Einstein published on Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect and relativity in 1905.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work primarily on the photoelectic effect, not relativity. That alone would have made him famous, so I'm not sure what the thread on proving relativity is on about.
(His work on relativity was probably based on his patent reviews of European train schedule calculation filings.)
While I'm at it, Maxwell's equations as we know it were written by other scientists later on. Maxwell was an experimental scientist who wrote 20 formulae in longhand, and a group of scientists, including Oliver Heaviside, put them into the more compact 4 equation vector format later on.
An American physicist working as a military advisor updated one of Maxwell's equations fairly recently to correct for a minor mistake discovered during antenna research for the US government.
Also, a PR pieces on extending Maxwell's equations to nanoscale:
> I'm not sure what the thread on proving relativity is on about.
I don't see it as being "on about" anything. I think it's worth observing that passing peer review, in itself, does not make a scientific claim correct, and that testing scientific claims experimentally is often much more difficult, time consuming, and technologically challenging than developing them theoretically.
The larger number of the original Maxwell equations has little significance, it is due to the fact that they were equations for the components, as the vector notation was not used yet.
What is important is that the original Maxwell equations were in integral form, so that they are applicable to more general cases than the differential equations of Heaviside.
Even if the Heaviside equations are what is known by most people as the Maxwell equations, they are not equivalent with the original Maxwell equations.
The Heaviside equations are a consequence of the original Maxwell integral equations in certain special cases (no discontinuities, no movement).
Heaviside did a good job at simplifying the teaching of the Maxwell equations, but at the same time his approach resulted for many students in a superficial and incomplete understanding.
> An American physicist working as a military advisor updated one of Maxwell's equations fairly recently to correct for a minor mistake discovered during antenna research for the US government.
What are you referring to? I'm not aware of any such thing.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work primarily on the photoelectic effect, not relativity. That alone would have made him famous, so I'm not sure what the thread on proving relativity is on about.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1921/summary/
(His work on relativity was probably based on his patent reviews of European train schedule calculation filings.)
While I'm at it, Maxwell's equations as we know it were written by other scientists later on. Maxwell was an experimental scientist who wrote 20 formulae in longhand, and a group of scientists, including Oliver Heaviside, put them into the more compact 4 equation vector format later on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside
An American physicist working as a military advisor updated one of Maxwell's equations fairly recently to correct for a minor mistake discovered during antenna research for the US government.
Also, a PR pieces on extending Maxwell's equations to nanoscale:
https://isn.mit.edu/cheers-maxwell%E2%80%99s-electromagnetis...