Gravitational waves: who gets the Nobel Prize?

In summary, the deadline for nominations for the 2016 Nobel Prize was the end of January, and three gents - Ronald Drever, Kip Thorne, and Rainer Weiss - are in line for the prize.
  • #1
A/4
56
3
The deadline for nominations for the 2016 Nobel Prize was the end of January. Since the detection and peer-review of the paper was most certainly done beforehand, who do you think is in line for the 2016 Nobel? My bets are on the three gents who spoke/got mention this morning in Washington:

Rainer Weiss, Kip Thorne, and Ronald Drever

Your votes?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Too early. They need to wait for consensus. Several years, maybe, but not very long, I think. As to who, that is problematic with these large teams. However, your guess is certainly reasonable.
 
  • #3
I agree that this is too early. Suppose in a few years time we see hundreds of these events, all freakishly loud, but only from LIGO, and none from the other experiments. Further suppose that these events are clustered in time and do not look Poisson. If that's how things evolve (not my guess, but not impossible either) people will draw a different conclusion about yesterday.
 
  • #4
Since neither someone from the CMS or ATLAS collaboration was awarded a Nobel Prize, I cannot see why one would defend a Nobel Prize for someone from LIGO.
 
  • #5
eXorikos said:
Since neither someone from the CMS or ATLAS collaboration was awarded a Nobel Prize, I cannot see why one would defend a Nobel Prize for someone from LIGO.

By that logic, the Nobel would go to Einstein, but he's dead. So I agree with the OP - Thorne, Weiss, and Drever. They conceived of LIGO and helped drive it to reality.
 
  • #6
PAllen said:
Too early. They need to wait for consensus. Several years, maybe, but not very long, I think. As to who, that is problematic with these large teams. However, your guess is certainly reasonable.

But there was consensus: the Hanford and Livingston labs independently observed the signal. Sure, they're both LIGO, but they are separate detectors. Replication of the result isn't quite the same here as with, say, observing the Higgs boson. By the way, there is another detection that has been made. It was in December or so, and they're still vetting the data. I haven't heard any other specifics (i.e. whether it was a merger, burst, or pulsar signal), but the earlier rumors that there was more than one signal are true.
 
  • #7
A/4 said:
But there was consensus: the Hanford and Livingston labs independently observed the signal. Sure, they're both LIGO, but they are separate detectors. Replication of the result isn't quite the same here as with, say, observing the Higgs boson. By the way, there is another detection that has been made. It was in December or so, and they're still vetting the data. I haven't heard any other specifics (i.e. whether it was a merger, burst, or pulsar signal), but the earlier rumors that there was more than one signal are true.
A consensus among scientists that the measurement and interpretation is valid. That can take many forms (e.g. no one is going to build another LHC to independently verify the Higgs detection), but it takes time. In his case, IMO, further detections, plus time for outsiders to review the data and analysis would suffice.
 
  • #8
PAllen said:
A consensus among scientists that the measurement and interpretation is valid. That can take many forms (e.g. no one is going to build another LHC to independently verify the Higgs detection), but it takes time. In his case, IMO, further detections, plus time for outsiders to review the data and analysis would suffice.

It's a tricky case. For the Higgs, there were tons of events that contained the resonance, and it was verified by two competing experiments. In this case, there was only one lab that could possibly have observed it, but the same signal was seen by two different detectors. The data was analyzed with excruciating detail. One thing LIGO does is to internally peer-review their papers before going to the journals. So, there's already a tiered system of verification. But at the end of the day, you can't argue with a 5.1 \sigma match to the merger template (well, you could, but I doubt LIGO would have let it out if there was even the slightest doubt -- see OPERA and BICEP2...).

I can't remember if LIGO is sensitive enough to pick up the waves from the Taylor-Hulse pulsar, but that could be another form of "verification".
 
  • #9
As an undergrad, I fed liquid nitrogen to a "Nobel prize-winning" experiment that was located at the bottom of a salt mine ... or so it seemed that it would be at the time. After a few years, the result disappeared, as understanding and analysis of detector-response gradually evolved.

I strongly believe that this will not happen here, but this cautionary tale shows that we do need more results, and other eyes looking at the data.
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
  • #10
phyzguy said:
By that logic, the Nobel would go to Einstein, but he's dead. So I agree with the OP - Thorne, Weiss, and Drever. They conceived of LIGO and helped drive it to reality.
As if rewarding a Nobel Prize is a MUST.
 
  • #11
A/4 said:
But there was consensus

No, that's called coincidence. A time-honored technique - got the 1954 Nobel prize in physics. The LIGO experiment looks for a coincidence between two interferometers. The signal is the coincidence. They don't confirm themselves.

The Higgs had two different experiments with different technologies. This protects against the possibility of a spurious signal. The other experiments all use different mirror supports. Again, that protects against the possibility of a spurious signal, because only one design is likely to see it.
 
  • #12
A/4 said:
but I doubt LIGO would have let it out if there was even the slightest doubt -- see OPERA and BICEP2...

Why not? OPERA and BICEP2 let it out. OPERA's problem was one of message discipline - it does no good to say in public "we need some help understanding the effect" but to have collaborators saying privately "it's real". Had the collaborators claiming discovery kept their mouths shut, the story would be "experiment saw something unusual, asked for help, got it, and the effect went away." The problem was that they tried to have it both ways, and they were widely and IMO correctly criticized for that.

BICEP is more relevant. Yes, they were looking at a bad patch of sky. But their paper explained exactly where they looked, why they looked there, and what they saw. Nothing wrong with that. It turned out not to be a good place to look, but nobody knew that at the time, and they were completely up front about what they did.
 
  • #14
If Kip Thorne wins the Nobel Prize, John Wheeler will have supervised the PhDs of two Nobel Prize winners; he also supervised the PhD of Feynman.

Has anyone supervised the PhDs of two or more Nobel Prize-winning physicists?
 
  • #15
Arnold Sommerfeld supervised Bethe, Debye, Heisenberg, Pauli and Pauling. Enrico Fermi supervised TD Lee, Rainwater, Steinberger, and CN Yang.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #16
A/4 said:
The deadline for nominations for the 2016 Nobel Prize was the end of January. Since the detection and peer-review of the paper was most certainly done beforehand, who do you think is in line for the 2016 Nobel? My bets are on the three gents who spoke/got mention this morning in Washington:

Rainer Weiss, Kip Thorne, and Ronald Drever

Your votes?
It should have been given to Einstein nearly 100 years ago. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #17
A/4 said:
My bets are on the three gents who spoke/got mention this morning in Washington:

Rainer Weiss, Kip Thorne, and Ronald Drever

If a Nobel is eventually awarded for LIGO, those three are who I would expect to get it. But I think, as others have said, that it would be premature to award it in 2016.
 
  • #18
samalkhaiat said:
It should have been given to Einstein nearly 100 years ago. :smile:
That they didn't do because of philosophical quibbles concerning the treatment of time in both special and general relativity. The most influential "anti Einsteinian" at the time was Henri Bergson, who is nearly forgotten completely (on my opinion rightfully, but that's also a prejudice against philosophical speculations unrestricted by empirical facts ;-)). So ironically Einstein got the Nobel prize for the only theory of his which is not valid anymore today ("old quantum theory").
 
  • #19
A/4 said:
you can't argue with a 5.1 \sigma match to the merger template

Against all the odds, http://bit.ly/1Q86PsU [Broken] argues a little bit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Vanadium 50 said:
Arnold Sommerfeld supervised Bethe, Debye, Heisenberg, Pauli and Pauling. Enrico Fermi supervised TD Lee, Rainwater, Steinberger, and CN Yang.
JJ Thompson supervised an awesome 8 laureates. To round out his holdings Nobels were awarded to both him and his son George.
 

1. How are gravitational waves detected?

Gravitational waves are detected using a device called a interferometer, which measures changes in the distance between two points caused by the passing of a gravitational wave. This is done by using lasers and mirrors to detect changes in the interference patterns of the light.

2. Who discovered gravitational waves?

Gravitational waves were first predicted by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity in 1916. However, they were not directly detected until 2015 by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) team, which consisted of scientists from multiple countries.

3. How do gravitational waves contribute to our understanding of the universe?

Gravitational waves provide a new way to observe and study the universe. They can give us information about the properties of objects such as black holes and neutron stars, and also help us understand the evolution of the universe and its large-scale structure.

4. Who is eligible to receive the Nobel Prize for gravitational waves?

The Nobel Prize for gravitational waves can be awarded to any individual or group who has made significant contributions to the field of gravitational wave research. This can include scientists, engineers, and other researchers from any country.

5. How many Nobel Prizes have been awarded for gravitational waves?

As of 2021, there have been three Nobel Prizes awarded for gravitational wave research. In 2017, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Rainer Weiss, Kip Thorne, and Barry Barish for their contributions to the first direct detection of gravitational waves. In 2020, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, and Andrea Ghez for their research on black holes, which indirectly supports the existence of gravitational waves.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
850
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
715
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
8
Views
3K
Back
Top