Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is there any qns that worth a nobel?

  1. May 16, 2004 #1
    wondering if there is any field that needs a revolution in theory..thanks
  2. jcsd
  3. May 16, 2004 #2
    the earth...
  4. May 16, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    If you can derive some of the parameters that are currently hand-fed into the Standard Model, and do so in a believable way, you would probably get a phone call from Stockholm.
  5. May 16, 2004 #4
    Nice! Short, sweet and to the point.
  6. May 16, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    That is less likely to occur than finding the theory of high-Tc superconductors! :) That is one of the few "holy grails" of physics today.

    I'll even go out on a limb and predict that Anton Zeilinger would one day win the Nobel Prize. I already got it right (by about 5 years) for both Abrikosov and Leggett. :)

  7. May 16, 2004 #6
    how abt another a paper on theory of probability? based on a universe m0del?
  8. May 16, 2004 #7
    What's MBR?
  9. May 16, 2004 #8
    can anyone define mBR?
  10. May 17, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Maybe the Shield Medal for that, not the Nobel...

    I'm not so sure about the Nobel for High Tc SC though - there's been a lot of Nobels given to that area and last year saw the 3 laureates come from that same field, though Leggett also worked on He3, and other stuff. If tomorrow, you had a theoretical model for the pseudogap that explained all the NMR and ARPES data and was nice, that might still not get you the Nobel.
  11. May 17, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I wouldn't be so sure. Several years ago, a survey of physicists included the theory of high-Tc superconductors on par with finding the Higgs boson as one of the Holy Grails of physics. Keep in mind that this is THE theory of superconductivity, not just explanation for the pseudogap and other gap symmetries that we have observed. So this would be something equivalent to the BCS theory for the cuprates. This is monumental because such a theory would transcend beyond the boundary of superconductivty since this this certainly encompass the whole field of strongly-correlated systems.

    I also do not think a Nobel prize for this theory would be awarded anytime soon. First of all, someone or some group would have to come up with one, and unless I've been unconscious for the past few years, we are FAR from having one as of today. Secondly, the gestation period for a theory to be accepted and it's originator to be awarded the Nobel Prize is, on average, about 10 years or more (BCS theory was published in 1957 and B, C, and S received their Nobel Prizes in 1972!). So I wouldn't hold my breath about this Nobel prize even if we have a theory for high Tc superconductor tomorrow.

    On a related but separate note, I always cringe whenever a discussion of physics migrated to anything resembling the idea of doing work in physics with an eye on winning some prizes, especially the Nobel prize. If one goes into this field to win some recognition, popularity, etc., then I can immediately say that one is going into it for the wrong reason. Physics is simply too difficult and too long of an arduous process. One can easily get discourage if one does it for the wrong reasons. I'm not saying that this is the case in this thread. But I want to be certain that as far as I know after working in this field for this long, that the idea of winning some prize is something that is the furthest from the minds of the physicists that I work with or the physicists that I encounter. Especially with experimentalists, there are certainly no glamorous thoughts running through our minds when we're crawling on our hands and knees under vacuum lines at 3:00 am looking for a leak! I can say without hesitation that most of us who are in this field cannot imagine ourselves doing anything else. We certainly did not go into this looking for the next "Nobel Prize" quality problems to solve.

  12. May 17, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    a quantum theory of spacetime

    presentday quantum field theory is incompatible with General Relativity (the prevailing model of spacetime). it will take a revolution to merge QM with GR and arrive at a quantum general relativity---ideas about space and time will probably have to change fundamentally.
    you may have seen the article by Lee Smolin in the January 2004 issue of Scientific American. It is not a bad introduction to this area of research. "Atoms of Space and Time" was the title.
    Last edited: May 17, 2004
  13. May 18, 2004 #12
    if the world is to come up with a theory that is of realistic and importance as GR. How will the approval be like? There must be some experiment to verify it rite..
  14. May 18, 2004 #13
    Why don't you concentrate on doing the work rather than trying to get a stupid prize? Maybe you have not read about the endless plagues that comes with public notority especially with these pesty mistakes by Alfred Nobel
  15. May 19, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    yes there must be experimental testing and verification
    or else testing by astronomical observations

    when there is a quantum version of GR this will probably be a revolution equal in magnitude to GR in 1915 and Quantum Mechanics in 1925
    because it will change the conception of space and time (they will be quantized and geometry will be quantized, on very small scale)

    these are my own personal opinions, not fact

    the planck length will probably be recognized as a constant (like the speed of light) which is the same to all observers

    field theories will probably be rewritten so as to be independent of prior background geometry

    so there will be revolution in theoretical physics----quantum GR---which was your first question

    this is happening now but I do not believe anyone can see what it will be like, because the theory is not yet discovered----there are only partial incomplete theories struggling to grow consistent and complete.

    your second question is how will the new quantum GR theory be tested, proven, verified

    this can only be in the customary way of Science----it must make predictions and they must be verified by observation and experiment

    for some kinds of quantum gravity (versions of Loop or Spinfoam) a test has been proposed by observing GammaRay Bursts (GRB) by a satellite observatory called GLAST scheduled to orbit in 2007.
    However the money for GLAST may be cut from the budget. Or other things can go wrong. Also LQG and Spinfoam theories of quantum gravity are unfinished theories. Observation could help them develop and mature but cannot yet provide a final test of validity.

    the testing of physical theories is called "Phenomenology", it is a useful branch of research----to find out what the best experiments are to perform
    to make the toughest possible test of theories. there is a new field called
    "Quantum Gravity Phenomenology"

    you can look at http://arxiv.org
    and select search
    and search for journal articles using those keywords and you will find
    recent QG phenomenology papers

    the real tests are probably more than 10 years away. I cannot say when because the future is completely unguessable (when one is talking about major revolution scientific theory) at least AFAIK.
    Last edited: May 19, 2004
  16. May 20, 2004 #15
    Hmmm, I have been thinking of the essay by Einstein entitled as " Motivations of explorations". If science is the altar, then we are supposed to be faithful believers. However, all through my life, I have not seen anyone who meets with this standard. I do research for the intellectual pleasure. But it is wrong indeed to go just for a prize. Will the enthusiasm sustain? I have great doubt. Meanwhile, how about the quantum measurement theory? I believe if one can raise a coherent and complete measurement theory that can be demonstrated in experiments, that would be indeed a marvel.
  17. May 20, 2004 #16
    Do it for fun.
  18. May 23, 2004 #17
    I'd just like to mention that that sounds like a lot of fun.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook