Albert Einstein Analysis

Outline some of the main transitions in scientific thought from Newtonian to Einsteinian worldviews. From your analysis of these transitions evaluate their impact on the notion of ‘common sense’ and scientific ‘truth’

The discoveries Einstein made in the early 20th century had a major impact on the scientific community and caused a paradigm shift in scientific thought which remained relatively stagnant for over 200 years.

Einstein, like many others in their respective fields, not only gave rise to a new scientific worldview, but also refined the community’s approach to scientific experimentation.

The primary distinguishable characteristic that Einstein applied to his scientific work was his acclaimed thought experiments. Many scientists

He observed many things in relation to motion and through much observation and experimentation he managed to define the laws which govern motion.

What is clear however, is that Newton’s approach was purely practical. His ultimate goal may have been the same as Einstein’s, defining the laws of nature, but the major difference is that Newton based his experiments entirely on that which was observable. As a result his laws had significant application in the real world, but may not have been complete. This is evident even today when his laws determine the outcome of a space station being launched into planetary orbit.

Though Einstein’s theory of relativity has been responsible for serious scientific and technological advancement, Einstein initially proposed his theories from his own thought experiments, considering previous theories and reaching contradictions or abnormalities. An example of this is, “what would happen here on Earth, if the sun suddenly disappeared?”. If Earth broke out of it’s gravitational orbit, and took a different trajectory, before the sun’s rays could reach the observers on Earth (8 minutes), then essentially gravity travels faster than the speed of light. A contradiction. This lead to Einstein’s theory of relativity and his discovery of Gravitational Waves which lead to a much better understanding of Gravity itself. This would never have been accomplished from

What I mean by this is, if a natural occurrence is contradicting a theory which is based on mathematical proofs and agreed axioms, then scientists must accept that there is a flaw with said theory. This was not the case with Mercury’s orbit.

However, many scientists are beginning to believe now that truth is not something that exists. That objective reality is something we believe in, based on our proposed set of axioms and applied mathematics. Just like Newton’s theories, we consider something to be true while it perfectly describes natural events with no flaws, however there will always be constant revision towards some “truth” we will never reach.

Just like the limit of the sequence 1/n is 0, no elements inside the sequence reach 0. It is only from outside the system that we recognise this limit. Maybe something outside our physical system can recognise this so-called “truth” we believe in. A higher power of some sort? But for now we see “truth” as an incentive to keep refining our theories and to advance our scientific