Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No Nobel For Nick Holonyak Jr, Father of the LED

Posted by timothy on from the only-the-blue-baby-gets-the-prize dept.

szotz writes Nick Holonyak Jr. doesn't want to go gently into that good night. Widely regarded as the father of the LED (for his work on early visible-light devices), he's been making strongly-worded comments about being passed over for the Nobel Prize. His wife said he'd given up on getting it. But, he says, this year's physics award, to inventors of the blue LED, was just plain 'insulting'. The history the LED goes beyond and back further than Holonyak (all the way to the beginning of the 20th century), but a number of his colleagues are disappointed and/or surprised by the snub.

169 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Calibax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It really is insulting to give a Nobel prize for an improvement to a revolutionary idea, and ignore the person who did the original work. Without Holonyak's original work there would be no basis for the improvement.

    1. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It really is insulting to give a Nobel prize for an improvement to a revolutionary idea, and ignore the person who did the original work. Without Holonyak's original work there would be no basis for the improvement.

      And where does the buck stop in this argument? Or should Nobels drift endlessly backwards to Newton, Leibniz, Aristotle, Plato ... Thales of Miletus. Thales of Miletus? All Nobels go to him?

    2. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That award has pretty much 0 to do with real achievement. It is a political power play. Up until Obama got the peace prize I though otherwise. How can you get the prize for having not DONE anything... At least at this point they could point at something and give him one...

    3. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes

    4. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where have you been AC?
       
      We live in the age of "everyone gets a trophy".

    5. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Nobel prize is never given posthumously. That's where it stops.

    6. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by drainbramage · · Score: 5, Funny

      Everyone but Holonyak.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    7. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Informative

      The peace prize is different in that it is, by definition, political. Do not judge the other prizes by how the peace prize is awarded.

    8. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Alomex · · Score: 2

      Sure, but what if a red LED is a natural evolution while blue LED, once thought impossible is the true revolutionary idea?

    9. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by geekmux · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It really is insulting to give a Nobel prize for an improvement to a revolutionary idea, and ignore the person who did the original work. Without Holonyak's original work there would be no basis for the improvement.

      And where does the buck stop in this argument? Or should Nobels drift endlessly backwards to Newton, Leibniz, Aristotle, Plato ... Thales of Miletus. Thales of Miletus? All Nobels go to him?

      If you're still alive to receive the prize and can feel the sting of the slap in the face when you are passed over, then I'd say that's the litmus test.

      If you're dead, well you probably didn't get the email...

    10. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      And where does the buck stop in this argument?

      At the elephants, obviously.

      Otherwise it would be Nobels all the way down. And while the money is infinitely divisible, the awards themselves would have an infinite cost.

      Unless you give really tiny, tiny awards.

      But that would be cheap for such a noble organization.

    11. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That award has pretty much 0 to do with real achievement. It is a political power play. Up until Obama got the peace prize I though otherwise. How can you get the prize for having not DONE anything... At least at this point they could point at something and give him one...

      The gave the peace prize to f-ing Henry Kissinger. Where have you been ?

    12. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      didn't arafat get one too? :(

    13. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You know that it is hard to not to reference other Nobel awards that are questionable.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      ... The sad part is that people still think the Nobel prizes are meaningful.

      Let me preface what I say with: I don't know the physics involved, I'm just putting out thoughts for the sake of discussion. I think the inventor of the LED deserves respect just due to the way it has become embedded in everything we do even if it were a trivial thing to create. Maybe not a Nobel prize, but something appropriate to 'changing the way we view the world' which is what has happened here, with the help of many people.

      However, for the sake of argument, the question becomes was inventing the visible light LED actually revolutionary or what it simply repurposing an existing principal in a minor way, and someone else is really the one who created the idea.

      I know blue LEDs were considering 'unpossible' based on the original understanding of the physics involved, though I admit I don't know why. Are blue LEDs using some different method or are they a slight tweak on existing LED tech? Are the physics essentially the same? Or are we talking about the same sort of differences between an infrared LED and visible LED when we talk about going from a red LED to a blue LED?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    15. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could at least look at the post he's replying to.

    16. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Re: Obama

      I don't think its fair to call him out for being involved in wars on its own. He is, by definition, employed to do so for the US government. Even he has stated that its a bit shocking for the president of a country involved in 2 wars at time to be the recipient.

      If you want to call out the Nobel issue, do so because of the fact that he got it and had done nothing but been elected as the president of the US. The committee sited one of the primary reasons being his promotion of nuclear non-proliferation ... which is ironic, because what he really means is that he's fine with HIM having control of massive super weapons, but no one else should. Basically, let me be able to wipe out anyone else in the blink of an eye, but no way anyone else should have the same power as me. That is pretty much exactly the opposite of what I consider peaceful intentions.

      The peace prize is a political tool, nothing more. Has been since its inception.

      What you're really complaining about is that other prizes are becoming political tools rather than awards for achievement.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    17. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Up until Obama got the peace prize I though otherwise.

      Because you believe there was nothing wrong with Henry Kissinger getting one 30 years prior?

    18. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, Holonyak just made a red version of existing IR LEDs, so giving him the prize would be doing the same thing to the IR LED inventors.

    19. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, Thales of Miletus died in 546BC. Nick Holonyak Jr. is still alive.

    20. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Nobel prize in literature is fairly political, too. It was awarded to Winston Churchill, for example, and the award to William Golding was perhaps a deliberate snub to Graham Greene.

    21. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Also, keep in mind that the Peace Prize is not awarded by the main Nobel Committe, but instead the Norwegian Nobel Committe, which is selected by the norwegian parliament.

      And, as one of the many Norway jokes go:

      Why are there no mental asylums in Norway?
      It'd cost too much to wall and roof the entire country....

    22. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

      Kissinger had an actual body of work to show for it.

    23. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Shinobi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The red visible light LED was just a small progression from the infrared LED. The blue LED required MASSIVE fundamental physics research to even lay the foundation for it being possible.

      You can read the scientific background on the Nobel Prize website.

      Someone on StackExchange also summed it up like this:
      "The invention of MOCVD technology for growing crystals (early 1970s);
      Finding the right recipe to grow good GaN by MOCVD (i.e., use a sapphire substrate, start with a low temperature step then switch to high temperature, etc.) (mid-1980s);
      Finding the right recipe to grow p-type GaN (what dopant to use (Mg), in what concentration, and what annealing / treating recipe to use to make the Mg dopants actually work and reduce the number of unintended n-type dopants that were canceling it out) (early 1990s);
      Once all that was in place, find good structures to make LEDs (e.g. if you can also grow InGaN then you can make quantum wells) (early-to-mid 1990s)."

    24. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Funny

      According to the reward committee, Obama's achievement was not being Bush.

      Although in retrospect, they probably should have waited a bit to make that determination.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    25. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kissinger had an actual body of work to show for it.

      More accurately, he had an actual body count to show for it.

      The fact that Obama hadn't killed anyone (yet) made him practically a shoe-in for it, by comparison.

    26. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by dj245 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, but what if a red LED is a natural evolution while blue LED, once thought impossible is the true revolutionary idea?

      Well, maybe they looked at impact. For decades, LEDs were only used for status lights, power lights, and some other things. Switching from mini-incandecent bulbs for these purposes didn't really change much in the grand view of things. Switching out household lighting from incandecent to blue/white LED saves thousands of megawatts of electricity, and enables many impoverished people to have electric light for the first time ever. I went to North Korea this year and even in very remote areas with clearly impoverished people, solar panels, batteries, and LED lighting were very common. Bringing light to the people like that would be a lot more difficult without LED lighting.

      And if you think that inexpensive, efficient lighting is not a big deal, try living without it for a week. The availability of inexpensive lighting has become so embedded in Western society that we can't imagine life without it. Think about what that means to the billions of poor people all over the world who are getting, or have gotten it, for the first time.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    27. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by pla · · Score: 1

      If you want to call out the Nobel issue, do so because of the fact that he got it and had done nothing but been elected as the president of the US.

      Still better than "Europe". Talk about phoning it in...

    28. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      The Peace Prize was set up by Nobel in his will

      The economy prize, however, is not a Nobel prize.

    29. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by silfen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Holonyak didn't invent the LED, he created the first visible light LED. As such, his contribution is of the same kind as the inventors of the blue LED: he changed the emission frequency of an existing device.

      Going from infrared to yellow was also a much simpler step than going from yellow to blue; the latter required different and more complex physics. Since the price is for contributions to physics, I think it makes sense that they honored this. From a practical standpoint, before blue LEDs, LEDs were just instrument lights; afterwards, they became a usable light source and display technology, so that was really the critical step.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

    30. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Nobody has _ever_ mad lasting peace without a body count.

      Well, yes. The easiest way to make peace is to kill everyone who disagrees with you.

      That doesn't mean it's a good idea, though.

    31. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by fnj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ah, but can you define "inventor of the LED"? H. J. Round for getting luminescence from silicon carbide in 1907? Oleg Losev for his demonstration in 1927? Rubin Braunstein who found infrared emission from gallium arsenide in 1955? Baird and Pittman for patenting an (infrared) "Semiconductor Radiant Diode" which was efficient in 1962? Holonyak for reporting the first visible red LED in 1962? Any recognition for M. George Craford for the first yellow LED and for bettering the efficiency by an order of magnitude in 1972? And for T. P. Pearsall for the first high brightness LEDs suitable for driving fiber optics in 1976? And whoever invented the first green LED? And of course the inventors of the blue LED?

      I think Holonyak for first visible LED is certainly deserving, but the whole chain of discoveries and inventions was crucial to the LCD monitors and flatscreen TVs we enjoy today.

      The same goes for the transistor. Lilienfeld filed for a patent on the FET in 1925, yet we all thought Bardeen, Shockley and Brattain were first in 1948. As it turned out, their bipolar transistor tech turned out in the long run to be completely eclipsed by the (MOS)FET.

    32. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean it's a bad idea ether. The devil is in the details.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    33. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama had nothing to do with his own prize -- it was a slap in the face to Bush.

      Obama should have refused it because participating in such a political action by foreigners by playing their puppet in a play is beneath the Presidency.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    34. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait...
      You went to the North Korea?? and they let you tour the homes of people in impoverished region???? And they were using equipments that cost tens of thousands of dollars???????
      People in North Korea can barely afford food in their mouth... and they are using solar panel and LED lighting because they don't have electricity???
      People in rural area make less than $100 a month, while LED light costs ~$10 (Usually some order of magnitude more than that, because it has to be imported)

    35. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 1

      Where have you been AC? We live in the age of "everyone gets a trophy".

      I must assume my trophies are stuck in the mail somewhere.

    36. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by operagost · · Score: 1

      I should get the prize for peace this year. I haven't bombed anyone-- ever!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    37. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by skydyr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Gandhi, or at least Mahatma Gandhi, never had political power beyond inspiring the fight for independence, so it's hard to talk about how he used it.

    38. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by operagost · · Score: 2

      My body count is 0. Where's my award?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    39. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by sexconker · · Score: 1

      the implication of the blue LED wasn't just the color, was the frequency of the light.

      Congratulations, you're in the lead for today's "Dumbest Fucking Post" award.

    40. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by davester666 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      If everyone at the meetings are Jews, none of them stand out as looking "Jewish".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    41. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, but what if a red LED is a natural evolution while blue LED, once thought impossible is the true revolutionary idea?

      Exactly right. A (high-brightness) blue LED must have been desired shortly after the red one was invented in 1962, but it wasn't until 1993 that one was created. So, it must have been a pretty difficult physics problem to solve.

      That said, since blue LEDs are a variation on a theme, they seem more like an "invention" than a fundamental breakthrough, like other Nobel prize winners such as the transistor. For example, is a blue LED as fundamentally different from a red LED as a transistor is from a vacuum tube?

    42. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      That isn't a Nobel Prize, it's the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (which is, like the Nobels, selected by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and announced at the same time as the Nobels, but it is not a Nobel prize).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    43. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's actually ramped down foreign deployments, not just planned to do it.

      An act which alone started yet another foreign war:

      http://classic.slashdot.org/su...

      Which by the way, all of this "ramping down" was already something Bush had planned and was even done under his original timeline, so I'm not letting him off here, but Obama could have stopped it. Still, I'm not sure why you credit Obama for it in the first place.

      He's proactively involved special forces in trouble spots before full scale deployments become necessary.

      This is something every recent president has done. (And in many cases it gets us into trouble.) Do you have blind worship for this guy or something? I mean this statement alone suggests your nose is presently getting browner as we speak.

      But, the machine that Obama represents, corrupt, inconsistent, and self-serving as it is, seems to be an improvement over the machine that Bush represented.

      How the hell would that be, exactly? He appoints people to his cabinet who believe they can do whatever the fuck they want. I mean shit, his DOJ thinks it can throw whatever charges it wants even against people that have been found not guilty by a jury of their peers. If anything it's worse, yet somehow you believe it's an improvement?

    44. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Physics and Chemistry are handled by SUB-committes of KVA, and in PRACTICE, they cross-reference a lot. And while Karolinska Sjukhuset are responsible for the physiology/medicine prize, they in practice cross-reference with the chemistry and physics sub-committes at KVA.

    45. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Jonifico · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're so mixing this up. Thing is, if they give me a Nobel Prize for inventing the computer, shouldn't they give a Nobel to the one who made the transistor? Oh, wait. They did!

    46. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, the committee which decides is *completely* different. The Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry are awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the one for Physiology or Medicine by the Karolinska Institutet, but the Peace prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament.

      So it's not only a different group of people who do the peace prize, they're from a completely different *country*.

      How anyone can seriously propose that the decisions about the peace prize in any way shape or form reflect the integrity of the science prizes, I can't say. (The science prizes certainly have their own share of controversies, but you don't need to go heaping the peace prize's issues at their door.)

    47. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      He's better off without it. The Nobel Prize is a circle-jerk for patsy good-old-boys's club jackasses, not a serious scientific recognition. It's the club for people who have friends high up in the club.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    48. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      Comparing Churchill to Obama is a hilarious leap in logic, though. Churchill was one of the greatest speakers of our time. As a speechwriter, he's completely respectable.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    49. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Alomex · · Score: 1

      As best as I understand yes, researchers thought blue couldn't be achieved because of some theoretical limits as opposed to simple engineering of materials required to move up from the infrared to the visible part of the spectrum.

    50. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Can't get elected without a name and birth certificate.. oh, wait...

    51. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Zxern · · Score: 1

      Sadly things might have turned out a little better there if had taken power.

    52. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by nashv · · Score: 1

      The Nobel prize is not given for scientific achievement or for being the first to do anything. It is given for accomplishments that influence the world and society in a substantial way (in the opinion of the Nobel committee).

      The message being sent here is that LEDs were cool, but there was no significant impact of LEDs on the world until the blue LED came along, allowed production of white light and thereby the use of LEDs in lighting - substantially increasing the per capita energy efficiency in the entire world .

      You may dispute whether blue LEDs really made a difference - but the 'original work, first to do it' is not (and never was) a reason for the Nobel prize awards.

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    53. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Also, fuck blue LEDs.

      I know, they are useful blah blah, but so is sleep.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    54. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He's proactively involved special forces in trouble spots before full scale deployments become necessary.

      This is something every recent president has done. (And in many cases it gets us into trouble.) Do you have blind worship for this guy or something? I mean this statement alone suggests your nose is presently getting browner as we speak.

      Lately I've seen a lot of flak about excessive use of drones, etc. etc. etc. So, sure, even Jimmy Carter tried to use the Seals, and it's always the CinC's fault when something goes wrong. Pulled out too early? That's why we've got ISIS. Pulled out too late? Fathered another Vietnam. Nuked 'em all? Oh dear, can't do that. Well, then, what are all the damn submarines and waste plutonium for?

      In whatever year it was that Obama was elected, the USA had a choice, and we chose the less warmongering of the two parties... it's really the US voters who got that peace prize, the committee just needed a single person to award it to.

    55. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Isn't "finding the right recipe" fundamentally an engineering breakthrough rather than a theoretical scientific one?

    56. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      He had tons of political power. Just no office. His word was as good as law. Nobody could have defied him.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    57. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      It's also a scientific breakthrough, with what they did. But, the prize is also meant to promote science that affects society and mankind directly.

    58. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by MattskEE · · Score: 4, Informative

      The blue LED may have been harder than the red LED for the reasons that you give, but Holonyak did make some key accomplishments including the demonstration of a ternary alloy semiconductor and tuning the bandgap and thus color by varying alloy composition which has paved the way for achieving all of the different colors for LEDs in use today and is also used for the InGaN emission layer in the blue LEDs.

      An alloy semiconductor instead of having, for example, one group III and one group V element in perfect 50% ratio in a uniform crystal structure mixes it up and uses two or more group III elements and two or more group V elements. In the case of Holonyak he used two group V elements: Arsenic and Phosphorous. At the time at least some people did not think that an alloy semiconductor would even work, and it is a little weird because the crystal structure is now non-uniform where a given group V crystal site contains one element or the other at random. In fact this randomness does slow down the electrons. Holonyak also showed that the bandgap could be tuned by varying the relative concentrations of the group V elements. You can read more about him in a nice IEEE profile.

      I don't know enough about the history to say who should have gotten the Nobel, but certainly no matter who they selected somebody would have been snubbed.

    59. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by devnulljapan · · Score: 1

      That award has pretty much 0 to do with real achievement. It is a political power play. Up until Obama got the peace prize I though otherwise. How can you get the prize for having not DONE anything... At least at this point they could point at something and give him one...

      You're confusing the Nobel Peace prize, which is as you say political in nature (interesting you picked on the Obama prize, stupid as it was, but missed Henry Kissinger's peace prize, is certainly ridiculous) with the Nobel prizes for scientific merit.

    60. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by WhoolaHoop · · Score: 3, Informative

      In fact white leds are normally made by a "single colour" LED illuminating a phospor. Not by mixing red, green and blue.

    61. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by anotheryak · · Score: 1

      If you had bothered to read the article rather than just making a snotty post, you would note that they don't award posthumous awards. So to give one to Newton, you would need a shovel and a time machine.

    62. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by anotheryak · · Score: 1

      I think Holonyak for first visible LED is certainly deserving, but the whole chain of discoveries and inventions was crucial to the LCD monitors and flatscreen TVs we enjoy today.

      LEDs have little to do with flatscreen televisions or LCD monitors. With the exception of a few small OLED screens (which are totally different), those are all LCD devices. LCD!=LED

      Even if they claim to be LED, that's just the backlight. And most LCD monitors (all but the very newest) are still lit by fluorescent tubes, and they work just fine. This includes the two HPLP2475w's I'm reading this one right now. The only LEDs are the green power indicators.

    63. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by cyn1c77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It really is insulting to give a Nobel prize for an improvement to a revolutionary idea, and ignore the person who did the original work. Without Holonyak's original work there would be no basis for the improvement.

      And where does the buck stop in this argument? Or should Nobels drift endlessly backwards to Newton, Leibniz, Aristotle, Plato ... Thales of Miletus. Thales of Miletus? All Nobels go to him?

      Well, considering that Holonyak developed the first visible light LED, the buck should probably stop with him.

      Of course, we are talking about an organization that gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize shortly after he was elected president, so many already question their logic.

    64. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by kanweg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Correction: The Peace prize is awarded by a Norwegian committee, not by the committee that awards the other Nobel prizes.

      Bert

    65. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by GlobalEcho · · Score: 2

      I happen to know someone who won the Economics prize, and even ended up going to Sweden for some of the award week. The economics medal is technically different, as you say, but is treated identically in a functional sense. That is to say, the winners all appear together at various ceremonies, are all given the same considerations and support, speak at the same events and so on. Press coverage also often fails to point out the distinction.

      (In contrast, the Peace prize is awarded differently, has different event and ceremonies, etc., etc.)

      Based on these observations, I've started thinking of economics medal as equivalent to the others in every objective sense that matters.

    66. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Literature prize might be partially political too at times.

    67. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Darinbob · · Score: 3

      The peace prize is not a life time achievement award. It is often an award for that particular year, as in who did the most in that year to stop wars or promote peace, etc. Thus they give the award for the peace process that occured rather than wait a decade to see if it actually holds over time. I think the committee was just genuinely glad that it looked like progress was being made and the two sides actually talked to each other.

    68. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I thought it was more than just that one.

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    69. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      According to the reward committee, Obama's achievement was not being Bush.

      No, his biggest achievement was defeating John McCain (and Romney but that didn't happen until after the peace prize was awarded). Although Obama has proven that he doesn't give a shit about peace, McCain would have made Obama look like Ghandi by comparison. At minimum, we'd be in a full-scale war with Iran. So, by winning the elections, he really did contribute to world peace significantly, not that he even comes close to deserving a peace prize, but it really is his biggest achievement in contributing to the good of the US and the world.

    70. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by KeensMustard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama had nothing to do with his own prize -- it was a slap in the face to Bush.

      Not so much Bush himself but the power behind him, the minds in charge (Rumsfeld/Cheney etc.) and the mindset that, given the chance, allowed that regime with it's power structures and it's outlook to continue in power.

      Obama should have refused it because participating in such a political action by foreigners by playing their puppet in a play is beneath the Presidency.

      What Obama should have done was hang them. Behead them and place their severed heads on sticks in the public square. Not literally of course, but symbolically - perhaps through a process similar to South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission. That is the way the world saw the NeoCons - as evil as apartheid. Something to be confronted, discussed openly and honestly, dismantled completely, and then, and only then, left behind. And perhaps we viewed Obama as a form of apology, an acknowledgement of the wrongs done by the US, of failures of standard and behaviour.

      So in a sense, the Nobel Peace Prize was an attempt at something of a detente, a chance to go back to the way things were. A lot of Iraqis died, and some explanation is/was owed as to why, and how such disasters will be avoided in the future. And a form of apology is/was owed. We were right, Bush and his supporters were wrong. Bad behaviour should be followed by an apology, even at the national level.

      Instead what we got was a type of Bush-lite. No acknowledgement of the harm done. A change in language, but no obvious behavioural change. No strategy to prevent another disaster of bush/rumsfeld/cheney sized proportions. So you are right: if the Obama we see is the Obama that he intended to be in office, he should never have accepted it.

    71. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Here is one source of the issue, taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

      In 2001, Alfred Nobel's great-grandnephew, Peter Nobel (b. 1931), asked the Bank of Sweden to differentiate its award to economists given "in Alfred Nobel's memory" from the five other awards. This request added to the controversy over whether the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is actually a "Nobel Prize".[16]

      [16] (Ntb-Afp). "Alfred Nobels familie tar avstand fra økonomiprisen". Aftenposten.no. Retrieved 26 January 2014.

      Although truthfully, if I created a prize called the "Best Slashdot post in memory of Alfred Nobel" and paid for it separately, I can see why one would be hesitant to call it a Nobel prize, no matter who gave it or when. I wonder what power Nobel's will has today? Does someone have the power to actually pay for the prize out of Nobel's money, or to change the rules he laid out?

    72. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      Nobel prizes are only awarded to living people. Your argument is invalid.

    73. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrong. The original intention of the Nobel Prize was to spur human progress through innovation and development. That's one of the main reasons why it is not awarded posthumously - it's too late to motivate someone who is already dead.

      The Nobel Peace prize for Obama was in this spirit. It should not be understood as a reward for anything he did, but as a motivational calling to deliver. And a moral message to the President, a reminder of the impact his decisions can have on the whole world.

    74. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      Nobel's will has a lot of power. All prizes are handed out according to the rules and guidelines expressed within the will.

      As for the money, the Nobel Foundation manages the investments, and pays out the money for the Prizes. The rules are VERY difficult to change, to the point that you can describe it as borderline impossible.

    75. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by The+Ickle+Jones · · Score: 1

      An act which alone started yet another foreign war:

      No, that would be our warmongering politicians (including Obama). We don't actually have to play world police.

    76. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is that the same award you competed for yesterday with your "I'd love to see you make that same post 10 days from now when the number of confirmed cases in the US skyrockets" comment? See you in 9 days, sexconker.

    77. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by fnj · · Score: 1

      Er, practically all monitors and TVs currently manufactured have LED backlights.

    78. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

      Bandgap engineering is amazing stuff. I fondly remember sneaking into a device physics class as a sophomore and being bowled over by it.

    79. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by TechnoCore · · Score: 1

      You do understand that the peace price is supposed to be a political price. It's very nature when created was kind of controversial. At the time Sweden and Norway were in a union. Mr Nobel split the prices so all prices are rewarded from committees in Sweden, except the peace price which is rewarded from a committee in Norway. Maybe because he thought Sweden at the time were more militaristic than Norway.

      It is sometimes given to people in a position to do good, but haven't actually done so yet. Like peer pressure or an encouragement I guess.

    80. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Bartles · · Score: 1

      No, just a time machine. He wouldn't be in the ground when he was still alive.

    81. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by quenda · · Score: 1

      That award has pretty much 0 to do with real achievement. It is a political power play. Up until Obama got the peace prize I though otherwise.

      Really? You didn't notice anything odd about Henry Kissinger getting the Peace Prize for Vietnam?
      Or Arafat etc for bringing peace to Palestine?

    82. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Garridan · · Score: 1

      The shovel is to give to Liebnitz in exchange for the shovel that he borrowed from Newton. That'd settle the grudge that culminated in the calculus debacle, and advance scientific progress to the point that we'd have a time machine in our lifetime.

    83. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Garridan · · Score: 1

      Yeah... about that...

    84. Re: The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Bush (actually Cheney/Rumsfeld) was responsible for 100-160 thousand deaths. That's the full cream. If you can indicate a comparable death count for Obama I might accept your statement.

    85. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Well.. In his will Nobel did specify that the prizes should be warded for the discoveries that provided "greatest benefits to the mankind".

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    86. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by doccus · · Score: 1

      I don't know where the Nobel prize lost it's integrity, but both it and the Nobel Peace prize have become a joke. They're not worth the paper the certificate is printed on, anymore.

    87. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by BalthCat · · Score: 1

      Did you read that? They announced it without awareness of his death and stuck to it. It's not like they can pretend they don't know Gandhi's dead.

    88. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Pulled out too early? That's why we've got ISIS.

      Point of fact, ISIS started in Syria, a nation we never sent troops to who would need "pulled out." So that theory falls on it's face.

      No, bud, we got ISIS from US officials who insisted on arming Syrian rebels without regard to the potential fallout - US officials like Barack Obama.

      Hey, isn't that pretty much how Al Queda got their start, too? And the Taliban?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    89. Re:The Nobel Prize Committee blew it by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Although Obama has proven that he doesn't give a shit about peace, McCain would have made Obama look like Ghandi by comparison. At minimum, we'd be in a full-scale war with Iran.

      Rather than the current situation of a mid-scale war with damn near every single other middle-eastern nation, arming rebels who then turn out to be ISIS.

      Considering how things have turned out, I almost would have preferred the "war with Iran" option. But the fact is, our blood and treasure will be used to protect US corporate interests in the region, regardless of which puppet gets "elected" to lead the charge.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  2. Maybe by perryizgr8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't know enough about the specific circumstances in which both these people invented their respective devices, but I think there can be a scenario where the inventor of the base invention does not get the prize but the inventor of an improvement does. For example, maybe when Holonyak invented the LED, various technologies had reached a point where anybody in his position would inevitably make an LED. But, maybe the inventors of the blue LED did a huge amount of original research and invented a device well ahead of its time. Of course all this might be bullshit and Holonyak might be right.

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    1. Re:Maybe by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is true, attribution of credit is ridiculously subjective if not arbitrary at all levels, from authorship of papers, to how much money each person makes under any given economic system. There is no real solution to this, although some systems are better than others.

    2. Re:Maybe by halivar · · Score: 1

      FWIW, he didn't invent the LED. He invented the red-visible LED. Scientists at Texas Instruments invented the infrared LED first.

    3. Re:Maybe by Shinobi · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are almost correct. If you read the scientific background for the decision, you'll see that the blue LED was a real breakthrough, requiring a lot of fundamental physics research, while Holonyak's own papers show that he was more involved in further evolution of existing LEDs. Holonyak didn't actually invent the original LEDs, and those who did are dead, and the Nobel Prize is never awarded posthumously.

      As someone on StackExchange summed it up too:

      "The invention of MOCVD technology for growing crystals (early 1970s);
      Finding the right recipe to grow good GaN by MOCVD (i.e., use a sapphire substrate, start with a low temperature step then switch to high temperature, etc.) (mid-1980s);
      Finding the right recipe to grow p-type GaN (what dopant to use (Mg), in what concentration, and what annealing / treating recipe to use to make the Mg dopants actually work and reduce the number of unintended n-type dopants that were canceling it out) (early 1990s);
      Once all that was in place, find good structures to make LEDs (e.g. if you can also grow InGaN then you can make quantum wells) (early-to-mid 1990s)."

      The Blue LED inventors were awarded the prize because they managed to put together a lot of pieces of highly original research, and doing something that was in fact considered impossible for quite a while by many LED researchers.

    4. Re:Maybe by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      also, I thought that the nobel went to the guys who made the blue laser, not the blue LED.

    5. Re:Maybe by fnj · · Score: 1

      H. J. Round demonstrated visible (green) luminescence from a point contact on a silicon carbide crystal in 1907. That was quite a while before TI was founded, and before Holonyak's breakthrough.

  3. That's nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Nobel peace prize winner of 2009 just bombed his 7th Muslim country.

    1. Re:That's nothing! by Major+Blud · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to mention they gave the same prize to Arafat, but not to Gandhi.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    2. Re:That's nothing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention they gave the same prize to Arafat, but not to Gandhi.

      Well Kissinger got the nobel peace price. What a joke, the greatest mass murder in modern history right after Stalin.
      Kissinger should be rotting in a prison alongside his prize.

    3. Re:That's nothing! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Huh? After Kissinger got it I thought this was some sort of 1984 prize. You know, "ministry of peace" and that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:That's nothing! by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The peace prize is a popularity contest, nothing more. Get over it. They've given the peace prize to people that were at one time terrorists that killed innocent civilians. That should be all the evidence you need that it's about popularity, not about bringing peace.

    5. Re:That's nothing! by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      That's simply to prove that he is not, in fact, a Muslim. However, given the propensity for Muslims to bomb each other, I think it may prove the opposite. :P

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    6. Re:That's nothing! by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that time the gave it to Al Gore for doing a really awesome job on his Powerpoint slides.

    7. Re:That's nothing! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Gorbachev.

      (In case anyone wonders, as a failed leader, the guy bears a considerable share of responsibility for ethnic conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and civil war in Georgia and Tajikistan. I still find it supremely ironic that so many people in the West think that dissolution of the USSR was peaceful.)

    8. Re:That's nothing! by RandomAdam · · Score: 1

      I was sure Mao was still in 1st...

      --
      @Random_Adam

      Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
    9. Re:That's nothing! by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      Not to mention they gave the same prize to Arafat, but not to Gandhi.

      Well Kissinger got the nobel peace price. What a joke, the greatest mass murder in modern history right after Stalin.
      Kissinger should be rotting in a prison alongside his prize.

      "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize."
          -- Tom Lehrer,

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    10. Re:That's nothing! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How many people did he kill? I think he's still behind Stalin, Mao, and Hitler at least.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. Re:ffs by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1

    Wow they should be lit on fire.

    Blue LEDs deserve only one award: Worst fucking idea ever. Here, let's put this HORRIBLY annoying and bright shit on car headlights. What could possibly go wrong?

    Dude needs to go take their nobel because its his.

    You're a fool. You have issues with certain design choices that you blame on the blue LED? To use a car analogy, that's like blaming Toyota's braking issues on the invention of disc brakes. Disc brakes are a good thing, like blue LEDs. You like Blu-rays? Then you're using this technology.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  5. Not the first time: Cabibbo by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sure, but what if a red LED is a natural evolution while blue LED, once thought impossible is the true revolutionary idea?

    Apparently it still doesn't matter. A few years ago they awarded the prize to Kobayashi and Maskawa for the 3x3 quark mixing matrix and yet ignored Cabibbo who did the groundbreaking work to show that quarks mixed for the first time. The extension to 3 generations was a direct extension of that work and the matrix is even called the 'CKM' matrix after all three of them...but no Nobel for Cabibbo.

    While questionable decisions are always part of any award process the Nobel prize is running into some real issues with modern physics. For a start it is almost impossible to award a prize for any recent experimental particle physics result (the recent Higgs prize was for the theory, not the experimental discovery) simply because we work in large groups and you generally can not point to three, or fewer, people and say that they did it. The only exception I can think of to this would be the SNO solar neutrino result.

    However it is not just particle physics: 'Big Science' is spreading to other areas as well with the addition of accelerator-based light sources for some condensed matter physics, large scale plasma and fusion experiments etc. The part of the experimental field to which a Nobel prize can be awarded in physics is continuously shrinking making the prize less and less relevant...although it still has a long way to go before it gets knocked off its perch!

    1. Re:Not the first time: Cabibbo by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nobel prize for the LHC. Every participant gets $3.50, a tuxedo t-shirt, a certificate suitable for framing (but no frame) and coupons to see the Norwegian national orchestra, half price.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Not the first time: Cabibbo by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      We all stand on the shoulders of Giants.

      We shouldn't be looking backwards to the basis of every invention because that's pretty much an infinite chain backwards. The should be awarding the prize for revolutionary work that dramatically advances a discipline. The Blue LED was revolutionary. Without it we wouldn't have LED lighting or even White LED's. It also wasn't easy to find the right makeup to generate blue. Lots of people were working on this for several decades and these are the guys that succeeded. IMO an award for something that took decades to invent with millions of dollars and dozens of researchers working on it is worthy of a Nobel because the solution was clearly non-trivial.

      Now maybe they should give this guy a Nobel as well or make him a part of the prize but LEDs were not that revolutionary (as in remaking society) as inventing the blue LED was. Blue LED's changed the world, the invention of the LED laid the groundwork for that but without Blue LED's we wouldn't have LED lighting (unless it was green or red lighting), and IMO billions of dollars of R&D wouldn't have been poured into advancing LED's without Blue.

    3. Re:Not the first time: Cabibbo by Alomex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Again, I'm no expert but I understand that pushing existing infrared LEDs into the visible part of the spectrum as done by Nick Holonyak was considered evolutionary engineering, whereas people thought (incorrectly as we know now) that there were theoretical limits forbidding blue LEDs. This is why their work is considered revolutionary and Nobel-prize worthy.

    4. Re:Not the first time: Cabibbo by radtea · · Score: 2

      A few years ago they awarded the prize to Kobayashi and Maskawa for the 3x3 quark mixing matrix and yet ignored Cabibbo who did the groundbreaking work to show that quarks mixed for the first time.

      Another comparable case is the awarding of the 1998 prize to Lederman, Melvin Schwartz and Jack Steinberger for the discovery of the muon neutrino when Reines had not been award the prize for the discovery of the electron neutrino. In that case, thankfully, Reines was finally given the prize in 1995.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    5. Re:Not the first time: Cabibbo by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The Blue LED was revolutionary. Without it we wouldn't have LED lighting or even White LED's.

      Look, the Nobel physics prize is not supposed to be given on the basis of "social impact" of the discovery.

    6. Re:Not the first time: Cabibbo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobel prize for the LHC. Every participant gets $3.50, a tuxedo t-shirt, a certificate suitable for framing (but no frame) and coupons to see the Norwegian national orchestra, half price.

      Second place was 2 coupons to see the Norwegian national orchestra, half price.

    7. Re:Not the first time: Cabibbo by Shinobi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, according to the rules of the Prize, as laid down in the will and testament, yes, it is supposed to. Nobel did NOT want to award only "pure" theoretical science, he wanted to award those scientists and engineers who actively helped mankind. The language of the will and testament is VERY clear and specific, and a common goal for all the Prize is for the practical betterment of mankind and society.

    8. Re:Not the first time: Cabibbo by Quantum+gravity · · Score: 1

      Yes, and while most prizes are for discoveries, like the Higgs boson, Alfred Nobel stated that the prize could also be given for an important invention in physics.

    9. Re:Not the first time: Cabibbo by qvatch · · Score: 2

      Do you have the dates backwards, or is this another 'quantum' thing?

  6. Re:Blue LED should've never been awarded. by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    toxic stress to the retina

    Sounds like they get their medical advice from Dr. Oz. I wouldn't take any such BS seriously.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  7. Seems to me he has a point! by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not that I think you necessarily have to give the prize to the inventor of the "base" idea all the time, as opposed to someone who made it truly useful and beneficial for the masses. But as this article even states, the infrared LED was developed first. Holonyak simply made the first VISIBLE light LED. The infrared LED is a pretty cool invention in and of itself, but the ability to produce visible light with one is what really made people start using them in place of traditional incandescent bulbs.

    In my mind, that's the primarily impact the LED has had on people, and therefore is most deserving of the Nobel.

    The blue LED? That's a pretty cool innovation, but I don't see how you can award a prize like this for it when you ignored the research that made LEDs possible as visible light sources?

    1. Re:Seems to me he has a point! by Shinobi · · Score: 2

      Holonyaks research was just an immediate continuation of the infrared LED research. The blue LED otoh required a lot of fundamental materials research etc before the foundation to start actually trying to build them was in place...

  8. Let me be the first to say by NotFamous · · Score: 2

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH - I hear the whambulance coming. Do you want some cheese with that wine?

    --
    Some settling may occur during posting.
  9. Waaaaaaahhhhhh by gatfirls · · Score: 4, Informative

    National Academy of Engineering (1973)
    National Academy of Sciences,
    IEEE Edison Medal (1989)
    National Medal of Science (1990)
    National Medal of Technology (2002)
    IEEE Medal of Honor (2003)
    Lemelson-MIT Prize (2004)
    National Inventors Hall of Fame (2008)

    No one cares about my contributions! :(

    1. Re:Waaaaaaahhhhhh by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Show us your Emmy or Oscar, then we'll talk.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  10. ffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First, The blue-tinted headlights you see everywhere are Xenon, not LED.

    Second, I'm pretty sure one of the purposes of a car headlight is to allow people driving the car can see where they are going. It turns out that that brighter lights actually help with that.

    Finally, Audi recently demonstrated actual LED headlights that are made up of dozens of individual bulbs and are hooked up to facial detection, and actually dim the parts of the beam that are shining in people's faces.

  11. Re:Blue LED should've never been awarded. by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure how you can diminish the achievement of someone's invention because other people use it in a way that may not be appropriate. Should the graphene guys not be honored because their invention could be used irresponsibly? (yes, I'm aware of Nobel and his explosives)

    Having said that, the Nobel committee did seem to consider the importance of LED lighting, so there's that. Still, I'd think that any danger to eyes could be eliminated with a proper design.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  12. Re:Blue LED should've never been awarded. by neoritter · · Score: 1

    Or from ANSES a French governmental agency.

  13. Re:Blue LED should've never been awarded. by neoritter · · Score: 1

    Are the good fellows at Harvard's health department not good enough for you either? http://www.health.harvard.edu/...

  14. Re:Blue LED should've never been awarded. by neoritter · · Score: 1

    I agree partly and I don't think you're necessarily wrong with what you're saying. BUT. The point of the Nobel Prize is to award those who did things to the "greatest benefit on mankind." If your invention is hurting people, is it really a benefit to mankind? I think that's a very valid question.

  15. Pointless arguments year after year by paiute · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Nobel Prize is an arbitrary award given by a committee with motivations unknown to the public. It is taken way too seriously by everyone.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Pointless arguments year after year by Shinobi · · Score: 5, Informative

      Huh? Motivations unknown to the public? Holy crap, then you are uneducated....

      The physics and chemistry prizes are awarded by Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien(Royal Academy of Science), whose everyday task is to promote science. In accordance with the rules laid down in the will, they are tasked with promoting science that leads to advancement for mankind. Thus, by necessity, they promote science that leads to practical advancements and not just "pure" theoretical advancements.

      The Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine is awarded by Karolinska Sjukhuset(A fairly renowned hospital with a significant research and education division). As above, their task, as laid down in the will, is to promote science by rewarding practical progress that leads to the betterment of mankind, and not just "pure" theoretical research.

      The Nobel Prize in Litterature is awarded by Svenska Akademien, whose task in awarding the Nobel Prize is by following the rules of the will, which is in fact somewhat problematic, because if they were to strictly follow the rules, they'd no longer be able to hand out any prize at all, due to how litterary styles and tastes have changed.

      The Nobel Peace Prize is handed out by the Norwegian Nobel Committe, which is selected by the Norwegian Parliament, according to the rules set out in the will.

    2. Re:Pointless arguments year after year by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 2

      Many years ago, I attended a lecture at my university that was given by William Shockley who received a Nobel prize along with others for their invention of the transistor. It was striking to me how the faculty reacted to him. They were truly in awe, and treated him with something close to reverence. I've always imagined that they received him that way because he received the Nobel prize, not because he invented the transistor, though it's just a feeling.

      Shockley was a controversial figure toward the end of his life, including when I saw him, for his views on the relationship between intelligence and genetics, which were (are) considered racist. I didn't know anything about his views about that in advance. But before the lecture started, a group of minority students entered the lecture hall very dramatically and stood in front of the podium with arms crossed, facing the audience, staring straight ahead. Of course, they were peacefully expressing their displeasure about his views. A buzz went around, and folks like me who didn't know what was going on soon heard an explanation from someone nearby who did.

      Shockley didn't speak at all about those views, and instead focused on the transistor and other appropriate topics. Suddenly, in the middle of the lecture, I noticed that the body language of students who were standing up front had changed. Instead of silently expressing their disdain for his views, their posture had softened and they were listening to his lecture with interest, just as I was. Except they were standing at the front rather than sitting in the seats.

      If it weren't for his invention of the transistor - and possibly his receipt of the Nobel Prize - the world would little note nor long remember Shockley's views on the relationship between intelligence and genetics. Which, to be honest, seem kindda dumb for a man of his breeding.

    3. Re:Pointless arguments year after year by nashv · · Score: 1

      You need to understand that the Nobel Peace prize is a very different thing, compared to the Nobel prizes for sciences and economics.

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    4. Re:Pointless arguments year after year by vovin · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, after all correlation between genetics and IQ is clearly ridiculous. I mean nobody believes in genetics are an inheritable trait, right? .

    5. Re:Pointless arguments year after year by swedoc · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine is awarded by the Karolinska Institutet, which, while located next door to one of the hospital sites, is an entirely different entity.

    6. Re:Pointless arguments year after year by paiute · · Score: 1

      I understand perfectly well what the guidelines are for the awards. Unless you are sitting in with the committee as they make their selections, then their motivations are unknown to you.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  16. Re:Blue LED should've never been awarded. by Shinobi · · Score: 1

    In that case, you'd never award any Nobel Prize, since pretty much anything can hurt people

  17. Blue LEDs were the key to white lighting. by Dzimas · · Score: 1

    People keep overlooking the fact that the development of high brightness GaN blue LEDs resulted in the technology becoming a practical replacement for white incandescent bulbs and enabled LED backlighting in billions of display panels. Coat a clear blue LED with yellow phosphor and, voila, a bright white light source that burns a fraction of the energy.

    So, yeah, the red LED was a tremendously useful device, but it pales in comparison to the dramatic shift that is underway thanks to the development of affordable white LEDs.

  18. What about that other prize? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall a prize started by a internet billionaire to rival Nobel, and he was giving out like $3 million per prize instead of Nobel's $1 million. Can't remember the name though...

  19. Blue was essential to create white light. by Dzimas · · Score: 1

    Seriously? The LED backlight in your computer screen is based on Nakamura's work. Same for your phone, TV and iPad. The blue GaN LED was essential for the creation of "white" LEDs, which are actually blue LEDs coated with phosphor to approximate white light. Same goes for the LED bulbs that are currently replacing billions of incandescent lights around the world in homes, street lights, and outdoor displays.

  20. Re:ffs by operagost · · Score: 1

    Besides, the "annoying and bright" part tells me he's actually complaining about HIDs. LED lights are far less annoying.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  21. Re:ffs by itsdapead · · Score: 1

    Second, I'm pretty sure one of the purposes of a car headlight is to allow people driving the car can see where they are going. It turns out that that brighter lights actually help with that.

    ...but at the expense of dazzling all the other motorists, mucking up their night vision and creating distracting blue flashes in people's rear-view mirrors (due to the colour and small size, I guess - if the road is bumpy and there's a car with xenons behind me I keep thinking I've got a cop car or ambulance on my tail).

    If they just used them for main beam it would be OK - they're too bright, and too concentrated to be used for "dipped" beams.

    Finally, Audi recently demonstrated actual LED headlights that are made up of dozens of individual bulbs and are hooked up to facial detection, and actually dim the parts of the beam that are shining in people's faces.

    Oh terrific. I'm sure that will work at least 70% of the time outside of a demo. :-(

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  22. Re:One of the worst awards ever by Shinobi · · Score: 2

    The guidelines for the Nobel Prizes are that they SHOULD factor in practical advancement for mankind. And, in that regard, blue LEDs are a MUCH more critical achievement. Nobel did NOT want to reward "pure" theoretical research done in isolation, he wanted scientists and engineers to actively work towards real-world goals.

  23. Re:Blue LED should've never been awarded. by Wookact · · Score: 1

    Harvard says that blue light can mess with your sleep cycle, nothing about "toxic stress to the retina"

  24. Backing brutal dictators--not a bad idea? by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    Backing corporate dictators in their use of state terror and death squads "isn't a bad idea'? 30,000+ Argentinian activists, unionists and political prisoners tortured to death--not a bad idea? Brazilian death squads--not a bad idea? Backing Pinochet as he disappears thousands of people--not a bad idea?

    Seems like either you're entirely ignorant about Operation Condor or you're a compassionless wretch. You're saying that to fight Lenin's ghost, we should have broken a few eggs. What a perfect example of first world hubris and thoughtlessness.

    1. Re:Backing brutal dictators--not a bad idea? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      In that larger context of pawn wars with the Soviets, not only not a bad idea, but a very good and necessary ideas.

      The KGB archives have been opened. It is no longer possible to claim Allende was not working for/with the Soviets. Who were the biggest mass murderers of the 20th century.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re: Backing brutal dictators--not a bad idea? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Google 'KGB archives'. That will get you started.

      If you are a leftest, you will reel back as your whole world view is challenged. But it's not like Allende wasn't openly a red.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re: Backing brutal dictators--not a bad idea? by Rujiel · · Score: 2

      "Death squads were a great idea!" Thanks for outing yourself as a wretch. Hopefully in your lifetime, you and your family can be victims to someone else's twisted ideology, just as you've deemed those civilians to be worthy of torture-death according to your own. If it's good enough for the third world, it's absolutely good enough for you.

  25. Kissinger fanboys censoring the truth? by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    Who the fuck would vote this down? I find it hard to believe that anyone in this day and age is so ignorant about the Nixon administration's murderous involvement in south america.

  26. Holonyak's mistake is... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

    Holonyak's mistake is that he's missing life's opportunities for happiness and joy, because he's obsessed receiving adulation.

    I'm sad for the trap into which he's fallen.

  27. Re:Blue LED should've never been awarded. by neoritter · · Score: 1

    My main point was that there are health concerns to blue LED light. If I could read French well enough I'd point you to the ANSES report linked in my original citation.

  28. it's about physics, not invention by Goldsmith · · Score: 2

    The materials physics of creating a visible light LED was mirrored by what was going on in solid state transistor development. It was a great feat, but followed the work being done in electronics.

    Before actual demonstration of a stable blue LED, theorists in the materials physics community thought it was impossible. The process to engineer the bandgaps for blue/UV LEDs was new and unique. It was an example of the optics guys being ahead of the electronics guys in bandgap engineering.

    All that said, inclusion of Holonyak could be justified. His work was good. But... James Baird (who is also still alive) has a much better claim to the general LED discovery (including the first patent) and would be a much, much better inclusion. For IEEE to do an extensive article on Holonyak, but leave out Baird shows that this complaint is a farce.

    This award is not about how great LEDs are in general, it's about the quality of physics the blue LED folks did. Appreciate that the award went to guys who did truly great experimental physics.

    As a materials physicist, I am very happy with this prize. This is a very important recent discovery to my area of physics. Nobels as "lifetime achievement" awards are disappointing. It's much better to see an award go to someone who can leverage that prestige into new projects.

  29. Peace and Physics aren't even the same committee by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

    As others have pointed out, the Peace Prize is inherently political in nature. What should be emphasized is that it's also given out by an entirely different committee, in a different country.

    Peace Prize: Norwegian Nobel Committee
    Physics and Chemistry Prizes: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
    Physiology or Medicine: Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet (Sweden)
    Literature: Swedish Academy

    Economics (not really a Nobel): Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

  30. All about the Benjamins by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    So he's really just in it for the money. Good; that makes me feel much better.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:All about the Benjamins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Something is wrong with both of you.

  31. True inventor of blue LED not awarded Nobel either by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

    The blue LED was invented by Herbert Paul Maruska at RCA in the early 1970s using Mg-doped GaN. A different one, using SiC, was invented at Cree in the late 1980s.

  32. He should have invented the blue LED by dimeglio · · Score: 1

    The green and red LEDs were not as hard to develop as the blue one.

    --
    Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
  33. At least.. by h8sg8s · · Score: 1

    At minimum, he should have been recognized with the rest of them. To snub him this way is disgraceful.

    --
    Organization? You must be joking..
  34. Re:True inventor of blue LED not awarded Nobel eit by dimeglio · · Score: 1

    I believe it was in fact Jacques Pankove but the LEDs they discovered were not very useful. Shuji Nakamura is indeed the one who made them useful.

    --
    Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
  35. Re:Blue LED should've never been awarded. by Wookact · · Score: 1

    No the main concern is light at night, not just blue light at night. Why are you referencing a report you cant even read anyways? How do you know what it says and in what context it is said?

  36. Re:True inventor of blue LED not awarded Nobel eit by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

    Perhaps. IEEE Spectrum credits Maruska, as do several other histories of the subject.

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-...

    Maruska seems to have made the first working violet LED. Some people claim that it doesn't qualify as a blue LED, but as far as I know there's no agreed-upon hard distinction between violet and blue. Maruska developed the right materials and process to make it, even if RCA pulled the plug before he had solved all of the problems necessary for commercialization.

  37. Re:Blue LED should've never been awarded. by neoritter · · Score: 1

    That's ONE of the concerns.

    La lumière bleue, nécessaire pour obtenir des LED blanches, conduit à un stress toxique pour la rétine. Les enfants sont particulièrement sensibles à ce risque, dans la mesure où leur cristallin reste en développement et ne peut assurer son rôle efficace de filtre de la lumière.

    I said I can't read French well enough, so it's hard for me to find the report referenced by original link I gave. But because you have no clue what a logical argument is.

    https://www.anses.fr/fr/conten...

  38. Re:Blue LED should've never been awarded. by neoritter · · Score: 1

    Left out relevant context from the link:

    Les diodes mises sur le marché à des fins d'éclairage sont principalement caractérisées par la grande proportion de bleu dans la lumière blanche émise et par leur très forte luminance ( intensité lumineuse ). Les enjeux les plus préoccupants identifiés par l'Agence concernent l'il : effet toxique de la lumière bleue et risque d'éblouissement.

  39. BTW--why are paid trolls all over this thread by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    Or maybe they're unpaid interns? Given your apparent propensity to take stereotypical heartless machiavellian establishment positions, I figured you'd be able to inform me.

  40. Who cares? by jcr · · Score: 1

    Let's drop the pretense that the Nobel prizes carry any prestige at all. They've given them to the likes of Kissinger and Arafat, for fuck's sake.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  41. Re:Not about wars by Elbart · · Score: 1

    Mandela had that covered.

  42. Re:One of the worst awards ever by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    I guess you missed the past 50 years of practical use of LEDs. The original red and green LED's have had a far larger impact on the world - they were game changers. I'm not denying the usefulness of blue LEDs but to call them a critical achievement is to overstate the case.

  43. As proven before ... by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

    A good part of how you get a Nobel is similar to how you get an Oscar. Someone works very hard to publicize your work to a voting committee. They vote.

    So a Nobel prize, like an Oscar, is a function of two strong independent variables.

    Computing coefficients is left as an exercise to the interested student.

    --
    "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
  44. Sadly wrong by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Look, the Nobel physics prize is not supposed to be given on the basis of "social impact" of the discovery.

    Actually, and sadly, you are wrong and that is part of the reason why it may end up being replaced.