Why aren't there famous chemists/mathematicians in the public?

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 392791
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stephen hawking
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the public's recognition of famous scientists, particularly comparing physicists like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking to chemists and mathematicians. Participants note that while Einstein and Hawking are widely known, many chemists and mathematicians lack similar recognition, potentially due to the perceived excitement of physics and cosmology over chemistry and mathematics. The conversation highlights that physics often deals with grand concepts like the universe, which captivates public interest more than chemical reactions or mathematical theories. Some argue that figures like Marie Curie and Louis Pasteur are well-known, but their recognition may not match that of physicists. The dialogue also touches on the role of popular science media and education in shaping public awareness, suggesting that chemistry and mathematics may not translate as effectively into engaging narratives for the general audience. Ultimately, the discussion reflects on the disparity in fame among scientific disciplines and the factors contributing to public perception.
  • #51
Evo said:
We are on a science website, so I would hope that people here know about Einstein. The average American on the street knows the name from jokes and media, and perhaps even know E = mc2 but I would wager that most have no clue what that means or what his main accomplishments were.

When I say that I don't think of Einstein first, it doesn't mean that I don't know of Einstein's role in the creation of the bomb. Trust me, I know it well. He laid the theoretical groundwork, and he even encouraged FDR to build the bomb. But he never actively participated in the nuts and bolts of it. He also wanted it used against the Germans (whom he felt were getting close to a nuclear breakthrough themselves). In the end, after the two bombs were unleashed on Japan, he condemned their use.

Oppenheimer was, in contrast, directly involved in the Manhattan project. He was in favour of the bombs being used in Japan (at least until they were actually deployed, and he realized the horror of what he'd wrought). He is known as the "Father of the Atom Bomb" with good reason.

That's why I think of J. R. Oppenheimer when I think of the atom bomb. Not because I don't know who Einstein was, or his role in the whole thing.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
I've never really thought about what the public thinks of Einstein. When I hear "Einstein", I think "photoelectric effect". Probably because I can't count how many profs have explained that he won his Nobel for it, not relativity, as many believe.

I am a product of my education, I guess. :biggrin:
 
  • #53
lisab said:
he won his Nobel for it (photoelectric effect), not relativity

Nobel Prize Committee said:
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"

Nobel Prize website

In order to say that he didn't receive the prize for relativity, you would have to read that as "for his services (and by the way, we don't mean relativity) to Theoretical Physics". I don't read it that way.
 
  • #54
PhizKid said:
Too bad wings on a pig doesn't guarantee its flight capability
Why? Do you really want pigs flying around?
 
  • #55
zoobyshoe said:
Why? Do you really want pigs flying around?
What other way would a spherical pig with wings fly?
 
  • #56
Jimmy Snyder said:
What other way would a spherical pig with wings fly?
Not the point, is it? The point is pig bombs.
 
Back
Top