Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the still-waiting-for-mine dept.

azatht writes "The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2004 "for the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction" jointly to David J. Gross, Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA, H. David Politzer California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Pasadena, USThe 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics, and Frank Wilczek Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, USA."

6 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. How can you select a couple people anymore..... by Sethseekstruth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It just seems to me,with what little I know of research and physics, that these things are now such large scale enterprises that the awards should actually go to the institions and not the people.

    --
    http://www.geocities.com/sethseekstruth/great_outd oors.html
    1. Re:How can you select a couple people anymore..... by trtmrt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These guys were theorists. For what they came up with they didn't need an army of graduate students and engineers turning bolts on an accelerator. Fortunately there is still some room for people that just know a lot and are smart enough to do discover things by themselves (of course in the context of other people's work).

    2. Re:How can you select a couple people anymore..... by QuantumMajo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good point, but these guys really did pioneer a huge field ... quantum chromodynamics. Which is not interior design for quantum physicists by the way, but how quarks join together to create the particle zoo we have. As good as CERN or SLAC is, for example, without these three guys, the accelerators at those labs would have nothing to do. Many of my friends in high energy physics work at experiments specifically designed to probe the QCD effects that David Gross, David Politzer and Frank Wilczek theorized. So ... should we give the award to the numerous validators or to the first pioneers. I go for the first pioneers. But hey, I am a theorist.

    3. Re:How can you select a couple people anymore..... by footNipple · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It just seems to me,with what little I know of research and physics, that these things are now such large scale enterprises that the awards should actually go to the institions and not the people.

      Why does this comment aggrevate me so? Maybe it's because political correctness has run amok, Maybe it's because the importance of individual acheivement is being marginalized because we don't want others to feel "left out".

      These prizes damned well should be awarded to individuals in recognition of their acheivement. Then, by proxy, their institutions will will receive their due recognition. Just my $.02

  2. Begone, ye troll! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I realise I may be feeding a troll, but too many people have that serious opinion. Let me jsut layout some coutner arguements:

    Relativity is not 'useless' satalite communication would not be work if we didn't make relitivistic corrections. So unless you consider cellphones "worthless", then the theory is worthwhile. Not only does cellphone technology rely on satalites, but also on the precise atomic clocks contained with in them. And those atomic clocks rely on our quantum mechanical understanding of atoms. Thats not to say that this particular research directly led to our widespread cellphone usage, but its just an example of how much basic research affects our daily lives.

    Now, every now and then pure mathematicians will come up with an obscure field that they will decalre as being unaplicable to anything ever ( see group theory). Then a few years later a group of physicsists will discover that it has a real application in physics. Then they will speculate wildly about the potential applications in an attempt to gain greater funding, while privately thinking that it has no possible use. Then some crazy engineer will discover some such use ( usually one the physicists never thought of) and whoila it has a real world benifit to all of mankind. The more tools we have to solve problems, the easier the problems become. The tools have a trickle down effect. More mathematical tools lead to more physics tools which lead to more engineering tools which lead to more solutions to our everyday problems.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  3. Re:These guys need to get out more by UnHolier+than+ever · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In fact, the original name (and one that is still used by many physicists) for the top and bottom quarks were Truth and Beauty. Now, of course, joykillers like you say that's not technical enough and that it can't be serious. As if Top and Bottom meant something more....If you want to do any anything technical, they should be called 1,2,3,4,5, and 6. Otherwise, give any name you want, they're just names.