Accepting and rewarding Einstein

These two questions were posted a couple of days ago by one of our readers. I will take a stab at them!

Eduardo Avaria of Chile asks:

Was a part of Einstein's geniusness his obstination in "guesing" that he had the right and everybody else, even newton, and the entire physic scene was wrong (in his photon theory as an example)?

And as a secondary question, i want to know why the physicist comunity take so long to give cientists the recognitions they deserve. Why Einstein had to wait till 1921 to get the nobel prize he deserved since 1904? Or the photelectric effect was only a "touchable screen" to award him for his marvelous job?

I'll address the first question first. I wouldn't say that Einstein was "guessing" at his equations for relativity, etc. Despite his reputation as being "not very good at math", he was still quite decent at it by most people's standards! He used conceptual and mathematical reasoning to arrive at many of his big discoveries - including E = mc^2. He could back up his claims with solid mathematics.

It is important to stand by your work to make it stick, but he wouldn't have stood by his work with much conviction if it wasn't supported by solid reasoning and math.

Now I'll tackle your second question: why did it take 17 years for Einstein to get the Nobel Prize in Physics?  Seventeen years is actually not that long to wait to receive a Nobel Prize! Many scientists have had to wait much longer. And some couldn't wait long enough - they died before they had been rightlfully honoured. Nobel Prizes are awarded only to the living, so it's often joked that you have to have a strong constitution to win a Nobel.

More importantly, new ideas take a little while to sink in with anyone - physicists included! Even Einstein's seeming simple and profound idea took some time to sink in. We physicists are notoriously sceptical when it comes to new ideas and love shooting them down. If, after lots of shooting, a new idea espaces unscathed, then it is deemed worthy. That's one of the best features of science - new ideas must stand up to scrutiny - most seemingly great new ideas have holes poked in them and die, but a few survive and sometimes go on to change our perception of concepts as profound as time and space.