This Is Why ‘Physical Cosmology’ Was Long Overdue For The 2019 Nobel Prize
“It is a spectacular fact of modern science that the predictions of theoretical cosmology have been verified and validated by ever-improving observations and measurements. Even more remarkably, when we examine the full suite of the cosmic data humanity has ever collected, one single picture accurately describes every observation together: a 13.8 billion year old Universe that began with the end of cosmic inflation, resulting in a Big Bang, where the Universe is comprised of 68% dark energy, 27% dark matter, 4.9% normal matter, 0.1% neutrinos, and a tiny bit of radiation with no spatial curvature at all.
Put those ingredients into your theoretical Universe with the right laws of physics and enough computational power, and you’ll obtain the vast, rich, expanding and evolving Universe we have today. What was initially an endeavor of just a handful of people has now become the modern precision science of cosmology. In the middle of the 20th century, legendary physics curmudgeon Lev Landau famously said, “Cosmologists are often in error but seldom in doubt.” With the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics going to Jim Peebles, perhaps the world will recognize it’s long past time to retire Landau’s quote. We may live in a dark Universe, but the science of physical cosmology has shed a light on it like nothing else.”
I see you out there. You, the person who’s skeptical of dark matter. You, the one who thinks dark energy must be an enormous cosmological mistake. You, who thinks the Big Bang is a hoax and that inflation is a band-aid for a failing theory. And you, especially you, the one who derides cosmology as a pseudoscience, quoting Landau like his more-than-60-year-old quote is still relevant.
Three Astrophysicists Reveal Structure Of Universe To Win The 2019 Nobel Prize
“This Nobel is also notable for the elegant way in which it handled a number of controversies. Scientists who work on exoplanets and on large-scale cosmology often compete with one another for funding and resources, but rely on telescopes with similar technologies and often mission-share, as they will with WFIRST and the James Webb Space Telescope. Awarding a Nobel to both cosmology and exoplanets together is a bridge between these two sub-fields, and may encourage them to pursue more joint missions in the future.
Similarly, there were about a dozen Nobel-worthy individuals in the field of exoplanet sciences, with the elephant in the room being that one of the field’s most influential scientists is a known and repeated sexual harasser. In granting a Nobel to Mayor and Queloz, the committee rewarded the exoplanet community while gracefully sidestepping a potential public relations catastrophe.”
The 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics is here, and it goes to three extremely deserving individuals: Jim Peebles, Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz. Mayor and Queloz were the two scientists that, in 1995, unveiled the first confirmed and detected exoplanet around a normal, Sun-like star; it catapulted exoplanet sciences into the mainstream, leading to the rapid development we get to bask in today. Peebles, on the other hand, single-handedly developed the framework for modern physical cosmology, tying observables like galaxy clustering data and CMB fluctuations to the particle properties and energy contents of the Universe.
This One Award Was The Biggest Injustice In Nobel Prize History
“Every October, the Nobel foundation awards prizes celebrating the greatest advances in numerous scientific fields. With a maximum of three winners per prize, many of history’s most deserving candidates have gone unrewarded. However, the greatest injustices occurred when the scientists behind the most worthy contributions were snubbed.”
Imagine this scenario: you work hard all your life investigating some aspect of reality with as much scientific rigor as anyone ever has. You make a great breakthrough working on a very hard problem, and you push your scientific field forward in a novel, important, and unprecedented way. And then, when the time comes to evaluate the quality and impact of your work, it’s chosen as being Nobel-worthy.
Only, when they announce the winners of the Nobel Prize, your name isn’t called at all. Instead, other scientists are awarded the prize, while both your name and your decisive work are omitted from every aspect of the award. Sounds like a pretty big injustice, yes?
Ask Ethan: Are We Deceiving Ourselves By Searching For B-Modes From Inflation?
“I have a question about B-Modes. I’ve read Dr. Keating’s book, Losing the Nobel Prize. In the book, he details his team’s search for B-modes, and claims this would be smoking gun for inflation. Dr. Hossenfelder, in a blog post, says this isn’t true and there are other ways to produce B-modes. What is the correct view?”
Perhaps the greatest danger in science is to go out, look for a predicted effect, find it, and declare victory. Why is that such a danger? Because your idea for how the effect was generated might not be the only possibility, or even the most accurate one. If I have a wild new theory that predicts some far-distant star will have a habitable planet around it, the detection of that planet does not necessarily mean the wild new theory is correct. When it comes to the origin of the Universe, our leading theory is cosmic inflation, which predicts a B-mode polarization signature in the cosmic microwave background. Are there other ways to generate those B-mode signatures, though? And if we find them, does that mean that inflation is correct, or might that be a premature conclusion?
These 5 Women Deserved, And Were Unjustly Denied, A Nobel Prize In Physics
“The fact of the matter is that there is no concrete evidence that women are in any way inherently inferior to men when it comes to work in any of the sciences or any of their sub-fields. But there is overwhelming evidence for misogyny, sexism, and institutional bias that hinders their careers and fails to recognize them for their outstanding achievements. When you think of the Nobel Laureates in Physics and wonder why there are so few women, make sure you remember Cecilia Payne, Chien-Shiung Wu, Vera Rubin, Jocelyn Bell-Burnell, and Lise Meitner. The Nobel committee may have forgotten or overlooked their contributions until it was too late, but that doesn’t mean we have to. In all the sciences, we want the best, brightest, most capable, and hardest workers this world has to offer. Looking back on history with accurate eyes only serves to demonstrate how valuable, and yet undervalued, women in science have been.”
In most intellectual lines of work, if you claimed that a certain type of person wasn’t mentally capable of doing as good a job as another, you’d be rightfully called a bigot. Yet somehow, in a myriad of the sciences (such as physics), there are those who simultaneously claim that “women are inferior to men” alongside the claim that it isn’t sexist or bigoted to say so.
But what there is a long history of, in physics, is women being denied their due credit for discoveries and advances that they were an integral part of. Even in the aftermath of last week’s events, when physicist Donna Strickland became just the third woman ever to be awarded a Nobel Prize, many have claimed that she isn’t worthy, for reasons that have never been applied to men.
This Is Why The 2018 Nobel Prize In Physics, For Lasers, Is So Important
“It has often been noted, such as by the AAUW, that one of the barriers to accepting women in STEM as normal is a lack of representation at the highest levels. In selecting Donna Strickland as a Nobel Laureate, in the same year that Jocelyn Bell-Burnell was awarded the $3M Breakthrough Prize, we’re stepping closer to a world where women can expect to receive equal treatment and equal respect to men in the scientific workplace.
Whether your research will win you the Nobel Prize — or even will be successful — is often largely a matter of luck. But rewarding those who do good work, get lucky in how nature responds, and leads to the development of technological applications that serve humanity is what the Nobel is all about. This year, there can be no doubt the selection committee got it right. Let’s all celebrate Ashkin, Mourou, and Strickland as your 2018 Nobel Laureates in Physics!”
The 2018 Nobel Prize in Physics goes to Arthur Ashkin, Gerard Mourou, and Donna Strickland, for advances in the field of laser physics. Ashkin wins half the prize for his work developing the optical tweezers technique, while Mourou and Strickland share the other half for the development of chirped pulse amplification, which creates high-power, short-period pulses of lasers. Both of these inventions have proven their worth scientifically and practically, leading to a wide variety of applications. But there’s so much more to the story than that, and the fact that this is just the third physics Nobel ever to include a woman cannot be overlooked.
‘Losing The Nobel Prize’ Makes A Good Point, But Misses A Great One (Book Review)
“This is science. Our goal is to fully understand the Universe, one incremental step at a time. Our human failings are many, and we must not let them get the best of us. In Losing the Nobel Prize, Brian Keating exposes not only the failings of the Nobel Prize system, but also his own personal frailties. What emerges is a flawed but sympathetic read, where you’ll find yourself rooting not only for quality science to win out in the end, but for every contributor to work together in an open fashion for the benefit of human knowledge in general. We may be a long way from achieving that goal, but it’s arguable that by losing the Nobel Prize, Keating and BICEP2 has led us to an even greater victory: the recognition that there are more important things in this Universe, like scientific truths, than the fleeting glory of an earthly award.”
Imagine that you stake your life’s work on a high-risk, high-reward proposition. You think you’ve got a great new way to push the limits on our understanding of the Universe to never-before-probed frontiers. If you succeed, which is to say, if you’re first to probe that, and you find something new and novel, you’ve just made a tremendous scientific breakthrough. If you play the publicity game right, your research, its implications, and quite possibly, you, might be deemed Nobel-worthy. Only three people, maximum, can ever wind the Nobel Prize for a particular discovery, despite the fact that dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people are required to bring such an experiment to fruition. Now imagine you did that, got the spectacular result, and then had your finding overturned, as the field found your work to be sloppy, premature, and incomplete.
Ask Ethan: What Were The Greatest Nobel Prize Snubs In Science History?
“In this season of award shows where there is talk over who deserved to be nominated and who was snubbed, I wanted to know your pick for scientists who deserved a Nobel or a share of a Nobel but was snubbed by the committee. For my pick I’d nominate Chien Shiung Wu.”
In the world of science, there is no more prestigious award than the Nobel Prize, which has been awarded nearly every year (a couple of years during World War II excepted) since the dawn of the 20th century. Yet many deserving awardees were denied the honor of receiving it, often for extremely petty or ill-justified reasons. My top 10 prize snubs include:
1.) Cecilia Payne 2.) Dmitri Mendeleev 3.) Chien Shiung Wu 4.) Joseph Swan and Thomas Edison 5.) Vera Rubin and Ken Ford 6.) Fred Hoyle 7.) Jocelyn Bell-Burnell 8.) Lise Meitner 9.) Satyendra Bose 10.) Jonas Salk
All this is most certainly easily said than done and requires meticulous and extensive research, not to mention highly sensitive instruments.
Had they not have measured this time difference,
we might have had to wait for the merger for more massive black holes
to collide and maybe even build more sensitive instruments to detect these waves.
And Einstein predicted this a 100 years back!
Note: Hope you are able to understand and appreciate the profundity of the discovery done by mankind.
** All animations used here are merely for Educational purposes. If you have any issues, please write to us at : email@example.com
Why is this discovery a Big Deal ?
Gravitational waves gives
us another way to observe celestial phenomenon. These waves also form
when supernovae explode, when black holes collide and during many other
Detecting them might give us a new
perspective into the cosmic events. There is hell of a lot of space that
is left unexplored or lies beyond human exuberance and this discovery
might shed some light on it. ( like the big bang per se )
The ultimate goal is to
understand the fundamental laws of the universe. It is a quest through
the oblivion towards a theory of everything.
Although it is
unknown how many years/decades it might take to get us there, but these discoveries
are markers to getting there.
What is this Image that i see everywhere?
This is not the photograph of the actual event but a simulation run by NASA of two black holes merging.
How does the actual experimental setup look like ?
The actual experimental setup is a bit complex in its entirety. But the guardian has an elegant image that seems to cover its essence:
Have a great day!
Nobel Prize in Physics 2017
The Nobel Prize
in Physics 2017 was divided, one half awarded to Rainer Weiss, the other
half jointly to Barry C. Barish and Kip S. Thorne “for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves”.
The Nobel Doesn’t Mean Gravitational Wave Astronomy Is Over; It’s Just Getting Good
“We haven’t just detected gravitational waves directly, we’ve begun exploring in the era of gravitational wave astronomy. We aren’t just seeing the sky in a whole new way; we’re getting better and better at seeing it, and learning what we’re looking at. Because these events are transient, existing only for a short amount of time, we right now only get one opportunity to view these black hole-black hole mergers. But as time goes on and our detectors continue to improve, we’re going to continue to see the Universe as we never have before. The Nobel Prize may have been for already completed research, but the true fruits of gravitational wave astronomy are still out there amidst the great cosmic forest. Thanks to the groundwork laid by 100+ years of scientists, for the first time, it’s picking season.”
Yes, we detected gravitational waves, directly, for the first time! Just days after Advanced LIGO first turned on, a signal of a 36 solar mass black hole merging with a 29 solar mass black hole gave us our first robust, direct detection of these long-sought waves, changing astronomy forever. Einstein’s General Relativity was validated in a whole new way, and over 40 years of work on developing and building LIGO was vindicated at last. Now, it’s two years later, and yes, some of the most important team members have been awarded physics’ highest honor: the Nobel Prize. But gravitational wave astronomy isn’t over now; on the contrary, it’s only just beginning in earnest. With a third detector now online and two more coming along in the next few years, we’re not only poised to enter a new era in astronomy, we’re about to open up a whole new set of discoveries that would otherwise be impossible.