Greatest scientists who never won a nobel prize

  • Thread starter fourier jr
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Nobel prize
In summary: Tesla, Farnsworth, and Higgs are all examples of scientists who never won the Nobel Prize, but their work was very important and contributed to the development of physics.
  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Could we also do greatest discoveries for which no Nobel was awarded...?
 
  • #3
sure, why not
 
  • #4
Not really a scientist, but Gandhi comes to mind as one of the greatest peacekeepers who never won a Nobel Peace Prize.
 
  • #5
Freeman Dyson has not won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in quantum field theory.

Three contemporaries - Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Julian Schwinger, Richard P. Feynman - won the Noble Prize in Physics in 1965 for their work in QFT.
 
  • #6
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.

Errr, did you mean to say, Quantum Electrodynamics ? (QED) http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/" [Broken]

I know James Maxwell died in 1879, so that makes him a 19th century physicist, I don't know the rules of how Nobel Prizes are awarded, but if they were to include 19th century physicists, I would imagine he would have been awarded one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
rhody said:
Errr, did you mean to say, Quantum Electrodynamics ? (QED) http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/" [Broken]
Well I was thinking more generically, but yes specifically Tomonaga, Schwinger and Feynman were recongized for contributions to QED.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
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.
 
  • #10
The seminal work done by me, myself, and I.
 
  • #11
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.

I like how you put things.
 
  • #12
Al Gore, for inventing the internet.
 
  • #13
jobyts said:
Al Gore, for inventing the internet.

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 :rolleyes:.
 
  • #14
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 :rolleyes:.

On that note.. John McCain, for being aware of the Internet
 
  • #15
Discovery that wasn't awarded by a Nobel Prize...

Special and General Relativity

Ciche for a physics forum, but no one had said it...
 
  • #16
Einstein's award did say something along the lines of "for contributions in Theoretical physics, and for the law of the Photoelectric effect".

So maybe SR and GR were bundled in there with theoretical physics. Otherwise, Brownian motion was discovered by him too.

Before Nobel, there are many, so I guess this is only for after Nobel?

After Nobel...uh I can only think of the one time Born was snubbed for the 1932 prize. Even though Born had worked jointly with Heisenberg (and Jordan) regarding the matrix formulation of QM, only Heisenberg was given the prize (possibly due to Jordan's connection with the Nazi's). No need to panic, though, since Born got one later for his statistical interpretation of QM.
 
  • #17
Oh, I know. David Bohm and Yakir Aharonov never got one for the Aharonov-Bohm effect which is quite important in establishing the vector potential A as a "real" object. Bohm specifically deserved a Nobel prize imo for his contributions to Physics, including developing the De-Broglie-Bohm pilot wave formulation of QM.
 
  • #18
Rosalin Franklin. The structure of DNA couldn't have been discovered without her work on x-ray crystallography, but she died before the year her co-worker was awarded the Nobel prize.
 
  • #19
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.

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.
 
  • #20
Nikola Tesla , Philo Farnsworth inventer of the TV and the fusor .
 
  • #21
My vote was/is with Maxwell for EM. Belongs up there with Newton (gravity) and Einstein (gravity again).

I can't even dredge up without google the names of those who first characterized the weak and strong forces. Add them. Fundamental forces would seem like they should qualify...
 
  • #22
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.

I'll give you that, but I'm sure in Bohm's long repertoire, there's something he should have won the Nobel for (if not the Aharonov-Bohm effect like I mentioned, then something else).
 
  • #23
How about Norman Bowen?
 
  • #24
psh, can we consider really old scientists?
Gauss, Newton, Euclid :)
 
  • #25
Astronuc said:
Freeman Dyson has not won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in quantum field theory...
Beat me to it. He's also still an active scientist. Dyson, Dyson, Dyson.
 
  • #26
Fred Hoyle , George Gamow, Daniel Bernoulli , Michael Faraday , Joseph Louis Lagrange
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Note that one of the rules for Nobel Prizes is that they're awarded only to living people. So anyone who died before 1901 should be excluded from this discussion.

There are surely cases of people who would probably have won a Nobel Prize if only they had lived long enough.
 
  • #28
mynameinc said:
Not really a scientist, but Gandhi comes to mind as one of the greatest peacekeepers who never won a Nobel Peace Prize.

I'm glad Ghandi never got the Nobel peace prize. It would have given the prize an honor it doesn't deserve.
 
  • #29
CRGreathouse said:
I'm glad Ghandi never got the Nobel peace prize. It would have given the prize an honor it doesn't deserve.

HAs anyone mentioned Newton or Corpenicus yet.The creator of the scientific method definitely. And any person who already made the scientific discoveries made by well known Scientists many years earlier but their work was undocumented and therefore not preserved. I totally agreed that gandhi should not received a nobel prize.He was basically the indian equivalent of the segregationist George wallace
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Matterwave said:
Otherwise, Brownian motion was discovered by him too.
Actually, that was Brown.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
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
 
  • #32
OBAMA!)*@#&$*(@#@$ WORLD PEACE ALREADY! YAH YAH YAH

"Just like Obama, the LHC has gotten the nobel prize in physics for intending to find the higgs-boson"
 
  • #33
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


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.
 
  • #34
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.

No, Hawking and Penrose are in the list because of their contributions to understanding of large scale structure of spacetime. For example, because of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose–Hawking_singularity_theorems

Hawking radiation concept, while neat, is purely conjectural and can't be taken seriously unless you make strong assumptions about quantum gravity. I certainly wouldn't want to give any Nobel prizes for that (not unless it's somehow proven experimentally to exist in just the form Hawking predicted, which I consider unlikely). On the other hand, Hawking-Penrose theorems are rigorous and universally valid.
 
  • #35
I'll go with Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, and Tesla---


I still think Einstein got his for the right thing----I think relativity isn't a sure thing
 
<h2>What is the Nobel Prize and why is it important in science?</h2><p>The Nobel Prize is an international award given to individuals who have made outstanding contributions in the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and peace. It is considered one of the most prestigious awards in the world and is highly sought after by scientists as it recognizes their achievements and advances in their respective fields.</p><h2>Who are some of the greatest scientists who never won a Nobel Prize?</h2><p>Some of the greatest scientists who never won a Nobel Prize include Rosalind Franklin, who played a crucial role in the discovery of the structure of DNA, and Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered pulsars. Other notable scientists include Gregor Mendel, who discovered the laws of inheritance, and Alfred Wegener, who proposed the theory of continental drift.</p><h2>Why did these scientists not receive a Nobel Prize?</h2><p>There are various reasons why these scientists did not receive a Nobel Prize. In some cases, their work was not fully recognized or appreciated during their lifetime. In other cases, their contributions may have been overshadowed by other scientists or they may have been overlooked due to their gender, race, or nationality. Additionally, some of these scientists worked in fields that were not yet recognized by the Nobel Committee.</p><h2>Do these scientists receive any other recognition for their contributions?</h2><p>Yes, many of these scientists have received other prestigious awards and honors for their work. For example, Rosalind Franklin was posthumously awarded the Royal Society's Wilkins-Bernal-Medawar Medal in 2003 for her contributions to the discovery of the structure of DNA. Jocelyn Bell Burnell was awarded the Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics in 2018 for her discovery of pulsars.</p><h2>How has the Nobel Prize evolved over time to be more inclusive and diverse?</h2><p>The Nobel Prize has faced criticism for its lack of diversity and inclusivity, particularly in regards to gender and race. In recent years, efforts have been made to address these issues and make the Nobel Prize more inclusive. In 2020, the Nobel Committee announced that it would be working towards a more equal representation of women and underrepresented groups among Nobel Prize recipients. Additionally, the Nobel Foundation has established various initiatives to promote diversity and inclusivity in science.</p>

What is the Nobel Prize and why is it important in science?

The Nobel Prize is an international award given to individuals who have made outstanding contributions in the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and peace. It is considered one of the most prestigious awards in the world and is highly sought after by scientists as it recognizes their achievements and advances in their respective fields.

Who are some of the greatest scientists who never won a Nobel Prize?

Some of the greatest scientists who never won a Nobel Prize include Rosalind Franklin, who played a crucial role in the discovery of the structure of DNA, and Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered pulsars. Other notable scientists include Gregor Mendel, who discovered the laws of inheritance, and Alfred Wegener, who proposed the theory of continental drift.

Why did these scientists not receive a Nobel Prize?

There are various reasons why these scientists did not receive a Nobel Prize. In some cases, their work was not fully recognized or appreciated during their lifetime. In other cases, their contributions may have been overshadowed by other scientists or they may have been overlooked due to their gender, race, or nationality. Additionally, some of these scientists worked in fields that were not yet recognized by the Nobel Committee.

Do these scientists receive any other recognition for their contributions?

Yes, many of these scientists have received other prestigious awards and honors for their work. For example, Rosalind Franklin was posthumously awarded the Royal Society's Wilkins-Bernal-Medawar Medal in 2003 for her contributions to the discovery of the structure of DNA. Jocelyn Bell Burnell was awarded the Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics in 2018 for her discovery of pulsars.

How has the Nobel Prize evolved over time to be more inclusive and diverse?

The Nobel Prize has faced criticism for its lack of diversity and inclusivity, particularly in regards to gender and race. In recent years, efforts have been made to address these issues and make the Nobel Prize more inclusive. In 2020, the Nobel Committee announced that it would be working towards a more equal representation of women and underrepresented groups among Nobel Prize recipients. Additionally, the Nobel Foundation has established various initiatives to promote diversity and inclusivity in science.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
849
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
105
Views
10K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
971
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
2
Views
118
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top