Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science News

Physicist John A. Wheeler is Dead at 96 130

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the big-wormhole-in-the-sky dept.
reverseengineer writes "Eminent physicist John Archibald Wheeler has died from pneumonia at the age of 96. The coiner of the terms 'black hole' and 'wormhole,' Wheeler popularized the study of general relativity, and advised a distinguished list of graduate students including Kip Thorne and Richard Feynman. Other work included a collaboration with Niels Bohr to develop the 'liquid drop' model of nuclear fission. Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said of Dr. Wheeler, 'For me, he was the last Titan, the only physics superhero still standing.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Physicist John A. Wheeler is Dead at 96 More

Physicist John A. Wheeler is Dead at 96

Comments Filter:

  • What about Hawking? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Garridan ( 597129 )
    'For me, he was the last Titan, the only physics superhero still standing.'

    What -- has Steven Hawking retired, or died?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Garridan ( 597129 )
      ugh. s/Steven/Stephen/
    • It's just a bad joke...

    • Re:What about Hawking? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Malk-a-mite ( 134774 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @02:12PM (#23067914) Journal
      Key word standing... Hawking hasn't been standing for years.
      • the J.A.W.s of life....

        and is probably jawing away with BEELIONS and BEELIONS of stars of the YOONEEwerse...
      • I don't know if you are trying to be funny or are just getting modded that way but when I first read the quote I took it as a veiled insult of Hawking in the style of Newton. Newton's famous quote about "standing on the shoulders of giants" is widely considered to be a veiled insult to Hooke with whom Newton had a long running feud.

        More interestingly, the Hooke-Newton feud [wordpress.com] itself was rooted in the inverse square nature of gravitation... AND the insult highlights a physical deformity of the "victim" in b

    • Pop Physicist Versus Real Physicist (Score:5, Interesting)

      by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@gm a i l . com> on Monday April 14, 2008 @02:25PM (#23068062) Journal

      What -- has Steven Hawking retired, or died?
      First off, physicist John A. Wheeler is dead. I am sorry that the community and most importantly his family has lost an icon. I'm glad he was able to live such a full life and I hope that he was able to die happy of everything he has contributed to the human race.

      Secondly while Hawking has made several important discoveries, he was cited by my college physics professor to be a 'pop' physicist. Hawking is a genius but mostly in theoretical physics. My professor also degraded Brian Greene to a much further point by saying he was nothing more than someone relaying physics to the general public. I also got into an argument about Sagan but I had an even harder time defending Sagan than Hawking.

      While I've read books about the nature of space-time by Hawking, I noticed they were often co-written with Roger Penrose. In fact, if I were to ask you the most famous work of Hawking [wikipedia.org], what would you say? Probably A Brief History of Time.

      What might follow is arguments of who is more important, the man who discovers this science or the man who makes it easily accessible and digestible by a vast majority of the five billion simpletons living on the earth?

      Perhaps it can be said that Hawking is more than a pop-physicist but I'm aware of criticisms that he's mostly a public figure with a very romantic story behind him--condemned to a chair he took to books and became a brilliant scientist! I read his works and love him but I'm not a physicist so maybe that's why?

      At any rate, whenever anyone dies a lot more respect is delivered unto them. Although I don't remember people saying much about Paul Erdos, I was shocked when people recognized Stanislaw Lem's death on such a large scale. It's a sad fact of our society, your work is commonly overlooked until you're dead.

      • Re:Pop Physicist Versus Real Physicist (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @02:29PM (#23068112)

        a vast majority of the five billion simpletons living on the earth
        Actually, there are six billion simpletons living here. It's just that roughly one billion of them have firmly convinced themselves that they're not simpletons.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by D Ninja ( 825055 )

          Actually, there are six billion simpletons living here. It's just that roughly one billion of them have firmly convinced themselves that they're not simpletons.
          I think it would be more fair to say that six billion of them have firmly convinced themselves that they're not simpletons...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mwvdlee ( 775178 )
          Those one billion are mostly college physics professor degrading more succesfull physicists.

      • Re:Pop Physicist Versus Real Physicist (Score:5, Funny)

        by Angostura ( 703910 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @02:31PM (#23068150)

        he was cited by my college physics professor to be a 'pop' physicist.


        Was your college physics professor perhaps a rather bitter man whose own book had failed to sell terribly well?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        And thirdly, there is still one physics superstar left: Steven Weinberg.

      • Re:Pop Physicist Versus Real Physicist (Score:5, Interesting)

        by CheshireCatCO ( 185193 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @02:51PM (#23068398) Homepage
        Exactly. Hawking is a damn smart guy, but he's not an Einstein or Fermi. Wheeler was in that class. He also left a huge mark on physics with his students from over the years, including Kip Thorne (whom I've frequently heard called the greatest black hole theorist alive, Hawking not withstanding), Hugh Everett (many-worlds interpretation) and Richard Feynman (who needs no parenthetical... d'oh!).

        I also got into an argument about Sagan but I had an even harder time defending Sagan than Hawking.
        Really? I mean, Hawking has done some good work and all, but Sagan is *huge* in the field of planetary science, and not just for his popularization efforts. (Also note that he was popularizing when it was an huge uphill battle against his fellow scientists and not much of a road to glory.) His body of work on planetary atmospheres is sizable and he's another guy whose students have gone on to dominate the field.
        • Kip Thorne (whom I've frequently heard called the greatest black hole theorist alive, Hawking not withstanding)

          It is ridiculous to classify people's intellect by their skin color, but if we are doing that, what about S. James Gates [teach12.com]? I found his "Superstring Theory" series of DVDs to be well over my simpleton head. I look forward to working my way through the series again.
          • Wow, did I mis-read your comment or what. I read "greatest black theorist". My apologies.
          • I've addressed the misunderstanding below, but...

            I don't think that classifying brilliance by how much they confuse you is really a good way to go about things. In that regards, my more senile professors were friggin' geniuses beyond compare and Einstein was at best mediocre, after all. In fact, I'd argue the opposite: if they can't explain their research in simple enough terms for a fairly average person to understand, that should indicate that perhaps they aren't as brilliant as all that.
            • Superstring Theory -- The DNA Of Reality is spread over 24 thirty minute segments. There is a lot to absorb and consider. I find it hard to develop an intuitive understanding of each of the sub-atomic particles. The difference between a boson, a lepton vs quarks are clear when first explained, but when I have to take into account such differences while he is talking about some other particles like, for example, a graviton or a tachyon, then I find it hard to hold all these concepts in my head at the same

      • Re:Pop Physicist Versus Real Physicist (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dasher42 ( 514179 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @03:00PM (#23068536)

        What might follow is arguments of who is more important, the man who discovers this science or the man who makes it easily accessible and digestible by a vast majority of the five billion simpletons living on the earth?


        You know you're on Slashdot when someone speaks so condescendingly of most of humanity for their lack of PhD-level expertise in a specific field and gets modded interesting. I challenge you to take a few good cultural anthropology classes. Just a few. The human experience does not begin or end in a physics lab.

        Here a great man has passed in a great field, and we mar that with misanthropy.

        • What might follow is arguments of who is more important, the man who discovers this science or the man who makes it easily accessible and digestible by a vast majority of the five billion simpletons living on the earth?

          You know you're on Slashdot when someone speaks so condescendingly of most of humanity for their lack of PhD-level expertise in a specific field and gets modded interesting. I challenge you to take a few good cultural anthropology classes. Just a few. The human experience does not begin or end in a physics lab.

          You misunderstand me. By stating that I read these pop physicist books, I was implying that I'm one of those five billion simpletons. I am simple, especially compared to any physicist or my college professor even. I was not great at physics which is why I code computers for a living now.

          I've taken cultural anthropology classes--even while in college! I still read many books about Native American/First Nation, Inuit, Inca, Pima, Hopi, Aztec and League of Five Nations peoples. I love their culture!

      • Re:Pop Physicist Versus Real Physicist (Score:4, Insightful)

        by JustinOpinion ( 1246824 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @03:12PM (#23068700)

        Secondly while Hawking has made several important discoveries, he was cited by my college physics professor to be a 'pop' physicist.
        I think that's rather harsh. I mean, if a genius who publishes significant theoretical work and has made substantial original contributions to physics (e.g. Hawking radiation [wikipedia.org]) can't be considered a "real" physicist, then who is?

        By such a strict classification system, there are only two dozen physicists on Earth... and the thousands of professors in the physics departments of the world are then only 'pop' physicists?

        Hawking may be more well-known for his popularization than for his fundamental contributions, but his work in both areas is significant. He's a real scientist who understands physics at a deep level, and calling him a 'pop' physicist is unfair.

        (Note: There certainly are some professors who make little to no impact on research, and who are only good at popularizing science. Those are the 'pop' scientists, in my opinion.)
      • I think your professor is either intentionally or unintentionally mixing the roles of these scientists. Hawking and Greene in particular have done a goodly amount of research, but have, like Sagan, taken on the roles of populizers. They publish science books for popular consumption, but that doesn't mean they're any less scientists. Richard Dawkins has done the same, but no one questions his credentials as a biologist (more specifically a zoologist).

        Sagan is a somewhat different kettle of fish. He was a
        • The "pop scientist" role is probably most fairly applied to someone like Issac Asimov. He was scientifically trained in biology and chemistry but made no real mark on either science although he was an outstanding explainer of both of those and many other things. I believe the "real scientists" are being incredibly short-sighted when they disparage the efforts of good popularizers. The "real scientists" need funding to carry out their work and new generations of students to train. They will have neither

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Your professor sounds like a bitter jealous asshole.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by PvtVoid ( 1252388 )

        Secondly while Hawking has made several important discoveries, he was cited by my college physics professor to be a 'pop' physicist. Hawking is a genius but mostly in theoretical physics. My professor also degraded Brian Greene to a much further point by saying he was nothing more than someone relaying physics to the general public.

        Here are citation summaries for Stephen Hawking [stanford.edu] and Brian Greene [stanford.edu]. Unless your college physics professor is Ed Witten [stanford.edu], he would probably do well to shut the fuck up.

      • Pop Physicist? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jotaeleemeese ( 303437 )
        What is your college Professor? An amateur physicist?

        Honestly, to say that about a man holding the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics position in Cambridge is a little bit rich.

        Hawking (working with Penrose, what is wrong with that? He can defend himslef if he thinks he is not receiving the credit he deserves) has hinted to some of the most insightful findings about the nature of the universe (he is the person closest so far to demonstrate that god does not exist. If that is pop physics, well, I am Mickey Mo

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by John Miles ( 108215 )
        What might follow is arguments of who is more important, the man who discovers this science or the man who makes it easily accessible and digestible by a vast majority of the five billion simpletons living on the earth?

        Regardless what the objective answer to that turns out to be, elitism isn't healthy. Those 5E9 simpletons -- or at least the ones in the US, Europe, and Russia -- are the ones who pay for all the expensive research toys like the LHC. I think the most important role of a Hawking or a Sagan i

        • Everybody knows about the rivalry between Newton and Leibniz, right? If one of them had been run over by a bus^H^H^H horse, it would've been a shame, but we'd still be where we are today, give or take a few years. Even work as apparently-revolutionary as Einstein's early stuff was more a synthesis of current ideas than anything truly new.
          I'd love to hear some examples of what is "truly new", then. Newton (and Leibniz and Einstein) saw damned far from those giants' shoulders.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by dwye ( 1127395 )

          Even work as apparently-revolutionary as Einstein's early stuff was more a synthesis of current ideas than anything truly new.

          Please define "early stuff", as he did almost all his real work early in his career (not uncommon in theoretical physics). While the Photoelectric Effect was a synthesis, Special Relativity took the interesting view that absolute time was an illusion, and simplified the Fitzgerald Contraction equations and made it easy to handle. That change in viewpoint was quite new.

          Further, fr

          • This reference [wbabin.net] was the one I had in mind when I wrote that post. My point stands: if even one other person understands your work, or is as close behind you as Planck was to Einstein, you aren't as indispensable as you think you are.

            Certified Geniuses are not a rare species nowadays, and they're cheaper to hire by the dozen. The work of a truly-gifted explainer and "popularizer" is more important than any one individual's research contributions, in the long run.

            This isn't an attempt to disparage Wheeler or

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by glitch23 ( 557124 )

        Hawking is a genius but mostly in theoretical physics.

        So? I didn't relize theoretical physics was less important than other fields such as particle physics.

        While I've read books about the nature of space-time by Hawking, I noticed they were often co-written with Roger Penrose. In fact, if I were to ask you the most famous work of Hawking, what would you say? Probably A Brief History of Time.

        So? Many people collaborate on projects, especially books. In the making of *any* books, tens if not hundreds of people can be involved. Of course that gets widdled down to 1 or 2 people as far as authors are concerned but it still takes more than 1 person to write a book. Given that Hawking can't write (but can do calculations in his head) I don't think it takes away from the quality of his work that

        • Of course that gets widdled down to 1 or 2 people as far as authors are concerned but it still takes more than 1 person to write a book.

          For those wondering what the hell I meant by "widdled", I meant "whittled". Forgot to check the spelling of that before I submitted it because I knew it didn't look right. Oh well, seems I made other mistakes too that my preview didn't catch.

      • All this talk of Hawking, Penrose, and so forth and no one considers Frank Tipler to be a great?

    • Dyson, Gell-Man (Score:5, Insightful)

      by weston ( 16146 ) * <westonsd&canncentral,org> on Monday April 14, 2008 @02:27PM (#23068084) Homepage
      Freeman Dyson [wikipedia.org] and Murray Gell-Mann [wikipedia.org] aren't exactly chopped liver either, and they could more or less be put in the same pantheon of Titans including Wheeler and Feynman (even though I think there's arguments to be made that Wheeler and Feynman were just a little extra special).

      Hawking... I don't know. I can't deny he's been a good interface between the field and its popular discussion, or that he's been a good cosmologist, but it's hard for me to see him in the same way these figures who basically invented large swaths of modern physics.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jdray ( 645332 )
        Thank you for this post. I read the blurb and thought Dyson had died when I wasn't looking. I'm not a huge follower of physics people (I was about to say I wasn't a huge follower of physics, but that whole gravity thing holding me in my chair changed my mind), but I know a few names. Missing the passing of Dyson would make me feel like I wasn't paying attention. Regarding Wheeler, I didn't know who he was. That's sad, as he evidently did good work. Safe journey, Mr. Wheeler.

      • Re:Dyson, Gell-Man (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @03:44PM (#23069110) Journal
        Well, if any still-living physicist sits in the top echelon of science, it is Hawking, who did do some revolutionary research in his time (the man is in his late 60s now, and at that age you don't usually expect to much original research).

        But as to the underlying notion that somehow there was this era of supermen of physics, I suppose it's true to a point, but even the greats were standing on the shoulders of giants. The chief difference, I suspect, is that during the late 19th and into the first half of the 20th century there was a considerable amount of public appetite for science. Men like Einstein were idiosyncratic demi-gods in many peoples' eyes. There was a drama to it all, and scientists were seen as almost epic figures, unlocking the secrets of the universe and ushering in a new age of reason and enlightenment. World War 2 and the rise of atomic weapons ended that, and in particular, the Cold War encouraged much more practical science, while theoretical physics to some degree slipped into the shadows, with about the only time it ever really gained any attention being Hawking and Penrose's work and String Theory.

        There is no lack of exciting research today, and we certainly have some great scientists, but the general attitude of the public to science seems to be a combination of apathy and mistrust. As well, physics is currently in a bit of a consolidation period, not so much revolution as evolution as the stunning discoveries of the last hundred years percolate and the much harder, and much more thankless work of trying to sort out just what all these giants had discovered means. The biggest problem is the unification of GR and Quantum Mechanics, and I think once we get that, we'll probably see a new era of giants as the full implications of that union once again revolutionizes our view of the universe.

      • Freeman Dyson [wikipedia.org] and Murray Gell-Mann [wikipedia.org] aren't exactly chopped liver either, and they could more or less be put in the same pantheon of Titans including Wheeler and Feynman (even though I think there's arguments to be made that Wheeler and Feynman were just a little extra special).

        Please restrict your comments to public accomplishments. Most of the correspondence on /. are in no position to evaluate the genius of a genius. Suffice it to say that 35 years ago Murray Gell-Mann was letting his friends know that he didn't hold a candle to Feynman.

    • Hawkings is no Titan, he is simply a God.

    • Google Wheeling & INFORMATION THEORY (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mosel-saar-ruwer ( 732341 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @02:30PM (#23068130)
      Good grief, people, this is Slashdot: The guy was working on INFORMATION THEORETIC approaches to quantum mechanics [and coming up with all sorts of bizarre contradictions therein] when he was in his 70's & 80's [i.e. at an age when most people are going senile].

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Thyamine ( 531612 )
      It's simply his opinion, so there's not much to say about it. Certainly someone can say Hawking did such and such, to provide evidence to the contrary, but really I think it comes down to looking into the past and seeing icons and titans that we don't have today. Perhaps it's those rosy colored glasses we wear when reminiscing, or maybe things really were grander back then. In either case, he was looking for something nice to say about a man he admired, and there's not much else to read into it.

  • A sad day. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by molex333 ( 1230136 )
    You will be missed. There is not much that can be said when the scietific community looses such a distinguished and important person.

  • Sad day (Score:4, Funny)

    by techpawn ( 969834 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @02:17PM (#23067964) Journal
    We will miss the man that proved the Universe falls inwards onto itself at points or at least just sucks really hard.
  • ...they just redefine the paradigm.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by maxwell demon ( 590494 )
      Well, he passed the event horizon between life and death.

      That it's an event horizon is proved by the facts that no one ever came back, we don't get any information from the other side, and sooner or later we all will fall through it.

  • RIP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by apodyopsis ( 1048476 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @02:17PM (#23067972)
    I'm not interested in a flame war about Hawking. Or interested in a "debate" about his contributions to fat man and Nagasaki. He clearly was a genius in many fields, who helped advance science, was widely regarded by his peers and his comments on his part in the development on nuclear warfare makes it very very clear his interest lied only in stopping the war quickly to save millions of lives.

    A great man has died, RIP.
    My condolences top his next of kin.
    • No flame wars about Hawking? What are you talking about? The flame war was already begun with that completely inappropriate comment about Wheeler being the last great physicist still standing. That was out of line, mister submitter.
      • The sentence started with: "For me"
        It wasn't a statement claiming to speak an absolute truth, but a personal judgement clearly marked as such.

      • No flame wars about Hawking? What are you talking about? The flame war was already begun with that completely inappropriate comment about Wheeler being the last great physicist still standing. That was out of line, mister submitter.

        Yes, absolutely! Why submit an article about the sad death of a great man and then completely trivialize it with a cheap shot at Hawking. Knowing full well that all you'll do is make the comments about Hawking. Cheap and disrespectful. Let's try and make this about Wheeler and

    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by tm2b ( 42473 )
      Well, it's true enough. Hawking pretty clearly isn't standing.
  • John Wheeler was an old friend and colleague (many years ago at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton) of my Dad's - I just forwarded this article to Dad to read.

    The Institute for Advanced Study had many 'legends' like Kurt GÃdel, Einstein, John von Neumann, etc.
    • Watson, of the DNA watsons?
      • No, I am a humble computer programmer. My Dad taught physics at Berkeley and until not too many years ago was a member of the National Academy of Science.

        re: DNA Watsons:

        Well, I do have 1/2 of my Dad's DNA :-)

        But, no relation to Watson (and Crick)

  • Went to high school with two of his grandkids (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Reality Master 201 ( 578873 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @02:18PM (#23067996) Journal
    He came in once or twice to talk to the physics classes - nice man.

    Condolences to the family.

    • Not just a nice man (Score:5, Insightful)

      by techpawn ( 969834 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @02:23PM (#23068046) Journal
      What makes a person great is that they are still humble in spite of their greatness.

      In your remembrance of him, you make him out not just as a nice man, but, indeed as a great man.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by khallow ( 566160 )
        What makes a person great is that they are still great in spite of their greatness.
        • So where does that put Feynman?

          He made many contributions, but was also reputed to be a bit of an ass. I don't say this to flame..... I'm curious how people view him in retrospect...
    • This might rank as one of the most simple and moving comments seen on this site. Seriously...where else but a place like Slashdot will you find someone able to make this sort of point? At the same time, in the debate that immediately develops, something like this shines through the back and forth - here's someone who was able to be taught by a giant in the field...not as an advanced doctorate student or anything, but in a basic high school class. To me, that says more about the Wheeler than any list of what

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eric76 ( 679787 )
      He was my committee chairman's (for my masters) committee chairman (for his phd).

      I've heard John Wheeler speak on several occasions including a banquet in which he was the guest speaker. The talks were always very interesting and informative.

  • Not that great (Score:3, Funny)

    by Zerth ( 26112 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @02:21PM (#23068022)
    He only has an Erds number of 3. Amateur.
  • There aren't that many people who leave the world a poorer place by their passing. Fortunately, Dr. Wheeler, you proved to me that the past is not fixed. I'm going to change it.

    Hold on. This may take me a bit.

  • He was a very good writer and that is what I knew about him until now. He wrote a series of paper explaining physics topics in lay man terms. I read several of them in the middle 90's using a dial up connection.
    I will have to do a big search to find the current home for those papers. (if anyone knows, please share).

  • Cool (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SleptThroughClass ( 1127287 )
    Wheeler's entropy is now increasing. His temporary reversal of entropy has ended.

  • An author, too (Score:3, Informative)

    by AdamHaun ( 43173 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @03:20PM (#23068796) Journal
    Wheeler might be better known as part of the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler team that produced the Bible of General Relativity [amazon.com], but he's also the co-author of Spacetime Physics [amazon.com], one of the best SR books I've ever read. It's part of the school of physics textbooks that puts equations in service of language where they belong. If you have a basic physics background and want to learn more about relativity without wading through tons of Lorentz transfomations, give it a try.

  • Now Wheeler will finally have the chance to find out what happened to that suitcase he lost on the train.

    You know, the one full of thermonuclear weapons secrets.

    Or maybe his heirs will find it in the attic.

  • I first heard about John Wheeler surfing the wikipedia about what I'll loosely call 'digital physics', and he was mentioned in contexts that made him sound like a kindred spirit.

    Without being a physicist myself, just cherry-picking the theories I like, the way one might choose a religion, I like to think the universe doesn't have infinities, irrational numbers, and everything is discrete (maybe I'd allow aleph-null infinites, but no axiom of choice; I favor the constructivists). So, based on that unchallen
    • The universe is digital? Tell that to the circle. and Euler's constant.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by shoor ( 33382 )
        Do you know of perfect circles in nature?
        • have you been able to come up with a perfect measurement device that can measure circumference of a circle to billions of numbers of Pi and then try and measure a great circle of a star?

          No? well then I guess I am going to have to say no, I have not found a perfect circle yet, but we have a lot of places to look.

  • another obit (Score:5, Informative)

    by call -151 ( 230520 ) * on Monday April 14, 2008 @03:46PM (#23069164) Homepage
    There is a nice rememberance [cosmicvariance.com] of Wheeler from one of his former students at the cosmic variance blog.
  • ... but only in this particular universe.

  • I've become familiar with the man's work by way of certain academic brushings up I've had with many-worlds theories. I have great respect for the sort of man it takes to ask, and strive to answer such wildly difficult, even incomprehensible, questions.

    The great ones are gone and going, and I fear we shall not see their like again.

  • John Wheeler actually lived in my grandparents house before they moved in. He even came out to visit the old house about 15 years ago. After the visit, I picked up one of his books.

  • Penny (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rotenberry ( 3487 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @07:44PM (#23072014)
    When Prof. Wheeler was at the University of Texas (and probably at Princeton as well) he used to give a penny to any student who found an error in what he had written on the chalkboard in class.

    I wish I had kept mine.

  • Poem commemorates Wheeler (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    John Archibald Wheeler and the Smoky Dragon, by Jonathan Vos Post [cosmicvariance.com]
  • "For me, he was the last Titan, the only physics superhero still standing"

    Wow, that's a nasty way to remind everyone that Stephen Hawking is disabled.
  • I have a copy of his book Gravitation [amazon.com] which is a technical book about General Relativity. The cool thing is, it's really big and heavy. I wish I could understand it, though.

    I think it's a turning point in every physicist's life when you realize you will never understand general relativity.

  • Enough worshipping and idolazing! John Archibald Wheeler was certainly among the better American physicists of the 20th century. But let us not start another cult here. There is already a quite serious Einstein cult, and even minor Hawking-cult and Witten-cult. I wonder why there is no Faraday-cult or Prandtl-cult. Maybe these people had much more practical sense to be worhsipped by a bunch of irrational idolaters. Feynman spoke highly of Wheeler, he had a deep respect for the man. However if you look cl
  • code= good spelling = bad while{ errors (spelling) > 0 debug }

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close