Who are the Greatest Physicists in this century?

[Twukwuw]

Last century we have Max Plank, Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrodingers, de Broglie, Fermi and so on (so many!) great physicisys.

So, who do we have in this century?

Stephen Hawking?

 

[Rach3]

Me, of course.

 

[sid_galt]

We had Hans Bethe. Too bad he died last year. But still, he was alive in this century.

 

[franznietzsche]

In terms of accomplishments in this century? Not Hawking.


Its a bit early for asking that. Come back in 80 years.

 

[Curious3141]

For all you know, Zefram Cochrane would've invented warp drive before the century's out, so ask again in 90+ years.

 

[Twukwuw]

so, today, we have NO physicists ranked at the same height as those I listed (Max Plank ... ...)

Am I right?

Why not Stephen Hawking?
People said he is today's Einstein!

 

[Geographer]

She hasn't necessarily done great things as far as I'm aware, but one of my favourite scientists at the moment is Kathy Sykes, a British physicist. :!)

As far as the greatest physicist right now, I honestly don't know.

 

[franznietzsche]

Why not Stephen Hawking?
People said he is today's Einstein!

Ummm, no. He wrote a pop-science book and it made him famous. Granted, he is certainly a good physicist (You don't get to be Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge for nothing) but he is not in the league of say Bohr, Schrödinger, Feynman, Einstein, Fermi, or any of the major pioneers from the early part of this century.

And as a side issue: People said? Who said? Who are these mythical 'people'?

 

[SpaceTiger]

No accomplishment in physics could possibly be judged for its greatness with only 6 years of hindsight, especially if you're comparing to the likes of Einstein and Bohr.

 

[scott1]

Ummm, no. He wrote a pop-science book and it made him famous. Granted, he is certainly a good physicist (You don't get to be Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge for nothing) but he is not in the league of say Bohr, Schrödinger, Feynman, Einstein, Fermi, or any of the major pioneers from the early part of this century.

I disagree. His work on black holes was very importent in physics he came up with Hawking radition which chaged the our understanding of black holes we thought nothing would come out but then Hawking found a way that somthing does come out.

I think einstein the greatest physicst of the 20th centrey(it's too early to say who's the greatest of the 21st centrey.)

 

[Physics Nut]

Mark McCutcheon is the greatest physicist evar! (Or so he seems to claim.)

 

[neutrino]

And as a side issue: People said? Who said? Who are these mythical 'people'?

Not mythical, but they call themselves journalists.

 

[neutrino]

Btw, has anybody thought about the "fact" that all "Great Physicists" have been theorists, at least by appearance of the OP's list. Has nobody in the past century come up with an ingenious experiment to detect something?

 

[Gokul43201]

Has nobody in the past century come up with an ingenious experiment to detect something?

Many have...but experimental physics is a lot less sexy than theoretical physics. To set up an experiment from scratch often takes several years and costs a lot of money. And it's not fun to write about either.

Some of the biggest experimental contributions in the last few decades :

Cornell, Wieman, Ketterle - making BECs

Stormer, Tsui, von Klitzing - discovering the Quantum Hall effects

Osheroff, Lee, Richardson - discovering fermionic superfluidity

Perl, Reines - detecting the tau lepton and neutrino

Bednorz & Muller - discovering Superconductivity

Ruska - inventing the electron microscope

Cockroft & Walton - nuclear transmutation

Lawrence - inventing the cyclotron

...

...and then there was Fermi !

 

[ZapperZ]

Bednorz & Muller - discovering Superconductivity

Not to be picky, but I think Gokul meant "Discovering high-Tc superconductivity". Superconductivity was discovered by H. Kamerlingh Onnes.

On a separate note, I always wonder why people ask questions such as this, as in what purpose does it serve? To glorify a certain physicist? And as expected, I am not surprised by the glaring omission of the only person who was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics twice.

Zz.

 

[Geographer]

I suppose it's just for the sake of conversation, Zz. It's also good for newcomers, such as myself, to see who are the great physicists.

Anyway, Kathy:

http://www.bris.ac.uk/ias/collier/rc-kathy.jpg

 

[George Jones]

Sorry neutrino, I have to disagree. There is one good experimentalist on the OP's list. The list also includes someone who was quite a good soccer player, although his mathematician brother was even better.

Also, Hawking on Hawking: "Instead, almost everyone believes that the universe, and time itself had a beginning at the big bang. This is a discovery far more important than a few miscellaneous unstable particles, but not one that has been so well recognized by Nobel prizes."

ZapperZ: Do you think your bard is the best bard?

Regards,
George

 

[Gokul43201]

Sorry neutrino, I have to disagree. There is one good experimentalist on the OP's list.

That's still only ONE. No doubt, he was a genius of another kind altogether, possessing theoretical insight and experimental brilliance.

The list also includes someone who was quite a good soccer player, although his mathematician brother was even better.

And big brother was tutored by arguably the best experimentalist there was.

ZapperZ: Do you think your bard is the best bard?

There's more than one bard ? (not Sam Treiman is it ?)

 

[George Jones]

There's more than one bard ? (not Sam Treiman is it ?)

I was just being silly, playing with words.

For me, there is only one bard - Shakespeare.

Regards,
George

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ: Do you think your bard is the best bard?

Regards,
George

No, because that criteria on what is "best" is vague. Just like the thread on General Physics on the question "Is energy and matter the SAME thing", what criteria does one use in such a thing? Impact? Number of Nobel Prizes? Number of citations? What?

I don't play this "best" game, because it is (i)subjective (ii)meaningless, and (iii) demeaning to others in the field who are making important contributions but the work does not have the "sexyness" to garner front-page news in popular media. Next time your loved ones require an MRI to diagnose an important disease, would you then consider those who have pioneered and made advances in MRI and NMR as the important and "best" physicists?

I have no interest in trumpeting those household names. I will, however, point out the many men and women who have made terrific and significant contributions to the field of physics that have been glaringly overlooked.

Zz.

 

[George Jones]

No, because that criteria on what is "best" is vague. Just like the thread on General Physics on the question "Is energy and matter the SAME thing", what criteria does one use in such a thing? Impact? Number of Nobel Prizes? Number of citations? What?

Can't you see that I was just playing around, in part because I, too, think there no objective criteria?

I don't play this "best" game, because it is (i)subjective (ii)meaningless, and (iii) demeaning to others in the field who are making important contributions but the work does not have the "sexyness" to garner front-page news in popular media.

Promotion and self-promotion definitely come into play, hence my quote by Hawking.

Next time your loved ones require an MRI to diagnose an important disease, would you then consider those who have pioneered and made advances in MRI and NMR as the important and "best" physicists?

Is this directed at me? Wow?

I have no interest in trumpeting those household names. I will, however, point out the many men and women who have made terrific and significant contributions to the field of physics that have been glaringly overlooked.

You can't possibly mean this. According to your reasoning

no objective criteria => no list => no omissions!

Regards,
George

PS Don't get all hot under the collar - I'm just having you on.

 

[Rach3]

And as expected, I am not surprised by the glaring omission of the only person who was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics twice.

Zz.

No one is interested in superconductors, or transistors.

 

[Curious3141]

On a separate note, I always wonder why people ask questions such as this, as in what purpose does it serve? To glorify a certain physicist? And as expected, I am not surprised by the glaring omission of the only person who was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics twice.

Zz.

Apart from John Bardeen, Marie Curie was also awarded the Prize twice - once for Physics and once for Chemistry.

 

[scott1]

Mark McCutcheon is the greatest physicist evar! (Or so he seems to claim.)

He's such a good physicst that he can't be physicst since he started a new physics that he is in complete control of infact he's not even a secientist!

 

[Rach3]

He's such a good physicst that he can't be physicst since he started a new physics that he is in complete control of infact he's not even a secientist !

For the love of humanity use spellcheck.

 

[Bladibla]

Apart from John Bardeen, Marie Curie was also awarded the Prize twice - once for Physics and once for Chemistry.

He said 'In physics'.

 

[Bladibla]

No one is interested in superconductors, or transistors.

Noone might be, but the fact that some people are interested should be a thankful fact for the rest of people. Otherwise, A LOT of electrical fancy tuff you have in your house now would be unavaliable.

 

[Curious3141]

He said 'In physics'.

I know what he said, I was just making an observation.

 

[Rach3]

No one is interested in superconductors, or transistors.

Noone might be, but the fact that some people are interested should be a thankful fact for the rest of people. Otherwise, A LOT of electrical fancy tuff you have in your house now would be unavaliable.

That was the most obvious, easy-to-get sarcasm in the world. Honestly - superconductors? Transistors? Unimportant? I even included a little smiley icon with a "wink" feature.

 

[Rach3]

Thread Locked!