WHO ? Today is the living Expert Scientist in Quantum Physics?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

As there were scientists like Richard Feynman ( now dead ). Who today is considered to be the Top Authority on Quantum Theory ?

[ajb]

I would say there is no single person like that. There are many experts who specialise in specific areas within quantum theory, which itself is a quite ambiguous term.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I would say there is no single person like that. There are many experts who specialise in specific areas within quantum theory, which itself is a quite ambiguous term.

 

Yes there are names that bubble up to mind, like Frank Wilczec, Brian Greene, Roger Penrose, Frank Close and no doubt many names we hear about achieving major breakthroughs.

 

I was really asking, is there anyone who excels , as indeed , Richard Feynman did, in being not only on top of the subject, he was also able to explain it, in a very down to earth manner, as in his Lectures.

 

So maybe you have two or three names who approach his expertise and explicit style. As he was in America, maybe there are others currently in some of the American Universities ?

Edited February 1, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Yes there are names that bubble up to mind, like Frank Wilczec, Brian Greene, Roger Penrose, Frank Close and no doubt many names we hear about achieving major breakthroughs.

The names you have given work on a wide range of relatively topics:

 

Frank Wilczek- Particle theory, applications of particle theory to cosmology and condensed matter physics.

 

Brian Greene- string theory (Calabi–Yau manifolds and mirror symmetry) and string cosmology.

 

Roger Penrose- twistors, though he is best known for general relativity.

 

Frank Close- theoretical particle physics, especially the quark structure of matter.

 

There is no true single "quantum theory" as such, rather quantum theory is a wide framework.

I was really asking, is there anyone who excels , as indeed , Richard Feynman did, in being not only on top of the subject, he was also able to explain it, in a very down to earth manner, as in his Lectures.

All the above have written popular science books. Though I am not really familiar with the books.

So maybe you have two or three names who approach his expertise and explicit style. As he was in America, maybe there are others currently in some of the American Universities ?

The closest I can think of in that sense is Brian Greene, if we are talking about popularisation. I am sure there are others.

 

If you mean the person who has influenced theoretical physics the most, then Edward Witten must be the one.

Edited February 2, 2013 by ajb

[elfmotat]

I'm quite sure that Feynman himself would agree that he was never the expert in anything. Physics has many contributors each with a different range of influence on the field. There is not, nor has there ever been (not in the past few hundred years at least), a single "figurehead" in the physics community whose opinion counted above all others.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The names you have given work on a wide range of relatively topics:

 

Frank Wilczek- Particle theory, applications of particle theory to cosmology and condensed matter physics.

 

Brian Greene- string theory (Calabi–Yau manifolds and mirror symmetry) and string cosmology.

 

Roger Penrose- twistors, though he is best known for general relativity.

 

Frank Close- theoretical particle physics, especially the quark structure of matter.

 

There is no true single "quantum theory" as such, rather quantum theory is a wide framework.All the above have written popular science books. Though I am not really familiar with the books.

The closest I can think of in that sense is Brian Greene, if we are talking about popularisation. I am sure there are others.

 

If you mean the person who has influenced theoretical physics the most, then Edward Witten must be the one.

Yes I having listened to many of his lectures Ed Whitten , which are excellent .I don't know if he written a book ?

 

I'm quite sure that Feynman himself would agree that he was never the expert in anything. Physics has many contributors each with a different range of influence on the field. There is not, nor has there ever been (not in the past few hundred years at least), a single "figurehead" in the physics community whose opinion counted above all others.

Interesting comment. Need to think about that. Obviously Einstein had quite a reputation, but as you say in a particular field. However i am still looking for a " king of Quantum " if that is at all possible. ? Unless its Ed Whitten of course .

Edited February 2, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Yes I having listened to many of his lectures Ed Whitten , which are excellent .I don't know if he written a book ?

Witten has written books; Superstring theory Volumes I and II(with Michael B. Green and John H. Schwarz and Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course for Mathematicians Volumes I and II (he was one of several editors).

 

He has also written many lecture notes and review articles that can be found on the arXiv.

 

None of his work, as far as I know has been popularisation.

[juanrga]

As there were scientists like Richard Feynman ( now dead ). Who today is considered to be the Top Authority on Quantum Theory ?

 

There is not Top Authority on Quantum Theory today and many names given here Penrose, Greene, Witten... are very very far.

 

Penrose's views on quantum mechanics are wrong and rejected by 95% of physicists. Greene and Witten are string theorists (Witten is more a mathematical physicist) and only use a basic subset of quantum mechanics in their research works.

 

This contrasts with Feynman, who not only used quantum mechanics, but developed one of the formulations: the path integral one. He was one of the Top Authorities on Quantum Theory then. His work was the basis for him wining a third of the Nobel Prize for physics.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

There is not Top Authority on Quantum Theory today and many names given here Penrose, Greene, Witten... are very very far.

 

Penrose's views on quantum mechanics are wrong and rejected by 95% of physicists. Greene and Witten are string theorists (Witten is more a mathematical physicist) and only use a basic subset of quantum mechanics in their research works.

 

This contrasts with Feynman, who not only used quantum mechanics, but developed one of the formulations: the path integral one. He was one of the Top Authorities on Quantum Theory then. His work was the basis for him wining a third of the Nobel Prize for physics.

 

Then who today is liken to him. Anyone ?

 

By the way , what is it that Roger Penrose says that's so rejected by many. I thought he was one of the gifted few. ?

Edited February 2, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Bill Angel]

What about Peter Higgs? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs

His predictions have finally been confirmed, haven't they?

[timo]

What about Peter Higgs? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs

His predictions have finally been confirmed, haven't they?

He didn't really predict much (he had part in proposing a mechanism; the actual predictions like "the Higgs Boson has to lie in the LHC range for the Standard Model to make sense" were made by other people), and the whole Higgs Boson thing is not exactly cutting-edge quantum physics, anyways. So no.

 

Generally, being a physicist that is mentioned in newspapers does not make one an expert in Quantum Physics (and vice-versa). My bet is that if one was able to compile the list of "top 100 experts on quantum physics worldwide" (definition issues apart), no one on this forum (with the possible exception of the professional physicists - one attends many talks over the course of the years) would know a single name from this list.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Although I have heard many cast scorn on scientists who popularize science, or indeed the operation of popularizing science ideas, as if it is some dumbed down version of the truth.

 

I personally think that these scientists are doing society at large, other scientists and themselves a great service by :

Collecting their thoughts in a very succinct way , so as to refine the principles and concepts of a particular principal of science.

I think Feynman was an expert in turning deep concepts into everyday speech, and remains a good example ,if not his own very personal style.

 

However he is not with us and people like prof Brian Cox , are making great strides in bringing scientific ideas to everyone as indeed Prof Cox's inspiration ( Carl Sagan did before him. )

 

But it is clear by our own questions and those of others there is a great deal of " lack of understanding of Quantum Physics " which could do with a Popular Science style of presentation by a leading member of the higher echelons of Quantum Physics Experts, if not the top guy whoever he/she is . I know Feynman made the statement about "if you think you know, you don't " . but that was then, this is now!

 

So the question remains , to whom can we look to,for such a popularized version of Quantum theory , which is not dumbed down , but is explained in a complete , yet understandable form.?

 

.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

However he is not with us and people like prof Brian Cox , are making great strides in bringing scientific ideas to everyone as indeed Prof Cox's inspiration ( Carl Sagan did before him. )

Let me throw a spanner in the works here: I have no idea exactly what Prof Cox works on in physics and I do not know a single paper of his. I know he is part of the ATLAS experiment, but I have no idea exactly his role. This might be to do with the area I work in, but I cannot judge Prof. Cox as a scientist. However, he is good in the telly.

 

 

For example Penrose, Hawking and Kaku, who have all engaged in popularisation, I know there contributions to science.

Edited February 3, 2013 by ajb

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Let me throw a spanner in the works here: I have no idea exactly what Prof Cox works on in physics and I do not know a single paper of his. I know he is part of the ATLAS experiment, but I have no idea exactly his role. This might be to do with the area I work in, but I cannot judge Prof. Cox as a scientist. However, he is good in the telly.

 

 

For example Penrose, Hawking and Kaku, who have all engaged in popularisation, I know there contributions to science.

 

 

Quite.I do agree with you.

 

However I have to say, that what I am posing at the moment, is not so much, who is working to the greatest extent or caliber in a scientific area of quantum mechanics, But rather out of all of the areas of Quantum theory WHO has managed to get their head around the whole subject, and pretty well understands whats going on, and is able to explain it lucidly to the wider population.( At least those in that population that have a reasonable interest in things scientific. )

 

 

Similarly I agree with you on the three named persons, Penrose, Hawking and Kaku , I could listen to all three. Penrose would loose me in the maths, Hawking is a difficult one, as its difficult to enter his world, Kaku

seems like he knows what he's talking about and is a good explainer, as is Martin Rees ( Astronomer Royal ).

 

For all I know, You might suddenly say, " I've got it ! By heck I've actually got it.! And then go off into a world of explanation that sets the world of Physics on fire !

 

I am sure somebody is going to do that, one of these days. I thought Prof Lee Smolin at the Perimeter institute an offshoot of Princeton University was going to do that. But he seems to have gone a bit quiet. Tegmark had a go by saying it was all Maths. I'll go and shoot myself if that's the answer .

Edited February 3, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[juanrga]

Then who today is liken to him. Anyone ?

 

As said none, but the more close to Feynman must be Murray Gell-Mann.

 

By the way , what is it that Roger Penrose says that's so rejected by many.

 

As said because he is wrong.

 

I thought he was one of the gifted few. ?

 

Being popular for the general public does not mean being relevant for scientists. E.g. Brian Greene is very popular for layman due to

over-hype on string theory, but he will not win a Nobel Prize (and his REAL contributions to physics are close to zero). At the same time, there are physicists who won a Nobel Prize, because their work was very important, and still they are unknown for the general public.

 

What about Peter Higgs? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs

His predictions have finally been confirmed, haven't they?

 

He has contributed to a part of the Standard Model, but is very very far from being a top reference in quantum theory.

 

Let me throw a spanner in the works here: I have no idea exactly what Prof Cox works on in physics and I do not know a single paper of his. I know he is part of the ATLAS experiment, but I have no idea exactly his role. This might be to do with the area I work in, but I cannot judge Prof. Cox as a scientist. However, he is good in the telly.

 

Cox is well-known for his deep understanding of basic aspects of quantum mechanics

 

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/11081

 

http://motls.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/brian-cox-misunderstands-locality-pauli.html

 

and so on...

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

As said none, but the more close to Feynman must be Murray Gell-Mann.

 

 

Tell me about Murray Gell-man and how he goes about explaining Quantum Physics . Please

Edited February 3, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[juanrga]

Tell me about Murray Gell-man and how he goes about explaining Quantum Physics . Please

 

For several decades now, he and co-workers are trying to formulate a new quantum mechanics beyond the Copenhagen one [*]. This extension of ordinary QM is particularly suitable for quantum cosmology because does not require an external human observer neither requires a classical background as Copenhagen. This is research in progress:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories

 

[*] Notice that Feynman accepted the standard Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics and only developed a formulation which is entirely equivalent to the previous formulations: Schrodinger, Heisenberg...

[SamBridge]

Feynman? Schrodinger or Planck or Heisenberg aren't alive still are they? I would expect not, but I could have sworn that I saw a relatively recent full color high resolution video/interview with Feynman himself explaining something about electro-magnetism even though the wikipedia says 1988, like it said "Ferynman" as his title name just below him when he was talking, though the person himself never said his name. I suppose it could have been the title like maybe "Feynmann diagrams with eletro-magnetism" but it wasn't that long, I could have sworn it said "Richard Feynman", and he had grey hair and looked like this

Except it was in color.

Edited February 5, 2013 by SamBridge

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Feynman? Schrodinger or Planck or Heisenberg aren't alive still are they? I would expect not, but I could have sworn that I saw a relatively recent full color high resolution video/interview with Feynman himself explaining something about electro-magnetism even though the wikipedia says 1988, like it said "Ferynman" as his title name just below him when he was talking, though the person himself never said his name. I suppose it could have been the title like maybe "Feynmann diagrams with eletro-magnetism" but it wasn't that long, I could have sworn it said "Richard Feynman", and he had grey hair and looked like this

 

Conclusion- when you know the true answer what is Universe, you're becoming immortal..

 

[SamBridge]

Conclusion- when you know the true answer what is Universe, you're becoming immortal..

 

Hmm seems like it was dated 1983

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Apparently he didn't find the true answer.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[SamBridge]

Apparently he didn't find the true answer- he is old..

Why exactly did you put a happy satisfied face at the end? "Physics lost a real scientist who could have helped answer very tough questions, good thing he's dead so he can't answer them or help at all." I don't get it.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

You misunderstood. I wasn't happy because of his death.

[SamBridge]

You misunderstood. I wasn't happy because of his death.

Well there's no better way to express sadness than a happy face

 

Alright I'm done, what about Stephen Hawking?

[elfmotat]

what about Stephen Hawking?

 

He's known mainly for singularity theorems in General Relativity and his work in Cosmology. He's also well known for Hawking radiation, which is a consequence of Quantum Field Theory in curved spacetime. I wouldn't classify his area of expertise as "quantum mechanics."