# Invent or Discover or Formulate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [December 24, 2004, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invent-or-discover-or-formulate/281509 "2004-12-24T18:51:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invent-or-discover-or-formulate/281509/1 "2004-12-24T18:51:02Z")
In [this thread](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/041224.html), Cecil stated that Einstein did _invent_ the theory of Relativity. Did he really invent it, or did he discover it, or did he just formulate it? ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invent-or-discover-or-formulate/281509/2 "2004-12-24T21:24:36Z")
A theory is an intellectual construct; you can’t “discover” it any more than you can “discover” a novel. I’m not sure I know what the difference is between “inventing” and “formulating” a theory. In the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein’s key contribution was that he took a bunch of weirdo fudge-factor equations that were already known (“We have to put in this X factor to make the answer come out right”) and said, “But if we look at the universe _this_ way, all the equations line up to make perfect and obvious sense.” Which is why, despite its undeniable strangeness, his theory was accepted virtually at once. He didn’t invent the equations, but he was the first person to understand them. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invent-or-discover-or-formulate/281509/3 "2004-12-24T21:50:47Z")
> [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > A theory is an intellectual construct; you can’t “discover” it any more than you can “discover” a novel. However, a theory is an intellectual construct of a natural phenomon. It’s a discovery of the characteristics or attributes of the natural phenomon. It may not be the correct description of the attributes, in which case it (perhaps) is a false discovery. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invent-or-discover-or-formulate/281509/4 "2004-12-24T22:01:51Z")
I’d just like to say that I adore the zooming bulb as a symbol of the speed of light. Well done, Slug. ---
**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2004, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invent-or-discover-or-formulate/281509/5 "2004-12-25T13:00:10Z")
> [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > A theory is an intellectual construct; you can’t “discover” it any more than you can “discover” a novel. I’d disagree. I’d say you can formulate the theory, but the underlying “intellectual construct” is discovered. The facts, such as they are, are there to be _discovered_, and the model to describe them is formulated. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2004, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invent-or-discover-or-formulate/281509/6 "2004-12-25T15:14:08Z")
> [@barbitu8](#): > > However, a theory is an intellectual construct of a natural phenomon. It’s a discovery of the characteristics or attributes of the natural phenomon. It may not be the correct description of the attributes, in which case it (perhaps) is a false discovery. How can a discovery be false? If I think I have discovered a cure for AIDS but it turns out I didn’t, the discovery was never there to begin with. To me, “false discovery” is a contradiction of terms. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2004, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invent-or-discover-or-formulate/281509/7 "2004-12-25T21:37:25Z")
> [@trandallt](#): > > How can a discovery be false? If I think I have discovered a cure for AIDS but it turns out I didn’t, the discovery was never there to begin with. To me, “false discovery” is a contradiction of terms. You’re quibbling over words. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invent-or-discover-or-formulate/281509/8 "2004-12-25T22:18:40Z")
> [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > A theory is an intellectual construct; you can’t “discover” it any more than you can “discover” a novel. > > I’m not sure I know what the difference is between “inventing” and “formulating” a theory. > > In the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein’s key contribution was that he took a bunch of weirdo fudge-factor equations that were already known (“We have to put in this X factor to make the answer come out right”) and said, “But if we look at the universe _this_ way, all the equations line up to make perfect and obvious sense.” Which is why, despite its undeniable strangeness, his theory was accepted virtually at once. He didn’t invent the equations, but he was the first person to understand them. This is mostly semantics. Einstein, based on things other people had observed in the universe, which contradicted Newton’s theories, created a new theory that was consistent with what was observed. Einstein clearly didn’t “discover” relativity, as he based it on the observations of others. IOW Einstein didn’t first observe himself that Newtonian mechanics wasn’t working. What he created was a theory consistent with what had been observed, and it took later experiments to confirm new predictions in his theory. Such as time dilation. Thus it comes down to whether you feel a theory can be “invented”, or just “formulated”. I’d argue these terms can be considered interchangeable in this context. ---
**Author:** ![Siliconvy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@Siliconvy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siliconvy)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invent-or-discover-or-formulate/281509/9 "2004-12-26T03:40:15Z")
There are serious questions about relativity which are still open. Einstein took half baked ideas from a host of others and fudged them in to a career. There is no effective link as yet between mass and optics, i.e. between force and effect. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2004, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invent-or-discover-or-formulate/281509/10 "2004-12-26T06:37:00Z")
> [@Siliconvy](#): > > There are serious questions about relativity which are still open. Einstein took half baked ideas from a host of others and fudged them in to a career. There is no effective link as yet between mass and optics, i.e. between force and effect. What the hell are you talking about? “link . . . between mass and optics, that is between force and effect”? Mass isn’t the same as force, and optics sure as hell isn’t the same as “effect”. Seriously, what the hell is this gibberish supposed to mean? And anyone who thinks Einstein made a career of “fugding the ideas of others” is utterly clueless. Even if you think the theory of relativity was just a bunch of “half baked ideas” thrown together (and of the dozens of physicists I’ve heard speak about Einstein, not one has thought that) – even _if_ that’s what you believe, Einstein’s work on the photoelectric effect by itself is enough to warrant recognition as a significant contributor to physics. To claim Einstein’s career was built on “fudging half-baked ideas” is ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![Bytegeist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9dc877/32.png) [@Bytegeist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bytegeist)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2004, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invent-or-discover-or-formulate/281509/11 "2004-12-28T23:32:16Z")
> [@Siliconvy](#): > > There are serious questions about relativity which are still open. Einstein took half baked ideas from a host of others and fudged them in to a career. What **tim314** said: _What the hell are you talking about?_ The only open questions I’m aware of relate to the reconciliation of quantum mechanics and general relativity, each of which is spectacularly successful in its own realm of explanation. A “Grand Unified Theory” might provide the reconciliation, but we don’t know what that theory is yet. Perhaps it will turn out, as it did for Newton’s Law of Gravity, that GR is actually an approximation of a more general theory — an approximation that happens to work well under the conditions we’ve tested. But we don’t know this yet one way or another. And for “spectacularly successful” above read “overwhelmingly supported by empirical evidence.” These things can be tested, you know. To overthrow relativity and discredit Einstein, as you seem to want, you’ll have to come up with an experiment that falsifies, or potentially could falsify, relativity. So far the results have been in the opposite direction however. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2004, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/invent-or-discover-or-formulate/281509/12 "2004-12-29T20:19:07Z")
> [@Bytegeist](#): > > A “Grand Unified Theory” might provide the reconciliation, but we don’t know what that theory is yet. Perhaps it will turn out, as it did for Newton’s Law of Gravity, that GR is actually an approximation of a more general theory — an approximation that happens to work well under the conditions we’ve tested. But we don’t know this yet one way or another. A theory concerning strings of energy combined with the so-called “M” theory (by argueably the most intelligent physicist since Einstein, Dr. Willis), along with brane theory, is an attempt for the GUT. But that’s a debate for another forum.