Who are the top scientists?

[steve_bank]

For invention and impact First place is a tie, Maxwell and Newton. They underwrote science and technology.

2nd the major players in QM. QM along with electromagnetics is essentially science.

3rd Gauss. Covered a lot of ground that went forward.

4th a tie between many like Ampere, Faraday, Oersted and others.

5th Einstein. He was a bit of a flash in the pan, and Relativity while important not as impactful as the others. The Photoelectric Effect was important, more so than Relativity.

 

[bigfield]

Charles Darwin is up there: the Origin of Species introduced a new paradigm for biology.

 

[rousseau]

Does Johannes Gutenberg count? You could make a round-about argument that he was a kind of engineer.

 

[Shake]

Does Johannes Gutenberg count? You could make a round-about argument that he was a kind of engineer.

Not really a scientist, though the printing press was obviously hugely impactful to science and its promotion.

 

[atrib]

For invention and impact First place is a tie, Maxwell and Newton. They underwrote science and technology.

2nd the major players in QM. QM along with electromagnetics is essentially science.

3rd Gauss. Covered a lot of ground that went forward.

4th a tie between many like Ampere, Faraday, Oersted and others.

5th Einstein. He was a bit of a flash in the pan, and Relativity while important not as impactful as the others. The Photoelectric Effect was important, more so than Relativity.

Both Special and General Relativity were enormous game changers as to how the universe behaves at the macroscopic level. They define the concepts of time and gravity, and are foundational elements for further work with understanding everything from the expansion of the universe, black holes, to everyday stuff like GPS navigation.

Charles Darwin's concept of evolution by natural selection was also a giant leap forward.

Maxwell's work with electromagnetism was also a huge game changer, as you have already mentioned.

 

[rousseau]

Does Johannes Gutenberg count? You could make a round-about argument that he was a kind of engineer.

Not really a scientist, though the printing press was obviously hugely impactful to science and its promotion.

I sometimes think about a round-about argument where the obviously important and positive rise of science is actually going to be seen as the instigator of the decline of the biosphere. David Christian talks about a 'fossil fuel revolution' which could only happen with modern science.

But then with a more deterministic view people even as late as the 19th century had no means to recognize what they were doing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Archimedes needs to be near the top.

Newton isn't expounded in the OP enough. Not only did he have good intuition in addition to his advances in science, but he (along with Leibniz) invented a new type of math (Calculus)!

Does Johannes Gutenberg count? You could make a round-about argument that he was a kind of engineer.

Not really a scientist, though the printing press was obviously hugely impactful to science and its promotion.

I sometimes think about a round-about argument where the obviously important and positive rise of science is actually going to be seen as the instigator of the decline of the biosphere. David Christian talks about a 'fossil fuel revolution' which could only happen with modern science.

But then with a more deterministic view people even as late as the 19th century had no means to recognize what they were doing.

The early 20th century is fraught with arrogance and science.

 

[Swammerdami]

...
2nd the major players in QM. QM along with electromagnetics is essentially science.
...
5th Einstein. He was a bit of a flash in the pan, and Relativity while important not as impactful as the others. The Photoelectric Effect was important, more so than Relativity.

"Flash in the pan"? Why so much anti-Einstein condescension these days?

The problem with including "the major players in QM" on a list like this is ... Who were the most major players? Several come to mind, and some, e.g. Hermann Weyl, might be overlooked. But one of the very key early lights in the initial development of quantum theory was ... Albert Einstein !

Galileo Galilei also belongs near the top of the list. Like Einstein, his greatness has become a cliché, making him easy to overlook!

Faraday and Lavoisier are excellent candidates if you want a somewhat longer list.

 

[steve_bank]

...
2nd the major players in QM. QM along with electromagnetics is essentially science.
...
5th Einstein. He was a bit of a flash in the pan, and Relativity while important not as impactful as the others. The Photoelectric Effect was important, more so than Relativity.

"Flash in the pan"? Why so much anti-Einstein condescension these days?

The problem with including "the major players in QM" on a list like this is ... Who were the most major players? Several come to mind, and some, e.g. Hermann Weyl, might be overlooked. But one of the very key early lights in the initial development of quantum theory was ... Albert Einstein !

Galileo Galilei also belongs near the top of the list. Like Einstein, his greatness has become a cliché, making him easy to overlook!

Faraday and Lavoisier are excellent candidates if you want a somewhat longer list.

Not just my opinion.

For scope and and impact at the top is Newton and Maxwell. Einstein himself acknowledged building on Maxwell. Maxwell, Newton, and QM underwrote all of midern technology and most of science. Maxwell and Newton both built on others, neither they nor Einstein created in a vaccuum.

 

[bilby]

...
2nd the major players in QM. QM along with electromagnetics is essentially science.
...
5th Einstein. He was a bit of a flash in the pan, and Relativity while important not as impactful as the others. The Photoelectric Effect was important, more so than Relativity.

"Flash in the pan"? Why so much anti-Einstein condescension these days?

The problem with including "the major players in QM" on a list like this is ... Who were the most major players? Several come to mind, and some, e.g. Hermann Weyl, might be overlooked. But one of the very key early lights in the initial development of quantum theory was ... Albert Einstein !

Galileo Galilei also belongs near the top of the list. Like Einstein, his greatness has become a cliché, making him easy to overlook!

Faraday and Lavoisier are excellent candidates if you want a somewhat longer list.

Not just my opinion.

For scope and and impact at the top is Newton and Maxwell. Einstein himself acknowledged building on Maxwell. Maxwell, Newton, and QM underwrote all of midern technology and most of science. Maxwell and Newton both built on others, neither they nor Einstein created in a vaccuum.

Nobody created in a vacuum in recorded history - and likely even before that.

Almost all discoveries ever are an extension of someone else's prior research. Perhaps the first guy to notice that flint has a sharp edge if you break it; the guy who worked out that you could feed sticks to a fire and keep it going all night; and the guy who thought of putting a roller under a heavy thing to help move it with less effort, came up with ideas without relying on prior art. But all the originators of scientific endeavour are long since lost to history.

If relying on the foundational work of others debars a person from greatness, then there are no great people.

 

[steve_bank]

Not just my opinion.

For scope and and impact at the top is Newton and Maxwell. Einstein himself acknowledged building on Maxwell. Maxwell, Newton, and QM underwrote all of midern technology and most of science. Maxwell and Newton both built on others, neither they nor Einstein created in a vaccuum.

Nobody created in a vacuum in recorded history - and likely even before that.

Almost all discoveries ever are an extension of someone else's prior research. Perhaps the first guy to notice that flint has a sharp edge if you break it; the guy who worked out that you could feed sticks to a fire and keep it going all night; and the guy who thought of putting a roller under a heavy thing to help move it with less effort, came up with ideas without relying on prior art. But all the originators of scientific endeavour are long since lost to history.

If relying on the foundational work of others debars a person from greatness, then there are no great people.

Hmmm... what I said is nobody works in a vaccuum, and that IMO Newton and Maxwell is at the top for impact and scope, along with QM. IMO AE is 4th or 5th.

holes at the same time.

Schrödinger's Wave Equations IMO is more important than E = MC^2.

AE opposed QM in some ways. I believe in general he got sidelined in physics. His greatedt contribution at his peak was popularizing and putting a face on scince for the masses. That alone had a n immense impact on the progress of science.

https://phys.org/news/2014-06-einstein-quantum-mechanics-hed-today.html

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not just my opinion.

For scope and and impact at the top is Newton and Maxwell. Einstein himself acknowledged building on Maxwell. Maxwell, Newton, and QM underwrote all of midern technology and most of science. Maxwell and Newton both built on others, neither they nor Einstein created in a vaccuum.

Nobody created in a vacuum in recorded history - and likely even before that.

Almost all discoveries ever are an extension of someone else's prior research. Perhaps the first guy to notice that flint has a sharp edge if you break it; the guy who worked out that you could feed sticks to a fire and keep it going all night; and the guy who thought of putting a roller under a heavy thing to help move it with less effort, came up with ideas without relying on prior art. But all the originators of scientific endeavour are long since lost to history.

If relying on the foundational work of others debars a person from greatness, then there are no great people.

Hmmm... what I said is nobody works in a vaccuum, and that IMO Newton and Maxwell is at the top for impact and scope, along with QM. IMO AE is 4th or 5th.

But isn't Einstein above Maxwell for the same reason Maxwell is above Faraday? In the end, it is like arguing who is better, Montana or Brady.

I just read that Maxwell predicted that Saturn's rings were made from particles, not a fluid, nor a single solid.

 

[steve_bank]

Hmmm... what I said is nobody works in a vaccuum, and that IMO Newton and Maxwell is at the top for impact and scope, along with QM. IMO AE is 4th or 5th.

But isn't Einstein above Maxwell for the same reason Maxwell is above Faraday? In the end, it is like arguing who is better, Montana or Brady.

I just read that Maxwell predicted that Saturn's rings were made from particles, not a fluid, nor a single solid.

Maxwell built on Ampere, Gauss, and Frasay plus others....Maxwell's Equations. From what I read the problem of relative motion existed well before AE. Maxwell predicted C as a constant, a key to relativity. AE's Photoelectric Effect helped start QM.

Maxwell came up with a way to describe the action at a distance problem of electrostatics and magnetics. Some thought it had to be some kind of Newtonian medium that transmitted force.

I look at by scope. Civil, mechanical structural, aerospace engineering are primarily Newtonian mechanics. Electronics and electricity are based on Maxwell and QM. There is no right or wrong to it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hmmm... what I said is nobody works in a vaccuum, and that IMO Newton and Maxwell is at the top for impact and scope, along with QM. IMO AE is 4th or 5th.

But isn't Einstein above Maxwell for the same reason Maxwell is above Faraday? In the end, it is like arguing who is better, Montana or Brady.

I just read that Maxwell predicted that Saturn's rings were made from particles, not a fluid, nor a single solid.

Maxwell built on Ampere, Gauss, and Frasay plus others....Maxwell's Equations. From what I read the problem of relative motion existed well before AE. Maxwell predicted C as a constant, a key to relativity. AE's Photoelectric Effect helped start QM.

Maxwell came up with a way to describe the action at a distance problem of electrostatics and magnetics. Some thought it had to be some kind of Newtonian medium that transmitted force.

I look at by scope. Civil, mechanical structural, aerospace engineering are primarily Newtonian mechanics.

With civil and mechanical being discovered more than 1600 years before Newton (Archimedes).

Electronics and electricity are based on Maxwell and QM.

Which was built off of Gauss and Faraday.

There is no right or wrong to it.

You seem to think otherwise. Why continue arguing? Truly, if Relativity wasn't too big... why have Physicists been stuck ever since?

 

[steve_bank]

Maxwell built on Ampere, Gauss, and Frasay plus others....Maxwell's Equations. From what I read the problem of relative motion existed well before AE. Maxwell predicted C as a constant, a key to relativity. AE's Photoelectric Effect helped start QM.

Maxwell came up with a way to describe the action at a distance problem of electrostatics and magnetics. Some thought it had to be some kind of Newtonian medium that transmitted force.

I look at by scope. Civil, mechanical structural, aerospace engineering are primarily Newtonian mechanics.

With civil and mechanical being discovered more than 1600 years before Newton (Archimedes).

Electronics and electricity are based on Maxwell and QM.

Which was built off of Gauss and Faraday.

There is no right or wrong to it.

You seem to think otherwise. Why continue arguing? Truly, if Relativity wasn't too big... why have Physicists been stuck ever since?

I am responding to you.

Modern engineering is Newtonian with some exceptions. The ancient Romans were great engineers. They understood beams and had empiracal tables of material strengths.

The Incas surveyed mountain roads to an accuracy we would have today.

Today we have mechanics. What is your point? Volley to you....

 

[Swammerdami]

Anyone who doesn't put Einstein and Galileo near the very top of the list — ahead even of Maxwell and Darwin — needs to re-read their biographies.

No argument that Sir Isaac Newton belongs somewhere in the Top Two, of course.

 

[bigfield]

Anyone who doesn't put Einstein and Galileo near the very top of the list — ahead even of Maxwell and Darwin — needs to re-read their biographies.

No argument that Sir Isaac Newton belongs somewhere in the Top Two, of course.

Galileo found evidence in support of a heliocentric solar system, but Copernicus developed the theory in the first place.

 

[bilby]

Anyone who doesn't put Einstein and Galileo near the very top of the list — ahead even of Maxwell and Darwin — needs to re-read their biographies.

No argument that Sir Isaac Newton belongs somewhere in the Top Two, of course.

Galileo found evidence in support of a heliocentric solar system, but Copernicus developed the theory in the first place.

And as every schoolboy knows, was the man with a battery in his trousers.

 

[atrib]

Not just my opinion.

For scope and and impact at the top is Newton and Maxwell. Einstein himself acknowledged building on Maxwell. Maxwell, Newton, and QM underwrote all of midern technology and most of science. Maxwell and Newton both built on others, neither they nor Einstein created in a vaccuum.

Nobody created in a vacuum in recorded history - and likely even before that.

Almost all discoveries ever are an extension of someone else's prior research. Perhaps the first guy to notice that flint has a sharp edge if you break it; the guy who worked out that you could feed sticks to a fire and keep it going all night; and the guy who thought of putting a roller under a heavy thing to help move it with less effort, came up with ideas without relying on prior art. But all the originators of scientific endeavour are long since lost to history.

If relying on the foundational work of others debars a person from greatness, then there are no great people.

Hmmm... what I said is nobody works in a vaccuum, and that IMO Newton and Maxwell is at the top for impact and scope, along with QM. IMO AE is 4th or 5th.

holes at the same time.

Schrödinger's Wave Equations IMO is more important than E = MC^2.

AE opposed QM in some ways. I believe in general he got sidelined in physics. His greatedt contribution at his peak was popularizing and putting a face on scince for the masses. That alone had a n immense impact on the progress of science.

https://phys.org/news/2014-06-einstein-quantum-mechanics-hed-today.html

Einstein's contributions to our understanding of the universe extends way beyond e=mc^2. Einstein defined and quantified how time works in Special Relativity, which is a very important discovery. We wouldn't be able to use the GPS receivers in our cars without this understanding, so it has an impact on our day to day lives as well. But his real contribution was in developing a model of spacetime, quantifying how the very fabric of our universe works, how matter and energy interact on a cosmic scale. We wouldn't be able to describe the orbit of Mercury for example without GR, or model the stars orbiting Sagittarius A* to quantify the mass of the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. And while General Relativity used geometric formulations established by others like Gauss, his work was completely original, and had an impact on physics that is unsurpassed to this day. To trivialize Einstein's contributions by calling him a flash in the pan is unfair, and likely founded in a lack of understanding of his work.

 

[steve_bank]

Hmmm... what I said is nobody works in a vaccuum, and that IMO Newton and Maxwell is at the top for impact and scope, along with QM. IMO AE is 4th or 5th.

holes at the same time.

Schrödinger's Wave Equations IMO is more important than E = MC^2.

AE opposed QM in some ways. I believe in general he got sidelined in physics. His greatedt contribution at his peak was popularizing and putting a face on scince for the masses. That alone had a n immense impact on the progress of science.

https://phys.org/news/2014-06-einstein-quantum-mechanics-hed-today.html

Einstein's contributions to our understanding of the universe extends way beyond e=mc^2. Einstein defined and quantified how time works in Special Relativity, which is a very important discovery. We wouldn't be able to use the GPS receivers in our cars without this understanding, so it has an impact on our day to day lives as well. But his real contribution was in developing a model of spacetime, quantifying how the very fabric of our universe works, how matter and energy interact on a cosmic scale. We wouldn't be able to describe the orbit of Mercury for example without GR, or model the stars orbiting Sagittarius A* to quantify the mass of the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. And while General Relativity used geometric formulations established by others like Gauss, his work was completely original, and had an impact on physics that is unsurpassed to this day. To trivialize Einstein's contributions by calling him a flash in the pan is unfair, and likely founded in a lack of understanding of his work.

OK