Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34076
Posted: June 30 2014 at 16:34
Which physics term/theme would you give / precent for Feynman past his death (1988) from 90s or later, ( he seems like a really skilled problem solver, thats my impression), which he would value persuing. I can semiquote what peoole who knew him describd of his problem solving capabilities he had " what took most physecists used three years to solve, Feynman could use two months (less or more) "
Joined: September 03 2011
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 700
Posted: June 30 2014 at 09:44
Dean wrote:
Icarium wrote:
Dean wrote:
Icarium wrote:
Dean wrote:
Icarium wrote:
Or David Athenbourough has done in 40years of biologicsl diveraity of pkanet earth?
?
Attenborough is not a scientist, he's a TV presenter of nature documentaries.
im quite awere of that.
Then why mention him here?
i respect how he presented nature on tv as something wondrfull without the thought of a hrand creator behind it, that nature is grand enough as it is, hes. Voice of presenting docus of be it zoology, or biology, might have bben influence to how guys like Brian Greene Dawkins and orhøøthers present things on television.
I thought this was a thread about who is the most important physicist not who is the best TV science presenter. If that's the case then I vote for Dr. Helen Czerski.
Joined: June 13 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3834
Posted: June 30 2014 at 06:35
Dean wrote:
Icarium wrote:
Dean wrote:
Icarium wrote:
Dean wrote:
Icarium wrote:
Or David Athenbourough has done in 40years of biologicsl diveraity of pkanet earth?
?
Attenborough is not a scientist, he's a TV presenter of nature documentaries.
im quite awere of that.
Then why mention him here?
i respect how he presented nature on tv as something wondrfull without the thought of a hrand creator behind it, that nature is grand enough as it is, hes. Voice of presenting docus of be it zoology, or biology, might have bben influence to how guys like Brian Greene Dawkins and orhøøthers present things on television.
I thought this was a thread about who is the most important physicist not who is the best TV science presenter. If that's the case then I vote for Dr. Helen Czerski.
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: June 29 2014 at 16:48
Icarium wrote:
Dean wrote:
Icarium wrote:
Dean wrote:
Icarium wrote:
Or David Athenbourough has done in 40years of biologicsl diveraity of pkanet earth?
?
Attenborough is not a scientist, he's a TV presenter of nature documentaries.
im quite awere of that.
Then why mention him here?
i respect how he presented nature on tv as something wondrfull without the thought of a hrand creator behind it, that nature is grand enough as it is, hes. Voice of presenting docus of be it zoology, or biology, might have bben influence to how guys like Brian Greene Dawkins and orhøøthers present things on television.
I thought this was a thread about who is the most important physicist not who is the best TV science presenter. If that's the case then I vote for Dr. Helen Czerski.
Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34076
Posted: June 29 2014 at 16:38
Dean wrote:
Icarium wrote:
Dean wrote:
Icarium wrote:
Or David Athenbourough has done in 40years of biologicsl diveraity of pkanet earth?
?
Attenborough is not a scientist, he's a TV presenter of nature documentaries.
im quite awere of that.
Then why mention him here?
i respect how he presented nature on tv as something wondrfull without the thought of a hrand creator behind it, that nature is grand enough as it is, hes. Voice of presenting docus of be it zoology, or biology, might have bben influence to how guys like Brian Greene Dawkins and orhøøthers present things on television.
Joined: March 12 2005
Location: Neurotica
Status: Offline
Points: 166183
Posted: June 29 2014 at 15:18
Feynman
Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: June 29 2014 at 13:54
Icarium wrote:
I feel Greene is a better physesist the Kaku, but i might be wrong, but his mind is flexible and makes quantum reality seem graspable in a sence , ( which is really not possible) he might be a bit to animatic and might never wim a nebel price, but have youseen his interview with Richard Dawkins, very good and gets a nice comparisons between evolutionary biology and physics.
What I meant is that they are just good communicators, none of them has made really significant contributions to the science itself as physicists (they have done some good stuff, sure, but nothing really outstanding). But yes, communicating about science is also very important nowadays when very few people seem interested in it, and for that alone Greene and Kaku deserve praise. It's a bit like what Carl Sagan did in the 1980's about astrophysics and cosmology.
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20648
Posted: June 29 2014 at 13:53
Don't really know enough about either man to say who's work is more meaningful, though I enjoyed Hawking's celebrated book, but the word 'physicist ' was really mangled in the poll question header.
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34076
Posted: June 29 2014 at 13:42
I feel Greene is a better physesist the Kaku, but i might be wrong, but his mind is flexible and makes quantum reality seem graspable in a sence , ( which is really not possible) he might be a bit to animatic and might never wim a nebel price, but have youseen his interview with Richard Dawkins, very good and gets a nice comparisons between evolutionary biology and physics.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: June 29 2014 at 13:33
Icarium wrote:
I like watching Brian Greenes documentaries and that japanese american Michia Kaku, both are good at presenting theories and are good at precenting difficult stuff in a precentable manner.
Yeah they may not be great physicists themselves but they do a good job at bringing science to the wider public, and this alone is worth a praise for them. Sometimes they exaggerate a bit though, listening to Greene you would think that string theory is the solution to the Theory of Everything question when it is not the case, and Kaku too often makes a shortcut from accepted physics to imaginary possibilities, but OK, it's good that they try to get people interested in science.
Joined: March 21 2008
Location: Tigerstaden
Status: Offline
Points: 34076
Posted: June 29 2014 at 05:38
I like watching Brian Greenes documentaries and that japanese american Michia Kaku, both are good at presenting theories and are good at precenting difficult stuff in a precentable manner.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: June 29 2014 at 03:31
Icarium wrote:
Ciuld you mention please scientis/physecists which you rank over Feynman in 1900s of some fame and in-between Richard and Stephen.
There have been quite a few great ones after Feynman, the problem (or better said, the big difference) is that after QCD and the completion of the standard model in general, all the later developments have been in theoretical areas, without experimental confirmation (I mean big things, of course there have been experimentally confirmed advances but not changing radically the existing theories). That's why I mentioned Gell-Mann in my other post as possibly the latest of those who really changed the big theories. The standard model is the last big theory which so far has passed every experimental test.
But of course there have been very important people, John Wheeler made important contributions to the refinement of quantum theory, Roger Penrose, Alan Guth for the inflationary theory which although not experimentally confirmed is widely supported, George Smoot and his team confirmed experimentally the important fact that the universe expansion is accelerating, Veneziano or Edward Witten in string theory, Leonard Susskind or Lee Smolin in cosmological theories, Zumino and the other guys who developed supersymmetry, David Deutsch made much progress in quantum computing etc etc.
But on one hand, most of these people either did not really make big changes to the existing theories (such as QED or QCD were at their time), or their contributions, while possibly important have remained theoretical without experimental confirmation.
Another thing is that recently most advances are done by teams along certain time, it's not anymore the case that a single guy radically changes physics with his own insight such as Einstein and co did. If you take important recent developments such as supersymmetry, string theory, quantum loop gravity etc, it's hard to pinpoint a single person as the "inventor" or "discoverer", they are usually the result of the sum of several people's work.
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: June 29 2014 at 03:20
Kati wrote:
Icarium wrote:
I have seen both on youtube both done great things to science, i really love the mind and thoughts of Richard Feynman on Youtube, and Steven Hawking is truely inspirring.
I will be the first one to vote above for Steven Hawking, mainly because I had to look up Richard Feyman on google while I know Hawking's work (some). Anyway I am a nincompoop
That's a bit of shame and a reflection on the nature of popular celebrity, but rest assured in the realm of Physics Feynman was as much a celebrity as Hawking.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: June 29 2014 at 02:55
Feynman's contribution was much more important, wider and more inspired than Hawking's (who of course deserves admiration too), and it's true that even Feynman's work was probably less revolutionary than that of the original quantum guys, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Schroedinger, Einstein and co.
It's sad to say this but it's hard to see anybody after Feynman who can be comparable in terms of insight and importance of his-her contribution, maybe only Murray Gell-Mann being close for his contribution to QCD and the completion of the standard model.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.164 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.