The 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday October 5, 2004 @12:14AM 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."

20 of 156 comments (clear)

Some quicky info by gowen · 2004-10-05 00:16 · Score: 5, Informative

Asymptotic freedom in the theory of the Strong Interaction

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Eat my Karma by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-05 00:19 · Score: 4, Informative

BBC Article
Well . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-05 00:19 · Score: 4, Funny

This discovery cemented the theory of quantum chromodynamics, which describes the interactions of quarks and other subatomic particles inside the atomic nucleus.

It also filled a critical remaining gap in what physicists refer to as the Standard Model, the theory that governs physics at the microscopic scale. It accounts for the behavior of three out of nature's four fundamental forces - electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force, which governs radioactive decay. Which brings us a few step forwards towards the answer of 42.
1. Re:Well . . . by gowen · 2004-10-05 00:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It accounts for the behavior of three out of nature's four fundamental forces
  Err, no. QCD accounts for one of the fundamental forces, the strong force. Quarks (and their asymptotic freedom) don't really have anything to do with the electroweak forces, which are carried by W and Z bosons and photons.
  
  --
  Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
2. Re:Well . . . by Pi_0's+don't+shower · 2004-10-05 02:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This discovery cemented the theory of quantum chromodynamics...
  Not to be too nit-picky, but it's worth mentioning that their work shows that quantum chromodynamics (QCD) accurately describes the strong force only at HIGH energies. The use of asymptotic freedom, or QCD at large energy scales, agrees very well with experiment. However, the theory does not give reliable predictions in the low-energy (sometimes non-perturbative) regime. To say that QCD is now completely understood ignores this problem, which is the most serious problem left (other than the Higgs) in the Standard Model today. Some possible solutions to the low-energy QCD problem (or the confinement problem) are the people working on Lattice QCD and the people working on the B-T worldsheet formalism. Sorry for the deluge of information, but I thought it was worth pointing out that there is still plenty of work to be done in understanding this theory. And as an interesting aside, even with these three brilliant men and their work, theoretical calculations only agree with experiment to about a 10% level!
How can you select a couple people anymore..... by Sethseekstruth · 2004-10-05 00:21 · 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 · 2004-10-05 00:40 · 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 · 2004-10-05 00:55 · 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 · 2004-10-05 01:49 · 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
I need to catch up on my physics by FLOOBYDUST · 2004-10-05 00:24 · Score: 5, Informative

It always amazes me how little I know when I look at what these folks do. http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty /frank_wilczek.html/ Interesting reading.
Re:Coralised link by Jugalator · 2004-10-05 00:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Umm, mods... That one wasn't coralized...

Try this instead:
http://nobelprize.org.nyud.net:8090/physics/laurea tes/2004/press.html

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The Elegant Universe by MonkeyDev · 2004-10-05 00:45 · Score: 5, Informative

If you want a good description of what Superstrings is all about, read Brian Greene's book "The Elegant Universe". It's about superstrings, hidden dimensions, and the quest for the ultimate theory. His book was also made into a PBS special a few months ago. Brian Greene is a master at making these complex issues understandable. And he's fun to watch too. I'm not sure how much pure research he does anymore, but he's probably one of the best things that's ever happened to science because he helps people like me understand what people like him do - and tells us why we should care!
Re:Where will this take us ? by tgibbs · 2004-10-05 00:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is it some 100% theoretical stuff or will it have technical repercussions in the short term ?

Generally, by the time somebody receives the Nobel Prize for a discovery, the "short term" is already over.
Re:Where will this take us ? by daveaitel · 2004-10-05 01:03 · Score: 3, Funny

Due to, ya know, quantum tunnelling and stuff, some of the atoms in your shorts are, kinda, in your mouth. So technically you already are.

-dave
A plug for Caltech and good teaching. by DrRobin · 2004-10-05 01:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

Hey! One of these guys (Politzer) was my Phys 1 prof when I was a frosh at Caltech *cough* 27 years ago, and I actually _remember_ his explanation of asymptotic freedom to us (even though I am a only a biology guy)! I also remember Feynman's guest lecture on numerical methods for "solving" otherwise impossible problems in Quantum Mechanics (which he demonstrated with a hand calculator!). We (the undergrads) were for the most part cocky know-it-alls with no clue what a privilege it was to have these folks (and many others of their caliber) teaching us up close and personal. Now, I look back with amazement at being able to discuss/joke/plead with these folks like it was no big deal. Seriously, if there are any gung-ho Slashlings out there looking for an intense science education, Caltech is hard to beat. Of course, if hazy memory serves in this matter, more than half the class flunked that first Phys1 midterm, so this is not for the faint of heart...
1. Re:A plug for Caltech and good teaching. by 4of12 · 2004-10-05 02:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Hey! One of these guys (Politzer) was my Phys 1 prof when I was a frosh at Caltech *cough* 27 years ago
  
  I remember taking "Track B" with Politzer and Gomez back about that time, with class notes distributed on pink paper, brutal take-home quizzes on relativity, etc.
  
  Politzer is a pretty good and patient prof, answering questions, explaining basic physics points, etc. although one time he did get annoyed at a cocky youngster (I don't think it was you - this was 26 years ago) slouched up in the front row.
  
  Cocky youngster: "I don't see why you just don't use Stoke's Theorem."
  
  Politzer: "I could just do this, too! (writes down what I later learned was manifestly covariant form for Maxwell's equations), but I'm teaching the class (erases equations) and this is how I want to do it."
  
  The silenced cocky youngster sitting up front was spared the further embarrassment of seeing his classmates behind smiling at his long overdue comeuppance.
  
  I agree - Caltech can't be beat for pure science education. It helps, too, that the freshman year is graded Pass/Fail and that they have an honor system, unlike most any other school, actually trusts you to take a closed-book, limited-time,take-homeexamination.
  
  --
  "Provided by the management for your protection."
Begone, ye troll! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2004-10-05 01:24 · 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.
1. Re:Begone, ye troll! by Dr.+Evil · 2004-10-05 02:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Einstein never won a Nobel prize for Relativity, he won it for the photoelectric effect.
Re:These guys need to get out more by UnHolier+than+ever · 2004-10-05 02:12 · 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.
Re:Where will this take us ? by Theory+of+Everything · 2004-10-05 03:29 · Score: 5, Informative

Is it some 100% theoretical stuff or will it have technical repercussions in the short term ?

I just attended Frank Wilczek's press conference. He was asked this very question. His answer, in short, was "No." In medium, "The are no real-world applications I can think of." In long, "Maybe, someday, it could benefit nuclear power production because we better understand the nucleus. And there are side-benefits: the WWW was developed at CERN, and young people are inspired to science-related careers."