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!
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.
@@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.
@@agrajyadav2951 China does very little original science. Best Asian original science is in Japan. Nobel prizes are for original science, not technological advances remember.
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 Let's kill the myth of the solitary genius; it incentivizes an outdated model of getting science done.
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.
And, as everybody knows, outdated is just a nice way of saying RACIST.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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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?
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
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
@@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.
@@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
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 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.
@@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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
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.
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.)
