Who are the unknown living thinkers in physics?

[khushmand]

We know of people like George Zweig and Jocelyn Bell Burnell who, despite having very solid credentials and helping to transform physics, did not get the recognition they deserved.

It would be great to know of other transformative thinkers/researchers who are still alive and are underfunded/unrecognized for whaterver reason.

Edited August 19, 2014 by khushmand

[mathematic]

(Joke) I don't know any.

[khushmand]

Will live with that until someone who does comes around : )

Edited August 20, 2014 by khushmand

[fiveworlds]

http://garakami.com/20131021/african-inventor-builds-3d-printer-from-scrap-electronics/

 

At a guess

Edited August 20, 2014 by fiveworlds

[ajb]

It would be great to know of other transformative thinkers/researchers who are still alive and are underfunded/unrecognized for whaterver reason.

What do you mean by unrecognised? There are plenty of people I know that have made many contribtions to physics and mathematics who are not household names. Most of these have won prizes from some learned society or similar.

[anonymousone]

Me. Franz Lee Rust. i have proven string theory wrong and relativity debating on this forum. if you dont believe me then read my debates ive had on this forum. got that?

[swansont]

We know of people like George Zweig and Jocelyn Bell Burnell who, despite having very solid credentials and helping to transform physics, did not get the recognition they deserved.

It would be great to know of other transformative thinkers/researchers who are still alive and are underfunded/unrecognized for whaterver reason.

For a quick list, go look at the list of Nobel prize winners and then see if their students did the actual experiments (though those students more than likely went on to do notable things; smart people tend to attract other smart people to study under them)

[ajb]

Me. Franz Lee Rust. i have proven string theory wrong and relativity debating on this forum. if you dont believe me then read my debates ive had on this forum. got that?

Plus one for you for making me smile, thank you.

[khushmand]

What do you mean by unrecognised? There are plenty of people I know that have made many contribtions to physics and mathematics who are not household names. Most of these have won prizes from some learned society or similar.

People like Alfred Wegener, who came up with the idea of continental drift, for one; fossil collector Mary Anning, Cecilia Payne Gaposchkin, who first said stars were made up primarily of hydrogen and helium; chemist Douglas Prasher who was a car salesman when his colleagues won a Nobel (he's alive and back in reseearch, thanks to the publicity he got)..Arogyaswami Paulraj missed the bus because after a lifetime of unrecognized work he received the Marconi Prize for his work in developing LTE and WiMax.

Well, people like that who only those in the field will know as not being given sufficient recognition.

Hope that helps...

[Phi for All]

Me. Franz Lee Rust. i have proven string theory wrong and relativity debating on this forum. if you dont believe me then read my debates ive had on this forum. got that?

 

Thinking this technically makes you a thinker, I guess.

[Sensei]

Cecilia Payne Gaposchkin, who first said stars were made up primarily of hydrogen and helium;

 

Content of stars were known even in XIX century because of spectroscopy..

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

Edited August 20, 2014 by Sensei

[fiveworlds]

primarily of hydrogen and helium;

 

Debatable all we know is that the spectrum of light we can observe emitting from the star is composed of hydrogen, helium etc.

Edited August 20, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Strange]

Debatable all we know is that the spectrum of light we can observe emitting from the star is composed of hydrogen, helium etc.

 

I don't see what there is to debate about that. Unless you are claiming that spectroscopy doesn't work?

[imatfaal]

We know of people like George Zweig and Jocelyn Bell Burnell who, despite having very solid credentials and helping to transform physics, did not get the recognition they deserved.

It would be great to know of other transformative thinkers/researchers who are still alive and are underfunded/unrecognized for whaterver reason.

 

i think you need to think about recognition and what the people involved think of recognition. I was at a lecture at the Royal Society and Dame Jocelyn was in the audience - a question was asked that was much more her field than that of the lecturer and he deferred to her; as she stood up to give an answer she received a long and standing ovation just as recognition of her work and praise, and because most of us were thrilled that she was there. For most scientists I would think that being asked to answer a question whilst in the audience of a major prize lecture at the Royal Society and gaining a spontaneous round of applause purely because of your achievements is pretty cool.

 

Sure, she might/should have got a nobel - but she is Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Dame of the British Empire, ex President of the RAS, of the IOP, and a teacher at the best Universities in the world; also LGM will forever be both little green men and pulsars way after Ryle and Hewish are forgotten. Recognition isn't just about prizes

[MigL]

Cecilia Payne is very well known.

And if her notoriety is limited to her field, it is because she comes from an era when men did the thinking and women only did the calculations and measurements.

In some countries, women weren't even allowed to get higher degrees, and if they did, were only allowed to lecture.

Emmy Noether of Germany comes to mind.

[khushmand]

 

Content of stars were known even in XIX century because of spectroscopy..

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

While spectroscopy was in vogue, I read that she settled all doubt about it (http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2014/02/cecilia-payne-gaposchkin.html). As MigL pointed out, Cecilia Payne is a well-known example of someone given her due after an embarrassing delay.

 

Only pieople within the field, perhaps those who cite the work, might know who is doing great work even if they aren't well-known. Accolades might mean less after a few decades, when they are well past their peak. Which is why it would be great to know of some people who are still alive and/or working.

[timo]

In some countries, women weren't even allowed to get higher degrees, and if they did, were only allowed to lecture.

Emmy Noether of Germany comes to mind.

As a side-comment: Teaching has traditionally been considered one of the "higher" forms of a field in Germany. For teaching in university until recently you needed a "habilitation", a special scientific certification usually obtained during the end of the process of becoming a full professors (*). Emmy Noether was not allowed to do a habilitation and hence not allowed to teach. The lectures she gave were officially lectures of David Hilbert, with everyone looking away from the fact that Prof. Hilbert wasn't physically present in his own lectures.

 

(*) Remark: recently, becoming a full professor does not require a habilitation anymore, but that would go too far to discuss in detail.

 

EDIT: I bothered reading her WP article after writing the above. Apparently Mrs. Noether later was allowed to do her habilitation and to teach. Still, I find the story about her initially giving lectures inofficially (because everyone knowing her knew how good she was) quite interesting.

Edited August 21, 2014 by timo

[ajb]

Well, people like that who only those in the field will know as not being given sufficient recognition.

The sort of names I can think of, the developers of quantum field theory and pioneers of string theory have been recognised, but they are very far from household names. Thus, I think it is very difficult to point to people that fit into your description, and of course I alone cannot judge.

 

One thing you could do is look up citation rates. For high energy physics you could try here

 

http://inspirehep.net/info/hep/stats/topcites/2013/alltime.html

 

Though a quick scan through gives some big names, but again they may not be household names. That said I don't know of all the names here, but HEP is not exactly my speciality.

[fiveworlds]

I don't see what there is to debate about that. Unless you are claiming that spectroscopy doesn't work?

 

Not that strange there are theories that heavier elements can be created by fusion in stars. Most likely in the core so we just wouldn't see them because they aren't on the outside of the sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

Of course for the moment we cannot grab a star and pull it apart so they are theories at best.

Edited August 21, 2014 by fiveworlds

[Strange]

Not that strange there are theories that heavier elements can be created by fusion in stars..

 

That is well known and well understood. Those heavier elements also appear in the the solar spectrum. All the matter around you, other than the hydrogen, came from that source. That doesn't change the fact that the sun is almost entirely hydrogen and hydrogen.

 

 

Of course for the moment we cannot grab a star and pull it apart so they are theories at best

 

All the science we know is "theory at best"; a theory is as good as it gets in science.

[khushmand]

The sort of names I can think of, the developers of quantum field theory and pioneers of string theory have been recognised, but they are very far from household names. Thus, I think it is very difficult to point to people that fit into your description, and of course I alone cannot judge.

 

One thing you could do is look up citation rates. For high energy physics you could try here

 

http://inspirehep.net/info/hep/stats/topcites/2013/alltime.html

 

Though a quick scan through gives some big names, but again they may not be household names. That said I don't know of all the names here, but HEP is not exactly my speciality.

Thanks, Will go with that. Am hoping that, if there are enough names (and across all fields), it will be worth interviewing them. Perhaps that way they get some attention a little earlier on the fame cuve rather than wait for them to get institutional recognition before highlghting their work.

.