2017 Nobel Prize in Physics - Opinions and Expectations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around opinions and expectations regarding the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics, particularly focusing on the potential recognition of discoveries related to gravitational waves. Participants speculate on the contributions that may be honored, the likely recipients, and the significance of the discoveries in the context of physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that Kip Thorne and Rainer Weiss are likely candidates for the prize due to their work on gravitational waves.
  • There is a consensus among several participants that the detection of gravitational waves is the clear frontrunner for the prize, with discussions about the implications of this discovery.
  • One participant notes that the prize may be awarded for the detection technique rather than the underlying theory, as Einstein is no longer alive.
  • Speculation arises about a possible joint award distribution among Rainer Weiss, Kip Thorne, and Barry Barish, with discussions about their schedules following the announcement.
  • Some participants express excitement about the announcement and reflect on the significance of the detection of gravitational waves for astrophysics.
  • There are mentions of other deserving physicists and discussions about potential runner-ups for the prize.
  • One participant recalls a talk by Kip Thorne regarding the race between theory and experiment in gravitational wave detection.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that gravitational waves are the most likely topic for the prize, but there is no consensus on the specifics of the award distribution or other potential candidates.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions reference the timing of discoveries and the criteria for awarding the prize, highlighting the complexity of determining contributions in collaborative projects like LIGO.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in recent advancements in astrophysics, the Nobel Prize process, and the contributions of key figures in gravitational wave research may find this discussion relevant.

  • #31
Ygggdrasil said:
Nobel's will does not have any mention of limiting the prize to three individuals (if anything the language seems to limit it to one awardee for work done in the preceding year, which is definitely not how things are done now): https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/
Yes, I was reading the statutes of the Nobel foundation, sorry for the confusion.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
From section 4 of the statutes of the Nobel foundation:
Each prize-awarding body shall be competent to decide whether the prize it is entitled to award may be conferred upon an institution or association.
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/nobelfoundation/statutes.html

There is nothing stopping the foundation (except perhaps stubbornness) from awarding a science prize to an organization.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb
  • #33
ISamson said:
Hello,

The Nobel Prize in Physics is upcoming soon and I wanted to hear your opinions and expectations about some important discoveries or inventions which might end up receiving this most major prize in science. I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
Thanks.

This is a mind blowing achievement. The level of accuracy is astounding ( millionth of a meter!) Correction by mfb with thanks: one millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a meter. And to see their humble demeanor before announcing the discovery is the mark of admirable scientific attitude. And just to think that two black holes 1.3 billion light years away collided and caused such ripples only to be caught by laser beam reflectors today is a mind blowing achievement to say the least.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ISamson
  • #34
SciencewithDrJ said:
The level of accuracy is astounding (two millionth of a meter!)
A millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a meter. 0.000000000000000001 meters.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ISamson
  • #35
Ooops, yes, thanks for the correction.

It is one 10 thousands of the width of a proton, and a proton is 0.87 x 10 to the -15 power of a meter wide.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ISamson

Similar threads

  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
10K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
14K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K