Which discovery deserves the Nobel Prize for Physics this year?
Displaying poll results.1019 total votes.
Most Votes
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 21021 votes
Most Comments
- By the end of 2026, how useful do you think agentic/multi-agent AI systems will actually be in your daily work or personal projects? Posted on March 11th, 2026 | 40 comments
I'd vote for Penrose (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy has done so much for physics, that at some point, he deserves it just from such an enormous body of work. He inspires Hawking, does all sorts of work with theories of everything, he then writes it all up in a simple book that explains how everything works without skimping too much on the math, what more do you need a man to do?
Re:I'd vote for Penrose (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm going to have to disagree. I know this sounds trollish, but I'm really not trying to start a flamewar, and I ask that you keep it civil in telling me how wrong I am. Here goes:
Whatever the greatness of Penrose's discovery, he threw it all away when he started advocating the quantum gravity theory of uncomputable physics as the basis for creativity. Right or wrong, he's advocating a theory which a) does not have enough evidence to come anywhere close to favoring it over more deserving theories, and b) was chosen so that it would be lots of work to falsify.
Scientists should hold themselves to a higher standard than the "principle of Epicurus", i.e. accept all hypotheses not yet falsified. They shoud believe whatever the evidence reveals to have the *highest* probability, not just pick their personal favorite theory that hasn't specifically been ruled out yet. To paraphrase Eliezer Yudkowsky, the fact that the map is blurry does not give you the right fill in streets wherever you feel like.
Is it going too far to count his unscientific theory against his previous successes? No. Scientific committees need to consider not just the immediate, but also the long-term consequences of giving their endorsement to individuals. While they should give out degrees to people who like to hold unscientific beliefs in their spare time, they should not hold them out as shining examples of "someone doing it right".
Re:I'd vote for Penrose (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever the greatness of Penrose's discovery, he threw it all away when he started advocating the quantum gravity theory of uncomputable physics as the basis for creativity.
Bah to that. Nobel prizes are for specific discoveries, not for a person's reputation since then. You might as well say Einstein should be discredited because he changed his mind about the cosmological constant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bah to that. Nobel prizes are for specific discoveries, not for a person's reputation since then.
However, in the context of GGP's point being that a Prize is due for total body of work, GP's point that various controversial acts of subject's career are enough to disqualify him seems valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'd vote for Penrose (Score:4, Informative)
Einstein's changing his mind about a theoretical concept is hardly comparable with what Penrose did. He didn't simply restructure a theory. He tried to rationalize a completely new model of the physics behind human intelligence. This model is popular in some circles because it seems to re-assert the concept of free will. That has a lot of implications outside physics: psychology, ethics, artificial intelligence, etc. When you come with a theory with those kinds of implications, you really have an obligation to make sure your ideas have a solid foundation. And there's a lot of good arguments that Penrose didn't do that.
Now, it's true that the physics prize is awarded for a specific achievement, not for being a good scientist. But there's a lot of science going on out there, and I doubt that half the work that's Nobel quality makes the cut. You might think it a little unfair that a particular achievement doesn't rate a Nobel just because the comittee doesn't want to recognize bad science by the same guy. But given the number of deserving nominees, excluding somebody from the cut because they're guilty of bad science is not unreasonable.
When I was writing the above paragraph, I went back and re-read the post that started this thread, so I could refer to the scientific breakthrough the poster thought was Nobel-worthy. He didn't have one. His argument for recognizing Penrose was based on the fact that Penrose was Hawking's mentor and had also written some good popular science books. Significant achievements, but not what they hand out Nobel Physics medals for. Anybody have some more relevant accomplishments to cite?
Atheism isn't a prerequisite (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to have to disagree. I know this sounds trollish, but I'm really not trying to start a flamewar, and I ask that you keep it civil in telling me how wrong I am. Here goes:
I'm just jumping in here, sorry to crash the party. And I'm only being civil because you're a basketball fan (not really, but nice username anyway).
Is it going too far to count his unscientific theory against his previous successes? No. Scientific committees need to consider not just the immediate, but also the long-term consequences of giving their endorsement to individuals. While they should give out degrees to people who like to hold unscientific beliefs in their spare time, they should not hold them out as shining examples of "someone doing it right".
By that reasoning, you'd be stripping Einstein of his prize as well. Had the Prize been around, Isaac Newton would have been excluded with extreme prejudice. Indeed, that line of reasoning would be tantamount to restricting the Prize to athiests.
There are many scientists who happen to be religious, and it causes many a brilliant scientist degrees of consternation in attempting to reconcile his religion's creation story with his own science. Penrose's attempts seem no different than Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics because "God does not play dice with the universe".
While I agree with your analysis of why the null state for any hypothesis should be rejected rather than accepted, I don't think that's sufficient reason to ban Penrose or anyone else from consideration for the Prize. Indeed, I would say that all creeping politicization of the Prize should cease, as it has been all too prevalent lately (assuming it ever was otherwise). In this case, while I personally believe in maintaining a barrier between religion and science, I think the pendulum has swung too far against religion in general - indeed, the anti-religious sentiment is so common in the sciences to pretty much amount to bigotry. I've seen it firsthand, and it's disgusting coming from people who claim to be open-minded. So long as your opinion matches theirs, presumably.
In other words, let's accept Penrose's religious choices and not hold it against him with regard to his scientific contributions. Anything else would smack of extreme religious intolerance that is not in keeping with the overall ideals of Prize in advancing humanity.
I do respect your opinion and the civil way in which you've presented it, but I'd strongly urge you to reconsider what you're advocating.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be clear when Einstein said this (he really said "I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice.") he did not mean he was religious.
Einstein rejected QM because it was imprecise. The phrase "does not throw dice" refers to the probabilistic nature of QM. Einstein was convinced that there was an exact way to describe the behavior of the universe, and t
Re: (Score:1)
yes. Einstein demanded local reality, i.e. that reality is completely deterministic, but Bell's inequality disproves that. Of course, new evidence may force us to overturn quantum theory for a deterministic theory, but so far QM is our best description of reality. If Penrose's reconciliation of his religion and his physics does not cause any contradiction (testable or not), then there is no threat from his religion on his scientific method. Give him the prizes he deserves for his science.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not imprecise, it's just nondeterministic.
The "still haven't" is misleading. Bell's clearly shows that the only possibility for a deterministic mechanism behind quantum mechanics is a system containing nonlocal hidden variables.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not imprecise, it's just nondeterministic.
The "still haven't" is misleading. Bell's clearly shows that the only possibility for a deterministic mechanism behind quantum mechanics is a system containing nonlocal hidden variables.
Right. Bell's theorem gives you a choice between determinism with non-local "extras" and non-determinism (the Copenhagen non-interpretation)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonlocal hidden variables aren't really "extras" -- the hidden variables would have to be communicating information instantaneously across an arbitrary distance.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By that reasoning
A sure sign of an incoming "reductio ad absurdum"
you'd be stripping Einstein of his prize as well
Einstein wasn't vocal about religion until after he won his prize.
Had the Prize been around, Isaac Newton would have been excluded with extreme prejudice. Indeed, that line of reasoning would be tantamount to restricting the Prize to athiests.
Absurd... he was born in the 17th century during a time when religion was still playing an important role in education.
Taking our modern standards and applying them to cases in previous centeruies and going "AH HA! SEE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!" is just retarded. Before the sequencing of DNA, it was still possible to be religious, honest and learned. These days you have to pick only two.
Re: (Score:2)
But on the other hand: Newton was very into Alchemy, and did some crazy experimenting which were already considered superstition at the time he did it.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your reply. But I think we're talking past each other.
I'm not saying that someone should be excluded from the Nobel Prize because of their religious beliefs. (Note I didn't even mention Penrose's religion or the religious aspects of his theory!) I'm saying they should be excluded when a) they promote that relgious belief *as science*, and do it b) in preference to numerous theories for which there is significantly stronger evidence.
So it wouldn't exclude Einstein: despite the metaphorical "
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying, "exclude people from the Nobel Prize who try to promote, as science, very weak theories over numerous more deserving ones."
I'm hoping that's politician speak for "exclude people from the Nobel Prize who try to promote, as science, falsified theories over numerous unfalsified ones."?
If not then perhaps you can share your metric for "weak theories" and "deserving ones". If you're a scientist that just minces their words a bit and what you really meant was not "weak" but "wrong" then link to the peer reviewed papers that demonstrate it and just say it's wrong. If it's not wrong it stands a chance at being true ...
Weak generally m
Re: (Score:2)
If his actions are not scientific or anti-science, then it's a problem.
If his actions are not harming science or causing confusion where there shouldn't be, then it's not.
If he is in fact advocating a theory because of faith only and not evidence, or intentionally altering his results... that's very bad. However if this guy just looked at the theory, felt it looked correct, and is seeking t
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists should hold themselves to a higher standard than the "principle of Epicurus", i.e. accept all hypotheses not yet falsified. They shoud believe whatever the evidence reveals to have the *highest* probability, not just pick their personal favorite theory that hasn't specifically been ruled out yet.
They did that quite extensively. Noone has come up with a really satisfactory Theory Of Everything yet, so it is time to broaden the search.
Whatever the greatness of Penrose's discovery, he threw it all away when he started advocating the quantum gravity theory of uncomputable physics as the basis for creativity. Right or wrong, he's advocating a theory which a) does not have enough evidence to come anywhere close to favoring it over more deserving theories, and b) was chosen so that it would be lots of work to falsify.
You could say that about pretty much every interpretation of quantum theory. Many worlds, Kopenhagen, etc. All pretty much unverifiably with todays methods. All compatible with existing data. All contradicting common sense in their way.
Heck, string theory is much worse in that regard, and still I would not like a world where scientists proposing some variant of string t
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, Linus Pauling should've been stripped of his TWO Nobels after all that hooey about vitamin C preventing colds.
Re: (Score:2)
While they should give out degrees to people who like to hold unscientific beliefs in their spare time, they should not hold them out as shining examples of "someone doing it right".
I'm going to have to disagree and say anyone who DOESN'T hold to an unscientific belief in their spare time is not "doing it right."
For starters, it's their spare time. If they don't have a hobby outside of established scientific doctrines, they need to find one and learn to live. Being a reclusive, obsessive-compulsive shut-in isn't a "shining example" of what growing scientists should yearn to be.
Also, if they only gave out nobel prizes in physics to the guys who can recite what we already know an
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever the greatness of Penrose's discovery, he threw it all away when he started advocating the quantum gravity theory of uncomputable physics as the basis for creativity. Right or wrong, he's advocating a theory which a) does not have enough evidence to come anywhere close to favoring it over more deserving theories, and b) was chosen so that it would be lots of work to falsify.
He didn't "throw it all away". Such philosophical musings have no repercussion on scientific endeavors nor should they. Is he allowed to have an opinion on politics or the weather, or is that unbecoming of a scientist? My take is that the need for an open and free exchange of ideas outweighs any need for scientific decorum.
Scientists should hold themselves to a higher standard than the "principle of Epicurus", i.e. accept all hypotheses not yet falsified. They shoud believe whatever the evidence reveals to have the *highest* probability, not just pick their personal favorite theory that hasn't specifically been ruled out yet. To paraphrase Eliezer Yudkowsky, the fact that the map is blurry does not give you the right fill in streets wherever you feel like.
The problem here is threefold. First, that you don't have a set way to assign probability. A lot of the relevant knowledge is contained inside scientists' skulls. So you will get subjecti
Re: (Score:2)
As another poster already noted: Nobel prizes are for specific discoveries, not a person's reputation since the discovery.
In another reply mblase mentions Einstein. I'm going to do one better than that and mention Linus Pauling. I say one better, because Linus Pauling won two Nobel prizes, and he might still be the only person to have two Noble prizes to his name. His work laid the foundation for viewing shape as a critical element in determining the effects of molecules in living systems. He also won t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Marie Curie: Physics and Chemistry.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is all good stuff, but it's just basic science and teaching. Nobels in Physics are awarded for specific achievements that have been shown to advance knowledge. (Which is why people get their prizes for stuff they did decades ago.) What's Penrose done that falls under that?
Other Fields of Endeavour (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Moderators: I've got karma to burn, but consider that Gore is still a politician who hardly practices what he is preaching. I'm all for preserving Earth, but come on...
Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (Score:5, Insightful)
The award meant less when Henry Kissinger won it. Gore's actually more deserving than some of the winners in the past few decades; at least he never actively worked against peace.
Peace prize is flawed----- (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobel prize, at least for peace, has no credibility to almost all Indians, as Mahatma Gandhi the absolute paragon of peace and non-violence in modern history, was never awarded the prize. In all sincerity, it would have honored the prize and not the person, in this case. Indians are generally highly divided about most issues, but, on Mahatma Gandhi's commitment to peace and non-violence, there is almost unanimous agreement. Please note that, there were dissenters who thought non-violence wasnt the best way to attain freedom, but nobody doubted Mahatma's non-violent credentials.
Nobel prize, like most western institutions, has an enormous western bias and is unable to see beyond the borders of western civilization, for most parts. This is not a complaint, it is just a fact!!
Re:Peace prize is flawed----- (Score:4, Informative)
It is NOT a fact, in fact the opposite is true. The winners in the last 10 years have been:
4 international organizations,
2 Americans
1 Bangladeshi 1 Bandladeshi organization,
1 Egyptian,
1 Korean,
1 Kenyan, 1 Iranian,
2 Irish (well North Irish),
1 Ghanan.
So, out of the 10 individuals who won, only 4 were western.
Re: (Score:2)
That man was the personification of peace... I honestly thought he HAD gotten it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
#1 - Gandhi wouldn't have cared that they skipped him for the prize, he would have rather it been given to someone else anyway.
#2 - That's all the more reason this man deserved it.
Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (Score:5, Insightful)
Gore? Really? I think that when Arafat [wikipedia.org] got it in '94, it should have been written off all together. Sure the Gore thing was BS, but at least he didn't have such a long-standing history of organizing terrorist attacks against civilians before receiving his Peace Prize.
Of course, there are a number of legitimate gripes. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If people want to gripe about Arafat getting it, they might at least not distort what actually happened to make their political point. The award was jointly given to Arafat, Simon Peres, and Yitzak Rabin. The Peace Prize is given typically to a very recent accomplishment so unfortunately by its nature sometimes things that look like they're successful steps toward peace turn out not to be so. Though really they're still trying to implement those agreements, just not very successfully...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I neglected to give details on why Arafat (along with Peres and Rabin) were given the award, but I don't think that it makes it any less disgusting. They sat down in Oslo [wikipedia.org] and, for the first time, had a face-to-face negotiation between Israel and the PLO. It was also the first time that the PLO publicly acknowledged Israel's right to exist. They negotiated short-term cease-fires that they hoped would lead to long-term peace. Those are all good things.
But my take on it is that, even though they did s
Re: (Score:2)
The founding fathers of Israel were considered terrorists by the british administration of Palestine. And they in fact did bomb the King David Hotel, a clearly terroristic act. And Menachem Begin, head of the Irgun, the organization responsible for the attact, is... a Peace Nobel Prize Laureat!
So wherever you look in the Middle East Conflict: Terrorists are everywhere. Blaming it all on Arafat is pretty cheap.
Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (Score:5, Insightful)
The ones for physics and such, however are still very much prestigious. You can be sure that it takes a lot of hard scientific work to get one. So beat up on Gore all you want, but leave the scientists alone. (disclaimer: I am not a supporter of Mr. Gore.)
Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (Score:5, Insightful)
The peace prize is not really affiliated with the natural science prizes. Different committee, different time of year, different style for different reasons.
The science prizes are given a long time after the fact, for discoveries that has really truly held up. The peace prize is a current thing and often focus on drawing attention to something.
Some would say that the peace prize gets undue respect from sharing it's name with the science prizes.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Some would say that the peace prize gets undue respect from sharing it's name with the science prizes.
I thought it was because Nobel himself regarded the Peace Prize as his most important legacy.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
also, different country (Norway)
Re:Other Fields of Endeavour (Score:4, Informative)
Some would say that the peace prize gets undue respect from sharing it's name with the science prizes.
That's rich, considering the peace prize was stipulated in Nobel's will, and the "the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" (which "some critics" might find more politically agreeable) was designed half a century later to ride on the Nobel coattails.
science prizes are given a long time after the fact, for discoveries that has really truly held up
Except for the frontal lobotomy [nobelprize.org]
Giving out prizes contemporaneously is always risky, it's much easier when history has been written; that's why it took so long to give Luc Montagnier the award.
The problem with the Economics prize (and to a lesser extent with the Peace prize) is that they're too contemporary.
For Peace, it's probably inevitable that selection will be driven by current events.
For Economics, they've just ran out of worthwhile awardees. Perhaps this year they should give it to the EU bank regulators for managing to avoid the destruction of their economy thus far.
Political satire... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? He usually tried to find peaceful solutions to problems. Don't confuse Fatah, his organisation, with Hamas or Black September. He was involved in several military actions, yes, but only against other military forces.
He did a bunch of shady financial dealings, but that's another matter.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, that's a Nobel PEACE prize. You normally win that one with talk. The prizes for science are a bit more rigorous.
1993 HBO Movie (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:1993 HBO Movie (Score:5, Informative)
I did a paper on some of these topics in 1990. In short:
1) the American scientist was a dickhead
2) Even at the time of his "discovery", it was suspected that the lab had stolen the sample from the French - I think they settled on "contamination" so that it wouldn't turn into a political incident (this happened at NIH)
3) The elephant in the room was money - there was a metric fuckton of money to be made for the people to develop a test for HIV that could be applied to the blood supply. The French and the American basically split it.
4) The American scientist made out like a bandidt - not only did he recieve credit where he shouldn't have, the NIH built him a WHOLE BUILDING to be his sandbox.
It is some small measure of justice that the Nobel committee awarded the prise thusly. Too bad the people who award the non-scientific prizes have no such measure of judgment.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean retrovirus?
Hantaviruses and HIV are both RNA viruses but they're different otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Slight correction:
HIV is a lentivirus, one of the types of retroviruses. One of the toughest parts of making the link between HIV and AIDS was identifying this virus that could infect a person and then not cause AIDS for years. (Lenti means "slow".) These researchers, politics aside, cracked a very tough problem with tools that would be considered primitive by today's standards.
The discovery led to greater understanding of lentiviruses in general: we now know that cats (FIV), horses (EIA), cattle (BIV),
Dr Farnsworth? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Globe Trotters are more deserving.
OH, boy - can't wait for the Peace Prize (Score:3, Funny)
I'm betting on Fidel Castro for the first peaceful transition in power in Cuba in 40 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you can even call it a fraternal one.
Why isn't Robert Gallo credited for HIV discovery? (Score:5, Informative)
In the 80's Robert Gallo was celebrated as the discoverer of HIV and that, oh yeah, maybe
some French scientists helped too. Turns out Mr. Gallo either intentionally or mistakenly
(through cross-contamination in a sloppy lab) cultivated a sample of the French-discovered
strain of the virus. Even after he should have realized a mistake, he misled people and
caused the United States blood supply to use a much poorer HIV test (than the French one)
and as a result people needlessly died. His claims of original discovery ultimately fell
apart because HIV mutates with amazing rapidity, and so his HIV strains were traceable to
the French one his so closely matched.
The book "Science Fictions" by John Crewdson is worth your time to read. It's a long read,
not an easy read, but I got hooked.
Have you wondered why some less technically talented coworkers are able to influence
management and, even worse, make you the fall guy when things go wrong? I think this book
gave me insight into that.
If Mr. Gallo had only half the talent for science as he did for obfuscation, he would've
been a great scientist indeed.
Re:Why isn't Robert Gallo credited for HIV discove (Score:2, Insightful)
Gallo! Thanks for the name - I did a whole paper on that ass in 1990 and couldn't remember the name.
"If Mr. Gallo had only half the talent for science as he did for obfuscation, he would've been a great scientist indeed."
Don't worry too much about Gallo's fate - the NIH built him a whole new building to house his little empire.
Re:Why isn't Robert Gallo credited for HIV discove (Score:2)
Have you wondered why some less technically talented coworkers are able to influence
management and, even worse, make you the fall guy when things go wrong? I think this book
gave me insight into that.
Because they are (corporate) psychopaths, and therefore very persuasive when lying, apt at manipulation and very charismatic.
Coinky-Dink (Score:1)
Graphene? Unlikely... (Score:2, Insightful)
The 1996 Nobel prize was already given for the discovery of Buckyballs. Graphene is the same field (so the general area is already covered), and not really a surprize. It is just a monolayer of graphite. Preparing it and measuring its properties is (highly interesting) engineering, but not groundbreaking science.
How come these guys win awards? (Score:5, Funny)
Come on, they've discovered hugely dangerous things through their "scientific" discoveries. HIV and HCV kill millions of people every year and these people are being praised for discovering them. Much like the lauded Newton who discovered gravity which has led to millions of deaths through falling and having heavy things land on people it is typical of the scientific community to reward these people who discover things that only give harm to people. These claims of "evolving" viruses are really just more proof that scientists are waging a war against normal people.
Only the other day I was hearing that scientists were poisoning our children by suggesting that di-Hydrogen Monoxide should be drunk instead of Sunny Delight, its appalling what we let these scientists get away with.
Brought to you by the people who think that Evolution is a scientific conspiracy.
Re: (Score:1)
"Troll"???? Wow. People Unclear On The Concept.
Although, he did forget that Nobel himself invented dynamite.
Yes. To clear up confusion I suggest that the prize be renamed, "The Fisherman's Friend Award"
how about the nobel for economics this year? (Score:5, Funny)
please announce the nobel for economics this year, so we can tar and feather him, and set him afire as he protests that its like blaming the weatherman for a bad hurricane
maybe then the gods will be happy and we can get free houses and credit cards again
You left out dark phlogiston (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Where are my mod points????
Re: (Score:2)
You win
What about? (Score:2)
Let's Get Serious (Score:2)
That's a significant discovery, but doesn't really do much to broaden our understanding of the way the universe works. All they did was verify that other suns have planets too — something that's been widely accepted for centuries. Compare that with the following recent awards:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nobel prices in the sciences are usually very conservative. I don't think we will not see a Nobel price for dark matter until the responsible particle(s) has been discovered.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Agreed, these are just the observations. Maybe dark matter and dark energy will be all captured at the same time.
Also, around the same time as Rubin's work (which was all optical), the HI (neutral hydrogen) data gave a far more convincing picture. The surprising flattness of e.g. M31 was already noted several decades before Rubin's work. We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I got your responsible particle(s) right here (makes a crude, vulgar gesture).... Oh wait, this isn't digg, is it
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we will not see a Nobel prize
I think you mean "I don't think we won't not see a Nobel prize".
Re: (Score:2)
More seriously, I used to hope that the evidence of gravity anomalies would be some recognisable pattern in the force itself rather than the matter distribution. ANything that threw a spanner in general relativity's works would give clues to a unified field theory. The evidence for invisible extra mass is pretty hard to argue with by now though, to the point where we can produce images of its distribution and work
Dark Matter, mystery solved, heard it here first! (Score:2)
The evidence for invisible extra mass is pretty hard to argue with by now though, to the point where we can produce images of its distribution and work out how it got there.
Who would of thought that the Nobel Prize would go to your next post wherein you lay your images of the distribution of dark matter, stating how it got there - and of course as you know how - and what exactly its nature is.
Wow. Colour me amazed, here's me thinking this was still an open question.
[... don't worry, next week I'm getting surgery to remove my tongue from my cheek]
Re: (Score:2)
a link [hubblesite.org] to one of the prettier pictures of mass distribution, and another link [msn.com] showing a collision between galaxy clusters in which most visible matte
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dark matter may be a cheap cop-out, but "Cowboy Neal's Excited State", that's just plain scary.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as they leave Bawls (with an 's' ScuttleMonkey!) the hell alone. The only way to improve upon it is to make the bottles bigger.
Re: (Score:2)
A liquid Bawls vendor in Europe would be worth, well, some kind of prize at least.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Anyone but...Sau Lan Wu. I'm sure even now she's ensconced in her office, hovering over a small shrine decorated with J/psi and gluon Phys Rev articles, praying to the gods of physics that she'll win this year. /Former Wuon
The ignorant leading the blind (Score:5, Insightful)
How much physics do you know? Dark matter is not a "cheap cop-out". It is a simple model that accounts for observations on many, many scales: from the rotation curves of galaxies, through lensing in galaxy clusters, via cosmic flows, the distance to high-redshift supernovae and all the way up to the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. Why do you believe that all matter must be barionic? Or luminous?
For an example of a real cop-outs consider the various "MOND" proposals: in order to account for the rotation curves of galaxies, you change Newtonian gravity at the right length scale. This is easy to do -- and obviuosly by making the right modification you can get the rotation curve exactly on the nose -- but then you'd need a different epicycle for the lensing, yet another one for the fluctuations in the CMB, etc.
In case you are still sceptical, consider the neutrino. Much like today's dark matter, this particle was proposed because laws of mechanics (conservation of momentum in neutron decay) seemed to be violated. Since they are so weakly interacting, it was only much later that neutrinos were observed directly. So was the neutrino a "cheap cop-out"? Should physicists instead have assumed that the laws of mechanics are wrong?
Re: (Score:1)
As a preface, "How much physics do you know?": A lot.
Anyway, there was a paper in Astrophysical Journal a few years back, in either 2005 or 2006 from the University of Victoria. They got nice rotation curves for galaxies just from general relativity, without invoking dark matter. Kind of neat.
Mike.
Re: (Score:1)
Specifics? Adsabs turned up nothing...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Here's the link to the manuscript [arxiv.org], though.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks, I'll take a look at it.
And from arxiv, a lesson in how to not do web:
"Sadly, your client does not supply a proper User-Agent, and is consequently excluded."
Re: (Score:2)
There was something wrong with it, and it was refuted. So back to dark matter.
Re: (Score:2)
You might find this interesting (or might not).
As a preface, "How much physics do you know?": A lot.
Anyway, there was a paper in Astrophysical Journal a few years back, in either 2005 or 2006 from the University of Victoria. They got nice rotation curves for galaxies just from general relativity, without invoking dark matter. Kind of neat.
Mike.
I know a bit of physics too, having studied it at University, and Dark Matter always gave me the impression that when Physicists computed Galactic rotation, they did the typically lazy "good enough for Physics" mathematics and simplified -- they used Newtonian mechanics. I have not seen even one paper or article mentioning relativity. Not surprisingly, at the galactic scale, Newtonian mechanics doesn't quite work out. Soo.. wait for it.. what's the correct answer? There must be a mysterious, magical force o
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad that paper turned out to be wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
Dark matter is still nothing else than a placeholder for something not understood and it may very well be that the actual problem is that we're just missing someth
Re:HPV != HIV (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Is there a name for this trend? So we have Godwin's Law that describes how quickly a comparison will be made to the Nazi's in any (Usenet)online discussion. Perhaps we could name a new law, dubbed "Anonymous Coward's law" that describes how quickly a discussion will turn a) political or b) toward Bush bashing.
Re: (Score:1)
"describes how quickly a discussion will turn a) political or b) toward Bush bashing."
On slashdot, that's a distinction without a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I've never seen any politician except for Bush bashed on Slashdot. It's simply inconceivable.
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
> a) political or b) toward Bush bashing.
Isn't (b) a subset of (a)?
Re:HPV does NOT cause cervical cancer (Score:5, Informative)
Most HPV infections do not lead to cervical cancer.
Most cervical cancers are caused by HPV.
These two statements are logically consistent.
The mechanism of action is even known: HPV blocks the action of tumor-suppressing gene p53.
Re:HPV does NOT cause cervical cancer (Score:5, Informative)
Please stop spreading misinformation.
1. You're not supposed to take the vaccine if you've already been exposed to HPV. That's why they only prescribe it to young girls - not older people.
2. There is a genetic component to the risk from HPV.
3. Yes, the HPV virus itself causes the cancer. It messes with apoptosis gene expression, causing the cells to proliferate without the normal cell death mechanism kicking in.
What are you talking about? (Score:1, Insightful)
As the reclassification petition reveals, HPV infections are naturally self-limiting -- meaning that they are controlled naturally, without requiring intervention with drugs or vaccines.
Where did you see that? It says most acute infections are self-limiting, not all.
It is not the HPV virus itself that causes cervical cancer but rather a persistent state of ill-health on the part of the patient that makes her vulnerable to persistent infections.
It's not the vulnerability to persistent infection that causes cervical cancer, ti's the persistent infection to certain high-risk strains of HPV. Regardless, the vaccine removes the vulnerability and helps prevent roughly 70% of cervical cancers. In addition, it also prevents infection of many strains that don't cause cancer, but still cause genital warts...it's a win all around.
Taking Gardasil can actually make you 44.6% more likely to get pre-cancerous lesions if you already have HPV (many sexually active people do).
So start vaccination earlier, before they're
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me like what you're saying is the same as HIV doesn't kill you, the secondary effects of chronic infection from HIV kill you. That's not a reason to stop trying to prevent HIV infection.
As for Gardasil, it is only recommended for pre-pubescent girls and the FDA rejected a request to expand usage to women in their teens and 20s.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
a) Persistent infection with HPV can cause cancer. Gardasil is designed to prevent infection with the 2 of the high risk strains associated with 50% of cervical cancer. Saying that HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer is like saying viruses don't cause colds: not all viruses cause colds, but infection with certain rhinoviruses combined with not clearing them leads to the disease. It's true that most HPV infections are cleared spontaneously, usually withing 2 years. However, almost all cases of cervical can
Re: (Score:2)
One question, you quote a petition:
It is the persistent infection, not the virus, that determines the cancer risk.
Peristent infection with what?
You also said:
Taking Gardasil can actually make you 44.6% more likely to get pre-cancerous lesions if you already have HPV
What causes the lesions. If you don't have Pap does taking Gardasil still cause lesions to form?
You seem to be saying that it's not having HPV that causes cervical cancer, but having HPV for long enough to cause cervical cancer? By the same token you might claim cessation of respiration doesn't cause death either.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame that HPV doesn't cause penis cancer, I bet even the ardent fundies would think twice before chopping their dick off to prove a point.
Actually, it does. And throat/oral cancer.