Most revolutionary physicist/s currently

  • Thread starter Thread starter Futuregen600
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around identifying current revolutionary figures in physics. Participants explore the notion of what constitutes a revolutionary physicist and reflect on the state of the field today, considering various contributions and perspectives across different areas of physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express difficulty in identifying any current revolutionary physicists, suggesting that there may be none at this time.
  • One participant notes a significant shift of physicists towards biology and chemistry, proposing that this trend may indicate a broader revolution in how physics is applied to complex systems.
  • Phil Anderson is mentioned as a potential revolutionary figure, though no further details are provided.
  • Edward Witten is discussed as a controversial figure; some participants argue that his theories are unproven and less useful, while others defend his influence and contributions to modern physics.
  • A participant highlights the importance of speculative ideas in fundamental physics and the value of understanding established concepts before classifying revolutionary ideas.
  • Alain Connes is proposed as another candidate for a revolutionary shift, particularly through his work on non-commutative geometry, which some compare to Einstein's use of non-Euclidean geometries.
  • The influence of Roger Penrose and his twistor methods is also noted, particularly in relation to Witten's work and its impact on particle physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on who the current revolutionary figures in physics are, with multiple competing views and a general sense of uncertainty regarding the identification of such figures.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects varying levels of familiarity with contemporary physicists and their contributions, as well as differing opinions on the significance of speculative theories in the field.

Futuregen600
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
it is hard to say who is the best physicist of all time, since there are so many fields of physics, and so many people are extremely intelligent in this fields..

but talking currently.. what physicist/s comes to your mind, currently.. that is sort of a revolutionary figure in physics right now, it can be 1 person or many people... just what revolutionary guys, currently come to your mind...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My first thought is that there is none.
 
ModusPwnd said:
My first thought is that there is none.

there isn't anyone that you can think of.. that is sort of "revolutionary" in any physics field
 
I don't know people in the science community well enough, so I can't really comment myself.
 
I think the big revolution that physics is having/will have is with the mass exodus of physicists from physics departments to biology, chemistry and other departments that deal with complex systems and higher level, non-reductionist models.

Also, physics and all science is such a highly orchestrated collaborative event that expecting there to be one or a few revolutionary figures at any given time might be a stretch.
 
Phil Anderson?
 
i don't see any revolutionary physicist since the death of einstein

some say edward witten, but much of his theories is unproven and much less useful, imho
 
arabianights said:
some say edward witten, but much of his theories is unproven and much less useful, imho
And not even capitalizing proper nouns qualifies for what again ?

Fundamental science is not like sport or horse races. Even failed approaches can have propaedeutic value. Although Newton did not mean it in as a compliment, researchers do "sit on the shoulders of giants". Therefore, there is not much value in trying to classify speculative ideas in fundamental physics. There is much more value in trying to understand for oneself the established concepts, sitting on the latest giants and making one's own mind as to which speculation will be the most fruitful in the future.

This being said, and because Ed Witten is being bullied here, I will take a couple of examples related but not restricted to him. There are a great many people to praise for the revolutionary concepts they put forward. Their proposal may not be as straightforward to grasp as fancy colorful science-fiction movie graphical animations, but they also go much deeper and wider.

So take Witten's most cited paper over the last decade. Dec 2003 "Perturbative gauge theory in twistor space". As it turns out, Roger Penrose has been insisting that we need to use his twistor formulation. His arguments are not just technical, but also extend to a full philosophical discussion and picture. Maybe because Penrose's background is in general relativity, the particle physics community has not been listening much. But after Witten's paper in 2003, the twistor methods have boomed all the way into Monte-Carlo generators essentials for the analysis of data coming out of the LHC. Penrose's proposal has only very few rivals in elegance, breadth and depth. I would urge anybody interested to know more to read his "Road to Reality", which is a true masterpiece in the communication of modern science.

One possible candidate for a revolutionary shift in our picture of the fundamental laws is Alain Connes' non-commutative geometry. In the beginning of the previous century, Einstein proposed to use non-euclidean geometries. We are talking about the same kind of shift : opening the possibilities for geometries which are qualitatively different. Connes likes to tell the story of a well known theoretician who walked out of a seminar Connes gave long ago. When they recently and randomly met aboard a train, the well known theoretician approached Connes and starts asking him questions. Surprised, Connes reminds him of the time he walked out of the seminar. The answer : "but I recently saw Witten hold your book in a library".

This last example should also illustrate the influence Ed Witten has on modern physics. Whether one agrees with him or not, the influence cannot be denied.

Alain Connes has also written the most beautiful speculative paper I have ever read, with Carlo Rovelli :
Von Neumann Algebra Automorphisms and Time-Thermodynamics Relation in General Covariant Quantum Theories
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 190 ·
7
Replies
190
Views
17K