Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Greatest living physicist?

  1. Aug 2, 2009 #1
    In your opinion. Or who is your favorite. Freeman Dyson is my favorite. I think he is the best too.:!!)
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 2, 2009 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    IMO Weinberg as the greatest, and 't Hooft and Wilczek for being cool guys. I don't particularly like Freeman Dyson due to his religious views and his views on global warming.
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2009
  4. Aug 2, 2009 #3
    What is wrong with his religous views and his views on Global Warming? Quite frankly, Weinberg seems like an ******* and Dyson seems like a cool guy.

    "I'm heretical because I was studying climate change at least 30 years ago before it became fashionable"


    Dyson was being published on climate change before Al Gore even heard of it.
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2009
  5. Aug 2, 2009 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think that there are too many branches of physics to pin down a 'best'. I know nothing of Dyson's or Weinberg's political or religious standpoints, but they're both giants in the field. I wouldn't discount Hawking, or even our own ZapperZ and Arildno. Just because you don't make headlines or publish popular books doesn't detract from your value to the scientific community.
  6. Aug 2, 2009 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Frankly, I find it odd for any physicist to be a religious and to be a Christian. I also disagree with attempts to reconcile science and religion, since I believe religion to be antithesis to science. I also believe, based on the way I understand the current overwhelming scientific consensus, that he is downplaying the dangers of global warming. Maybe I'm wrong. Since this is a forum to discuss physics and not religion or climate change, I won't make any further comments. That said, Freeman Dyson is obviously a great legend with respect to his particular works in physics.

    Weinberg, may seem like an "*******", but I am just quite impressed that not only did he make huge contributions to theoretical high energy physics, but also to gravitation and cosmology. I also find his texts and his "The first three minutes" to be exceptional reads.
  7. Aug 2, 2009 #6
    Science is more about standing up against consensus (if it was consensus in the first place). Also http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~bfvaughan/text/lex/defs/consensus.html [Broken].
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  8. Aug 2, 2009 #7
    I couldn't have said it better myself!
    I happen to like some of Dyson's views, like Anthropogenic global warming hasn't been proven beyond a doubt, but a bit of game theory would spur me to agree that it's a good idea to curb our emissions, just in case, and even if we're wrong at least then the world will have less smog.

    As for his religious views, I won't say much just that they hint of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Overlapping_Magisteria" [Broken]

    However I digress, my vote goes to Roger Penrose.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  9. Aug 2, 2009 #8
    One of the main things science teaches us is how little we really know and understand so how can science be used to discount religion?I am agnostic and I am not promoting religion.
    Anyway,I also digress and my vote goes to Hawkins, not that I understand what he has done but because of his success as a science populariser.
  10. Aug 2, 2009 #9
    Some of the best scientists ever managed to reconcile science and religion. Dyson is just another one of them.

    Maybe some of the claims do need to be moderated. It is bordering on fear mongering.


    "It's a real problem, but it's nothing like as serious as people are led to believe. The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm."

    A climate scientist who served on the IPCC:

  11. Aug 2, 2009 #10
    Freeman Dyson, the claim that 'some of the best scientists ever managed to reconcile science and religion' is so full of fallacies that I'm not going to say much more than to outline what fallacies you've committed in that one sentence.

    - Appeal to Misleading Authority
    - Vagueness
    - and, well, rank subjectivity, in that to all factual indications it is impossible to reconcile science, which is rational, and religion, which is absurd and utterly idiotic!
  12. Aug 2, 2009 #11
    I wouldn't say science is more about standing up against consensus. Science is about finding the truth of empirical claims, regardless of whether the consensus agrees with the conclusions or not.

    That said, if you were a Zoologist, would you not accept the claims of the long held consensus of physicists on quantum theory (or some other in-depth physics claim) simply because it is consensus? Of course you would accept them. It is well and good to test claims yourself, and go through reasoned arguments to get to the conclusions of quantum theory, but not everyone can do this for every claim they accept. Sometimes you just have to trust the professionals. If we tested every in-depth claim about the world before we believed it, then we would never get anything done. It's great to challenge the consensus on things you really can test or logically figure out for yourself, but you simply can't do this for *everything*.

    By definition science doesn't deal with religion (where religion is "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny."), due to the invocation of the supernatural. This isn't true for every single claim a religion makes, of course. For instance, the virgin birth is an empirical claim that a human female has given birth without the sperm of another human male, but when you say a supernatural "God did it," it is out of the domain of science. You can't test or predict things like that.

    EDIT: Also, it seems sort of inconsistent for a scientist to be religious because, by the definition of a scientist, he or she accepts the validity of a claim based on empirical evidence and reasoned argument. So it'd be like he or she saying "I accept claims based on evidence and inferred reasoning. Oh, and also I accept a bunch of these supernatural untestable and or untested facts as well."
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  13. Aug 2, 2009 #12
    Is the essence of Beauty rational? no, should it then be cast into the ''absurd and utterly idiotic''?

    Your wording suggests you are trying to be inflammatory and frankly I think that is closed minded. so as to not let this thread but sucked into yet another theological debate, I attach a conversation held between Paul Dirac and some eminent Physicists of his day, Wolfgang Pauli, Heisenberg and Bohr, I hope you enjoy it!

    Dirac said: "I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and as scientists honesty is our precise duty—we cannot help but admit that any religion is a pack of false statements, deprived of any real foundation. The very idea of God is a product of human imagination.... I do not recognize any religious myth, at least because they contradict one another...." Heisenberg's view was tolerant. Pauli had kept silent, after some initial remarks, but when finally he was asked for his opinion, jokingly he said: "Well, I'd say that also our friend Dirac has got a religion and the first commandment of this religion is 'God does not exist and Paul Dirac is his prophet.'" Everybody burst into laughter, including Dirac.
  14. Aug 2, 2009 #13
    "Freeman Dyson":

    Are you sure you can use Freeman Dyson's name (unless, I suppose, it's also your real name)? Do you have his permission? I encountered a situation on another site where a member's user name was identical to a physicist's name (he's best known to the public for his pop science). This was a poorly managed site where lurid personal attacks and profanity were rampant and the individual in question was among the worst offenders. You've referred to Dr Dyson in the third person and on this thread at least, you haven't broken any rules. However, I'm not sure it's OK to knowingly use a another real person's name without that person's permission (unless, of course, you are THE Freeman Dyson since you haven't specifically said you aren't.)
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2009
  15. Aug 2, 2009 #14
    He would be one egotistical bastard if he were the real Freeman Dyson.

    It's not illegal or bad to have the forum name of a real person.
  16. Aug 2, 2009 #15
    Another pointless discussion on the greatest physicist... It is already pointless to ask who was the best physicist ever, since they build on each other. Now today's physicists, it is even worse defined... well, how can you judge something ongoing ? How can you compare (names did not appear above) Ed Witten versus Alain Connes versus Carlo Rovelli versus Roger Penrose ? First of, they contribute quite differently, second we do not know yet which contribution will end up most influential.

    The best physicist alive is Greg for contributing the world with PF.
  17. Aug 2, 2009 #16
    I threw that out as a possibility, but it's not serious. As far as egotistical bastards, academia (in all fields) is full them.
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2009
  18. Aug 2, 2009 #17
    I do think it is bad. Using a known physicists name may deceive some people into thinking that he/she is in fact that person (even if they make no attempt to intentionally impersonate beyond picking the name), and it may also slander that person's reputation (especially since this is a physics forum).
  19. Aug 3, 2009 #18


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think that the real Freeman Dyson would either lurk in the shadows as an observer, or register under a pseudonym.
    I love the 'sphere' concept, by the bye, but I think that Niven improved upon it with the 'Ringworld' concept.
  20. Aug 3, 2009 #19
    Is there a reason people are picking Hawkings and Penrose beyond their pop sci books? Are people really that enamoured of their contributions to physics that they think they stand up to the "big hitters" in the actual physics community? Hawkings, for example, has like a third the h-index of weinberg and witten (I know h-index isn't the greatest indicator but that's a huge disparity).

    Now, best living physicist? I'd definetly have to go with Phil Anderson. I remember reading an article where they did an analysis and found that he was "the most creative physicist" (i.e. the highest ratio of number of times his papers were sited vs. number of citations he made in his papers) http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/25623 . This is probably due to the fact that the guy CREATED like 3 to 4 fields. But he doesn't do cosmology or HEP and he's never written a science popularizer book which means a lot of people outside the field probably havent heard of him (his h-index is like 2-3 less then weinberg and witten).
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  21. Aug 3, 2009 #20
    Another amazingly important physicist who most people have never heard of despite being the only person to win TWO nobel prizes in physics and both of them for discoveries that changed the face of technology forever (his first arguably created the digital age), is Bardeen. He's not living (he died in 1991) but, one again, if you don't do cosmology and HEP or write sciene populizer books you remain relatively obscure. Even if you did contribute to the invention of the transistor (the basis of all modern electronic nad microchips) AND the theory of superconductors.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Greatest living physicist?
  1. Greatest Physicist Ever (Replies: 93)