Have any famous or well known scientists come to this site?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dsaun777
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the presence of famous or well-known scientists on the Physics Forums. Participants explore various individuals who have been associated with the forum, discussing their contributions and the nature of their fame, whether in academia or the public eye.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire whether any famous scientists have been part of the forum, suggesting that they should be involved.
  • One participant mentions Valery Fabrikant as an infamous figure who posted about ten years ago.
  • Brian Cox is mentioned multiple times, with discussions about his brief involvement and the challenges he faced when engaging with knowledgeable physicists.
  • Lev Okun is noted as having participated in discussions about mass and energy in relativity, though some participants question the level of his fame.
  • Garrett Lisi is discussed in terms of his publication record and whether he qualifies as a "famous physicist" or an "internet celebrity."
  • Sean Carroll is referenced as having recommended the forum, with some debate about his level of fame compared to other scientists.
  • Participants reflect on the nature of fame in science, suggesting that public recognition does not always correlate with scientific contributions.
  • There are mentions of collaborations with John Baez and Francesca Vidotto, with discussions about their contributions to the forum.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the relevance of fame in the context of scientific discourse.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on what constitutes fame in science, with no consensus on whether certain individuals qualify as "famous." The discussion remains unresolved regarding the significance of fame in relation to scientific contributions.

Contextual Notes

There are references to specific interactions and discussions involving well-known scientists, but the context and details of these interactions are not fully resolved. The discussion highlights varying perceptions of fame and its relevance to the scientific community.

dsaun777
Messages
296
Reaction score
39
Have any famous or well known scientists come to this site or are apart of this forum? If not, they should be.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you are willing to consider infamous as well, I know Valery Fabrikant came around for a few posts about 10 years ago.
 
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970
Brian Cox.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970
We used to have a sort of partnership with Michio Kaku. Mileage varies.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz
1. I am not sure there are any famous physicists. I was on a flight and happened to be seated next to Jack Steinberger. (Had a great time) Nobody knew who he was. Even with the manifest.

Lev Okun used to be here. Who? My point exaxctly.

2, The scientists who are well-known to the online community are usually not famous for their science, but for, well, being well-known to the online community.

Brian Cox vs. Lev Okun? My point exactly.

3. "They should be" sounds awfully demanding. Why should they come here? They can find the ungrateful and demanding at their home institutions.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: dsaun777, symbolipoint, PhDeezNutz and 5 others
I seem to remember Brian Josephson (as in "Josephson effect" and "Josephson Junction") being active for a short time a few years ago.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz
Garrett Lisi used to hang in here.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu
We had a collaboration with John Baez in the past. But yeah, Lev Okun was briefly here to talk about mass and energy in relativity, remind us of his works on that.
 
dextercioby said:
We had a collaboration with John Baez in the past. But yeah, Lev Okun was briefly here to talk about mass and energy in relativity, remind us of his works on that.

If someone has to remind you about their work, they can't be that famous! :)
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: dsaun777
  • #10
Office_Shredder said:
If someone has to remind you about their work, they can't be that famous! :)
He's famous enough that when he appeared and asked a question about relativistic mass and whether we thought it was a useful concept, a poster (who shall remain nameless) recommended he read the work of Lev Okun.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: ChemAir, Wrichik Basu, dextercioby and 3 others
  • #11
Ibix said:
a poster (who shall remain nameless)
Spoilsport! :smile:
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: phinds
  • #12
StevieTNZ said:
Brian Cox.
Media personalities have to be careful exposing themselves to public conversation with others who actually know the subject in detail.

Brian was here just long enough for various other physicists (who actually understood relativistic quantum entanglement theory and the distinction between correlation and causation) to take him to task over a segment in one of his TV shows where he claimed that an action here on Earth could instantaneously cause an effect in Andromeda. :oldfrown:
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970, symbolipoint and PhDeezNutz
  • #13
fluidistic said:
Garrett Lisi
OK, let's pick on him. Is he a "famous physicist"? According to Inspire has published 2 papers with a combined 68 cites. On the one hand, that's 2 and 68 more than most PFers. On the others, thousands of working physicists have stronger publication records.

Are "famous physicist" and "internet celebrity" synonyms?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz
  • #15
pinball1970 said:
Sean Carroll.
He also apparently recommended us at least once:
thegroundhog said:
How did you find PF?: This site was recommended by Sean Carroll after I emailed him with two queries regarding quantum physics.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Wrichik Basu, pinball1970 and Astranut
  • #16
Vanadium 50 said:
OK, let's pick on him. Is he a "famous physicist"? According to Inspire has published 2 papers with a combined 68 cites. On the one hand, that's 2 and 68 more than most PFers. On the others, thousands of working physicists have stronger publication records.

Are "famous physicist" and "internet celebrity" synonyms?
Yes, he was the hottest one back in 2007. https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...offers-alternative-to-string-theory-academia/
Maybe his theory didn't work out, but that doesn't matter, he was the cool physicist surfing around, and everyone, physicist or not, had heard about him.
 
  • #17
68 cites isn't "didnt pan out". It's "the community found it uninteresting". One can always fit the SM into a big enough group. The trick is to find a group that makes the theory restrictive enough to make predictions,. To pick another theory that "didn't pan out", Pati-Salam had 3000 or so cites. The difference is that the physics community found that paper interesting. (It taught the world how to create GUTs)

There are a half dozen or dozen people on PF with a stronger publishing record. Do they nolt count because they aren't "surfer dudes"? The OP should clarify. (But he seems to have wandered away)
 
  • #19
Ibix said:
He's famous enough that when he appeared and asked a question about relativistic mass and whether we thought it was a useful concept, a poster (who shall remain nameless) recommended he read the work of Lev Okun.
I remember it was me. Perhaps if you have the link, you can share it here. It would be nice for me to reread it. :)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: LittleSchwinger, hmmm27, Wrichik Basu and 5 others
  • #21
Vanadium 50 said:
68 cites isn't "didnt pan out". It's "the community found it uninteresting". One can always fit the SM into a big enough group. The trick is to find a group that makes the theory restrictive enough to make predictions,. To pick another theory that "didn't pan out", Pati-Salam had 3000 or so cites. The difference is that the physics community found that paper interesting. (It taught the world how to create GUTs)

There are a half dozen or dozen people on PF with a stronger publishing record. Do they nolt count because they aren't "surfer dudes"? The OP should clarify. (But he seems to have wandered away)
I am guessing TV famous and even those are not particularly well known to the general public.
I had tickets to see a Richard Dawkins talk in Salford a few years ago and my friend and his partner asked if there were tickets left.
I managed to get some and we all went, books signed, photo taken etc.
My friend a few weeks later said his partner had mentioned to him that she expected him to be in a wheelchair.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: julian
  • #22
julian said:
...

Francesca Vidotto, who wrote the book "Covariant loop quantum gravity" with Carlo Rovelli:
...
Marcus was mentioned in that book. Yay Marcus!
 
  • Love
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970 and julian
  • #23
OmCheeto said:
Marcus was mentioned in that book. Yay Marcus!
I had no idea! Which page?
 
  • #24
julian said:
I had now idea! Which page?
I've been told by forum mentors not to divulge his true identity, so I'm afraid I can't tell you. Sorry!
 
  • #25
strangerep said:
Media personalities have to be careful exposing themselves to public conversation with others who actually know the subject in detail.

Brian was here just long enough for various other physicists (who actually understood relativistic quantum entanglement theory and the distinction between correlation and causation) to take him to task over a segment in one of his TV shows where he claimed that an action here on Earth could instantaneously cause an effect in Andromeda. :oldfrown:

I would love to see this thread if you have a link.
 
  • #26
PhDeezNutz said:
I would love to see this thread if you have a link.
I found this easily the other day and now I cannot locate it. It is from 2011 between Dec20th and 24th. Under BeCox.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz
  • #28
Vanadium 50 said:
the community found it uninteresting
This is a little unfair or me. Maybe not "uninteresting" as "less interesting than tre hype would lead you to believe."
 
  • #29
I'm pretty sure we had Lawrence Krauss in a drive-by posting. As usual, though, fame is in the eye of the beholder.

Ibix said:
He also apparently recommended us at least once:
AFAIR, He does occasionally do that in his podcast's AMAs. But with the caveat that it's just a forum, so the quality of answers may vary (as you never sure if you're not being taught *cough* cosmology by a high school graduate *cough*). Also, the people he redirects here often seem to have the kind of questions/attitude that would result in a ban, or at least frustration.It's my entirely subjective perception that celebrity boffins don't see internet forums as an especially productive way to spend their time. I'm guessing professional fame opens avenues for better ways of communication - whether with one's peers or the general public. Conferences, public talks, podcasts, books. Who's got time to click through random postings.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bystander
  • #30
Bandersnatch said:
fame is in the eye of the beholder
"Famous" is not exactly the same as "notorious:,
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K