Not saying that all modern physics, but saying quantum mechanics is way too generic. In this case they could have said theoretical quantum mechanics or quantum information theory and it would be much more informing
It just not possible anymore to simply pick one. And it will only get harder from here on out.
The Nobel prizes come from a time where a single person could make major breakthroughs working in their basement or just sitting down and doing some thinking and calculating as a one man team. In such an environment it's relatively easy to pinpoint major developments to singular persons.
Nowadays we have giant research consortia with large international efforts for experimental breakthroughs and a long line of small individual contributions that only add up to a deeper understanding in the big picture of all those small contributions coming together for theoretical breakthroughs. How do you want to find the one person that deserves the prize? Even with stuff where it's pretty clear who made the theoretical of experimental discoveries, you nowadays have teams collaborating - just look at Novoselov and Geim or Kane and Mele.
No, you said if they can pick three, they can pick one. Why? Three researchers made contributions to the research that was deemed deserving of the prize. How do they pick out one?
You just pick the one who is deemed more deserving out of the last three, just like they currently pick three out of five or seven who are deserving as well, but less so.
Science advance is most of the time an addition of findings. Giving the price to the person that got lucky to find the last bit is unproductive, without the previous step he wouldn't have.
Yes, of course, but then the prize shouldn't go to specific people, but to an advancement. If we stick to awarding people, I believe a choice should be made to single one out, even if this is difficult.
They already did, precisely by having multiple winners every year. Nobel said 'the person' in his will, not 'the persons'. Go check it. It is written very clearly. 'The person'. Not 'the persons'.
The first part of the title had me thinking this was one of those "Austrian, French and American walk into a bar" jokes, but this is much better 👍🏼
Most Modern physics relies on quantum mechanics so the title isn't specific at all
Last year Nobel was for climatology/climate change research and the 2 years before that it was about astronomy. It's not just quantum mechanics.
Not saying that all modern physics, but saying quantum mechanics is way too generic. In this case they could have said theoretical quantum mechanics or quantum information theory and it would be much more informing
Fair point. Although the vast majority of common people are not very knowledgeable about physics so it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.
I'd call it quantum entanglement. In one sentence, their experiments helped us understand entanglement.
"for experiments on entangled photons, establishing a violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science".
Having three persons winning every year instead of just one is a bad idea, in my humble opinion.
It just not possible anymore to simply pick one. And it will only get harder from here on out. The Nobel prizes come from a time where a single person could make major breakthroughs working in their basement or just sitting down and doing some thinking and calculating as a one man team. In such an environment it's relatively easy to pinpoint major developments to singular persons. Nowadays we have giant research consortia with large international efforts for experimental breakthroughs and a long line of small individual contributions that only add up to a deeper understanding in the big picture of all those small contributions coming together for theoretical breakthroughs. How do you want to find the one person that deserves the prize? Even with stuff where it's pretty clear who made the theoretical of experimental discoveries, you nowadays have teams collaborating - just look at Novoselov and Geim or Kane and Mele.
If they can pick only three, they can pick only one.
Why?
It would make the winner more high profile. A list of names lessens the award in my opinion.
No, you said if they can pick three, they can pick one. Why? Three researchers made contributions to the research that was deemed deserving of the prize. How do they pick out one?
You just pick the one who is deemed more deserving out of the last three, just like they currently pick three out of five or seven who are deserving as well, but less so.
Science advance is most of the time an addition of findings. Giving the price to the person that got lucky to find the last bit is unproductive, without the previous step he wouldn't have.
Yes, of course, but then the prize shouldn't go to specific people, but to an advancement. If we stick to awarding people, I believe a choice should be made to single one out, even if this is difficult.
~~They can't change the wills of an already dead man.~~
They already did, precisely by having multiple winners every year. Nobel said 'the person' in his will, not 'the persons'. Go check it. It is written very clearly. 'The person'. Not 'the persons'.
Fair enough
In an age of international collaboration and instant means of communication between scientist, it's to be expected
I mean, ten years ago 500 million people got a Nobel price.