Scientist Who Sparked 'A Revolution in Chemistry' Dies at 70 (washingtonpost.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientist Who Sparked 'A Revolution in Chemistry' Dies at 70 (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday August 7, 2016 @07:34AM from the triggering-a-'reaction' dept.

Ahmed Zewail pioneered a technique for using lasers to monitor chemical reactions, which the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said sparked "a revolution in chemistry and adjacent sciences." Slashdot reader Provocateur writes, "The Washington Post has the story...citing his prizewinning research in femtochemistry..."

Slashdot covered Zewail's Nobel prize in 1999, as well as his 2001 claim to have resolved Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. "Mathematics, mechanics, and chemistry were among the fields that gave me a special satisfaction..." he says in the Post's article, adding "for reasons unknown (to me), my mind kept asking 'how' and 'why.' "

41 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 07:40 · Score: -1

Oxymoron.
1. Re:Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 07:57 · Score: -1
  
  Clearly you are the moron.
2. Re:Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 07:59 · Score: -1
  
  Nah, you'll find the moron if you check a mirror.
3. Re:Muslim Scientist by multi+io · 2016-08-07 08:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Well, he was one of three muslim science nobel prize winners in history (the other two being Abdus Salam and Aziz Sancar). And there are 1.5 billion muslims. By contrast, jewish scientists have won over 100 nobel prizes, and there are only 15 million jews. I guess this means that a muslim is about 5,000 times less likely to become a renowned scientist than a jew is. So while muslim scientists aren't oxymorons, they're an exceedingly rare occurrence.
4. Re:Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  Its nice when you don't have to live in 3rd world conditions.
5. Re:Muslim Scientist by ShanghaiBill · 2016-08-07 11:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Its nice when you don't have to live in 3rd world conditions.
  Millions of muslims live in countries with per capita GDPs that would place them in the 1st world. Instead of using their wealth to educate, they use it to pay for imports and to keep women uneducated and economically isolated. Even Ahmed Zewail, a rare example of an exemplary muslim scientist, did almost all of his important work will living in America.
  There is some effort to change things, such as King Saud University, a first rate research university where women are treated like human beings, but that is a rare exception, and is generating a lot of conservative push-back.
6. Re:Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 14:12 · Score: -1
  
  its much simpler than your both your bullshit.
  if I publish my research, you use it to invent horrific machines, to murder people.
  therefore, unlike your Jewish scientists, I am ethical. I do not publish results that can be perverted into mechanisms for mass murder, and genocide.
  its unfortunate, there aren't more ethical Christian and Jewish "scholars".
  says something about your culture, religion, doesn't it?
  now, who is the "barbarian" again, you ignorant shits?
  right.
7. Re:Muslim Scientist by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-08-07 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  Oxymoron.
  Muslims once invented chemistry, astronomy, and mathematics. Then Saudi Arabia gained influence of the faith and ownership of the holy cities.
8. Re:Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  > Millions of muslims live in countries with per capita GDPs that would place them in the 1st world.
  Such as?
  Its nice when you get to make hand-waving arguments that can't be examined. Very convincing.
9. Re:Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 17:52 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't matter. Per capita GDP doesn't take wealth distribution into consideration.
  Historically new discoveries have been made by the upper middle class, wealthy enough to afford to do the science but not wealthy enough to dick around with the royalty.
  Poor people are to busy working and can't afford to do research anyway.
  It's not a coincidence that countries with a functional social support system have more Nobel laureates per capita
  Notice that the list of Nobel laureates per capita correlates better with social expenditure per capita (Sort by GDP per capita) than it does with (R&D) spending
  So the numbers indicate that the kind of research that leads to Nobel laureates isn't limited by the money the researches have but rather the combined brain power of the researchers. (My guess regarding the cause of this correlation.)
  If you want better research to be done you need to enable more people to do it and not just limit it to those that can afford the education needed.
10. Re:Muslim Scientist by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-08-07 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland were the third world as well. It turns out that third world conditions can be quite nice!
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
11. Re:Muslim Scientist by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-08-07 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Brunei, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia have all per-capita GDP significantly higher than some of the poor EU countries like Poland or Slovakia, all while having a population of about 45 million people.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
12. Re:Muslim Scientist by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-08-07 18:05 · Score: 0
  
  Muslims once invented chemistry, astronomy, and mathematics.
  Uhhh...that would be a nope.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
13. Re: Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 19:10 · Score: 0
  
  Ok I'll take the bait here.
  Seriously? A tiny, minuscule fraction of the scientific community works on anything that could be weaponized. In the US, at least, if you are funded for weapons research you usually do not have an open license to publish. Zewail's research was not weaponized. Not even Einstein's Nobel-winning research was weaponized.
  I fail to see the immorality of publishing research results when there is no aspect to it that can be used to hurt people. Should the cancer researcher not publish her results? Or the polymer chemist? These fields win Nobel Prizes, not the guy who invented the latest anthrax dispersal mechanism.
  Your argument can be turned around: are you implying that your own research can be weaponized, which is why you don't publish? If so, where is your moral compass?
  Technological advances come as a result of scientific research. If scientists (western, eastern, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, anyone) shouldn't publish research, then how will we progress? How will we cure disease, or got to Mars?
  This isn't about religion, but is about differences in culture. As a case in point, in the US we have many Christian fundamentalists that believe that God created the earth a few thousand years ago. That's patently wrong, but that culture does not value science the way that other Christian-dominated cultures or communities do. Some cultures and nationalities value scientific research, others don't. Those that do, produce more high profile research, which goes noticed by the Nobel Committee.
14. Re: Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  I bet you did not know that algebra is an Arabic word.
15. Re: Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  Have you done any research into History at all? I'm not one to defend terrorism, however the modern concept of the scientific method from Islam. Say what you will about Muslims but it is not correct to say that they do not have a strong scientific pedigree.
16. Re:Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 20:35 · Score: 0
  
  Second world isn't exactly lacking in scientist either.
  It's almost as if it is a cold war expression that doesn't apply to the current world anymore.
  A bit like classifying humans in alpha/beta and completely forget that the alpha male was a violent serial rapist and that alpha females would gladly go for beta males when given the choice.
  When you take an expression without reading the fine print you end up using them in situations where they don't apply and you end up with nonsentical ideas like the wormhole theory.
17. Re:Muslim Scientist by RatPh!nk · 2016-08-07 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  ....and what OP is saying is that the wealth in those countries is very concentrated so GDP is a poor benchmark.
  
  --
  Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
18. Re:Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 23:33 · Score: 0
  
  Oxycontin.
19. Re: Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 23:37 · Score: 0
  
  I bet you did not know that assassin is an Arabic word.
20. Re:Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-08 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  When we were the "third world" Sweden were referred to as "filth-Sweden". People lived in appalling conditions, malnutrition, parasites and decease were extremely common. People still talk jokingly about putting out unwanted children and elderly "to the wolves". Sweden is a real harsh land and surviving for more than a couple of week without previous food stores and good shelter/heat is close to impossible.
  What happened in Sweden was that we got a combination of religion and good leaders (sadly we have seen a good leader in many decades in Sweden). People stopped drinking their harvest, started working together to build a better country for our selves.
  What the 3rd world need isn't help from us. They need good leaders and good life philosophies. Better leaders and a sane religion can make all the difference... Sadly we are taking after them instead, shit leaders and shit philosophies were even the "nice" people are consumed by hate and egomania.
21. Re:Muslim Scientist by ShanghaiBill · 2016-08-08 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  ....and what OP is saying is that the wealth in those countries is very concentrated so GDP is a poor benchmark.
  Except their wealth is not particulary concentrated. For instance, Qatar, the wealthiest Arab country, has a Gini coefficient about the same as America.
22. Re: Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-08 22:00 · Score: -1
  
  > Ok I'll take the bait here.
  first, it ain't bait. its fact.
  > Seriously? A tiny, minuscule fraction of the scientific community works on anything that could be weaponized.
  so you're excuse is that you're ignorant of how you're research will be used? very creative.
  also, while you're taking the "bait". What exactly is Nobel known for?
  > In the US, at least, if you are funded for weapons research you usually do not have an open license to publish. Zewail's research was not weaponized. Not even Einstein's Nobel-winning research was weaponized.
  I think you have a contradiction in your thinking. "do not have an open license to publish".... "was not weaponized.". THAT YOU KNOW OF. And given how ignorant you are of your governments actual actions day to day, I'm not really interested in arguing about what you know, or don't know. It would be like arguing with a fool.
  > I fail to see the immorality of publishing research results when there is no aspect to it that can be used to hurt people.
  you fail to see how your research can be misapplied. and has been. in every aspect. do you think these "military" (and I use the term loosely) people come up with their own work? its hard to do scientific research when you're busy butchering people en masse. They depend on smart people, to give it to them. Or they take it. What was the real reward for winning World War II? The scientists.
  > Should the cancer researcher not publish her results?
  I think you should accept, that you are going to die. And then cease your stupidity, in trying to beat it back. Gain some perspective on how fleeting your minuscule, insignificant, miserable life is; and put some of that effort into getting some insight on the "human" condition. You know, join the rest of us, like civilized people.
  > Or the polymer chemist? These fields win Nobel Prizes, not the guy who invented the latest anthrax dispersal mechanism.
  Tell me something. Does your polymer chemist, take responsibility for the industrial process waste his "improvement" has created? The landfill thats choking our oceans because it won't degrade? The countless wars over oil, to get his feed-stock?
  No. Because he's dick. And he ran to "patent" or "claim discovery" for an idea *without regard to the consequences of his 'discovery'*. And hint: there's part of your problem right there. You "claim"/"patent" nothing. An idea, is NOT own-able. You do not get it, because you thought of it first. Its free for anyone who is clever enough to come up with it, to use it freely.
  Your culture, is CRAP. It will always be crap, so long as you don't understand your place in the world, in time, and in society. And it doesn't matter how many shiny little awards you make. Look at you. 200 years old, and you've managed to destabilize the world, destroy the environment, and YOU COUNT THIS AS A "WIN". You, are quite possibly, the stupidest people(s) I've ever met, in my entire life.
  > Your argument can be turned around: are you implying that your own research can be weaponized, which is why you don't publish? If so, where is your moral compass?
  All research, can be weaponized, idiot. Thats the fucking point. You don't put a loaded gun, into the hands of a chimp. Well, you do. I don't.
  > Technological advances come as a result of scientific research. If scientists (western, eastern, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, anyone) shouldn't publish research, then how will we progress? How will we cure disease, or got to Mars?
  Brilliance idiot. What do you think its made of? You think Archimedes, moved forward, would be a dolt? Al Jabr? They would still kick your ass. Its because, you don't think. That, is the difference.
  And btw, I didn't say you couldn't share an idea. Only, that you should be ethical, with whom you share it with. You don't put a loaded gun, into the hands of a chimp. You, are the chimp. That, is why I don't publish. I have absolutely n
23. Re: Muslim Scientist by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-08-09 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  ...and so is alcohol, but people were drinking it even in prehistoric times before there was any Arabic, or even Arabs themselves. So, your point is?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
24. Re: Muslim Scientist by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-08-09 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, not only have I been reading on history of science since I was eight or nine but I also had a mandatory one-semester course on history of science later in college. Whether or not scientific method is fully attributable to the so-called "Islamic Golden Age" is debatable. They certainly didn't use it universally, and likewise, the notion had to develop into what we use today. ("Modern" is kind of a weasel word anyway; especially in history, you have to be careful with it given how it's commonly used for post-1500 kind of stuff). Likewise, "strong scientific pedigree of Muslims" is also a problematic claim given how it's religion is not something you inherit with a pedigree. The largest Muslim country is Indonesia while the period you're probably referring to involved Near and Middle Eastern Arabs and Persians (in fact, often even non-Muslim Jews). How does accepting a religion give you a "scientific pedigree" just because a completely different nation in the past that had some scientists also happened to follow that faith?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
25. Re:Muslim Scientist by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-08-09 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  What period are you referring to? Post-World War II?
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
26. Re:Muslim Scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-17 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  Which THEY produced.
First code by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 07:41 · Score: -1

First xkcd
So not so smart after all? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 08:49 · Score: 0

Not smart enough that he couldn't undead himself.
He had the right idea by tomhath · 2016-08-07 08:59 · Score: 5, Informative

Dr. Zewail worked for years to raise money and generate political interest in creating a science-based university and research campus near Cairo...
“A part of the world that pioneered science and mathematics during Europe’s dark ages is now lost in a dark age of illiteracy and knowledge deficiency,” he wrote, adding that he wished the $1.5 billion in annual support that the United States gives to Egypt would accent “scientific and industrial cooperation” instead of going overwhelmingly toward the purchase of military equipment.
He managed to rise above the political problems in that region to try and make the world a better place.
1. Re:He had the right idea by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 17:58 · Score: 0
  
  He was fighting against the theological argument which won against the other theological approach which welcomed new knowledge during the 14th century. The effects of that victory are felt even today.
And yet by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 09:07 · Score: 0

We barely understand life and aging. Come on chemists, physicists and mathematicians, let's get working on this so we don't die at 70 with unfinished lives.
Sad to hear by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 15:02 · Score: 0

Was my freshman Chem 2 prof at Caltech. Smart guy. Inspired lecturer. But group theory only inspired quantum chemisty inspired me to change my major to EE.
1. Re:Sad to hear by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 15:39 · Score: 0
  
  But group theory only inspired quantum chemisty inspired me to change my major to EE.
  Good thing it didn't inspire you to change your major to English.
2. Re:Sad to hear by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  But group-theory-only-inspired-quantum-chemistry inspired me to change my major to EE.
  Good thing it didn't inspire you to change your major to English.
  Okay, fixed that for me...
stick to dumb windpws stories you fucking crackpot by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-07 16:10 · Score: 0

that shit linked to is laughable
Met him at University by RatPh!nk · 2016-08-07 23:12 · Score: 1

I had the honor and privilege of meeting Dr. Zewail and attending a private lecture while at university. His daughter was my upper division biochemistry professor and he was kind enough to drop in and give us a lecture while he was visiting. He was a brilliant thinker not just in the world of femto-spectroscopy, but overall. He was approachable and witty. He will be missed as a father, a fellow human and for his contributions to the scientific world.

--
Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
1. Re:Met him at University by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-08 22:06 · Score: 0
  
  I regret, I did not. Truly, he will be missed.
If it was a "revolution" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-08 03:23 · Score: 0

why has so little changed in chemistry?
1. Re:If it was a "revolution" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-08-09 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  Low-hanging fruit has already been picked. Now we're facing the hard stuff.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
Nobel Prize by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-08 03:32 · Score: 0

Did he figure out how to make the meth other colors than just blue?