4 ms·

I see her point, but I disagree and think that given her contributions, she should at least have shared the award. Also, she's from Norn Iron which I didn't re

I see her point, but I disagree and think that given her contributions, she should at least have shared the award. Also, she's from Norn Iron which I didn't realize and am really rather pleased to see. Lastly, I'd love to get Hewish's take on this: "The discovery was so dramatic it was awarded the Nobel prize in 1974. But while Hewish was named as a winner, Bell Burnell was not." What a mensch. This fine fellow sounds like a real David Drumlin.

ajross 8y ago
It's not Hewish's fault. The prize, FWIW, wasn't just for the discovery of pulsars but for the aperture synthesis interferometry technique that made it possible. He didn't do the observation, but he did invent the telescope. The guys's a legitimate Nobel winner on his own, and let's not tar his name with the Nobel committee's mistake in skipping over Bell.
- privong 8y ago
  > The prize, FWIW, wasn't just for the discovery of pulsars but for the aperture synthesis interferometry technique that made it possible. Ryle's participation in the prize was for aperture synthesis interferometry while Hewish's was for the discovery of pulsars. From [0]: > The Nobel Prize in Physics 1974 was awarded jointly to Sir Martin Ryle and Antony Hewish "for their pioneering research in radio astrophysics: Ryle for his observations and inventions, in particular of the aperture synthesis technique, and Hewish for his decisive role in the discovery of pulsars." Aperture synthesis is useful for achieving higher angular resolutions than would otherwise be possible. But pulsars are unresolved and so angular resolution isn't as important for their study (the localization of pulsars can be done very precisely from the modeling of the arrival times of individual pulses). Collecting area (overall sensitivity of the telescope) is the driving consideration for pulsar science. [0] https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1974/summary/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1974/summary/
  - headmelted 8y ago
    I'll not pretend to be schooled on this topic, so I'm happy to defer to you folks on this. In any case, it would be worth hearing from Anthony Hewish on this matter as I'm inclined to find Sir Fred Hoyle's criticism of the decision quite damning for Hewish.

ajross 8y ago

It's not Hewish's fault. The prize, FWIW, wasn't just for the discovery of pulsars but for the aperture synthesis interferometry technique that made it possible. He didn't do the observation, but he did invent the telescope. The guys's a legitimate Nobel winner on his own, and let's not tar his name with the Nobel committee's mistake in skipping over Bell.

privong 8y ago
> The prize, FWIW, wasn't just for the discovery of pulsars but for the aperture synthesis interferometry technique that made it possible. Ryle's participation in the prize was for aperture synthesis interferometry while Hewish's was for the discovery of pulsars. From [0]: > The Nobel Prize in Physics 1974 was awarded jointly to Sir Martin Ryle and Antony Hewish "for their pioneering research in radio astrophysics: Ryle for his observations and inventions, in particular of the aperture synthesis technique, and Hewish for his decisive role in the discovery of pulsars." Aperture synthesis is useful for achieving higher angular resolutions than would otherwise be possible. But pulsars are unresolved and so angular resolution isn't as important for their study (the localization of pulsars can be done very precisely from the modeling of the arrival times of individual pulses). Collecting area (overall sensitivity of the telescope) is the driving consideration for pulsar science. [0] https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1974/summary/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1974/summary/
- headmelted 8y ago
  I'll not pretend to be schooled on this topic, so I'm happy to defer to you folks on this. In any case, it would be worth hearing from Anthony Hewish on this matter as I'm inclined to find Sir Fred Hoyle's criticism of the decision quite damning for Hewish.