There are likely many physicists today that are on the intellect level of Feynman, but we will never know because all the low hanging fruits in fundamental areas of Physics have already been picked. So the top scientists today have to spend decades working on one Nobel prize winning quality result. In Feynman's generation, many people were able to get multiple top quality results in their lifetime because they were there to pick.
Recently, the only Physicsy field with new fundamental results is quantum computing/information. But the vast majority of the field is not about building a new predictive theory of nature. On the computer science end, Scott Aaronson is a candidate for a mini-Feynman. But there isn't anyone I can think of on the Physics end who stands super tall above his peers.
I agree. There is actually quite a lot of fundamental work that could be done at the intersection of Physics and Philosophy, that is not getting done. Mainly because researchers are not given the space to engage in moonshot work.
But even if that space was available. It will take truly great minds to learn centuries worth of physics, without fundamentally biasing themselves by the orthodox philosophy, so they can actually rewrite the philosophy of physics.
Realistically, I think what can happen is that we find some new field (not even in physics), which acts as a fertile ground for new philosophy. And once it is developed there, someone imports it to fundamental Physics.
> Realistically, I think what can happen is that we find some new field (not even in physics), which acts as a fertile ground for new philosophy.
Metaphysics. The various phenomena that people talk/complain about constantly, yet insist doesn't exist if you start to investigate it.
This fruit is low hanging, but it needs new techniques to pick it because enthusiastic pickers proclaim that it isn't there (despite whining about it constantly) and various other bizarre behaviors.
I have a passable understanding of physics, but nothing really for philosophy. I can't even begin to understand what sort of fundamental work you could be referring to. Would you mind breaking it down a bit?
Philosophy tends to be the category of problems we can't figure out so people just waffle about them, and then when there is a solution it's no longer called philosophy.
A recent example would be can machines think which used to be philosophical and is now becoming practical.
>we will never know because all the low hanging fruits in fundamental areas of Physics have already been picked
People said that in the 1800s, and they said it in Ancient Greece too.
> On the computer science end, Scott Aaronson is a candidate for a mini-Feynman.
Sorry, but Scott is nothing like Feynman. I wouldn't even call him a nano-Feynman.
Mr. Aaronson has knowledge of a lot of fields. He surely knows more than I about many things. But he's not very well rounded, he's far more certain of his rightness with far less reason to be, and he makes some pretty big errors, with undue confidence, on a regular basis. His thinking isn't nearly as integrated, and his writing is nowhere near the same level.
He's closer to Sheldon Cooper than he is to Feynman.
Feynman had his wrongs and he had some out there beliefs as well (his opinion on brushing your teeth springs to mind). That did not make him any less brilliant in my book.
Feynman didn't say you shouldn't brush your teeth, or that he doesn't brush his teeth. He said that brushing your teeth without ever looking at the evidence that brushing actually works is silly. Murray Gell-Mann claimed that he said that, but he seemed to have a chip on his shoulder wrt Feynman; and it looks like a jealousy thing.
Feynman was right, too. His point was that people really do follow the herd too much - and he's 10,000% correct. It's good to know why you do things, especially when you do them two or three times a day for your entire life.
Also, it's good to get to the root of the issue. People who don't eat industrial grain based diets have better teeth than we do, without every having met a toothbrush in their lives.
Not in nearly the same league, but Jim Al-Khalili is a physicist and science communicator for the bbc that I’ve really enjoyed. Far more on the “popular” end than Feynman, but his enthusiasm is infectious.
I'm not a physicist, but in terms of capturing the magic of science for the general public, I would nominate Neil deGrasse Tyson. He (and Carl Sagan before him) tremendously furthered understanding of the scientific method and its results.
I would say it's professor Leonard Susskind [1] - interestingly he was also a Feynman's friend. Any other suggestions?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind