Jingly Bells and Big Bangs

Hohoho, Christmas  must be in the air and as always, we have some religious nuts going around complaining about secularism. Now I try to maintain my stance as irreligious in this debate, so I don't usually argue with them, but a really funny question popped up. 

"Why do people still believe in the Big Bang Theory when it's been disproved by the Bible?"

Sorry, but if you in some way agree with that reasoning, I am pretty sure you are not a Catholic. Or you are a really terrible one.

No, not because I think that Catholics are heretic whose only real thing they have going is the fact they are around for pretty much two millennia and for a large portion of that time, were the most powerful corporation in the planet.

And also not because I think not being a catholic means you are an heretical protestant that should receive the wrath of Inquisition, as the good old days of the Holy See as the overseer of the world (as opposed to the modern US, which I am also going to assume you are from)

Now, the reason why I know you’re not a catholic is because, as a former catholic, I know one of the things we would pride ourselves is in the fact that the catholic church and/or catholic individuals were innovators in various fields of science. And every catholic likes to brag about it to their protestant and atheist friends. I used to be like that.

Some of the greatest astronomic discoveries were made by catholic priests like the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun, by Copernicus, which if I recall, is also in contradiction to the Bible (Actually later, Galileo got in some hot water with the Holy See because of this same heliocentric view). Another catholic priest, Mendel, is known as the father of genetics, which, along with many other things, have been used to prove that evolution is an actual thing (again in contradiction to the Bible). And the topic of your question, the Big Bang theory, was first proposed by a Belgian catholic priest, Lemaitre.

So, you have the biggest christian church in the planet, where its members have made discoveries that well may contradict the Bible, which is like the constitution of Christianity. Now you have a few options on what to believe:

A - You take the catholic approach, that is to say that while it may seem like it contradicts the bible, in reality, it doesn’t contradict it at all, since in essence, even though Bible is the word of god, they may have taken some literary liberty in some descriptions. I mean, if you think about it, while the bible doesn’t say anything about evolution, it doesn’t say anything against it, just like with Big Bang. If anything, the only suspicious “theory” here is that the Earth revolves around the sun, when Genesis clearly says the sun was made as a lighter above the firmaments. Although I do think the Catholics are really good with Jedi Mind tricks and Doublespeech.

B - You take my approach, and assume that a Book written (allegedly) over the span of two millennia with multiple writers none of them with the scientific knowledge we have today, and as such, on a bad trip, assumed to have met a “god” who told them words of wisdom. You know, like when Marduk slayed Tiamat and with her body created the world (you should know about them, they were part of Abraham’s first religion, back when he was just Abram). Fairy tails.

C - Or you take the fun approach, the planet X approach, or the flat-earther approach, believing that the catholic church has somehow allied itself with the scientists and the Muslims (even back when they were killing each other in the crusades) in a massive conspiracy to promote heretical teachings that contradict their own word, for the purpose of… making frogs gay with chemicals in the water? On that note, should we open an inquiry on the subject of heliocentric solar system? It seems like Sun worship to me.

Yeah, this isn’t about the scientific reason, because we both know we wouldn’t understand. The reason why I believe in the Big Bang, is because believing in it wouldn’t really hurt me in any way. And if I believe that the Earth revolves around the sun in an elliptical path, then it’s not much of an stretch to believe that the universe is expanding.

So long, and happy Holidays everyone!!

What is science?

Hey everyone, just got back from hibernation, back to this... Hold on a minute, I still have some drowziness so I might, and probably will mispell something.

I claim to speak a lot about science, however, there is a key detail that I haven't talked about, and that is... What the hell is science?!

Wikipedia says of science “… a enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe” and I think it does hit the main point of what science is all about. Why scientists work on every day? To understand the universe and understand how things work and fit in. Why do we want to understand that? So that we can predict what will happen if we do something, how something is supposed to act if something else happens to it. This is a generalistic approach, but I think it is valid, because it may also ask: “Why do we care?”. You see, you can’t deny that science has had a substantial, I would say without a doubt, a defining rule in the shape of our modern societies. And yet, many question if we should still be working on science. They say something like “Is that going to be useful at all?”. As a scientist, (at least now, I can call myself a minor one) it’s really frustrating. And it depends on the science too.

#THIS NEXT PART IS JUST A PERSONAL RANT. TL;DR: PEOPLE ARE NOT CARING ENOUGH ABOUT SCIENCE BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH SCIENCE POSTER CHILDS THAT CAUSE A HUGE UPROAR AND BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TURNING SCIENCE POLITICAL.

In life and environmental sciences, it’s easy to show how it can affect our daily lives, since regularly they have applications that may affect us directly. Chemistry also has some clear motivations for the public, because while they may not have a direct application, they have an industry, which is interested in the progress of chemistry. As for physics, we kind of reach a dilemma. Now we have applied physicists, and the projects I have worked on was essentially applied physics, so there is still some interest in that area. But I want to work on the fundamental fields someday, and it’s really hard to find any useful application for fundamental physical research in less than 60 years. It didn’t use to be like that. A good example would be the discovery of x-rays. Less than 20 years after its discovery, doctors had already seen its use for something that was very hard to do back then. Being able to see inside of someone without cutting they open. It was revolutionary.

Somehow, medicine has been the area that has benefitted from physics the most this last century, other than the tech industry. The new diagnostic and therapeutic tools provided to medicine due to the quantum revolution, that also led to the development of computers and everything that followed it. General relativity allowed for the development of GPS, and for the proper usage of artificial satellites. These are all things that now are more and more prevalent in our lives, and yet, most of the physics required for them is more than 60 years old. Again, we do have some exceptions in the tech industry and medicine, but as for as the common person goes, physics stopped being relevant. And right now, science as a whole as grown so complex that it’s hard for one person to even revolutionize one single field of a science, let alone revolutionize all of it. What would it take to do so? I can’t fathom it, and that’s because I’m not an Einstein. And because I’m a Feynmann either, I can’t show people the marvels of science and captivate an audience as he did, specially since back then he wouldn’t be competing with the Kardashians or Marvel movies (just comics).

So these and many other factors explain why science has lost importance in the eyes of the public, and scientists themselves are losing trust from the public, for things that really shouldn’t be political, like climate change. But that doesn’t change science core principle of understanding the universe and predicting its next move.

#THAT ENDS THE RANT. SORRY ABOUT THAT

But in the end, science is all about working hard, (now as a team more than often) to try and solve an existing question, and maybe from there understand the universe a little bit better, predict what happens in similar circumstances and solve the new questions that will unavoidably pop up. I hope that helped.

What do physicists whine about most?

I wouldn’t say whine. I have never seen a physicist whine. We are too high on coffee to do that, we just tear things apart, ripping the fabric of space-time. But I can tell what a physicist may feel uncomfortable with, and will use myself as an example for a couple of those.

One thing I believe we’re not comfortable with is when people assume we are geniuses just because we are doing physics. Don’t get me wrong, I am talking about the kids (and by kids, I mean mentally immature, not an actual minor. We have to specify everything, or else the internet crucifies you, like "someone" was allegedly... I am digressing) on the internet who say things like “Hey look, I have an IQ in the 99th percentile, look at me”, and also, physics does demand a lot of work to be understood, but I don’t like when I see people using things like “I read Quantum Mechanics books because I am very smart”. Like, many people think Einstein achieved what he did just because of his intellect, and I think that is an offense to Einstein, by disregarding the efforts he did. Sure, having an IQ of 200 is great, but if you don’t make at least the effort to learn something you will definitely not achieve anything. That being said, there are various examples of physicists you could describe as being prodigies, like Von Neumann, Dyson or Witten. But most physicist that go to work on the field, do it because they love what they are working on, and not because they feel like “With my intellect, this is the least I could do to you, mere lesser minds (Who speaks like this?)”. Again, I am not generalizing. Maybe there are geniuses who are also selfish pricks, and yes that sounds contradictory, but we are humans, contradiction, dichotomy materialized in flesh. Just so we can be clear, I looked up for dichotomy in the dictionary before using it. In the same, even best physicists today will still look for work done by those before him. Not only because we want to learn what they discovered, but for more trivial reasons, like plagiarism. Who cares if you found a new cure for cancer? If you don't quote those who did a prior work on that, who may have had come close to reaching your conclusion, a lawyer is coming up in your ass with a lawsuit. And you will lose credibility, and the scientific community will pretty much ignore you, and we don't want our brightest minds to go to waste, just because of some silly pride. So yeah, that is one frustration for me. Sure, we can say, that it may also be because I am stupid, and I take it. Yeah, I am stupid. Which is why I try to find ways to not be stupid anymore.

And also, really important, all this new age bullsh*t about quantum this, quantum that, magnetic something something, usually related to some biological or medical principle, like quantum mind (Now there is quantum biology, and that is a legit science)… The reason this ticks me of is because it affects my field. Whenever someone hears medical physics, or biophysics they start saying, oh yeah I heard about your field. I am like, “Really? I thought mine was a darkhorse in the different subfields of physics”, and then I just hear a “I’ve reading specially a lot on the quantum nature of consciousness” (Now again, we can use the mathematical methods in quantum mechanics and apply it to neurophysics, but in no way we assume brain activity to have a quantum feature) or “Do you work on magnetic therapy?” (We do use magnetic fields in medical and biological physics, but as far as I am aware, only in imaging and spectroscopy)*. I guess it is the same with astronomers and astrophysicists when they get asked “I was born in April, do you know the effects Jupiter has on me?” (While this is a hypothetical, I do know a friend of mine who went through this). Sure, these people are not at fault, they were just misinformed, my real frustration is with those gurus that spread these false statements as factual. We physicists do enjoy a bit of pondering and philosophy, but when you take that thought experiment and turn it into something “factual”, not only you have gone out of physics, you left the realm of science altogether.

I mean, today I was talking about it with this friend of mine. She is more tolerant to them, and even sometimes we joke around with astrology, but that is because most of us have already accepted astrology as a pseudo-science. And those who go there, don't think they will actually meet with a scientist. However, those who go to homeopaths, actually believe they are meeting with a respectable doctor. And that is dangerous. 

Sorry for my long rant, but these are things that I think could possibly make us whine a lot. And to all other physicists, if you think I exagerated on some parts or if you think I left something out, please tell me.

*An update to that, actually we can use magnetic fields for therapy, but definitely not in the way they are talking about it.

What are the different types of physicists?

So in the last two posts I was talking about how experimental and theoretical physicists may complement each other, and how the future of physics and science as a whole may be doomed if we leave everything at the ends of lobbyists and legislators. But then it occured to me that we don't really know how many kinds of physicists are there. This is an oversimplified version of many colleges, and universities curricula in way to properly say what the consensus for different types of physicists.

Now there are many ways to answer that. First, we need to go with conventions We start by answering at a more fundamental level, you have two types of physicists, fundamental physicists and applied physicists. What is the main difference between the two? Arguably the same as a theoretical mathematician and applied mathematician. Which means, that while both applied and theoretical physicists can work on the same subject, an applied physicist would work on a subject in order to find a pratical use out of it. Now while this seems similar to engineering, it is not exactly the same thing, since an applied physicist will most likely be doing research on the physics of some thing, and later may find some use for it. A good example would be physicists Lauterbur and Mansfield, which applied the physics of nuclear spin and magnetic resonance to medical imaging, completely revolutionizing the field. On the same note, a fundamental physicist would also be researching the physics behind some particular phenomena, while not being particularly interested in the use it may have, they would doing research just for the sake of knowledge and physics. Using spin again, a good example would be physicists Bloch and Purcell, which found a mathematical model that could describe the behavior of nuclei under magnetic fields, and the phenomena of magnetic resonance that would occur.

When 80 years of work and anything between 7 to 9 Nobel Prizes, from Physics to Physiology & Medicine, led to this wonder of a machine.

Besides of fundamental physics and applied physics, you may divide physics in two other (maybe three) types of physicists. You have the theoretical physicist, the experimental physicist, and while many believe a computational physicist to be a theoretical physicist, some argue that it may be a type of its own. A theoretical physicist would as the name implies either develop mathematical models to describe phenomena that were observed experimentally, or to predict outcomes that will be observed experimentally (nowadays it is mostly the latter, technology is lagging behind), while the experimentalist usually would try to verify results predicted by the theoretician, or just would do a random experiment and see what happens. (Before, most physicists were both experimentalists and theoreticians, but today most physicists like to dedicate to one thing or the other) Also, experimentalists would also work on ways to make the observations more reliable or statistically significant, or to be able to make experiments in different, or more extreme conditions. Sometimes, developments on experimental physics will be applied by applied physicists in other fields (like how they are now using the detector tech developed to detect the Higgs boson in other fields like nuclear medicine or in telecommunications). A computational physicist would pretty much run simulations of the theories in computers to try and see what the results could be. Now this is important, because nowadays physical experiments are expensive, so instead of doing experiments everytime we come up with a new hypothesis, we run simulations on computers. If the simulations are good, or what we expected, cool, if not, we have to change something. While this may seem something that a theoretician would do, and many do, a computational physicist would be working on various other things. They could, for instance, work on computational methods that allow for better, faster simulations, and those things are hard to do. Believe me. And that is why many are now believing that computational physics is a type of physics distinct of pure theoretical physics. (And also applied physicists may also be computational or experimental physicists just saying).

This is what a theoretical physicist would be doing. Although nowadays they are a bit more tech savvy, they would probably be writing on glass or something. I don’t think there is any practical use to that, but there a whole lot of things written in glass on some places.

And the exciting life of a experimental physicist. Imagine if one of those cables are not conducting, the struggle to find the one.

And the day-to-day life of a computational physicist, in that moment the code finally compiles, after 3 full bottles of coffee and 6 hours.

Now the part everyone cares about, the divisions of fields in physics. Truth be told, it is very hard for a single person to be working on various fields at the same time nowadays, so it became important to make distinction between those fields.

First, we have Nuclear and Particle Physics, which is like the poster child of modern physics (I mean, literally every person thinks that a modern physicist is either a particle physicist or astrophysicist). And they usually worry with the fundamental forces and constituents of nature. It was started with the discovery of the nucleus by Rutherford or with the discovery of radioactivity by Becquerel, about a 100 years, and right now, it is the field where such hot topics like the Higgs Boson, Supersymmetry, quantum gravity, GUT and string theory are extensively researched. On the applied field, there is a surprisingly high number of applications of Nuclear Physics, like the entire field of Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy, being pretty much Applied Nuclear Physics (with knowledge of physiology and anatomy), and let’s not forget Nuclear Energy, and Nuclear Bombs. As for particle physics, I don’t think we will have an application for it so soon.

Look at how beautiful this image is. I don’t know what they collided, but I can just imagine the excitement generated by the results. “Maybe it was just a flutuation” is what they will likely say, since NPPhysicists are usually those whose scientific experiments need to be the most statistically precise. And by precise, I mean 1 chance per billion of being wrong, p = 0.0000001. How about that? And you with your pitiful p = 5 or 1.

We also have Condensed Matter Physics, that studies condensed matter (like liquids and solids, and everything in between) and their physical properties. They study things like phase transitions and distributions of energy and states, something statistical physics, I guess. And they apply various fields of both classical and modern physics, like quantum mechanics. This field overlaps with others like Chemistry, and Biophysics (an applied physics) and has some cool things to be studied like superfluidity and supercondutivity, and topological phase transitions. Usually the field is subdivided in Solid State Matter Physicsand Soft Matter Physics. Now, while Physics doesn’t have a industry of its own (like the Chemical Industry) you can say that arguably, the most important field of Modern Physics to industry is CMPhysics, specially SSMatter Physics, because all of modern electronics is based on research in CMP. So, you can imagine that the applications usually involve nanotechnology, semicondutors, and oddly enough, or maybe not, even MRI (which kind of makes sense, thanks to superconductivity)

A Bose-Einstein Condensate. This a phase of matter where the state distribution of particle follow the Bose-Einstein statistics. Particles who follow this statistics are called Bosons, and they all have integer spin.

Am I forgetting something…

Right, we still have atomic and molecular physics and astrophysics and classical physics, that while not being a research for physicists anymore, are still very researched in engineering and mathematics, because of the so-called chaos theory. Right now, I will stop right here, but I will complete this latter. I am feeling lazy right now, sorry AMPhysicists and Astrophysicists, but don’t worry, your turn will come.

EDIT: So now, I am supposed to finish this, huh? Oh boy!

So, we also have AMO Physicists, which stand for Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics. And their name is kind of self-explanatory, but I will make an effort. They are usually worried with interaction between matter and light, or just matter-matter, or even light-light (I don’t know, the possibilities are enormous). And they are also divided in (you guessed it) Atomic physics, Molecular physics and Optical Physics. Atomic physics is concerned with studying the physics of a system composed of electrons and a nucleus. While it may seem they do the same thing as nuclear physicists, that’s hardly the case. They usually are concerned with the system of electrons and the nucleus and their interactions, while nuclear physicists usually deal with atomic nuclei and their properties, disregarding their interaction with electron for most fundamental models. As for molecular physics, it is less about the inner workings of atoms, and more with how molecules interact with each other. As you can imagine by that, there are fields like physical or theoretical chemistry which are concerned with pretty much the same thing, so they hang out together a lot. Optical Physics is primarily studying light. The nature of light, the behaviour of light, the interactions of light with itself, interactions of light with matter, it’s all tied to light. Now when I say light, I mean electromagnetic radiation, they study all the electromagnetic spectrum, not just visible light.

Lasers… Enough said. I am still for those light sabers, though.

Now let’s go to the sexiest physicists out there. Astrophysicists! If I didn’t put them down here, probably the guys would just read this part and leave without caring for the rest. Now astrophysicists are just worried about one thing: The nature of heavenly bodies and the physics (and chemistry) behind all astronomical events. That is their "thing". Astrophysicists are usually seen (or maybe I am the one who seems them like that) as one of the two extremes in physics, dealing with the physics of the very large, while particle physics deal with the physics of the very small. And considering the scale and variety of things to work on, obviously it also has subdivisions. I mean, you have Planetary Physics, with Geophysics specifically focused on Earth, that studies planets and their physical properties, including extrasolar planets. You have Solar Physics that studies the heavenly bodies in the Solar System and their interaction, studying things like the motion of bodies inside of the solar system, which is not easy because you have a multiple body system where all those bodies interact with each other and generate their own gravitational field. You have Stellar Physics that study the physics of stars, like star formation, stellar activity and stellar death, the Heliophysics specifically studying the Sun. They also study things like Black holes and Neutron Stars. (I don’t know if you realised but the trend is to keep getting bigger in scale) You have galactic physics that studies the physics of well galaxies, how stars interact with each other inside a galaxy, how a galaxy forms, what is the physics behind galaxy conformation, and other questions. You even have extragalactic physics, that study interactions between galaxies, the distribution of galaxies in a group, and extragalactic bodies, like quasars or pulsars. And finally the crown jewel, Cosmology that studies the fundamental and cooler stuff in astrophysicist (from a pop science POV). They study the entire universe, its evolution, its beginnings, and its possible end. Also they study the nature of spacetime, like the existence or not of wormholes, multiple universes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Gravitational Waves (There are definitely some Metal bands with at least one of these names). As for applications, there are way too many, and this article is getting way too long.

The main thing you need to know is that physics is very diverse, and you could do things that would change the world, but most important of all, no matter how hard you may think of it, physics is something you should do only if you like it enough. If you are willing to work on the same problem, sometimes for decades, just to get that one confirmation of a fundamental truth. You may not win a Nobel, but damn, you would feel joy in working on this amazing field. Scientia Prima as some would say.

Also, just leave a comment below or anything, so I can have a feedback from you guys, I don't want to talk to a wall.

What is wrong with modern physics?

I will rant a bit about my personal frustrations and hopes for the future of modern physics. Now, sure I ain't shit, but to be honest neither are most future physicists. As of right now, we are only prospect physicists, many of us will work on the tech industry, many in the financial market, and many will give up to insanity and start talking nonsense like "quantum mysticism". But if we want to start, if you are talking about concepts in modern physics, well, is the fact that it is incomplete. Why that is? Well, for many reasons. For one, right now, we are trying to understand physics at the most extreme environments in the universe, many of which we will probably never be able to reach. Before an hypothesis has been well established you already have a new, better hypothesis (which is great, so that is actually what is right with modern physics).

But the main problem is the fact that our technology can’t keep up. Many of the theories in Modern Physics can only be confirmed if they are verified experimentally. Before when Physics was mostly done by people who had their own wealth, experimentalists would take a year or two to dismiss or prove some hypothesis, but nowadays, while it is easier to become a physicist than ever before, it is also harder to do physics, so hard that only budgets of countries could afford to do so.

And then we reach another problem, countries may not be that interested in investing in physical research, because while research in chemistry and biology have a clear practical use, usually it takes 60 to 70 years for one to find any sort of use from physical principles. I mean, many of the technologies we take for granted today are based on physics from 60 years ago, to say the least. And lawmakers aren’t interested in investing in things at such long scales (F*ck why do you think many of them don’t believe in Climate Change?). I mean, in the 30’s and 40’s they at least had the motivation of nukes.

But still we are doing some advancements every year, and I understand your feelings, if you compare to last century and how fast physics seemed to advance, in a couple of decades, entire paradigm shifts occurring, it was a joy to be alive back then. But it is not all that bad today. As I said, we have more people working on physics now than ever before, even though many people are dropping out. So while we may not have a generation of physics wonders, we do have an entire army of physicists working not only in fundamental research, but also on applied physics, so we can directly improve your life, and so those lawmakers can see that “Hey, maybe we should invest a bit more on this, and less on our behemoth of an army”.

I let my anti-war sentiments slip there a bit, but I hope I answered your question.

Who is smarter between theoretical physicists and experimental physicists? - A personal take

So this was a question asked by someone on Quora, and I found it interesting enough to answer not because I am a theoretical or experimental physicist and I am butt-hurt or similar. But because  many outside of the scientific community seems to think there is some sort of rivalry between physicists of different approaches or fields. So this is my take on that. In the time, I will try to look for someone who has actually worked for more than a decade as a physicist, they would have a lot more to say than me. But to start...

I guess it really depends on what you mean by smart.

For instance, the usual definition of smart, is someone that is quick-witted, someone is quick to take decisions, but also intelligent, so a smart person is someone that has quick-witted intelligent. Just because you are intelligent, wouldn’t mean you are quick-witted and vice-versa. Now it is true, that in American english, smart is synonymous with intelligent, so I guess what you mean is who is more intelligent. And going by that, an intelligent person is someone who is able to acquire AND apply knowledge and skills. 

And we can assume both theoretical and experimental physicists would need to be able to acquire knowledge and apply such knowledges, for the sake of obtaining new knowledge. Now as for who is more intelligent, that depends on what you need, what knowledge or skill you are considering. Pure logical or mathematical reasoning may seem like the bulk of a theoretical physicist’s work, but they also need to be able to interpret new results obtained by an experimentalist, in order to either reject or change their previous theory. On that same note, an experimentalist would need to know how to obtain and analyze the results of an experiment, but also would to know enough about the theory to either dismiss the results as nonsense or an artifact, or to actually challenge the theory itself (or hypothesis, if the theory has yet to be established as such). And actually, many physicists end up working a certain time of their careers in both sides, so trying to say one is smarter than the other may be tough, with this mass flip-flopping around the pond.

But anyway, here are some famous physicists from both sides (Not including Einstein, because well, you know him)

Experimentalists:

• Michael Faraday (which is actually interesting, albeit not having formal education in physics, and being kinda sloppy in mathematics, actually was such a brilliant experimentalist that he was one of the forefathers of the classic theory of electromagnetism)
• Wilhem Roentgen - The first Nobel Prize in Physics, for the discovery of X-rays
• Ernest Rutherford, known as the father of nuclear physics, and the greatest experimentalist of his time, since Faraday. Also he discovered the nucleus, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Also, he has an element with his name (Cool!)
• Enrico Fermi, creator of the world first nuclear reactor, and called by some as the “architect of the nuclear age” (or the atomic bomb). He is actually one of those physicists who are great both experimentally and theoretically, making advancements in quantum theory, nuclear and particle physics and statistical mechanics. Also a Nobel Prize winner.
• John Bardeen, also a physicist and electrical engineer, who has part of the trio who made the first transistor (which revolutionized the world, I mean, the entire modern computation can stem its hardware to that pivotal moment) with Shockley and Brattain, and also the guy who made the first formal theory of superconductivity (also known as BCS theory, for Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer). He is actually the ONLY physicist to have won two Nobel Prizes in Physics. (Marie Curie won one in Chemistry. Of course, she was a great experimentalist as well)

Theoretical Physicists (I tried to pick those who are not Nobel Prizes, so that you don’t think only Nobel physicists are great):

• Leonhard Euler (everyone knows him first as a mathematician or a god of mathematics, but did you know he was also a physicist? There are literally entire books with his achievements.)
• James Clerk Maxwell, a mathematical physicist (like Einstein). He is considered by many physicists as being as important as Einstein and Newton, due to his pivotal contributions. He was the second great unifier of physics, joining electricity, magnetism and light onto a single theory of electromagnetism. And his equations were pivotal enough that led to the formulation of the special relativity by Einstein, so you know he is a big deal. And his works were fundamental to the developments of fields like Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Which is why he is held with such respect by the scientific community, albeit not the same by those outside of it.
• Georges Lemaitre, a physicist and catholic priest who was the first one to derive the theory of universe expansion, and the first proponent of the Big Bang Theory.
• Ettore Majorana (look about him. There’s a whole conspiracy theory surrounding him)
• Roger Penrose, the co-author of Penrose-Hawking Singularity theorem and a bunch of other things.

In truth, we can’t really say who is smarter, because as you can see we have plenty of great physicists on both sides. The core message I want to take is that both are instrumental for the advancement of physics and science as a whole.

And also, I will make sure to talk about Majorana more in the future, so sorry for the cliffhanger