News Who Will Win the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physics?

[Demystifier]

The prize can be given to collaborations or institutes, it just has never been done. I guess they just don't want to do that for whatever reason. Picking (at most) three experimentalists from the discovery would have made no sense, the discovery was the work of hundreds to thousands.

Million dollars is a big money for a person, but small for a collaboration. The point of giving big money is to motivate people to work hard on big problems. It's not such a big motivation if you think: If I work hard, perhaps my big collaboration will one day get million dollars.

 

[mfb]

Getting the Nobel Prize itself is very motivating. It would motivate people a tiny bit to join larger collaborations.
If you choose your field of work based on the probability to win the Nobel Prize you make something wrong anyway.

 

[DrClaude]

3. Jocelyn Bell Burnell. Even astronomers were criticizing the Nobel Committee for overlooking what was really HER discovery, and gave the prize to her supervisor instead.

FWIW, she has now won a special Breakthrough Prize.

 

[Mlesnita Daniel]

Hi! I was just wondering who would you think will win the Nobel prize in Physics and for what.

Thanks! :)

 

[jedishrfu]

I don't know but here's how they decide the issue:

https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/physics/

It seems the web is silent on the issue, no doubt afraid to jinx their favorite candidates. They must have been selected and notified already but have to stay mum until the big event.

 

[bob012345]

In your first post, you seemed to argue that there are many more people and discoveries deserving of the prize that can be awarded, so the decision of which discovery gets the prize is fairly arbitrary (I would also agree with this). Given that there are many scientists worthy of a Nobel prize, given that some are women, and given what we know about intrinsic biases, it would make sense to make a conscious effort to make sure womens' work does not get overlooked. No one is arguing to award the prize to a woman who has not done work worthy of the prize. But given that there are women who have done work worthy of a Nobel prize, why not make sure they get the award before they die (as in the case of Vera Rubin)? Unless, say, you want to argue that Lene Hau's work is not worthy of a Nobel prize.

Even limiting the choice to equally worthy candidates, choosing a woman because she is a woman demeans the meaning of the prize. They just have to decide which of the worthy work is the most worthy which is why it's so difficult. Making 'sure' someone's gets a prize before they die misses the point of the prize. It's not about the person, it's about the work. It would be better to change the rules such that a scientist's work could be recognized posthumously but that's not going to happen. Too bad though.

 

[mfb]

It seems the web is silent on the issue, no doubt afraid to jinx their favorite candidates. They must have been selected and notified already but have to stay mum until the big event.

They get notified very shortly before the announcement - something like 1-2 hours.

 

[sophiecentaur]

choosing a woman because she is a woman demeans the meaning of the prize

And for many years, NOT choosing a woman because she was a woman was pretty much standard practice. That also demeaned the meaning for the prize. Bearing in mind the huge number of deserving causes and the arbitrariness of choice for the final winner then why not tip the balance amongst the 'equally good' candidates and make up, in some small way, for many years of unfairness?

 

[atyy]

FWIW, she has now won a special Breakthrough Prize.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45425872
"One of the UK's leading female astronomers is to donate her £2.3m winnings from a major science prize she was awarded.
The sum will go to fund women, under-represented ethnic minority and refugee students to become physics researchers."

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I prefer the Olympic sports with objective criteria rather than judges.

Beauty contests? Not my thing.

 

[Vanadium 50]

not tip the balance amongst the 'equally good' candidates and make up, in some small way, for many years of unfairness?

Not everyone thinks the solution to past unfairness is future compensating unfairness, and even among those who do can disagree on the right amount of compensating unfairness.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I prefer the Olympic sports with objective criteria rather than judges.

Beauty contests? Not my thing.

The thing is, if you really think about it, selection of Nobel Prizes in any category (including Physics) is a criteria determined by judges using criteria that isn't necessarily objective.

From the Nobel website, the following have the right to submit proposals for the award:

1. Swedish and foreign members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
2. Members of the Nobel Committee for Physics
3. Nobel Laureates in Physics
4. Tenured professors in the Physical Sciences at universities and institutes of technology in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Iceland, and the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm
5. Holders of corresponding chairs in >=6 universities or university colleges around the worlds selected by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
6. Other scientists invited by the Academy

Each of these 6 groups consist of individuals who essentially, in their own opinion, submit proposals for those they deem worthy of the award. Of course, the accomplishments that individual scientists make are among the most important factors, and you could make the case that those accomplishments are objective, but the nomination process is not objective, and individual biases can filter into it.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Not everyone thinks the solution to past unfairness is future compensating unfairness, and even among those who do can disagree on the right amount of compensating unfairness.

My contention is that the very nomination process has never been "fair" in any meaningful case, because the nomination process (from which the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences then make the final selection) is itself not objective, but is instead an amalgamation of subjective opinions on the merits of various physicists and their contributions to the realm of physics.

Some questions have been raised in this thread about why there have been so few women who have been awarded the Nobel Prize in physics, and that the last award was made 50 years ago. One question that comes to mind would be how many women were even nominated to begin with (a question we won't know the answer to until 50 years from now, according to the Nobel Prize rules, btw). If over the past several decades, all of the various groups with the right to nominate candidates didn't nominate any female physicists, it's worth wondering why that is. Is it because female physicists didn't make any substantive contributions over the past 50 years? Or is it the case that there is a widespread bias (both conscious and unconscious) within the community of physics (in particular, the older members of the physics community) against women in physics?

 

[ZapperZ]

My contention is that the very nomination process has never been "fair" in any meaningful case, because the nomination process (from which the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences then make the final selection) is itself not objective, but is instead an amalgamation of subjective opinions on the merits of various physicists and their contributions to the realm of physics.

Some questions have been raised in this thread about why there have been so few women who have been awarded the Nobel Prize in physics, and that the last award was made 50 years ago. One question that comes to mind would be how many women were even nominated to begin with (a question we won't know the answer to until 50 years from now, according to the Nobel Prize rules, btw). If over the past several decades, all of the various groups with the right to nominate candidates didn't nominate any female physicists, it's worth wondering why that is. Is it because female physicists didn't make any substantive contributions over the past 50 years? Or is it the case that there is a widespread bias (both conscious and unconscious) within the community of physics (in particular, the older members of the physics community) against women in physics?

I am less concerned about that, because in the level of speculation, that will require a lot of it to address that issue.

My main point is that in cases where there were very clear involvement of women in a particular discovery (DNA, quasar, etc.), they were overlooked and the prize was given to the male colleagues or counterparts. And these instances are now widely acknowledged as being an egregious oversight of the awarding committee.

This is not a "hey, you should award a prize to so-and-so", but rather "hey, you awarded the Nobel prize for this. Why didn't you include so-and-so since SHE did a huge portion of the work?"

Zz.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

The dearth of women recognized for scientific accomplishments seems like a think globally, act locally opportunity. Sure, we can decry the Nobel distribution among sexes, But it would be more meaningful and impactful for us to invite more women to collaborate in our own research and make sure we are providing equal research and mentorship opportunity to women as we do men.

How would most mid- and late- career scientists here fare if our publications lists were reviewed for the presence of women co-authors?

 

[StatGuy2000]

I am less concerned about that, because in the level of speculation, that will require a lot of it to address that issue.

My main point is that in cases where there were very clear involvement of women in a particular discovery (DNA, quasar, etc.), they were overlooked and the prize was given to the male colleagues or counterparts. And these instances are now widely acknowledged as being an egregious oversight of the awarding committee.

This is not a "hey, you should award a prize to so-and-so", but rather "hey, you awarded the Nobel prize for this. Why didn't you include so-and-so since SHE did a huge portion of the work?"

Zz.

But this raises the very question about why the women involved in a particular discovery were overlooked. Recall that according to the Nobel Prize criteria, only specific groups have the ability to even nominate candidates for the Nobel Prize. So the question is this -- was it the case that

(a) The woman involved in the study wasn't even nominated for the Nobel Prize.

(b) The woman was nominated, but was overlooked by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (or more specifically, their Nobel Prize committee responsible for selecting the winner).

If the situation is due to (a) above, then the conclusion is that there is a deep-seated bias (whether conscious or unconscious) against female scientists, which has certainly been the case until relatively recent times (and some argue may still be the case).

If (b), then the bias could be more limited to those within the Nobel committee.

 

[ZapperZ]

But this raises the very question about why the women involved in a particular discovery was overlooked.

That is the question that, I believe, only the Nobel organization can address. Without in-depth investigation, all we can do is speculate, and it requires no knowledge or skill in anything to do that.

Zz.

 

[Duplex]

I think it is way past time to award the prize to a woman again. There are many women who have made important discoveries and it is unreasonable to ignore those accomplishments.

The Nobel Foundation and the committees responsible for the election of Nobel Prize winners have had meetings 2017 and 2018 to discuss the skewed gender distribution among Nobel Prize winners.

According to the chairman of the Nobel Foundation, several proposals regarding gender distribution have been discussed: "Everyone realizes that we have a problem that we must take seriously. We must do our utmost to ensure that women are not disadvantaged."

 

[Duplex]

The prize can be given to collaborations or institutes, it just has never been done.

Not yet, but it’s discussed at least in the Nobel Committee for Physics.
One reason for the delay is that the Nobel Foundation has been traditionally close to Alfred Nobel's will. But it is now 100 years later and the scientific research has shifted to large research groups often in global collaboration with other groups. The Nobel Foundation is very aware of the situation.

 

[Duplex]

In this thread have been some relevant criticisms of previous selection of Nobel Prize winners. It will not be easier in this time of growth of research and researchers at the Nobel Prize level.
But look at the professionally orchestrated Nobel banquet. I can assure everyone that the same professionalism permeates the entire Nobel project, a huge continuous project with thousands of people involved.
An enormous effort is also made to find worthy Nobel Prize winners.

What happens in Stockholm in the beginning of October? In physics and chemistry.
On Tuesday morning 2018-10-02, members of the Royal Academy of Science gather together to make the final decision of the Nobel Prize winner/winners in Physics. Immediately after the decision, the famous magic phone call will take place ... and a few minutes later the names of the names of the Nobel laureates are announced.
There are about 450 members of the Royal Academy of Science who are entitled to participate, but there is usually around one third who participates in the final decision in the Beijer Hall of the Academy.

The procedure for the Nobel Prize winner in chemistry is repeated the following day,
Wednesday 2018-10-02.

 

[Duplex]

That is the question that, I believe, only the Nobel organization can address. Without in-depth investigation, all we can do is speculate, and it requires no knowledge or skill in anything to do that.

Maybe we will see some female prize winner this year?
In 2017, the Noble Prize committees have made efforts to obtain nominations from more women by inviting more female researchers to nominate for the Nobel Prize 2018. According to the permanent secretary of the Royal Academy of Sciences.

 

[mfb]

Not yet, but it’s discussed at least in the Nobel Committee for Physics.
One reason for the delay is that the Nobel Foundation has been traditionally close to Alfred Nobel's will. But it is now 100 years later and the scientific research has shifted to large research groups often in global collaboration with other groups. The Nobel Foundation is very aware of the situation.

2013 (Higgs: ATLAS and CMS) and 2017 (gravitational waves: LIGO) would have been two great opportunities for that. Big discoveries made by big collaborations.

 

[gfd43tg]

I would be embarrassed if I was a woman and won the award because some committee determined that they needed to give the award to more women.

 

[Orodruin]

I would be embarrassed if I was a woman and won the award because some committee determined that they needed to give the award to more women.

This is not going to happen. The prize would never be given to someone who did not deserve it. The question discussed is to remove a negative gender bias, not to introduce a positive gender bias.

 

[Duplex]

2013 (Higgs: ATLAS and CMS) and 2017 (gravitational waves: LIGO) would have been two great opportunities for that. Big discoveries made by big collaborations.

It would have been nice and a significant milestone. It will be interesting to see how the Nobel Foundation solves this group problem in the coming years.

If the foundation applied the Nobel testament exactly, we would see one (1) prize winner in each group this year; physics, chemistry and physiology or medicine for discoveries made in 2017. When did it happen last?
Obviously there is already some flexibility in the application. Nobel Prize 2.0.

 

[Orodruin]

It would have been nice and a significant milestone. It will be interesting to see how the Nobel Foundation solves this group problem in the coming years.

Are you suggesting that the foundation issues new directives to the Royal Academy of Sciences and the other bodies deciding the laureates? Do you think their freedom in actually awarding the prize to a collaboration is restricted at the moment? After all, as a European citizen, I am a part of the EU and therefore essentially a Nobel Peace prize laureate ...

 

[George Jones]

Yakir Aharonov and Michael Berry.

 

[Duplex]

Are you suggesting that the foundation issues new directives to the Royal Academy of Sciences and the other bodies deciding the laureates?

I'm not competent to have a good opinion. The primary role of the Nobel Foundation is to manage capital and maintain the spirit of Nobel's will. Directives? The Nobel Foundation does not care how the institutions choose their prize winners. They have different focuses. There is of course a close cooperation. The Managing Directors of the Institutions appoint the majority of the members of the Nobel Foundation Board.

Some legal aspects. Nobel's will can never be changed, only "interpreted" to adapt to a changed reality.
The foundation can not change its own statutes, but apply for so-called "permutation" at the government or Authority.

Do you think their freedom in actually awarding the prize to a collaboration is restricted at the moment?

Restricted to 1-3 individual laurates. A prize to a research group or collaboration between groups is currently more complicated.

After all, as a European citizen, I am a part of the EU and therefore essentially a Nobel Peace prize laureate ...

Since EU won the Nobel Peace Prize 2012... of course I think you are a kind of Nobel laureate. I hope you received your share of the prize money - about 2 cents.

 

[Orodruin]

Restricted to 1-3 individual laurates. A prize to a research group or collaboration between groups is currently more complicated.

This misses the point of my question and humorously intended interjection about the EU. The will is worded the same way for the physics prize as for the peace prize, yet clearly the Norwegian Nobel Committee has had no problems in awarding organizations so my question is how the physics prize differs in this regard.

 

[Duplex]

The will is worded the same way for the physics prize as for the peace prize...

Common to the physics and peace prize is the formulation: "one part to the person".
Then the will is worded a little different:

Physics: "the most important discovery or invention.”
Peace: “the most or best to advance fellowship among nations,
the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and
the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.”

... yet clearly the Norwegian Nobel Committee has had no problems in awarding organizations so my question is how the physics prize differs in this regard.

The reason is that it is already established by the Nobel Foundation for the Peace Prize.

"The candidates eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize are those
persons or organizations nominated by qualified individuals"
Scroll down to Candidacy Criteria:
https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/

This does not answer your question why the physics prize can’t be given to an organization.
I have no concrete answer, but have done some research and found something
that surprised me:

“Each prize-awarding body shall be competent to decide whether the prize
it is entitled to award may be conferred upon an institution or association.”
https://www.nobelprize.org/about/statutes-of-the-nobel-foundation/#par4

 

[Orodruin]

The first prize of 2018 has been announced, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. It was awarded to James P. Allison and Tasuko Honjo "for their discovery of cancer therapy by inhibition of negative immune regulation."

 

[HAYAO]

The first prize of 2018 has been announced, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. It was awarded to James P. Allison and Tasuko Honjo "for their discovery of cancer therapy by inhibition of negative immune regulation."

I didn't do crap but I am proud as a Japanese.

 

[Orodruin]

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2018 has been awarded to
Arthur Ashkin (1/2) "for the optical tweezers and their application to biological systems"
Gerard Mourou (1/4) and Donna Strickland (1/4) "for their method of generating high-intensity, ultra-short optical pulses"

 

[robphy]

Dr. Arthur Ashkin - Harvey Prize Recipient 2004


FiO+LS 2018 - Gerard Mourou Plenary Session


Donna Strickland - Multi-frequency Raman Generation for Intense Ultrashort Pulses

• https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.24.156
  Acceleration and Trapping of Particles by Radiation Pressure
  
  A. Ashkin
  Bell Telephone Laboratories
  
  Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 156 – Published 26 January 1970
  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.24.156

• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0030401885901518
  Compression of amplified chirped optical pulses
  
  Donna Strickland and Gerard Mourou
  Laboratory for Laser Energetics
  University of Rochester
  
  Optics Communications
  Volume 55, Issue 6, 15 October 1985, Pages 447-449
  https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4018(85)90151-8

​

 

[ZapperZ]

I’m very happy I get to see this in my lifetime.

https://old.nobelprize.org/phy-press.pdf

Zz.

 

[Duplex]

Something is going on. The dawn of a Nobel makeover?

"For groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics"
1. Inventions, not discoveries. Old Alfred would have been happy, as an inventor and entrepreneur himself.
2. Donna Strickland - A Female Physics Prize winner. The first since 1963; 55 long years.
3. Arthur Ashkin 96 - The oldest Nobel Prize winner ever, not just within physics. New hope for older retired physicists.

It's never too late.

 

[DrClaude]

3. Arthur Ashkin 92 - The oldest Nobel Prize winner ever, not just within physics. New hope for older retired physicists.
It's never too late.

Ashkin it actually 96.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Something is going on. The dawn of a Nobel makeover?

"For groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics"
1. Inventions, not discoveries. Old Alfred would have been happy, as an inventor and entrepreneur himself.
2. Donna Strickland - A Female Physics Prize winner. The first since 1963; 55 long years.
3. Arthur Ashkin 92 - The oldest Nobel Prize winner ever, not just within physics. New hope for older retired physicists.

It's never too late.

Worth noting that Donna Strickland is Canadian too! Pride of Canada!

 

[Duplex]

Ashkin it actually 96.

Corrected. Thanks!
(To quote myself: "It's never too late.")

 

[Ygggdrasil]

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2018 has been awarded to
Arthur Ashkin (1/2) "for the optical tweezers and their application to biological systems"
Gerard Mourou (1/4) and Donna Strickland (1/4) "for their method of generating high-intensity, ultra-short optical pulses"

Today's Physics prize, especially the prize to Ashkin, highlight inventions that have been important field of biophysics. In graduate school, I worked in the field of single molecule biophysics, which aims to watch the action of single enzymes in order to gain greater knowledge of their mechanisms of action.

This field was primarily built on two different technologies. One (which I used) was the detection of fluorescence from single fluorescent molecules (pioneered, among others, by W.E. Moerner, a co-recipient of the 2014 Nobel Prize in Chemistry), and the other was optical tweezer technology. Optical tweezers give biologists not only the ability to manipulate biological molecules (e.g. to study the mechanical properties of DNA), but also to very sensitively monitor the motion of molecular motors.

In now classic studies in biophysics, researchers were able to watch DNA polymerase synthesize DNA, RNA polymerase make RNA from DNA with base pair resolution, and watch the ribosome move codon-by-codon on an mRNA as it synthesizes protein (the three key steps in the "central dogma" of biology). While Askin was key to developing optical tweezer technology, many biophysicsts (principally, Steven Block at Stanford and Carlos Bustamante at Berkeley) have been at the forefront of applying optical tweezer technology to the study of biological systems (indeed, their work is cited heavily in the Nobel prize material describing the applications of optical tweezers).

In fact, one could make a strong argument that a prize for optical tweezers and their application to biological systems probably should have been its own prize to Ashkin, Block and Bustamante. While there are still many questions left in the field, these optical tweezer studies have really helped us learn how molecular motor proteins can couple a chemical reaction (such as the hydrolysis of ATP) to the directed motion of protein molecules on their substrates.

Pulsed lasers have also had numerous applications in biophysics, including multiphoton microscopy (most famously, two-photon microscopy). Two photon microscopy is particularly useful for imaging deep into tissue (use of two photon excitation allows with IR lasers that are absorbed and scattered less than visible light by tissue) and has found important applications in neurobiology. Other multiphoton techniques (such as those based on stimulated raman scattering) offer the promise of being able to image specific molecules in living samples without having to label them with an external fluorophore.

 

[robphy]

While Askin was key to developing optical tweezer technology, many biophysicsts (principally, Steven Block at Stanford and Carlos Bustamante at Berkeley) have been at the forefront of applying optical tweezer technology to the study of biological systems (indeed, their work is cited heavily in the Nobel prize material describing the applications of optical tweezers).

In fact, one could make a strong argument that a prize for optical tweezers and their application to biological systems probably should have been its own prize to Ashkin, Block and Bustamante. .

https://www.ibiology.org/talks/optical-traps/

 

[bob012345]

I'm glad this prize was about technology and usefulness and not about something so esoteric even most educated people couldn't begin to comprehend it.

 

[HAYAO]

I'm glad this prize was about technology and usefulness and not about something so esoteric even most educated people couldn't begin to comprehend it.

I would've been fine with either.

 

[Orodruin]

I would've been fine with either.

I agree, I think both types of prizes are ultimately very important and in the spirit of Alfred Nobel's will. However, it has been some time since there was last a physics prize to an invention of this sort as the last couple of years have been full of very important discoveries in fundamental physics.

 

[bob012345]

The Nobel awards one million dollars. The Wolf prize (my favorite since the term Wolf Laureate just sounds neat) awards one tenth that amount. There is an opportunity to create a prize either greater than a Nobel or in between. I wonder why the U.S. has never created an American Prize even greater than the Nobel?
.

 

[Orodruin]

The Nobel awards one million dollars. The Wolf prize (my favorite since the term Wolf Laureate just sounds neat) awards one tenth that amount. There is an opportunity to create a prize either greater than a Nobel or in between. I wonder why the U.S. has never created an American Prize even greater than the Nobel?

I do not think you can just create a prize that awards more money and call it "greater". The prize money is of course a nice touch, but if you ask the laureates what meant the most to them, I am pretty sure that the recognition and prestige would come first. Sure, you can throw in the money and make a huge prize, but the Nobel Prize would still have a head start of over 100 years of history and tradition.

 

[bob012345]

I do not think you can just create a prize that awards more money and call it "greater". The prize money is of course a nice touch, but if you ask the laureates what meant the most to them, I am pretty sure that the recognition and prestige would come first. Sure, you can throw in the money and make a huge prize, but the Nobel Prize would still have a head start of over 100 years of history and tradition.

Yes, that's true but if the new prize was known to be administered by the best minds in American science and the prize large, the prestige would grow. The Wolf prize has only been around since the late 70's. There could be an added incentive such as any American Prize winner could just walk into the best American institutions and be given whatever they want.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

The Nobel awards one million dollars. The Wolf prize (my favorite since the term Wolf Laureate just sounds neat) awards one tenth that amount. There is an opportunity to create a prize either greater than a Nobel or in between. I wonder why the U.S. has never created an American Prize even greater than the Nobel?

The Breakthrough Prize gives a 3 million dollar award to its laureates. Some of the awards seem to be going to scientists initially passed over for Nobels (e.g. this year's award to Jocelyn Bell Burnell)

 

[Orodruin]

Yes, that's true but if the new prize was known to be administered by the best minds in American science and the prize large, the prestige would grow.

You seem to assume that there would be some inherent additional prestige in the "best minds in American science". I do not think that this is true.

There could be an added incentive such as any American Prize winner could just walk into the best American institutions and be given whatever they want.

Institutions would never agree to that.

 

[mfb]

The Fields medal is - together with the Abel prize - the most prestigious award in mathematics, with a prize money of just ~$10,000.

Yes, that's true but if the new prize was known to be administered by the best minds in American science and the prize large, the prestige would grow. The Wolf prize has only been around since the late 70's. There could be an added incentive such as any American Prize winner could just walk into the best American institutions and be given whatever they want.

A national prize will never get the reputation of the big international prizes. And that reward is unrealistic as well.