The fact that you voted for Newton requires no proof!

Lemma 1: Newton was the better mathematical physicist. Proof:Obvious, he did after all co-discover calculus and thus developed the mathematical tools used by physicists in addition to presenting no theories.

Lemma 2: Newton was the better experimental physicist. Proof: Also obvious. Einstein, did he do any experiments at all?

Conclusion: While Einstein maybe was the better “not-mathematical-but-still-theoretical” physicist that simply is not enough to outweigh Newtons accomplishments. So Newton was the beter physicist. QED.

Newton was a great experimentalist, Einstein was not.
Newton was Coinventor of Calculus. Einstein does not invent Tensor Calculus.

Newton 2, Einstein 0.

Einstein invents SR.
Newton invents Universal Gravitation.

Newton 3, Einstein 1.

Einstein by his work on atomic systems, finalises CLASSICAL PHYSICS.

Newton 3, Einstein 2.

Einstein wastes last 30 odd years on QGr. Newton on Alchemy.

Newton 2, Einstein 1.

Thereby I am with Newton.

However in my humble opinion, it is easier to list the greatest Scientists than to do the above!

Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Darwin, Einstein.

Why is this list so easy? Most Scientists are SPECIALISTS. Even Feymann, although he would dabble essentially was a theoretical physicist

(I understand, that he wrote a paper on Quantum computers, but he did not really publish the paper which put the field on the amazing path of that it finds itself today – that would be Deutsch work).

To be truly great, one has to go beyond one narrow specialisation.

Are there going to be truly great scientists in the future? Now that is the question?

An amateur mathematician

If he had a large following for his search to find the unified theory, the situation would be similar to string theory today.

You’re right that much of the mathematics was in place for both the special and general theories. But I think you’re underestimating Einstein’s contribution here. Consider special relativity: Poincare had the mathematics but never really accepted Einstein’s interpretation (died 1912). That seems a strong indication that the interpretation was not an obvious step. Similarly, with general relativity Einstein had the key physical insight – the equivalence principle.

I think what I find attractive about Einstein is that he shows physics is more than mathematics. It needs an extra spark of insight that turns a formal manipulation of symbols into a description of reality. He may not have shined at mathematics or experiment, but this quality of physical insight is so rare and so central to physics that it pushes Einstein to the front rank.

(Newton’s idea of universal gravitation was a similar step. The mathematics of objects on earth and objects in the heavens was arguably in place (although not so completely as with relativity). The revolutionary step was to realise that they were governed by the same laws.)

Do not confuse the search for an electromagnetic theory of matter (for example, see this review paper), which is the project that Lorentz and his fellows were engaged in, with relativity. They are quite different theories, different aims, and one failed. The math remained because it was useful, and because it can be related to a valid physical theory.

Of couse, this is really a silly exercise anyways, because at some point the theories and experiments we now think to be the best, that tell us better than anything before about the world, will be surpassed by even better ideas and experiments (for example, what if Chad Orzell were to end up finding an electric dipole moment!), and there are people who have done physics every bit as ground breaking as either Newton or Einstein but who are being compared here. Why is Maxwell, with his completion of electrodynamics and displacement current not in the running? What about Michelson and Morley? Hubble and cosmology? Copernicus and solar centricism? Heimlich and his maneuver?

If it seemed from my comments that I think “all Newton did was clean up the details of what was already known”, then I’m not as good at communication as I should like to be. Having leafed through parts of the Principia, it is impossible to not to be awestruck by the sheer mathematical beauty of his arguments.
In fact if you think about it Newton’s idea of a Universal law of gravitation, in itself is as revolutionary for its times as Special Relativity. So when we’re making these comparisons, it’s abvious that they are simply subjective views on the lines of six-year-old Superman vs. Godzilla discussions.

For special relativity, it could have readily formulated after Maxwell finished his work. Lorentz, Fitzgerald, Poincare and some few others had already postulated much along the same lines as Einstein, none of them simply went far enough with connecting the philosophy with the mathematics.

The same again applies for General Releativity, whose mathematics had been laid down many decades prior by those like Riemann, Ricci and Levi-Civita. Einstein simply had to give up notions of Euclidean geometries holding everywhere, coupled with his equivalence principle he was up and cruising to a complete theory.

Important as well to know is that Einstein contributed greatly to Quantum theory in the earlier years, his qualm simply, was with probablistic intepretation of nature that quantum physicist applied to nature wholesale. He lost touch with progress simply because he became obsessed with his search for a unified theory.

It should be noted as well that Hilbert formulated a theory of general relativity from a langrangian in only a few weeks; simulatanously with einstein who had given a lecture on his incorrect form of the theory which, Hilbert had attended and was able to note the error. Both corresponded and it cannot be said who truly was first nor whose ideas were independently original, although Hilbert did concede priority. Nonetheless, Hilbert did in weeks what took Einstein decades. Although the direct route of deducing – from consequences in his special theory with respect to the accepted Newtonian concept – taken by Einstein, was the more difficult and he required much help, including from, Grossman (especially) and Emmy Noether.

What is it that Hilbert said? “Every street urchin in our mathematical Göttingen knows more about four-dimensional geometry than Einstein. Nevertheless, it was Einstein who did the work, not the great mathematicians.”. I think that statements encapsulates best, the skill of Einstein. He knew when to let go [and move forward].

—-

Some truly brilliant people though, would be Gauss or William Hamilton or especially, George Green. The farmer with no (well 1 year, age 8 to 9) schooling who worked on a forerunner of Electromagnetism and invented techniques in vector calculus from his barn. While raising some 8 or 9 kids.

I would suggest that Cygnus, who says opposition to quantum was a major mark against Einstein, underestimates the importance of the debate over quantum. Einstein may have been on the wrong side but I believe his opposition was, at the time, productive. Does anyone think that the EPR paper was not worth writing? Would we have had the Bell inequalities or Aspect’s experiments without it? Does anyone think that the Bohr-Einstein debates were not worth while? They may not have come up with useful answers, but they made people think, and made people realise they needed to think harder. I think it is unlikely that the final chapter has been written on quantum (on any other theory of physics), and Einstein was certainly correct to question it when others around him seemed to take it as dogma that no more could ever be said.

Einstein had his pool of “competitors” but none seemed to be his equal, neither in the capacity to inquire with the necessary incredible focussed meditative energies (as in seeking resolution to his thought problems) or in “imagining” the furthest possible reaches of the relevancy of his big ideas. He had his job, he had his few worldly interests, he had Newton and Liebniz before him.

I was happy that the Royal Society allowed us two votes. Thus i could equivocate and vote for both; although i side more w/ Newton.