Criteria for Winning a Nobel Prize in Physics

T.O.E Dream

I'm kind of confused on how someone can receive a Nobel Prize in Physics if they had only devolped a theory. For example, if someone can show the use of mathematics to resolve a problem in physics (An example might be the unification of the forces) but lacks experimental evidence can they still be considered for a Nobel Prize (of course there are other prizes or whatever, it's just the one that comes to my head).

What i mean is if a person resolves a conflict not by developing a radically theory that must be tested (like string theory) but rather just has mathematical evidence for the theory, is it equivalent to experimental evidence? I hope you know what i meant by that.

Thanks in Advance!

TMFKAN64

One can win a Nobel Prize for any work that the Nobel Prize Committee deems to be worth one. There are no hard and fast rules beyond that. (OK, well, you have to be alive... no posthumous prizes are permitted.)

T.O.E Dream

Thanks for replying, and its funny you said that because string theorist work so hard and have an amazing theory but i'm not sure if any have a Nobel prize in physics. Do you think they deserve one? I'm sure if string theory is confirmed by the LHC then there will be many handed out.

eri

It always seemed to me that the person who won the Nobel Prize was the person who discovered something, not the person who predicted that something would be discovered. You could just sit around predicting stuff all day and 'publishing' it on arXiv and hoping you get lucky, but the person who finds it gets the credit - several Nobel Prizes have now been awarded for the discovery of the cosmic microwave background, but none to the people who predicted it, just to those who discovered it (although Gamow never lived to see it discovered).

T.O.E Dream

But not all Nobel prizes are handed out because someone discovered something. Many theorist have been awarded a Nobel prize, and the experimentalist who confirm the theorist predictions aren't the ones who win it. So, i think you're not completely right people do win Nobel prize for "Predicting" stuff.

qntty

While carrying out an experiment correctly is difficult, its not Nobel-prize worthy. The Nobel goes to the person who comes up with the reason for doing the experiment. The hard part of a discovery is to come up with a model to explain a behavior or develop an existing theory not to test the result.

T.O.E Dream

What happens if a theory can't be proven incorrect, and do thought experiments count or not really?

jtbell

Counter-example: Carlo Rubbia won the Nobel Prize in 1984 for being the leader of the experiment at CERN that first observed the W and Z bosons.

Razzor7

I'm pretty sure "theory" and "can't be proven incorrect" are incompatible.

T.O.E Dream

That's what i thought.

Matterwave

If the "can't be proven incorrect" refers to theory, and not just current technological limitations, then yes you are right, in general it's not a theory.

D H

Exactly wrong. A very important part of what distinguishes a scientific theory from Joe Blow's "theory" is that scientific theories must be falsifiable. You should google that term, and while you are at it, google Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn (separate searches).

Cincinnatus

This is a strange exchange, you both seem to agree that theories are falsifiable (according to popper) but D H says Razor 7 is wrong anyway. Perhaps this was a mistake and D H had meant to quote someone else?

D H

Never mind. It was late and I was confused by the double negative.

ZapperZ

I'm hesitant to be involved in this thread (for reasons that I won't reveal), but an important fact here seems to be missing here that should be clarified.

At the 2005 Particle Accelerator Conference that coincided with the Year of Physics and Einstein's miraculous year, Cecilia Jarlskog of Lund University, who is also a well-known historian on the Nobel Prize, gave a detailed account on the painful and often amusing account on the decision to award Einstein with the Nobel Prize. This is not just because Relativity (or SR in particular) was still controversial, but because of what the Nobel Prize charter dictates that is contained in Alfred Nobel's will. The excerpt of it for the physical science is as follows:

The words "discovery" and "invention" here are crucial. It is arguable if a theoretical description can be argued as a "discovery". It is certainly not an invention in the sense that we normally associate an invention for. This was a major dilemma that the Nobel committee had to wrestle with in deciding if what Einstein had done can be considered as a "discovery". It is why the photoelectric effect model that he formulated was chosen because it can be attached to the "discovery" of the photoelectric effect, i.e. providing a more complete understanding of the phenomenon.

Why am I telling this? You guys have been arguing about "theory" and such. It is clear from the history of the Nobel Prize in physics that theorists have a harder time in winning the Nobel prize on their own, not just because the nature of the verification of any theoretical ideas, but also due to the Nobel Prize charter. This is why many theorists won their prizes alongside experimentalists for their explanation of a particular phenomenon (example: Laughlin alongside the experimentalists who discovered the fractional quantum hall effect). When theorists won it by themselves, it is often for a major theoretical formulation of an existing phenomenon, and can be considered as part of the "discovery" of that phenomenon (example: superconductivity and BCS theory).

So if one goes back to the original question, that part of Nobel's will that I quoted are technically the ONLY criteria for winning the Nobel Prize. However, that doesn't mean anyone or anything can. The nominating body (and one should look at the Nobel website to see who or what can do the nomination) are the only group of people who can nominate, and you need just ONE nomination to be considered.

Zz.

T.O.E Dream

I have another question. Is an explanation to a phenomena considered a theory, or would it be just be like a research paper.

T.O.E Dream

Wait, on wikipedia it says the explanation to a phenomena is a theory, so i think i got my answer.