Comments on: Nobel Sur-prize

By: Nobel Betting « In the Dark

Nobel Betting « In the Dark — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:44:49 +0000

[...] think the panel made a bit of a bizarre decision last year and I hope there won’t be another steward’s enquiry this year to distract us [...]

By: A Unified Quantum Theory of the Sexual Interaction « In the Dark

A Unified Quantum Theory of the Sexual Interaction « In the Dark — Wed, 20 May 2009 21:53:09 +0000

[...] by the recent Nobel prize awarded for the theory of quark mixing, we are now able to present a new, unified theory of the sexual interaction. In our theory the [...]

By: Adrian Buzatu

Adrian Buzatu — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:25:21 +0000

Indeed, spontaneous symmetry breaking is a corner stone of particle physics and thus of the laws of the Universe. Our team of science amateur journalists from Romania just finished translating the NobelPrize.com description for the public about the symmetry of the Universe (with their permission, of course). It took awhile, but I hope the entire country will be able now to understand better what the Nobel prize this year was. Your blog is also in the same spirit, of explaining a difficult concept simply to the public. Good luck, then! Adrian Buzatu, PhD Candidate in particle physics at McGill University, Montreal, Canada at the CDF experiment at Fermilab and coordinator http://www.StiintaAzi.ro

By: Let’s Read The Internet! Week 1 « Arcsecond

Let’s Read The Internet! Week 1 « Arcsecond — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:32:13 +0000

[...]

Nobel Sur-prize

[...]

By: Crash! There goes another one.. « In the Dark

Crash! There goes another one.. « In the Dark — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:22:57 +0000

[...] If only everything in life were as simple as the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa theory. [...]

By: Nobel Sur-prize : Sophoblog

Nobel Sur-prize : Sophoblog — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:05:36 +0000

[...] Nobel Sur-prize [...]

By: Dr M

Dr M — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:48:57 +0000

I was also surprised that the Nobel committee omitted Cabibbo, but I think the explanation is somewhere along the lines of the following: They wanted to reward both the general idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking and the particular case of quark flavour mixing in the full-blown theory as devised by Kobayashi and Maskawa. So, obviously Kobayashi and Maskawa must share the prize. Now, the statutes of the Nobel Prize stipulate that the prize can be shared by at most three laureates. So the committee is now faced with the problem of either awarding a “narrower” prize to Cabibbo, Kobayashi and Maskawa for the CKM-matrix (not including — except by implication — the general idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the prize, and so not giving a prize to Nambu), or omitting one of the three “CKM” from the part of the prize being awarded for quark flavour mixing. In the latter case, Kobayashi and Maskawa obviously can’t be separated, and furthermore where the ones who developed the full theory (building on Cabibbo’s idea, to be sure).

So, basically, it comes down to choosing between Nambu and Cabibbo. They can’t both be given the prize (unless another year’s prize were to be awarded for Nambu’s work — something that seems highly unlikely, given the fact that there is already some criticism again the fact that Nobel prizes are still being awarded for research performed before many of us were even born) and the committee chose Nambu. Right or wrong? You decide, but you can’t give the prize to all four, so you have to choose. Personally, I would probably have choosen Cabibbo over Nambu. But then again, I’m a postdoc working on quantum fluids, and neither an elementary particle theorist, nor anywhere close to the Nobel prize decision making.

The dominating feeling for me though, is a sincere wish that we can now move on from raining Nobel Prizes (however well-deserved) over standard-model physics from the 1970’s to finding newer achievements to reward.