4 ms·

1 year ago? http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2008/ http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2008/

tlb 17y ago
A valid version of the question is when was the last prizeworthy discovery was made. Giant magnetoresistance (2007 prize) was discovered in 1988. Bose-Einstein condensates (2001 prize) were figured out in 1995. I can't find any more recent discoveries. They seem to be trying to clear the backlog. This year's prize is shared by two basically unrelated ideas, which must be a strategy to catch up.
- DrJokepu 17y ago
  As far as I know this delay is intentional as new discoveries need to stand the test of time. It would be rather humiliating to award a Nobel prize for something discovered the previous year just to find out next year that there is some better, alternative model or there is some experiment which can disprove the original model.
  - nebula 17y ago
    While I agree with the "test of the time" point of view, I don't think the other part of your argument makes much sense: 1)better alternative model: generally it would not be that hard to guesstimate the possibility of a significant improvement in the very near future. And even if someone comes along and proposes a better alternative next year, I don't think there is anything to feel humiliated about, as long as the original work that was recognized by the award is really Nobel material. 2) Disproving the original model/theory: Do you know of any theory/model in physics that was considered proven to be correct, and later disproved? improvements, enhancements, yes but disproved?
    - DrJokepu 17y ago
      I concur, there's nothing wrong with gradual progress of course. On the other hand, about your second point, there are a number of such models. The geocentric view of the universe got deprecated with Galilei's discovery of the Jupiter's moons. More recently, I could mention the Bohr model (electrons traveling in circular orbit around the nucleus). It was widely considered as correct at the time and it was in accordance with experimental observations. However, the Bohr model wasn't improved (although many scientists tried to save it with extensions of some kind or other), it was completely dropped as it is simply wrong. It can be disproven by a number of different experiments. Wikipedia actually has a great collection of superseded scientific theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories

tlb 17y ago

A valid version of the question is when was the last prizeworthy discovery was made. Giant magnetoresistance (2007 prize) was discovered in 1988. Bose-Einstein condensates (2001 prize) were figured out in 1995. I can't find any more recent discoveries. They seem to be trying to clear the backlog. This year's prize is shared by two basically unrelated ideas, which must be a strategy to catch up.

DrJokepu 17y ago
As far as I know this delay is intentional as new discoveries need to stand the test of time. It would be rather humiliating to award a Nobel prize for something discovered the previous year just to find out next year that there is some better, alternative model or there is some experiment which can disprove the original model.
- nebula 17y ago
  While I agree with the "test of the time" point of view, I don't think the other part of your argument makes much sense: 1)better alternative model: generally it would not be that hard to guesstimate the possibility of a significant improvement in the very near future. And even if someone comes along and proposes a better alternative next year, I don't think there is anything to feel humiliated about, as long as the original work that was recognized by the award is really Nobel material. 2) Disproving the original model/theory: Do you know of any theory/model in physics that was considered proven to be correct, and later disproved? improvements, enhancements, yes but disproved?
  - DrJokepu 17y ago
    I concur, there's nothing wrong with gradual progress of course. On the other hand, about your second point, there are a number of such models. The geocentric view of the universe got deprecated with Galilei's discovery of the Jupiter's moons. More recently, I could mention the Bohr model (electrons traveling in circular orbit around the nucleus). It was widely considered as correct at the time and it was in accordance with experimental observations. However, the Bohr model wasn't improved (although many scientists tried to save it with extensions of some kind or other), it was completely dropped as it is simply wrong. It can be disproven by a number of different experiments. Wikipedia actually has a great collection of superseded scientific theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories