Who are the Greatest Physicists in this century?

  • Thread starter Twukwuw
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Physicists
In summary: They are all important. And I do not find this game of "who is the best" conducive to a healthy environment.Zz.In summary, there have been many great physicists in the last century, such as Max Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrodinger, and Fermi. However, it is too early to determine who the greatest physicists of this century are. Some notable names mentioned were Stephen Hawking, Hans Bethe, Kathy Sykes, and Zefram Cochrane. It should be noted that experimental physicists do not always receive the same recognition as theoretical physicists, despite their important contributions. Ultimately, the idea of ranking physicists
  • #1
Twukwuw
53
0
:bugeye: Last century we have Max Plank, Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrodingers, de Broglie, Fermi and so on (so many!) great physicisys.

So, who do we have in this century?

Stephen Hawking?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Me, of course.
 
  • #3
We had Hans Bethe. Too bad he died last year. But still, he was alive in this century.
 
  • #4
In terms of accomplishments in this century? Not Hawking.


Its a bit early for asking that. Come back in 80 years.
 
  • #5
For all you know, Zefram Cochrane would've invented warp drive before the century's out, so ask again in 90+ years.
 
  • #6
so, today, we have NO physicists ranked at the same height as those I listed (Max Plank ... ...)

Am I right?

Why not Stephen Hawking?
People said he is today's Einstein!
 
  • #7
She hasn't necessarily done great things as far as I'm aware, but one of my favourite scientists at the moment is Kathy Sykes, a British physicist. :!)

As far as the greatest physicist right now, I honestly don't know.
 
  • #8
Twukwuw said:
Why not Stephen Hawking?
People said he is today's Einstein!

Ummm, no. He wrote a pop-science book and it made him famous. Granted, he is certainly a good physicist (You don't get to be Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge for nothing) but he is not in the league of say Bohr, Schrodinger, Feynman, Einstein, Fermi, or any of the major pioneers from the early part of this century.

And as a side issue: People said? Who said? Who are these mythical 'people'?
 
  • #9
No accomplishment in physics could possibly be judged for its greatness with only 6 years of hindsight, especially if you're comparing to the likes of Einstein and Bohr.
 
  • #10
franznietzsche said:
Ummm, no. He wrote a pop-science book and it made him famous. Granted, he is certainly a good physicist (You don't get to be Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge for nothing) but he is not in the league of say Bohr, Schrodinger, Feynman, Einstein, Fermi, or any of the major pioneers from the early part of this century.
I disagree. His work on black holes was very importent in physics he came up with Hawking radition which chaged the our understanding of black holes we thought nothing would come out but then Hawking found a way that somthing does come out.

I think Einstien the greatest physicst of the 20th centrey(it's too early to say who's the greatest of the 21st centrey.)
 
  • #11
Mark McCutcheon is the greatest physicist evar! (Or so he seems to claim.)
 
  • #12
franznietzsche said:
And as a side issue: People said? Who said? Who are these mythical 'people'?
Not mythical, but they call themselves journalists. :tongue2:
 
  • #13
Btw, has anybody thought about the "fact" that all "Great Physicists" have been theorists, at least by appearance of the OP's list. Has nobody in the past century come up with an ingenious experiment to detect something?
 
  • #14
neutrino said:
Has nobody in the past century come up with an ingenious experiment to detect something?
Many have...but experimental physics is a lot less sexy than theoretical physics. To set up an experiment from scratch often takes several years and costs a lot of money. And it's not fun to write about either.

Some of the biggest experimental contributions in the last few decades :

Cornell, Wieman, Ketterle - making BECs

Stormer, Tsui, von Klitzing - discovering the Quantum Hall effects

Osheroff, Lee, Richardson - discovering fermionic superfluidity

Perl, Reines - detecting the tau lepton and neutrino

Bednorz & Muller - discovering Superconductivity

Ruska - inventing the electron microscope

Cockroft & Walton - nuclear transmutation

Lawrence - inventing the cyclotron

...

...and then there was Fermi !
 
  • #15
Gokul43201 said:
Bednorz & Muller - discovering Superconductivity

Not to be picky, but I think Gokul meant "Discovering high-Tc superconductivity". Superconductivity was discovered by H. Kamerlingh Onnes.

On a separate note, I always wonder why people ask questions such as this, as in what purpose does it serve? To glorify a certain physicist? And as expected, I am not surprised by the glaring omission of the only person who was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics twice.

Zz.
 
  • #16
I suppose it's just for the sake of conversation, Zz. It's also good for newcomers, such as myself, to see who are the great physicists.

Anyway, Kathy:

http://www.bris.ac.uk/ias/collier/rc-kathy.jpg [Broken]


:biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
Sorry neutrino, I have to disagree. There is one good experimentalist on the OP's list. The list also includes someone who was quite a good soccer player, although his mathematician brother was even better.

Also, Hawking on Hawking: "Instead, almost everyone believes that the universe, and time itself had a beginning at the big bang. This is a discovery far more important than a few miscellaneous unstable particles, but not one that has been so well recognized by Nobel prizes."

ZapperZ: Do you think your bard is the best bard?

Regards,
George
 
  • #18
George Jones said:
Sorry neutrino, I have to disagree. There is one good experimentalist on the OP's list.
That's still only ONE. No doubt, he was a genius of another kind altogether, possessing theoretical insight and experimental brilliance.
The list also includes someone who was quite a good soccer player, although his mathematician brother was even better.
And big brother was tutored by arguably the best experimentalist there was.

ZapperZ: Do you think your bard is the best bard?
There's more than one bard ? (not Sam Treiman is it ?)
 
  • #19
Gokul43201 said:
There's more than one bard ? (not Sam Treiman is it ?)

I was just being silly, playing with words.

For me, there is only one bard - Shakespeare.

Regards,
George
 
  • #20
George Jones said:
ZapperZ: Do you think your bard is the best bard?

Regards,
George

No, because that criteria on what is "best" is vague. Just like the thread on General Physics on the question "Is energy and matter the SAME thing", what criteria does one use in such a thing? Impact? Number of Nobel Prizes? Number of citations? What?

I don't play this "best" game, because it is (i)subjective (ii)meaningless, and (iii) demeaning to others in the field who are making important contributions but the work does not have the "sexyness" to garner front-page news in popular media. Next time your loved ones require an MRI to diagnose an important disease, would you then consider those who have pioneered and made advances in MRI and NMR as the important and "best" physicists?

I have no interest in trumpeting those household names. I will, however, point out the many men and women who have made terrific and significant contributions to the field of physics that have been glaringly overlooked.

Zz.
 
  • #21
ZapperZ said:
No, because that criteria on what is "best" is vague. Just like the thread on General Physics on the question "Is energy and matter the SAME thing", what criteria does one use in such a thing? Impact? Number of Nobel Prizes? Number of citations? What?

Can't you see that I was just playing around, in part because I, too, think there no objective criteria?

I don't play this "best" game, because it is (i)subjective (ii)meaningless, and (iii) demeaning to others in the field who are making important contributions but the work does not have the "sexyness" to garner front-page news in popular media.

Promotion and self-promotion definitely come into play, hence my quote by Hawking.

Next time your loved ones require an MRI to diagnose an important disease, would you then consider those who have pioneered and made advances in MRI and NMR as the important and "best" physicists?

Is this directed at me? Wow?

I have no interest in trumpeting those household names. I will, however, point out the many men and women who have made terrific and significant contributions to the field of physics that have been glaringly overlooked.

You can't possibly mean this. According to your reasoning

no objective criteria => no list => no omissions! :tongue2:

Regards,
George

PS Don't get all hot under the collar - I'm just having you on.
 
  • #22
ZapperZ said:
And as expected, I am not surprised by the glaring omission of the only person who was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics twice.

Zz.

No one is interested in superconductors, or transistors. :wink:
 
  • #23
ZapperZ said:
On a separate note, I always wonder why people ask questions such as this, as in what purpose does it serve? To glorify a certain physicist? And as expected, I am not surprised by the glaring omission of the only person who was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics twice.

Zz.

Apart from John Bardeen, Marie Curie was also awarded the Prize twice - once for Physics and once for Chemistry.
 
  • #24
Physics Nut said:
Mark McCutcheon is the greatest physicist evar! (Or so he seems to claim.)
He's such a good physicst that he can't be physicst since he started a new physics that he is in complete control of infact he's not even a secientist!
 
  • #25
scott1 said:
He's such a good physicst that he can't be physicst since he started a new physics that he is in complete control of infact he's not even a secientist !

For the love of humanity use spellcheck.
 
  • #26
Curious3141 said:
Apart from John Bardeen, Marie Curie was also awarded the Prize twice - once for Physics and once for Chemistry.

He said 'In physics'.
 
  • #27
Rach3 said:
No one is interested in superconductors, or transistors. :wink:

Noone might be, but the fact that some people are interested should be a thankful fact for the rest of people. Otherwise, A LOT of electrical fancy tuff you have in your house now would be unavaliable.
 
  • #28
Bladibla said:
He said 'In physics'.

I know what he said, I was just making an observation.
 
  • #29
Bladibla said:
Rach3 said:
No one is interested in superconductors, or transistors. :wink:
Noone might be, but the fact that some people are interested should be a thankful fact for the rest of people. Otherwise, A LOT of electrical fancy tuff you have in your house now would be unavaliable.

That was the most obvious, easy-to-get sarcasm in the world. Honestly - superconductors? Transistors? Unimportant? I even included a little smiley icon with a "wink" feature.
 
  • #30
Thread Locked!
 
  • #31
Rach3 said:
For the love of humanity use spellcheck.

You know I've just nowticed ther is a spell checker on this web site? I've been mowning about having no spell checker for a wile and not one person pointed this owt :rolleyes: Plenty of people pointed out my crappy spealing thow :smile::tongue2:

Modestly speaking I'd say I'm not going to be a big wheel in the physics world, might of left it too late, although of course in the world of milk I am set to be a cutting edge specialist and a guru, some might even say I'm a legend in my own lifetime :wink: :smile:

Whoever comes up with a practical working fusion engine will be big, if they can, or a quantum computer of sufficent aplication, or a hyper drive as was said. I'd settle for fusion for this century or antimatter drives, but then I'm easy, it's early days though.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Rach3 said:
That was the most obvious, easy-to-get sarcasm in the world. Honestly - superconductors? Transistors? Unimportant? I even included a little smiley icon with a "wink" feature.

Well, I have no humour in my life. Forgive me.
 
  • #33
Geographer said:
She hasn't necessarily done great things as far as I'm aware, but one of my favourite scientists at the moment is Kathy Sykes, a British physicist. :!)
...but she's a professor of making science easier for the public :biggrin: :tongue: :wink:

How's about Sir Michael Berry?
 
Last edited:
  • #34
George Jones said:
The list also includes someone who was quite a good soccer player, although his mathematician brother was even better.

Any other famous(ish) physicists who played football at a high level? Any that made national teams?

I think the title of "Greatest Physicist" should be decided on the football pitch. Or maybe a boxing ring, who was the toughest physicist?
 
  • #35
<h2>1. Who is considered the greatest physicist of this century?</h2><p>The answer to this question is subjective and can vary depending on personal opinions and criteria. Some may argue that Albert Einstein, known for his theory of relativity, is the greatest physicist of this century. Others may argue for Stephen Hawking, who made significant contributions to the study of black holes and cosmology. Ultimately, there is no definitive answer to this question.</p><h2>2. What makes a physicist great?</h2><p>Again, this is a subjective question and can vary based on individual opinions. However, some common factors that may contribute to a physicist being considered great include their impact on the field of physics, their revolutionary ideas and theories, and their ability to make significant discoveries and advancements in their research.</p><h2>3. Are there any female physicists who can be considered the greatest of this century?</h2><p>While the field of physics has historically been male-dominated, there have been many female physicists who have made significant contributions and advancements in the field. Some notable names include Marie Curie, who was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize in Physics, and Vera Rubin, who made groundbreaking discoveries in the study of dark matter. Whether or not they can be considered the greatest of this century is a matter of personal opinion and criteria.</p><h2>4. Can a physicist from a developing country be considered the greatest of this century?</h2><p>Absolutely! The greatness of a physicist is not determined by their nationality or country of origin, but rather by their contributions and impact on the field of physics. There have been many brilliant physicists from developing countries who have made significant advancements and discoveries in their research.</p><h2>5. How do physicists from different fields compare in terms of greatness?</h2><p>It is difficult to compare physicists from different fields as their contributions and impact may vary. For example, a theoretical physicist may make groundbreaking discoveries and develop revolutionary theories, while an experimental physicist may make significant advancements in technology and techniques. Each field of physics is important and contributes to the overall progress of the field, so it is not fair to compare them in terms of greatness.</p>

1. Who is considered the greatest physicist of this century?

The answer to this question is subjective and can vary depending on personal opinions and criteria. Some may argue that Albert Einstein, known for his theory of relativity, is the greatest physicist of this century. Others may argue for Stephen Hawking, who made significant contributions to the study of black holes and cosmology. Ultimately, there is no definitive answer to this question.

2. What makes a physicist great?

Again, this is a subjective question and can vary based on individual opinions. However, some common factors that may contribute to a physicist being considered great include their impact on the field of physics, their revolutionary ideas and theories, and their ability to make significant discoveries and advancements in their research.

3. Are there any female physicists who can be considered the greatest of this century?

While the field of physics has historically been male-dominated, there have been many female physicists who have made significant contributions and advancements in the field. Some notable names include Marie Curie, who was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize in Physics, and Vera Rubin, who made groundbreaking discoveries in the study of dark matter. Whether or not they can be considered the greatest of this century is a matter of personal opinion and criteria.

4. Can a physicist from a developing country be considered the greatest of this century?

Absolutely! The greatness of a physicist is not determined by their nationality or country of origin, but rather by their contributions and impact on the field of physics. There have been many brilliant physicists from developing countries who have made significant advancements and discoveries in their research.

5. How do physicists from different fields compare in terms of greatness?

It is difficult to compare physicists from different fields as their contributions and impact may vary. For example, a theoretical physicist may make groundbreaking discoveries and develop revolutionary theories, while an experimental physicist may make significant advancements in technology and techniques. Each field of physics is important and contributes to the overall progress of the field, so it is not fair to compare them in terms of greatness.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
126
Replies
1
Views
766
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
687
Replies
14
Views
844
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
370
Views
9K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top