Nobel Prize Commentaries
Dr. Kaku threw in a reference at the end regarding Yoichiro Nambu, who is a founder of string theory. It's true, Nambu is one of the three individuals who, in 1970, independently took the dual resonance model of particle physics and interpreted it as a theory which describes particles as vibrating strings.
While Dr. Nambu justly deserves accolades for such profound theoretical work, it's important to realize that the Nobel Prize wasn't given for that ... to win a Nobel Prize, the work must be of a "benefit to mankind" and it must be the "most important discovery or invention within the field of physics." While I am all for string theory, I don't think that it can lay claim to either of these criteria at the present time. It's for this reason that Albert Einstein's Nobel Prize is specifically for the development of the photon theory of light, which as opposed to the theory of relativity.
This is one reason why I was hesitant to think that Vera Rubin would receive the prize for discovering dark matter. The Reuters prediction of a Nobel Prize for graphene is probably closer to the mark, but it will probably take a few years, and some real applications of graphene materials, to really warrant the prize.
String theorist Lubos Motl's The Reference Frame blog makes the point that Nobel disliked theorists (and also makes a perplexing reference to the unmarried Nobel's wife, which may have something to do with his mistress for 18 years, Sofie Hess ... I'm not sure of the context of this comment).
What Motl seems to be ignoring is that Nobel died in 1896 and at that time, there was really no such thing as a theoretical physicist. Sure, there were physics theories, but they were developed in tandem with experimentation and ultimately had to be verified by experiment. Theories of a purely mathematical, abstract nature prove no use until they are proven, and this was especially true in the 1800s. A "theoretical physicist" in the 1800s was someone who came up with ideas that couldn't be supported by evidence - what would commonly be called, then and now, a crackpot.
The overall Nobel post by Motl is somewhat perplexing, because he seems to be belittling the spontaneous broken symmetry discovery, or rather Nambu's role in it. He is adamant that Nambu deserves a Nobel, but seems to think that this is mainly for his string theory work, and I don't really agree with this. Nambu's work stands on its own and doesn't require a string theorist on the committee to specifically lobby for it. (I think the election cycle here in the U.S. is making me cynical.)
The Nobel Prize in Physics isn't to be awarded to the most popular theory, but to tangible accomplishments which stand the test of time. Nambu's work in spontaneous broken symmetry is precisely such an accomplishment and deserves the award, even if that had been the only work the man had ever performed.
Now, if we can discover evidence in support of string theory ... then Nambu's work in that field might also warrant another Nobel Prize. But for now, let's just all concede that this work is worthy.
NOTE: Dr. Lubos Motl makes some excellent observations in our comments section, including a correction to my statement that theoretical physics was not a distinct discipline in the 1800s, along with specific examples which do, indeed, prove that my dismissal of theoretical physics in this time was a overly hasty. I have also posted a comment in response. (added 10/11/08, 5:30 pm Eastern Time)
Comments
Dear Andrew, thanks for your analysis. Let me clarify the points that you found confusing.
First, my comment about the wife was referring to a widely held myth that the Nobel Prize for Mathematics doesn’t exist because Nobel disliked mathematicians (and perhaps theorists in general). This is an amusing myth that must surely have a realistic core but literally speaking, it is surely wrong because Nobel never married.
I guess that Sofie Hess had nothing to do with any mathematician: the story of a jealous Nobel is simply a legend. He disliked theorists – and especially mathematicians – because he was a very practically oriented man. Once he said that he could buy all of mathematicians for the money he earned.
I didn’t indicate that Nambu’s discoveries about symmetry breaking are unimportant or not worthy a Nobel prize. But yes, I find his general contributions to strong interactions and string theory (which was really one field at that time, much like it is becoming one in the last decade) – including the notion of colors, fluxtubes (confinement), and relativistic strings (that allowed string theory to really start) – more important.
I am convinced that I am not alone in this opinion and Nambu is not the first visionary who is awarded for something else than what would become the most important contribution in the future. Einstein didn’t get his prize for relativity for a very analogous reason why Nambu didn’t get it for string theory or Hawking for black hole thermodynamics: relativity was also controversial among the people who didn’t understand physics well back in 1921, much like black hole evaporation or string theory is controversial among the people who don’t understand physics today.
You are completely misled that there were no theoretical physicists 100 years ago. Open e.g. Wikipedia, the article about theoretical physics, and read about its history. It will tell you that it began 2,300 years ago and it divides physicists to the experimental, theoretical, and the universal ones in detail.
You will find a list of 19th century theoretical physicists on the page, too. So nothing has changed about the nature and basic sociological composition of physics in the last several centuries. It is a pure anti-physics propaganda that something essential is different today.
There were always experimenters who were bad at theory, theorists who didn’t do experiments and they would probably also be bad in them, and there were people who could do both. In very long segments of history of science, work was done purely by experimenters or purely by theorists just like today. The idea that theory and experiment have to alternate every day or talk to each other every day is utterly naive. That’s not how science has ever worked and it’s not how it works today.
I didn’t write the full legend above. The legend says that Nobel didn’t make a prize for mathematicians because his wife slept with a mathematician. I suppose that everyone has heard about this legend.
Incidentally, concerning your absurd statement that theoretical physics didn’t exist 100 years ago. Open any webpage about any 19th century theoretical physicist. E.g. take Arnold Sommerfeld on Wikipedia. You will find out that in 1895, he wrote a book called Lectures on Theoretical Physics. A decade later, he would become a director of the Institute for Theoretical Physics. Most of his job affiliations or work contain the term “theoretical physics” in one way or another.
So even the terminology, not just the essence, has been identical as it is today for more than a century and probably many centuries.
Dr. Motl,
Thank you taking the time to provide clarification, and the correction related to theoretical physics in the 1800s. I had not realized that the term was so prominent in that age.
Still, I continue to hold that the requirement by Nobel that the discovery be of a “benefit to mankind” precludes any purely theoretical work. A theory cannot be of a benefit to mankind unless it results in something tangible, at the very least an experimental verification.
Einstein is, of course, an excellent example, because his award was not for relativity. However, the award in this case was carefully phrased: “for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.” The award was for his total work to theoretical physics, and the award announcement makes clear that, though the award is for the photoelectric effect, the relativity work (which had been essentially proven by 1921) was a consideration.
There’s no such wording in the award for Nambu, and my point was mainly that the award isn’t for string theory … which I’m fine with, because of the specific conditions of the Nobel.
Again, thanks for the clarifications. I will direct my readers to this thread to hear your input as well
Dear physics,
yes, historically speaking, I agree that Einstein’s Nobel prize was justified in the way you wrote.
But that doesn’t mean that it was the best possible justification of the choice. More precisely, top physicists today would almost certainly disagree that it was. He should have been awarded for relativity (SR and GR), no doubt about that.
It is absurd to say that special relativity cannot be experimentally verified and it is equally absurd to say that Nobel prizes have to lead to something even more “tangible”.
Physics, by definition, talks about processes in Nature that are, therefore, accessible to experiments in principle. Whether they’re “tangible” has nothing whatsoever to do with the value of the discoveries. And in fact, unlike you, the Nobel physics committee realizes this point very well.
There have been quite a few Nobel prize winners whom you would have to call “purely theoretical” and it is no coincidence that they’re among the most distinguished ones because their work was most groundbreaking.
For example, ‘t Hooft and Veltman got their 1999 award for ‘t Hooft’s proof of renormalizability of gauge theories which is an absolutely purely theoretical work whose only observational consequence is a tautology, namely that measured probabilities are never infinite.
An even more theoretical Nobel prize was e.g. 1954 for Max Born. He got it for the insight that the wave function should be interpreted as a probability wave. Now, this is what some people would even call philosophy. It surely can’t be “directly” tested. But we – theorists in 2008 – know it’s true and essential for our current picture of the Universe.
For comparison, Born shared the 1954 award with Walther Bothe, a nuclear physicist whose work is somewhat closer to being forgotten today.
At any rate, I wonder why this Marxist attitude that the purpose of science is to give tangible results (for the working class?) comes from again in 2008. I hoped that this rubbish has been dead for decades. The purpose of science is to find how the world works; tangible things are left to the bakers.
Best
Lubos
My point wasn’t that the purpose of science was to have tangible results, it was that the purpose of Nobel Prize is to reward the discoveries which have the greatest “benefit to mankind.” You are right that there have been some Nobels given for largely theoretical work which benefits no one directly, but these are the exception rather than the rule.
Oddly, I tend to think that the “tangible results” argument, as it relates to science, is more of a capitalist viewpoint than a Marxist one. In this context, I do suppose that it is more Marxist … although I think that only makes sense. The Nobel Prize is essentially guilt money, after all.
The top discoveries in theoretical physics such as relativity, probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, proofs of renormalizability etc. have clearly the greatest benefit to the mankind among physics papers.
The reason why your priorities are Marxist is that they are determined by the “progressive” classes who don’t care about things like culture – and theoretical physics in particular.
Theoretical physicists are surely no exceptions among the winners. They won in 1902, 1910, 1918, 1921, 1922, 1929, 1932, 1933, 1945, 1949, 1954, 1963, 1965, 1969, 1972, 1975, 1979, 1982, 1999, 2004, 2005, and 2008, surely over 20%. They clearly belong among the most achieved, famous, and lasting winners.
‘’photon theory of light, which as opposed to the theory of relativity ‘’?
Give me a break.
Does the writer know the equation of photoelectron effect?