What makes a memorable physicist?

[matt.harvard]

Hi

This is my first post, and let's start it off with a common question.

What makes a memorable physicist?

1. The institution in which he graduated from
2. The theories he himself thought of or improved on
3. Winning a nobel prize
4. Celebrity status

These are just some i could think of off the top of my head.

I personally believe that regardless of these 4 examples, all you need is the passion to thrive in what ever field you love.

concur?

 

[Evo]

Hi

This is my first post, and let's start it off with a common question.

What makes a memorable physicist?

1. The institution in which he graduated from
2. The theories he himself thought of or improved on
3. Winning a nobel prize
4. Celebrity status

These are just some i could think of off the top of my head.

I personally believe that regardless of these 4 examples, all you need is the passion to thrive in what ever field you love.

concur?

If you have a passion for what you are doing, you may achieve the last three, but they are not necessarily what it takes to be a memorable physicist, famous yes.

 

[ZapperZ]

Sometime one is "memorable" for dubious reasons. I'm sure Fleshmann and Pons would rather NOT be memorable the way they are now.

Zz.

 

[leright]

Sometime one is "memorable" for dubious reasons. I'm sure Fleshmann and Pons would rather NOT be memorable the way they are now.

Zz.

who are fleshmann and pons?

 

[franznietzsche]

who are fleshmann and pons?

Cold Fusion frauds.

 

[JasonRox]

Cold Fusion frauds.

I remember reading that in one of Asimov's books.

That was the day I realized that not all scientists were honest and trustworthy. The word "crackpot" naturally came to mind and don't ask me how.

 

[franznietzsche]

IMO a physicist is made memorable by the purity of his conviction as it were.

Anyone who is more interested in their personal status in a research community than they are in the actual research has no place in science, IMO. Or maybe, I just have no patience for people who seem to think that science is more about them, their theories, and their careers than it is about nature.

 

[JasonRox]

IMO a physicist is made memorable by the purity of his conviction as it were.

Anyone who is more interested in their personal status in a research community than they are in the actual research has no place in science, IMO. Or maybe, I just have no patience for people who seem to think that science is more about them, their theories, and their careers than it is about nature.

I feel the same way.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It would never occur to me to think of any physicist in terms of memorability. It would seem strange to me to say "Oh, yes! Professor Glutenschlager! A very memorable physicist!" What is that saying about him? It doesn't necessarily mean he was a good or great physicist. He might be memorable for non-professional reasons: for having two thumbs on one hand, or for his habit of dancing a jig at the end of every lecture.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

I'd say it depends on how they impact society! Noone remembers Einstien for his photoelectric effect and I can't say off the top of my head who else won a nobel prize, so it ain't that. Einstien and Eddison etc. all the ones you remember all made a profound effect on today's society - the biggest effects out of all - so definitely that.

 

[Rach3]

Noone remembers Einstien for his photoelectric effect...

Oh, well if we're talking about the general public, than being memorable is not at all something one usually wants, especially if it means having one's name spelled incorrectly on a regular basis.

 

[Mk]

For sure in this community we remember the photoelectric effect. But you're right, most people only hear physicists talking, and the media about E=mc², and general relativity but have no idea what they mean.

 

[zoobyshoe]

For sure in this community we remember the photoelectric effect.

The what?

...

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Oh, well if we're talking about the general public, than being memorable is not at all something one usually wants, especially if it means having one's name spelled incorrectly on a regular basis.

Everyone makes mistakes :tongue:

 

[ZapperZ]

I'd say it depends on how they impact society! Noone remembers Einstien for his photoelectric effect and I can't say off the top of my head who else won a nobel prize, so it ain't that. Einstien and Eddison etc. all the ones you remember all made a profound effect on today's society - the biggest effects out of all - so definitely that.

I don't even agree with that. Arguably, the physicist that has the MOST "impact" on our lives today is someone most people have never heard before - John Bardeen. The ONLY person to have won the Nobel Prize in physics TWICE, his is hardly a household name. Yet, he made 2 significant contributions that have a direct impact on everyone's lives - the discovery of the transistor, and the BCS Theory of superconductivity.

So having an impact does not equate to being "memorable", even with 2 Nobel prizes.

Zz.

 

[J77]

Would Hawking be such a memorable physicist had he not been disabled?

Possibly, to the general public, memorable physicists are those to which people can relate in some way outside of Physics...

 

[matt.harvard]

perhaps saying "what makes a memorable physicist" was in my part a wrong doing.

So to turn the tide, What should one accomplish in physics or in any other science field, to be deemed worthy of saying "he is someone we should look up to".

Should the general public think that all scientist are prodigies and attend the finest institutions in the world or that they are interested in their work and will do anything to further their knowledge of science.

Before anyone asks me if this question pertains to me, no. It was a debate i had with some friends.

-matt

 

[zoobyshoe]

So to turn the tide, What should one accomplish in physics or in any other science field, to be deemed worthy of saying "he is someone we should look up to".

Einstein wrote a little known history of physics (with collaborator Leopold Infield) called The Evolution Of Physics in which he characterized physics as an ongoing struggle to align the thoughts of men about what is happening in Nature with what is actually is happening in Nature.

Anyone who has achieved a more accurate, deeper, or clearer understanding of Nature, therfore, is someone we should emulate.

 

[Evo]

Should the general public think that all scientist are prodigies and attend the finest institutions in the world or that they are interested in their work and will do anything to further their knowledge of science. -matt

I think the general public doesn't really think about it unless something makes the news. They don't care where the guy went to school or where he's currently working. So, my answer is "none of the above" for "general public".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

To me, the most memorable physicists are all of the great professors I had during the course of my education.