Genius level physicist thread

thats a good one. maxwell did lots of good maths. oliver heaviside made some math simple enough that you could actually use it to make things that worked.

Von Neumann I agree.

Euclid? Reimann?

Oh, I know. Lord Rutherford. His fameous quote:

"Theoreticians are the scum of the Earth! They play games with their equations, while here at Cavendish, we churn out the true facts of nature!"

Archimedes is verifiably smarter than Euclid.

Diophantus was pretty smart as well.

Absolute Gods of their disciplines:
Newton
Einstein
Dirac
Fermi
Herschel
Curie
Von Neumann
Feynman
Faraday
Boltzman
Bardeen

Honestly there's too many, and especially in modern times with more formal developments of field theory. I include Bardeen because of the range of his work. Plus 2 Nobel prizes.

Maxwell
Poincare
Newton
Kepler
Archimedes
Schwinger
Heisenberg
Tesla
Witten
I guess I have to put Einstein but I am not happy about it

Oh, scratch Einstein and put in Riemann. I just read the OP. Riemann should count since her tried to explain gravity and other phenomena with his curved space mathematics. Einstein and Hilbert eventually made it work, but he was smarter than both of them.

>Diophantus
cool guy

>Newton
>de Broglie
>Plank
>Lagrange
>Einstein

Dear god I forgot Boltzmann.
I also suppose Archimedes is one of the first person to really grasp the spirit of physics.

>Riemann should count since her tried to explain gravity and other phenomena
Did he? I though Riemann was a mathematician.

What about Lavoisier and Dalton?

This is almost exactly what my list would be. Not sure I could just pick 10 though since physics is way too broad and there's too many geniuses worthy of mention. The main ones I'd consider that aren't on that list are Dirac and Pauli.

not ten but
>einstein
>newton
>

Fermi is fucking underrated

Theres no such thing as a genius in common terms.

But Ill list who I think are the best

1 - newton. groundwork for all classical physics, engineering and more. calculus is possibly the most important invention in science history. his insistence on evidence based science is something todays physicists could learn from

2 - maxwell. fluids are, again, very important across varieties of fields

3 - aristotle. produced philosophy and deep insights that are invaluable to physics

4 - galileo. another king of scientific philosophy

5 - feynman. im not a huge fan personally but his contributions are undeniable

6 - einstein. not for relativity, which i belief to only be half right, but for the equivalence principle, photoelectric effect and energy mass equivalence which has proved valuable again and again.

7 - curie

8 - archimedes

9 - lev landau

10 - fermi

bohr, dirac, heisenburg, schrodinger are mostly cranks whos theories only made it as far as they did bc physicists were bored

Attached: gettyimages-2669266.jpg (2000x1334, 314K)

based

yeah

>conceited asshole
You try living half a century imprisoned in your own body

The geologists who came up with the concept of plate tectonics

It counts because they're geophysicists as well

I can't find any papers by him that reference gravity. I think you're trolling.

They were his notes. He never succeeded.

You're one of those pseudointellectuals who thinks they can see the world more clearly than those who study it for a living.

astronomyclub.xyz/gravitational-rays/riemanns-theory-of-gravity.html

Here is a reference.

>no gauss
You're all nigger faggots

>einstein
You both are double niggerfaggots. All of his work is either plagiarized or blatantly derivative.

Hey kikes, stop mentioning Einstein. He's a fraud and general relativity is actually due to Poincaré.

>t. I read this off some bullshit inforgraphic
I bet you couldn't explain what in the fuck you precisely mean by that. You don't know the first thing about relativity. Tell me, what uni did you study it at?

Gauss. Euler too, who studied mechanics.
>hurr Einstein did nuffin

In what text did poincare derived lorentz transformations by postulating the constancy of speed of light in every reference frame, showing the principle of relativity can still hold? Also while SR has some contriversy, Poincare had nothing to do with GR moron.

doing something for a living means very little when we're talking about accurate descriptions of the natural world, all that's important is that high iq and skill are available, if someone can do this from home it makes absolutely no difference as long as they have access to the same information. The function can be performed anyone with the correct hardware and information you greedy nigger

This is called a loaded question. Poincare didn't assume Relativity which Einstein did. He did have basically everything else though, from simultaniety to an interpretation of the Lorentz Transformation.

Riemann and Hilbert but close. Also, Einstein did do a lot for GR, actually. Hilbert wouldn't have been able to derive the correct curvature tensor without him.

>no euler
the hope for this board is lost

>Schwinger
Schwinger > Feynman
I don't know why the later is so memed, though he was a good physicist.

>Curie
She had some balls for a chick and studied the right thing at the right time but how on earth do you have her on this list?

Yea, there are texts that have "lorentz transformations" even before those two in an attempt to see which transformations preserved the wave equation/Maxwells equations. But there's a reason why we call physics and math by different names, as the theoretixal framework that einstein did was revolutionary. Poincare was on to something, but he still talked about a prefered frame of reference relative to an immovile aether.

Attached: 1501307588775.jpg (625x626, 105K)

Yeah, basically he didn't assume Relativity like Einstein did. Everyone else believed in the Aether then or at least felt that you had to disprove it. Einstein didn't bother and basically algebraically showed that doing away with the Aether left a very elegant self consistent system. He certainly deserves a lot of credit, just not nearly as much as he is given.

90% of what we care about when we talk about SR is the Lorentz Transformation.

If the transistor and LED are Physics Nobel Prize worthy then surely Tesla should have won one or two by todays standards.

>Lorentz Transformation.
Which should have won Lorentz a second Nobel Prize. That type of discovery/formulation is what the prize is all about.

>implying tesla invented both of those things, and did it first
His only relevant invention, two-phase electric power was outmatched by three phase by a russian a few years later (which is Actually being used nowadays), and he didnt even know who tesla was

>just not nearly as much as he is given
Why? Again, the math was already known by a lot of people, the point rests on making it compatible with other laws, and a complete reformulation of basic natural laws is what gets him the credit. Besides that he also did groundbreakkbg work with the photoelectric effect, brownian motion and nuclear physics, not considering his pivotal role in the development of GR.

Also, lorentz transformations are just some formula, the real core is understanding simultaneity, which is at the crux of showing the consistency of the model. Larmor had identical equations ffs.
And if it's not clear enough as
shows, Einstein was awarded the nobel prize for the photoelectric effect, it took plenty of time to become mainstream.

>, the real core is understanding simultaneity,
Then you should be all about Poincare, because he basically did the simultaneity work. Einstein took it a step further since he assumed Relativity.

Einstein generally gets credit for everything in SR, which isn't fair at all to all the other scientists. He even gets credit for work that came after him like the notion of Space-Time. It is fine to give Einstein credit for what he did, but almost everyone gives him credit for what other people did.

Finally, I value math the most. 90% of SR is the Lorentz Transformation whose interpretation was basically known by Poincare and Lorentz (minus assuming relativity).

I think it is fair to say that Poincare, Lorentz, and Einstein created the Theory of Special Relativity and I value Lorentz' contribution the most.

Poincare still belived in an aether, he did showed analogous shit with simultaneity but nothing likr einstein. Anyone with the basic knowledge of the history of relativity, understands the contributions made by alm scientists alike, but einstein was who made the revolutionary interpretation (As to completley abandon Newton).
>I value math the most
Again, neither lorentz ir poincare were the firts one to derive such transformation, because you can derive it with knowledge of calc and algebra, which isn't exactlt an achivent by 19 century standars. And again, any fucking wave is described by this math, as the medium ithe wave is in obviously is a preferred reference frame, but mechanical waves are ilusory periodic movements, but based on this, aether theories start developing. No, the math is nothibg impressive, you can deruve everything with pythagoras and algebra, the important part is the interpretation. If you want impressive/beautiful math look at mikownsky, which developed a really important view of Einstein's theory and he is pretty well mentioned in SR.

Where's Noether?

Attached: Noether[1].jpg (1208x1840, 241K)

Fucking this.
People need to stop sucking Tesla's cock already.

Agree to disagree. You honestly seem emotionally invested.

On the subject of math, Einstein's derivation of E-MC^2 is incredibly straight forward, but I would say it is brilliant and maybe his best contribution in Special Relativity. Abandoning the Aether worked out and was convincing because of how well everything fit together on a basic algebraic and intuitive level. However, other scientists like Poincare were cautious to abandon something without more support. Einstein had balls, but assuming Relativity itself wasn't that brilliant of a move.

Minkowski's math is what we use today. It came after Einstein's paper. And yes, he certainly deserves a lot of credit.

>algebra is never impressive because it is easy

Attached: 1520237606075.png (932x944, 241K)

archimedes
newton
maxwell
einstein
witten

/thread

THIS, I also really admire his perseverance.

Newton
Lagrange
Hamilton
Fourier
Gauss
Fresnel
Maxwell
Boltzmann
Dirac
Fermi

I keep seeing Witten but I've never even heard of him. Why's he important?

That's a grill you idiot.

He is the biggest name in String Theory and has a Field's Medal. So he is very, very smart.

The results are impresive only if you have the physical ibterpretation, what on earth is so impressive about solving for x?
Pffft, the whole point of physics is to find models that describe the universe, so the math is, most of the time, secondary to a good interpretation. Poincare certainly was onto something, but hes views weren't solid and was still more of a patch. Also, his perspective on SR was what inspired him to devlop GR, i.e. it wasn't just assuming relativity, it was a whole revision of what was thought to be immutable concepts of the universe. SR is called special for a fucking reason, it works ln very few instances, and that's why general relativity is what's considered the monumental achievment, but SR put that shit in motion.
>emotionally invested
Lel, I'm just a bit tired of this reddit tier by armchair historian, or popsci faggots who just spout shit to sound interesting. However they portray Einstein and other scientists in your favorite pop sci show ir the history of science in general is shit, with a lot of misconceptions and oversimplified, but that doesn't mean anything except you atack the sources and understand the implications each achievement had on physics. It's not agree to disagree, it's a fuckibg fact that Einstein was one of the most influential physicists in the 20th century and there are good reasons for it.

Yep, I agree.

Upboated

Tesla was the last real scientist.

mad

Epic bro, let's go to reddit and tell them how you btfo that brainwashed jew. Hail kekistan!

Attached: 1424092151894.jpg (454x453, 85K)

>assuming relativity
You mean assuming the two postulates of relativity? You know so little about what you're talking about that you couldn't name then with out looking it up. All the consequences of SR follow from those postulates. That's why they're called POSTULATES. Gtfo.

very mad

That doesn't change that you are incorrenct and a faggot.

so was hilbert retard

>In Before For Einstein Debate.

We should just ban Einstein discussion. It is always some sperg ruining a thread because his 8th grade science teacher inspired him with tales of Einstein's brilliance.

Nasiem Harriman

[ctrl]-F Dirac
Good.

If mathematicians are allowed, are economists allowed? Because this work uses vector analysis and four-dimensional utility, in addition to using actual physics (and mechanics) and the properties of physics to explain economic phenomena.

Attached: 41pjZVAAAuL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (333x499, 21K)

#1 genius neil degrasse tyson
#2 carl sagan
#3 bill nye
theyre all physicists and i love them on the tv and stuf

Based Fisher
>tfw so many based Fishers

This and also the first.

Archimedes
Newton
Maxwell
Boltzmann
Einstein
Heisenberg
Pauli
Dirac
Feynman
Weinberg

Attached: neutral-currents2.jpg (1327x1080, 207K)

Euler
Gauss
Leibniz
Euklid
Arhiedes

But you can't really tell, cause the work of the most are based on the work of others,
Also I like Math more than Physiks

I forgot how much Maxwell did. I can see why all the turn of the 20th century physicists viewed him as God-like.

he killed brahe