Greatest physicist of all time?

[FeynmanMH42]

Who do you think was/is the greatest physicist who ever lived and why?
In my opinion #1 has to go to Newton, with Einstein and Feynman coming joint second. Newton started it all off, while Einstein and Feynman created a public face for science.
If the physicist you want is not in the poll, then say who it is and why in a post.

 

[arildno]

Hmm..I'm not much in favour of rankings like this, but if I must choose, I'd say Archimedes.

 

[mezarashi]

I think Newton is the 'nerdiest' you can go for a physicist. One man show, let's invent the math when it doesn't exist just can't be beat in my opinion.

 

[Theoretician]

I think Newton is the 'nerdiest' you can go for a physicist. One man show, let's invent the math when it doesn't exist just can't be beat in my opinion.

Exactly, this is why it is very hard to see past Newton as the greatest physicist ever.

 

[debeng]

Newton is no physicist, he is more a mathematican. whatever he proved of physics has been of significance only to the Earth's atmosphere, to this surrounding. and never proved anyhting that accounts to the true property of matter. but his mathematical theories sounds quite universal. his theories of motion are all based on practical materials and not on thoerotical basis so he only proved right what occurs in our surrounding and not beyond it. physics is more a theorotical science, isn't it? i account einstien's theorotical expanadings should be given some credit. he is the best.

 

[inha]

physics is more a theorotical science, isn't it? :

NO! A gazillion experimental physicists disagree with you and quite a few theorists too. Including Einstein himself.

 

[debeng]

i never said it is not a practical one?

NO! A gazillion experimental physicists disagree with you and quite a few theorists too. Including Einstein himself.

i apologize for the direct way of saying it. but yet everything has a philosophical approach, and i believe exploring physics has its too. i think mathemtics is just another side of language. we have created mathematics the same way we have created language. they are the means we explore everything in science and our minds. but we never create physics for it exist on its own.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I used to think Newton, but I've changed my mind since I learned a bit about Galileo. I think Galileo was up against a world where there were more outrageously erroneous notions firmly in place than there have ever been since. It's amazing how much he did discover given that most of his energy had to be diverted to tedious arguments about extremely fundamental, obvious points, like the rate of fall of objects of dissimilar weight.

 

[PerennialII]

... one hybrid of Newton & Einstein with a shake of Galileo please.

 

[sameandnot]

einstein was so revolutionary in his way of thinking. people still do not really understand the observations of that man. Newton was a simple physicist, with great ingenuity, but not so much creative thought as einstein, it appears.

it is very difficult for me to think of Newton as a genius... more of a technician.

einstein on the other hand, was creative genius... absolutely unequaled by Newton.

then again, einstein couldn't have done it without Newton, so it's fair that Newton takes the cake, and that einstein "follow in his steps" so to speak.

 

[Mk]

... one hybrid of Newton & Einstein with a shake of Galileo please.

An omniscient being...

 

[Bladibla]

I think physics itself is too diverse in its subjects to choose a single 'greatest' physicist. Having said that, i'll try to answer it, but in a more specific way.
Experimental physics: Bardeen
Theoretical: Einstein
General: Newton

 

[PerennialII]

... think Einstein could have taken a lesson from Newton about methods of working (a snip of Newton's "somewhat" bizarre work ethics ... or mania is probably a better word).

 

[marlon]

Bohr, Dirac or Planck... In short, the QM-buddies

QM is far more usefull to us (and far more beautiful and elegant a theory than GR ever will be). After QM, classical physics comes second on the list of important, ingenious and usefull physics and GR closes the list.

regards
marlon

EDIT : the only thing Einstein ever did was formulating the equivalence principle, that is all.

 

[marlon]

Experimental physics: Bardeen

Huh

How's that ?

regards
marlon

 

[Lisa!]

Einstein! I just feel more comfortable with him than the others!

 

[rachmaninoff]

What about Santa Claus? He modified GR to accommodate for FTL travel. Einstein never thought of that!

 

[marlon]

Einstein! I just feel more comfortable with him than the others!

I checked the poll and yes, you actually voted for Einstein. Can you please tell me why ?

marlon

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

i would have to say, that if god exists then he would have to be the greatest physicist of all time.
:rofl:

 

[desiguy8179]

why is Heisenberg not on the list and we also cannot ignore ancient scientists like Aristotle whose theories remained supreme for thousands of yrs

 

[tribdog]

why is Heisenberg not on the list and we also cannot ignore ancient scientists like Aristotle whose theories remained supreme for thousands of yrs

yeah those theories were wrong longer than any others

 

[zoobyshoe]

yeah those theories were wrong longer than any others

I call him "The Father of all Crackpots".

 

[fourier jr]

how do i change my vote to galileo? he (& descartes & kepler i think) was was of the people who started the 'mathematicization' science, which imo was/is the most important development in the history of science.

 

[marlon]

why is Heisenberg not on the list and we also cannot ignore ancient scientists like Aristotle whose theories remained supreme for thousands of yrs

INDEED

Or what about Aristarchus, the real and only founder of "heliocentrism".

You know, this is what happens with polls that have only been constructed based upon "popular beliefs". "Everybody" asses Einstein to be the greatest:yuck: scientist of all time, but 95% of these voters do not even know why. They do not know the work of Heisenberg, Bohr, Planck, Dirac, Bardeen, ...Hell, they do not even know what Einsteins work really is about or what PART of Special/General Relativity actually comes from Einstein HIMSELF!

marlon

 

[EL]

I miss Schwinger and Weinberg...

 

[marlon]

I miss Schwinger and Weinberg...

Spoken like a true QFT guy...

Let's add Yang and Mills, t' Hooft and Veltman, the asmptotic freedom trio, Dyson, ...

I always wonder why Feynman is mentioned in the poll but not the other scientists he won the Nobel Prize with. He did not do all of the work himself, you know.

marlon

 

[EL]

I always wonder why Feynman is mentioned in the poll but not the other scientists he won the Nibel Prize with. He did not do all of the work himself, you know.
marlon

Exactly. But indeed he brought much physics to the public. Anyway, I don't know if that really makes him a better physicist than the others...

 

[tribdog]

marlon isn't going to be happy with anybody's choice until he see's his own name up there.

 

[desiguy8179]

if public interest in science is a criterea,Steven hawking should be mentioned.
Hon. mentions also include ed witten,brian green...may be these string guys will dislodge einstein and Newton if string theory is ever proven to be credible

 

[tribdog]

if those are the criteria throw up Greg Bernhardt

 

[zoobyshoe]

Exactly. But indeed he brought much physics to the public. Anyway, I don't know if that really makes him a better physicist than the others...

A biography I read of him said that while he was at Cal Tech he often sat at his desk for hours fielding calls from physicists all over the country who wanted his take on how to go about doing various out of the ordinary things. He was universally respected among his peers as an extremely clever, innovative problem solver with a huge bag of alternate ways to go about unraveling any problem. It was other physicists who started calling him a genius well before the public might have heard of him when he got the Nobel prize.

As for being a popularizer of physics, he really wasn't. His two autobiographical books have almost no physics in them. His attempt to explain QED to a lay audience pretty much fell flat. He gave some other lectures to general audiences , but they were only half-structured, often going well off the subject of physics, and no one much reads them (These are in The Meaning Of It All, a little book that is much harder to find than Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman. Hardly any demand for it.)

The biography I like is Richard Feynman, A life in Science by John Gribbin and Mary Gribbin.

 

[SpaceTiger]

INDEED
Or what about Aristarchus, the real and only founder of "heliocentrism".

If you're going to pick an ancient astronomer, I think Hipparchus would be a much more natural choice. However, I'd say none of those folks were really "physicists" in the modern sense of the word. This especially goes for Aristotle, whose methods often more closely resembled those of a philosopher.

 

[marlon]

If you're going to pick an ancient astronomer, I think Hipparchus would be a much more natural choice.

ok, you have a good point here

However, I'd say none of those folks were really "physicists" in the modern sense of the word. This especially goes for Aristotle, whose methods often more closely resembled those of a philosopher.

That is also very true. But i do think these people must be in the list because they really "founded" the way our way of modern thinking and reasoning. Especially if you compare Hipparchus/Aristarchus versus Ptolemeaus.

regards
marlon

 

[Stingray]

EDIT : the only thing Einstein ever did was formulating the equivalence principle, that is all.

For someone accusing others of misunderstanding Einstein's contributions, you should learn a bit more yourself. Saying that all Einstein did was the equivalence principle is like saying that all Newton ever did was notice that falling apples hurt when they hit your head (and that they hurt more the farther they fall).

Einstein's version of the EP was hardly any different from Newton's anyway. Today, it's basically an anachronism. By itself, it does not lead to general relativity simply or even uniquely. Einstein contributed vastly more to gravity than you're giving him credit for (although he was not alone either).

Beyond that, he obviously played a major role in special relativity, which is used everywhere these days. His contributions to understanding the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, etc. were also extremely important historically.

 

[marlon]

For someone accusing others of misunderstanding Einstein's contributions, you should learn a bit more yourself. Saying that all Einstein did was the equivalence principle is like saying that all Newton ever did was notice that falling apples hurt when they hit your head (and that they hurt more the farther they fall).

Well actually, this WAS the case. Newton invented his "own" mathematics to implement in his physical theories : ie integrals, etc etc...ow, i know that Leibniz also invented integrals and i do acknowledge the work of people like Descartes when it comes to vectors and so on...so let's not get into that. Einstein used all of the mathematics from Gauss and especially Riemann and Elie Cartan to mathematically "translate" his physical theories. Most of this "translating" work was not done by Einstein himself but by others like Riemann.

Beyond that, he obviously played a major role in special relativity, which is used everywhere these days.

I never denied that. But all of the basic ingredients of special relativity were all invented by other scientists like Lorentz, Fitzgerald, etc etc...When do you ever hear people give them credit for that ?

His contributions to understanding the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, etc. were also extremely important historically.

First of all, most people will not even know that Einstein worked on Brownian motion or capillarity or that he even tried to build his own version of the refrigirator. You see, apparentely Einstein is all about relativity. This is indeed not true but what i am contesting is not this but the fact that "relativity is not all about Einstein". Hell no, it most certainly is NOT. Even, the basic concept of relativity does not even come from Einstein.

Again, Einstein is so famous, not thanks to his work but thanks to

1)Adolf Hitler
2) the Catholic Church's interpretation of Relativity
3) the famous extravaganza between progressive and conservative Germany in the first half of the 20th century.

regards
marlon