Greatest Physicist Ever - Redux Discussion

  • Thread starter Izzhov
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Physicist
In summary: Oh, great! Not another one of these threads.In summary, a conversation about the greatest physicists of all time turned into a discussion about the validity and usefulness of such a topic. Some popular choices for the title included Archimedes, Emmy Noether, Britney Spears (as a joke), Faraday, and Einstein. The importance of recognizing the contributions of lesser-known physicists was also brought up. Ultimately, it was suggested that Newton would likely win the title due to his major advancements in physics.

Who was the greatest physicist ever?

  • Isaac Newton

    Votes: 27 44.3%
  • Albert Einstein

    Votes: 12 19.7%
  • James Clerk Maxwell

    Votes: 7 11.5%
  • Niels Bohr

    Votes: 2 3.3%
  • Werner Heisenberg

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Galileo Galilei

    Votes: 4 6.6%
  • Richard Feynman

    Votes: 6 9.8%
  • Paul Dirac

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Erwin Schroedinger

    Votes: 2 3.3%
  • Ernest Rutherford

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    61
  • #1
Izzhov
121
0
Note: Please See thread "Greatest Physicist Redux."
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Oh, great! Not another one of these threads.
 
  • #3
I'd go for Archimedes, or Zz, or maybe Emmy Noether :tongue2:

Oh but the question was settled already in [thread=115107]this thread[/thread] : she's Britney :rofl:
 
  • #4
OMG !
I did not notice this picture before :
Solvay
 
  • #6
ziad1985 said:
This is a joke right ?
http://britneyspears.ac/

Naw, it looks like semiconductor physics, with just pictures of britney spears. Kind of foolish if you ask me.
 
  • #7
ziad1985 said:
This is a joke right ?
http://britneyspears.ac/

No no, Britney is really a major in SC physics. She just decided to have fun instead of loosing her time in physics lab.
 
  • #8
Hmm, this thread has certainly gone off on quite a tangent. :uhh:

Interesting how Einstein hasn't gotten any votes so far.

By the way, I totally forgot about Archimedes! If I could change the poll I would replace Rutherford with him.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Izzhov said:
If I could change the poll I would replace Rutherford with him.
Uhm... we would still miss Faraday :uhh:
 
  • #10
I always wondered, whether Gell-Mann was more or less important than Landau... never could figure.
 
  • #11
I was just thinking ''why isn't Faraday there" myself. Planck and Tesla to name a couple more amiss.
 
  • #12
Izzhov said:
Interesting how Einstein hasn't gotten any votes so far.

People just want to look sophisticated and not vote for the same guy as all non-physicists would...:wink:
In my eyes Einstein clearly is the greatest of them!
 
  • #13
Ah, Brian David Josephson wins my heart.
 
  • #14
Let me had another tough choice, just a last one :biggrin:
Hawking or Penrose ?
 
  • #15
Where is Fermi?
 
  • #16
Where's the only physicist to have won the Nobel Prize in physics twice?

Even Einstein could not accomplish that!

Zz.
 
  • #17
These kind of topics are useless and there will always be missing physicist.
 
  • #18
ranger said:
These kind of topics are useless and there will always be missing physicist.

Not only that, the word "greatest" is not only meaningless, it is undefined as far as criteria goes. One might as well pick a favorite color.

Zz.
 
  • #19
What a lame thread. So creative! :rolleyes:

We should rank them and then sell it to HS kids like USNEWS and World Report does.
 
  • #20
These kind of topics are useless and there will always be missing physicist.

Not if we start a 10 year project to post every professional Physicist that has ever lived. :tongue2:
 
  • #21
ranger said:
These kind of topics are useless and there will always be missing physicist.
But it's quite funny to even ask the question :tongue:

Actually, I was wondering who is the greatest PF member ever :rolleyes:
 
  • #22
ZapperZ said:
Where's the only physicist to have won the Nobel Prize in physics twice?

My vote is for John Bardeen, but since he is not listed I have to vote for Feynman who could have won 3 Nobels (QED, Theory of Weak Force and Helium Superfluidity). In my mind the only other physicist close in pure talent and breadth of knowledge was Lev Landau.
 
  • #23
ZapperZ said:
Where's the only physicist to have won the Nobel Prize in physics twice?
Do we have a Nobel prize who also is a Field medalist ?
 
  • #24
humanino said:
Do we have a Nobel prize who also is a Field medalist ?

Not that I know of. Anyone know of any?

Zz.
 
  • #25
If only I could list more than 10 options, I would include all of the physicists talked about so far!

Even if I could, I still think Newton would win though...
 
  • #26
ZapperZ said:
Not that I know of. Anyone know of any?
I thought Witten might become one. In any case, that would be tremendous an achievement.
 
  • #27
Izzhov said:
If only I could list more than 10 options, I would include all of the physicists talked about so far!

Even if I could, I still think Newton would win though...
You are missing the point. Newton would not be who he is without Galileo. And Einstein also sits on the shoulders of giants.
 
  • #28
humanino said:
Ah, Brian David Josephson wins my heart.

I don't know much about physicists, why do you say that?
 
  • #29
humanino said:
You are missing the point. Newton would not be who he is without Galileo. And Einstein also sits on the shoulders of giants.

Well, now I see why other threads like this usually specify a century.
 
  • #30
OK let me make a little metaphor. :-)

Knowledge is a huge mountain. Everybody brings something, from a grain of sand to a solid rock. But you must bring it on the top. Many things make it complicated to evaluate someone's contribution. For instance, is it more important to bring a little grain all the way to the top, achieving a major step, or to be one of the first to roll a big block when there is not much to climb ?
 
  • #31
humanino said:
You are missing the point. Newton would not be who he is without Galileo. And Einstein also sits on the shoulders of giants.

If you go by that rationale, you would also have to say Galileo sat on Aristotle or Plato.


Its the fact that Einstein revolutionized Physics with the unification of space and time(among other vast achievements) that puts him ahead of the game in most peoples book.
 
  • #32
fi said:
I don't know much about physicists, why do you say that?
I was mainly having fun :biggrin: Josephson was a very young fellow when he won the Nobel prize (actually, a 22 years old graduate student). But today, he is occupied in remotly disconnected activities from fundamental physics, namely paranormal phenomena. How to judge this phenomenon ? Important physicist no doubt. Crackpot as well ?
 
  • #33
o.k.:smile: , thanks humanino
 
  • #34
imaplanck said:
If you go by that rationale, you would also have to say Galileo sat on Aristotle or Plato.
On the shoulders yes :biggrin:
I never knew them personnaly, and considering philosopher's occupations in greek antiquity, maybe you are right :tongue2:
 
  • #35
humanino said:
On the shoulders yes :biggrin:
:devil: :rofl:
humanino said:
I never knew them personnaly,

Really? Now there was me thinking you were 3000 years old and all.:blushing: :smile:
humanino said:
and considering philosopher's occupations in greek antiquity, maybe you are right :tongue2:
:[/QUOTE]

I don't know, but I sounded pretty knowledgeable don't you think?:biggrin:
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
41
Replies
6
Views
876
Replies
14
Views
896
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
635
Back
Top