Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

arXiv blog

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Email Subscription

Recently on the arXiv blog...

Recent comments on the arXivblog

  • ... : Thomas Paine gives an accurate synopsis of how science is taught without asking certain questions...
  • fcofbe : Thanks for the tip, norm.  We should have known about the MD5 problem.  We have now added SHA-2...
  • tonyzito : I'm not sure this thing fits the definition of a perfect black body either.  A perfect black body...
  • norm : His predictions are secret documents based on MD5 checksums. MD5 was cracked in 2005, when...
  • Bonobo : "When greedy, immoral, short-term thinking people are involved, there's going to be a crash." ...
  • lasertekk : Thank you Sam.  Let's take that one more step forward.  When greedy, immoral, short-term thinking...
  • ssamd : Here is another way to forecast a crash.  When regulations are striped there will be a crash. ...
  • ... : What bubble in shanghai? For instance,The Economist doesn't think a bubble exists (yet) Analysing...
  • gary7 : Clothes, paper, wood and brick are all non-metallic, easily penetrated by terahertz radiation. I...
  • dan_kolis : As important as this area of inquiry is, it is burdened by being right on the tough love spot...
  • ZephirAWT : Personally, I disagree. In AWT time dimension is defined by direction of gradient of Aether...
  • Fabrizio : Perhaps this quest for an explanation to the arrow of time arises from the same misconception...
  • Mapou : You are 100% correct but you will not get any love from the physics community for saying this....
  • captpaul : The very first question of the paper is flawed and will lead to another Not Even Wrong theory....
  • gemay : The operative phrase is "...fitted to most aircraft."  Since there is no FAA requirement that all...
  • ... : zoroasterisk,That is an amazing statement. First the discussion is about a God who loved and...
  • ZephirAWT : We cannot neglect fact, one half of Universe evaporates and separates by antigravity (radiation...
  • TooMany : Please check into Roman technology; they keep finding more.  The other day I read that the...
  • TooMany : The claimed non-null results sound quite significant, unless the measurements were in the noise.
  • ZephirAWT : Now we know, they can.
Advertisement
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The World's Greatest Physicists (as Determined by the Wisdom of Crowds)

No prizes for guessing who gets top billing. But who comes in at the bottom?


Who are the most accomplished physicists of the 20th century?

There's no real dispute over the top berth: Einstein trumps all comers. But the rest of the list is harder to draw up.

Of course there are various ways of measuring performance--by the number of published papers or by citations, for example. But these have well-known drawbacks.

Now Mikhail Simkin and Vwani Roychowdhury at the University of California, Los Angeles, have come up with a way of ranking physicists by equating their achievements with their fame as measured by hits on Google. (We've come across these guys before here.)

They've tried their idea using a list of Nobel Prize winners for physics from before the Second World War. Top of the Google hit list is Einstein, with almost 23 million hits--easily the most famous physicist of his generation and probably of all time. At the bottom with only 4,490 hits is the Swedish physicist Nils Dalen, who won the prize in 1912 for inventing an automatic gas valve.

The question is whether the intervening list is an accurate ranking of achievement. Simkin and Roychowdhury say that it is, because it matches, with reasonable accuracy, a list drawn up by the Soviet physicist Lev Landau, who ranked theoretical physicists using a logarithmic scale of his own invention.

Simkin and Roychowdhury say that the correspondence between Google hits and Landau's list is an example of the wisdom of crowds. Google hits are simply pages that mention the names in question. "Every Web page about a particular person expresses its creator's opinion that the person in question is worthy of it," they say. "Thus, the fact that our estimate of achievement of Nobel Prize-winning physicists based on statistical analysis of numbers of Web pages mentioning them agrees fairly well with an expert's [Landau's] opinion may be another demonstration of the wisdom of crowds."

Before you judge for yourself, spare a thought for Charles Wilson, who won the prize in 1927 for his development of the cloud chamber. Wilson has such a common name that Simkin and Roychowdhury could not determine his fame using Google hits and so had to exclude him from the survey. So we'll never know where Wilson ranks.

Here's the top 10 (minus Wilson). The full list is in the paper linked to below.

1. Albert Einstein
2. Max Planck
3. Marie Curie
4. Niels Bohr
5. Enrico Fermi
6. Guglielmo Marconi
7. Werner Heisenberg
8. Erwin Schrodinger
9. Pierre Curie
10. Wilhelm Rontgen

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0906.3558: Estimating Achievement from Fame

Comments

  • Marconi ?!
    Why is Marconi even in the running?  What a fraud.  Roentgen? And whither Feynman and Gell-mann? Really, only one of Heisenberg, Schroedinger, or Bohr should be on the list.  It's clear why Witten isn't there -- it will be another century before we know if he saved or destroyed physics.  (I'm betting "destroyed".)  But what about Lev Landau himself? 
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ncm
    06/24/2009
    Posts:14
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Marconi ?!
      good post. this is proof that the search crowd only takes you to the  ball park not to the ball. i think about this kind of stuff all the time. here is my list. EINESTEIN- no doubt there. if the question was the greatest physicist of all time, i bet NEWTON'S name will not be there. i put NEWTON over EINESTINE for that. any way here is my list:
      1- Einestine
      2- Luv Davidovich Landau- newton/einestine class, the greatest theoretical physicist of the 20th century if not all time. only newton and einestine achieved more.
      3-Richard Feynman- i considered not only his work and the nobel but his vision- which led to the NANO TECHNOLOGY industry and Quantum COMPUTATION.
      4- Bohr/heisenburg/schroedener- for developing quantum mechanics,  Planck contribution is good but lacks depth to be included in the top 5 even 10. Einestine to his credit said "quantum mechanics is incomplete". i wonder if quantum mechanics lasts another century. however, it is useful for now as a temp solution.

      now where do u put Dirac. how about maxwell ?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      i'm explaini...
      06/24/2009
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Marconi ?!
        Einestein, Einestine, Heisenburg, Schroedener? If you don't even get the names right, any comment on quantum physics lacks some credibility
        Rate this comment: 12345

        mberg
        07/02/2009
        Posts:1
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
    • Re: Marconi ?!
      Pay attention to the article where it is said that the list is based on the Nobel Prize winners from before World War II, so that automatically excludes Feynmann (1965), Landau (1962) or Gell-man (1969) or any other important physicists that won the nobel prize after WWII.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      evandrofisic...
      06/24/2009
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      • Re: Marconi ?!
        Thank you.  I was misled by the line near the beginning of the article, "Who are the most accomplished physicists of the 20th century?".  Evidently it should have read "... of the first half of the 20th century", rather a different matter.  Dirac certainly belongs on the list.

        Maxwell did his important work in the late 19th century. 
        Rate this comment: 12345

        ncm
        06/24/2009
        Posts:14
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • Observations
    Max Planck is ranked #2 for a singular reason: a huge German research association that bears his name (Max Planck Gesellschaft or MPG), and several dozen research institutes (Max Planck Institute of ... ). Most Google hits lead to MPG or its members, not to specific references to Planck himself.

    For some unknown and weird reason, different hit counts are observed depending on capitalization of some names:

    "ERWIN SCHRODINGER" 688,000
    "erwin schrodinger" 266,000
    ( + 20,400 hits on Schroedinger with 'oe' )

    "WERNER HEISENBERG" 720,000
    "werner heisenberg" 452,000

    conversely,

    "PIERRE CURIE" 309,000
    "Pierre Curie" 522,000
    Rate this comment: 12345

    hamster
    06/24/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
  • extrange
    This is not a comment about the article's own text, but a inner linx ("here") in the text, shown a alert of Google in my computer about the malicious potential in this site and in arXivblog.com

    Why?
    I read every day Arxiv and never this situation occur.
    RDL 
    Rate this comment: 12345

    rauldiazlego...
    06/24/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
  • chemists
    i know physicists and chemists are not considered to be the same, but i don't really see the distinction.  I would put mendeleev on the list.  i can't think of anything that has made the physical world more comprehensible than the periodic table of the elements.  i would also nominate hawking for a place on the list.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    richharding1
    06/24/2009
    Posts:9
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • feynman
    oh, and richard feynman.  granted, my nominations are not necessarily based on who has made the most brilliant advances, but who has been best able to communicate their insights to the rest of us.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    richharding1
    06/24/2009
    Posts:9
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • What about Dirac?
    In any objective list, Paul Dirac would have made the top ten...
    Rate this comment: 12345

    honzik
    06/25/2009
    Posts:8
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: What about Dirac?
      Dirac rings in at 11th by about 18,000 hits. It's unquestionable that Dirac was a great physicist, but Rontgen does have a unit named after him, and those units are very important in radiological safety. Same as with Marconi - I think practical applications trump fundamental contributions when it comes to fame.

      They get a good measure of fame, but "great" is a much more nebulous term.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      jondiced
      06/26/2009
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
Advertisement

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
•  Subscribe
Save 36%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
» Gift Subscription
» Digital Subscription
» Reprints, Back Issues
» Subscribe
» Table of Contents
» MIT News

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.