Slashdot Mirror


Nobel Prize for Physics Announced

what_the_frell writes "According to this Fox News article, two Americans and a Russian won the 2003 Nobel Prize for Physics for research in the field of quantum physics. The trio conducted research in superconductivity and superfluidity, detailed in this official Nobel article."

24 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Nationality by iworm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not that it really matters, but it's actually two Russians and a Brit (although two of them do hold dual citizenship with the US).

    Point is, if you're going to bother mentioning it in the story, then get it right. Otherwise (maybe better) don't mention it as it doesn't really matter...

    1. Re:Nationality by SB5 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nevermind I am sort of wrong...

      Go here:http://travel.state.gov/dualnationality.html

      --
      If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
      it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
    2. Re:Nationality by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 4, Informative

      No you can have duel citizenship. Not all countries allow you renouce your citizenship. For example the US makes it damn hard to renouce its citizenship. When you aquire US citizenship what happens to your other citizenship depends on the laws of that country. I have some knowlege of this in that I have 2 and soon to be 3 citizenships (and passports).
      FromThe US State Department's page on being a duel national :
      A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
  2. Connected to the other prize by TripleA · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The technology of supraconductors is interrestingly enough used in the magnetic camera that gave the medical prize.

  3. MRI week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just yesterday: Nobel Prize for medicine awarded for MRI technology.

    Today, from the article:

    Superconducting material is used, as an example, to produce powerful magnetic fields for the standard body scanning technique called magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI.

    Is this a theme this year?

  4. Superfluidity by whizzzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    The winners will continue their research into superfluidity this evening, at the bar.

  5. Re:Nobel prize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well GWB has been nominated for the Peace Nobel Prize 2003!

  6. Re:Bizarre huh? by waitigetit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it."

    - Niels Bohr

    --
    I could care less, but not without a lobotomy
  7. Benefitted the mankind? by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Nobel Prize winners should be people whose invention "benefitted the whole mankind". Did these guys theoretical research achieve that?

    MRI is a great application but how much it is due to the actual theory? Incidently, the inventors of MRI already got their prize this year.

    I think this prize was given out too early anyway. The jury is still out when it comes to the widespread applicability of high temperature superconductors.

    ** BEGIN RANT **

    On a completely another note, I must confess that it often feels like that the term Physics has come to mean - at least in the layman's mind - a theoretician scribbling away on a blackboard or crunching numbers. I keep running into 3rd-4th year Physics majors who think that you're not doing real Physics unless you write and solve equations. As an experimentalist this annoys me to no end. Maths is only a language and the most elegant Physics papers are those in which the experimental results themselves speak for themselves. What is the added-value in complicated calculations in such studies? Yet, if you submit good purely experimental papers to respected journals the reviewers will bitch at you for not doing any theoretical calculations "to gain a holistic view". That's total bullshit. When did Physics change from an empirical science into a theoretical one?

    ** END RANT **

    1. Re:Benefitted the mankind? by Smedrick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I suggest you take a look at End of Science by John Horgan. I'm reading it now and most of the book is about exactly what you're ranting on. What's happening is we're getting to the point where empirical science is becoming impossible (either finacially or practically) in the field of physics. Because of this, a great deal of physics is headed towards philosophy. Everyone's conjecturing, but no one can (dis)prove anything.

      I don't know if I agree with everything in the book, but it's a great read.

      --
      "I strongly urge both the faint of heart and the faint of butt to leave the room at this time."
      - Strong Bad
    2. Re:Benefitted the mankind? by dummkopf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let me elaborate a bit on your rather narrow-minded comment: superconductivity (SC) was discovered 1911 by K. Onnes. Not until 1935 F. London came up with a macroscopic description of the effect which explained the magnetic part of the problem, but not much further than that. 18 years leater in 1953 Ginzburg and Landau came up with a phenomenological approach (GL theory) which actually explained MANY things without the knowledge of the underlying microscopic mechanism. This was a great breaktrough because you could actually start to PREDICT things without knowing how it really worked in the guts. In particular they were of great importance in realizing that there are two types of SCs (I and II) from which only type II are relevant for industry. Type I "die" soon with small fields and have transition temperatures which are only a few K. Even though in 1957 Bardeen, Cooper and Shriffer (BCS) explained the microscopic theory of SC, GL theory remained one of the most important approaches to understand novel phases, such as the intermediate (Abrikosov) vortex phase in type II SCs. Type II SCs are important in industry because they remain superconducting for high fields. Problem is, you get vortices in the system. Abrikosov (who got also a Nobel medal) was the first to predict that these vortices make a lattice and constitute a NOVEL state of matter (within matter). In the meantime one has als high-T_c superconductors (the stuff MRI machines use) and for these NEW materials there is NO understanding on how SC works. BUT for these materials the Ginzburg Landau theory still applies and often makes predictions on how things will behave. Therefore THEORY IS IMPORTANT and these gentlemen deserve the award. As for Legett: he made important contributions in the world of superfluids as well as Bose Einstein condensation. IMHO his work on quantum tunneling with dissipation is the best. To summarize: no MRI with no GL theory.

      As for your little rant: Theory and Experiment (and today also computational physics) should be COMPLEMENTARY to each other. You find many theory papers which do not seem to be close to reality. This does not mean they are garbage. It means that they are ahead of industrial applications. Often one sees experimental papers which simply say: "I measured this and look how cute it is". but they lack of ANY physical understanding. Now you tell me, which one is worse? Clearly Math is the language of Physics. But you need to know how to write in a languagel before you can create a nice poem... If as an experimentalist you do not even know how to "write", how can you then understand the theory pertinent to your experiment? All you are at that stage is an observer... and as we all know: everyone can observe.

      It seems as if some experimentalists carry a large chip on the shoulder???

    3. Re:Benefitted the mankind? by karolo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I think the point of asking for a theoretical treatment is very important. The theoretical treatment allows to generalise the results, and a well developed theoretical analysis of the results within the relevant framework is allways helpful to reveal new patterns, if there are any.

      Anyhow, theoretical representation will most likely come after the empirical work. In the three major physical divisions (newtonian physics, electromagnetism/relativity and quantum mechanics) each theoretical framework became consistent after years of refinement to fit the empirical observations.

    4. Re:Benefitted the mankind? by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Thanks for the book tip.

      I haven't read the book, but at first glance it sounds rather odd thing to say that physical science is becoming impossible. There are vast gaps in the very fundamentals of even a venerable field such as the solid state physics. New techniques have such as femtosecond laser spectroscopy and coincidence electron spectroscopies are being developed. I do not see any practical reasons to say that empirical science is dying. If there are practical problems with the more esoteric fields such as cosmology or fundamental particles research, they've probably surfaced simply because our instrumentation has not yet matured to the required level.

      One financial threat that I've personally seen and felt is that all physical science is accountable for what has been achieved by the given funding. In other words: scientists must be able to show "profitability". The problem is that scientific profitability is hard to measure in an objective way. In practise, it is often calculated by summing the number of your publications, supervised theses and various other activity such as organizing conferences with ad hoc weight factors. In more enlightened systems the number of publications is weighed by a quality factor such as journal's impact factor (again one may argue that impact factors do not tell the whole truth) but not everywhere.

      The trouble here is that how can you compare the profitability of a theoretical and an experimental group? It's hard to measure anything today without spending several millions of USD on hardware and salaries. Computing, on the other hand, is cheap and most theoretically oriented groups simply have to worry about their salaries - the local university or a national computing centre will give them all the CPU time in the world for small change. Basically it boils down to this: if you do theoretical work you don't have to pay for the infrastructure.

      So, when an empirical group and a theoretical group apply for money how do you compare the proposals fairly? The empirical group may require the salaries for, let's say, 5 scientists and they need $800,000 for new hardware to publish anything at all. That's over 1 million USD. Theoretical group's infrastructure, on the other hand, will require funding for the salaries and a few inexpensive Linux PCs ($500-$1000) to submit jobs to the supercomputer.

      Which group do you think will be the first one to publish anything, which one will produce more papers per year and which one of them has more potential for growth in the near future?

    5. Re:Benefitted the mankind? by quirky_qubit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Great reply, dummkopf (I *hate* calling you that, but it's your moniker ;-). I worked in Abrikosovs group at Argonne from 1994-1996 as a graduate student - and I was then an experimentalist, working on imaging in real time the magnetic vortices he had predicted in the 1950s. The man was in my lab *often* and nearly every day he communicates with the experimentalists. He is a true physicist of the old school: keeping his hands in both theoretical and expermental aspects. How foolish for anyone to criticize this man's work as being lofty theoretical stuff (a term I hear often).

    6. Re:Benefitted the mankind? by menscher · · Score: 4, Interesting
      First off, congrats to Tony. The locals have been saying it was only a matter of time before he was awarded a Nobel.

      Nobel Prize winners should be people whose invention "benefitted the whole mankind". Did these guys theoretical research achieve that?

      Do you think the experimentalists would be doing anything other than flailing about without great theorists like Anthony Leggett? In an awards ceremony for Tony in the physics department at UIUC a few months ago, I heard experimentalists telling of how important their interaction with him was. How most of their major contributions to science stemmed from discussions with him. How he'd politely tell them when they were wasting their time (but were welcome to continue, since they might discover something new and unexpected, like that the 0th law of thermodynamics was wrong).

      When the condensed matter theory group was moved to a different building, the experimentalists were happy that they'd have theorists walking past their labs. There was even a video [warning, 156M] of them trying to catch the theorists in big nets and force them to do calculations.

      When did Physics change from an empirical science into a theoretical one?

      Physics has always been about understanding. From my theorist perspective, it pisses me off to see all the experimentalists that get PhDs without having the slightest clue of what they've done. They have something strange happen in an experiment, manage to reproduce it, and they've gotten themselves a PhD. It's then a theorist's job to figure out why. Of course, I'm exaggerating here. I know several good experimentalists.

      Now for my own little rant:
      Why does everyone constrain physics into Theory and Experiment? What about those of us that do Computational Physics? You know, like lattice QCD? Our work is necessary and important, but I can guarantee it'll never get a Nobel.

      Hrmm... now I'm gonna have to listen to one of my friends say "My advisor got the Nobel Prize and yours didn't."

  8. 6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other by tomzyk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Directly [clipped] from the article:

    Alexei A. Abrikosov
    Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, USA... born 1928 (75 years) in Moscow

    Vitaly L. Ginzburg
    P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia... born 1916 (87 years) in Moscow

    Anthony J. Leggett
    University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, USA... born 1938 (65 years) in London

    So, yes, 2 Russians and a Brit... But also 2 Americans and a Russian. Don't be so picky. I was born in Erie Pennsylvania, but I tell everyone I'm from Cleveland Ohio because that's where I live and work now.

    --
    Karma: NaN
    1. Re:6 in one hand, half a dozen in the other by Rhubarb+Crumble · · Score: 2, Informative
      So, yes, 2 Russians and a Brit... But also 2 Americans and a Russian.

      Look at where they were when they did the research they got the prize for.

      "The decisive theory explaining how the atoms interact and are ordered in the superfluid state was formulated in the 1970s by Anthony Leggett."
      (http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/2003/press. html)

      If you look at his CV you will see:

      1967-1983 University of Sussex.

      (conflating lectureships and professorships here)

      So in the 70s, when he formulated his theories, he worked in the UK. Brit.

  9. Two winners from the same lab... by davids-world.com · · Score: 2, Informative

    What's also astonishing is that one university (Dept of Physics and the Beckman Institute at University of Illinois at Urbana) can claim TWO nobel prizes this year -- Paul Lauterbur (Medicine, for MRI) and Tony Leggett (Physics). Quite impressing.

  10. superconductivity ain't just zero resistance by elwinc · · Score: 4, Informative
    It's a common misconception that superconductivity means zero electrical resistance. This is true, but it's only one of the oddities of superconductivity. Another main one is the Meissner Effect. This is the expulsion of magnetic fields from a material as it makes its transition from normal to superconducting.

    Pure zero resistance would prevent electric fields from entering a block of superconductor (the change in magnetic fields will induce eddy currents) to counter any change in the local magnetic field) and this effect is called perfect diamagnetism.

    The Meissner effect is different: it's a phase change effect -- it takes energy to expel the magnetic field. If the magnetic field is strong enough, the material may never superconduct. In any case, the transition temperature T_c is actually a function of the local magnetic field.

    Furthermore, if you boost the field enough, you can quench the superconductivity and initiate resistance heating -- it can get nasty with high currents. Is the magnetic expulsion perfect? Sometimes it is, and sometimes not, because of flux pinning.

    Since we often want to use superconductors to either make high magnetic fields (like in magnetic resonance imagers) or to carry large currents (that induce high magnetic fields) the Meissner Effect, and the magnetic dependence of the transition temperature are important considerations for practical superconductors.

    --
    --- Often in error; never in doubt!
    1. Re:superconductivity ain't just zero resistance by Mac+Scientist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Possibly because superconductivity is purely a quantum mechanical phenomena, applications don't get reported a lot, because it's hard to explain how such devices work to the general public.

      Superconductivity also encompasses the Josephson effect. This is where paired electrons in a superconductor, when driven by microwave frequency radio signals, can pass through a thin insulating layer. The voltage generated across this layer is proportional to the microwave frequency. Thus, the unit of voltage is now determined by Josephson effect reference standards in labs all over the world.

      An additional Josephson effect is an extreme sensitivity to magnetic fields. This is employed in SQUIDs (Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices). SQUIDS are used in detecting the magnetic fields from nerve currents in the brain, internal flaws in metal structures, or submerged submarines.

      Brian Josephson won the Nobel in physics in 1973, after figuring this weird, electron tunneling effect out as a grad student in 1962.

  11. Re:This is weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I thought modern Americans attend college only to learn about racial diversity and take up some Women Studies courses.

    Basically, you're right. The "two Americans" were not educated in the USA, nor did they do their prizewinning research in the USA, nor were they US citizens when they did it. In other words, the original posting was up to the usual standard of /. editors.

  12. Re:What does it mean in light of this? by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It means that the guy who wrote that article does not have a clue. Or at least he has an agenda. The theories of 20th century physics, Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Quentum Electro Dynamics etc have stood up to ever exeriment. In the case of QED the theory agrees with the exeriments to some thing like 15 significant digits.

    I just finished a BA in physics doing some research, and I can say this guy is full of it. Though some of the string theory is not verifiable. But I know someone who is working on it.

    --
    Erlang Developer and podcaster
  13. Future of Science Research by kobukson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The winners of the Physics prize are all old men, the youngest being 65 and the oldest 87. They did their groundbreaking research during the Cold War environment, when governments invested heavily in basic science research. One wonders if the same caliber of science research is being conducted today that are worthy of future Nobels. Physics research was dealt a heavy blow when Congress decided to kill the Superconducting Supercollider Project in 1990, which still remains, unfinished and abandoned, in Texas, as a kind of a modern-day Stonehenge. Many of the famous institutions, such as Bell Labs, are a shell of their former selves. Private industry labs, such as those of IBM, which used to support basic science research without qualms, are now hesitant to fund research that does not bear any immediate commercial benefits. The federal goverment does not have any well-stated policy for insuring the scientific leadership of the nation. The young people of today do not aspire to become scientists or engineers, having been brain-damaged by an MTV culture. The current state of research itself has become ridiculous. Whereas, in the past, people were interested in lasers, superconductors, and fusion, now, serious science has been reduced to the level of how to bake a better cookie from the oven.

    --
    -- I hereby announce, on behalf of my great ancester Oog, a retroactive patent on THE WHEEL.
  14. Re:What does it mean in light of this? by phritz · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I agree - the author doesn't know what he's talking about, and his attitude that "if it defies common sense, it must be nonsense" is unbelievably silly. His derisive comments towards quantum theory are particularly telling; quantum mechanics is, indisputably, the most successful physical theory ever concieved (this is not hyperbole - any physicist will tell you this).

    I find it ironic that the author talks about how knowledge is only gained through hard work, and today's physicists are just lazy - yet quantum mechanics represents a collosal achievement that resists all attempts at falsification.

    To wit - Tony Leggett, today's nobel prize winner for superfluidity, began his research as an attempt to discredit quantum mechanics. His final results, instead, became (yet another) stunning confirmation of the quantum theory's incredible accuracy in describing the physical world.