Greatest scientists who never won a nobel prize

  • Thread starter Thread starter fourier jr
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nobel prize
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on notable scientists who have not received a Nobel Prize, highlighting figures such as Freeman Dyson, Lisa Meitner, and Henrietta Swan Leavitt. Participants debate the criteria for Nobel recognition, emphasizing that the prize is awarded for significant discoveries rather than overall scientific merit. Key examples include the contributions of Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Julian Schwinger, and Richard P. Feynman in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), and the lack of awards in theoretical General Relativity, despite significant contributions from scientists like Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)
  • Familiarity with the Nobel Prize criteria and history
  • Knowledge of theoretical physics concepts, particularly General Relativity
  • Awareness of significant historical figures in physics, such as Einstein and Maxwell
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the contributions of Freeman Dyson to quantum field theory
  • Explore the significance of the Aharonov-Bohm effect in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate the historical context and impact of Nobel Prize omissions in physics
  • Learn about the advancements in theoretical physics post-1901 and their recognition
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, historians of science, and anyone interested in the impact of Nobel Prize omissions on scientific recognition and legacy.

  • #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
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #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
 
  • #36
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 .
 
  • #37
jimmysnyder said:
Actually, that was Brown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion"

I'm sorry, I meant describe mathematically, or model mathematically, or made known or w/e he did, not discover. lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
Benoît Paul Émile Clapeyron, need I say more?
 
  • #39
Matterwave said:
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.

Wasn't Heisenberg working for the Nazi's too? Wasn't this the reason the relationship between Heisenberg and Bohr broke down?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
14K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K