[slackenerny]

not quantum mechanics

Except the twistor formalism he created (following ideas of no one else but Dirac) is important branch of research in quantum mathematical physics and string theory, not only classical gravity.

Just like Hawking or Freeman Dyson had, Penrose too earned his right to odd, and even braggart opinions on everything. Especially since opinions are by definition not meant to advance knowledge, or demonstrate results, but to provoke and inspire discussion.

[btilly]

I think Fred Hoyle is a more appropriate comparison. Both did great work that will last in the history books. Both held controversial opinions that were marginalized by the broader research community.

[slackenerny]

Since Dyson contributed half of quantum electrodynamics, and we have numerous Dyson theorems; and since Penrose contributed half of present classical gravity, and we have numerous Penrose theorems, including celebrated Penrose-Hawking incompletness theorem; I think Fred Hole, whose lasting contributions beyond narrating popular books I do not recall, is a fine comparison to Penrose as a pop writer, in addition to mine, perfectly deserved one to scientists of certain calibre who also happen to have some unsubstained and marginalized indiscrete opinions.

[btilly]

Among other things Fred Hoyle (at least learn to spell his name!) was the H in the classic B2FH paper that elucidated the processes by which various elements were created in stars, and explained the relative distribution of different isotopes in the universe.

In my opinion that paper is on the list of the 10 most important discoveries in science in the last century. See http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-makes-it-science.h... for the rest of that list.

[slackenerny]

at least learn to spell his name!

Thank you for this most kind and substantial observation. In my defense, Hoyle used to joke of himself like that since concieving his steady-state cosmology where matter constantly flowed out of a "hole"; his autobiography "Home is Where Wind Blows" is also a good read.

In my opinion that paper is on the list of the 10 most important discoveries in science

Took cosmology course (with very distinguished cosmologist) and heard of that in passing. Since then forgotten, sorry (It was that important to me, maybe as a footnote to the αβγ mechanism. Of course this says more about my ignorance than importance of Hoyle's legacy).

So then, I view Hoyle as a crank out of my ignorance, you view Penrose as a crank out of your apparent ignorance. Further discussion would not be a rational argument.

[zandorg]

Is that like a black hole? A Fred of infinite density?