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

The 2014 Nobel Prize in physics

Tags:
  1. Oct 6, 2014 #1

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    ... will be announced tomorrow, October 7. Does anyone want to make a guess as to who it will be, or which field?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 6, 2014 #2
    Oh exciting! I have no prediction, but I would like to see a prize in Biophysics at some point.
     
  4. Oct 6, 2014 #3

    DataGG

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Are all the Nobel prizes announced tomorrow, or just physics?
     
  5. Oct 6, 2014 #4

    TumblingDice

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  6. Oct 6, 2014 #5

    TumblingDice

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I read an opinion that the area of neutrino oscillations is prime real estate. Coincidence that I read PeterDonis commenting that a PF post is out-of-date, mentioning neutrinos as an example of "massless particles"...?

    So maybe Takaaki Kajita, who devised the detection method for the Super-Kamiokande experiment in Japan, or Art McDonald, who led the SNO project in Canada.

    I didn't really want to make a guess, but maybe this breaks the ice!
     
  7. Oct 6, 2014 #6

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In the context of neutrinos - that would be quite unfortunate for the IceCube.
     
  8. Oct 6, 2014 #7
    I am hoping for BICEP-2 but don't think it will win as there are still kinks to work out.
    Rubin might finally get the long due Nobel though, which would more than make up for BICEP2.
     
  9. Oct 6, 2014 #8
    Wee my university got the '14 nobel prize in medicine!
     
  10. Oct 6, 2014 #9

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Clauser, Aspect, Zeilinger
     
  11. Oct 6, 2014 #10
    Looking forward to the announcement!
     
  12. Oct 6, 2014 #11
    Do you know where I can watch this in the internet, if I can(god I'm excited:) )? I missed it last time. Ah yes I missed the post above,sorry for the useless post.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2014
  13. Oct 6, 2014 #12

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Last edited: Oct 6, 2014
  14. Oct 6, 2014 #13
    When does it start in english time?
     
  15. Oct 7, 2014 #14

    dlgoff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  16. Oct 7, 2014 #15
    Little boring if you ask me.
     
  17. Oct 7, 2014 #16

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Boring, but shiny!
     
  18. Oct 7, 2014 #17

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Boring??? I'm sure they don't give out Nobel prizes for being boring. This does not only affect the light bulb above the kitchen table, it's a benefit for society and is influencing the progress of science itself. Because of the blue LED discovery I can live-image biological processes, without overheating the sample.. to just name a personal example :)
     
  19. Oct 7, 2014 #18
    Well deserved! Colleagues invented something very useful :)
     
  20. Oct 7, 2014 #19
    Very useful, yes. But it looks more like materials engineering than hard core physics.
     
  21. Oct 7, 2014 #20
    Well toilet brushes are very useful to society, but are still very boring. Then again I find most experimental stuff boring since at the end of the day experimentalists spend 95% of their time solving engineering problems, give or take.
     
  22. Oct 7, 2014 #21

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's just a limited world view, where would we be without toilets. But you're allowed to your opinion, it allows you to solve problems that others may find boring ;)
     
  23. Oct 7, 2014 #22

    collinsmark

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The transistor might not have been the flashiest of discoveries, but it is considered almost unanimously to be the most significant invention of the 20th century. Without that discovery you wouldn't be reading this thread right now because there would be no computers, no cell phones, no electronic-gadget-anything smaller than a vacuum tube.

    Blue LEDs are not in the same league as the transistor, but they will likely have a great impact on society regarding reduced energy consumption.

    (And technically, blue LEDs are "flashier" after all :) )

    There is a lot of engineering that goes into blue LED manufacturing, no mistake. But the discovery/invention does involve a lot of hard core, solid state physics.

    I took an optoelectronics class back in the mid '90s, soon after blue LEDs were first invented. It was an exciting time to take that class because physicists and engineers alike had been struggling to create a blue LED for decades. Some had even resigned/convinced themselves that it couldn't be done. So when it was accomplished, many were quite pleased at the accomplishment.

    We didn't go into the physics of blue LEDs in much detail in the class, since the invention was newer than our new textbooks (again, this was in the mid '90s). But we did touch on the subject. And as I remember it at the time, the quantum mechanics involved was not only pretty intense, but the method involved in getting the energy wells just right to create the desired bandgap was quite a clever idea. (I don't don't remember much more than the fact that it was unique and clever though.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2014
  24. Oct 8, 2014 #23
    Just remember, that a part of the original wording on nobel's will states "discovery or invention" with "great benefit for mankind". In light of this (pun intended) this years prize fits very well as it's an invention that will benefit a very large number of people. On the other hand the will doesn't say that it has to look like hard core physics ;)
     
  25. Oct 8, 2014 #24

    dlgoff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's funny how "things" are perceived early on. This is what was talked about when I was in college.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

    Not boring IMO.
     
  26. Oct 8, 2014 #25
    That is not true. We had computers without transistors. And even if we hypothesise for a second we do not have semiconductors at all, we cannot really say what other technology we could have developed by now.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook