What was the most 'revolutionary' scientific theory of all time?

[bocablkr]

Of all the scientific theories ever postulated which was the most revolutionary, most earth-shattering of all time. It had to be completely counter to how everyone else viewed the natural world at that time.

My vote would be for Nicolaus Copernicus' heliocentric view of the solar system.

Relativity

I think the above two have been the most "revolutionary" and anything else is probably a distant third.

Hopefully there is a number three on the way during our life time. Maybe some type of unified theory.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the above two have been the most "revolutionary" and anything else is probably a distant third.

Hopefully there is a number three on the way during our life time. Maybe some time of unified theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another possible third place choice - the ancient greeks who were the first to think the earth was round.

The facial.

You've got to go with evolution. Earth not being the centre of the universe has nothing on your great uncle being a hairy monkey.

Moderately intelligent people uneducated people (and lots of them) still debate it to this day, even though it's as much a fact as EM or relativity.

The key word being "moderately"

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
You've got to go with evolution. Earth not being the centre of the universe has nothing on your great uncle being a hairy monkey.

Moderately intelligent people uneducated people (and lots of them) still debate it to this day, even though it's as much a fact as EM or relativity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer - just thought it would be interesting to see different opinions on something other than the g word.

You can't avoid the 'G' word around here. Maybe we should call it 'Sklansky's G Spot' instead of SMP [/latenitesexdrugsmoneyjoke]

Both theories were pretty funny. As an aside, do you think this is it for revolutionary theories? Are there any assumptions left to shake on the scale of "Earth is the centre of the universe"?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't avoid the 'G' word around here. Maybe we should call it 'Sklansky's G Spot' instead of SMP [/latenitesexdrugsmoneyjoke]

Both theories were pretty funny. As an aside, do you think this is it for revolutionary theories? Are there any assumptions left to shake on the scale of "Earth is the centre of the universe"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this shows that most scientific progress is in baby steps, progressing from a previous idea and expanding upon it. Rarely does a concept come about so drastically different than all others before it. I am sure there will be others in the future and hopefully within our lifetimes.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there is a right or wrong answer - just thought it would be interesting to see different opinions on something other than the g word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I wasn’t going to bring it up. But since you couldn’t let it rest: The Resurrection.

[SheetWise]

Theory of electricity and magnetism (in all of its various forms).

c'mon guys, quantum theory, from hiesenberg, and dirac

The idea that mathematics can be used to model the world and the scientific method itself, if you'll accept a metatheory.

[benkahuna]

I agree. Copernicus. Theology ruled that day so his theory was especially controversial.

Evolution has certainly been good for controversy in more modern time, but it's well accepted and has been from the get go. Darwin and Wallace never were under house arrest and had to pretend they diedn't believe what they believed.

Quantum theory sure made things strange (unintentional pun), but I don't see it being as revolutinary as Copernicus's theories.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. Copernicus. Theology ruled that day so his theory was especially controversial.

Evolution has certainly been good for controversy in more modern time, but it's well accepted and has been from the get go. Darwin and Wallace never were under house arrest and had to pretend they diedn't believe what they believed.

Quantum theory sure made things strange (unintentional pun), but I don't see it being as revolutinary as Copernicus's theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your agreement - Though I admit relativity is another good choice.

[mrgold]

Not entirely recognized as true anymore, but in terms of beeing revolutionary at its time I think Freudianism (and possibly Marxism) are the only things that can compete with evolution. Most scientific theories (relativity, heliocentricity, quantum mechanics, etc) might have been revolutionary ideas within their fields. But they were not nearly as strongly reacted to in the broader culture as the previous 3 theories.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
Theory of electricity and magnetism (in all of its various forms).

[/ QUOTE ]

In some ways I agree with you, but the theory wasn't particularly earth shattering. It was pieced together here and there and then pretty much accepted (I know that radio and light being the same thing took some getting used to but it was a relatively easy transition to the new thinking). Relativity was considered too risky to award the Nobel Prize to Einstein and took a fair amount of time to gain wide acceptance. Still, if you want to talk about what separates us from the pilgrams, you are talking E and M and the combustion engine (also many medical breakthroughs).

I would think that the idea of germs and small building block particles would rank very near the top.

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the above two have been the most "revolutionary" and anything else is probably a distant third.

Hopefully there is a number three on the way during our life time. Maybe some type of unified theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the grand quest for a unified theory in physics is more religious in nature than scientific. Isn't this similar to searching for a lowest order cause? Certainly it is a scientific pursuit, but many believe in it with no strong evidence that it even exists. I think a reasonable theory of non-equilibrium thermodynamics or statistical mechanics would be much more interesting and useful, but that is probably because I work in that field (or vice versa).

[goofball]

most revolutionary? Special relativity. One singel paper turned the scientific community on it's ear. "On the Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies"

Copernicus is close second.

Most Earth-Shattering?


http://vgap.net/views/CastleBravo.gif

E=mc2....we are all doomed now

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, do you think this is it for revolutionary theories? Are there any assumptions left to shake on the scale of "Earth is the centre of the universe"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is there a "you" locked into your brain? Why is there any subjective experience of anything? A convincing scientific answer to these questions will beat Einstein and Copernicus combined.

[ QUOTE ]
Not entirely recognized as true anymore, but in terms of beeing revolutionary at its time I think Freudianism (and possibly Marxism) are the only things that can compete with evolution. Most scientific theories (relativity, heliocentricity, quantum mechanics, etc) might have been revolutionary ideas within their fields. But they were not nearly as strongly reacted to in the broader culture as the previous 3 theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marxism as the most revolutionary scientific theory of all time? Ummmm, okay.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]


Marxism as the most revolutionary scientific theory of all time? Ummmm, okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's probably the most important liberal social theory and profoundly impacted both the field of sociology and many world governments.

Not scientific though.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]


Why is there a "you" locked into your brain? Why is there any subjective experience of anything? A convincing scientific answer to these questions will beat Einstein and Copernicus combined.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Til then we're stuck with the guys we have.

[tolbiny]

Which ever half man/half monkey harnessed fire. He pwned the next 60,000 years.

Quantum theory was certainly revolutionary, and it still clashes with human intuition as forcefully now as ever. There is a never ending debate over which "picture" captures the "true, physical meaning" of QM, but of course they all make the same predictions...

Evolution makes a bid, but after all it's only life on earth. Finding out that the entire universe behaves like nothing you would ever dream of is hard to trump.

"Anyone who is not shocked by quantum mechanics has not understood it."

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]


Evolution makes a bid, but after all it's only life on earth. Finding out that the entire universe behaves like nothing you would ever dream of is hard to trump.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, the only entities that are shocked by quantum mechanics are a subset of life on earth, if we're going to take that attitude to it.

It's a bit of a silly question, as there's not a very good, obvious way to quantify "revolutionarity" in all of the different fields. In terms of impact on the world at large, I don't really see that evolution and quantum mechanics have any real competition, and the impact of quantum mechanics is indirect, so I'd vote for evolution.

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of impact on the world at large, I don't really see that evolution and quantum mechanics have any real competition, and the impact of quantum mechanics is indirect, so I'd vote for evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
I will debate you a bit, here. Evolution does not change the way biology gets done in a biology lab (unless you study evolution, or perhaps if you specifically look at mutation rates of pathogens). On the other hand, quantum mechanics is an absolute requirement in solid state physics, which is directly responsible for the communication/computation revolution. The impact on your life and, in fact, a huge fraction of our modern economy, could not be more direct.

[gumpzilla]

Sure, solid-state electronics is amazingly important; that's what I was referring to by indirect influence. The reason I say it's indirect is that while the transistor itself is clearly very important, this isn't quantum mechanics itself but an application of it. Evolution as an idea in itself has been substantially more culturally important, I think.

I'm also not 100% sure that the transistor couldn't have been stumbled upon even without a quantum mechanical theory of solids. To make a serious case for this, I'd have to do some looking in to the history of semiconductors and see what was known before ~1930 or so. This is very likely not a sensible or very good assertion, but I like being difficult sometimes. That said, I can certainly imagine that one might be able to come up with rough, phenomenological theories that explain pn junctions and the like, at least well enough to make discovering the transistor possible; I don't think electrical engineers get the full on QM treatment when they learn about these things.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution does not change the way biology gets done in a biology lab (unless you study evolution, or perhaps if you specifically look at mutation rates of pathogens). On the other hand, quantum mechanics is an absolute requirement in solid state physics, which is directly responsible for the communication/computation revolution. The impact on your life and, in fact, a huge fraction of our modern economy, could not be more direct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you're not as experienced in biology labs as you think. Evolution is a backbone concept used by all biologists except for the tiny minority of IDers. It affects research decisions and impacts all branches of biology. It's the context for all biology. If you don't understand how your work in biology fits into an evolutionary context, you can't really publish. You might not apply evolutionary theory directly if you're experimenting on a giant squid axon, but if you don't understand evolution, you can't apply your findings in a meaningful way toward the molecular neurobiology of other organisms like humans, for instance.

This biological theory has led to biomedical advances that results in disease cures and drugs to treat chronic conditions affecting all people the world over allowing them to lead normal lives. Evolution is used in virology, bacteriology and other fields to better understand disease and its origins.

I could go on, but I think you might be starting to get the point.

The importance of evolutionary theory in modern biology can't really be overstated.

Something tells me you don't work in a biology lab, if such a thing exists any more. I can explain this last comment if you want.

[ QUOTE ]
Something tells me you don't work in a biology lab, if such a thing exists any more.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the reason for my statement is that I have worked in a pharmacology and molecular biology lab and have been co-author on several papers -- I have also published papers in physics (my primary field). Quite frankly, there is no comparison of the relative importance, here. Quantum mechanics is used everywhere -- chemistry, nuclear physics, particle physics, solid state physics, cosmology. As mentioned before, a large fraction of the economy is directly tied to its application. Quite honestly, the most distance I ever got out of evolution in pharmacology labs (working directly with the Ph.D.'s) was fodder for lunchtime speculation. I understand it presents a unifying perspective, but in all honesty, how much do you need a unifying perspective to characterize the effects of a particular chemical on cardiac tissue?

The best cross-field analogy I can present (for evolution) is to cosmology. Sure, it's a "framework" in which most physicists think of the natural world, but it has very little impact on how a solid state physicist actually does his job, or on quantum computing researchers, particle physicists, etc. The same can in no way be said for quantum mechanics -- real physics IS quantum physics, in one form or another, and the need for it is everywhere. It is not just a background for speculation or a "unifying perspective." It is not a "context" for organizing thoughts -- if you don't use it (in any of these fields), you quite simply get wrong answers. Solid state engineering, modern chemistry, microprocessors, nuclear physics, NMR, MRI -- all gone.

Another analogy: Think about what biology (and its applications) would be like if no biologist knew any chemistry. This is about what modern physics (and its applications) would be like without QM.