The 2005 Nobel Prize Controversy: The Indian-American Physicist Who Should Have Won It Instead

No video

The 2005 Nobel Prize Controversy: The Indian-American Physicist Who Should Have Won It Instead

Рет қаралды 21,540

Күн бұрын

To try everything Brilliant has to offer FREE for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/P.... The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
The 2005 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Roy J. Glauber for his work on Quantum Optics. However, the decision to award the Prize to Glauber was controversial. Many physicists believed that E.C. George Sudarshan made just as many important contributions to the field, including ideas that Roy was eventually credited with (having initially criticized George's work, and then later agreeing with him).
A group of physicists wrote letters to the Swedish Academy (responsible for determining who should win the prize) to state that this was a grave miscarriage of justice, and to ask why George was not considered instead of Roy. The Swedish Academy never clarifies their entire decision making process until 50 years after the awarding of the prize, so we've got some time to wait. However they did mention that Roy published his research first, and that he had other contributions which counted towards the prize.
Additionally, Alfred Nobel's will clearly states that only three physics laureates can be chosen each year, with only two distinct pieces of work being recognized. The committee had already decided to honor two experimental physicists that year, so there was only one spot left - and that was given to Roy.
George (and others) felt that he had been hard done by. George asked "If you give a prize for a building, shouldn’t the fellow who built the first floor be given the prize before those who built the second floor"? He also wrote "No one has the right to take my discoveries and formulations and ascribe them to someone else!"
Suffice to say, although most people thought Roy was very deserving of the Nobel Prize for his work, that George should have been at least honored to the same degree. It's also important to note that most people do not believe that Roy stole George's work - after all, they communicated back and forth often, improving on each other's ideas. However the fact that Roy criticized George's ideas, then came out with a "p-representation" that was mathematically equivalent to George's "diagonal representation" left a bad taste in people's mouths, especially because this work was quoted as one of the reasons the Prize was awarded to Roy.
The work in question centers around coherent states of light. Basically, these are quantum mechanical states that use some understanding from classical electromagnetism, to describe how light behaves. Coherent states are the closest equivalent we can find in quantum mechanics to the light waves that we are so familiar with from high school physics. Although early quantum mechanics dealt with photons (particles) of light, coherent states showed how light WAVES could be represented.
In this video we understand the basics of quantum harmonic oscillators (systems with quadratic potential wells). If we treat the electromagnetic field as a quantum harmonic oscillator, then each of its allowed states (eigenstates) represents a different number of photons carrying energy through space. The lowest energy state is one which has zero photons - no light energy. The next one consists of 1 single photon. Then 2 photons, and so on.
Coherent states are quantum superpositions of ALL the possible photon states. In other words, from a quantum perspective, a light wave is a blend of states containing ALL possible number of photons. The light wave may be made up of 0, or 1, or 2, etc. photons. In fact before we measure it, it is made up of ALL of these possibilities. And once we measure the wave, we find that the system collapses into one possible state. For example we may find it's made up of 4 photons. This is a great example of wave-particle duality!
Coherent states were worked on by both Roy and George (initially proposed by Roy), and mathematical representations of these states were very importantly devised by George and Roy.
Thanks for watching, please do check out my links:
MERCH - parth-gs-merch...
INSTAGRAM - @parthvlogs
PATREON - patreon.com/parthg
MUSIC CHANNEL - Parth G's Shenanigans
Here are some affiliate links for things I use!
Quantum Physics Book I Enjoy: amzn.to/3sxLlgL
My Camera: amzn.to/2SjZzWq
ND Filter: amzn.to/3qoGwHk
Videos in Cards:
1) • How Energy is Created ...
2) • How Waves Overlap, and...
3) • Why Quantum Mechanics ...
Timestamps:
0:00 - Meet E.C. George Sudarshan and Roy Glauber
2:07 - Big Thanks to Brilliant, Check Out their Courses in the Description
3:15 - Nobel Prize Controversy and Backlash
4:56 - Why Roy but Not George?
5:50 - Classical and Quantum Harmonic Oscillators
9:09 - Electromagnetic Waves and Coherent States of Light
#nobelprize #physics #nobelprizewinners
This video was sponsored by Brilliant #ad

Пікірлер: 168

@ParthGChannel Жыл бұрын

Hi friends, thanks so much for watching! A huge thanks also to Brilliant for sponsoring this video - to try everything Brilliant has to offer FREE for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/ParthG/. The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription. And as always, let me know what other topics to cover in future videos!

@TheNewPhysics 11 ай бұрын

Feel free to ask questions.

@bhuvaneshs.k638 Жыл бұрын

I met George sudarshan once in Bangalore... Great and humble man. I was in high school back then

@PTGaonkar Жыл бұрын

You are very privileged to meet him

@extreme4180 Жыл бұрын

Lucky as fuck, I wish I could meet someone like him someday

@abi3751 Жыл бұрын

😳

@RandyLunn Жыл бұрын

Everybody makes mistakes, but good people recognize their mistakes and acknowledge them and try to correct them. Shame on the Nobel committee.

@70mavgr Жыл бұрын

Are we talking about the same academy who awarded the peace Nobel to Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama? You give these clowns too much credit.

@agrajyadav2951 Жыл бұрын

true

@jatinsharma5024 Жыл бұрын

Absolutely

@normangoldstuck8107 Жыл бұрын

To be fair a 'peace' prize is nebulous. The sciences are harder. The Nobel committee has made some big screw ups in science. The Nobel prize for lobotomy to Moniz. Giving the Insulin prize to Banting and Macleod ( who hindered not helped) and not to Best who was Banting's co-worker. Overlooking Jocelyn Bell Burnett was another. Rosylin Franklin(for DNA) was not overlooked but the prize is not awarded posthumously.

@agrajyadav2951 Жыл бұрын

@@normangoldstuck8107 tell me one thing, china has the highest research output, and the highest top 1% output as well. How are most nobel laureates not chinese? I know genius isnt always connected to statistics, but still, there cant be this much a difference.

@normangoldstuck8107 Жыл бұрын

@@agrajyadav2951 China does very little original science. Best Asian original science is in Japan. Nobel prizes are for original science, not technological advances remember.

@manyworldsin1 Жыл бұрын

It's time to move past the Nobel in general. Science is a team sport. Let's kill the myth of the solitary genius; it incentivizes an outdated model of getting science done.

@eyewaves... Жыл бұрын

Up to a point it is a team work of course ... then you have these Geniuses take you to a different level - those people need to be treated with utmost respect !! Remember that Obama received the Nobel Peace price for no reason at all, and Gandhi was denied because Churchill objected to it due to racist perspective..Nobel Committee is absolutely not clean.

@toastedsniper9248 Жыл бұрын

Facts.

@robinblankenship9234 4 ай бұрын

And, as everybody knows, outdated is just a nice way of saying RACIST. BTW, how many genetic iterations are required before the hyphen(s) in a person’s ancestry become moot? Asking for a friend.

@whaddoiknow6519 Жыл бұрын

Even more unforgivable is the omission of S. N. Bose, who was the first to introduce the idea of indistinguishability and identity of particles in quantum mechanics, sometimes given the rubric of quantum statistics.This is one of the foundational pillars of quantum theory along with the uncertainty principle and wave-particle duality. People who want to minimize Bose's contribution say that he didn't do anything else. Who cares? That one idea is worth more than a thousand other piddly little papers. Louis de Broglie also contributed just one idea, wave-particle duality, but the Nobel committee had no problem awarding him the prize. The prize is hugely political, and reflects power in the science world in the sense of sitting on committees, awarding grants, promoting candidate x while holding back y, invitations to conferences and so on.

@charlesgantz5865 Жыл бұрын

S.N.Bose was the first to come up with the idea of indistinguishability. However he did not recognize its importance. Einstein, after translating the paper into German and publishing it, under Bose's name, and then publishing a couple of papers under his own name, but referencing Bose, did recognize the importance. However, Einstein did not get a Nobel prize for this either. In fact, the first experimental work using this idea was not done until 1995, long after both Bose and Einstein were dead, and so not eligible for the prize. Also, while Louis de Broglie did just have the one idea, it was a pretty important idea, and it pretty much kick-started wave mechanics. And he was awarded the prize after his idea was confirmed experimentally.

@whaddoiknow6519 Жыл бұрын

@@charlesgantz5865 Really? First of all this is just another European trope to find some reason to put down the value of non European work. There are at least two dozen other instances where "realizing the importance" did not matter in the awarding of the prize. Second, even if we grant this absurd stance for the sake of argument, the work itself is transformative. Further, Bose condensation is obviously seen in superfluid helium four, and Bose statistics are confirmed in the Planck law itself, not to mention a hundred effects in optics and scattering cros sections. So I don't know where this idea of not confirmed till 1995 is coming from.

@peterfireflylund 11 ай бұрын

@@whaddoiknow6519nope, please keep your toxic nationalism out of this. Theoretical breakthroughs are not rewarded by the Nobel committee until after they have been proven experimentally. That’s why Penrose didn’t get his Nobel Prize for his work on black holes until a few years ago even though he did the work back in 60’s. Another example is Higgs who had to wait until the existence of his particle (or particles - we are not sure yet) had been proven at CERN.

@whaddoiknow6519 11 ай бұрын

@@peterfireflylund It only become 'toxic nationalism' when non Europeans assert their views. As for your comments about experimental realization, they are garbage. The experimental data is the observation of black body radiation, which was already there for several decades prior. Bose explained it.

@thomaskennedy5728 16 күн бұрын

He is correct tho@@peterfireflylund

@akiko009 Жыл бұрын

This isn't the first or the last worthy candidate who lost the popularity contest. The more I have learned about it, the less I like the Nobel prices and the process by which they are awarded.

@lorenzkraus6888 Жыл бұрын

Many fakes that serve GENOCIDAL BRITISH GEOPOLITICS. google it.

@carlosgaspar8447 Жыл бұрын

the nobel peace prize to b.obama in 2009 being one of the most agregious. similar situation with the Pulitzer prize, and on and on...

@marspalk7611 9 ай бұрын

@@carlosgaspar8447Nobel price to al gore for climate change. Nobel price is political price.

@GeoffryGifari Жыл бұрын

Is there a possibility that the nobel committee's insistence of their decision is due to them not wanting to publicly "revise" their nominations (so it looks like they really know what they're doing, and also avoiding revision of previous nominations that were seen as controversial) instead of anything to do with science/attribution of credit?

@PTGaonkar Жыл бұрын

At least you recognised him... I am happy 😊

@dragsterbixing2584 Жыл бұрын

Not the first time happening to a non European guy, will keep happening until voices are raised Or another way would be to dismiss the idea of nobel prize until a more neutral organisation is formed and reject all the nobel prize received by anyone in the past

@jamesraymond1158 4 ай бұрын

Here's a challenge: name a Nobel prize in science that was NOT controversial.

@vaibhavkrupakar240 Жыл бұрын

Not the first time indian origin scientists were ignored by Nobel committee, here is a big list JC Bose SN Bose DM Bose Sambhu nath de Upendra brahmachari Meghnad saha GN ramachandran Tr seshadri Homi J bhabha Subhash mukhopadhyay Rustum roy Mrinal thakur Utpal bhadra Monika bhadra Yellapragadda subbarao Amal Kumar raychaudhari Mansukh C wani Prahlad chunnilal vaidya Nil ratan dhar Sanjeev john Ramamurthy Ramesh Bhibha Chaudhary Narinder Singh kapany And so much more

@VedJoshi.. Жыл бұрын

Homi Bhabha has not even received a Bharat Ratna recognition yet

@lalitasharma6687 Жыл бұрын

There are 100s of American and European scientists who didn't receive Nobel Prize the reason I'd simple every year at Max 3 people can get it

@vaibhavkrupakar240 Жыл бұрын

@@lalitasharma6687 nope most of their scientists have been recognised, it doesn't go in 100s and other great scientists existed before nobel

@peterfireflylund 11 ай бұрын

@@vaibhavkrupakar240no, Lalita is quite right. Most scientists who deserved a Nobel Prize never got one - and most of them were European or American (and most of the rest were Australian, Canadian, or Kiwi). Indian simply never had all that many scientists. The ones who were actually great are all revered in the West, whether or not they got a Nobel Prize (and some of them did). These days, the Japanese probably have more great scientists who deserve or deserved to have a Nobel Prize than India… and South Korea is not far behind. China is quite a bit further behind, mainly because their fucked up CCP prison guards make it so difficult to do science.

@vaibhavkrupakar240 11 ай бұрын

@@peterfireflylund India has still produced many modern scientists who are still alive and won, but besides that though only some scientists are truly nobel worthy, those who missed nobel Include, Rosalind franklin, Edwin Hubble lise meitner etc but it is only a handful and there are controversial Nobel prizes as well like lobotomy winning it, there are easy 50 for India, but South Korea is far from Nobel anytime soon, ancient innovation hubs like Iran are completely out of the race and aren't winning one anytime soon, china yes their scientists have been recognised mostly except for 3-4 who should've won but did not, but in my post it is about Indian scientists predominantly and it is indeed huge and nobel prizes if we include economics as science exceeds even countries like japan

@hali1989 Жыл бұрын

You could also talk about Murry gell man and Yuval neeman

@shakebraza196 Жыл бұрын

He is American now not Indian any more , stop emotionally manipulating Indians. People who take USA citizenship promise to fight for USA against any other nation in world. They are not Indians.

@agrajyadav2951 Жыл бұрын

Well if you want your talent to stay, maybe India should invest more in science and make good research Universities? Stop complaining, scientists are just that, true scientists are not Indian, Chinese, American, Japanese, German or whatever, just scientists.

@VedJoshi.. Жыл бұрын

this was the dumbest statement in the world... we don't live in WW2 era, no one is going to war with India or any other nuclear power...and Indian Americans (like myself) hold India to our hearts just like Irish Americans care for Ireland or Mexican Americans keep ties with Mexico.

@Ayushinwarzone Жыл бұрын

Bro please make a video on Indian physicist Amal kumar raichudhari

@TerryBollinger Жыл бұрын

Parth G, thank you for raising awareness of E. C. George Sudarshan’s profound 1963 paper. Judging from your video and a reading of his nicely compact 1963 paper, what Sudarshan did was dare to postulate that any complete analysis of quantized light requires the inclusion of a strangely Maxwell-like semiclassical component. That makes his 1963 paper both scarily radical and exceptionally impactful on how history developed afterward. To see the impact, consider what might have happened if Sudarshan had _not_ been bold enough to propose such a radical-sounding inclusion of “obviously” obsolete pre-quantum mathematics. It's entirely possible that even by now, 60 years later, _no one_ would have had the nerve to make such a retro-sounding recommendation. That in turn would have undermined, possibly to this day, the accurate mathematical modeling and prediction of a broad range of important and useful coherent optical phenomena. Thus Sudarshan’s 1963 act of intellectual daring makes his paper unique, exceptionally impactful, and singularly worthy of a Nobel Prize. Both E. C. George Sudarshan and Roy Glauber sound like good people and great physicists. But it was unequivocally Sudarshan, not Glauber, who took that first scary step of saying the quantum models of that time had abandoned _too much_ of the classical models that preceded them. For that unique, impactful, and professionally risky act of intellectual courage, it was unequivocally Sudarshan, not Glauber, who should have received the Nobel Prize for physics theory that year. (a PDF copy of this 2023-05-14 comment is available at sarxiv dot org slash apa)

@slowdown7276 Жыл бұрын

What do you do Terry?

@TerryBollinger Жыл бұрын

@@slowdown7276 heh, cool handle! I'm an early retiree from a non-profit advisory job for the US federal government. I assessed and promoted emerging small-group science and IT - e.g., then-tiny FireEye was a favorite of mine - and later helped define and direct research mostly on AI and robotics, e.g., promoting Yann LeCun back before most folks ever heard of him. I still keep in touch. Physics is just a hobby, but one to which I've probably devoted more to learning than quite a few physicists. My needs there were focusing on understanding and translating, not writing papers. Hobby or not, I've had folks thank me for saving them several million dollars via suggestions on fusion research.

@slowdown7276 Жыл бұрын

And could you explain the implication of the findings that lead to 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics. What does it actually mean?

@TerryBollinger Жыл бұрын

@@slowdown7276Overwhelming experimental proof of entanglement - the subject of the 2022 Physics Nobel Prize - means local, per-inertial-frame xyzt interpretations of the universe are emergent, not fundamental. It also impacts maths such as Hibert spaces that assume dimensional orthogonality to be axiomatic and thus cost-free.

@slowdown7276 Жыл бұрын

Thanks for replying Terry. Your site full of comments is a cool idea 👍 What does this mean in a philosophical way, if that's the right term?( Like what does this quantum things mean.) How do you understand the whole of this quantum thing along with the new finding? And whats your personal understanding, philosophy based on this? What's your opinion on Bohmian intrepretation? Is he right about his intrepretation? Can it be ever known?

@EMAngel2718 Жыл бұрын

Doesn't the description you gave basically say that there are infinitely many photons that may or may not exist? Doesn't that violate energy conservation?

@kugelblitzingularity304 Жыл бұрын

The comments seem to forget that the 2 physicists are on friendly terms.

@satyanarayanavenkata9327 Жыл бұрын

Science is far above Nobel Prize.

@laurendoe168 Жыл бұрын

I enjoyed this video, but it did nothing to explain E.C. George Sudarshan's contribution and why the selection of Roy Glauber caused a controversy.

@agrajyadav2951 Жыл бұрын

Maybe that's because you are a burger or a european?

@GeoffryGifari Жыл бұрын

Coherent states confuse me... especially on how they are produced, compared to thermal light (like from incandescent bulb), lasers, and single photon emission of an atom

@carlosgaspar8447 Жыл бұрын

photos don't exist, only quantum states?

@GeoffryGifari Жыл бұрын

@@carlosgaspar8447 hmmm... can you explain?

@vv6533 Жыл бұрын

Laser is a coherent state. That's why it's called semi classical state.

@Vitamins152 Жыл бұрын

There are many more inventions these western countries took credit for from india and other parts of the world. India already had concepts of calculus before newton and leibniz. India also invented binary codes, cyclic quadrilateral formula, 2nd proof of the Pythagoras theorem. We have made many contributions to surgery. India invented raman effect which without it it would be harder to study chemical elements and dna.

@lalitasharma6687 Жыл бұрын

Okay shaktimaan

@Vitamins152 Жыл бұрын

@lalitasharma6687 well these westerners especially the brits are genocidal maniacs and committed the worst atrocities in human history and lecture people on human rights. Brits did not develop South Asia. Indians already had ancient universities like nalanda, takshashila, vikramshila, and much more. Indians also had concepts of calculus before west like infinite series, power series for sine and cosine, inverse tangent series, and integral calculus. These series were made by Madhava who was a medieval indian mathematician. Sushruta who was an ancient indian surgeon performed complex surgeries like brain, cataract, rhinoplasty, limb, and more over 2000 years ago. Maharishi Kanad proposed atomic theory before Greeks and Dalton. S.N Bose made contributions to quantum mechanics like Bose-Einstein condensate and is the father of quantum statistics. Boson particles are named after him. C.V raman discovered raman effect which without it studying chemicals would be more difficult. Har Gobind Khorana synthesized the first artificial gene and determined the genetic code role in protein synthesis, he also determined order of nucleotides. It's because of his work that genetic engineering became a field. Aryabhatta gave heliocentric theory and invented the modern sine function. Brahmagupta invented zero and cyclic quadrilateral formula. He also gave rules of multiplying, adding, subtracting, and dividing with negative numbers. Bhaskara gave modern definitions of sine and cosine and invented the approximation formula for sine. Along with Greece, India also set the foundations for modern medicine such as Charaka samhita and Sushruta samhita. I am not saying we invented everything, west also has their own inventions. We did not invent calculus, but made many contributions to it, babylonians and egyptians had it before us. Ps bhaskara gave the second proof of Pythagoreon theorem. J.C bose invented wireless communication before Marconi. Narinder Singh Kapany's work on fiber optics laid the foundations for modern and faster internet. Meghnad Saha invented Saha ionization equation which helps physicists determine chemical and physical properties of stars. I also reccomend you read and watch about other indian greats like C.R rao, Amal Kumar Ray Chaudhary, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, and the one and only ramanujan.

@peterfireflylund 11 ай бұрын

And Raman did indeed get a well-deserved Nobel Prize in physics! The rest of your list is just dumb nationalistic talking points that scream to the world how little you know of the history of math and science.

@eyewaves... Жыл бұрын

Think Roy has to live with his guilt, if he has conscience !

@reimannx33 Жыл бұрын

He could care less. He has bigger fish to fry.

@chem7553 Жыл бұрын

Stephen Hawking never won a Nobel Prize. They seemed to wait until Hawking died, to only award Penrose?? Correct me if I'm wrong. Just annoying methodologies they use.

@jaykay2218 Жыл бұрын

The Nobel committee is pretty damn corrupt

@agrajyadav2951 Жыл бұрын

Because experiments

@peterfireflylund 11 ай бұрын

We didn’t have really good experimental proof of the existence of black holes until quite recently.

@sourishbanerje Жыл бұрын

You have to look a certain type in order to win the Nobel. It's ECG's problem that he didn't fulfil this essential criterion 😅

@reimannx33 Жыл бұрын

Sour grapes. Get over it, or better still, hardwire that victim mentality, and somehow blame the British...hahahaha

@sitaramar13 Жыл бұрын

How can we apply schodinger equation to photon sir . Its mass and charge is zero.

@extreme4180 Жыл бұрын

Photon has no rest mass but it has intrinsic mass, and just use Einstein's mass energy equivalence to calculate photo's mass

@earthlng Жыл бұрын

Awarding a Nobel prize is like blowing TNT, you cant retreat.

@maus3454 Жыл бұрын

Similar thing happened to Jocelyn Bell for her discovery of Pulsars. She missed her Nobel prize in favor of her thesis mentor.

@lalitasharma6687 Жыл бұрын

Exactly people think it's racism or sexist but that's not the case

@diegocirilo1973 2 ай бұрын

this is not the only time that sudarshan have these type of problems

@babulkumersaharoy3968 Жыл бұрын

What is new in this video? It happened to at least two Indian physicists long ago. They were Sayten Bose and Meghnath Saha.

@hrperformance Жыл бұрын

interesting vid as always 👍

@ChidVanhi Жыл бұрын

Nobel prize never freed of controversies... It's injustice to the deserved people by sugarcoating the controversy around it.

@LeongYing Жыл бұрын

Probably SAME reasons why DESERVING Women are almost ALWAYS OVERLOOKED for Nobel Prize!

@agrajyadav2951 Жыл бұрын

@@acmhfmggru You're so funny man

@kdhd100 5 ай бұрын

An Indian needs to make a movie on this..... But no Indian will do it.... Some foreigner will make it and then the Nobel committee will apologize and reverse the decision.....

@philoso377 7 ай бұрын

Nice video and presentation. If we want to numerical model, for example, light, realistically we cannot continue or begin without a thorough understanding of light at the principle level together with full appreciation in the concept level of light itself. We have lost both, principle and concept values, in physics ever since the euro of SR, GR, quantum mechanics. By which mathematic can model something we are not fully understood and still celebrated supremely.

@knowledgeckr786 Жыл бұрын

He is one of the best who knows how to explain. ❤

@FrancisFjordCupola 4 ай бұрын

I think Nobel's are overstated. I can imagine the committee not revisiting their awards, totally agree there. If revisiting were to happen, it would go on and on and on and everybody and their pets would come up with new controversies. Personally, I think the committee should have honored three experimentalists.

@thetrickster5182 Жыл бұрын

I'm proud to be from his native land.

@marspalk7611 9 ай бұрын

Nobel price for churchill is another one. He had twisted brian too.

@lakshmiravi2236 Жыл бұрын

They could have shared the prize if at all.

@sitaramar13 Жыл бұрын

How a photon, being a quantum particle , can be represented by Schondiger equation , because it has no mass , no charge .

@arpanpiano Жыл бұрын

@dhickey5919 Жыл бұрын

The Nobel Prize is measured in discrete terms even though quantum optics acknowledges uncertainty. Not fair really.

@abrahambaktiar2548 Жыл бұрын

Will you start studying "Deep Quantum tunneling" , mentioned by Linda Moulton Howe "space Force" youtube ? Right now it is Extra terrestrial being technology for space travel.

@kparag01 Жыл бұрын

Even brother of sudha murthy was about to get noble but dont know what happened

@abhaychacko9236 Жыл бұрын

Particles or quantum excitations are real and existing i believe , but wave functions and collapse of wave function exist only as properties i guess 🤔

@douglasstrother6584 11 ай бұрын

Don't get too wrapped-up in this: BHO got the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for .... being BHO. The selection committees don't have the standards they used to.

@peterfireflylund 11 ай бұрын

The peace prize has always been a bit weird.

@viyye Жыл бұрын

wow, I am so shocked - not

@yeapert 10 ай бұрын

The Nobel-Prize is a stupid metric for rewarding people. It simply gives the impression that one's man work is much significant than somebody else, and not to mention how utterly corrupt it can be. Rosalind Franklin, was the one who was on the cutting edge of discovering DNA. James Watson and Francis Crick were the ones that stole this bedrock and published a paper, and even got a nobel prize for it.

@charzanboo9940 Жыл бұрын

He should run for the US Presidency. Then he would've got it for his skin color like Barack Obama.

@swarsi12 11 ай бұрын

Get over the fact that a black man was elected twice to the presidency. U magats pollute everything.

@peterfireflylund 11 ай бұрын

He got it for not being W. Bush, not for being black(ish). Al Gore got it for the exact same reason and he is white as the driven snow.

@agrajyadav2951 Жыл бұрын

Imagine copying someone's idea, taking a prize for it and calling urself a physicist.

@agrajyadav2951 Жыл бұрын

@@acmhfmggru supporting theft of ideas, not surprising

@vaibhavkrupakar240 Жыл бұрын

@@acmhfmggru imagine your bias hindering your iq, so sad

@vedanta1959 Жыл бұрын

1+1=1 Quantum physics

@peterfireflylund 11 ай бұрын

Nah, that’s just basic saturating arithmetic. Binary logic works like that: 0=false, 1=true, multiplication=logic and, saturating add=logic inclusive or.

@manaoharsam4211 Жыл бұрын

Looks like you know how to explain scientific subjects.

@radio2712 Жыл бұрын

Raman effect next .

@charlesgantz5865 Жыл бұрын

C. V. Raman did win the Nobel prize, in 1930.

@albertmagician8613 Жыл бұрын

The times that women are passes are more egregious.

@abhishalsharma1628 Жыл бұрын

Hey Parth. Ayu Indian

@txlish Жыл бұрын

Yeah it is White world we live in , don't we (;-

@Vitamins152 Жыл бұрын

West took credit for our inventions

@peterfireflylund 11 ай бұрын

Abdul Salaam got it, you know. Lots of Japanese, Chinese, and Indian recipients. Perhaps brown people should just do more world-class science? (And then wait 30-50 years to get recognized - because that’s the lag the Nobel Prize has for all nationalities and skin colours.)