tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post3083806944139342363..comments2024-03-28T00:01:43.037-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: NobelGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-22409184812057118032012-10-10T02:30:29.879-04:002012-10-10T02:30:29.879-04:00It does seem that the scientific awards are less p...It does seem that the scientific awards are less politicized (excepting perhaps internal science community office politics) than the literature award, and certainly the worthless peace prize. A great deal of this difference may have to do with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Committee" rel="nofollow">structure of the organization</a> and who decides which award winner.<br /><br />As a tangent, I recently read a piece by the 2002 Literature winner, Imre Kertész entitled <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/51151769/The-Union-Jack-Imre-Kertesz" rel="nofollow">"The Union Jack"</a>. As I began reading, I became fearful that it was an overwrought piece by an over-well considered writer. By the end, I thought it among the best communications of how the self is trampled by tyranny. It was a powerful piece, and I can see why he was selected for the Nobel in 2002.douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261739259295914188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-2704385520409966312012-10-09T18:36:22.292-04:002012-10-09T18:36:22.292-04:00Not that the photo-electric work was not Nobel-wor...Not that the photo-electric work was not Nobel-worthy, but not mentioning the other work was surprising. The article argued that it was politics. Another theory was that experimentation had not proceeded far enough to confirm relativity, but the Eddington experiments are (at least now) generally considered sufficient. The Nobel committee's qualms about them struck some people as a pretext.<br /><br />The 2012 physics prize does sound solid, as does the one in medicine. Aside from the Peace Prizes, which have become ridiculous, and some questionable literature choices, I haven't read about any recent Nobel scandals. It's a surprisingly clean prize overall.Texan99https://www.blogger.com/profile/10479561573903660086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-27260339535264084202012-10-09T13:47:19.756-04:002012-10-09T13:47:19.756-04:00The physics prize sounds well-deserved.The physics prize sounds well-deserved.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-14369857120738532182012-10-09T11:57:06.442-04:002012-10-09T11:57:06.442-04:00(oops, "mirabilis")(oops, "mirabilis")Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-52774331937070957152012-10-09T11:56:08.799-04:002012-10-09T11:56:08.799-04:00Can't follow your link on the Einstein nobel (...Can't follow your link on the Einstein nobel (though I certainly will later). The Wiki on his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers" rel="nofollow"><i>Annus Mirabilies</i></a> papers suggests the committee was waiting for experimental confirmation of Special Relativity, which came later. (I'm not sure about that as at least one test of General Relativity came in the early '20's but won't go chasing it now.) <br /><br />Any one of the three big ones was Nobel-worthy...the photoelectric effect paper is foundational in quantum mechanics; the Brownian movement paper is accepted as the final proof of the atomic theory; and special relativity is...special relativity. I think a Nobel based on any one of them would not be misdirected.Joseph W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09480728887840887200noreply@blogger.com