Nobel Prize in Physics 2026 predictions

[pines-demon]

As in 2024 and 2025, here is the 2026 thread. As indicated by various sources it is getting increasingly difficult to predict the laureates. So here I aggregate different sources and comment them until 2026 Nobel Week.

You can also leave your prediction here.

Here are the predictions of 2025 that did not make it (note only 3 can win at a time):

• Peter Shor, David Deutch, Daniel Loss, David DiVincenzo, Artur Ekert, Jianwei Pan, Peter Zoller, Ignacio Cirac, Gilles Brassard, Charles Bennet, Yasunobu Nakamura, John Preskill, Alexei Kitaev and more for quantum computing and quantum information
• Yakir Aharonov and Michael Berry (and maybe also Alexei Kitaev again) for geometrical phases (various sources)
• Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald, Rafi Bistritzer and Eva Andrei for magic angle in twisted graphene and twistronics (various sources)
• Christoph Gerber, Franz Josef Giessibl and Andreas J. Heinrich for the atomic force microscope (various sources)
• John Pendry, Federico Capasso, David R. Smith and Andrea Alù for metamaterials and nanophotonics (various sources)
• Lene Hau, Stephen E. Harris, Mikhail Lukin, Kosmas Tsakmakidis and Ortwin Hess for slow light, electromagnetically induced transparency and rainbow trapping (various sources including PF)
• Hidetoshi Katori and Jun Ye for optical lattice clocks (University of Gothenburg predictions)
• Alan Guth, Andrei Linde and Paul Steinhardt for cosmic inflation (Physics World)
• James P. Eisenstein, Mordehai Heiblum, Jainendra K. Jain for 2D correlated electron systems (Wolf Prize 2025)
• Ingrid Daubechies, Stéphane Mallat and Yves Meyer for wavelet theory (Clarivate Physics 2025)
• Ewine van Dishoeck for astrochemistry research (Clarivate Physics 2025)

No 2026 Wolf Prize before this year's Nobel Prize. Tune in for 2026 Clarivate Laureates predictions at the end of September.

 

[pines-demon]

Just for the fun, yesterday there was the Ig Nobel awards. For physics we have:

• Randy Hurd, Zhao Pan, Tadd Truscott, Kaveeshan Thurairajah for theoretical and experimental attempts to design a splash-free urinal. Comment here: https://arstechnica.com/science/202...spired-optimal-design-for-splash-free-urinal/

 

[starfractal]

As in 2024 and 2025, here is the 2026 thread. As indicated by various sources it is getting increasingly difficult to predict the laureates. So here I aggregate different sources and comment them until 2026 Nobel Week.

You can also leave your prediction here.

Here are the predictions of 2025 that did not make it (note only 3 can win at a time):

• Peter Shor, David Deutch, Daniel Loss, David DiVincenzo, Artur Ekert, Jianwei Pan, Peter Zoller, Ignacio Cirac, Gilles Brassard, Charles Bennet, Yasunobu Nakamura, John Preskill, Alexei Kitaev and more for quantum computing and quantum information
• Yakir Aharonov and Michael Berry (and maybe also Alexei Kitaev again) for geometrical phases (various sources)
• Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald, Rafi Bistritzer and Eva Andrei for magic angle in twisted graphene and twistronics (various sources)
• Christoph Gerber, Franz Josef Giessibl and Andreas J. Heinrich for the atomic force microscope (various sources)
• John Pendry, Federico Capasso, David R. Smith and Andrea Alù for metamaterials and nanophotonics (various sources)
• Lene Hau, Stephen E. Harris, Mikhail Lukin, Kosmas Tsakmakidis and Ortwin Hess for slow light, electromagnetically induced transparency and rainbow trapping (various sources including PF)
• Hidetoshi Katori and Jun Ye for optical lattice clocks (University of Gothenburg predictions)
• Alan Guth, Andrei Linde and Paul Steinhardt for cosmic inflation (Physics World)
• James P. Eisenstein, Mordehai Heiblum, Jainendra K. Jain for 2D correlated electron systems (Wolf Prize 2025)
• Ingrid Daubechies, Stéphane Mallat and Yves Meyer for wavelet theory (Clarivate Physics 2025)
• Ewine van Dishoeck for astrochemistry research (Clarivate Physics 2025)

No 2026 Wolf Prize before this year's Nobel Prize. Tune in for 2026 Clarivate Laureates predictions at the end of September.

Pendry, Smith an Alu are being touted as potential Nobel Prize winners based, in no small part, on the alleged metamaterial invention of the invisibility cloak. This focuses back to the Nov 2006 Science paper on same. However, that device failed as an invisibility cloak and did not hide the object. Smith's own follow up with Kuntdz and Duke colleagues attempted to replicate the Science paper result and found a substantial shadow caused by the device--no hiding from a shadow! The total scattering reduction was only 24% (1.2 dB) over 2.3 percent bandwidth. That data was published in 2010 and is easily found on the web. Alu did some interesting experiments on cloaking devices in 2009 but was preceded by Cohen, who successfully and first demonstrated the invisibility cloak and received the patent for the invention. That data is also available and that story was detailed at length in the January 2015 Microwave Journal, also easily found on the web.

 

[berkeman]

The three leading candidates according to what? And why is his disclaimer still there?

The three leading candidates as of now are:

1. Eugene Mele known for the theory of topological insulators and quantum spin hall effect (chances 97%)
2. Alexei Kitaev for many topological related stuff including quantum computing research (30 %)
3. John Preskill for quantum computing research (20%)

The fact that Mele went so high in the last couple days might mean that there is a leak (which would not be the first time for the Nobel).

Unusual researchers that have already some bets include: David Charbonneau and Sara Seager for exoplanetary research, also Marc Davis, Carlos Frenk and Simon White for Frenk-Navarro-White profile and dark matter formation.

Disclaimer: I don't advise anybody to bet as it is highly risky. Also these platforms are illegal in some countries.

 

[loop quantum gravity]

David Deutsch no brainer.


Though I am not into Everett's interpretation...
I am more into Copenhagen mystical collapse and Mermin's "shut up and...".

 

[pines-demon]

The three leading candidates according to what? And why is his disclaimer still there?

Sorry the link was not allowed here and was edited by admins. Please ignore that.

 

[pines-demon]

Pendry, Smith an Alu are being touted as potential Nobel Prize winners based, in no small part, on the alleged metamaterial invention of the invisibility cloak. This focuses back to the Nov 2006 Science paper on same. However, that device failed as an invisibility cloak and did not hide the object. Smith's own follow up with Kuntdz and Duke colleagues attempted to replicate the Science paper result and found a substantial shadow caused by the device--no hiding from a shadow! The total scattering reduction was only 24% (1.2 dB) over 2.3 percent bandwidth. That data was published in 2010 and is easily found on the web. Alu did some interesting experiments on cloaking devices in 2009 but was preceded by Cohen, who successfully and first demonstrated the invisibility cloak and received the patent for the invention. That data is also available and that story was detailed at length in the January 2015 Microwave Journal, also easily found on the web.

which Cohen?

 

[starfractal]

See for example: https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/23631-wideband-omnidirectional-microwave-cloaking

 

[renormalize]

which Cohen?

I believe that starfractal refers to Nathan Cohen and his fractal invisibility cloak. For a recent summary see:
Scientist-Inventor Denies Reverse Engineering of Invisibility Cloak.
(It's possible that starfractal is tooting his own horn in post #3.)

 

[gentzen]

• Yakir Aharonov and Michael Berry (and maybe also Alexei Kitaev again) for geometrical phases (various sources)

I would love that one, because … well, Aharonov and his academic lineage deserve it

 

[pines-demon]

I would love that one, because … well, Aharonov and his academic lineage deserve it

Aharonov has been a favorite since at least 2009, now he is 94

 

[pines-demon]

MDPI just launched a contest for people to predict the Nobel Prize 2026: Prediction of the 2026 Nobel Laureates and win 100 CHF voucher for the MDPI Video Service.

Note that MDPI is noted for its lack of rigor and predatory practices (according to Wikipedia).

 

[starfractal]

Michael Berry is more than deserving. IMO he is the likely pick of three.

In addition to his 'phases' work he has undertaken several new avenues in physics. For me that is most notable for his work in 'diffractals' ( diffraction on fractals).

 

[starfractal]

I believe that starfractal refers to Nathan Cohen and his fractal invisibility cloak. For a recent summary see:
Scientist-Inventor Denies Reverse Engineering of Invisibility Cloak.
(It's possible that starfractal is tooting his own horn in post #3.)

Then again, in the absence of data to support your statement, Ockham's Razor says 'starfractal' published a statement of record to make sure the facts are face-forward. You speculation on motive is false. Starfractal is correcting you on that.

Schurig, Pendry and Smith did not 'invent the invisibility cloak'. They made a device that did not hide objects. It had s substantial shadow. It did make modest perturbations in the direction of waves around an object. Nathan Kundtz et al did a follow up of virtually the same experiment and concluded that the scattering reduction was only 24% over 2.3 percent bandwidth. That's a 1.2 dB change... and no uncertainties estimated.... 0.5 dB? 0.5 dB? 1 dB?

By analogy, an airplane has to be able to fly to be an airplane. An invisibility cloak has to substantially hide an object to be an invisibility cloak.

And a submarine, again by analogy, is not a submarine if it only submerges by 24 percent...

Do not confuse the interesting theoretical formulation on covariance by Pendry and Smith ('transformational optics') with the unsuccessful effort to demonstrate an 'invisibility cloak' in the October 2006 Science paper by Schurig et al.

'First invisibility cloak experiment'. That's not the same as the claimed 'first experimental invisibility cloak'.

The Schurig Pendry and Smith device did not cloak.

 

[renormalize]

I believe that starfractal refers to Nathan Cohen and his fractal invisibility cloak. For a recent summary see:
Scientist-Inventor Denies Reverse Engineering of Invisibility Cloak.
(It's possible that starfractal is tooting his own horn in post #3.)

Then again, in the absence of data to support your statement, Ockham's Razor says 'starfractal' published a statement of record to make sure the facts are face-forward. You speculation on motive is false. Starfractal is correcting you on that.

Thanks for the correction.
To resolve this, please answer a direct question: are the posts on Physics Forums by "starfractal" authored by, or on behalf of, Nathan "Chip" Cohen himself and/or his firm Fractal Antenna Systems?

 

[starfractal]

Thanks for the correction.
To resolve this, please answer a direct question: are the posts on Physics Forums by "starfractal" authored by, or on behalf of, Nathan "Chip" Cohen himself and/or his firm Fractal Antenna Systems?

Post #3 states facts not boast. No one is taking up brass here.

Starfractal is a person. I am a physicist. I have posted elsewhere on the forum saying who I am. I am in a position to deny your conjectorial statement and am doing so. Statements of fact are more than compelling in correcting an historical error.

IF metamaterials are awarded the Nobel, then it should be for 'progress in metamaterials and transformational optics' without a false suggestion or assertion of invention of the invisibility cloak . None of the people listed invented the invisibility cloak (although plenty of web links make that claim) as none of their work can be claimed as a 'first' in substantially hiding an object at some spectral regime.

Now: please get back to the topic at hand. As for me, I believe Michael Berry and colleagues are the prime candidates for this year's Nobel. Cheers.

 

[pines-demon]

IF metamaterials are awarded the Nobel, then it should be for 'progress in metamaterials and transformational optics' without a false suggestion or assertion of invention of the invisibility cloak .

Nobel statements usually are ambiguous, don't worry.

 

[starfractal]

Nobel statements usually are ambiguous, don't worry.

Actually that is not always true. And the Nobels have a very murky history on properly awarding 'inventions' in their defined 'discovery and inventions' mission.

Dr. Ray Damaidian is a more recent example: he invented the first MRI and they gave the Medicine and Physiology Prize to his also-ran competitors. Better to just take the invisibility cloak out of the (potential) mix. Its a dangerous Pandora's Box anyway. Believe me, I have wrestled with that and still do. Cheers.

 

[renormalize]

To resolve this, please answer a direct question: are the posts on Physics Forums by "starfractal" authored by, or on behalf of, Nathan "Chip" Cohen himself and/or his firm Fractal Antenna Systems?

Post #3 states facts not boast. No one is taking up brass here.
Starfractal is a person. I am a physicist. I have posted elsewhere on the forum saying who I am. I am in a position to deny your conjectorial statement and am doing so. Statements of fact are more than compelling in correcting an historical error.

Per your suggestion, I searched for and found starfractal's introductory post that answers my question.
Thank you for confirming your identity.

 

[starfractal]

Per your suggestion, I searched for and found starfractal's introductory post that answers my question.
Thank you for confirming your identity.

My pleasure. Ad Astra per Aspera.

 

[starfractal]

MDPI just launched a contest for people to predict the Nobel Prize 2026: Prediction of the 2026 Nobel Laureates and win 100 CHF voucher for the MDPI Video Service.

Note that MDPI is noted for its lack of rigor and predatory practices (according to Wikipedia).

Sheesh. Can we just concentrate on objective reality please? I've been around long enough to be able to present every one of our elite and pure institutions--journals or otherwise-- as being fallible. If you want to pick on one, you need to pick on all. There's a BIG world out there besides PRL and NATURE and science ain't Sheldon Cooper;-)

I read MDPI pubs all the time. I question every single paper I read: MDPI or not. BTW the phrases you are looking for are:" asserted and not shown"; "lack of rigor"; "trivial". My favorite is: "phenomenologically vacuous". These are tasty word salads reviewers use to try to reject MS's. I know: I've been a managing editor of a peer-reviewed journal.

 

[Arioch33]

Simon White has been mentioned. In my view, he deserves it not (just) for the Navarro-Frenk-White, but much more for his work with Martin Rees on galaxy formation. This could also tie nicely with Volker Springel to encompass building of massive N-body/hydro cosmological simulations which have created a couple of entirely new fields of astrophysics (as well as gaming ;p).

 

[Arioch33]

Another heretical thought: since the Nobel has literally never been awarded for *the real* geophysics (Appleton and the atmospheric stuff come close, but no cigar), maybe it's time for people studying important stuff like plate tectonics, volcanology, seismology, etc. Peter Shearer would be an obvious choice, and perhaps Hiroo Kanamori of Caltech.