Post some good books on the history of Mathematics, Engineering, Science, & Technology
Reminder that Einstein was a plagiarist who stole his work from mathematicians
I read Schrödinger's "Science and Humanism: Physics in Our Time" and it was pretty interesting. A classical introduction to quantum physics but it also contains a very good "timeline" of where the foundations of quantum physics came from.
Likely trolling, but who do you have in mind?
Jacob Klein's book on Greek mathematics is a pretty interesting investigation into how the Greeks understood their own math, and how and why that had changed by the time of Descartes and Galileo. His collection of essays and lectures helps fill in what was supposed to be the third part of the work, an investigation into the grounds of modern mathematical physics.
Richard Kennington's collection of studies on the early moderns investigates the metaphysical and political grounds of the scientific projects initiated by Bacon and Descartes. Probably the most penetrating set of readings on Bacon and Descartes available.
Some links to discussions of his work:
Koyre's book is a study of the presuppositions and foundations of modern physics and the newer scientific (i.e. positivistic or analytic) philosophy modeled on it.
A very nice study of the history of mechanics and its influence on modern physics.
>Likely trolling, but who do you have in mind
Poincaré and Lorentz for SR, Hilbert for GR
What does he have to do with anything besides being the father of scientific fraud.
>What does he have to do with anything besides being the father of scientific fraud.
He popularized the modern view of a mathematical physics, when at the time part of the difficulties he encountered were in part because physics and mathematics were separated, and astronomy wasn't considered physics?
He popularized the modern view of a mathematical physics,
>when at the time part of the difficulties he encountered were in part because physics and mathematics were separated,
The difficulties were the right mathematics didn't exist
>and astronomy wasn't considered physics?
That would persist until Einstein would find a role for them in physics.
are you for real
>He popularized the modern view of a mathematical physics, No
Uh, yes, he did, and he did it so well that no one noticed that his take on heliocentrism was actually wrong and already outdated compared to the work of Kepler.
>The difficulties were the right mathematics didn't exist
While that's true, that's not what the difficulty was; physics was Aristotelean physics, which made little use of mathematics, and which was wary of any claims that the physical world was ruled by math in any way, since it suggested a confusing unempirical Pythagoreanism. In point of fact, he didn't get in trouble for doing the kind of study he did, he got in trouble for bucking "established science" by saying that Copernicus's mathematical model was *real*. Here's how Copernicus characterizes what he's doing as an astronomer at the beginning of his book:
"...it is the job of an astronomer to use...observation in gathering together the history of the celestial movements, and then--since he cannot by any line of reasoning reach the true causes of these movements--to think up or construct whatever causes or hypotheses he pleases such that...those same movements can be calculated from the principles of geometry for the past and for the future too."
And a little later,
"And as far as hypotheses go, let no one expect anything in the way of certainty from astronomy, since astronomy can offer us nothing certain, lest, if anyone take as true that which has been constructed for another use, he go away from this discipline a bigger fool than when he came to it."
tl;dr -- Math and astronomy != physics
>That would persist until Einstein would find a role for them in physics.
Trivially untrue. The work of Galileo and Kepler helped change that, and the most obvious figure of that change is Newton.