Americans Win 2006 Nobel Physics Prize 215
Davemania writes "CNN reports that the Nobel Prize in Physics has been award to John C. Mather and George F. Smoot for their contribution to the big-bang Theory." From the article: "Their work was based on measurements done with the help of the NASA-launched COBE satellite in 1989. They were able to observe the universe in its early stages about 380,000 years after it was born. Ripples in the light they detected also helped demonstrate how galaxies came together over time. 'The very detailed observations that the laureates have carried out from the COBE satellite have played a major role in the development of modern cosmology into a precise science,' the academy said in its citation." If you're interested, you can read a rundown on the prize-winning work (pdf) provided by the prize organization.
4 for 4 (Score:5, Insightful)
So all 4 Nobel winners this year so far have been Americans. Brain drain?! Bah!
Of course, the true test will be to see if we can keep it up in a few years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Einstein, of course, was also born German and educated in Germany, Italy and Switzerland. He did his seminal work in Europe, but came to th
Re: (Score:2)
So all 4 Nobel winners this year so far have been Americans. Brain drain?! Bah!
If you care to READ, you see that the physics research the prize was awarded for was carried out in 1989. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not we have a "brain drain" currently.
It is common for prizes to be awarded 20 to 30 years after the research has been conducted. The medical prize was somewhat more recent (1998) but 8 years is still quite a while. Before spouting about how this disproves ongoing "brain d
Is America Still Investing in Nobels? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, actually, you need to adjust for relativity. In the frame of reference of the observers giving out this award, we're a couple of decades back. That is, they don't give out nobel prizes for something that happened this year, they give them out for things that have stood for a while and had impact etc.
Consequently, I think you meant to say: Of course, the true test will be to see if we kept it up for a few years subsequent to 1989. We should already know the answer to that. I'm sure we're still doing good work. But are we keeping pace with the tremendous degree of investment in math and science abroad? I bet the Nobels that are given a decade or two from now will be clear on that. It's a matter of national pride for many countries. But here, we have "No Child Left Behind", which sounds good on paper but often plays out as "No Child Gets Ahead" -- lest it be "unfair" to someone. It's politically unsafe here to suggest that it's worth investing in our high end at the expense of our low end, and that's going to trend badly toward the middle. Other countries are not thus hampered.
MIT recently opened a research center in Singapore [com.com]. I suspect the next thing we'll hear is that it's headquarters has moved--for convenience. And then finally, that the largely unused Cambridge center is being mothballed as a quaint relic, perhaps turned into a science museum. And perhaps after that protests may ensue, more over lost jobs or unfair treatment than the question of how our nation's leaders sold us out. No one worries about that.
The problem is that US politics sees everything as one-place predicates. Politicians like education. They like the environment. They like kids. It's easy to like things when you don't have to make hard choices, and all our public dialog is framed about people voting for X or not voting for X. Politicians don't talk about choices, about comparisons, about 2-place predicates that put one thing up against another. No one says "When it came to X vs Y, I chose Y." That alienates voters. Voters want the fictionalized choice that you can have it all, that all choices/votes are independent of one another, and that no choice or policy robs another. They don't want honesty, so politicians don't sell it. And then the policies the voters have elected don't work. We'll spend a billion dollars to keep a few from getting attacked when the same billion would save many more lives if spent on food, health care, jobs, or education.
I'm not against less intelligent kids. I don't want to hold them back. BUT the more intelligent kids will be making the money that will pay for the welfare, the head start, etc. that the less intelligent ones need. And if push comes to shove, I know where I'd put money to make sure we still have money in the future. Any business person knows it. You invest in the "low-hanging fruit", the "easy mark", the people who are poised to succeed. And no, that doesn't mean the rich kids--this isn't about class. There are smart kids and dumb kids in the same family. There are smart poor kids and dumb rich kids. We need to figure out which ones are going to succeed and invest in them. And if we don't start investing in science, instead of kidding ourselves that investing in Creationism is the same thing, we'll be rightly pushed aside by other countries, who know that our kind of nonsense/nonscience is not what business is hiring. If it hasn't happened already.
I'm not trying to troll this forum. I think this is on topic since the headline says "Americans win...", so it's clear that some of this story is about who won, about American national pride and implicitly about American national investment in doing it again. And I have strong opinions on this [nhplace.com].
Re: (Score:2)
How about we equally invest in everyone and try to encourage a balanced system. There really isn't a test to determine who is going to succeed and who is not. Perhaps some sort of genetic model based on statistics but that would just be another human created institution that would favor a certain class of people.
Let's just try to build a fair society where everyone has an equal chance to succeed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I don't think it's fair that I'm much shorter than the average basketball player. This puts me at a disadvantage to compete for an NBA contract; it is unfair... granted this is a trivial example, however it's obvious that human traits (height, build, beauty, intelligence etc) vary through some distribution. Ignoring that distribution is what "No Child Left Behind" does.. though if it were implemented in a better way,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps the problem is more that these jobs do not carry much respect with some people. But that's a problem with the psychologic
Re: (Score:2)
We should allow everyone to succeed on their own merits. A
fuzzy words (Score:2)
(1) Does everyone having 'access' to equal resources mean everyone gets to use equal resources? Like, everyone gets to go to MIT or Harvard, regardless of their abilities or performance in high-school? Well, this
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, you're not saying anything different than the OP, not even saying things should be materially different than they are.
Class is very important in what levels of access a person may have, the same thing with race and gender. To claim there are equal levels of access to resources in our current society is just flat out wrong. The OP was just changing the classes to different categories.
From OP: "And if push comes to shove, I know where I'd put money to make sure we still have money in the futur
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah? And is this just something "everybody knows," or do you have any actual, you know, facts and statistical evidence to support the proposition? Because it's certainly been my life experience that this is garbage. How much dough your parents had -- which is probably what you mean by 'class' -- certainly changes how you start your life, but it's up to your own efforts (and luck) how you end up, by th
Re: (Score:2)
There is a wide variety of literature and studies on this subject. I suggest you look into it.
As far as the rest of your argument; my overall point which I keep reiterating is that in order to have a more self-actualized society we need a level playing field. There is no way to determine preemptively in the development stage who is going to be a success. Rather w
misreading NCLB (Score:2)
You're confused about this legislation. It's a big non-leveler. It's primary intent is to force (by threat of withholding Federal funding) states to test all their students yearly in core subjects, e.g. math now, and science coming up in a few years. The tests have to be standardized and state-wide (i.e. no cheating by re-designing the tests to make them easier for some students, or by evaluating your students with some fuzzy warm-feeling 'h
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all the schools that are having problems meeting the minimums, in my state, are inner city schools, where the environment outside the classroom has a large impact on the perfomance of the students. I saw a report the other day on one of these schools and 78% of the students arrive at that school without having eaten breakfast, and why do you think this made the news? Because the school was canceling it'
Re: (Score:2)
But generally, yes, states take money away from schools that screw up in statewide standardized tests. You ask in puzzlement how this can be helpful, as if a school having screwed up and disserved its kids is some kind of Act of God about which th
Re: (Score:2)
Fairness cannot be judged in isolation. Is it fair that when you're in a military campaign, the guy with the skills to win the battle is asked to be the one to risk himself? Why not run the military by having people draw lots? The answer is that it is not fair to the group to have everything be the result of a vote or of some wish against truth that it would be the case that anyone can do anyone else's job. If you'
Re: (Score:2)
Claiming intelligence should be rewarded more than athletic ability is the same flawed argument as b
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know you, so I won't attempt to say what our differences are. Please lay off the ad hominem attacks and stick to the actual issues. I have not said what kind of society I would rather have, I have said what kind of society I think is achievable, and what the consequences of not seeking an achievable society might be.
I didn't claim this. I claimed that athletic ability should n
Re: (Score:2)
I have not said what kind of society I would rather have, I have said what kind of society I think is achievable, and what the consequences of not seeking an achievable society might be.
Well it seems you rather have a successful society determined by your own metric. I'm not sure what that exactly is though.
However, those with the skills to succeed should be the ones focused upon.
S
Product of Past Years Education // reverse drain (Score:2)
First, You have to remember these guys are the product of yester-year's educational system (i.e. they were educated long ago probably from the 50's through 70's). It will be interesting to see what happens 20 years from now when the current generation of students reach maturity. Most students in the US probably spend more classroom time learning about the values of "diversity" and "self-esteem" than they do learning the periodic table or Newton's laws of physics. Its a very diffe
The award in medicine also went to Americans... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Woo (Score:2, Funny)
Science++, Superstition--
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Please... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Philosophy though can seek to define the issues at hand and tackle them through critical thinking. None of the major issues def
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For that you can be thankful that the Nobel is awarded in Stockholm, and not by a committee of Bush appointees...
I'd rather see .... (Score:3, Insightful)
FYI (Score:2)
Read the list. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Americans win it 20% of the time.
Oh please. (Score:2)
We've already had the sickening sight of Jimmy Carter campaigning for the prize via a campaign of open sedition against the US. In a less-decadent society he'd be booed in the streets and pelted with rotten cabbage.
The next Nobel Peace Prize presented to an American will probably go to Bill Clinton, for a series of lip-trembling apologies for American exceptionalism.
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt you'd have preferred a sustained, horrific firebombing (a la Tokyo) and a massive, tooth-and-nail invasion that would have killed many times more people and destroyed much of the country's remaining infrastructure. Or, perhaps you would have preferred to let that regime just go on its merry way ransacking the Pacific rim and expanding their territory the old fashioned way (through the murder and enslavement of millions)? Or is it that you just d
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, OK. Never mind!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I think there are far too many booby prizes for people who started conflicts finally stopping them (at least temporarily), I think it's a bit unfair to call Kofi Annan a "thug or despot."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you should try at least doing a little research on Kofi Annan and Darfur before casting stones at him on Darfur. You can blame him on Rwanda for not heeding the calls to press for action, and you can blame him on a lac
Re: (Score:2)
I hardly think Annan is a "thug or despot", but your point certainly holds. The Peace prize is given far more swiftly than any of the other prizes, usually for work only a few years old, without any knowledge of whether their work will survive the test of time or even whether it was really beneficial at all.
Re:I'd rather see .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes, it's not what's right that we do but what's wrong that we do or don't do that matters. Right now, there are a lot of good people in the US working to bring about a more peaceful world. Then again, there are also a lot of cynical people that promote war as peace with the attitude that if you're going to make an omelette, you have to breaks some eggs.
Right now, our government is fighting for its rights to start preemptive wars and to indefintely hold people and "mildly" torture them. None of these things have earned us the right to call ourselves a nation of peacemakers.
Maybe people just remembers when the US used to do more right in the world. I miss those times, and fighting against people like you that refuse to admit that this country is doing wrong and you try to justify our sins with our intentions is going to be necessary to bring those times back.
You know what to do in 2008 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific hokum (Score:3, Funny)
Why everyone knows that the world was created in 7 days, not with a big bang -- the "big bang" theory is just scientific hokum. Just ask our president or the millions of Christian fundamentalists who know the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Sucky modding happens all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
His follow up wasn't flamebait, although he oversimplifies the issues as badly as he claims the religious people do.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't fault someone for simplifying on
We are not writing great texts of history- just having a conversation.
I Don't Know, Why Don't You Ask Them? (Score:2)
Why don't you just ask [nobelprize.org]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This discussion is not about religion or politics, but science. I am all or discussing those topics in another venue, but I like to read meaningful comments about the subject at hand. This is slashdot, where th
Re: (Score:2)
In an ideal world, I would just like to read slashdot articles about exciting new discoveries and great new software and hardware. However, we now live in an era where science is being threatened in the school, where research grants are being cut, and scientific texts are being re-written by political hacks so that they are more friendly to administration policy. We are in a war, and we must discuss these types of issues so
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Scientific hokum (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why even bring it up... unless to Karma whore (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose most bible thumpers will bark that the bible says 7 days and Adam & Eve were like today's humans but I've always thought that taking any religious text LITERALLY was rather silly; if anything it simply servers as a moral standpoint by which to
Well, and the memorial bridge of course... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
wonder what they did with the extra ear, tho'.
Oliver Smoot not George Smoot (Score:3)
Good think Nobel Prize isn't in US (Score:5, Funny)
I can just see the list of this year's Nobel Prize winners, if the Nobel Prize was based in US.
Nobel Prize in Physics - Henry Morris and John Whitcomb on their ground breaking work The Genesis Flood which proved that earth is only 6000 years old.
Nobel Prize in Physiology - Michael Behe, who, using irreducible complexity, proved beyond doubt that evolution is just a "theory".
Nobel Prize in Literature - Ann Coulter Treason, who exposed the greatest perils that free societies face today - Gutless Lying Liberals who will sell your daughters and sisters to Kim Jong Il.
Nobel Prize in Peace - George Bush, who freed millions of Iraqis from a brutal dictator.
Nobel Prize in Chemistry - Discontinued.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And...you're 100% sure about this?
I'll see your sweeping generalization, and open the floor to hearsay and innuendo!
What about the political apointee that wanted NASA scientists to talk about the "Theory of Relativity" (in the same vein as "the Theory of Evolution").
What about the muzzling of NOAA information about (*gasp!*) global warming?
I will grant you: GWB is probably not going down a "naughty" and "nice" list of scientific projects, but with help like he gets, he doesn't have to. As the twig i
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps "Nobel Prize in Chemistry - Hennig Brand, for the discovery of phosphorus, on which the allotrope white phosphorous is based upon, which is useful to light up hum^H^H^H the skies in military situations."
Re: (Score:2)
There's a better summary on the web (Score:2)
That's still several pages, and while it's all good, there is a more concise description of the COBE observations [xkcd.com] available.
Re: (Score:2)
George "There is an Intelligent Designer" Smoot (Score:3, Interesting)
For science!
Big Bang and God (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Moo (Score:2)
Therefore, toasters are sentient beings who design toast! For my next trick, I will not only prove that the toaster is sentient, but also lead the Jews out of Egypt!
Rundown vs blueprint (Score:2)
Had Smoot as a prof for intro Physics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and he's finally getting a parking space (Score:2)
team sport (Score:2)
Actually, it's been pretty common since the beginning of the prize, at least for things other than Literature. Heck, the 1904 Nobel Peace prize was give to the entire Institute of International Law. The entire International Committee of the Red Cross has won multiple times. The 1902 Nobel for Physics was given to Hendrik Antoon Lorentz and Pieter Zeeman for ""in recognition of the extraordinary service they rendered by their researches into the influence of m
Science is always a team sport (Score:2)
Science is never just some guy working alone in a lab. People publish every accomplishment, and every other lab is working on the same thing you are, with slight variations. Often the first guy with the insight shares the prize with the guy(s) who completed the explanation a
Re:Wrong people got the award (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:what they did is impressive, don't get me wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now I understand the Universe has limits, I'm starting to feel quite claustrophobic.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's an interesting thing that intelectuals can enjoy, and some day maybe help people with, but at this point in time, no one is going to be saved from sickness or death from this, no one is going to be prevented from starving because of this, no ones life will be extended from this. With the possible exception of the scientists involved and their families of course.
Humanity is a lot larger than that group.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's your proposition? We feed african children? Send money to china? Yeah, like that would do any good. The money and food would be hijacked by their own people before it ever made it there.
Religion and greed should be eliminated first, then everyone may be able to live in peace. Until then, you w
Re:what they did is impressive, don't get me wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Parent not posting flamebait (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The two results you listed, and assumed I would also disagree with, while unassuming, are things that would actually be of near immediate use, and thus qualify, unlike the this years awarding.
Try to read, I wasn't saying the results weren't impressive, I was saying they didn't meet certain qualifications. The results were highly impressive, but there are some qualifi
Re:what they did is impressive, don't get me wrong (Score:2)
The prizes in Chemistry, Economics, and Physics usually are for highly theoretical work that may take decades to utilize. Prizes in Medicine and Peace usually are for more practical and may have immediate benefits. Einstein won in 1921 for the photoelectric effect. It wasn't until WWII that anyone created a solar cell. Raymond Davis and Masatoshi Koshiba shared the prize in 2002 for their work on neutrinos. One of the consequences of their work was that the Standa
Actually, No. (Score:2)
"...to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics"
So, no, it's not only for imediately useful things; it's for whatever the Swedish Academy of Sciences decides is "most important".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think it's valuable (I'm a physics grad student working in CMB astronomy,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CMB physics is a powerful probe into the origins of the universe. That it is consistent with our big bang / inflation models is a powerful fact, independent of any spin the politicos might try to put on it. The measurement of anisotropies, first in temperature (what COBE found) and more recently in polarization are our best probes of the conditions in the early times. So far, it's all very consistent with the big bang model and extremely hard to explain otherwise.
Re:Theoretical bias (again) from the Nobel committ (Score:2)
The various "injustices" of the prizes awarded for the microwave cosmic background are well known in physics circles. It's old, it's over, it sucks, whatever, get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Eminently Nobel-worthy (Score:2)
I agree that in 1992 the Big Bang was extremely well established, if only because we already knew the CMB existed (it had been awarded the Prize in the 1960s, after all). Most physicists also expected that we would see anisotropies at the level of 1 part in 100,000