/sci/ - Science & Math

Peter Higgs

Perelman: because weird ass Russian bro that lives with his moms and turned down a milly.

>>6498064

The ones who have won nobel prizes.

>>6498088

Correction:

>The ones who have won nobel prizes.

Valid for the first question, as for your second baing about fame equivocal with Einstein or Bohr I can't really think of any.

witten

Hawkings

>>6498077

And has wicked eyebrows.

>>6498103
einsteins is moore famous than hawkings

>>6498064

Neil deGrasse Tyson, obviously

that "aliens" guy

>>6498103
Appeared on The Simpsons
∴ famous

vsauce

>>6498106

Stephen Hawking probably has the best shot.

>inb4 Much Cocku
>inb4 Dick Dawkins

There probably aren't going to be any revolutionary scientists from today because we don't have any problems. Famous scientists normally come from solving some kind of catastrophe e.g. "we don't have a mathematic description of the way that gravity/electricity works" give Newton and Maxwell (along with others like Kepler and Faraday) or "our current theory doesn't work for blank" which is everyone who came out of quantum and relativity. So the next wave of pioneers can only come when something like the LHC has a finding that doesn't fit the prediction at all. Other than that, we could have some brilliant solid state theory come out of nowhere that can give a mathematical description of those complex processes, or someone could figure out a big paradox (though I think that is unlikely).

>should be famous
>never actually will
:(

how about some people that aren't mathematicians and/or physicists?

>>6498205

That's cute, kid.

Is this a trick question?

Is there another answer besides stephen hawking?

>>6498159
>There probably aren't going to be any revolutionary scientists from today because we don't have any problems

That...that noise...that stupid fucking NOISE!!!...make it STOP!...MAKE IT STOP!!!

>>6498105
>einsteins is moore famous than hawkings

Okay, aside from the difficulties you have with spelling and grammar, what part of "scientists alive today" is confusing to you?

>>6498159
>There probably aren't going to be any revolutionary scientists from today because we don't have any problems.

What? Don't we have no idea what dark matter and dark energy are? We can append variables for their interactions to existing theories, but they don't truly fit into any explanation of the universe, do they?
Every major scientific advancement seems to come from a guy going "what the fuck is that shit?" Dark matter and dark energy are relatively new concepts. I'm sure there are lots of geniuses contemplating that shit day and night.

>>6499632

Except half his fame and allure is down to being a cripple (not discrediting his impact on science though) but his circumstances unfairly edge him over other equally competent and contribute scientists.

>>6499712
That's akin to saying that Carl Sagan shouldn't be remembered because he was popular. He did less work than Hawking, and is still one of the most popular scientists.

Hawking made several breakthroughs in our understanding of black holes, which were the most mysterious things in the universe. I think he deserves his title.

How come nobody has discussed Richard Dawkins yet? (Tee hee.)

jacob barnett

Well James Watson is still alive so I would definitely say that he will be remembered. He might not be as famous as the celebrity scientists alive right now but I would say that in 200-300 years he will be more famous among the public than NDG, Lawrence Krauss or Bill Nye as they are more communicators of science than having done a massive discovery at one point. Of course these are scientists at the top of their fields but it will be harder to point to a certain category they invented.

whoever proves p=np or whoever finds a way to implement quantum computations efficiently.

(or both)

>>6498130

>>6499697
>Don't we have no idea what dark matter and dark energy are?

It doesn't even have to be that abstract. There is much to learn about the solar system, or to extrapolate from observing and gathering new data, that you can make a name of yourself from doing that.

>>6499815

Why exactly is the p=np thing important?

>>6499989
cs faggotry

>>6498077
Beat me to it. I think there's also a good chance he'll still make some major contributions to the Navier-Stokes problem, although I don't know if he's even doing math at this time. What's the latest news about him anyway?

>>6499818

>>6500030

>>6500033

>>6500164
>not "there are more bikes in my garage than garages in the entire universe"
you dropped the ball m8

gene sharp <--- Should get ... Peace-price-asap