The sneaky folks at the Nobel Foundation have thrown a spanner in the works when it comes to the Physics prize. All the speculation has surrounded exotic quantum effects and theoretical esoterica, and they turn around and give it to something -gasp- practical...
The 2009 Nobel Prize in Physics is split three ways: half to Charles K. Kao "for groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication," and the other half to Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith "for the invention of an imaging semiconductor circuit - the CCD sensor."
Now these aren't fundamental physics discoveries like the Aharanov-Bohm effect or the Higgs Boson, but they are undeniably important to modern life-- fiver optics are absolutely essential to modern physics, and modern astronomy would be impossible without the CCD sensor. Without this year's laureates, I wouldn't have the shiny new camera I use to take Thursday Baby Blogging pictures, and I wouldn't be able to use the Internet to send them to you.
So congratulations to this year's Nobel laureates in physics. They've made life better for everyone, and that's worth some recognition. And pour a little beer on the ground in memory of the glory that was Bell Labs, where Boyle and Smith did their work. The CCD joins a long list of other Nobel-winning or world-changing discoveries invented or perfected at Bell Labs, which was dismantled because Wall Street decided it wasn't worth the investment.
- Log in to post comments
"And pour a little beer on the ground in memory of the glory that was Bell Labs..."
I may have to pour out a whole six-pack.
Pretty cool... I just got through teaching both topics. Speaking of Bell Labs, anyone have thoughts on what the closest thing to a Bell Labs is these days?
Ah, the lesser known "Nobel Prize in Engineering."
Your Canon XSi is CMOS, not CCD.
Not to get too political but the Wall Street comment started me... I may be deluding myself but many years ago people, including governments and corporations, valued a certain level of research for the sake of finding things out. Today it is about the bottom line. If it does nbot make an appropriate amount of money to someone in the corporation it is not done. The corporation and its leaders control the society. (Hence the Citigroup "plutonomy" memo as publicized in Michael Moore's new movie.) I am not making a judgment on the value of very expensive particle accelerators but our congress left a big ring in Texas because the endeavor was not worth it to them. The LHC will now reign, when it gets running. What will be learned and how will it affect the lives of future inhabitants of this big blue marble?
Maybe everybody should go on strike until Bell Labs
is put back together.
The Nobel prize was always supposed to have a practical relevance in the sense of being for discoveries that benefit mankind - this years prize is closer to the original intent than most, except in it having taken so long to be awarded.
Enabling technologies have always received Nobel prizes - cloud chamber anyone? Or focusing magnets for colliders?
Or indeed the cyclotron itself - the CCD is arguably a much broader and more fundamentally enabling technology than a cyclotron.
The Nobel prize was always supposed to have a practical relevance in the sense of being for discoveries that benefit mankind - this years prize is closer to the original intent than most, except in it having taken so long to be awarded.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with this year's choices. Fiber optics and CCD's are extremely important technologies, and the people who made them work are deserving of recognition.
I do find it sort of amusing to see the physics prize go to something concrete, though, especially when people keep picking inflationary cosmology and as-yet-undiscovered particles in the betting pool.
@chad - didn't think you were mourning the absence of a high energy theory award this year, just provided a convenient platform for a mini-rant before I remembered I had my own blog for such things...
Speaking of practical physics, perhaps these folks will win next year's Nobel, or Ig-Nobel for their demonstration that Newton was right!
Having a little trouble with your maths today Chad? :)
I believe the second half of the prize was split between Boyle and Smith. The Nobel Foundation website says those two were each awarded a quarter of the prize.
@Doug Alder,
Chad's math is right. 1/2 went to Kao, and the other half went to the team of Boyle and Smith.
I with Steinn#7 and your comments: I was real glad to see the prize awarded for physics discoveries that are in the original spirit of the Prize.
mrw - AH Damn that's what I get for doing this surreptitiously while at work
My university has a large old collection of Physics Today, dating back to at least the early '80s. It's rather funny and sad at the same time to see European scientists defending the LHC as a necessary 'low-energy' adjunct to the SSC...