DOCSLIB.ORG

SR 51(12) 28-31.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SR 51(12) 28-31.Pdf RTICLE A EATURE F In 1987, the Nobel Committee decided to make public all the nomination- related papers if they were fi fty years old. A look at C.V. Raman’s nomination-related papers reveals some interesting aspects. BHUPATI CHAKRABARTI The nominators can also be There was another Nobel Laureate C. permanent and assistant professors in Nicolle of France who had won the prize the sciences of physics at the universities in physiology and medicine did send a and institutes of technology of Sweden, nomination in favour of the physicist P. Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, Weiss hailing from the same country. All HANDRASEKHARA Venkata and Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, nominators are supposed to send the CRaman won the Nobel Prize in holders of corresponding chairs in at least names and other details of the nominee Physics in 1930 and in the process became six universities or university colleges who must be a living scientist. According the first Nobel laureate in science not only selected by the Academy of Sciences to the will of Alfred Nobel a prize may from India but from the continent of Asia. with a view to ensuring appropriate be shared by up to three scientists. It was the discovery of the Raman Effect distribution. The Swedish Academy may So, one single nominator can actually that brought him the Physics Nobel. We also invite any scientist. nominate more than one scientist for the all know this. But do you know how the Now, a scientist who has won prize. All these names must reach the Nobel winners are chosen? the Nobel Prize in physics becomes an Committee on or before 31st January of the concerned year for which the winners The process is an elaborate one and automatic future nominator for the prize would be identified. And this is a time- the minute details are kept confidential. in that subject. It appears the rule was a tested tradition being followed for over a Now let us consider the physics Nobel bit different during 1930 when possibly century now. Prizes only. The official website for Nobel the Noble Laureates from other science Prizes tells us that the persons who can disciplines could also send nominations. This however goes without saying send nominations for the prize are the Ernest Rutherford, the great physicist that the whole exercise is supposed to be Swedish and foreign members of the actually won a Nobel Prize in chemistry. a strictly confidential one not only before Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Though the physicists and students of the announcement of the award of the Members of the Nobel Committee for physics tend to forget this Rutherford prize but all the time after that. A winner Physics, and former Nobel Laureates of could send a nomination in favour of should not know who in his community physics. Raman. recommended his name and who did SCIENCE REPORTER, DECEMBER 2014 28 FEATURE ARTICLE Since the great contender for the prize had not been included as the third winner while two of Effect came their co-workers had made the cut. to be known Finally, the Nobel Committee decided to make public all the nomination- by the name related papers if they were fifty years of Raman old. The argument was simple. They felt fifty years after the announcement of a for his role prize the nominators and the nominees would mostly leave this world and there in the work would not be much of embarrassment or and not as bitterness among the crucial players. Or for that matter some of the well nurtured Raman- anecdotes surrounding the prize could be debunked without hurting the people Krishnan who occupied the centrestage at the time Effect, there of the prize. was not However, the process of final selection, the discussion in the committee a single and the views of the individual members would continue to remain confidential. nomination The scientific community or for that in favour matter the general public would still be deprived of the exact reason or the of K.S. arguments that the members of the committee exchanged while deciding on Krishnan in a prize. People would also remain in the 1930 for the dark why in some cases the third slot was kept empty while awarding the prize to discovery of two others from the same group or for this effect. similar contribution. Yet it was a move that was reasonably satisfying to most people, particularly for the historians of science. It was in 1987 that the Nobel Committee made not. On the other hand the scientists who observed that the nominators were not the documents pertaining to the first 37 were very much in the contention of the always maintaining strict confidentiality. years of the prize (1901-1937) public. It prize but have missed it should not know Some expressed resentment in close circles was also decided that the next bunch of what sort of nominations they received or that their nominations were ignored while information would be published annually missed out or who sent the nominations some congratulated the actual winner after the relevant documents turn fifty in favour of the winner. mentioning that the award had gone to years old. them because of them. And there was no Not all former Nobel Laureates have way to check what happened in reality. Three historians of science, Elisabeth exercised their right to nominate as a look But it was felt that nominators were T. Crawford, J.L. Heilborn and Rebecca at the nominations of 1930 will reveal. possibly showing bias towards colleagues Hullrich incorporated all the details with There were only 12 Nobel Laureates who from same universities, may be the same excellent analysis in a book named The sent nominations though at that time country and occasionally scientists from Nobel Population 1901-1937: A Census of the number of living Nobel Laureates ‘friendly’ nations. And this may sound the Nominators and Nominees for the Prize was no less than 60. After winning the a bit frustrating but the truth is that the in Physics and Chemistry (Berkeley Papers Prize in 1930 Raman himself exercised highest level of scientific community was in History of Science). These documents this right very rarely. One should not really not free from this bias. revealed some astonishing and interesting forget, when it all started the world was The Nobel Committee began to feel information. not a ‘global village’ and the scope of the heat as different scientific bodies or Since C.V. Raman won the physics discussion among the nominators was various groups of scientists began to Nobel in 1930 his nomination related limited and that possibly ensured better demand that the process of nominations papers for the year 1930 came into light confidentiality. should be made public after the award immediately in 1987. Large number of After the Second World War, had been declared. This would enable surprises and interesting aspects also particularly from the 1950s when the Cold the scientific community to know who came to light but we shall first take War was on in full swing and the world nominated whom and who missed out a look at Raman’s nomination. The got broadly divided into two camps, it was the prize and who in spite of being a following table shows the names of the 29 SCIENCE REPORTER, DECEMBER 2014 FEATURE ARTICLE NAMES OF NOMINATORS OF THE 1930 PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE Sl. Nominee Nationality Nominator Nationality of Remarks on No. the nominator the Nominator 1. Born, M German Pringsheim, P German Mathematician 2. Bowen, IS USA Millikan, RA USA Phys NL 1927 3. Bowen, IS USA Osborn, HF USA Geologist, 4. Cotton, A French Guillaume., CE Swiss Phys NL 1920 Three historians of science, 5. Cotton, A French Villat, H France Elisabeth T. Crawford, 6. Davisson, CJ USA Millikan, RA USA Phys NL 1927 J.L. Heilborn and Rebecca 7. Davisson, CJ USA Osborn HF USA Geologist, Hullrich incorporated all 8. Davisson, CJ USA Richardson, OW British Phys NL 1928 the details with excellent 9. Debye, P German Walther, A German analysis in a book named 10. Debye, P German Warburg, E German The Nobel Population 11. Ferrie, GA French Townscend, JSE British 1901-1937: A Census of the 12. Gerlach, W German Campbell, WW USA Nominators and Nominees 13. Heisenberg, W German Frenkel, Y Russian for the Prize in Physics and 14. Heisenberg, W German Nagaoka, H Japanese Chemistry. These documents 15. Heisenberg, W German Perrin, J French Phys NL 1926 revealed some astonishing 16. Heisenberg, W German Planck, M German Phys NL 1918 and interesting information. 17. Heisenberg, W German Pringsheim, P German Mathematician 18. Heisenberg, W German Svedberg, T Swedish Chem NL 1926, 19. Hilbert, D German Hadamard, J French Mathematician 20. Landsberg, GS Russian Khvol’son, O Russian nominees and the nominators and their nationalities. A few remarks about the 21. Langevin, P French Nicolle, C French nominators also have been included for 22. Mandel’shtam, L Russian Papaleski, N Russian sake of further discussion. 23. Mandel’shtam, L Russian Khvol’son, O Russian In 1930, Raman not only got the highest number of nominations but he 24. Paschen, P German Franck, J German Phys NL, 1925 received nominations from some of the 25. Raman, CV Indian Bloch, F German Phys NL 1952 stalwarts of physics at that time. They 26. Raman, CV Indian Bohr, N Danish Phys NL 1922 were highly appreciative of Raman’s discovery. In fact, out of those ten 27. Raman, CV Indian Broglie, L de French Phys NL 1929 nominations six came from persons who 28.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EINSTEIN and NAZI PHYSICS When Science Meets Ideology and Prejudice
    MONOGRAPH Mètode Science Studies Journal, 10 (2020): 147-155. University of Valencia. DOI: 10.7203/metode.10.13472 ISSN: 2174-3487. eISSN: 2174-9221. Submitted: 29/11/2018. Approved: 23/05/2019. EINSTEIN AND NAZI PHYSICS When science meets ideology and prejudice PHILIP BALL In the 1920s and 30s, in a Germany with widespread and growing anti-Semitism, and later with the rise of Nazism, Albert Einstein’s physics faced hostility and was attacked on racial grounds. That assault was orchestrated by two Nobel laureates in physics, who asserted that stereotypical racial features are exhibited in scientific thinking. Their actions show how ideology can infect and inflect science. Reviewing this episode in the current context remains an instructive and cautionary tale. Keywords: Albert Einstein, Nazism, anti-Semitism, science and ideology. It was German society, Einstein said, that revealed from epidemiology and research into disease (the to him his Jewishness. «This discovery was brought connection of smoking to cancer, and of HIV to home to me by non-Jews rather than Jews», he wrote AIDS) to climate change, this idea perhaps should in 1929 (cited in Folsing, 1998, p. 488). come as no surprise. But it is for that very reason that Shortly after the boycott of Jewish businesses at the the hostility Einstein’s physics sometimes encountered start of April 1933, the German Students Association, in Germany in the 1920s and 30s remains an emboldened by Hitler’s rise to total power, declared instructive and cautionary tale. that literature should be cleansed of the «un-German spirit». The result, on 10 May, was a ritualistic ■ AGAINST RELATIVITY burning of tens of thousands of books «marred» by Jewish intellectualism.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronological List of Correspondence, 1895–1920
    CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF CORRESPONDENCE, 1895–1920 In this chronological list of correspondence, the volume and document numbers follow each name. Documents abstracted in the calendars are listed in the Alphabetical List of Texts in this volume. 1895 13 or 20 Mar To Mileva Maric;;, 1, 45 29 Apr To Rosa Winteler, 1, 46 Summer To Caesar Koch, 1, 6 18 May To Rosa Winteler, 1, 47 28 Jul To Julia Niggli, 1, 48 Aug To Rosa Winteler, 5: Vol. 1, 48a 1896 early Aug To Mileva Maric;;, 1, 50 6? Aug To Julia Niggli, 1, 51 21 Apr To Marie Winteler, with a 10? Aug To Mileva Maric;;, 1, 52 postscript by Pauline Einstein, after 10 Aug–before 10 Sep 1,18 From Mileva Maric;;, 1, 53 7 Sep To the Department of Education, 10 Sep To Mileva Maric;;, 1, 54 Canton of Aargau, 1, 20 11 Sep To Julia Niggli, 1, 55 4–25 Nov From Marie Winteler, 1, 29 11 Sep To Pauline Winteler, 1, 56 30 Nov From Marie Winteler, 1, 30 28? Sep To Mileva Maric;;, 1, 57 10 Oct To Mileva Maric;;, 1, 58 1897 19 Oct To the Swiss Federal Council, 1, 60 May? To Pauline Winteler, 1, 34 1900 21 May To Pauline Winteler, 5: Vol. 1, 34a 7 Jun To Pauline Winteler, 1, 35 ? From Mileva Maric;;, 1, 61 after 20 Oct From Mileva Maric;;, 1, 36 28 Feb To the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs, 1, 62 1898 26 Jun To the Zurich City Council, 1, 65 29? Jul To Mileva Maric;;, 1, 68 ? To Maja Einstein, 1, 38 1 Aug To Mileva Maric;;, 1, 69 2 Jan To Mileva Maric;; [envelope only], 1 6 Aug To Mileva Maric;;, 1, 70 13 Jan To Maja Einstein, 8: Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatic and Dogmatic Physics: Anti-Semitism in Nature, 1938
    1 Pragmatic and Dogmatic Physics: Anti-Semitism in Nature, 1938. A. Loewenstein*, Chemistry Department, Technion, Israel Institute of technology, Haifa 32000, Israel. Tel: 972-4-8293758 Fax: 972-4-8242996 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The German physicist J. Stark has published, in April 1938, an article entitled: “The Pragmatic and Dogmatic Spirit in Physics” in the prominent scientific journal Nature. In this paper Stark divides the world of Physics into Dogmatic and Pragmatic fractions. According to Stark Jewish scientists dominate the undesired dogmatic spirit while the desired pragmatic fraction is represented mostly by Aryans scientists. The circumstances that led to this publication and the response it received from the scientific community are discussed in this communication. It is interesting to learn how such a combination of anti-Semitic and scientific views found their expression in the pages of Nature. Key words: Nature, J. Stark, A.S. Eve, anti-Semitism and scientific publication. * Aharon Loewenstein is Professor of Chemistry (Emeritus) at the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. 2 It is well known that anti-Semitism was an important factor in the progress of scientific research, in particular during the Second World War period. The expulsion of Jewish scientists from Nazi Germany had an adverse effect on German science and tremendously promoted the scientific research of the Allied. The contribution of Jewish "émigré" scientists to the development of the atomic bomb and the Radar can not be underestimated. It may be interesting to note that anti-Semitism has also infiltrated into non-German scientific publication media and the present study examines such a case.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Shoulders of Giants: a Brief History of Physics in Göttingen
    1 6 ON THE SHO UL DERS OF G I A NTS : A B RIEF HISTORY OF P HYSI C S IN G Ö TTIN G EN On the Shoulders of Giants: a brief History of Physics in Göttingen 18th and 19th centuries Georg Ch. Lichtenberg (1742-1799) may be considered the fore- under Emil Wiechert (1861-1928), where seismic methods for father of experimental physics in Göttingen. His lectures were the study of the Earth's interior were developed. An institute accompanied by many experiments with equipment which he for applied mathematics and mechanics under the joint direc- had bought privately. To the general public, he is better known torship of the mathematician Carl Runge (1856-1927) (Runge- for his thoughtful and witty aphorisms. Following Lichtenberg, Kutta method) and the pioneer of aerodynamics, or boundary the next physicist of world renown would be Wilhelm Weber layers, Ludwig Prandtl (1875-1953) complemented the range of (1804-1891), a student, coworker and colleague of the „prince institutions related to physics proper. In 1925, Prandtl became of mathematics“ C. F. Gauss, who not only excelled in electro- the director of a newly established Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute dynamics but fought for his constitutional rights against the for Fluid Dynamics. king of Hannover (1830). After his re-installment as a profes- A new and well-equipped physics building opened at the end sor in 1849, the two Göttingen physics chairs , W. Weber and B. of 1905. After the turn to the 20th century, Walter Kaufmann Listing, approximately corresponded to chairs of experimen- (1871-1947) did precision measurements on the velocity depen- tal and mathematical physics.
    [Show full text]
  • Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark Fathi Habashi
    Laval University From the SelectedWorks of Fathi Habashi 2012 The asC e of Nobelists: Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark Fathi Habashi Available at: https://works.bepress.com/fathi_habashi/491/ '18-79 78 Chen. Educator2012,17, The Caseof NobelistsPhilipp Lenard and JohannesStark Fathi Habashi Laval Univers ity, QuebecC ity, Canada, FahL Hab(tshi@prul. ulwal.ca ReceiverlApril 27,20I2. AcceptedMay I6,20l2. Abstract A Nobel laureatehas become a symbolofexcellence, a g€niusthat deserves respect and honour from the royalties,scholars, and laymen,While this is absolutelytrue yet few laureatesdid not standto this standard. This may be strang€but this happenedin turbulenttimes in Germanywhen the Nazi ideologyprevailed. philipp Lenardand JohannesStark two distinguishedCerman scientists were an€sted at the end of World War II and tried for misconduct, lntroduclion completelyevacuated. He wasable to convenientlydetect the rays and measuretheir intensityby meansof papersheets Two Nob€l Prize winnersw€re conffov€rsial figures in the coatedwith phosphorescentmaterials. 1930sand 40s.Philipp EduardAnton von Lenard(Figure l), He confirmedsome of J. J. Thomson'swork, which winnerof the Nobel Prizefor Physicsin 1905for his research ultimatelyarrived at the understandingthat cathoderays were on cathoderays, and JohannesStark (Figure2) Nobel Prize streamsof energeticelectrons. In conjunctionwith his and laureatein l9l9 fbr his discoveryof the DopplerEfl'ect in other earlier experimentson the absorptionof the rays in canalrays and the splittingof spectrallines
    [Show full text]
  • Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon
    % 514 BIOGRAPHIES HENDRIK ANTOON LORENTZ 1853-1928 Lorentz was bom in Amhem on 18 July 1853, the son of Gerrit Frederik Lorentz, owner of a nursery, and Geertixiida van Ginkel. He attended the HBS in Amhem from 1866 to 1869 and enrolled in die University of Leiden in 1870, but after passing his candidaats examina­ tion in mathematics and physics, in 1871, he returned home in 1872 and did his further studies at Leiden while teaching in Amhem. He passed his doctoral examinations in 1873 and took his doctorate in 1875 on a dissertation entitled Over de theorie der terugkaatsing en breking van licht (On the Theory of the Reflection and Refraction of Light). In 1877 he chose the new chair of theoretical physics at Leiden over the chair of physics and of mathematics at Utrecht and remained at Leiden until 1912. In 1881 he married Aletta Kaiser; the couple had two daughters and two sons (one of whom died in infancy). During the first two decades of his career at Leiden, Lorentz stud­ ied all aspects of physics, but his most important work was on electro­ magnetic theory. Lorentz was an early champion of Maxwell's equa­ tions, demonstratuig their superiority over other electromagnetic theories in explaining reflection and refraction at the surface of trans­ parent surfaces, and he solved some problems (e.g., emission spectra) that Maxwell had left unsolved. During this period, Lorentz pub­ lished about an article per year and had little or no contact with physicists in other countries. He taught conscientiously and wrote two textbooks, Leerboek der dijferentiaal- en integraalrekening en van de eerste beginselen der aitalytisclte meetkunde (Textbook on Differential and Inte­ gral Calculus and the Elements of Analytic Geometiy; 1882), and Beginselen der Natuurkunde (Elements of Physics; 1888-1890).
    [Show full text]
  • Nazi Nuclear Research: Why Didn’T Hitler Get the Bomb? Jim Thomson
    Nazi nuclear research: Why didn’t Hitler get the Bomb? Jim Thomson www.safetyinengineering.com 1 Nazi nuclear research 1. The German project and a brief comparison with the Manhattan and V-weapons projects 2. German project technical achievements and failures 3. Political and organisational factors 4. Motives, ethics, competence and honesty 5. Postscript: The lunatic fringes 2 Jim Thomson www.safetyinengineering.com 1. The German project and a brief comparison with the Manhattan and V-weapons projects 3 Jim Thomson www.safetyinengineering.com Arnold Kramish 1985 The Griffin 1947: April 1943: “Los ALSOS – Samuel Mark Walker 1989 German National Socialism and the Quest Dec 1942: for Nuclear Power 1939–1949 Alamos Primer” Goudsmit Chicago pile UK Government 1992 Farm Hall transcripts declassified lecture notes give (republished 1996) critical complete overview of David Cassidy 1992 Uncertainty: The Life and Science of Werner Heisenberg bomb project Frisch-Peierls 1944/1945: ALSOS 1956: Thomas Powers 1993 Heisenberg’s War memorandum mission to capture Brighter Than a Mark Walker 1995 Nazi Science: Myth, Truth, and the German March 1940 German researchers , Thousand Suns – Atomic Bomb July/Aug 1945: Einstein letter equipment and data Robert Jungk Paul Lawrence 1998 Heisenberg and the Nazi Atomic Bomb to Roosevelt Trinity, Little Boy and Rose Project: A Study in German Culture Fat Man. The Smyth 1968: Hans Bethe 2000 ‘The German Uranium Project’, Article in August 1939 Physics Today Report outlines the The Virus House - Jeremy Bernstein 2001
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a I
    Appendix A I Appendix A Professional Institutions and Associations AVA: Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt (see under --+ KWIS) DFG: Deutsche Forschungs-Gemeinschaft (previously --+ NG) German Scientific Research Association. Full title: Deutsche Gemeinschaft zur Erhaltung und Forderung der Forschung (German Association for the Support and Advancement of Sci­ entific Research). Successor organization to the --+ NG, which was renamed DFG unofficially since about 1929 and officially in 1937. During the terms of its presidents: J. --+ Stark (June 1934-36); R. --+ Mentzel (Nov. 1936-39) and A. --+ Esau (1939-45), the DFG also had a dom­ inant influence on the research policy of the --+ RFR. It was funded by government grants in the millions and smaller contributions by the --+ Stifterverband. Refs.: ~1entzel [1940]' Stark [1943]c, Zierold [1968], Nipperdey & Schmugge [1970]. DGtP: Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir technische Physik German Society of Technical Physics. Founded on June 6, 1919 by Georg Gehlhoff as an alternative to the --+ DPG with a total of 13 local associations and its own journal --+ Zeitschrift fUr technische Physik. Around 1924 the DGtP had approximately 3,000 members, thus somewhat more than the DPG, but membership fell by 1945 to around 1,500. Chairmen: G. Gehlhoff (1920-31); K. --+ Mey (1931-45). Refs.: Gehlhoff et al. [1920]' Ludwig [1974], Richter [1977], Peschel (Ed.) [1991]' chap. 1, Heinicke [1985]' p. 43, Hoffmann & Swinne [1994]. DPG: Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft German Physical Society. Founded in 1899 a national organization at to succeed the Berlin Physical Society, which dates back to 1845. The Society issued regular biweekly proceedings, reports (Berichte) on the same, as well as the journal: Fortschritte der Physik (since 1845).
    [Show full text]
  • The Reason for Beam Cooling: Some of the Physics That Cooling Allows
    The Reason for Beam Cooling: Some of the Physics that Cooling Allows Eagle Ridge, Galena, Il. USA September 18 - 23, 2005 Walter Oelert IKP – Forschungszentrum Jülich Ruhr – Universität Bochum CERN obvious: cooling and control of cooling is the essential reason for our existence, gives us the opportunity to do and talk about physics that cooling allows • 1961 – 1970 • 1901 – 1910 1961 – Robert Hofstadter (USA) 1901 – Wilhelm Conrad R¨ontgen (Deutschland) 1902 – Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (Niederlande) und Rudolf M¨ossbauer (Deutschland) Pieter (Niederlande) 1962 – Lev Landau (UdSSR) 1903 – Antoine Henri Becquerel (Frankreich) 1963 – Eugene Wigner (USA) und Marie Curie (Frankreich) Pierre Curie (Frankreich) Maria Goeppert-Mayer (USA) und J. Hans D. Jensen (Deutschland) 1904 – John William Strutt (Großbritannien und Nordirland) 1964 – Charles H. Townes (USA) , 1905 – Philipp Lenard (Deutschland) Nikolai Gennadijewitsch Bassow (UdSSR) und 1906 – Joseph John Thomson (Großbritannien-und-Nordirland) Alexander Michailowitsch Prochorow (UdSSR) und 1907 – Albert Abraham Michelson (USA) 1965 – Richard Feynman (USA), Julian Schwinger (USA) Shinichiro Tomonaga (Japan) 1908 – Gabriel Lippmann (Frankreich) 1966 – Alfred Kastler (Frankreich) 1909 – Ferdinand Braun (Deutschland) und Guglielmo Marconi (Italien) 1967 – Hans Bethe (USA) 1910 – Johannes Diderik van der Waals (Niederlande) 1968 – Luis W. Alvarez (USA) 1969 – Murray Gell-Mann (USA) 1970 – Hannes AlfvAn¨ (Schweden) • 1911 – 1920 Louis N¨oel (Frankreich) 1911 – Wilhelm Wien (Deutschland) 1912 – Gustaf
    [Show full text]
  • Nobel Prizes List from 1901
    Nature and Science, 4(3), 2006, Ma, Nobel Prizes Nobel Prizes from 1901 Ma Hongbao East Lansing, Michigan, USA, Email: [email protected] The Nobel Prizes were set up by the final will of Alfred Nobel, a Swedish chemist, industrialist, and the inventor of dynamite on November 27, 1895 at the Swedish-Norwegian Club in Paris, which are awarding to people and organizations who have done outstanding research, invented groundbreaking techniques or equipment, or made outstanding contributions to society. The Nobel Prizes are generally awarded annually in the categories as following: 1. Chemistry, decided by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2. Economics, decided by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 3. Literature, decided by the Swedish Academy 4. Peace, decided by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, Stortinget 5. Physics, decided by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 6. Physiology or Medicine, decided by Karolinska Institutet Nobel Prizes are widely regarded as the highest prize in the world today. As of November 2005, a total of 776 Nobel Prizes have been awarded, 758 to individuals and 18 to organizations. [Nature and Science. 2006;4(3):86- 94]. I. List of All Nobel Prize Winners (1901 – 2005): 31. Physics, Philipp Lenard 32. 1906 - Chemistry, Henri Moissan 1. 1901 - Chemistry, Jacobus H. van 't Hoff 33. Literature, Giosuè Carducci 2. Literature, Sully Prudhomme 34. Medicine, Camillo Golgi 3. Medicine, Emil von Behring 35. Medicine, Santiago Ramón y Cajal 4. Peace, Henry Dunant 36. Peace, Theodore Roosevelt 5. Peace, Frédéric Passy 37. Physics, J.J. Thomson 6. Physics, Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen 38.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 06 L19 To
    STiCM Select / Special Topics in Classical Mechanics P. C. Deshmukh Department of Physics Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennai 600036 [email protected] STiCM Lecture 19 Unit 6 : Introduction to Einstein’s Special Theory of relativity PCD_STiCM 1 Unit 6: Lorentz transformations. Introduction to Special Theory of Relativity Learning goals: Discover that the finiteness of the speed of light and its constant value in all inertial frames of reference requires us to alter our perception of ‘simultaneity’. This leads to the notion of length-contraction and time-dilation. Understand how Lorentz transformations account for these. PCD_STiCM 2 Furthermore: We shall learn about the famous ‘twin paradox’ and how to resolve it…. ….. and also about some other fascinating consequences of the STR…… ….. Electromagnetic field equations, GTR, GPS clocks, ….. PCD_STiCM 3 2010 Camaro vs. 2010 Mustang PCD_STiCM 4 152 PCD_STiCM 5 Galilean Relativity ? 152 152 PCD_STiCM 6 ~1650 Kms/hr PCD_STiCM 7 In Galilean Relativity: The laws of mechanics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. The principle of causality/determinism involve the same interactions resulting in the same effects seen by observers in all inertial frames of references. Time t is the same in all inertial frames of references. PCD_STiCM 8 What is the velocity of the oncoming car? … relative to whom? PCD_STiCM 9 Why did the chicken cross the road? The chicken could be wondering why it is the road that crossed her! PCD_STiCM 10 Galilean relativity Time t is the same in the red frame and in the blue frame. rt() YI rt'( ) F constant O I XI O O' u t Ic Y’ ZI F’ X’ O’ Z’ dr dr ' r(t) rt'( ) utc u dt c dt dr dr' What would happen if the object u dt dt c of your observations is light? PCD_STiCM 11 dr dr ' u dtc dt Speed of light ? PCD_STiCM 12 Danish astronomer Ole Roemer (1644–1710) Roemer observed (1675-1676) Jupiter, and Io the timing of the eclipses of Jupiter's moon Io.
    [Show full text]
  • Still Shrouded in Mystery: the Photon in 1925
    Still Shrouded in Mystery: The Photon in 1925 Richard A. Campos Department of Physics and Astronomy Lehman College, the City University of New York Bronx, New York, 10468-1589, USA (15 February 2004) Abstract We present a translation of Albert Einstein’s Rio de Janeiro manuscript on light quanta. In it, Einstein evaluates the Bohr-Kramers-Slater refutation of light quanta, which was concurrently the subject of intense empirical scrutiny on two continents. Written shortly before Heisenberg’s discovery of quantum mechanics, the manuscript likely represents Einstein’s last published remark on the constitution of light in the historical period known as the old quantum theory. It crystallizes the fact that by 1925 the light- quantum concept was still insufficient, even as the corpuscular properties of light gained decisive empirical confirmation. 1. Introduction As we approach the centennial of Einstein’s introduction of light quanta [1], it is well worth reconsidering just how long it takes for some very good ideas to make their way into the scientific schema. The journey can be tortuous, and in the case of the photon [2], it is great fun to recollect the legendary remarks about Einstein’s “reckless” hypothesis [3], which should not be “held against him” for having “missed the target” [4]. In the particular case of Einstein’s photons, two decades would pass before the conspiracy of theory and experiment left little option but to incorporate them into physical theory. But this is far from the whole story, because the 1905 light-quantum could not explain the wave qualities of radiation well known long before Einstein’s arrival on the scene.
    [Show full text]