[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 317 KB, 1666x1136, Scientists.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6414318 No.6414318 [Reply] [Original]

Who is the most brilliant in this pic?

>> No.6414322

Lorentz, probably because close to center of picture and that white hair/beard

>> No.6414336

>>6414318
Chances are they're all INTP,INTJ and ENTP.

>> No.6414344

Einstein

>> No.6414352

>>6414344
Most likely, but who's to say.

>> No.6414351

Someone should shop in Hawking, Tyson, Dawkins, Sagan, Barnett, etc

>> No.6414357
File: 544 KB, 1666x1136, 1394861890738.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6414357

Interpreting "most brilliant" as highest luminosity.

The most brilliant in the picture is the rectangular area bounded by [1500,900] and [1550,1100]

>> No.6414367

>>6414357
lol, what exactly was your query?
you can just put a picture in there and ask "most brilliant"?

>> No.6414370

>>6414318
Dawkins

>> No.6414407

>>6414357
do this again without including that bottom portion with the names.

I think it may be curie.

>> No.6414433

>>6414344
this.

>patent approved
>patent denied
>patent approved
>lunch time
>special theory of relativity
>lunch time over
>patent approved
>patent denied

I doubt he needed an entire lunch period, he probably jotted emc2 between patents.

>> No.6414535

>>6414357
Is Wolfram Alpha an AI generating that text? Because it writes in exactly the tone I would expect from a calm, intelligent female AI helper

>> No.6414539

PAM Dirac, no doubts. The man was a machine. Everything he wrote is beautiful.

>> No.6414546

Heisenberg

>> No.6414559

>>6414318
>most brilliant
Obviously horn-dog Pauli, for scopin' out Marie.

>> No.6414561
File: 78 KB, 960x720, 1393649962168.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6414561

Who is the most brilliant in this pic?

>> No.6414566

>>6414561
obma by far.

>> No.6414567
File: 53 KB, 800x800, 1394875948113.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6414567

>>6414318
God damn.

So many badasses concentrated into one frame.

>> No.6414580

Is that Max Planck in the bottom row second to the left? He'd get my vote.

>> No.6414583

>>6414561
Obama is actually really fucking smart, much smarter than Bill Nye, slightly smarter than Tyson.

>> No.6414604

>>6414583
>>6414566

Obama - went to a shitty college, then transferred to Columbia

Tyson - went to Harvard straight outta high school, choosing it over Cornell despite the fact that Sagan himself tried to recruit him

>> No.6414606

>>6414539
Agreed.

>> No.6414609

>>6414318
Tesla. He is in there right?

>> No.6414610

Who are the great scientists and mathematicians of today?

It seems like now that QM has been developed there isn't really any groundbreaking theory being developed, aside from the age old quest for a model that puts it all together.

>> No.6414617

>>6414610
>Who are the great scientists and mathematicians of today?
You can't tell until later on. I vote Kontsevich though.

>It seems like now that QM has been developed there isn't really any groundbreaking theory being developed, aside from the age old quest for a model that puts it all together.
It seems like you don't study physics. Don't worry, you're very wrong.

>> No.6414620

>>6414610
there is and there are, just now the public does not give a shit anymore because (IMHO):

1) the physics has become really too complex to turn into alluring popsci mumbo-jumbo

2) physics now doesn't give single researchers the possibility to perform on their own super cool experiments with visibly extraordinary results - fireworks. One day Fermi could just build a fucking nuclear reactor on his own. It was very visible. To the public, it looks like a different kind of science from today.

>> No.6414647

Einstein, followed by Dirac, Schrodinger and Heisenberg.

>> No.6414649

Where are the geniuses up to par with these guys today?

Where's the 21st century Einstein?

>> No.6414674

>>6414610
Alexander Grothendieck
Andrew Wiles
Grigori Perelman
Terence Tao
Stephen Wolfram
Shinichi Mochizuki (maybe)
Benoit Mandelbrot (hasn't been dead that long...)

>> No.6414676
File: 39 KB, 406x599, 406px-Dirac_4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6414676

Dirac

>> No.6414677

requesting coloured version
>inb4 racist jokes

>> No.6414686

>>6414674

Why does /sci/ have such a hard-on for Growthondick?

>> No.6414688

>>6414649
>Where's the 21st century Einstein?

Einstein was 100 years ago.

Today single scientists can rarely make groundbreaking contributions, let alone command the creation of an entire theory / field of study like Einstein. Even Einstein needed mathematicians help to formulate GR with tensors etc.

This is slightly exaggerated often, but mostly its true that physics is done by teams of theorists. You have your odd Roger Penrose / Stephen Hawking etc. but they never did anything on the scale of half the guys in that picture.

>> No.6414689

>>6414688
all I hear is excuses

>> No.6414702

>>6414689

- Modern science is too advanced for one man to be an expert in a field as broad and nondescript as "physics".
- Modern science is too advanced to be verified by experiment on the order of years like it was in the last centuries, it now takes decades (or more) and is approaching the lifespan of theorists themselves.

See the Peter Higgs et al. Nobel prize conundrum. It was predicted 50 years ago. Some of the theorists are dead, the others are too numerous to award the prize to but they had to choose 3 because of old stupid traditions. Higgs is only just hanging in there. Another 10-20 years and it would have been too late.

We don't know who the geniuses of our time are yet, because there are too many of them, and their ideas are too complex to be confident of who's right. People suspect String theory is bullshit, but in 100 years we might have an experiment that suddenly vindicates it and a wealth of knowledge pours out, and one of the string theorists of 2010 is declared a great influential scientist who sadly remained obscure and unappreciated / mocked in his time.

>> No.6414708

>>6414702
I think there will always be individuals reshaping the way we think

>- Modern science is too advanced for one man to be an expert in a field as broad and nondescript as "physics".
>- Modern science is too advanced to be verified by experiment on the order of years like it was in the last centuries, it now takes decades (or more) and is approaching the lifespan of theorists themselves.
Neither is this universally true, nor do you have a proof of this

>> No.6414792

>>6414539

Second this. I always preferred his explanations of QM.

>> No.6414822

>>6414674
>no gromov

confirmed for absolute pleb

>> No.6414834

>>6414674
Peter Higgs
Stephen Chu
Sir Andre Geim

>> No.6414847

>>6414702
> We don't know who the geniuses of our time are yet, because there are too many of them, and their ideas are too complex to be confident of who's right.

This raises an interesting point: should the 'rightness' of the idea influence the perception of the person who came up with it? For example, there's a plethora of inflation models. Is the person who gets it right 'better' at science or just luckier that nature happened to pick 'his' theory?

>> No.6414877

>>6414318
Is it a contest?

>> No.6414887
File: 6 KB, 241x209, f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6414887

>>6414318
>Who is the most brilliant in this pic?

Heisenberg.

I still get chills when I read some of his papers. I realize that I'll never be as smart as him.

>> No.6414888

>>6414847
>should the 'rightness' of the idea influence the perception of the person who came up with it?

Definitely not, for many reasons. I can describe the world much more accurately than Isaac Newton, but he was much smarter than I am. We just have different resources available to us.

And even if we were contemporaries, the most reasonable guess is not always correct. My idiot cousin buys lottery tickets all the time. If he happens to win the jackpot, does that mean it was a smart investment? No, because the odds were spectacularly against him.

>> No.6414898

>>6414887
see >>6414877
chin up

>> No.6414913

>>6414888
And yet Nobel prizes are only handed out on the basis of the idea being right, otherwise Witten and Maldacena wouild surely have gotten one.

>> No.6415032

>Who is the most brilliant in this pic?
Marie Curie.
Side effects of radioactivity.

>> No.6415261

>>6414913
And nobel prizes are typically only given to one person when nowadays it's usually an entire team that makes such a discovery.

Nobel Prizes are not some divine award bestowed by an omniscient being.

>> No.6415288

>>6414674
You just listed some famous ones. Are you actually familiar with their works?
Arnold and Mandelbrot died at approximately the same time, why did you decide to list Mandelbrot instead? Surely this was an accident.

>> No.6415290

>>6414686
Because of EGA and SGA, I reckon. And the bandwagon. People love jumping on that.

>> No.6415291

>>6414686
Because his work was interesting?

>> No.6415297

>>6414357
are you my dad

>> No.6415301

>>6414357
Astronomers are filth. That is all.

>> No.6415330

>>6414351
Ok lets get this straight people, Tyson is barely a scientist. He has spent the last 20 years working on gaining fame by communicating science. Please don't include him with Hawking and Sagan. I don't know who Barnett is.

>> No.6415335

>>6415330
what has sagan acomplished???
the temperature of the face of venus?
and again??

>> No.6415336

>>6415330
Barnett is the high iq tween /sci/ is in love with