Slashdot Mirror


Physics Nobel Won By Laser Wizardry -- Laureates Include First Woman in 55 Years (nature.com)

A trio of laser scientists have won the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physics for their work using intense beams to capture superfast processes and to manipulate tiny objects. From a report: The laureates include Donna Strickland, who is the first woman to win the award in 55 years. Strickland, at the University of Waterloo, Canada, will share half the 9 million Swedish krona (US$1 million) prize with her former supervisor, Gerard Mourou, from the Ecole Polytechnique, in Palaiseau, France. The other half of the prize went to Arthur Ashkin, of Bell Laboratories in Holmdel, New Jersey.

Strickland and Mourou pioneered a way to produce the shortest, most intense pulses of light ever created, which are now used throughout science to unravel processes that previously appeared instantaneous, such as the motion of electrons within atoms, as well as in laser-eye surgery. Ashkin won the prize for his pioneering development of 'optical tweezers', beams of laser light that can grab and control microscopic objects such as viruses and cells.
Further reading: The Guardian.

17 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Sadly, in the current climate.... by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    she will never know if she was really worthy of it, or just a diversity token.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Sadly, in the current climate.... by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      Fortunately, California hasn't figured out how to legislate the Nobel Prize yet.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:Sadly, in the current climate.... by markdavis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >"Fortunately, California hasn't figured out how to legislate the Nobel Prize yet."

      No, but somehow the Nobel Prize committee awarded Obama a peace award for.... well.... nothing? So it does make one question the whole thing, sometimes.

      https://www.businessinsider.co...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    3. Re:Sadly, in the current climate.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well. One of the Nobel Prize Committees did. The peace price is handled in Norway. The physics prize is by Vetenskapsakademin in Sweden. Quite different bodies and quite independent from each other.

    4. Re:Sadly, in the current climate.... by Misagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having been educated in Swedish academia (my alma mater holds the Nobel lectures), I would like to believe that we have progressed farther than that.

      Nobel Prizes are not limited to awarding achievements in the last calendar year. Sometimes the achievements have been made several decades ago. Most laureates are quite old, many having retired from active work.
      Therefore there is an amount of inertia in the system in the diversity of laureates compared to increased diversity among contemporary scientists.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  2. Gender doesn't matter by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Gender doesn't matter! Everyone is exactly the same as everyone else!"

    Yet we're constantly having "I'm a woman therefore my accomplishments are special!"

    If gender doesn't matter, why is it constantly thrown in our faces?

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    1. Re:Gender doesn't matter by Junta · · Score: 2

      Here it's because it is such a rarity (1 woman in 55 year period of awarding), so it's noteworthy.

      While it's unreasonable for someone to look at Nobel winners like them before entering the field, in reality people find anecdotes more compelling and it helps data showing it is a viable field for women.

      It's a tough line to walk, to highlight female winner against a backdrop of mostly male winners versus diminishing the achievement by adding a qualifier 'female nobel winner'. It invites a lot of folks to speculate that it's a token gesture and that the committee wanted to give it to a female winner (honestly, given two teams they couldn't decide between, they likely would prefer to have some diversity, but I don't think they would let that factor outweigh the substantive facets of the achievement, they would know how bad that would go if they did).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  3. Gender shouldn't matter in physics... but it does by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet we're constantly having "I'm a woman therefore my accomplishments are special!"

    You seem to be mistaking an argument for equality for an argument for preference. Perhaps you would understand if your accomplishments were dismissed as unimportant because of your skin color or age or gender or some other irrelevant bit of your physiology rather than the quality of your ideas. Women aren't arguing for special treatment. They are arguing for EQUAL treatment. It only sounds like a call for "special" treatment to people who are missing the point.

    If gender doesn't matter, why is it constantly thrown in our faces?

    Gender SHOULDN'T matter for topics like this yet It DOES matter because too many people (like yourself) make it matter in the wrong places. Gender is supposed to matter in some circumstances but physics isn't one of them. It is really hard to explain why there hasn't been a single woman worthy of a Nobel prize in Physics in over a half century without invoking some amount of sexism in the explanation. Maybe unintentional sexism but sexism all the same. They don't deserve the award because of their gender but they also shouldn't be excluded from it because of their gender either. Sexism is real and if you think fighting against it is "throwing it in your face" then you are part of the problem.

  4. Peace Prize is joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nobel peace prize given to:
    Obama - ordered the killing of thousands with drone strikes
    Al Gore - made a movie
    Yasser Arafat - a terrorist leader

    Nobel peace prize NOT given to:
    Gandhi - advocating peaceful protesting

    Pretty much sums it up

    1. Re:Peace Prize is joke by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Allow me to continue this list.

      Henry Kissinger - For ending a war he started
      The EU - For ... well, basically for keeping its members from killing each other for over 60 years, this is indeed impressive considering their history, I give 'em that.
      Al Gore - For producing a lot of hot air that allegedly cools the planet
      Jimmy Carter - For trying. Really hard.
      United Nations - For wrapping the global big players in so much red tape that they can't wage war sensibly anymore.
      David Trimble and John Hume - For not shooting each other anymore. As a side note, anyone available for starting a civil war we could then end? I'm asking for a friend.
      International Campaign to Ban Landmines - For making landmines magically disappear. Except the few that make people disappear instead every year.
      Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat - For bringing peace to the middle east. Just in case anyone was still wondering whether this Prize is a joke.
      Mikhail Gorbachev - Mostly for not being Josef Stalin
      United Nations Peace-Keeping Forces - Basically for being the good natured idiot that gets into the struggle of two bullies, with the express intention that they should kick the idiot instead of each other.
      Lech Wasa - For founding a union, but being considerate enough to do it in a country we do NOT like.
      Mother Teresa - For making poverty and pain something to celebrate
      Menachem Begin and Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat - See Peres/Rabin/Arafat.
      Andrei Sakharov - For pissing off the Commies
      Willy Brandt - For not wanting East Germany back.
      International Labour Organization - Fuck knows why
      Martin Luther King, Jr. - For being the peaceful nig.... Unlike that Malcolm guy we didn't like.
      George C. Marshall - For finding a way to sell US goods and calling it aid
      Carlos Saavedra Lamas - For ending a war nobody gave a fuck about. But find someone else who gave a fuck about peace in 1936
      Carl von Ossietzky - For not being a Nazi

      And a few more I didn't find anything to write about.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Peace Prize is joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Peace Prize has certainly had its controversies and questionable moments (Obama being a notable example). I would argue that there is sometimes a legitimate paradoxical element to peace, which is this: it is frequently the case that the leader of a violent faction is the only individual capable of brokering an effective peace. This was the case with Nelson Mandela, Yasser Arafat, etc.

      The political metaphor for this situation (which extends beyond peace negotiations) is "only Nixon could go to China". Back during the red scare, only hardcore anti-communist Richard Nixon could visit China, recognize the communist government, and normalize trading relations with them. If a liberal president had tried to do the same, they would have been roasted for being "soft on communism".

  5. Science requires tools by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People do not get that fundamental physics is over

    Yeah yeah, people were making this bullshit argument centuries ago.

    (you would not call seriously "string theory" "scientific" would you?).

    As long as it make predictions that can be empirically tested then of course I would.

    I know I am repeating what Lord Kelvin said to his embarrassment just before great discoveries in relativistic physics, quantum physics, etc.

    And he was just as wrong as you are.

    The clear indication that we are close to the limit is absence of ANY fundamental discoveries since a long time ago.

    What are you babbling about? You are in a scientific golden age for discoveries. Furthermore we have well known holes in our knowledge of fundamental physics. We have no way to reconcile gravity to quantum mechanics. We can't explain large amounts of seemingly missing matter in the universe. Just because we're not rolling out a new theory of special relativity every other week doesn't mean we've explained everything. It was literally centuries between Newton and Einstein but the only reason Einstein's work was such a breakthrough was because of a LOT of important work done in time between the two men.

    Call them for what they are: Nobel Prizes in Technology

    You seem to have a huge misapprehension. Physics only advances when we can built devices to test our theories independent of human senses. Theories are fine but they are meaningless without the tools to verify them. Furthermore we cannot refine our theories without the data from these tools which inform us how the world actually behaves. A theory of gravity waves is meaningless unless you have some tool to test for their existence. Physics isn't just blackboards and chalk.

    1. Re:Science requires tools by orgelspieler · · Score: 2

      The known unknowns are huge and interesting and confusing and wonderful. But the unknown unknowns are what really should keep us up at night. Or as Neil DeGrasse Tyson puts it, there are questions that we don't even know to ask.

  6. Re:that's not even applied science, that's technol by ranton · · Score: 2

    We are gradually shifting towards applied science and mere technology. All of three fields, basic science, applied science and technology are essential for humanity, but the fact is that the first one is almost over or probably over already.

    When you see a shift away from basic science and into applied science / technology, it generally just means our instrumentation is not sufficient for basic science to march forward at an equal pace. Once technology improves enough to enable new methods in basic science, the pendulum swings back.

    We have so much left to learn that we are nowhere near hitting the limits of what science can discover.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  7. Re: Gender shouldn't matter in physics... but it d by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    > If a woman wants to be a physicist, nothing will stop her. If she doesn't, no one can make her.

    That's just incredibly naive.

    Your statement is bullshit. You apparently believe thatr men are pushed along, with nary a cloudy day, their road to physics paved with gold.

    When the fact is - it's not easy. This is not a fraternity. Today, there are sexists on both sides. There are large scale disagreements.

    But here's the truth coward. This is not a field for the easily dissuaded. If you have a theory, there are going to be those who oppose it. Either because of belief, or even devil's advocate. I've sat in rooms where my ideas are called bullshit. I've been called an asshole. (so what's new)The lady physicists and scientists get no free pass, nor do they want one. The opposition is part of the process.

    But here's the kicker.

    I don't care. Neither do they. They are in this because this is what they want to do with their life. This is not a world where certain groups are above criticism.

    Naive? What is naive is the concept that anyone, male or female will sit down one day and say "I think my passion is to be a physicist! At least until someone anyone opposes me, then I'm nothing and it is their fault."

    Sorry cowardly entity, but if you want to be a physicist, you must have passion - real passion, not one that you get from a career day in 3rd grade, but one you know you have. And real passion is a white hot pillar of flame that drags you along with it. The men and women who I made careers with had it. Interestingly enough, the biggest skeptics of today's modus were those same women.

    Today, some folks are attempting to redefine passion as a mild interest. In truth, so few people have real passion.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  8. Re:that's not even applied science, that's technol by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

    Why are there 4 fundamental forces (wait, 5?) instead of 2 or 3? Why the three dimensions (plus time)? Why is space expanding? Will it expand forever? Why does the fabric of space wobble? Are gravitons a thing? And I still don't get how black-holes can be singularities, but retain rotational momentum, and be a donut... but also still a singularity. Aren't we still confused about how quantum mechanics jive with... gravity and electromagnetism? We've still only got interpretations of just whateverthefuck is going on in the dual slit experiment. Copenhagen is winning, I guess? Wooo popularity contests.

    There's plenty of fundamental physics we don't know. I dunno if we'll ever get around to answering them, but you can't say "it's done".

  9. Re:Gender shouldn't matter in physics... but it do by mikaere · · Score: 2

    And yet there hasn't been a female Nobel Prize for Physics will in over 50 years. No matter how you cut it, at least *some* of the reason for such a long gap between awards has to be driven by sexism.

    --
    It's good luck to be superstitious