Einstein and Nobel Prizes

[[Tycho?]]

It is generally agreed that Einstien should have won 3 nobel prizes instead of just the one that he did win. These would be for his paper published in 1905, on the photoelectric effect (that he did win one for), for special relativity and for brownian motion. This makes sense, considering how important these were.

 

But what about General Relativity? I mean, even moreso than Special Relativity, this seems to fundamentally change the way we look at the universe. He did nothing less than replace newtons law of universal gravitation; one of the most important laws in physics. I would think that this, even moreso than his other would would earn a nobel prize. Yet it never seems to come up. Why is this?

[Spyman]

There seems to be a dispute about how much others contributed...

 

From Wikipedia:

Albert Einstein presented the theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity in groundbreaking publications that did not include references to the work of others.

 

Claims have been put forward about both theories that they have been formulated by others before Einstein, and that these people should get the credit. Consequently, Albert Einstein would deserve less credit for these theories, and according to some, even no credit at all for special relativity. At issue is whether Einstein can be considered the true creator of these theories, based on priority issues.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_disputes_about_Einstein_and_the_relativity_theories

[[Tycho?]]

Ahhh, I'm inclined to think most of those disputes arose only due to Einstiens fame, since the people he supposedly plagarized didn't press the issue at all.

 

But that aside. Special relativity is where most of the controvesy lies, yet it is generally agreed that the paper was worth a nobel prize. So any controversies aside, why is general relativity so much less important?

[Spyman]

Well, actually I know nothing about procedures and politics around selecting candidates for Nobel Prize. (And barely have a simple understanding of how Relativity is supposed to work.)

 

But from my experiences I know that such controversies can make a big difference.

 

Hopefully someone else can explain, maybe Martin ?

[swansont]

It's a moot issue now, as Nobel prizes aren't given out to dead people (anymore, at least). I have no insight into the selection process.

[[Tycho?]]

Well, actually I know nothing about procedures and politics around selecting candidates for Nobel Prize. (And barely have a simple understanding of how Relativity is supposed to work.)

 

But from my experiences I know that such controversies can make a big difference.

 

Hopefully someone else can explain, maybe Martin ?

 

No, you are confused about what I am asking.

 

Einstien didn't win the prize for special relativity largely because it was so controversial. Fine. But its generally agreed today that he *should* have won one, that what he did was worth the prize. Same for brownian motion. I am asking why he did not deserve one for general relativity. This question has nothing to do with how the prizes are actually given out, I dont care what the Nobel Prize comittee thinks on the issue. Physicsits think special relativity was worth the prize; why dont physicists think the same for general relativity?

[Spyman]

;308992'']No, you are confused about what I am asking.

Actually I am not, (well maybe a little ), my answer was two folded:

;308992']Physicsits think special relativity was worth the prize; why dont physicists think the same for general relativity?

(And barely have a simple understanding of how Relativity is supposed to work.)

I don't have good enough knowledge of Relativity to answer your question.

 

Ask swansont instead, he is a Physics Expert.

[swansont]

Special relativity is a subset/special case of general relativity. It makes no sense to say that SR deserves the prize but GR doesn't. I don't know physicists who make the claim under discussion, or if I do, it's not come up in conversation.

[Ragib]

swansont: it could make sense to say that SR deserved it but not GR. It all depends on timing. Maybe the Nobel Committe thought that that year GR was good but something else was better. SR and Brownwian recieved no credit as the committe did not want to cause a controversy, with a Jewish man in an anti semetic society. GR, during World War 1, would have been even worse.

[[Tycho?]]

swansont: it could make sense to say that SR deserved it but not GR. It all depends on timing. Maybe the Nobel Committe thought that that year GR was good but something else was better. SR and Brownwian recieved no credit as the committe did not want to cause a controversy, with a Jewish man in an anti semetic society. GR, during World War 1, would have been even worse.

 

Uhhh no. Nobel prizes are given out years after the initial work was done, so time can be taken to properly verify it. His prize for the photoelectric effect came in 1921, 16 years after he wrote the paper. Any prize he got for GR would have been in the 30s or 40s.

[D H]

Einstein's 1921 Nobel Prize was "for services to theoretical physics and especially for the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect." The first part implicitly and rather vaguely recognizes his other works; 1921 was too soon for his work on general relativity.

 

Evidence for special relativity did not appear until 1941, in the midst of World War II. Sweden was a neutral party to this war. Perhaps the Nobel Prize committee was playing politics. Perhaps they just screwed up. Its all a moot point. They can't award him posthumously.