I don’t know about overrated; I do know that he once almost ran his wheelchair over my foot.
“Living”?
Limiting the case to theorists how about:
Gell-Mann
Weinberg
Glashow
't Hooft
Peebles
Guth
Higgs
Plus others I cannot think of now.
Plus a couple of dozen string theorists (starting with Witten) if their theory should happen to live up to its hype.
As for the earlier reference to “relativity/quantum gravity”, I do not think anyone seriously considers that problem to be even past the introductory stage of solution, indeed a case might be made for saying that the introduction has not yet begun. As for contributing to the “framework” of General Relativity text books (as opposed to contributing a significant theoretical advance), that is nothing but an embarrassment to offer as a major career accomplishment for someone who is supposed to be the best living.
Once again, he’s not the modern equivalent to Einstein or Newton (or even Galileo, who’s a little behind them). He’s probably one of the twenty best physicists in the world today. Nelson Pike has named some of them. This doesn’t mean that he’s stupid. He’s smarter than any of us posting to this thread. There’s a distinction between being smarter than any of us (and there are a lot of smart people on the SDMB) and being one of the greatest scientists of all time.
One thing that people fail to realize is that Hawking has always been a great self-promoter. His appearances on Star Trek, The Big Bang Theory, and Futurama were his own suggestions. He wrote several books (including a children’s series with his daughter) and some TV versions of those books. He occasionally publicizes his philosophical and political views. None of this should be taken as an insult to Hawking. There are a lot of people smarter than you (and me too), and the fact that one of them has become quite famous doesn’t prove that they are the smartest person in the world.
I have given almost this exact same spiel before, but what the heck:
Professor Hawking’s reputation within the world of science is exactly what it should be.
On the other hand. he is HIGHLY overrated among the general public. That’s mostly because he’s made a mark in pop culture. No other scientist gets to do vocals for Pink Floyd or to appear on Star Trek.
Practically everybody here in Austin knows who Professor Hawking is. On the other hand, we have our own Nobel-winning physicist here, a gent named Steven Weinberg. Not one person in a hundred here knows who Professor Weinberg is, or would recognize him if he passed by.
I don’t see how naming other leading physcists contradicts what I said. As I’ve said about 100 times now, who is the greatest living physicist is highly subjective, but I don’t think you could have that discussion without talking about Stephen hawking.
I really don’t know what some people have against Hawking on this board that they feel the need to rubbish him. I also can’t take it too seriously either when the discussion of his actual work is either absent or erroneous. The particular piece of work I was talking about was his singularity theorem which demonstrates that singularities are an inescapable fact of general relativistic cosmology (prior to this no-one really knew if they were or not) and my point about it forming the backbone of a chapter (along with Penrose’s work and their joint work) is to illustrate how important this piece of work is considered in general relativity. Nor by any means is that his only theoretical contribution to general relativity - in fact I think it would be fair to say that he emerged as the leading figure (though there are clearly other significant figures such as Penrose, Kerr and Geroch to name but a few) in the renaissance of general relativity in the 1960s and 70s.
As for quantum gravity, the picture of where it is is more complicated than you think. But it is also a very active area right on the forefront of theoretical physics, so can hardly be ignored. It also must be pointed out that his most important work in this area is expected to hold true in full quantum gravity.
Given that you’re not aware of the work that Hawking did in relativity, which tbh you would be if you had were aware of anything that had happened in general relativity since the 1960s and is among his most important work I don’t know how you think you can assess his relative importance.
We’re not rubbishing him. We’re saying that he’s among the top twenty physicists in the world today. He’s not the modern equivalent of Einstein or Newton though.
I don’t think there’s a single physicist today that’s known among the general population for their scientific accomplishments. I suppose he might be overrated in that sense.
I think there are people in this thread and the other thread that are rubbishing him. In the other thread someone called him a “journeyman”, which is bizarre as not at any stage of his career could he be considered a journeyman. Or Nelson Pike in this thread who suggested he hadn’t made any significant theoretical advances in general relativity, which again I find bizarre as, besides the Hawking effect, that is what is probably most well-known for doing. I.e. advancing the whole subject area with quite a number of theorems. I also found it a bit bizarre on the first thread people chose to focus in on Stephen Hawking’s academic reputation, whereas NdGT was mentioned where there is clearly more confusion between his public recognition and significance as a scientist.
I don’t think it is unfair to say he is among the the top twenty living physicists, but I think it is better to say that he is someone who reached the the very top of the tree. Yes there are others who occupy similarly lofty positions, but picking between them would be very subjective.
Some of his work has been surpassed or even overturned. But that’s cool, as it indicates the science itself is progressing. Hawking has celebrated this advance. Meanwhile, he does continue to stay relevant. He’s still doing real work.
I actually don’t disagree with you overall, I just think pop culture oversimplifies achievements and tends to ascribe the forces of history to individuals.
I still haven’t forgiven him for killing the event horizon; there, I said it.
Aside:
If Hawking Radiation were to be confirmed, do you think he’d be a shoe-in for a Nobel Prize?
It is reasonable to consider Hawking’s achievements inferior of those, say, of Weinberg-Glashow-'t Hooft. They took the first step since Maxwell in the 1800s in theoretical unification of the forces of nature, since enhanced by the inclusion of the Strong Nuclear force by the Standard Model. (Yes I know Abdus Salam, now dead, contributed and yes I know 't Hooft’s renormalization contribution was not enough by itself to earn him a Nobel Prize). Hawking has done nothing nearly comparable.
I really don’t know why removing Hawking from a place in the top flight of theoretical physicists should be considered “trashing”. So he’s not in the top 10? Well, the second 10 is still pretty good!
You did not mention singularities before now, and just as well since the field accords Hawking no preeminent distinction. Singularities were first conceived before 1920, and have been at the forefront of relativistic cosmological discussion ever since discovery of the expanding universe in the late 1920s. There have been perhaps dozens of theorists from Schwartzchild to LeMaitre to Gamow to Wheeler (who coined the term “Black Hole” in 1967) who have made seminal contributions to the problem. Even if Hawking’s contribution to the subject was as great as anyone else’s I wonder if that would be enough to elevate him to the status of best living.
Would Hawking’s contribution even amount to 10% of Peebles’? Peebles, who with Dicke rediscovered GR solutions from which the cosmic microwave background could be deduced (original discovery was by by Gamow and Alpher, but was forgotten for 10-15 years) All modern cosmology proceeds from there. I do not think the same can be said for any contribution by Hawking.
Where did I ever say that “picture” was simple ??? I’ll say it’s complicated !!!- it frames what has been the greatest problem in theoretical physics, and one of the greatest in the history of science, ever since quantum mechanics was discovered, namely, the complete, utter and intractable incompatibility of QM and GR. No real progress has been made at reconciliation in 90 years (*pace *string theorists’ discovery that their project requires that gravity exist). I would not be adopting the stance I have throughout this thread if Hawking had contributed anything to the solution of that problem.
If his work in relativity was important enough to elevate him to the first place among living theoretical physicists I would have been aware of it.
I read Dreams of a Final Theory 20 years ago. Great book.
Too bad, though, that the final theory remains elusive.
PS: I’ve been to Austin too. Three times in the mid to late 1970s. Fantastic place, just fantastic.
I did not say this. However, the passage you must be referring to was not well written by me, so I can see how it might be misinterpreted.
What I would say is that Einstein’s contributions to GR are much greater than all others combined, and will remain so until someone contributes a lot more than Hawking has.
I lived in Austin from 1974 to 1977, and it’s probably the best college town in the U.S.
Nope. The grackles alone disqualify it.
What? Is there some definition of “grackle” I don’t know of? Are you talking about the bird? What does that have to do with anything?
You, obviously, have never parked your car under a tree inhabited by a huge colony of grackles.
If you had, you’d be cursing Noah for bringing them on the Ark!