The Nobel Prize in Physics 2009(nobelprize.org)
nobelprize.org
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2009
http://nobelprize.org/cgi-bin/print?from=%2Fnobel_prizes%2Fphysics%2Flaureates%2F2009%2Fpress.html
5 comments
<quote>
and the other half jointly to
Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, USA </quote>
For a moment there I didn't see that this one was for work on CCD; And was surprised thinking Bell labs is still producing Nobel quality stuff;
Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, USA </quote>
For a moment there I didn't see that this one was for work on CCD; And was surprised thinking Bell labs is still producing Nobel quality stuff;
Why did it take them so many years to recognize this ?
Or is it normal from their parts ?!
Theoretical breakthroughs in physics often have an immediate impact on the theory community, or are solving already 'big' problems (QED, QCD, etc). These tend to be recognized very quickly.
Engineering breakthroughs tend to take a bit longer to be recognized because determining whether they are significant takes much longer. There is a necessary grace period to see whether the breakthrough actually has impact.
Engineering breakthroughs tend to take a bit longer to be recognized because determining whether they are significant takes much longer. There is a necessary grace period to see whether the breakthrough actually has impact.
Agreed, though you'd have to have been living under a rock not to be aware of the huge impact of fiberoptics even a decade ago. Mr Kuo made his discovery in 1996 and retired in 1996. I wish they would try to be a bit more timely with these things; sometimes it feels like 'oops, that guy is really old now - we'd better give him the prize before he passes away'. Oh well - I'm glad to see these advances recognized, since I use both CCDs and fiberoptics on a regular basis.
True, but is it more or less important than discovering superfluidity in a helium isotope (1996 prize)? There are plenty of candidates, and waiting lists tend to be long.
Yey! Charles is from Hong Kong! :-)
This seems like more of a technology award than a Physics award. How long has it been since a pure theoretical physics Nobel has been awarded? Doesn't that say something?
A valid version of the question is when was the last prizeworthy discovery was made. Giant magnetoresistance (2007 prize) was discovered in 1988. Bose-Einstein condensates (2001 prize) were figured out in 1995. I can't find any more recent discoveries.
They seem to be trying to clear the backlog. This year's prize is shared by two basically unrelated ideas, which must be a strategy to catch up.
They seem to be trying to clear the backlog. This year's prize is shared by two basically unrelated ideas, which must be a strategy to catch up.
As far as I know this delay is intentional as new discoveries need to stand the test of time. It would be rather humiliating to award a Nobel prize for something discovered the previous year just to find out next year that there is some better, alternative model or there is some experiment which can disprove the original model.
While I agree with the "test of the time" point of view, I don't think the other part of your argument makes much sense:
1)better alternative model: generally it would not be that hard to guesstimate the possibility of a significant improvement in the very near future. And even if someone comes along and proposes a better alternative next year, I don't think there is anything to feel humiliated about, as long as the original work that was recognized by the award is really Nobel material.
2) Disproving the original model/theory: Do you know of any theory/model in physics that was considered proven to be correct, and later disproved? improvements, enhancements, yes but disproved?
1)better alternative model: generally it would not be that hard to guesstimate the possibility of a significant improvement in the very near future. And even if someone comes along and proposes a better alternative next year, I don't think there is anything to feel humiliated about, as long as the original work that was recognized by the award is really Nobel material.
2) Disproving the original model/theory: Do you know of any theory/model in physics that was considered proven to be correct, and later disproved? improvements, enhancements, yes but disproved?
I concur, there's nothing wrong with gradual progress of course. On the other hand, about your second point, there are a number of such models. The geocentric view of the universe got deprecated with Galilei's discovery of the Jupiter's moons. More recently, I could mention the Bohr model (electrons traveling in circular orbit around the nucleus). It was widely considered as correct at the time and it was in accordance with experimental observations. However, the Bohr model wasn't improved (although many scientists tried to save it with extensions of some kind or other), it was completely dropped as it is simply wrong. It can be disproven by a number of different experiments.
Wikipedia actually has a great collection of superseded scientific theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
Wikipedia actually has a great collection of superseded scientific theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
I found it fascinating and shows the development from first concept through research phases to practical/commercial use.