Greatest Physicist Ever - Redux Discussion

[gravenewworld]

Ummm TESLA?




Q: Does Newton get too much credit? I mean calculus wasn't even really rigorously proven until the likes of Riemann, Cauchy, etc. came around. The Greeks, Egyptians, and Indians all used some principles of calculus way before Newton was ever around.

 

[fourier jr]

I thought Witten might become one. In any case, that would be tremendous an achievement.

i doubt that would ever happen. nobel prizes as far as i know are given for stuff that has practical applications, which is probably why hawking hasn't won one.

 

[ranger]

OK. So you have the first idea that no list will satisfy everyone. But you still don't get the second point as there no answer to the "greatest physicists ever".

 

[verdigris]

kepler

Without Kepler there would have been no quantitative understanding for Newton to work on.

 

[3trQN]

I think God must have been the greatest physicist, but since it wasn't an option ill vote Maxwell.

Newton was allways my hero when i was growing up, unfortunately i don't consider myself qualified to comment on anyone else's greatness because of the level of my physics understanding :)

 

[ranger]

I think God must have been the greatest physicist, but since it wasn't an option ill vote Maxwell.

Newton was allways my hero when i was growing up, unfortunately i don't consider myself qualified to comment on anyone else's greatness because of the level of my physics understanding :)

Its funny how you're calling God a physicist.

 

[3trQN]

Its funny how you're calling God a physicist.

Why is that?

 

[marcusl]

I was mainly having fun Josephson was a very young fellow when he won the Nobel prize (actually, a 22 years old graduate student). But today, he is occupied in remotly disconnected activities from fundamental physics, namely paranormal phenomena. How to judge this phenomenon ? Important physicist no doubt. Crackpot as well ?

My thesis advisor came back from an APS meeting one year and told me that Brian Josephson pulled him aside and started writing equations on a blackboard that he said described the ESP communications channel. My advisor said he didn't know what to think--it looked like the ramblings of a nutcase, but on the other hand Josephson was very bright and had won a Nobel at a young age...

 

[arunma]

Its funny how you're calling God a physicist.

He's right, because God is most certainly not an engineer!

 

[fourier jr]

He's right, because God is most certainly not an engineer!

i think it was john littlewood who said he was a pure mathematician who decided to do some applied for a change.

 

[arunma]

i think it was john littlewood who said he was a pure mathematician who decided to do some applied for a change.

Lol. I guess that works too. Of course it is more than ego that motivates me to postulate that the Divinity is a physicist. Physics is, after all, the most fundamental of all natural scientists. Many of the great discoveries in chemistry, and even in biological areas like genetics, were made by physicists (that's actually why so many terms in genetics end with -on). Clearly it would be a divestment of glory for God to be anything but a physicist.

 

[Cyrus]

......


Maybe he's just sitting around twiddling his thumbs.

 

[arunma]

......


Maybe he's just sitting around twiddling his thumbs.

...and thinking about physics, of course.

 

[Cyrus]

Gotta give you that one, it was clever.

 

[Izzhov]

Lol. I guess that works too. Of course it is more than ego that motivates me to postulate that the Divinity is a physicist. Physics is, after all, the most fundamental of all natural scientists. Many of the great discoveries in chemistry, and even in biological areas like genetics, were made by physicists (that's actually why so many terms in genetics end with -on). Clearly it would be a divestment of glory for God to be anything but a physicist.

Physics may not be the most fundamental of all natural sciences. It is just the most fundamental that we know about (or possibly can know about). If a God exists (which I have my doubts about), I'd tend to think he/she/it would be more of a metaphysicist.

 

[ranger]

Nope, no metaphysicist. I still think he's a pure mathematician.

 

[Izzhov]

I don't believe that the universe can even be described correctly with only mathematics, let alone created. (Then again, I don't really believe in God either.)

 

[arildno]

None of the above; I go for Archimedes.

 

[Izzhov]

None of the above; I go for Archimedes.

See my first post.

 

[arildno]

I don't know what a redux-thread is.

 

[Izzhov]

I don't know what a redux-thread is.

"Greatest Physicist Redux" is just the name of the thread. (i.e. There is a thread whose name is "Greatest Physicist Redux")

 

[ranger]

I don't believe that the universe can even be described correctly with only mathematics, let alone created. (Then again, I don't really believe in God either.)

So what ever happen to the universal language of mathematics. That it is possible to describe everything with math?

 

[Izzhov]

So what ever happen to the universal language of mathematics. That it is possible to describe everything with math?

I'm not speaking for anyone who believes that. I am speaking for myself, and I do not believe that.

 

[humanino]

I don't believe that the universe can even be described correctly with only mathematics

I beg your pardon : what is your level in maths ?

Something that cannot be described in mathematical rigor cannot be communicated and should not be considered scientific.

 

[Izzhov]

I beg your pardon : what is your level in maths ?

Something that cannot be described in mathematical rigor cannot be communicated and should not be considered scientific.

That's the thing: I don't believe it's possible to make a 100% accurate model of the universe through science either.

By the way, I am about calculus level in mathematics.

 

[ZapperZ]

That's the thing: I don't believe it's possible to make a 100% accurate model of the universe through science either.

By the way, I am about calculus level in mathematics.

Good grief. You are beginning to sound like a crackpot in training.

Zz.

 

[arildno]

Good grief. You are beginning to sound like a crackpot in training.

Zz.

Or, at the very least, a PHILOSOPHER..

 

[Astronuc]

Good grief. You are beginning to sound like a crackpot in training.

Zz.

Or, at the very least, a PHILOSOPHER..

Isn't that the same thing?

 

[ranger]

Good one

 

[Izzhov]

Or, at the very least, a PHILOSOPHER..

I'm a philosopher and a scientist.

 

[humanino]

I'm a philosopher and a scientist.

How old are you to be so ambicious !?

 

[Izzhov]

I am fourteen.

 

[ranger]

I'm a philosopher and a scientist.

Wow, a 14 year old philosopher and scientist. You can't just go around calling yourself these things. People have studied many many years, went to college got degrees, then called themselves a scientist. What you are saying is mockery to all those who are truly scientists.

 

[Izzhov]

I didn't mean I was one professionally, just that I was interested in those subjects. I'm sorry if I was ambiguous.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Anything can be described mathematically (if one wished to do so)... Give me an example of something you can't describe with math Izzhov... physically preferably, although anything works but it becomes silly to describe a painting with math, but computers do it every time you look up an image on google I bet.