What is the significance of the 2016 Nobel Prize in Physics?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the significance of the 2016 Nobel Prize in Physics, specifically focusing on the contributions made in the field of condensed matter physics. Participants explore the implications of the awarded findings, their accessibility, and their educational value.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the interesting aspects of the findings, indicating a lack of clarity from the official press release.
  • Another participant suggests that the explanations provided on the Nobel Prize website are beneficial, noting the existence of both an "easy" and a more technical explanation.
  • A different participant expresses that assessing the value of the work is challenging without a detailed understanding, highlighting that the practical value of a theory may depend on its comprehensibility and its place in educational curricula.
  • There is a mention of an existing thread on the same topic, which leads to the closure of the current discussion thread.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the significance of the findings, with some expressing uncertainty about their value and others pointing to available resources for better understanding.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential difficulty in grasping the specialized material and the implications this has for educational focus and curriculum development.

ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
Well, this was awarded to Condensed matter physics this year, so I think this is the appropriate thread to post my question...
So far I've only read through the official site's press release ( https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2016/press.html ), however it is still unclear to me what is so interesting or amazing about their finding?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you read the explanations on the website? There are two, one "easy" and one aimed at people with a background in physics (not so easy).
Both are quite good.
 
Without actually reading through their work in detail (and it would probably be rather difficult to get a really good understanding of it) , it is somewhat difficult to give a good assessment of its value. In some ways, the practical value of a theory depends on how readily it can be understood, and whether it can be taught as part of the standard curriculum. Some of the material can be so specialized that it takes a tremendous investment to try to understand it, and it can detract from time that could be spent learning other things that are less specialized.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
11K
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
14K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
33
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
4K