Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userProfiles of James Peebles, Michel Mayor, and Didier Queloz: 2019 Nobel Laureates in Physics
110
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics honors three pioneering scientists for their fundamental contributions to basic cosmic questions - Professor James Peebles (Princeton University), Michel Mayor (University of Geneva), and Didier Queloz (University of Geneva and the University of Cambridge) - for contributions to our understanding of the evolution of the universe and Earths place in the cosmos, with one half to James Peebles for theoretical discoveries in physical cosmology, and the other half jointly to Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz for the discovery of an exoplanet orbiting a solar-type star. We summarize the historical and scientific backdrop to this years Physics Nobel.
rate research
Read More
Work of Lev Landau had a profound impact on the physics in 20th century. Landau had created the paradigms that had framed the conversations on the outstanding problems in physics for decades. He has laid the foundations for our understanding of quantum matter such as superfluidity, superconductivity and the theory of Fermi Liquid. Here we present sampled Nobel Archive data on the winning nomination that led to the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1962.
Edwin Powel Hubble is regarded as one of the most important astronomers of 20th century. In despite of his great contributions to the field of astronomy, he never received the Nobel Prize because astronomy was not considered as the field of the Nobel Prize in Physics at that era. There is an anecdote about the relation between Hubble and the Nobel Prize. According to this anecdote, the Nobel Committee decided to award the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1953 to Hubble as the first Nobel laureate as an astronomer (Christianson 1995). However, Hubble was died just before its announcement, and the Nobel prize is not awarded posthumously. Documents of the Nobel selection committee are open after 50 years, thus this anecdote can be verified. I confirmed that the Nobel selection committee endorsed Frederik Zernike as the Nobel laureate in Physics in 1953 on September 15th, 1953, which is 13 days before the Hubbles death in September 28th, 1953. I also confirmed that Hubble and Henry Norris Russell were nominated but they are not endorsed because the Committee concluded their astronomical works were not appropriate for the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Some scientists take themselves and their work very seriously. However, there are plenty of cases of humour being combined with science. Here I review some examples from the broad fields of physics and astronomy, particularly focusing on practical jokes and paper parodies. This is a mostly serious overview of a non-serious subject, but Id like to claim that there is in fact some connection between humour and creativity in the physical sciences.
This article was written at the invitation of Current Science to explain the history and Science behind this years Nobel prize in Physics. The article is aimed at a general audience and provides a popular account and perspective on the subject of black holes.
The physical processes that determine the properties of our everyday world, and of the wider cosmos, are determined by some key numbers: the constants of micro-physics and the parameters that describe the expanding universe in which we have emerged. We identify various steps in the emergence of stars, planets and life that are dependent on these fundamental numbers, and explore how these steps might have been changed, or completely prevented, if the numbers were different. We then outline some cosmological models where physical reality is vastly more extensive than the universe that astronomers observe (perhaps even involving many big bangs), which could perhaps encompass domains governed by different physics. Although the concept of a multiverse is still speculative, we argue that attempts to determine whether it exists constitute a genuinely scientific endeavor. If we indeed inhabit a multiverse, then we may have to accept that there can be no explanation other than anthropic reasoning for some features our world.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
