Is Nobel Prize suffocating science ?

[Strange]

I think I was wrong that Nobel is suffocating science, it doesn't. My whish is to live fertile science times like it was up to 1900 with a lot of practical discoveries and a lot of geniuses. Maybe that times will come.

 

I think you are being misled by hindsight: are you comparing the entire history of science up to 1900 with the last few decades?

[Chriss]

No. I am refering to the period 1800 when the voltaic pile was invented to 1900, that is looking like a very fertile period of science.

My main ideea is Why there are no geniuses today ? Or if you can tell me one if I don't know ?

[Delta1212]

That's a 100 year period.

 

I think the last hundred years has seen quite a few geniuses and major practical scientific advances. Do you disagree?

[ajb]

My main ideea is Why there are no geniuses today ? Or if you can tell me one if I don't know ?

First how do you define a genius?

 

For me a genius is someone who can really think outside of their immediate field and see many unexpected interconnection between things. They have true original ideas and are able to implement them.

 

Most scientists and mathematicians are not in the genius category. They are very knowledgeable and hard-working; this can seem like genius to the outside world.

 

I would offer Witten as a genius. He has had many profound ideas, found links between many different aspects of theoretical physics and modern mathematics. His works have influenced to some extent almost every subject within mathematical physics.

 

Grothendieck (who died last year) I would also offer. His ability to think very very abstractly lead to fundamental developments in algebraic geometry and brought together many techniques and ideas from across mathematics. He is best known for his works in algebraic geometry, cohomology theory, homological algebra and category theory.

[Chriss]

Can someone be considered a genius just by having a little contribution to science ? I think the treshold should be set up higher for geniuses. In my opinion observation and creativity does not necesarly equals a genius.

[John Cuthber]

That hundred year period includes the time (1929) when Louis de Broglie won a Nobel prize.

Lets have a look at what he did to achieve that.

 

Einstein had already shown that E=mv²

And Plank had shown that E= h F

 

De Broglie realised that

mv² = h F

Rearranged it in terms of momentum and wavelength viz

wavelength = h/ momentum

and got a prize.

Is setting two terms equal to eachother and then doing some simple algebra "genius" or not?

 

Essentially, the "easy" stuff has now been done and we are looking for advances that require a lot more understanding.

[ajb]

In my opinion observation and creativity does not necesarly equals a genius.

Indeed, but this seems hard to quantify. I think it is easier to recognise a genius than define one!

[Chriss]

 

 

That hundred year period includes the time (1929) when Louis de Broglie won a Nobel prize.

Lets have a look at what he did to achieve that.

 

Einstein had already shown that E=mv²

And Plank had shown that E= h F

 

De Broglie realised that

mv² = h F

Rearranged it in terms of momentum and wavelength viz

wavelength = h/ momentum

and got a prize.

Is setting two terms equal to eachother and then doing some simple algebra "genius" or not?

 

Essentially, the "easy" stuff has now been done and we are looking for advances that require a lot more understanding.

 

In my oppinion he had mind but wasn't a genius. Genius is higher than that. And winning a nobel prize doesn't mean he is a genius.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Chriss

[Chriss]

Does past scientist were more famous and known in their lifetime than present ones ?