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

  • Thread starter dsaun777
  • Start date
In summary: I don't remember the link, sorry. But I think the gist of it was that he recommended Lev Okun's work on relativistic mass.In summary, Lev Okun was briefly here to talk about mass and energy in relativity, remind us of his works on that.
  • #1
dsaun777
293
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
  • #2
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 pinball1970
  • #3
Brian Cox.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #4
We used to have a sort of partnership with Michio Kaku. Mileage varies.
 
  • #5
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 dsaun777, symbolipoint, PhDeezNutz and 5 others
  • #6
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 PhDeezNutz
  • #7
Garrett Lisi used to hang in here.
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
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 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 ChemAir, Wrichik Basu, dextercioby and 3 others
  • #11
Ibix said:
a poster (who shall remain nameless)
Spoilsport! :smile:
 
  • Haha
Likes 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 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 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 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 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 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.
 
  • Haha
Likes 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 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 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 Bystander
  • #30
Bandersnatch said:
fame is in the eye of the beholder
"Famous" is not exactly the same as "notorious:,
 
  • #31
I'm not sure eventual notoriety erases past fame. I know him mainly as a populariser.
 
  • #32
caf5ae9f-ciam-imgur-1.jpg
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and PhDeezNutz
  • #33
PhDeezNutz said:
I would love to see this thread if you have a link.
I did a quick search, but failed to find it.

OTOH, maybe people should be allowed to let their past peccadilos fade into the mists of time, even if they are media sl##\vee##ts. :oldsmile:
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz
  • #34
Vanadium 50 said:
The OP should clarify.
Seems pretty clear to me:
dsaun777 said:
Have any famous or well known scientists [...]
 
  • Like
Likes dsaun777
  • #35
strangerep said:
sl##\vee##ts. :oldsmile:
I think this is the best way to describe such people. I'll refrain from going on a full blown tirade.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
95
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
929
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
939
Replies
19
Views
864
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top