Who should have been the 4th laureate in the Nobel Prize in Physics?

  • Context: History 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pines-demon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nobel prize
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion identifies notable physicists who were overlooked for the Nobel Prize in Physics due to various reasons, including the three-man rule and being deceased. Key figures mentioned include Chien-Shiung Wu, who contributed to parity violation in 1957, and Jocelyn Bell Burnell, recognized for her work on pulsars in 1974. The conversation also highlights the contributions of theorists like Alphard and Gamow for predicting the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and suggests that their exclusion from the Nobel Prize is a significant oversight. The discussion encourages further exploration of these contributions and the criteria for Nobel recognition.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Nobel Prize selection process and its historical context
  • Familiarity with key physics concepts such as quantum mechanics and particle physics
  • Knowledge of significant scientific contributions in the 20th century
  • Awareness of the three-man rule in Nobel Prize awards
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the contributions of Chien-Shiung Wu to parity violation in 1957
  • Investigate the significance of Jocelyn Bell Burnell's discovery of pulsars in 1974
  • Explore the implications of the three-man rule on Nobel Prize awards
  • Study the predictions of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) by Alphard and Gamow
USEFUL FOR

Historians of science, physics students, and anyone interested in the evolution of recognition in scientific achievements, particularly in the context of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

pines-demon
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
857
This post to is to find those who deserved a Nobel Prize in Physics but did not receive it with the rest because they were either dead, unable to receive the prize due to the three-man rule, or dismissed for another reason.

If you want to add more please try to specify the year, topic and reasons.

Here I start:
  • 1932 matrix mechanics: Heisenberg and: Pascual Jordan (??)
  • 1943 molecular beams (spin) and magnetic moment of proton: Stern and: Walter Gerlach (??) Immanuel Estermann (??), Otto Frisch (??)
  • 1954 coincidence experiment (1/2): Bothe and: Hans Geiger (dead)
  • 1957 parity violation: Lee, Yang and: Chien-Shiung Wu (not theoretical?)
  • 1965 quantum electrodynamics: Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga and: Freeman Dyson (3>)
  • 1969 quarks: Gell-Mann and: George Zweig (??) and Yuval Ne'eman (??)
  • 1970 antiferromagnetism (1/2): Néel and: Lev Shubnikov (dead)
  • 1972 BCS theory: Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer and: David Pines (3>)
  • 1974 radio astrophysics and pulsars : Ryles and Hewish and : Jocelyn Bell Burner (???)
  • 1983 stellar nucleosynthesis (1/2): Fowler and: Fred Hoyle (?)
  • 1990 deep inelastic scattering: Friedman, Kendall, Taylor and: James Bjorken (3>)
  • 2005 quantum optics (1/2): Roy Glauber and: E. C. G. Surdashan (3>)
  • 2013 Higgs boson: Englert, Higgs and: Brout (dead), Guralnik, Hagen, and Kibble (3>)
  • 2016 topological phase transitions: Thouless, Kosterlitz, Haldane and: Vadim Berezinskii (dead)
  • 2020 black holes singularity theorems (1/2): Penrose and: Stephen Hawking (dead)
  • 2022 Bell inequalities: Aspect, Clauser, Zeilinger and: John S. Bell (dead)
  • 2023 attosecond physics: Agostini, Krausz, L'Huillier and: Paul Corkum (3>)
Honorable mentions:
  • Arnold Sommerfeld (??) and Paul Langevin (??) for a lot of things
  • 1938 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for fission: Hahn and: Lise Meitner (??)
  • 1962: Nobel Prize in Medicine for DNA: Crick, Watson, Wilkins and: Rosalind Franklin (dead)
Did I miss somebody? Do you agree?

Edited for typos.
 
Last edited:
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy, DrClaude, renormalize and 1 other person
Science news on Phys.org
pines-demon said:
  • 1912: Nobel Prize in Medicine for DNA: Crick, Watson, Wilkins and: Rosalind Franklin (dead)
Correction: 1962
 
Reply
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman and pines-demon
I thought Alphard and Gamow should have won for predicting the CMB.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pines-demon
For what I have read, Shun'ichi Amari could have won the Nobel this year with Hopfield and Hinton, he kind of conceived Hopfield's idea.
 
Hornbein said:
I thought Alphard and Gamow should have won for predicting the CMB.
George Smoot won the Nobel for finding the tiny differences in the CMB temperature and Penzias and Wilson prior to that for just finding it, yet not the Theorists for predicting it?

Kind of the other way round for Peter Higgs and the LCH
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pines-demon
According to his Wikipedia page, Giuseppe Occhialini should have won the 1950 Nobel Prize with C. F. Powell for the discovery of the pion.