Prize and Prejudice

An interesting and good article.

Nobel committe is not always perfect. There were other notable exceptions too. Gandhi/Nehru for Peace prize, Salk for Medicine come to my mind..

Thanks,
Avkrishna

Excellent article. Looked like a fairy tale.

Early 20th century was the era of quantum physics and it resulted in so many geniuses. It is quite normal to have difference of ideas and research approach among genius people. Best thing in pure sciences is that it can be proved and when it is proved, scientific people (have to) accept it or prove it wrong logically(mathematically). Unlike Social sciences where there is no agreement even on basic concepts. May be, social sciences needs to be ``mathematized``.

Gill Sahab:

Very interesting article. I have been wondering about the injustice to Einstein( for thirty years) who could be the first physicist less than tentyfive years old (in hindsight) had the prejudice against theoretical physics in Sweden not played such a dominant role. Partly it is understandable because science has been identified rather closely with experimental findings and the intellectual level of physicists in 1900-1910 was not high enough to appreciate Einstein. Inspite of my predilection for theoetical physics and Relativity, even over Quantum Mechanics, I acknowledge that the real test of any theory is to be obtained and determined by experimental confirmation. Without experimental corroboration any theory is merely speculation no matter how beautiful.

The fact that the Nobel Committee was unable to properly assess the importance of Einstein`s work early enough indicates the myopia of the Committee governed by the statement from Nobel`s Will quoted by you. Furthermore, the Nobel Prize itself never had/has the stature of Einstein. It took the elevation of the Nobel Prize itself to honor Einstein.

By the way Einstein had secretly acknowledged that the work on Photoelectric Effect was done by his wife and published in his name due to stupid prejudice against women scientists that was prevalent at that time in the world.

Curiously, as it turns out the Nobel Prizes for both Indians, viz., Raman and Tagore turn out to be for the reasons of elimination of unacceptable people in the Western World.

The Chowk is lucky to have a person of your energy working for it. Keep up the good work.

Gill Sahab:

Very interesting article. I have been wondering about the injustice to Einstein( for thirty years) who could be the first physicist less than tentyfive years old (in hindsight) had the prejudice against theoretical physics in Sweden not played such a dominant role. Partly it is understandable because science has been identified rather closely with experimental findings and the intellectual level of physicists in 1900-1910 was not high enough to appreciate Einstein. Inspite of my predilection for theoetical physics and Relativity, even over Quantum Mechanics, I acknowledge that the real test of any theory is to be obtained and determined by experimental confirmation. Without experimental corroboration any theory is merely speculation no matter how beautiful.

The fact that the Nobel Committee was unable to properly assess the importance of Einstein`s work early enough indicates the myopia of the Committee governed by the statement from Nobel`s Will quoted by you. Furthermore, the Nobel Prize itself never had/has the stature of Einstein. It took the elevation of the Nobel Prize itself to honor Einstein.

By the way Einstein had secretly acknowledged that the work on Photoelectric Effect was done by his wife and published in his name due to stupid prejudice against women scientists that was prevalent at that time in the world.

Curiously, as it turns out the Nobel Prizes for both Indians, viz., Raman and Tagore turn out to be for the reasons of elimination of unacceptable people in the Western World.

The Chowk is lucky to have a person of your energy working for it. Keep up the good work.

I think Einstien was unjustly treated because of the two nations theory.

Gill Sahab:

Very interesting article. I have been wondering about the injustice to Einstein( for thirty years) who could be the first physicist less than tentyfive years old (in hindsight) had the prejudice against theoretical physics in Sweden not played such a dominant role. Partly it is understandable because science has been identified rather closely with experimental findings and the intellectual level of physicists in 1900-1910 was not high enough to appreciate Einstein. Inspite of my predilection for theoetical physics and Relativity, even over Quantum Mechanics, I acknowledge that the real test of any theory is to be obtained and determined by experimental confirmation. Without experimental corroboration any theory is merely speculation no matter how beautiful.

The fact that the Nobel Committee was unable to properly assess the importance of Einstein`s work early enough indicates the myopia of the Committee governed by the statement from Nobel`s Will quoted by you. Furthermore, the Nobel Prize itself never had/has the stature of Einstein. It took the elevation of the Nobel Prize itself to honor Einstein.

By the way Einstein had secretly acknowledged that the work on Photoelectric Effect was done by his wife and published in his name due to stupid prejudice against women scientists that was prevalent at that time in the world.

Curiously, as it turns out the Nobel Prizes for both Indians, viz., Raman and Tagore turn out to be for the reasons of elimination of unacceptable people in the Western World.

The Chowk is lucky to have a person of your energy working for it. Keep up the good work.

Gill Sahab:

Very interesting article. I have been wondering about the injustice to Einstein( for thirty years) who could be the first physicist less than tentyfive years old (in hindsight) had the prejudice against theoretical physics in Sweden not played such a dominant role. Partly it is understandable because science has been identified rather closely with experimental findings and the intellectual level of physicists in 1900-1910 was not high enough to appreciate Einstein. Inspite of my predilection for theoetical physics and Relativity, even over Quantum Mechanics, I acknowledge that the real test of any theory is to be obtained and determined by experimental confirmation. Without experimental corroboration any theory is merely speculation no matter how beautiful.

The fact that the Nobel Committee was unable to properly assess the importance of Einstein`s work early enough indicates the myopia of the Committee governed by the statement from Nobel`s Will quoted by you. Furthermore, the Nobel Prize itself never had/has the stature of Einstein. It took the elevation of the Nobel Prize itself to honor Einstein.

By the way Einstein had secretly acknowledged that the work on Photoelectric Effect was done by his wife and published in his name due to stupid prejudice against women scientists that was prevalent at that time in the world.

Curiously, as it turns out the Nobel Prizes for both Indians, viz., Raman and Tagore turn out to be for the reasons of elimination of unacceptable people in the Western World.

The Chowk is lucky to have a person of your energy working for it. Keep up the good work.

Charlie,
The 21st century could very well be the century when quantum mechanics would be experimentally observed. Some experiments in nanotech, seem to already suggesting that. We are in interesting times.

Good article from the author.

Inquirer,

tu ikko gull baar baar kiyon ghassai jaana?


Gandhi Nehru for peace prize.....he he like rewarding a dacoit for dacoity.


Irrespective of Nobel Prize, the world knows about Einstein. In his case, it is irrelevant. His name has become an immortal amongst humans. The prizes begin with noble intentions, over time, they stagnate into `hijra kikli`. What was the purpose of giving to that woman who had planted some trees in Africa. Politics pollutes.

A great read Dr Gill, as always!

I personally think that after Einstein, Sir Richard Feynman is the most influential person, in the 20th Century Physics scenario, but then, thats merely a personal opnion. Dirac, Schrodinger and Heisenberg, are no doubt legenary Physicists, who contributed immensely to the human oulook towards the nature of existance. And, to this day, Nobel Acdemy is more biased towards the experimentalists, something you had a good debate on in one of your earlier articles. Nevertheless, quite an eye-opener.

Anxiously waiting for some more gems of knowledge from your side!

Mohammed Gill,

This was a well written peice on an excellent topic.

While it is true that Nobel committee members have been biased for many reasons, finally it is also upto the people and media to give Nobel prize the importance it deserves. It should be a sobre reminder to people judging works only by the awards, about the merits of such a thinking. Einstein at least published his work in journals, Darwin did not even do that. He published his work by way of writing his famous book ``Origin of Species``. In a world today where in scientists are obsessed with publishing their works in a journal as a mark of originality, fewer path breaking theories are emerging.

Ironically, where you feel Einstein was ``cheated`` vis a vis his work on relativity (both special and general) with regards to getting a Nobel, Reimann who laid the mathematical foundation for the non-euclidean geometry rarely gets mentioned for the same work. Somehow, I`m getting more and more inclined to believe that physicists connect the dots created by mathematicians. You must read both Reimann and Poincare`s work to know how they state mathematically pretty much what einstein applied to theorize about the universe.

Hope the world starts recognising that more often too.

Adios

Maharana:

Thanks for your comments.

I beg to disagree with you regarding your comments on publishing journal articles versus publishing a book like Darwin. Darwin did not publish his book for nearly thirty years; he published it when he learned that Wallace had independently developed the `theory of natural selection.

The journal articles provide the new research information to the research scientists more readily and the research work progresses rapidly.

Regarding Reimann, it is not correct to suggest that he is ignored. His work is always quoted. Nobel Prize began much later than Reimann`s time and there is another thing also. Nobel Prize is not awarded for the work done in mathematics.

Regarding your suggestion that the physicists only connect the dots, I must say that that is also arguable. Poincare had proposed his theory of relativity which did not quite measure to Einstein`s work. Einstein suggested that time was relativistic and not absolute, as was commonly believed, even by Poincare. Poincare couldn`t take this revolutionary step which by the way also highlights the difference between a physicist and a pure mathematician. There is no question that Poincare was a great mathematician. It is said that Archimdes knew all the mathematics that had been developed up to his time. The same thing was said about Gauss and Poincare. There is no mathematician now with a similar claim.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Freethinker,

The reason for highlighting todays tendency of relying on journal articles is simply the quality of articles. If you pick up most of the journals and check, you can see how well their articles measure up against good quality artcilces which are fewer in number. Also take a peek at the Academia in the US. The motivation for getting published sometimes is also to get tenured. Hence the quality of articles suffer.

As for the Nobel in Mathematics is concerned, I think the whole world is aware of that. I am also aware of the fact that Reimann lived much before Nobel came into effect. Besides, my appreciation for Reimannian mathematics exists only because I`ve had the pleasure of taking certain courses dealing extensively with related math. Once you realise what he has done and proposed non-euclidean geometry with curved continuum, it was easy enough to apply that. In the absence of such math framework, where would general relativity stand? Had it not been for similar mathematicians to create and prove the validity of such math models by logical consistency, no physicist can ever apply such theorems to explain the real world phenomenon. Your statement that Reimann is quoted too is correct, but he;s not even remotely as popular as einstein. Except for people in science or technical disciplines, his contributions to the foundation of relativistic math are not known. The reason for that is not nobel prize alone, but a lack of appreciation of his work by the media which remains grossly ignorant about contributions of mathematicins generally.

You are well aware of course that in theorectical physics, without the proof of experiment, its only the mathematical foundation which makes or breaks the theory. theories of physics often become a special case of a more generalised theory only due to new developments in mathematics. The same is not true for mathematics. Its the only discipline that builds upon previously proven theorems. Once a math theory is developed it stays unchanged for eternity as it depends upon logic alone. Had Reimann lived before Newton or galieleo, do you think the development of classical mechanics would have remained the same?

I use continuum mechanics and finite element analysis routinely for my work. I know that you are an engineer too. Most of the engineers I come across in Aerospace industry inevitably get drawn towards mathematics for its sense of finality and ability to provide a complete understanding of any phenomenon. But I guess we`ll differ on the importance of physics Vs. Math with respect to each other. we all have our inclinations. We should discuss about that in detail some other time, lest we should hijack your board into something else.

Adios

Maharana:

I am pleased with your post.

You probably know that Reimann was great Gauss`s student. He did his Ph.D. with him.Reimann`s Ph.D. thesis is said to be only 10 pages long but it was quite fundamental. I am not a mathematician and did not have the occasion to use Reimann`s mathematics.But I like to believ that I have first hand experience of feeling the beauty of mathematics because I have used it in some of my research work.

Reimann was a great mathematician and the mathematicians and the theoretical physicists konw it and they adore him. Einstein`s fame skyrocketed because of his equation

E = m c^2

Mathematicians` work does not touch common man`s life in that way.

Your statement regarding Reimann being born before Newton and Galileo is hypothetical and arguable because there is no way we`d know what would have been achieved. We can probably say safely that Einstein couldn`t have developed relativity had he been born before Reimann. Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Inquirer:

You wrote in your post, ``By the way Einstein had secretly acknowledged that the work on Photoelectric Effect was done by his wife and published in his name due to stupid prejudice against women scientists that was prevalent at that time in the world. `` I want to clarify this point.

It is conjectured by many that Einstein did not give due credit to his wife for work that she was supposed to have contributed. But this is not quite true. Einstein`s second son, Hans Einstein, was a civil engineer. One of his students wrote Hans` biography. It is stated there that Hans also thought that her mother was unfairly ignored. He asked several of his physicist friends to investigate. They couldn`t turn up any credible evidence. So, this is merely a conjecture. There is nothing in it.

Mohammad Gill

freethinker:

I refer you to the publications of Einstein Archives from Princeton University.