The ten greatest predictions in physics.

[sjastro]

According to physicsworld.

The 10 greatest predictions in physics – Physics World

 

[JackRT]

According to physicsworld.

The 10 greatest predictions in physics – Physics World

Will not load for me.

 

[sjastro]

Will not load for me.

Article cut and pasted over next two posts.

Kepler’s three laws, by Isaac Newton (by 1687)
British physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton was an early proponent of prediction through mathematical calculation.

The Arago spot, by Siméon-Denis Poisson (1818)
The French mathematician and physicist Siméon-Denis Poisson once made a prediction he was convinced was wrong. Instead, his prediction about the prediction was wrong, and he had accidentally helped demonstrate that light was a wave.


Speed of light, by James Clerk Maxwell (1865)
In 1860 at King’s College London, UK, the Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell began to make deep progress in the fields of electricity and magnetism, converting the experimental ideas of Michael Faraday into mathematical form.



Anomalous perihelion precession of Mercury, by Albert Einstein (1915)
In the 1840s the French astronomer Urbain Le Verrier carefully analysed the orbit of Mercury.

Second series of rare-earth elements, by Maria Goeppert Mayer (1941)
It’s not every day someone adds a new element to the periodic table, but German physicist Maria Goeppert Mayer went one step further and added an entire row.

 

[sjastro]

Continued..

Anomalous magnetic moment of the electron, by Julian Schwinger (1949)
During the Second World War, American theoretical physicist Julian Schwinger worked on wartime radar and waveguide technology, where he developed methods based on Green’s functions – a way of solving complicated differential equations by solving a simpler one giving the Green’

7.65 MeV energy level in carbon-12, by Fred Hoyle (1953)
In 1953 English astronomer Fred Hoyle made a prediction that he realized later in life was required because he, and all life, existed.


Parity violation in the weak interaction, by Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen-Ning Yang (1957)
Parity conservation – the idea that the world looks and behaves the same way whether viewed in a mirror or not – had been firmly established for electromagnetic and strong interactions by the 1950s.

Josephson effect, by Brian Josephson (1962)
Phillip Anderson once recalled teaching Brian Josephson as a graduate student at the University of Cambridge: “This was a disconcerting experience for a lecturer, I can assure you, because everything had to be right or he would come up and explain it to me after class.”


Dark matter, by Vera Rubin with W Kent Ford Jr (1970)
“Great astronomers told us it didn’t mean anything,” the American astronomer Vera Rubin once told an interviewer.

She was talking about her and Kent Ford Jr’s 1970 observation that outer stars orbiting in the Andromeda galaxy were all doing so at the same speed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

According to physicsworld.

The 10 greatest predictions in physics – Physics World

Didn't make the cut. I need to up my game.

 

[sjastro]

Didn't make the cut. I need to up my game.

Neither did my favorites the plasma cosmologists and the electric universe wooists.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Neither did my favorites the plasma cosmologists and the electric universe wooists.

There was Vera Rubin and dark matter... Oh wait that doesn't work for them.

 

[J_B_]

Sorry to be the wet blanket, but I don't understand why cosmology (even QM to some extent) always get the front page. Maybe the title is better stated as the "10 most dramatic predictions". IMHO the 10 greatest are those that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sorry to be the wet blanket, but I don't understand why cosmology (even QM to some extent) always get the front page. Maybe the title is better stated as the "10 most dramatic predictions". IMHO the 10 greatest are those that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick.

First, none of those things (feeding clothing medicating) is *physics*.

Second. This was about *predictions* not discoveries.

Call it chemistry or physics if you like, but Mendeleev's prediction of missing elements based on his table is pretty impressive. (And fits the nature of this list.)

 

[SelfSim]

I reckon the UV Catastrophe was a corker of a prediction!:

The ultraviolet catastrophe, also called the Rayleigh–Jeans catastrophe, was the prediction of late 19th century/early 20th century classical physics that an ideal black body at thermal equilibrium will emit radiation in all frequency ranges, emitting more energy as the frequency increases. By calculating the total amount of radiated energy (i.e., the sum of emissions in all frequency ranges), it can be shown that a black body is likely to release an arbitrarily high amount of energy. This would cause all matter to instantaneously radiate all of its energy until it is near absolute zero – indicating that a new model for the behaviour of black bodies was needed.

 

[J_B_]

First, none of those things (feeding clothing medicating) is *physics*.

That's a very limited view of physics, which studies the motion of matter through space and time. It has had an impact on all the things I mentioned, first and foremost via machines.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's a very limited view of physics, which studies the motion of matter through space and time. It has had an impact on all the things I mentioned, first and foremost via machines.

And your view is so unlimited that it becomes valueless. I doubt anyone is denying the importance of social concerns, but this thread is not about social concerns. It is about scientific predictions. You've brought a burrito to a tennis tournament.

 

[J_B_]

And your view is so unlimited that it becomes valueless. I doubt anyone is denying the importance of social concerns, but this thread is not about social concerns. It is about scientific predictions. You've brought a burrito to a tennis tournament.

All I've said to this point is that my criteria for selecting great physics predictions would be different. I didn't present what my list would actually be.

Or is it my definition of physics that you object to? What is your definition?

Or is this thread not open to considering other criteria for "great" predictions? Are we only supposed to cheer for those on the given list? Are you telling me there is a completely objective method for determining the "greatest" physics predictions, and, therefore, my criteria is irrelevant? If so, please present this criteria and we can discuss.

Or were you just trolling for a laugh?

 

[SelfSim]

All I've said to this point is that my criteria for selecting great physics predictions would be different. I didn't present what my list would actually be.

.. and what's more, I think you explicitly presented it as being in your 'humble opinion'(?):

.. IMHO the 10 greatest are those that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick.

...

Or were you just trolling for a laugh?

Now I personally find that as being a good laugh!

 

[J_B_]

.. and what's more, I think you explicitly presented it as being in your 'humble opinion'(?):

...
Now I personally find that as being a good laugh!

Thanks.

 

[Ophiolite]

All I've said to this point is that my criteria for selecting great physics predictions would be different. I didn't present what my list would actually be.

Any link between fundamental physics - what this thread is about - has only the most tneuous of links to predictions "that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick."
Frankly, I am at a loss to see how a prediction could do any of those things. Feel free to enlighten me.

Or is it my definition of physics that you object to? What is your definition?

Your definition is too general to be of value. But that is not my objection. Again, this is about predictions; you appear to be talking about discoveries and developments. Those are irrelevant in this thread.

Or is this thread not open to considering other criteria for "great" predictions? Are we only supposed to cheer for those on the given list? Are you telling me there is a completely objective method for determining the "greatest" physics predictions, and, therefore, my criteria is irrelevant? If so, please present this criteria and we can discuss.

So stop talking about your criteria and your list and actually present them. Then I can either apologise or systematically deconstruct your offering.

Or were you just trolling for a laugh?

If there is any trolling here it is your fatuous objection that these predictions did nothing "to help feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick".

 

[J_B_]

If there is any trolling here it is your fatuous objection that these predictions did nothing "to help feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick".

I simply stated my preference for a criteria. Calling it a "fatuous objection" is a gross misrepresentation.

Any link between fundamental physics - what this thread is about - has only the most tneuous of links to predictions "that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick."

The article says nothing about "fundamental" physics that I saw. You're moving the goal posts.

Further, the article comes across as something humbly presented for just a bit of fun. The author states, "I have chosen what I think are the 10 greatest theoretical physics predictions of all time, presented in chronological order. Of course, any such list is somewhat arbitrary and depends on the author’s predilections, opinions and knowledge. Any reader will no doubt disagree with some, maybe all. We’d love to hear your own thoughts, comments and opinions ..."

IOW, he is inviting the very thing I did. I haven't the vaguest notion why you stubbed your toe on my post, or how you got the impression I was speaking of discoveries instead of predictions. Based on the spirit with which I posted, I expected a reply along the lines of, "Oh, what would your list be?"

But the moment is lost, so I'm going to decline your ever so kind invitation.

 

[SelfSim]

... So stop talking about your criteria and your list and actually present them. Then I can either apologise or systematically deconstruct your offering.

If there is any trolling here it is your fatuous objection that these predictions did nothing "to help feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick".

What is this?
A mere humble opinion was expressed .. for goodness sake!

 

[Ophiolite]

I simply stated my preference for a criteria. Calling it a "fatuous objection" is a gross misrepresentation.

It is called an opinion. In this instance an informed opinion. You are free to disagree with it. It won't make you right, but it may make you feel more comfortable.

The article says nothing about "fundamental" physics that I saw. You're moving the goal posts.

It is implicit. Ask 100 people to identify physics topics and a large majority will relate to items such as those on the list. Few, if any, will talk about things "that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick."

IOW, he is inviting the very thing I did. I haven't the vaguest notion why you stubbed your toe on my post, or how you got the impression I was speaking of discoveries instead of predictions.

I've made it very clear that I cannot see how predictions can "help feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick". I've acknowledged that I may be mistaken and invited you to give examples to demonstrate that I am mistaken. You have run away from that option. It's almost as if you don't have any examples.

But the moment is lost, so I'm going to decline your ever so kind invitation.

I call you on what seems to me a "fatuous objection" and you pick up your toys and leave. Not a convincing choice.

Together we have derailed this thread enough. Apologies to the OP. I shall only be posting in it on-topic in future.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Maybe the title is better stated as the "10 most dramatic predictions". IMHO the 10 greatest are those that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick.

So what would the greatest physics predictions be that helped feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and medicate the sick?