Charles K. Kao, Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith share this years Nobel prize in Physics for their contributions to the transmission and detection of light. Congratulations to the three of them.
Charles K. Kao did research in material science of glass, and argued that the losses in glass fibers available in the 1960′s where mostly due to impurities in the material. A few years later glass of sufficient purity was made by Corning, and modern fiber optics telecommunications where born. Nowadays, this technology impacts us directly by making the infrastructure that handles the information traffic of the internet possible.
Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith created the CCD. This is one of the main technologies in modern photography. It make the capture and reading of light fast and efficient and it essentially made photographic film obsolete: the cost of capturing an image went down to essentially zero. It is also one of the standard technologies for astrophysics and most importantly, it is not restricted to the visible spectrum. It can be used to read light from distant sources very fast, data that can be transmitted to researchers all over the world very quickly (we don’t have to wait to develop the film), and being in electronic format, it is easy to manipulate, send and store. This is anther technology that has wide applications on the Internet, capturing live images that end up in U-Tube and Flicker.
Lubos laments the fact that the Nobel prize went just for technology. Although I sympathize, I think that this is not a bad choice at all. Although one can call this applied physics rather than fundamental physics, the technological breakthroughs enabled by these inventions is truly remarkable. Nowadays, we take it for granted. But it is truly a marvelous thing. Today, I can have a video-phone conversation on the Internet with someone on the other side of the planet, for a costs that is essentially zero. This is a science fiction idea that did come through, but not necessarily the way they were originally envisioned.
You should also consider that modern telecommunications account for a big chunk of the worlds GDP, and it will surely grow in the future. The technologies that make this possible come from Physics research, and it might take many years before the engineering issues and the costs can be lowered enough so that we all benefit from them. Besides, the whole architecture of the modern Internet came out from CERN. A lot of people needed to look at large chunks of data with completely independent computer systems ans operating systems. A common message protocol for communications and standards for addressing data was born from these necessities. It would be hard to give a Nobel prize for that.
I would wish that the public at large was more aware that the technologies of today are the product of years of development, starting from physics discoveries and inventions and refined by engineers so that they can be mass produced with quality that can be controlled. Without the first invention, the rest of the process doesn’t work.
No one denies that these discoveries are extremely important. They are! But I don’t think they fit in the traditional spirit of the physics Nobel prize.
I thought that the Nobel prize awarded discoveries / ideas that revolutionize the way we understand the physical world in a *fundamental* way. That was my idea of the physics Nobel prize, the award received by Planck, Einstein, Dirac, Feynman and so many others. Many Nobel awards, and in particular this year’s, would fit more a “Nobel Prize in Applied Physics” than a “Nobel Prize in Fundamental Physics”. Bardeen, for example, would have had one of each. Maybe there should be such a splitting? No doubt that the practical importance of CCDs and fiber optics deserve a highest achievement award. But should it be the physics Nobel prize, in particular? I don’t think so. There must be another prize(s) to which their work fits better. But that’s only my opinion…
The fact that the Nobel prizes (and in particular, the physics prize) are regarded by the general public as the noblest award in any area of knowledge, that doesn’t mean that the conditions for attribution of the physics award should be relaxed to accommodate the most areas of knowledge vaguely related to fundamental physics there is. There are many awards out there, and many ‘awardable’ ideas. I just think that rules for the attribution of this particular prize should be sharper, and narrowed down to its original scope: to award ideas and discoveries that directly and permanently change the understanding of the physical world.
Anyway, this is only an award. The merit is always on the scientists and their work, it’s given by their peers, and no medal can measure that enough.
Congratulations for the recipients!
The original rules for the prize (in Nobels will) where for discovery or invention in the field of physics. The committee steered away from invention for many years. It was also supposed to be for most important discovery in the preceding year and emphasis was put on benefit to mankind.
I think that prizes for technology that change people lives are more in the spirit of what Nobel would have wanted, by understanding his biography. He was convinced that his invention of dynamite would stop wars from happening again because they would be too horrific. He was proved wrong on that.
Perhaps most surprisingly of all is the citation for the ‘discovery of the transistor effect’ given to Schockley, Bardeen and Brattain rather than the invention of the transistor.
The Nobel prize seems so arbitrary at times. It really begs the question… If material science and technology are eligible for a prize, why weren’t these guys awarded the prize about 30 or 40 years ago? And does this not suggest that there are about 20 or 30 other candidates that are now very worthy of the prize as well?
These particular breakthroughs and applications are profound and have changed modern civilization, but not so much for the actual ‘physics’ behind them. Well, there are many examples of that, and its quite the pandoras box thats opened.
Dear David, I agree that Nobel would probably endorse this kind of highly practical inventions. After all, his lady slept with a mathematician, the legend says.
Still, I don’t think that these results may be described as “inventions in physics”. You know, the transistor effect may be classified as a new effect in physics if you name it in this way, and so can be giant magnetoresistance of Fert and Grünberg.
But the absorption of light by dirty glass doesn’t seem like a new physical effect to me. And the flow of charge from one capacitor to the neighboring one doesn’t seem like a new effect, either.
I think that these things are purely engineering results that make some very ordinary, well-known physical phenomena more useful than before. And I think that there are other reasons why it may have been wrong to pick the somewhat random individual people to be awarded: these advances occurred because of many other people who contributed their incremental improvements. Many of them were paid to do this somewhat straightforward work.
I am not happy about the choice, and you can see the comments of blogs like yours and mine that this is standard among the commenters who have been physicists.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/10/2009-physics-nobel-prize-fiber-optics.html
Lubos:
I would have preferred other choices too, but the choice is not inherently bad in itself.
And yes, I agree that this is more engineering than physics.
However, there is something about lighthouse switches that rings a bell to me as being a much worse choice.
The Nobel is many times random, in that it can not be awarded to larger groups of people, so one has to pick representatives of a larger group and these few get all the glory of the combined effort of very many individuals.
There is a big field of physics of creating instrumentation that does not per se lead to discoveries by the person who built the machine, but by people who borrow the technology down the line. Should the inventor of the technology get some credit for the breakthroughs that he enabled?
Magnetic field violated circular to linear polarisation technics to be applied in laser optical teleportation especially by negative refractive index based imaginary hologram and further Bose-Einstein laser cooling has to be completed to along distance as mass apport and teleportation is yet to be realised.
Some violent magnetic field optical lattice that operate at the first quadrant of jw right and jw left separates for polarization curiously at Capricorn and Cancer. Capricorn seems to be breaking magneto optic quantum sector for linear polarization and cancer for circular polarization, by diagonal oscillation of Pendulosung optic lattices. Cancer seems to be shifted more on circular polarization and Capricorn seems to be on linear polarization for earth affined dynamics and circular polarization in cancer for water affined dynamics,based on Pendulosung magnetic field oscillation that can also be applied in fiber optics.
Digital fiber optics based on the 12 magnetic field resonance oscillations to be developed based on typical single electron spin split up quadrapole varaitions.
Certain aspects of electromagnetic field that violate classical descriptions of physics say Sankara Velayudhan Nandakumar Oxford-Cambridge-Hubble-Jila-PNSA Group finds its in circular to linear implications:
Telomeres are genetic sequences that act like little protective caps are violated at these points of magnetic field emissions and the theory of catastrophe on violent water affined dynamics could be evaluated
Some classified part of linear polarization and circular polarization is observed at the meeting point of Capricorn-Aquarius and Gemini-Cancer.
The variations in the fluxes of the relativistic electrons in the planetary radiation belts are due to a set of different physical processes which violate one or more of the adiabatic invariants. We survey the mechanisms which break down these invariants and investigate the time scales for the processes and the resulting effects on the observed fluxes. The mechanisms include (a) sudden deformation of the magnetic field configuration, (b) radial diffusion due to low-frequency electromagnetic oscillations, (c) transit-time damping due to fast waves and (d) diffusion due to electromagnetic ion-cyclotron (emic) or whistler waves. It is indicated how the waves which interact resonantly with the relativistic electrons are responsible for enhancement in the radiative spectra of the gyrosynchrotron emissions in the GHz frequency range and the X-ray bremsstrahlung emissions at the MeV energy range.
Some violent magnetic field optical lattice that operate at the first quadrant of j right and j left separates for polarization curiously at Capricorn and Cancer. Capricorn seems to be breaking magneto optic quantum sector for linear polarization and cancer for circular polarization, by diagonal oscillation of Pendulosung optic lattices. Cancer seems to be shifted more on circular polarization and Capricorn seems to be on linear polarization for earth affined dynamics and circular polarization in cancer for water affined dynamics. Relative Telomeres are genetic sequences that act like little protective caps are violated at these points by hologram stimulations,
that it was a specific DNA sequence in the telomeres that kept chromosomes from fraying whenever they were copied when a cell splits in two. Blackburn and Greider discovered telomerase. The findings have implications for The findings have implications for the understanding of aging and cancer. Because if the enzyme keeps the telomeres robust, the chromosomes stay protected and the cell’s aging is slowed. And in cancer cells, which unfortunately do not seem to age, telomere length is maintained virtually indefinitely.
Yakir Aharonov of Chapman University in Orange, California, Tel Aviv University, and the University of South Carolina, and Michael Berry of the University of Bristol in Britain for their discovery of the Aharonov-Bohm Effect and the related Berry Phase. “It describes certain aspects of electromagnetic that violate classical descriptions of physics,” Pendlebury said. “They are all in every physics text book now. It seems odd to me that they have not been recognized by the Nobel committee.”
Sankara Velayudhan Nandakumar special officer on behalf of Loyola college nano technology dept Cape Institute of Technology,Nagercoil formerly with ,KNSK Engineering college ,Nagercoil as research scholar,Anna University with Hubble space research committee of Hon.Roger Davies,Hon.Collin Webbs FRS of Laser dn of Oxford uk,Hon.Marteen Rees ,Emeritus Professor of cosmology Cambridge ,former president of Royal society, London. Sankara Velayudhan Nandakumar member PNSA,American ,member JILA Group on behalf of Loyola college of Enigineering Aand technology ,Member American committee for the Weizman institute of science ,Energy renovation committee cape Institute of Technology,Nagercoil formerly with ,KNSK Engineering college ,Nagercoil as research scholar,Anna University with Hubble space research committee of Hon.Roger Davies,Hon.Collin Webbs FRS of Laser dn of Oxford uk,Hon.Marteen Rees ,Emeritus Professor of cosmology Cambridge
1) Your call CNSHD760739 regarding Optic lattice violations at Pendulosung oscillation of diagonal between left and right side jw planes-reg has been receivedOutreach@stsci.edu
2) Optic lattice violations at Pendulosung oscillation of diagonal between left and right side jw planes-reg [Incident: 091006-000065 news@nature.com
3) Your call CNSHD760834 regarding Circular to linear Pendulosung magnetic field optic lattice violated emissions reflects in Telomeres violations-reg has been received Outreach@stsci.edu
Fast data processing could be made with combination of circular and ellipsoidal combinations of quasi nature.Data can move down silicon fiber more quickly than through copper wire because nothing is faster than light, and light signaling offers higher bandwidth for electronic circuitry. Encoding information in the form of light pulses rather than as electric pulses allows more data to flow down a line. Kao’s principal achievement was in making the fiber more efficient; by excluding impurities in the fiber material, he developed a material that absorbed less of the light carrying signals over long distances. For this purpose he applies a low-frequency magnetic field that makes the collective spin (angular momentum) of the system oscillate. This process can be compared with the precession of a spinning top about its major axis: the deflection of the spinning top corresponds to the amplitude of the light, while the zero passage corresponds to the phase. The magnetic moments of the gas atoms are aligned in a homogenous magnetic field. The light also has a preferential direction: It is polarised, i.e. the electric field oscillates in just one direction. Under theses conditions the light and the atoms are made to interact with one another so that the light pulse emerging from the gas that is sent to Alice is “entangled” with the ensemble of 10 to the power of 12 caesium atoms located at Bob’s site thus violating the magnetic oscillations from circular to ellipsoidal.Some violent magnetic field optical lattice that operate at the first quadrant of jw right and jw left separates for polarization curiously at Capricorn and Cancer. Capricorn seems to be breaking magneto optic quantum sector for linear polarization and cancer for circular polarization, by diagonal oscillation of Pendulosung optic lattices. Cancer seems to be shifted more on circular polarization and Capricorn seems to be on linear polarization for earth affined dynamics and circular polarization in cancer for water affined dynamics.
Huh? This is not an astrology blog. Whatever you wrote up there doesn’t make any sense to me. And when you talk about quasi-nature it means its not about nature. And Capricorn and Cancer really have nothing to do with the subject of the original post.
It’s just not fair. Brilliant physicists with huge influence in fundamental research will never win the Nobel prize this way. I think that theoretical physics needs a medal analogue to the Fields medal in Mathematics that will overshadow the prestige and publicity of the Nobel prize and will be the premier prize in the physics world. The criteria of the Nobel prize are outdated to cover contemporary theoretical physics.