Nobel for physics to be awarded Tuesday. (The rise of speculative cosmology.)

CNN ^ | Monday, October 6, 2003

[.cnI redruM]

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) -- Black holes and cosmic microwave radiation studies, seeking to delve into the afterglow of the universe's creation, were two front-running fields tipped for glory on Friday for the 2003 Nobel science awards.

Nobel pundits said the field was wide open and the speculation intense ahead of next week's prizes.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>>"One Nobel committee member told me Hawking is the biggest name since Einstein,"

The ongoing balancing act between applied science and theoretical work seems to be sswinging towards the theoreticians. This may be because physicists such as Hawking and Carl Sagan have captured imaginations and market share to the point where they actually benefit research science even if their theories get shot to perdition by later work.

[Support Free Republic]

What would you do Without Free Republic?

"What would you do Without FR?????

How would You Feel without FR??? Suppose one day you tried to log on and Free Republic wasn’t there?

Where would you get your up to the minute news? How about the live threads as things are happening?

How would you know about the latest Demorat scams, anti-second amendment schemes and all the other liberal, anti-American ploys that are tried every single day?

Insight into world affairs, brilliant wit, sharp retorts, instant information gratification are a few of the things that make FR so vital.

How would you keep on top of things without FR?

How would you know who to contact to complain about the lying politicians, Media Bias, Hollyweirds latest mouth off, sponsors of these idiots, company policies that are unfair and all the other things we need to know to counteract the liberal mindset and the evil plans of liberals?

How would you be part of a Freep?

What would you do without FR????

Freedom isn’t free.

If you enjoy the site and find it a place of like minded Americans to sound off, to get together, to fight back, to have your voice heard and make a difference, PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW! Jim can’t do this alone.

The liberals are sure we won’t be able to keep FR up & running. Prove them wrong. Show them we are indeed united Freepers.

Whether it is $5.00, $50.00 or more, it all adds up. Please send a donation now to Free Republic."

Thank You for your support!

Click The Logo To Donate

Or mail checks to

FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

[longshadow]

"usual suspects" ping and bttt

[Mr. Bird]

Sumio Iijima, Cees Dekker, Phaedon Avouris and Charles M. Lieber, are admired for work on carbon nanotubes, tiny sheets of rolled graphite which can hold electrical currents 100 times higher than metal wires and could shrink electronics radically.

These things are outrageous, and if the award was strictly for applied endeavors, they'd deserve it. I think you're right about the theoreticians taking the lead in prestige. Part of it is the fame factor (dealing with large, profound truths is sexier than being a construction worker).

Unfortunately, while "imagination" may drive those in theoretical physics, applied physics is suffering from a possible lack of imagination. Too many people feel we're bumping up against our limits. I hope not.

[.cnI redruM]

I'm certain that the carbon nanotubes will be in every computer we use 10-20 years from now. The proverbial computer on a wrist we see on Star Trek may be beginning to take shape.

[Physicist]

The ongoing balancing act between applied science and theoretical work seems to be sswinging towards the theoreticians.

Three comments.

Most people get their opinions about physics from what they read in the popular press, but often a scientist's most famous work is not his most significant work.

Most people who rant about the speculative nature of modern physics have no clear idea of which parts are speculative and which parts are firmly established. Very often the parts that "sound wrong" to them were tested rigorously decades ago.

The reason theory is well ahead of experiment is that theorizing is cheap, while performing experimental tests is expensive. Few people wish to spend enough to change that.

[.cnI redruM]

Part #3 is especially true in regards to Earth and space science. The hard data actually taken in outer space is limited. Usually 10 or 15 research groups are in a consortium using data from one intrumented platform.

Meanwhile, theoreticians armed with computer modles can run several thousand simulated replications for every one solid data set that a satellite sends back to Earth. It's way easier to do theoretical work on outer space or the Earth's atmosphere than it is to acquire hard data.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[RightWingAtheist]

I own an autographed picture of last year's Physics Prize winner. When I attended the American Association for the Rhetoric of Science conference last November, two of the invitees were Brookhaven manager Mona Rowe and Brookhaven historian Robert Crease. Both discussed the recent controversy over the alleged pollution and enviromental hazards which had lead to the permanent shutdown of the main collider, and what they had to say was a major lesson in how the media disorts scientific and enviromental issues. Anyways, at one point Rowe held up a picture of an elderly man sitting amidst some electrical equipment, and instantly recognizing the man from recent AP photos, I blurted out "that's Ray Davies" "Ray Davis", Mona gently corrected me. Like most people, I suppose, I had confused him with the lead singer for The Kinks. But Rowe was sufficiently impressed that she gave it to me as a souvenir. I had to leave it behind when I moved to the States, but I hope to bring it back and hang it in my office when I go home for Christmas.

[MOX]

"..because physicists such as Hawking and Carl Sagan have captured imaginations..."

Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan should not be mentioned in the same sentence. The former is a genuine intellect, the latter is a Marxist disguised as an astronomer.

[MOX]

Make that WAS a Marxist..

[AndrewC]

Lauterbur received his reward.

[.cnI redruM]

Sagan's politics made him truely deserving of being termed a Birkenstock Bolshevik. His conduct in front of the US Senate during the politically staged Nuclear Winter hearings was Merovingian in it's condescending arrogance.

However, his physical model for The Cold and Dark Earth model (Nuclear Winter) actually did predict what happened when Mt. Pintubo erupted. His figures for the amount of obscuring material from a totally nuked-out city will hopefully remin permanently debateable rather than tested for accuracy.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Verginius Rufus]

Yes, the Nobel Prize for Medicine has been announced already, to be shared by Paul Lauterbur (US) and Peter Mansfield (UK). I don't know if anyone is going to claim that Mansfield should have had it all and that they robbed Peter to pay Paul.

At least they didn't try to "make a statement" by giving it to Dr. Howard Dean of Vermont...Of course it is different sets of people who make the decisions for the prizes in medicine and in the hard sciences and not the bunch of Norwegians who pick the Peace Prize winner.

[js1138]

I doubt if anyone criticising Nobel winners has any ideahow much of our economy depends on hairbrained theortical ideas like quantum theory. Perhaps if they got rid of all their personal devices that required quantum mechanics in their design, we'd see an improvement in the quality of posting.

[bagman]

I announce in advance that I will refuse to accept the Nobel Prize in Physics if it is awarded to me. After the Nobel Prize Committee debased the Peace Prize so much by awarding it to Jimm' Carter last year, I cannot, in good conscience accept a Nobel Prize.

[omega4412]

"Perhaps if they got rid of all their personal devices that required quantum mechanics in their design, we'd see an improvement in the quality of posting."

Not sure what it would do to the quality, but the posting would be done in pen on paper, instead of a computer screen.

[Cincinatus]

However, his physical model for The Cold and Dark Earth model (Nuclear Winter) actually did predict what happened when Mt. Pintubo erupted

His "model" (the bulk of which was the work of Jim Pollack at NASA-Ames and his other co-authors) actually overestimated environmental effects. It wasn't a big feat to predict global cooling from the Pinatubo eruption (we already knew that happened after the 1815 eruption of Tambora, in Indonesia); Sagan was widely quoted that oil well fires set during Gulf War I in 1991 would cause global climatic effects. They did not, indicating that the TTAPS model for global climatic effects was (and is) inadequate.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Don't forget his work on Venus.

(Too bad he didn't stay.)

;)