Poll: Greatest physicist of the 20th century?

  • Thread starter Thread starter covert_genius
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physicist Poll
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on identifying the greatest scientist of the 21st century, with a focus on scientific contributions, public education, and relevance in research. Participants debate the merits of various figures, notably Stephen Hawking and the Mythbusters team. While Hawking is recognized for his significant research contributions, some argue he is less effective at engaging the general public compared to the Mythbusters, who are praised for popularizing scientific concepts through entertainment. However, critics of the Mythbusters emphasize that their work lacks the rigor of true scientific research. The conversation also touches on the importance of defining what constitutes a "great physicist," suggesting that contributions to scientific knowledge should be prioritized over popularity or media presence. Overall, the thread highlights the complexity of measuring scientific greatness and the differing values placed on education versus research in the scientific community.

greatest current physicist?

  • Michio Kaku (discovery channel)

    Votes: 5 20.8%
  • Adam Savage (myth busters)

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Stephen Hawkings (discovery channel)

    Votes: 13 54.2%
  • Jamie Hyndeman (myth busters)

    Votes: 3 12.5%

  • Total voters
    24
  • #31
JaredJames said:
You don't want to know how many attempts it took to catch this:

attachment.php?attachmentid=34718&stc=1&d=1303433703.png

:smile: :smile: :smile: Thanks, Jared!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
In case you were wondering what happens when Micromass slaps new users with a fish...
 
  • #33
  • #34
Can't beat a bit of Monty Python.

Heck, with the standards in this thread, I nominate them as the greatest physicists!

They certainly demonstrated Newtons laws, nothing like a fish to the face to drive home the concept. You won't forget that in a hurry.
 
  • #35
Now that I think about it... Physics is a very woody word. It has that woody quality about it. Good woody sort of word.
 
  • #37
G01 said:
Now, as the air of General Discussion fills my lungs, I want to laugh at both the thread and myself.
Ooh, something for the quotes thread!
G01 said:
someone hit me with a fish please...
Ok.
fish2qn4.gif

pergradus said:
this poll is absurd...
:smile:
jhae2.718 said:
Who is Stephen Hawkings?
Ask that in the Stupid Q&A thread.

I nominate Zefrem Cochrane as the greatest physicist.
Oh wait he's a fictional character. :biggrin:



You people are distracting me from my TV episode.
 
  • #38
Okay, for the first time for the last time, it is Stephen Hawking. Not "Hawkings". No "s".

There's also no "Feynmann" or "Einstien". :devil:
 
  • #39
jhae2.718 said:
Okay, for the first time for the last time, it is Stephen Hawking. Not "Hawkings". No "s".
Ok, ok, I understood the first time. I noticed the "s".
I was not saying you were stupid. :bugeye:
 
  • #40
I think it's really sad how Stefan Hawkins is confined to his wheelchair...
 
  • #41
FtlIsAwesome said:
Ok, ok, I understood the first time. I noticed the "s".
I was not saying you were stupid. :bugeye:

I did not interpret it as such.

<rant>
I am just sick and tired of people not taking the time to make sure what they write is correct. It's not that hard to get the name of such big names correct, but people misspell "Hawking" as "Hawkings" or "Einstein" as "Einstien" all the time.

The same holds with spelling and grammar issues. I can understand typos every now and then, but is it really that hard to use a spell-checker, or to use capital letters and punctuation correctly?
</rant>
 
Last edited:
  • #42
We should have [rant][/rant] tags integrated into the forum. :biggrin:
People use them often.
 
  • #43
FtlIsAwesome said:
We should have [rant][/rant] tags integrated into the forum. :biggrin:
People use them often.

We have them already, just click on the eye on the editor.
 
  • #44
micromass said:
We have them already, just click on the eye on the editor.
The spoiler tags just aren't the same you know?...
The rant tags should be like the code tags, but with a red background.
 
  • #45
FtlIsAwesome said:
The spoiler tags just aren't the same you know?...
The rant tags should be like the code tags, but with a red background.

The spoiler tags are especially made for rants! They make them invisible, except for the masochists who really want to see them...
 
  • #46
Well, you'd also want type attributes for starters, e.g.:

<rant type="Why is it that I am the only one here who is competent?" />
<rant type="Honestly, I'm the only one who $does_something; I don't know why I bother." />
<rant type="I'm low on caffeine and I just want to yell at someone." />
<rant type="Internet, this is why I'm right and your wrong." /> /*Yes, the misspelling is intended.*/

We need to work out a specification first.
 
  • #47
micromass said:
The spoiler tags are especially made for rants! They make them invisible, except for the masochists who really want to see them...
That's what's wrong with them, they're invisible.
When I rant, I want it to be big and bold.
 
  • #48
FtlIsAwesome said:
The spoiler tags just aren't the same you know?...
The rant tags should be like the code tags, but with a red background.

You could always just make up one of your own .
 
  • #49
jhae2.718 said:
Well, you'd also want type attributes for starters, e.g.:

<rant type="Why is it that I am the only one here who is competent?" />
<rant type="Honestly, I'm the only one who $does_something; I don't know why I bother." />
<rant type="I'm low on caffeine and I just want to yell at someone." />
<rant type="Internet, this is why I'm right and your wrong." /> /*Yes, the misspelling is intended.*/

We need to work out a specification first.

And for our crackpot friends

<rant type="People with a phoney PhD oppress my freedom of speech. pi is exactly 3, damnit! />
 
  • #50
jhae2.718 said:
Well, you'd also want type attributes for starters, e.g.:

Code:
<rant type="Why is it that I am the only one here who is competent?" />
<rant type="Honestly, I'm the only one who $does_something; I don't know why I bother." />
<rant type="I'm low on caffeine and I just want to yell at someone." />
<rant type="Internet, this is why I'm right and your wrong." /> /*Yes, the misspelling is intended.*/

We need to work out a specification first.
I want to add this.
Code:
<rant type="I just want to yell at someone." />
lisab said:
You could always just make up one of your own .
That's what people have been doing! :-p
micromass said:
And for our crackpot friends

Code:
<rant type="People with a phoney PhD oppress my freedom of speech. pi is exactly 3, damnit! />
No that's wrong. I saw one who said pi is 4. :wink:
 
  • #51
FtlIsAwesome said:
No that's wrong. I saw one who said pi is 4. :wink:

u shud no that pi is 3.125 i like read it on this web and this guy prooved it wif math

:biggrin:
 
  • #52
Listen up, I haven't done math in like 25 years, but I think I have shown that pi is exactly 22/7. I just hope that the mathematics work out!
 
  • #53
Hey everyone, I've got this theory that unifies GR and QM worked out pretty well, here's my paper. I just need someone to fill in the math.

<link to poorly formatted 3 page Word document>
 
  • #54
All seriousness in this thread died the moment it was moved to GD...
 
  • #55
jhae2.718 said:
All seriousness in this thread died the moment it was moved to GD...
*hyperventilating maniacal laugh*NOTICE: In approximately 1 minute the web protection on my computer will lock me out of the Internet.
 
  • #56
FtlIsAwesome said:
NOTICE: In approximately 1 minute the web protection on my computer will lock me out of the Internet.

:confused:
 
  • #57
jhae2.718 said:
All seriousness in this thread died the moment it was moved to GD...

I would have thought all seriousness in the thread died when we were given the original selections.
 
  • #58
covert_genius said:
the argument came up in class today, people were saying the typical Newton and einstein etc but i feel the aren't really that relevant anymore. so in your opinion, who is the greatest scientist of this century? in terms of both scientific findings, educating the masses of certain theories, and current relevance in the field of research.

I haven't seen a question and a poll so out of touch with reality than this one. You seem to be confusing "greatest" with "popular media figure". And the list that you present for voting is awfully shallow, and only filled with figures that an ignorant news reporter would come up with on a whim.

It was why this belongs more in the General Discussion forum than the General Physics forum, where it was first posted.

Zz.
 
  • #59
physics girl phd said:
I would have thought all seriousness in the thread died when we were given the original selections.

What I meant was, in General Physics (or other "real" forums) most people try to keep an a air og seriousness/professionalism, but move it to GD and there's no longer that need.
 
  • #60
That fish-slap smilie made me think. You know that strange effect when you look at a clock and the first tick seems to take sooo much more time then the other ones? Like it's delayed? Same effect with that smilie for me.

Is there a name for it?
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
45K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
13K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K