- #1
fourier jr
- 765
- 13
At first I thought physicists, but then that would exclude too many for no good reason, but still excludes the scientists who haven't been around since nobel prizes have been given out.
Astronuc said:Three contemporaries - Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Julian Schwinger, Richard P. Feynman - won the Noble Prize in Physics in 1965 for their work in QFT.
Well I was thinking more generically, but yes specifically Tomonaga, Schwinger and Feynman were recongized for contributions to QED.rhody said:Errr, did you mean to say, Quantum Electrodynamics ? (QED) http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/"
f95toli said:Well, two examples are Lisa Meitner (who first didn't share the prize because she didn't publish her findings, and later was disqualified because she became a member of the Nobel committee herself) and Henrietta Swan Leavitt (who was considered but died before she could be nominated).
However, remember that you don't get the prize for being a great scientist. The prize is awarded to people who make an important discovery, it is not the same thing.
jobyts said:Al Gore, for inventing the internet.
lisab said:No, he wouldn't qualify because the internet isn't made of strings...it's a series of tubes.
Besides, he already won a Nobel prize .
Matterwave said:Bohm specifically deserved a Nobel prize imo for his contributions to Physics, including developing the De-Broglie-Bohm pilot wave formulation of QM.
f95toli said:You can't -according to the rules- be awarded the prize for a theory that hasn't been experimentally verified, this means that you can't get it for working on interpretations of QM, string theory(at least at the moment) etc.
There are several sciencits who can more or less be sure to win the prize if their theories are verified. Higgs will almost certainly get it if the LHC finds his boson.
Beat me to it. He's also still an active scientist. Dyson, Dyson, Dyson.Astronuc said:Freeman Dyson has not won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in quantum field theory...
mynameinc said:Not really a scientist, but Gandhi comes to mind as one of the greatest peacekeepers who never won a Nobel Peace Prize.
CRGreathouse said:I'm glad Ghandi never got the Nobel peace prize. It would have given the prize an honor it doesn't deserve.
Actually, that was Brown.Matterwave said:Otherwise, Brownian motion was discovered by him too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion"wiki said:Jan Ingenhousz had described the irregular motion of coal dust particles on the surface of alcohol in 1785. Nevertheless Brownian motion is traditionally regarded as discovered by the botanist Robert Brown in 1827.
hamster143 said:Did you know that there weren't any Nobel Prizes EVER awarded for advances in theoretical General Relativity? Even Einstein himself got the prize ostensibly for the discovery of the photoelectric effect. Since then, the field was decidedly starved for prizes. In a related field of cosmology, there was one half the prize awarded for stellar evolution, one half for stellar nucleosynthesis, and a couple for CMB, but that only covers a tiny portion of the field.
I'd expect to have seen prizes awarded to:
- Hawking and Penrose
- Friedmann/Lemaitre/Robertson/Walker/Hubble or some subset thereof
- Gamow, the father of the Big Bang (and, incidentally, a student of Friedmann)
- Arnowitt, Deser & Misner
czelaya said:I'm assuming you're stating Hawking do to his contributions in theoretical physics with Hawking radiation? Like many have already stated it has to be experimentally discovered or experimentally verified.
I don't think Penrose directly contributed to the Big Bang. However, after reading very limited books on the subject matter, I believe he put forth the mathematical machinery (differential topology) in defining the big bang.