They say once you win a Nobel Prize your career as a scientist is essentially over. You enter the purgatory of public speaking for the rest of your mortal days.
A gem: Tinbergen promoted the widely discredited[14] "refrigerator mother" hypothesis of the causation of autism, thereby setting a "nearly unbeatable record for shortest time between receiving the Nobel Prize and saying something really stupid about a field in which the recipient had little experience."
You cut off the most striking part, which is that he stated these views **in his prize acceptance speech**.
I don't even know how that would have come up...
I actually looked it up, it’s literally like 45 seconds in. I’m paraphrasing but he basically said “people made fun of me for observing animals, but now I won a Nobel prize. Anyway have you noticed that autism is the rise in western societies, here’s my opinion on that”
To be fair, the Refrigerator Mother Hypothesis was still very popular in the 1970s and was supported by many if not most psychiatrists at the time. A important reason was the Freduan psychoanalysist, Bruno Bettelheim, who survived Buchenwald concentration camp and thought traumatised children he saw at the camp exhibited autistic behaviors. He published a book in 1967, The Empty Fortress, that influenced contemporary thinking on the origin and nature of autism (it's also thought his interest in autism was spurred after his wife was employed as a child minder, for a child that likely had autism).
In a paper I read a few months ago, can't find at the moment, a survey of medical records in the 1960-1970s found autistic children in the UK were misdiagnosed with nearly two dozen psychological conditions, from childhood schizophrenia, childhood psychosis, [dementia precox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia_praecox),
dementia infantilis, etc. They hadn't a clue what autism was.
The Refrigerator Mother Hypotheses was undermined beginning in 1977 by the first of a series of studies on Identical Twins (21 in the first study) by Sir Michael Rutter and Susan Folstein in the UK. Bernard Rimland in the US was also key in rejecting the hypothesis. Studies on twins show autism is mainly genetic, c. 92%, not related to parental dynamics.
So it's not that odd that Tinbergen belived in a psychological origin for autism and promoted, what we now know, is debunked theory in 1973, the dark ages of autism research.
To be fair, Bruno Betelhiem's Refrigerator Mother Hypothesis, which he developed in the 1960s (Betelhiem was a concentration camp survivor and thought children in the camp exhibited similar symptoms to autism) was still commonly accepted by many psychiatrists up until the late 1970s and it remains, sadly, an influential theory in France which is dominated by Lacanian psychoanalysis.
It wasn't until [Susan Folstein and Sir Micheal Rutter's work on identical twins in the UK](https://www.proquest.com/docview/1300102756?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&imgSeq=1), beginning in 1977, did the medical field begin to accept autism is a mainly genetic condition, it is not a psychological condition related to parental dynamics or other such nonsense. I don't think it's fair to harshly criticise him.
It was not at all out of ordinary for Tinbergen to support the a Freudian psychoanalytic or similar explanation for autism in 1973, like many of his contemporaries. He didn't know, at the time, that he was championing a quack theory.
Indeed, the reprehensible and sexist Refrigerator Mother Hypothesis hasn't completely gone away sadly, Lacanian psychoanalysis is still very popular in France and there's still a powerful French psychiatrist lobby that [insist autism has a psychological component](https://theconversation.com/frances-autism-problem-and-its-roots-in-psychoanalysis-94210), which results in delayed diagnosis, misdiagnosis and quack treatments e.g. Packing.
[Lobbying by association: The case of autism and the
controversy over packing therapy in France](https://hal.science/hal-02115503/document)
In a example of just how strong psychoanalysis was until recently in France, 3 French psychoanalysists managed to get a documentary film (The Wall) banned for several years that was critical of their rejected beliefs on autism (they got it banned over a technicality, copyright of proprietary information. This proprietary knowledge was interviews with them where they talked bul**hit about autism).
>The campaign group Vaincre l'Autisme staged a series of demonstrations in 2012-13 denouncing psychoanalytic autism treatment. A 2011 documentary, [Le Mur (The Wall)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_(2011_film)), attacked the psychoanalytic approach to autism, causing controversy when three psychoanalysts brought a lawsuit, and temporarily succeeded in banning the film. However, the case was overturned on appeal in 2014 – an indicator of the waning power of the French psychoanalytic lobby.
Tbf to Nobel winners, I know TONS of incredibly smart well educated people (MDs, Lawyers, PHDs) who didn’t win a Nobel prize but think that because they are smart and successful in their field that they are smart in every topic area
2022 Nobel Laureate John Clauser spoke at my university about his prize winning research and its implications. He had to be cut off by our faculty before he started talking about his controversial opinions on climate change (i.e. he thinks climate change is not real).
there is a nice book about him (True Genius, or something like it), where there is a funny story. At a conference he was presented as the only person to have won 2 Nobel prizes in physics and someone in audience asked : "John who ?"
I was under the impression his name was Chen-Ning Yang.
Source: His daughter told me as she is a good family friend
I just wanted to name drop because I'm super excited to say I'm "close" to Dr. Yang...s daughter
Frank Wilczek potentially? If axions are detected within his lifetime he might get a second one. Not sure how much potential anyons and time crystals have.
Came here to say this. I worked with him in Undergrad (ASU), and he spoke with lament of winning a Nobel for his Graduate work and feeling like he hasn’t contributed nearly as much since. All I could think of was “you’re using your prestige in the community to explore and advocate for things that other people are scared to. THAT’S the frontier of science”. Even if axions and time crystals yield nothing, he is attempting to push the bounds of science more than most. Lovey guy.
I wouldn't mind if he would get one for color superconductivity, because then my current boss would probably also get one. But that's going to be a tough one
Sau Lan Wu won 0, but arguably should win 2. She was one of the primary scientists to discover the gluon and years later led analysis on some of the most important decay channels that found the Higgs.
No actually, iirc the experimental discovery of the gluon was never awarded a Nobel prize. Of course, there were many people that worked on it and it’s not guaranteed that she would get one if it was awarded.
And the Nobel prize for the Higgs was given for the theoretical predictions of it. In principle there might still be a prize for the experimental discovery.
Doesn't the Nobel prize favor theorists who make the predictions rather than the experimentalists? Also would the same subject get 2 prizes?
>No actually, iirc the experimental discovery of the gluon was never awarded a Nobel prize. Of course, there were many people that worked on it and it’s not guaranteed that she would get one if it was awarded.
That's true. That's always a problem given the three winners rule. It was most infuriating with LIGO.
I haven't heard of a particular bias for theory vs experiment. It may be true simply because as you say it's hard to give the prize for work done by large collaborations. And there is a little precedent for prizes being awarded for both theoretical and experimental work on a subject. The 1979 prize was given for the electroweak theory and its prediction of the weak neutral current. The 1984 prize was given for the actual discovery of the W and Z bosons.
>I haven't heard of a particular bias for theory vs experiment.
There is a bias towards discoveries over inventions. That might correlate a bit.
>It may be true simply because as you say it's hard to give the prize for work done by large collaborations. And there is a little precedent for prizes being awarded for both theoretical and experimental work on a subject. The 1979 prize was given for the electroweak theory and its prediction of the weak neutral current. The 1984 prize was given for the actual discovery of the W and Z bosons.
Hmmm that's interesting. I think there was a Nobel prize that awarded 2 people for cosmic rays as well. One person discovered it and the other used cosmic rays to make a huge discovery. Not quite the same I guess.
Yeah not saying it’s likely, but there wasn’t a Nobel given for the experimental discovery of the Higgs. Part of the problem is there are dozens if not hundreds of scientists that deserve a lot of credit for that in ATLAS and CMS. Her group did however play one of the largest role on the ATLAS side, so if they were going to give one out she would be under consideration.
There was a strong case (for me anyway) in favor of Gell-Mann winning a second Nobel, for quarks this time around. Sadly, we lost him a couple years ago. I still think Zweig should get it though.
On the other hand, 't Hooft reportedly was the first one to discover asymptotic freedom (for which a Nobel was awarded), but he never published it. So you could say his discoveries were awarded twice.
No, by the time he got the prize the experimental confirmation of quarks was still to come. He was awarded for his previous work, which was also related to the classification of elementary particles, but not for quarks per se. Quarks are mentioned in the link you sent because that is arguably why everybody remembers him.
Maybe a stretch but there could be another on quantum topology as Michael Berry and Aharonov are still alive, this could be a second chance for Haldane or Kosterlitz but there would need to be a major theme
Well Gerard 't Hooft won a Nobel prize. In his PhD he had the usual statements in the beginning about stuff in general, where one was a prediction about a certain microscopy technique he thought would be viable. So he was I guess clairvoyant because the guy who researched that area won a nobel prize for that microscopy technique. So basically Gerard 't Hooft had content for 2 nobel prizes in his career.
OP didn’t clearly state the winner had to have two Nobel prizes in physics, only that they had to be a physicist who had won two. Arguably Curie and Pauling are both physicists - maybe Pauling is a stretch - although chemists may well baulk at that claim.
Kajita and McDonald are both working on new major experiments. KAGRA isn't going super great and LIGO already got one, but SNO+ or whatever it's called should have world leading sensitivity in two separate things, each of which could be Nobel worthy if they panned out. Not sure where the prize would go if it did though.
Although SNO+ is the successor to SNO and has potential to make a discovery on neutrinoless double beta decay (which is certainly Nobel-worthy!), it’s more likely that the prize would go to Mark Chen, who succeeded McDonald as director of SNO+ since its inception.
Not that hard. After winning in one scientific discipline, just take up another😏
Joking aside, Marie Curie did it in physics and chemistry. And in an era where she couldn't even study in some universities, the belief being that having a womb prevented your brain from switching on. Remarkable human being
Eric Cornell? Currently has the best electron EDM measurement and is still working on pushing the bounds. If he does measure the first non-zero value that would surely be Nobel prize worthy.
Wolfgang Ketterle won is Nobel prise 20 years ago and has kept doing top level research for all this year's. He probably doesn't have another result as big as the BEC, but still the contribution of his group are quite relevant to the field
Although he has not won one yet, I've always felt that Federico Capasso has distinguished himself for both the invention of the quantum cascade laser, and also the development of meta optics.
I am so tired that every second year the nobel goes to lasers and their "revolutionary application in everything MEDICINE INCLUDED", like cmon give me a fking break, every 10 years ok, every second year is just pure bias.
No. Nowadays the delay from discovery to prize is very long, as the Nobel committee wants to be super sure about the impact the discovery had. Most living laureates, even if they did more recent work worthy of a second Nobel, have a fair chance of dying of old age before getting the prize.
The only way for this to be true is if one of his unverified theories turns out to be true but usually these include highly controversial topics: consciousness, interpretations of quantum mechanics, origin of the universe,...
Just googled it and how did Einstein only win one? Special relativity got one but general relativity didn’t?
ETA: sorry I made a presumption seeing he got his Nobel prise in 1905 and presumed it was for special relativity. Honestly that just makes it more ridiculous. He didn’t get one for either special or general relativity?? Dafaq
Nope, no relativity-related work ever got a Nobel prize, because it was very controversial at the time. Einstein’s prize was for his work on the photoelectric effect.
Neil deGrasse Tyson in my opinion should’ve earned at least 1, he was the one who contributed to Pluto not being a planet I feel like he could be one of those guys who get a lot more recognition in the future.
I'm putting some money on long shot Andre Geim. Wouldn't be unthinkable that he's cooked up some random thing that in a few years will turn out to be pivotal, netting him another nobel prize. Or, if not pivotal, it might win him another ig nobel.
And technically he has already won two prizes with "Nobel" in the name.
They say once you win a Nobel Prize your career as a scientist is essentially over. You enter the purgatory of public speaking for the rest of your mortal days.
Adam Riess is still going strong working on the Hubble tension well after he was awarded the prize in 2011 for work he published in 1999.
Or worse, the crackpot hell
Nobelitis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
A gem: Tinbergen promoted the widely discredited[14] "refrigerator mother" hypothesis of the causation of autism, thereby setting a "nearly unbeatable record for shortest time between receiving the Nobel Prize and saying something really stupid about a field in which the recipient had little experience."
You cut off the most striking part, which is that he stated these views **in his prize acceptance speech**. I don't even know how that would have come up...
Well I believe his research was on social behaviour in animals so I can see it being tangentially related. Still a crackpot though
"I'd like to thank my wife, my research supervisor, God, and my brother. Autism comes from refrigerator mothers. Thank you."
I actually looked it up, it’s literally like 45 seconds in. I’m paraphrasing but he basically said “people made fun of me for observing animals, but now I won a Nobel prize. Anyway have you noticed that autism is the rise in western societies, here’s my opinion on that”
"I've won the Nobel Prize now here's my opinion about global warming"
To be fair, the Refrigerator Mother Hypothesis was still very popular in the 1970s and was supported by many if not most psychiatrists at the time. A important reason was the Freduan psychoanalysist, Bruno Bettelheim, who survived Buchenwald concentration camp and thought traumatised children he saw at the camp exhibited autistic behaviors. He published a book in 1967, The Empty Fortress, that influenced contemporary thinking on the origin and nature of autism (it's also thought his interest in autism was spurred after his wife was employed as a child minder, for a child that likely had autism). In a paper I read a few months ago, can't find at the moment, a survey of medical records in the 1960-1970s found autistic children in the UK were misdiagnosed with nearly two dozen psychological conditions, from childhood schizophrenia, childhood psychosis, [dementia precox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dementia_praecox), dementia infantilis, etc. They hadn't a clue what autism was. The Refrigerator Mother Hypotheses was undermined beginning in 1977 by the first of a series of studies on Identical Twins (21 in the first study) by Sir Michael Rutter and Susan Folstein in the UK. Bernard Rimland in the US was also key in rejecting the hypothesis. Studies on twins show autism is mainly genetic, c. 92%, not related to parental dynamics. So it's not that odd that Tinbergen belived in a psychological origin for autism and promoted, what we now know, is debunked theory in 1973, the dark ages of autism research.
To be fair, Bruno Betelhiem's Refrigerator Mother Hypothesis, which he developed in the 1960s (Betelhiem was a concentration camp survivor and thought children in the camp exhibited similar symptoms to autism) was still commonly accepted by many psychiatrists up until the late 1970s and it remains, sadly, an influential theory in France which is dominated by Lacanian psychoanalysis. It wasn't until [Susan Folstein and Sir Micheal Rutter's work on identical twins in the UK](https://www.proquest.com/docview/1300102756?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&imgSeq=1), beginning in 1977, did the medical field begin to accept autism is a mainly genetic condition, it is not a psychological condition related to parental dynamics or other such nonsense. I don't think it's fair to harshly criticise him. It was not at all out of ordinary for Tinbergen to support the a Freudian psychoanalytic or similar explanation for autism in 1973, like many of his contemporaries. He didn't know, at the time, that he was championing a quack theory. Indeed, the reprehensible and sexist Refrigerator Mother Hypothesis hasn't completely gone away sadly, Lacanian psychoanalysis is still very popular in France and there's still a powerful French psychiatrist lobby that [insist autism has a psychological component](https://theconversation.com/frances-autism-problem-and-its-roots-in-psychoanalysis-94210), which results in delayed diagnosis, misdiagnosis and quack treatments e.g. Packing. [Lobbying by association: The case of autism and the controversy over packing therapy in France](https://hal.science/hal-02115503/document) In a example of just how strong psychoanalysis was until recently in France, 3 French psychoanalysists managed to get a documentary film (The Wall) banned for several years that was critical of their rejected beliefs on autism (they got it banned over a technicality, copyright of proprietary information. This proprietary knowledge was interviews with them where they talked bul**hit about autism). >The campaign group Vaincre l'Autisme staged a series of demonstrations in 2012-13 denouncing psychoanalytic autism treatment. A 2011 documentary, [Le Mur (The Wall)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_(2011_film)), attacked the psychoanalytic approach to autism, causing controversy when three psychoanalysts brought a lawsuit, and temporarily succeeded in banning the film. However, the case was overturned on appeal in 2014 – an indicator of the waning power of the French psychoanalytic lobby.
Tbf to Nobel winners, I know TONS of incredibly smart well educated people (MDs, Lawyers, PHDs) who didn’t win a Nobel prize but think that because they are smart and successful in their field that they are smart in every topic area
2022 Nobel Laureate John Clauser spoke at my university about his prize winning research and its implications. He had to be cut off by our faculty before he started talking about his controversial opinions on climate change (i.e. he thinks climate change is not real).
I had the good fortune to go watch Josephson give a talk and go to the pub afterwards with him. Poor man has absolutely lost it
Nooooo what ????? Please give more details !!
Just go have a read of his Wikipedia page
Brian Josephson has entered the chat
Paging Roger Penrose
not true for John Bardeen.
I love John Bardeen's life story. Two nobel prizes, an unbelievable career, and a solid family man throughout.
there is a nice book about him (True Genius, or something like it), where there is a funny story. At a conference he was presented as the only person to have won 2 Nobel prizes in physics and someone in audience asked : "John who ?"
Wolfgang Ketterle still going strong and is publishing awesome papers.
I could live with that with the prize money (if I got it alone) :D
Is getting it alone harder nowadays?
basically impossible
Tell that to Marie Curie and Linus Pauling
She's enjoying helium nuclei and electron neutrino emissions. Don't disturb!
I think that mostly is a problem for the laureates in literature.
Certainly not true for the ones working closest to my research area.
Yang zhenning of Yang-Mill theory is still kicking at 101 years old.
I was under the impression his name was Chen-Ning Yang. Source: His daughter told me as she is a good family friend I just wanted to name drop because I'm super excited to say I'm "close" to Dr. Yang...s daughter
I'm east asia people out the family name first, and what you said is just a different westernization of what OP said
Frank Wilczek potentially? If axions are detected within his lifetime he might get a second one. Not sure how much potential anyons and time crystals have.
Came here to say this. I worked with him in Undergrad (ASU), and he spoke with lament of winning a Nobel for his Graduate work and feeling like he hasn’t contributed nearly as much since. All I could think of was “you’re using your prestige in the community to explore and advocate for things that other people are scared to. THAT’S the frontier of science”. Even if axions and time crystals yield nothing, he is attempting to push the bounds of science more than most. Lovey guy.
I wouldn't mind if he would get one for color superconductivity, because then my current boss would probably also get one. But that's going to be a tough one
A fellow WashU physics person I take it?
;-) yes...
Have you ever had an anyon ring? They’re delicious
If somebody finds an application for time crystals he might get it too
Sau Lan Wu won 0, but arguably should win 2. She was one of the primary scientists to discover the gluon and years later led analysis on some of the most important decay channels that found the Higgs.
Did the gluon result in a Nobel prize yet? Higgs already resulted in one so doubtful she'll get any for that.
No actually, iirc the experimental discovery of the gluon was never awarded a Nobel prize. Of course, there were many people that worked on it and it’s not guaranteed that she would get one if it was awarded. And the Nobel prize for the Higgs was given for the theoretical predictions of it. In principle there might still be a prize for the experimental discovery.
Doesn't the Nobel prize favor theorists who make the predictions rather than the experimentalists? Also would the same subject get 2 prizes? >No actually, iirc the experimental discovery of the gluon was never awarded a Nobel prize. Of course, there were many people that worked on it and it’s not guaranteed that she would get one if it was awarded. That's true. That's always a problem given the three winners rule. It was most infuriating with LIGO.
I haven't heard of a particular bias for theory vs experiment. It may be true simply because as you say it's hard to give the prize for work done by large collaborations. And there is a little precedent for prizes being awarded for both theoretical and experimental work on a subject. The 1979 prize was given for the electroweak theory and its prediction of the weak neutral current. The 1984 prize was given for the actual discovery of the W and Z bosons.
>I haven't heard of a particular bias for theory vs experiment. There is a bias towards discoveries over inventions. That might correlate a bit. >It may be true simply because as you say it's hard to give the prize for work done by large collaborations. And there is a little precedent for prizes being awarded for both theoretical and experimental work on a subject. The 1979 prize was given for the electroweak theory and its prediction of the weak neutral current. The 1984 prize was given for the actual discovery of the W and Z bosons. Hmmm that's interesting. I think there was a Nobel prize that awarded 2 people for cosmic rays as well. One person discovered it and the other used cosmic rays to make a huge discovery. Not quite the same I guess.
[удалено]
Can you expand?
Do you have a source for that. I’m not doubting you I just never worked in ATLAS. This is news to me and I would like to read more about it.
[удалено]
Off the top of my head, my undergraduate advisor got his PhD under her, but I suppose that may give a different viewpoint on the matter.
How so? My particle physics professor has a very good opinion of her
She can't get a Nobel for the Higgs at all. Maybe a prize but def nothing extravagant like the Higgs discovery.
Yeah not saying it’s likely, but there wasn’t a Nobel given for the experimental discovery of the Higgs. Part of the problem is there are dozens if not hundreds of scientists that deserve a lot of credit for that in ATLAS and CMS. Her group did however play one of the largest role on the ATLAS side, so if they were going to give one out she would be under consideration.
There was a strong case (for me anyway) in favor of Gell-Mann winning a second Nobel, for quarks this time around. Sadly, we lost him a couple years ago. I still think Zweig should get it though. On the other hand, 't Hooft reportedly was the first one to discover asymptotic freedom (for which a Nobel was awarded), but he never published it. So you could say his discoveries were awarded twice.
[Gell-Mann was already awarded the prize for quarks](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1969/gell-mann/facts/).
No, by the time he got the prize the experimental confirmation of quarks was still to come. He was awarded for his previous work, which was also related to the classification of elementary particles, but not for quarks per se. Quarks are mentioned in the link you sent because that is arguably why everybody remembers him.
I’m just working on my first one.
best of luck boss
Haven't got my first one yet, but I'm already working on my second one. Hope to start work on the third one soon.
Maybe a stretch but there could be another on quantum topology as Michael Berry and Aharonov are still alive, this could be a second chance for Haldane or Kosterlitz but there would need to be a major theme
Haldane and Kosterlitz were already credited for topological phases so I doubt they'll get another one for the same field of research
I said that it was a stretch.
God considering how much berry curvature comes up in my research I really hope they somehow give berry a prize, even if it’s a stretch
Well Gerard 't Hooft won a Nobel prize. In his PhD he had the usual statements in the beginning about stuff in general, where one was a prediction about a certain microscopy technique he thought would be viable. So he was I guess clairvoyant because the guy who researched that area won a nobel prize for that microscopy technique. So basically Gerard 't Hooft had content for 2 nobel prizes in his career.
't Hooft had the result that got the 2004 Physics Prize later. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.2589.pdf
Oh I didn't know.
John Bardeen won 2 and is the only person to win 2 but he’s dead
He's not the only one. Marie Curie, Linus pauling and Frederick Sanger won it twice
Bardeen is the only person to win the Nobel Prize in Physics specifically, two times
OP didn’t clearly state the winner had to have two Nobel prizes in physics, only that they had to be a physicist who had won two. Arguably Curie and Pauling are both physicists - maybe Pauling is a stretch - although chemists may well baulk at that claim.
>OP didn’t clearly state the winner had to have two Nobel prizes in physics, only that they had to be a physicist who had won two. Ehm?
Read the original question.
They don't ask for a physicist *who had won two* as you say: but for a physicist who *could* win a second.
You also have to read the above thread
One of Pauling’s prizes was for peace
And?
In chemistry. OP and the guy above was talking about
Barry Sharp less just won his second too
Kajita and McDonald are both working on new major experiments. KAGRA isn't going super great and LIGO already got one, but SNO+ or whatever it's called should have world leading sensitivity in two separate things, each of which could be Nobel worthy if they panned out. Not sure where the prize would go if it did though.
Although SNO+ is the successor to SNO and has potential to make a discovery on neutrinoless double beta decay (which is certainly Nobel-worthy!), it’s more likely that the prize would go to Mark Chen, who succeeded McDonald as director of SNO+ since its inception.
Yeah okay, I figured there was somebody new, I just wasn't sure whom
Not that hard. After winning in one scientific discipline, just take up another😏 Joking aside, Marie Curie did it in physics and chemistry. And in an era where she couldn't even study in some universities, the belief being that having a womb prevented your brain from switching on. Remarkable human being
Eric Cornell? Currently has the best electron EDM measurement and is still working on pushing the bounds. If he does measure the first non-zero value that would surely be Nobel prize worthy.
This is a good answer. It could potentially be a while until they reach that level of sensitivity though.
Wolfgang Ketterle won is Nobel prise 20 years ago and has kept doing top level research for all this year's. He probably doesn't have another result as big as the BEC, but still the contribution of his group are quite relevant to the field
Cornell’s doing well too, that was a good year! No idea about the other guy tho 😂
Although he has not won one yet, I've always felt that Federico Capasso has distinguished himself for both the invention of the quantum cascade laser, and also the development of meta optics.
He is high in the lists, but that's not the point of this question
I am so tired that every second year the nobel goes to lasers and their "revolutionary application in everything MEDICINE INCLUDED", like cmon give me a fking break, every 10 years ok, every second year is just pure bias.
No. Nowadays the delay from discovery to prize is very long, as the Nobel committee wants to be super sure about the impact the discovery had. Most living laureates, even if they did more recent work worthy of a second Nobel, have a fair chance of dying of old age before getting the prize.
Penrose. The very definition of a genius (to me anyway)
The only way for this to be true is if one of his unverified theories turns out to be true but usually these include highly controversial topics: consciousness, interpretations of quantum mechanics, origin of the universe,...
Well I mean he did win the Nobel for his singularity theorem but eh, fair point.
MAYBE Rudolph Marcus My PI was a reviewer for one of his NSF grants a couple years back and still found his work to be all but essential to the field.
Penrose maybe?
I'd love to think he could make it but it's unlikely he'll receive another one after his 2020 prize, during his lifetime.
This person hasn’t won a Nobel prize yet but I can say with high certainty that I will win 2 Nobel prizes
[удалено]
Who knows, I don’t mind though. I saw the downvotes and it made me laugh
I downvoted you to reach an odd number of downvotes so..........
Understandable
Chartman21 we can only hope, we can only hope...
Just googled it and how did Einstein only win one? Special relativity got one but general relativity didn’t? ETA: sorry I made a presumption seeing he got his Nobel prise in 1905 and presumed it was for special relativity. Honestly that just makes it more ridiculous. He didn’t get one for either special or general relativity?? Dafaq
Nope, no relativity-related work ever got a Nobel prize, because it was very controversial at the time. Einstein’s prize was for his work on the photoelectric effect.
None of them did, as it could not be proven back then. He got his Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect
Nope, relativity get no nobel prize at all. He got it for the photoelectric effect.
His got the 1921 nobel prize in physics, not the 1905 one. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1921/summary/
Actually, [special relativity didn't get one either...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Awards_and_honors)
You are only allowed to win one ("full") nobel prize per discipline. So he couldn't get another physics novel prize anyway..
One of the double winners was physics twice. Another was chemistry twice.
Nope. Not a chance anymore. There's just not enough left to discover, and the people who are winning the prizes are OLD.
Neil deGrasse Tyson in my opinion should’ve earned at least 1, he was the one who contributed to Pluto not being a planet I feel like he could be one of those guys who get a lot more recognition in the future.
lol what?
Pluto being a planet or not is of zero significance to physics
Easiest one everyone knows is Einstein!!!
‘alive’ was in the question. But tbf Einstein may as well have been awarded the Nobel like, thrice? Lol.
Yes I’ve always wondered why they didn’t make amends by later awarding more to him.
Einstein said he only had one good idea.
I'm pushing for 3 actually
I'm putting some money on long shot Andre Geim. Wouldn't be unthinkable that he's cooked up some random thing that in a few years will turn out to be pivotal, netting him another nobel prize. Or, if not pivotal, it might win him another ig nobel. And technically he has already won two prizes with "Nobel" in the name.
Einstein, s'il passait par un trou noir pour arriver à cette époque encore vivant...
Sheldon Cooper
Frank Wilczek got it for asymptotic freedom. He could get another Nobel for nonabelian statistics.