/sci/ - Science & Math

Tesla for his contributions in electrical generation.

>>1119554
Tesla was more of an engineer (a faggot), but you are right he did contribute quite a bit to physics, too

pic related

>>1119546
What?

No Feynman?

Boltzmann

>>1119569
Feynman was a great populariser of science. However his actual contributions to scientific knowledge, which is the only criteria here, is not that big.

1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Planck
4) Maxwell
5) Faraday
6) Bohr
7) Galileo
8) Marie Curie
9) Boltzmann
10)Hubble

What do you think about this, everyone?

>>1119585

Schrödinger?
Pauli?

1) Newton
2) Maxwell
3) Einstein
4) Faraday
5) Rutherford
6) Dirac

>>119576
>is not that big
>getting a noble-price for inventing Quantum electrodynamics, one of the most important theories of the 20th century
are you drunk?

>>1119576
"Contributions" in your sentence is plural, and in order to complete your sentence you would need a predicate to complement that. What you wrote however, is the predicate "is" which is only used following singular nouns. The correct predicate in that case, is 'are'.

lrn2basicagreement

i'm glad that newton is above einstein.

>>1119594

No one is doubting that he did a lot. However we can only put 10 people in the list, so there is strong competition.

>>1119576
>contributions to scientific knowledge, which is the only criteria here, is not that big.
> implying his work on quantum electrodynamics was not that big

1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Planck
4) Maxwell
5) Faraday
6) Bohr
7) Galileo
8) Rutherford
9) Boltzmann
10)Heisenberg or Schrödinger

This okay?

Also: Heisenberg or Schrödinger?

>>1119613
I am not saying that, but we are talking about the top 10 physicists of all times here.

Heisenberg for number 10 possibly?

>>1119598
Feynman > Dirac
Quantum electrodynamics is widely considered to be the most precisely verified theory in all of physics, because its description of electric and magnetic fields has proved to fit the experimental reality exactly
Not even the Dirac had managed to solve the problem of the quantization of fields despite his best efforts

>>1119615
Put maxwell higher than planck
Without electromagnetism, the fundamentals of quantum mechanics would cease to exist. Maxwells unification was one of the first theories predicted using mathematics, not experiment

Okay plenty of people have been suggested now, and I'd be happy to take some of them in, but first you must tell me whom to kick out:

1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Planck
4) Maxwell
5) Faraday
6) Bohr
7) Galileo
8) Rutherford
9) Boltzmann
10)Heisenberg

>>1119598
HE GOT A GODDAMN NOBEL PRICE IN PHYSICS FOR ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THEORIES OF OUR DAY FOR CHRISTS SAKE
Also the path integral formulation, which is pretty much the basis for all modern quantum mechanics, FUCKING FEYNMAN DIAGRAMS.
At least the stuff he proposed didn't turn out to be bullshit, like 10 years later (i'm looking at you, bohr)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz this guy deserves to be on there for his work on relativity

>>1119640
True, but Maxwell used a lot of work done by others such as Gauss, so you can't really give him the credit for all of electromagnetism. That is why I decided to put planck higher

>>1119619
Do you even know what quantum electrodynamics is you faggot?

>>1119644
>>FEYNMAN DIAGRAMS

fuck yea

>>1119644
A lot of people have noble prizes in physics.

I can take Feynman on there, no problem, just tell me who to kick out. Bohr you were suggesting?

>>1119642
rutherford
although he was key to understanding the fundamental structure of the atom, all he did was fire shit into some gold foil. Anyone could have done that shit.

Kepler

>>1119660
Well the amount of work that went into it is not really a criteria here, all that matters is the significance of their contribution. But point taken.

>>1119659
yeah, he only really did the model of the atom, which was all around horrible and discredited and disposed of ~10 years later

>>1119660
this but keep bohr

1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Planck
4) Maxwell
5) Faraday
6) Galileo
7) Boltzmann
8) Heisenberg
9) Feynman
10)Bohr

Something like this better?

Einstein is a little overrated. he's certainly not the second most important scientist of all time.

>pasteur not on list

you're fucking kidding me right?

maybe put curie somewhere in there?

>>1119683

>>1119688
lol

myfacedefyingdescription.vbs

okay no one seems to have a problem with this:

1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Planck
4) Maxwell
5) Faraday
6) Galileo
7) Boltzmann
8) Heisenberg
9) Feynman
10)Bohr

But this means I will have to adjust the list of all scientists, too, since we decided to rank Bohr lower.

This is what we got:
1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Darwin
4) Planck
5) Maxwell
6) Faraday
7) Mendel
8) Lyell
9) Mendeleev
10)Pasteur or Galileo?

What do you say about 10) ?

>no hawking anywhere

>>1119734
I would put Galileo as one, hell, both Newton and Einstein have praised him as the best.

the most important step he took for science, he began the critque against blind belief.

>>1119734
and pasteur over lyell.

that said, im going to sleep.

>>1119772

Impact on society is not a criteria, otherwise Galileo would probably be first, together with Darwin

>>1119743
FUCK HAWKIN MOTHER FUCKER

1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Darwin
4) Planck
5) Maxwell
6) Faraday
7) Mendel
8) Lyell
9) Mendeleev
10)Pasteur

shall be the new list for all scientists for no

>>1119783
Im not seeing how you can justify drawing the line between the two.

besides, even just looking at the field of science, his actions lead to the freedom (in my opinion) of scientific thought, how can you call this insignificant?

>>1119809
I still think pasteur over lyell.
truly going to sleep now

>>1119813
I am not saying it is generally insignificant. I am just saying that this not what this list is about. This list is supposed to rank scientists just by how much knowledge they gained for science.

Top 10 Computer Scientists:

1. Alan Turing
2. Donald Knuth
3. John Von Neumann
4. Edsger Dijkstra
5. Peter Norvig
6. Norbert Wiener
7. George Boole
8. Brian Kernighan
9. Ada Lovelace
10. C.A.R. Hoare

Honorable Mention:
Charles Babbage, Tim Berners-Lee, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Grace Hopper, John McCarthy, Linus Torvalds, Dennis Ritchie, Fernando Corbato, Noam Chomsky

>>1119830
Galileo is way more important than a lot of them. He took the first steps for us all.

>>1119899
I do realise that, however this is supposed to be more about how many steps he took, not whether it were the first ones. With different criteria he would definitley be top.

>>1119878

dude..this is perfect. thank you.

>>1119543

I LmIKkE TvURTLEiS DO YOU LlIKEo TgUrRTLEnS TUuRfThLES AyRE GREEjN

>Noam Chomsky
The conspiracy theorist

>>1119899
>Implying galileo would have been able to do what he did if it weren't for paracelsus

>>1119899
Copernicus and paracelsus say no

You are ignoring a great deal of mathematicians who created all the tools without which all this guys >>1119546
wouldn't have done shit.

What the hell are your criteria anyways, OP?
"Person A contributed x% of our knowledge (in physics) we have to day, so he's number y on the list"?

God Tier: Newton
Meh Tier: Everyone else in this world

>>1119968
I decided not to take contributions to mathematics, which were then used in physics, into account
>>1119967
yeah kind of like that

>>1119984
>This is what newtonists actually believe

>>1119952
>implying all science isnt built up on the discoveries of those who came before

>Top 10 Computer Scientists:
>1. Alan Turing
maths Ph.D

>2. Donald Knuth
maths Ph.D

>3. John Von Neumann
maths Ph.D

>6. Norbert Wiener
maths Ph.D

>7. George Boole
mathematician

>9. Ada Lovelace
mathematician

>>1119995
>Implying evolutionary steps are more important than revolutionary steps

>>1119878

> no Konrad Zuse

>>1120008
>implying implications

Newton wasn't that great...

>>1120005
>implying the ph.d. a person has determines his entire career field

>>1119542

Io LhIKvEd TUlRTyLESf DO YqObU LIKEh TUmRTfLjEiS TtURnTLES ARdE GREEfNs

>>1120030

Alan Turing was a mathematician. Founded recursion theory, one area computability theory is reverse mathematics, some cool stuff. Some areas of recursion theory has applications to computer science, but I wouldn't say the field IS computer science. Alan Turing is the founder of computer science though.

>>1119576
>Implying that the significance of Feynman's work will not increase as nanotechnology becomes a common reality.

>>1120051
I don't care what nano tube engineers (faggots) can do with his work, that is insignificant for this list

>>1120050
Charles babbage says no

>>1120037
Alan Turing, John Von Neumann were strictly mathematicians. Turing founded Computer Science through Computability Theory (a branch of Mathematical Logic). It just happens some pure areas of mathematical logic has applications in Computer Science.

>>1120056

you guys forgot sigmund freud, margaret mead, and karl marx

>>1120071

>>1120064
Alan Mathison Turing is considered by most to be the founder of computer science.

>>1120037
>implying there are people who matter in CS who weren't mathematicians
>implying it's a real field, and not something we do between pissing and doing a poop

>>1120082
Most people thought avatar was a good film. Doesn't change the fact they're wrong

>>1120136
majority of the people that consider him the founder of computer science are leading experts in it.

Leo Szilard up in this motherfucker

If you don't know who he is then you are small time

>>1120152
The majority of critics like avatar. Doesn't change the fact they're wrong

>>1120169
You are comparing two things that have no relation.

Critics do not have the expertise as Mathematicians and Computer Scientist.

You are a bad troll and unintelligent.

>>1119542

"w" + "g" - "g" + "w" + "f" - "f" + "w" + "d" - "d" + "." + "j" - "j" + "a" + "s" - "s" + "n" + "m" - "m" + "o" + "n" - "n" + "n" + "x" - "x" + "t" + "a" - "a" + "a" + "c" - "c" + "l" + "v" - "v" + "k" + "f" - "f" + "." + "v" - "v" + "s" + "z" - "z" + "e" + "v" - "v"

I see no Herzberg

>>1120184

>>1120169
Alan Turing essentially constructed the first theoretical computer. It doesn't matter how many "programming languages" people came up with before him, without a device that could run those programs, they were render meaningless from a practical perspective. Before computers were around, Turing proved us the limits of computations from a computing device. The Turing Machine is more powerful than any computing device you are using. We have faster processors but not more memory. The problems back in that day dealt with the solvability of Diophantine equations. Finding mechanical processes to prove all of mathematics within systems like PM and PA. At one time Hilbert believed all of mathematics could be proven in such an axiom system. Godel showed this to be false, and Turing basically made Godel's work understandable.

>>1120221
Bitches don't know about Charles Babbage

>>1120221
>Babbage is credited with inventing the first mechanical computer that eventually led to more complex designs.

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

Babbage ---------> rent boy turing

Babbage once contacted the poet Alfred Tennyson in response to his poem "The Vision of Sin". Babbage wrote, "In your otherwise beautiful poem, one verse reads,
Every moment dies a man,
Every moment one is born.
... If this were true, the population of the world would be at a standstill. In truth, the rate of birth is slightly in excess of that of death. I would suggest [that the next version of your poem should read]:
Every moment dies a man,
Every moment 1 1/16 is born.
Strictly speaking, the actual figure is so long I cannot get it into a line, but I believe the figure 1 1/16 will be sufficiently accurate for poetry."

Francis Crick. Although he didn't really contribute to physics, he was a physicist that made one of the most important scientific contributions of the last century.

>>1120291
Babbage was all kinds of awesome.

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

Charles Babbage on how magnets work

>>1120261

Maybe it'd be more accurate to say, Turing was one of the founders of CS.

If you are using "Founding" in terms of when a first computing device was formed, then something proceeds your d00d.

"The earliest known tool for use in computation was the abacus, and it was thought to have been invented in Babylon circa 2400 BCE. Its original style of usage was by lines drawn in dirt with pebbles. This was the first known computer and most advanced system of calculation known to date - preceding Greek methods by 2,000 years. Abaci of a more modern design are still used as calculation tools today."
- wiki

>>1120067
Alan Turing and John von Neumann both did work that in their time was called "mathematics", but that today would be called "computer science". Just like Newton's work was called mathematics in his time, despite it being considered physics these days.

No Aristotle on top position?

Sageing a troll thread.

>>1120351
not a physicist or scientist

>>1119544

"w" + "x" - "x" + "w" + "g" - "g" + "w" + "l" - "l" + "." + "y" - "y" + "a" + "p" - "p" + "n" + "b" - "b" + "o" + "a" - "a" + "n" + "l" - "l" + "t" + "r" - "r" + "a" + "g" - "g" + "l" + "d" - "d" + "k" + "n" - "n" + "." + "h" - "h" + "s" + "a" - "a" + "e" + "v" - "v"

>>1120378
0/10

Jamie Hyneman

>>1119543

"w" + "c" - "c" + "w" + "s" - "s" + "w" + "u" - "u" + "." + "k" - "k" + "a" + "h" - "h" + "n" + "p" - "p" + "o" + "x" - "x" + "n" + "n" - "n" + "t" + "k" - "k" + "a" + "b" - "b" + "l" + "l" - "l" + "k" + "o" - "o" + "." + "p" - "p" + "s" + "f" - "f" + "e" + "b" - "b"

very little contribution to science, but james watt changed the world more than any other scientist did

>>1120454
but he was an engineer. this list is scientist

>>1120454
Lolno. The changes that had were tiny in comparison to the changes paracelsus caused

Adam Smith, duh

inb4 economics is not science

>>1119545

"w" + "v" - "v" + "w" + "b" - "b" + "w" + "c" - "c" + "." + "n" - "n" + "a" + "o" - "o" + "n" + "e" - "e" + "o" + "v" - "v" + "n" + "x" - "x" + "t" + "p" - "p" + "a" + "n" - "n" + "l" + "z" - "z" + "k" + "o" - "o" + "." + "r" - "r" + "s" + "m" - "m" + "e" + "g" - "g"

>>1120516
it is, like sociology or psychology. But they don't fit here.

>>1120460
agreed, he was an engineer (a faggot)