I don't think he has quite the accomplishments of some of his non-Einstein colleagues. Heisenberg has already figured out the physics of QM before the Schrodinger equation, but it did provide it a more intuitive framework. It also allowed physicists to do things they were comfortable with (differential equations) rather then go into something new (linear algebra). But now everybody is comfortable with algebra and Heisenberg's picture is better for quantum field theory. Dirac was also the person who showed that both methods are the same and came up with the first relativistic quantum mechanical theory that worked. Incidently, Schrodinger initially tried to write down a relativistic related I think to Klein Gordon, but was unable to get it to work.

Did you hear about this machine that works out biology equations that nobody can understand?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ntelligence-ai

For 1950-2000 Andrew Wiles?

Proving Fermat's Last Theorem should top everything!

1900-1950: Niels Bohr. I don't think he's necessarily "greater" than Dirac, but his name hasn't been mentioned yet and he's at least worth considering.

+1. I honestly thought about mentioning him myself.

Divisions seem too arbitrary. I propose using an arbitrary but seminal event to denote end/start of each phase:

1873-1945: From Maxwell's Treatise on Electromagnetism (1873) through dawning of nuclear age (Hahn's splitting the atom in 1938 and developments which followed, culminating in atomic bombs of 1945), included development of quantum theory, first real understanding of the atom, relativity theories, development of radio and exploitation of electromagnetic theories, from first heavier-than-air flying machines to development of first jet engine, etc.

1945-1981: Post-WWII era included changed international landscape (map of Europe radically redrawn and end of colonial empires, the Cold War driving many scientific developments, etc.), epitomized by development of first transistor in early 1950s through modern personal computers and smart machines by end of 1970s, first real research now at the subatomic level (beyond protons, neutrons, and electrons), rapid expansion of electronic and aerospace industries, dawn of the jet age and space era, culminating in first Space Shuttle launch in 1981.

3) 1981-today: The post-digital era of globalization, including spread of robotics, development of modern information technology and systems (including the internet age), commonality of space-based systems (GPS, imaging, communications, etc.) providing new data for both the cosmos and our own planet, powerful particle colliders, widespread use of lasers, development of nanotechnology, exploitation of more powerful computer technology to model more complex problems than ever before (and allow the common scientist such power at their own desks), etc.

1900-1950: Niels Bohr.
1950-2000: Noam Chomsky.

2000-2010: No opinion.

Stephen Wolfram has done a lot of good work recently. I think we'll be seeing more about cellular automata in the future.

Tyra Banks and that one chick from deep blue. Omg I loooove popularity contests. gime moar

i can't imagine Stephen Wolfram topping anyone's list except for Stephen Wolfram's. he talks big game but didn't make many discoveries on his own and has pretty much made tons of sweeping statements about the reaches of his "discoveries" without any evidence.

Well he wouldn't win a personality contest. He does seem very selfish and egotistical.

Care to give an example?

I think mentioning how many papers a mathematician writes is misleading with respect to how good they are. Quality trumps quantity easily. The reason Tao is famous is that he has amazing papers. I am sure a big chunk of those 200 papers aren't super impressive. As an example for this quantity and quality. Andrew Wiles has about 30 papers in his career, but there is no doubt he is one of the best mathematicians. I won't give names, but there are mathematicians with more than 200 papers in the last 15 years, and while they are awesome, they are not considered as good as Wiles, Tao, Perelman. In other words, they are not in Fields medal conversations.

Random comment:

I saw John Nash Jr speak earlier this year and the intro mentioned his PhD dissertation was 20 pages in total.

Of course. I just discovered this fact in looking at his CV after writing that post and was surprised at how high it was.

I'm not scientist expert but I'm really surprised not one person has mentioned Nikola Tesla? I thought he was one of the most important/famous scientists?

He is here:

twoplustwo.com/47/science-math-philosophy/greatest-scientist-all-time-804022/

1900-1950: Werner Heisenberg (a strong case could be made for Dirac or Bohr as well).
1950-2000: Konrad Zuse (by a mile).
2000-2010: I do not know. Maybe Terence Tao?

http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html

this is his book, i started reading and had some discussion with other 2p2ers. if you look at most reviews of the book they tend to say the same thing, that he never really shows where he gets scientific results.

yes, it is very much within the realm of imagination that cellular automata could be a good description of how nature works at a basic level, but unless you give some real data and examples it is just as good as any other explanation.

here is a review from Lawrence Livermore Labs

http://crd.lbl.gov/~dhbailey/dhbpapers/dhb-wolfram.pdf

this sort of conveys the general tone that the scientific community has with regard to his work