many-patents-did-Albert-Einstein-h...

> This was mostly based on the fact that Albert approached Physics as a "New age day dreamer" (e.g.: thought experiments) rather than primarily from mathematical models or experimental insights.

Remains true today. Certainly no paper consisting only of a thought experiment could get published in a top journal. Many self-described physicists have told me that thought experiments have zero scientific value. Brian Greene who wrote The Elegant Universe says he thinks Einstein's original papers would've been round-filed if submitted today. (And they weren't just thought experiments.) I suspect we know about Einstein today only because of the open-mindedness of Max Planck, who was Einstein's original reviewer.

> Brian Greene who wrote The Elegant Universe says he thinks Einstein's original papers would've been round-filed if submitted today.

I'm not sure that tells us very much, the field has changed a lot in the past 110 years. Would other papers of the time be rejected today also? He could have been on par with his peers.

I don't think it was his thought experiments so much as predicting the precession of Mercury's perihelion that got everybody's attention. "You have a vivid imagination? We all do, kid." And then "You figured out the Mercury problem?!?!? Tell me about those thought experiments again?"

If a paper describing the new theory of special relativity would be round-filed today, it tells me that Einstein got lucky. In 1905 he was in the right place at the right time, getting reviewed by Planck, perhaps the only reviewer who wouldn't have summarily rejected the papers. If not for Planck the anomalous perihelion shift of Mercury might well still be a mystery, for Einstein's answer to that came a decade later. Presumably he'd have been ignored if his 1905 papers hadn't already opened the doors to academia.

This might be flippant. If the initial read by an editor resulted in "wow, this is interesting", the lack of citations or the fame of the author is far less relevant. I've reviewed lots of papers that have a mile of citations but lack any spark of inspiration. I'd rather read something that tells me something that I don't know or makes me uncertain of what I think I DO know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com