Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nobel Prizes for Physics Awarded to Smart People

chrisd posted more than 11 years ago | from the cowboyneal-prize-for-coolness dept.

News 140

bobol6 writes "The 2002 Nobel Prize for Physics is out. The $1 Million is split two ways: Riccardo Giacconi gets half for building the first X-Ray telescopes, and Raymond Davis, Jr and Masatoshi Koshiba split the other half. Davis invented the water tank neutrino detector, and Koshiba used a more sophisticated one to discover neutrino oscillation. The original press release is available . News articles can be found at Science Daily and The New York Times. (Free Blah di Blah)"

cancel ×

140 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Smart people eh? (5, Funny)

eggstasy (458692) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415632)

Thank God. Wouldn't want any dumb people getting a Nobel prize, now would we? :)

Re:Smart people eh? (5, Funny)

Munra (580414) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415653)

Did everyone hear about the farmer who won a Nobel Prize? Apparently he was out standing in his field.

Re:Smart people eh? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415715)


That was not the Nobel prize, he got the Fields medal [st-and.ac.uk] ... ;-)

Not even close to deserving the mod (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4416731)

This is not funny. It's lame.

Re:Not even close to deserving the mod (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4417028)

Hey! Screw you! He can download and install any MOD he wants. Who are you to say you can't use Rocket Crowbar with others? What is the problem? ;-)

Re:Smart people eh? (2, Insightful)

BaronVonDuvet (612870) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415659)

They may be smart, but I bet they still had to write down the apparatus, method and observations (dedicated to everyone that studied science at school)

And the Nobel Peace Price goes to... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415940)


DUBYA !!!!

But what's better? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415682)

(a) a Nobel prize

or

(b) Sex with a mare?

Of course not (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415756)

Of course not! The stupid people get to be presidents, instead...

A federal court has granted an injunction sought by President George W Bush to halt a labour dispute at West Coast ports that has cost the economy up to $2bn a day.

Mr Bush said the dispute over the introduction of new technology had to end because it was damaging the country's economy and posing a threat to national security.

Nice going there, GWB. Crush a legitimate labour dispute with vague, catch-all arguments like the latter one. Of course, the dispute hurts the economy. That's the whole point! So, instead of addressing the source of discontent you just go and tell these people shut up and get back to work.

What a wonderful system capitalism is...

Re:Of course not (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4417644)

commie bitch, go kill yourself now. or maybe go suck off the sociology teacher that indoctrinated your sorry ass.

Richard Feynman used to boast. . . (5, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415789)

"Lots of people have won the Nobel Prize, but to win it with an IQ of only 124, now *that's* an accomplishment!"

He always took great pride in being a "dumb" winner.

Of course there are many who would consider 124 pretty damned smart, but Feynman hung out with people like Hans Bethe, Neils Bohr, Albert Einstien and those other "dummies."

KFG

Re:Richard Feynman used to boast. . . (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415807)

Just goes to show that raw IQ is a defective metric.

In addition to the geometric, mathematical and linguistic skills the IQ test should include tests for emotional IQ (empathy), non-logical IQ (intuition) and ethical IQ (religion).

What's the point in having an IQ of 200 if you're an unfeeling logic machine with only secular morals that are always flawed at best?

Seven of Nine sayz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415974)

Irrelevant

Fix IQ tests? (4, Insightful)

Gerry Gleason (609985) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416573)

Good grief! Stick with the first statement that it is a defective metric. Tinkering will not make it better, just different.

Nobody thinks there is any point to a standard metric of 'beauty' or 'virtue', oh wait maybe they do ...

Re:Fix IQ tests? (1)

espenss (409753) | more than 11 years ago | (#4417179)

Don't you too toss the dice after sex?

Well, as it happens, I'm a Buddhist. (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416598)

Really. And my ethical IQ must be ok because Slashdot says my karma is excellent!

KFG

Re:Richard Feynman used to boast. . . (2, Insightful)

DrLudicrous (607375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416667)

Well, I guess my ethical IQ would be zero, since I have no religion. That's bogus, and shows your bias. You don't need God/religion to be ethical. Most atheists are 10X more ethical than certain fundamentalists (especially kooky Christians who bomb abortion clinics, zealous Zionists who founded Israel via the terrorism they bitch about now, and morose Muslims that fly planes into tall buildings and blow up busses).

Re:Richard Feynman used to boast. . . (1, Offtopic)

proj_2501 (78149) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416716)

Most PEOPLE are 10x more ethical than abortion clinic bombers. Hell, most FUNDAMENTALISTS are more ethical than that.

As Israel being founded by terrorism, that's ridiculous. Israel was created by the UN by charter and was immediately ATTACKED by the surrounding nations. Israel did not strike first until 1978.

Re:Richard Feynman used to boast. . . (0, Flamebait)

Effexor (544430) | more than 11 years ago | (#4417213)

Just a thought, but he might be referring to the use of terrorism by Jewish groups in Palestine from 1944 to until the establishment of Israel in 1948.

For example the bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, bombing of the British embassy in Rome, bombings of police stations, railways, oil refinerys, kidnapping and murder of british soldiers by Irgun; the assasinations of Britain's minister of middle east affairs and of the UN mediator in Palastine by the Stern gang.

Please note that these were actions against Britain and the UN, I'm leaving out anything involving attacks on Arabs for fear that you will accuse me of being biased. The fact does remain that terrorism was used to achieve the ends of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and that many of those involved in what were terrorist actions (and if you disagree that those are terrorist acts please define the term more clearly) went on to form the government of Israel.

Re:Richard Feynman used to boast. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4417217)

israel was not created by UN charter. They tried to, but some israelis jumped the gun. learn you history. The terrorism he is refering to was perpetrated on the british (then in occupation) by jewish terrorist groups agitating for a state of israel. Of course, that didn't create the state...

Re:Richard Feynman used to boast. . . (3, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416771)

The history of the world argues rather strongly against the proposition that there is any correlation between religion and "ethical IQ" at all.

Re:Richard Feynman used to boast. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4417050)

What does ethics have to do with religion? You can have one without the other, which has been proven many times throughout history...

Re:Richard Feynman used to boast. . . (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4417139)


> What's the point in having an IQ of 200 if you're an unfeeling logic machine with only secular morals that are always flawed at best?

I'd say if you had no sense of ethics at all, but IQ of 200 you could still do fundamental work on mathematics, physics and what not. You don't need ethics doing hard science.

Re:Richard Feynman used to boast. . . (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415963)

You don't need to be a genius to discover new things, just accident prone.

Re:Richard Feynman used to boast. . . (2)

swm (171547) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416463)

I assume from this that Feynman once scored 124 on an IQ test.

OTOH, he recounts in one of his books that he sees equations in his head in color: the exponents in brown, the coefficients in green, etc.

A standard IQ test may not accurately measure the intelligence of someone who's brain comes with font-lock.

Re:Richard Feynman used to boast. . . (1)

DrLudicrous (607375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416687)

KFG, I find that fascinating. Makes me rescind something I have been telling people- that in order to succeed in physics at the Nobel level, you have to be a supergenius with an IQ over 160 (which I don't have). Guess that's no longer a good cop out for my mediocrity...especially since Feynman is one of my great personal physics heroes who drew me into this field in the first place.

lets have more winners (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415633)

split it 10 ways

Re:lets have more winners (1)

BaronVonDuvet (612870) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415670)

split it 10 ways

If you're talking about the atom that would definitely win the Nobel Prize.

Re:lets have more winners (5, Informative)

lars_stefan_axelsson (236283) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415676)

Split it ten ways.

Not possible. Paragraph four of the statutes of the Nobel foundation clearly states that a maximum of three people can share a prize.

It's even been mentioned in the television series (where the laureates of the year are interviewed) by some US physicists that they did indeed have that in mind when applying for grants etc. I.e. not to be more than tree eligible researchers not to spoilt their chanses.

Check out the statues of the Nobel Foundation [nobel.se] .

Free? I like free! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415636)

(Free Blah di Blah)

The NYT are giving out Free Blah di Blah? I want my Free Blah di Blah! Give me my Free Blah di Blah!

Welcome to DiBoner.com (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415645)

Okay, like all epistemological questions this is not an easy page to write, so lets go chronologically timeline style

I am teh suk.
I am teh ghey fagort.

Chemistry prize shared between (5, Informative)

jeorgen (84395) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415648)

Chemistry prize is shared between John Fenn, USA, Koichi Tanaka, Japan an Kurt Wüthich, Switzerland. Prize is awarded primarily for the development of powerful metods for analysing biological macro molecules, such as proteins.

With these methods researcher can now quickly reveal what proteins are present in a sample.

It's also possible to visualise proteins in 3D with these methods.

The methods have revolutionised the development of new drugs and show promise in areas as food qualit control and diagnosing breast cancer and prostate cancer.

(all according to a Swedish on-line article)

/jeorgen

Re:Chemistry prize shared between (5, Informative)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415702)

Official site [nobel.se] .

Motivations: "for their development of soft desorption ionisation methods for mass spectrometric analyses of biological macromolecules" (John B Fenn, Koichi Tanaka) and "for his development of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy for determining the three-dimensional structure of biological macromolecules in solution" (Kurt Wüthrich).

Re:Chemistry prize shared between (1)

DrLudicrous (607375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416711)

I work on imaging biological proteins in micron to sub-micron regime. Very interesting technique that everyone here would be familiar with, but I won't say more about it till our group gets a published paper out. I just hope it works as well as we have seen so far in smaller and smaller length scales.

The Golden Globes, meanwhile, struggle on (5, Funny)

Brento (26177) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415672)

In related news, the Golden Globes continue to be awarded to the opposite end of the academic spectrum, according to industry analysts. "Just look at Jennifer Connelly," said an unnamed source, pointing to this year's winner for Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role. "Sure, she's easy on the eyes, but she couldn't tell a neutrino from her elbow. And don't even get me started on Sissy Spacek - the woman keeps trying to reserve the periodic table at restaurants."

Ron Howard has repeatedly gone on record that his work on 'A Beautiful Mind' puts him in the appropriate Smart People category, but that is still in dispute. Judges point to his work in Happy Days as proof.

Re:The Golden Globes, meanwhile, struggle on (1)

WillyElectrix (306880) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416204)

From A Tribute to Jennifer Connelly [pvv.ntnu.no]

I was very interested in physics when I was younger and I had thought that when I got to college I would major in physics. Yale is quite a rigorous university and I soon realized that I was not going to change the world with my aptitude in physics and that we would be no more enlightened because of my presence. It was on a whole different level from high school physics and although it was fascinating, I struggled with it more than the other kids.

-W.

google (3, Informative)

ObitMan (550793) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415673)

Re:google (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415770)

Master blaster. Or was it that bitch Tina Turner? No, I think Tina was her powerslave.

Then I guess it's safe to say.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415681)

this guy [hektik.org] won't be up for a nobel peace prise any time soon. ;)

Kamiokande (5, Informative)

photonic (584757) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415694)

I believe the Japanese guy that received the prize worked at the Super-Kamiokande detector that damaged half of its photo-multiplyer tubes in a big implosion [slashdot.org] .

Famous quote at the time of the incident: Thank goodness we got our Nobel already cooking [caltech.edu]

In other news... (5, Funny)

kcbrown (7426) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415697)

It was recently announced that Olympic gold medals are awarded to physically fit people, Baseball Hall of Fame entries are awarded to good baseball players, and the Nebula Award is given to really good science fiction authors.

People in the entire U.S., but especially the editors at Slashdot, were astounded and amazed by this announcement.

"I never even suspected" said chrisd, an editor at Slashdot.

The Dow rose 78 points today, largely in response to this announcement.

Obligatory dig (-1, Offtopic)

pommiekiwifruit (570416) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415802)

Well since elections in the US don't get won by the person with the most votes, I guess the other feats could be amazing.

In other news (-1, Redundant)

Schik (576085) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415699)

Fire burns, and water is wet!

title : dumbest ever (-1, Troll)

vvikram (260064) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415713)

huh ? what the hell do you mean "won by smart people".

seriously it has to be the dumbest title slashdot has ever given.

come on , get a clue. do give us an example sometime of nobel prizes being awarded to dumb people.

goddamn unprofessional. typical slashdot.

vv

ps: next what: oscar won by good actors ? wait..actually...never mind.

Re:title : dumbest ever (5, Funny)

spakka (606417) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415737)

do give us an example sometime of nobel prizes being awarded to dumb people.

Ask again after the Peace prize is announced Thursday...

Re:title : dumbest ever (2)

kcbrown (7426) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415746)

Ask again after the Peace prize is announced Thursday...

"Nobel Peace prize awarded to ... er ... peaceful people".

:-)

You're the dumbass here (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415758)

So, using your logic we can come to a conclusion that peaceful people are dumb. Pal, you're the dumbass here, so don't push it ! Intelligent people tend to be peaceful.

And my real first name comes from a latin word meaning pacifist.

Re:You're the dumbass here (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415815)

so don't push it !

And if I "push it", you'll come around and kick my ass, right?

Re:You're the dumbass here (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415841)

Yeah! Or I'll send my daddy to do that!

Re:title : dumbest ever (3, Insightful)

Hittite Creosote (535397) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415763)

"Nobel Peace prize awarded to ... er ... peaceful people".

Peaceful? I bet it's not hard to find people who wouldn't describe Theodore Roosevelt ("No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war"), Henry Kissinger or Yasser Arafat as peaceful...

Kissinger (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415783)

Well, Kissinger can kiss my ass.. what's he doing on your list? he was not a bad dude.

Re:Kissinger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4417296)

not a bad dude? learn some history, kid.

Re:title : dumbest ever (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415791)

You forgot about Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin.

The leaders of a country that's occupying another get a peace prize... ridiculous.

Re:title : dumbest ever (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415855)

And the Peace Prize goes to... George W Bush!

Re:title : dumbest ever (2)

Observer (91365) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415903)

do give us an example sometime of nobel prizes being awarded to dumb people.

Ask again after the Peace prize is announced Thursday...

I'm not so sure about that, but some recent selections seem to have been awarded by dumb people.

(One wants to encourage the positive, of course, but if you're going to fete old enemies who've shaken hands and decided to tolerate each other, at least wait a decent period of time to confirm that the outbreak of sweet reason will persist.)

Re:title : dumbest ever (3, Funny)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416462)

Sure, Marie Curie... TWICE!

From this site [aip.org] comes this gem.
"[Curie], who handles daily a particle of radium more dangerous than lightning, was afraid when confronted by the necessity of appearing before the public.""--Stéphane Lauzanne, editor-in-chief of Le Matin


Note: Not the stage fright, but the daily handling of radium (considering she was probably the most informed person in the world on the safety or otherwise of radium!)

Of course, I could be applying my early 21st century knowledge to her early 20th century situation.

Highly intelligent? Yeah, sure!

Dumb? Absolutely!

Re:title : dumbest ever (2)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 11 years ago | (#4417215)

was afraid when confronted by the necessity of appearing before the public....Not the stage fright, but the daily handling of radium

"But we love having her speak at our university. Her essence and charm add such a glow to her presence."

Ig Noble Prizes awarded a few days ago (4, Funny)

maxwells daemon (105725) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415724)

The prizes are awarded in various categories, including physics and chemistry:

PHYSICS
Arnd Leike of the University of Munich, for demonstrating that beer froth obeys the mathematical Law of Exponential Decay. [REFERENCE: "Demonstration of the Exponential Decay Law Using Beer Froth," Arnd Leike, European Journal of Physics, vol. 23, January 2002, pp. 21-26.]

http://www.improb.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html#ig2 00 2

Re:Ig Noble Prizes awarded a few days ago (1)

proj_2501 (78149) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416738)

The best Ig Nobel prize is this: (from everything2.com)

Keita Sato, President of Takara Co., Dr. Matsumi Suzuki, President of Japan Acoustic Lab, and Dr. Norio Kogure, Executive Director, Kogure Veterinary Hospital, for promoting peace and harmony between the species by inventing Bow-Lingual, a computer-based automatic dog-to-human language translation device.

I can imagine the output: "HEY HEY HEY! HEY!!!! HEEEEEEY! HEY HEY HEY!!!"

get the experiments right! (5, Informative)

Alien Perspective (171882) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415743)

Davis built the Homestake experiment, which was a radiochemical experiment to look for solar neutrinos. NOT a water-Cerenkov experiment.

Kamiokande (Koshiba's experiment)was a water-Cerenkov experiment, however the IMB experiment (another water-Cerenkov experiment, near Cleveland) also saw the neutrinos from supernova 1987A *and* IMB had an atomic clock, so they could get accurate arrival times, which the japanese experiment couldn't.

Kamiokande confirmed Davis' results, but so did gallium experiments in what was then the USSR and in Italy.

Re:get the experiments right! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415750)

You haven't gotten laid in a long long time have you? Perhaps never? Nobody that cares about this shit ever gets laid.

Sex is fun but not worth it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415773)

I've never quite understood why people think that "getting laid" is so important.

Yeah, sex is fun, but all the crap that comes with it just makes it not worth it.

Playing the stupid "courting game" with the girl. "Oh, you're so pretty and smart. I've never met someone like you. Tell me about yourself..."
STDs
"I'm not just another fuck, am I?" and other inane questions
"Please call me tomorrow"/"When can we meet again?"
and so on ad nauseam.

Re:Sex is fun but not worth it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415858)

Playing the stupid "courting game" with the girl. "Oh, you're so pretty and smart. I've never met someone like you. Tell me about yourself..."

What? that will get you nowhere. You got wind'em up. Wind'em up, watch 'em blow...

Re:get the experiments right! (3, Interesting)

Lars Arvestad (5049) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415771)

Kamiokande (Koshiba's experiment)was a water-Cerenkov experiment, however the IMB experiment (another water-Cerenkov experiment, near Cleveland) also saw the neutrinos from supernova 1987A *and* IMB had an atomic clock, so they could get accurate arrival times, which the japanese experiment couldn't.

Would that make such a difference? I was at the actual presentation yesterday, and they had registered arrival times at Kamiokande too. Maybe the precision was lame, but since they actually only registered 12 neutrinos from that supernova, it seems a wristwatch would do well enough...

Re:get the experiments right! (2, Informative)

Alien Perspective (171882) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416216)

You seem to think that someone was watching the experiment and could look at their watch when the neutrinos arrived. Wrong.

The neutrino events were found on the data tapes some days (or weeks) later. The Kamiokande experiment just had a drifting computer clock to tell the time. No GPS. No NTP. IIRC, they were several minutes off and had no way to correct.

There are important results that hinge on having the correct time (to within milliseconds) of the neutrino burst (neutrino mass limits, supernova models, etc.), and Kamiokande had to try and match their events with IMBs to try and get the time.

Frankly, I think IMB and Kamiokande should have gotten the prize for 1987A, but they don't like to split Nobel's too many ways...

Re:get the experiments right! (2)

Lars Arvestad (5049) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416422)

I do not care how they collect the information. What I learned from the Nobel seminar was that neutrinos are registred quite rarely, but they had found that they suddenly had 12 neutrinos over a short time span.

I am simply asking what the arrival times are good for. To the unitiated, it does not seem to matter if the precision is by the second rather than the microsecond, and that it doesn't really matter if the computer clock is off by several minutes and has the precision of a wristwatch.

Just curious...

Re:get the experiments right! (2, Informative)

guybarr (447727) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416769)


disclaimer: IANA astrophysicist.

I am simply asking what the arrival times are good for. To the unitiated, it does not seem to matter if the precision is by the second rather than the microsecond, and that it doesn't really matter if the computer clock is off by several minutes and has the precision of a wristwatch.

This is in the context of the uspernova event, I guess.

IIRC neutrino bursts from SN tell us about events deep inside the supernova, since EM radiation interacts with the plasma the star is made of, it is absorbed and reemited, and therefore all the efects are slower than c. IIRC the shockwave is about 2 orders of magnitude slower.

Neutrinos, however, (almost) do not interact, so they leave the star at c. To get the speed of the shockwave, you need to compare the time of nutrino and EM bursts.

The radius of the sun is about 3 light-seconds. A SN star is typicaly not very much larger, so comparing the time of neutrino-burst with the time of EM radiation pulse needs to be done at seconds, or tens of seconds accuracy, so mircoseconds will not help you, but OTOH minutes will probably hurt you.

Re:get the experiments right! (1)

esonik (222874) | more than 11 years ago | (#4417511)

Neutrinos, however, (almost) do not interact, so they leave the star at c

Latest results indicate that neutrinos have mass and therefore they have to move below c. As the SN are lightyears away even a small deviation from c could be important. So the question remains: is this effect negligible compared to the time differences you mentioned ?

There needs to be a... (-1)

Dwaynewayne (463999) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415749)

Noble piece prize. I am the sole judge.

Thanks!

What about Cmdr Taco? (-1, Offtopic)

croftj (2359) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415766)

He invented the slashdot effect! He deserves a million dollars, no?

Not one single useful comment (1)

raahul_da_man (469058) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415788)

Come on? Is there no bitchiness? Can't we at least hear if these guys deserved their Nobels, or did their grad students deserve it instead?

I would like to hear physicists comment if Physics nominees at least were deserving. From a layman's viewpoint it seems so.

Re:Not one single useful comment (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415984)

Well, there is some bitchiness, but it's just some moron a few posts up complaining about slashdot's "journalistic competence" again.

Get something for free... complain about it.. Way to go fools.

Davis and Koshiba (2, Informative)

Brett Viren (296) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416074)

For a very long time, Ray Davis stood alone in saying there was a deficit of electron type neutrinos coming from the sun, despite criticisms that his experiment must be wrong.

Koshiba started Kamiokande which begat Super-Kamiokande, which (along with IMB) confirmed Ray's results but also showed oscillations in atmospheric neutrinos and pushed proton decay lifetime limits further than any other experiment.

These experiments fundamentally changed our view of neutrinos. So, yes, I think their originators each deserve a Nobel of their own, let alone 1/4 of one.

Re:Not one single useful comment (1)

aiabx (36440) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416480)

Ok, I'll bite. How come no one involved with SNO was recognized?
-aiabx

Runners up? (Re:Not one single useful comment) (1, Offtopic)

phorm (591458) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416778)

It's hard to grouch overly that somebody else deserved the prize when the runners up aren't listed. One thing that sucks, it seems that for one to become a brilliant Nobel winning scientist, it generally takes a lifetime of research (they all look fairly old).
What's the youngest age of somebody to win a Nobel? It would somewhat suck if you won a million bucks but were too old to fully enjoy it.

Re:Runners up? (Re:Not one single useful comment) (1)

bmwm3nut (556681) | more than 11 years ago | (#4417323)

last year's physics nobel winners were very young...cornell is in his 30's or early 40's and weiman is in his 40's or early 50's. i don't know about the other guy, but i think that weiman was the oldest of the group that won last year.

Re:Runners up? (Re:Not one single useful comment) (1)

smithmc (451373) | more than 11 years ago | (#4417702)

It's hard to grouch overly that somebody else deserved the prize when the runners up aren't listed. One thing that sucks, it seems that for one to become a brilliant Nobel winning scientist, it generally takes a lifetime of research (they all look fairly old).

Actually, I don't think it takes "a lifetime of research"; rather, the Nobel people wait a while to ensure that a given invention or act truly has had a profound impact. Therefore, Nobels are often awarded for work done a long time ago. For instance, John Nash's Economics prize in 1994 was awarded for work done in the '50s.

Go to the source! (5, Informative)

Lars Arvestad (5049) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415792)

I would like to recommend the Nobel prize homepage [nobel.se] . There is a lot of information there. In particular, go check out the "further information" links for the public, where nice presentations of the science is available.

Xbox GPL infrigment (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415801)

Yet another rejected quality story that got rejected by slashdot fuckfaces. Brought to you by Hacker underground.

XBOX Mediaplayer Infringing GPL

Anonymous windows coders have made a mediaplayer [xboxmediaplayer.de] for X-box which uses GPL licensed FFMPEG [sourceforge.net] and XVID [xvid.org] sources in their closed-source product. Developers can't be contacted because they don't publish their e-mail addresses. As a result XVID development has been stopped. This isn't the first time someone decides to steal open source code - Sigma Designs stole XVID code, but was forced [yahoo.com] to release the source

The Legacy of Einstein (5, Interesting)

InodoroPereyra (514794) | more than 11 years ago | (#4415809)

Such a phenomenal genious was A. Einstein that he even influenced the social perception of what physics is. Being himself a theoretician, the prototype of a physicist is some sort of a lunatic doing fancy calcuations on a blackboard. However, voila, most Nobel prizes go to experimentalists. And that is the way it should be. Physics is an experimental science. If you cannot measure it, it ain't. Einstein himself understood this better than anyone, and he based his theories in solid experimental evidence.

Now let me disgress: how does it feel winning a part of a Nobel prize ? I see it coming: "Our next speaker, Prof. Inodoro Pereyra, 1/8th of the Nobel Prize 2004"

;-)

Re:The Legacy of Einstein (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4415904)

-- However, voila, most Nobel prizes go to experimentalists. And that is the way it should be. Physics is an experimental science. If you cannot measure it, it ain't.--

Ahhh!!!! Ye olde "experimentalist" vs."theorist" argument of physical relevance. Perhaps if you're an experimentalist and you can't measure it, you need to devise a way to do so ;? Just because you cannot measure it doesn't mean it ain't. Measurable theories are easier to digest, but A. Einstein was not a big fan of QM, and it certainly *is*; And the depths of it's *is-ness* is theoretically based.

Not meaning to be a troll -- but experimentalists test theory, and theorists learn from the results of the experimentalist. The two are wed, whether they like it or not (I think they like it!).

Just my two pence.

Re:The Legacy of Einstein (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4416004)

Einstein "based his theories in solid experimental evidence."? I was under the impression that experiments done afterwards verified his theories, not the other way around. For example, one of his postulates in special relativity: light travels at constant speed relative to all inertial observers (or something to that effect...) was inspired by the urge to fix the ugliness of Maxwell's equations under certain transformations, not the Michaelson-Morley experiment. I don't remember the source, perhaps some Physics people can verify this? :)

Re:The Legacy of Einstein (2, Informative)

boomka (599257) | more than 11 years ago | (#4417483)

physics person here... :)

first was Michelson-Morley experiment (Michelson 1881, Morley 1887) with the goal of measuring the drift speed of the ether with respect to the Earth.
The result, if I remember correctly, could not really be explained by either moving or immobile ether (ether was believed to be a light carrying medium).

That was when Lorentz came up with his famous Lorentz transformations to explain the results (1892) - I don't know why so many people believe Einstein developed everything in relativity theory alone and from scratch. It was Lorentz of course who came up with the Lorentz transformations, as the name suggests, i.e. he was the first to suggest that the time and the dimensions contract/expand for the moving objects.

What Einstein essentially did was to take all the largely empirical formulae, and tie them up in one beautiful theory which explained them all. He said that the Lorentz transformations are themselves only a direct result of the fact that the space is not Galilean, it is in fact not space, but space-time, one and unseparable.

Einstein abolished the idea of ether, postulated that the speed of light in vacuum is constant (natural explanation for M-M experiment). Basicly Einstein managed to explain all the weirdness seen in the experimental results with a beautiful theory that not only answered the questions of 'how' (Lorentz almost did it) but most importantly the question of 'why'.
Einstein was also the first to trash the electric and magnetic fields and say that they too were one single entity, an electromagnetic field.

so yes, Einstein based his theory on experimental evidence - most notably, M-M experiment and the fact that the Maxwell laws (confirmed experimentally) didn't want to obey the usual Galilean transformations.

Re:The Legacy of Einstein (2)

naasking (94116) | more than 11 years ago | (#4417611)

Einstein was also the first to trash the electric and magnetic fields and say that they too were one single entity, an electromagnetic field.

Huh? I don't think so. Maxwell's equations correlate electricity and magnetism and they were derived at least 50 years before relativity (IIRC).

Re:The Legacy of Einstein (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4416384)

huh?

Einstein was a theoretician. He got his prize not for all the fancy stuff thought up while his hair was on end, but explicitly for the photoelectric effect, because it was experimentally tractable. (everyone knows the prize was really for relativity though, the wild spooky stuff best explained in a German accent with crazy staring eyes).

the reason theorists rarely get the prize is that, from Nobel's will: "...prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind". (though in fact as for Einstein theorists are in with a chance as the committee do bend the rules, Hawking might get one if anyone observes Hawking radiation unequivocably).

It's hard to benefit mankind from a theory that has yet to have had experimental results, almost by definition. that's also why there wasn't one for maths (unless you believe the idea that that's because Nobel's wife ran off with a mathematician)

Re:The Legacy of Einstein (2, Informative)

f97tosc (578893) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416904)

I see it coming: "Our next speaker, Prof. Inodoro Pereyra, 1/8th of the Nobel Prize 2004"

Well, currently the prize can't be split by more than three people.

However, there are some discussion about changing that. The reason is that more and more often new discoveries come through joint efforts among many groups. The lone theoretician whith a blackboard is not so common any more.

Swedish Tor

The Nobels lost their innocence in 1969 (2)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416302)

I would like to see, in the context of this excerpt [nobel.se] from the Last Will and Testament of Alfred Nobel, a justification for the Nobel Prize for "Economic Sciences", first awarded in 1969.

Re:The Nobels lost their innocence in 1969 (5, Informative)

cperciva (102828) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416401)

Simple explanation: There isn't any Nobel Prize in Economics. There is, however, the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel -- but while people call it a Nobel prize, it isn't, and the money for it comes from the Bank of Sweden (not from the Nobel trust).

Re:The Nobels lost their innocence in 1969 (1)

f97tosc (578893) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416921)

Furthermore, it has been decided once and for all never to introduce any more prices, even if they are only 'in the memory of'.

That would simply cause too many slashdot trolls.

Tor

Kudos to Riccardo Giacconi (4, Informative)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416434)

Congrats to Mr. Giacconi for winning the Nobel Prize in Physics for his research into X-ray emissions in outer space.

It was his research with sounding rockets, the UHURU satellite and the Einstein satellite that made it possible to study unusual astronomical objects such as black holes and pulsars and allow us to peer much more closely at nebulas and other astronomical objects that have befuddled astronomers before Giacconi's pioneering work. It was his work that made it possible for the development of the NASA Chandra and ESA XMM-Newton X-ray observatory satellites.

Serendipity! (1)

drhairston (611491) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416476)

The Japanese neutrino detector, Kamiokande, was constructed to observe neutron collapse. It failed. It has proved, to a certain extent, that neutron collapse is impossible, or that Koshiba's scientific apparatus is flawed. As a side affect, Koshiba found that neutrinos from space were interfering with his experiment. When the supernova of 1987A lit Koshiba's apparatus up like a Christmas tree, Koshiba found that his mistake even provided an early warning system for supernovae. Through this "oops", "neutrino astronomy" was born. All scientists should be so lucky as to have made a mistake of this magnitude and grandeur. It is truly worthy of the Nobel.

Sadly, Koshiba made another mistake which destroyed his billion dollar apparatus. [spaceref.com] Another "oops", which so far has not yielded a Nobel.

Yet!

Re:Serendipity! (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 11 years ago | (#4417128)

Koshiba found that neutrinos from space were interfering with his experiment.

And the Higgs Boson and gravity wave interference *really* pissed him off.

Re:Serendipity! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4417158)

> constructed to observe neutron collapse.

Nonsense. Neutron collapse is an everyday thing. You don't need anywhere near the size of apparatus Kamiokande was to observe it. *Proton* decay, now that's a different story altogether. Detector setups like Kamiokande can be used to try and observer it. And they are.

Anyway, this is exactly the kind of thing you fully deserve a Nobel for: to see what a lesser mind would interpret as a disturbing influence on your experimental reading, as an interesting result in its own right. That's how most of the truly spectacular results are made. Think Penicillin or the Michelson interferometer.

Instead of saying "Free blah di blah" every time.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4416590)

... the story submitter could just gank the NYTimes link from Google News. That way it'd have the affiliate code in there and wouldn't require in blah di blah, free or otherwise.

Davis didn't invent a 'water tank detector' (2, Informative)

pfdietz (33112) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416761)

Davis's detector was a tank of perchloroethylene. Neutrinos occassionally transmuted chlorine atoms into radioactive argon atoms, which could be swept out by helium sparging and their individual decays detected separately.

Karma's better (2)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416873)

I keep telling myself that slashdot Karma is better. But, I cannot quite convince myself for some reason.

Bob Guccione. . . (1)

Fritz Benwalla (539483) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416877)

and Sammy Davis Jr.? Wow! Never saw that coming, but my hat's off to the committee.

And I was rooting for Sherilyn Fenn for Chemistry and David Brenner for Medicine too.

What a great year!

when will the discrimination end? (1, Redundant)

Suppafly (179830) | more than 11 years ago | (#4416953)

Nobel Prizes for Physics Awarded to Smart People

Its about time the dumb people of the world stood up and faught against this discrimination. Its 2002, are we are still just giving Nobel Prizes to smart people. We need to send a message that we will no longer stand for this inequality.

Price for Engineering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4417091)


They should have a price for engineering.
I'm surprised by the "physics" prize for the X-ray telescope. While it was a great technical achievement, it seems more like an engineering project than a "physics" discovery. A lot of theories were (dis)proved by the data it got, but unlike many chemistry/biology inventions, no real new knowledge came out of the actual invention itself.

Re:Price for Engineering? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 11 years ago | (#4417154)

They should have a price for engineering.

Oh, all the people being laid off from HP are paying a price for engineering allright.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>