Nobel in Physics tomorrow (4 Oct) any guesses?

[Martin]

winner(s) in Physics to be announced tomorrow 4 October

 

this site will show who

http://nobelprize.org/

 

the physiology and medicine prize was awarded today (Monday 3 Oct)

and it went to two Australians who discovered that ulcers are caused by bacteria in the stomach, instead of by stress (as everyone thought)

so could be cured by a simple course of antibiotics.

 

can physics (in its present circumstances) match that for importance?

anyone have any ideas about what category of research it should go to?

[luc]

There're a lot of good candidates, but if a cosmologist win, I will be happy. Maybe Alan Guth?

[Martin]

There're a lot of good candidates, but if a cosmologist win, I will be happy. Maybe Alan Guth?

 

I posted this thread in Astronomy Cosmology forum because maybe I feel the same as you about this (but I have no one name, like Guth, in mind).

 

Astronomy is a part of physics (no separate Nobel prize for Astronomy) and it is a part with a lot of exciting results especially since 1998 ( helped by hubble space telescope, COBE and WMAP microwave background probes)

[J.C.MacSwell]

I posted this thread in Astronomy Cosmology forum because maybe I feel the same as you about this (but I have no one name' date=' like Guth, in mind).

 

Astronomy is a part of physics (no separate Nobel prize for Astronomy) and it is a part with a lot of exciting results especially since 1998 ( helped by hubble space telescope, COBE and WMAP microwave background probes)[/quote']

 

The "Intelligent Falling" guy or gal, whoever it was, gets my vote. People from Kansas need to stay on the ground too!

[Locrian]

Schmidt and Reiss should be in the running for it some year, though this one may be too soon.

[Martin]

Schmidt and Reiss should be in the running for it some year, though this one may be too soon.

 

It has been announced for this year.

laser optics

 

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/2005/index.html

 

Glauber, Hall, and Hänsch

[Martin]

Schmidt and Reiss should be in the running for it some year, though this one may be too soon.

 

I think you mean David J. Reiss and Brian P. Schmidt of Type Ia Supernova and "accelerating expansion" fame.

 

for example here's an early paper from their Supernovae search:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9710037

 

Many people subsequently became involved. In what way are these two distinguished, if these are the two you mean?

[Locrian]

The two papers of theirs I believe were so exciting were:

 

Riess et al. “SNAPSHOT DISTANCES TO TYPE Ia SUPERNOVAE: ALL IN “ONE NIGHTS WORK.” Astrophysical Journal, 504 935-944 (1998)

 

Schmidt et al. “THE HIGH-Z SUPERNOVA SEARCH: MEASURING COSMIC DECELERATION AND GLOBAL CURVATURE OF THE UNIVERSE USING TYPE Ia SUPERNOVAE.” Astrophysical Journal, 507 46-63 (1998)

 

I'm pretty sure the first is the printing of the preprint you linked. Of course Schmidt actually published three papers on those experiments, of which that one is just the first. These two people are distinguished because they were first; those two papers were the first very definitive evidence of cosmic acceleration. You can see that in the title of Schmidt's paper - they intended to measure the deceleration, and just ended up with a very different result than they expected. (However, I'd like to say that I don't mean to only include those two; there might be another that deserves it with them.)

 

I think those two groups are also distinguished because their work was very good. It was not a simple experiment and it wasn't accident they produced the data first. I find Schmidt's work on the implications of his findings to be good, though I admit I did not keep up with it much after the first few papers.

 

The measurement of cosmic acceleration has had a huge impact on astrophysics, cosmology and even high energy theoretical physics. While I don't claim to know enough about every area of physics to say those two deserve to win the nobel prize, I would be very disappointed if their names didn't at least come up from time to time within the committee.

 

As you pointed out the winner, it seems this discussion is rather moot for the period of about 360-364 days

[Martin]

...

 

As you pointed out the winner' date=' it seems this discussion is rather moot for the period of about 360-364 days [/quote']

 

I don't know, I would as soon hear from you about the people you would have given it to, as hear about those the Nobel committee honored (at this point anyway).

 

one of my astronomy teachers was Alex Filippenko who was part of the long list of Type Ia SN people publishing around 1998

 

didnt know the details you mentioned about Schmidt and Reiss

====================

 

Let's pretend we awarded it to Schmidt and Reiss, that should make

Luc happy

 

he is the guy with the pink nose and blue face, so he deserves special consideration in the matter of prizes

[Locrian]

Schmidt and Reiss should be in the running for it some year, though this one may be too soon.

 

I wish I had posted the first time I believed this. I suppose a lot of people knew it would come eventually, though.

[Airbrush]

I heard the news several times on the radio this morning about the winners of the Physics Nobel Prize for the universe accelerated expansion. I didn't realize someone could win for something that was fairly well established over 10 years ago. I thought the discovery had to be the previous year. Oh well, better late than never.

[Locrian]

I think physics nobel's are always awarded for discoveries for which there has been plenty of time to determine both that they are eventually accepted and influential. Some physics nobels have been awarded for things done decades ago. I can't think of one given for something that was done the prior year - maybe you could give an example.

[Airbrush]

Sure, here are examples, the Academy Awards, Emmys, American Music Awards, etc. Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Nobel Prizes.

[Locrian]

Those are not examples of physics nobels

Edited October 4, 2011 by Locrian