Physics Nobel Prize 2012

[oakpope]

Hello all,

it's Nobel prizes season, and the physics one interests me particularly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19879890

This year it came to a French and an American scientists in the field of Quantum dynamic, trapping elemental particles, and it could lead to enhancement in quantum computing for example. Very exciting news my friends

[ChickenGuy]

First awarded in 1901 I see, so it spans the entire 20th century.

I looked at the list of all the Physics winners to see how many names I recognised....

Based mostly on their surnames, I've heard of....


Henri Becquerel
Marie Curie
Guglielmo Marconi
Max Planck
Albert Einstein
Niels Bohr
Gustav Hertz
Erwin Schrodinger
Enrico Fermi
Wolfgang Pauli
Richard Feynman


Haven't a clue who most of them are, especially the recent decades.

The 'era' of famous physicists and recognised names was clearly first half of the century.

P.S....

They never awarded it to Stephen Hawking? That's a bit ridiculous.

[palbert]

I'm sorry but I have no idea what just happened except it sounds like electronics just got improved. Where do these ideas come from?

And how do you quantify the "discovery?"

[oakpope]

For Stephen Hawking, Nobel comity gives rarely the prize for astronomy, and I think last year was astronomy, so his chances were thin. And I am not familiar with a breakthrough he has made. Maybe his proof that black holes do release some things, a radiation thing. Is that worth a Nobel, I have no idea.

For the application of their discovery (hum rather their experimental breakthrough, as it is more a Nobel in practical thing than in theory, even though that interest mightily quantum mechanic theorists), I'm not sure to be qualified enough to make it understood clearly.
If I may try : principles founding quantum mechanics are extremely difficult to understand mainly because they contradict what we, human, can perceive around us. In quantum mechanics one founding principle is that it is impossible to know both the velocity and the position of a particle at the same time.
If you understand that, you see that it is very difficult to have experience with direct 'proof' of quantum mechanics, as there is always 'uncertainties' in the measurement.

What the Nobel winners have been able to do is to 'trap' singular particular (whether protons or ions) in a near vacuum, which leads to a much easier way to study these particles.

One major invention in computer science is the advance of quantum programming theory and quantum designed computer. The experiments models worthy of the Nobel are a step towards a physical building of such a computer.

You may know that a key element of the upgrade of computers is the size of the components. With quantum computer, the 'bit', or elementary piece of information, could potentially be as little as an electron, whereas nowadays it is more a transistor, and little as they may be now, they are order of magnitude larger than particles. That could lead (I think, as I have never research the subject in details) to computer thousands or millions more powerful and quick.

I think there are others applications too, but I'm even less familiar with them, so I won't speak about them

Hope I was clear, didn't make mistakes and don't appear as a fool

[palbert]

For Stephen Hawking, Nobel comity gives rarely the prize for astronomy, and I think last year was astronomy, so his chances were thin. And I am not familiar with a breakthrough he has made. Maybe his proof that black holes do release some things, a radiation thing. Is that worth a Nobel, I have no idea.

For the application of their discovery (hum rather their experimental breakthrough, as it is more a Nobel in practical thing than in theory, even though that interest mightily quantum mechanic theorists), I'm not sure to be qualified enough to make it understood clearly.
If I may try : principles founding quantum mechanics are extremely difficult to understand mainly because they contradict what we, human, can perceive around us. In quantum mechanics one founding principle is that it is impossible to know both the velocity and the position of a particle at the same time.
If you understand that, you see that it is very difficult to have experience with direct 'proof' of quantum mechanics, as there is always 'uncertainties' in the measurement.

What the Nobel winners have been able to do is to 'trap' singular particular (whether protons or ions) in a near vacuum, which leads to a much easier way to study these particles.

One major invention in computer science is the advance of quantum programming theory and quantum designed computer. The experiments models worthy of the Nobel are a step towards a physical building of such a computer.

You may know that a key element of the upgrade of computers is the size of the components. With quantum computer, the 'bit', or elementary piece of information, could potentially be as little as an electron, whereas nowadays it is more a transistor, and little as they may be now, they are order of magnitude larger than particles. That could lead (I think, as I have never research the subject in details) to computer thousands or millions more powerful and quick.

I think there are others applications too, but I'm even less familiar with them, so I won't speak about them

Hope I was clear, didn't make mistakes and don't appear as a fool

Excellent job

[bankside]

I understand that part of the "problem" in granting the Nobel to Hawking for the black hole emissions (it's called "Hawking Radiation" incidentally) is that it seems like sound theory with indirect support, but there is difficulty in making direct observations to confirm it. They don't want to give out a Nobel for a theory that turns out to be "very nearly right."

Anyone with a greater knowledge of astrophysics care to clarify; this is well beyond my expertise.

[blackbeltninja]

I wonder if Higgs will get one eventually. Nobels are occasionally awarded a decade or more after the data is published originally.

-d-

[rareboy]

I think Hawking should get one just for being nearly right and Higgs for just having convinced so many countries to spend billions on the Collider just on the basis of hypothesis.

If the guys who gave us the quant theory in economics that crashed the world economy in 2008 got a prize and Obama got a prize...then I think it is time for some of my fave guys with the plastic pen pocket protectors to be recognized for their spectacular proposals on matter.

And we're all looking forward to the day when BBninja delivers a speech from the Nobel podium as well.

[palbert]

Hawking should get one just for BEING!

[G-Lexington]

David Wineland is a professor at CU-Boulder (University of Colorado). I jokingly said "I'm guessing 99% of CU-Boulder alumni would gladly swap this Nobel Prize win for a victory in the CU-CSU football game three weeks ago." So far, nobody has disagreed.

Lex

[Kulindahr]

I understand that part of the "problem" in granting the Nobel to Hawking for the black hole emissions (it's called "Hawking Radiation" incidentally) is that it seems like sound theory with indirect support, but there is difficulty in making direct observations to confirm it. They don't want to give out a Nobel for a theory that turns out to be "very nearly right."

Anyone with a greater knowledge of astrophysics care to clarify; this is well beyond my expertise.

There have been claims of Hawking radiation being observed, but nothing has been firmly enough established to be accepted. The moment it is, Hawking will get a Nobel.

[Kulindahr]

If the guys who gave us the quant theory in economics that crashed the world economy in 2008 got a prize

Who... what????

[bankside]

I wonder if Higgs will get one eventually. Nobels are occasionally awarded a decade or more after the data is published originally.

-d-

I think they also have a limit as to the number of recipients per discovery. I thought they had hit the max 3 already regarding the boson.

[Kulindahr]

For what it's worth, what these two achieved is viewed as a required step for one approach to making an ansible.

[bankside]

If I jailbreak it, can I install iOS on an ansible?

[Kulindahr]

If I jailbreak it, can I install iOS on an ansible?

???

How can you install anything on an ansible?

[bankside]

???

How can you install anything on an ansible?

LOL My humour falling a bit flat tonight. Was intended to make mock of the apple fanatics.

[Kulindahr]

LOL My humour falling a bit flat tonight. Was intended to make mock of the apple fanatics.

Oh. I pay no attention to the humbugs behind the curtain.

[BostonPirate]

Physics has such fuzzy math. Not nearly as scientific as Economics.

Stephen Ross should take the honors in economics for his work in derivatives. He predicted the collapse of the financial sector a few years before it happened.

Quantum mechanics wins the Physics Nobel? Not surprised. Science that cannot have an observable proof is all the rage.

[blackbeltninja]

And we're all looking forward to the day when BBninja delivers a speech from the Nobel podium as well.

Hah, I wish!

-d-

[oakpope]

For chemistry it went to 2 Americans :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19894971

I don't know anything about this subject tough, it's almost biology for me.

[Kulindahr]

For chemistry it went to 2 Americans :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19894971

I don't know anything about this subject tough, it's almost biology for me.

Yeah, it's one of those places where chemistry and biology overlap. Of course in the end, everything in both is just molecular physics....

[Georgiadude]

My vote is for Sheldon Cooper. He's got this all wrapped up.

Steven.

[Kulindahr]

Quantum mechanics wins the Physics Nobel? Not surprised. Science that cannot have an observable proof is all the rage.

Without quantum mechanics and advances therein on applications, we wouldn't have cell phones.