Register to reply

Greatest scientists who never won a nobel prize

by fourier jr
Tags: greatest, nobel, prize, scientists
Share this thread:
f95toli
#19
Jan11-10, 02:57 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
f95toli's Avatar
P: 2,241
Quote Quote by Matterwave View Post
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.
cragar
#20
Jan11-10, 07:26 AM
P: 2,466
Nikola Tesla , Philo Farnsworth inventer of the TV and the fusor .
rolerbe
#21
Jan11-10, 09:46 AM
P: 104
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...
Matterwave
#22
Jan11-10, 11:33 AM
Sci Advisor
Matterwave's Avatar
P: 2,725
Quote Quote by f95toli View Post
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).
DrClapeyron
#23
Jan11-10, 12:25 PM
P: 128
How about Norman Bowen?
qedprigmosyno
#24
Jan11-10, 11:27 PM
P: 27
psh, can we consider really old scientists?
Gauss, Newton, Euclid :)
mheslep
#25
Jan13-10, 11:29 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
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.
cragar
#26
Jan13-10, 11:52 AM
P: 2,466
Fred Hoyle , George Gamow, Daniel Bernoulli , Michael Faraday , Joseph Louis Lagrange
jtbell
#27
Jan13-10, 12:22 PM
Mentor
jtbell's Avatar
P: 11,628
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.
CRGreathouse
#28
Jan13-10, 12:29 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,684
Quote Quote by mynameinc View Post
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.
noblegas
#29
Jan13-10, 12:47 PM
P: 386
Quote Quote by CRGreathouse View Post
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 definetely. 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
Jimmy Snyder
#30
Jan13-10, 01:13 PM
P: 2,179
Quote Quote by Matterwave View Post
Otherwise, Brownian motion was discovered by him too.
Actually, that was Brown.
Quote Quote by wiki
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.
wiki, and therefor unreliable
hamster143
#31
Jan13-10, 01:32 PM
P: 986
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
MotoH
#32
Jan13-10, 02:01 PM
P: 237
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"
czelaya
#33
Jan13-10, 02:19 PM
P: 72
Quote Quote by hamster143 View Post
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.
hamster143
#34
Jan13-10, 03:24 PM
P: 986
Quote Quote by czelaya View Post
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...arity_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.
rewebster
#35
Jan13-10, 09:19 PM
P: 880
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
cragar
#36
Jan14-10, 12:40 PM
P: 2,466
The only reason Einstein didn't get a Nobel for relativity is because it was way over the head of the committee and they gave him one for the photoelectric effect because he had a nice experiment to show how it worked and a nice data table . And someone told the committee you better give him a prize for the photoelectric effect or your look like fools .


Register to reply

Related Discussions
CIA rigged at least one Nobel Prize Current Events 2
Nobel prize for math General Math 3
Nobel Prize in Physics General Physics 4
Nobel prize General Discussion 1