The prize seems not for confirmation of relativity but gravitational waves which could help physicists put general relativity to harder and harder tests to see where it fails.

The challenge is to convince the jury! And, the jury is human.

Unfortunately, I think it is normal. If you grasp an insight far in advance of your peers, then your peers will penalize you for what they consider an incorrect result. However, you will ultimately be vindicated by the passage of time--but you might not live to see it! One of the theologians I work in the Reformation era is Luis de Molina (1535-1600), who died thinking he was going be to be excommunicated as a heretic. (He was never excommunicated.) It wasn't until the 1970s that philosophers of religion began to conclude he was right after all!

KIrk, the same happened to Galileo and to Jiordano Bruno. Should results of science be immediately applicable to military advancements of this or that nation, then the issue of who will get the Nobel prize  becomes instantly irrelevant. Recall that in Hitler's Germany it was forbidden to come to Stockholm  and to receive the Nobel prize, even if it was awarded. A number of Russians were denied from going to Stockholm too. 

ww

I don't think there is such a curse for geniuses. Most of the time, their bad behaviour is the reason. The Nobel prize is not necessary what it is thought to be: the jury doesn't give any motivation, it has already been given by Nobel himself, the pet one of the scientific community doesn't apply. Einstein was awarded a Nobel prize, what the matter? There is only one person who earned two prizes, it is Marie Curie and for two different disciplines: physics and chemistry. Why do you think Einstein has been penalised? The photo-electric effect is worth a Nobel prize.

Let's take the example of Galileo. The confirmation of the heliocentric system didn't come before the next century, after his dead. So Galileo were right, but he could have been wrong as well. The problem with him seems to have been pushing his ideas too hard and scorning at the Church that didn't follow him, while there was not any convincing proof of his theory. Copernic was in a still more shaky situation, but the pope was interested in his work. The scientist must remain humble in every case.

In reality, it really depends whether or not scientists remain humble. There were public lectures by von Neumann, by Feynman, by Mark Kac and so on in the past. Take a look at you tube now and you will notice that the number of "not so humble scientists" grows and grows. In my department to be humble is to get the lowest possible salary. And, in general, Grisha Perelman was humble and this had not helped science at all. All those known public figures of science are the noisiest , the most arrogant and the most pushy people. Nobody from places other than the ivy league will ever get a Nobel prize, let alone, even nominated for such a prize....How one can get a full professorship at Harvard's physics department without writing a single paper without coauthors?!. Well, it happens now, and it happens in the best places in both US and UK as well. If this is normal, then what is abnormal?! Science is sliding into midieveal stage for sure.

It is normal in that it always occurs to everyone. Nobel committee was not accustomed to awarding prizes for theories, only for proofs of theories. Einstein was opposed to physical tests, preferring to think through the logic and receive help from others on the details like higher math.

Too simplistic Jerry.Way too simplistic! Einstein was proficient in higher math and , as you know, mathematicians are NOT awarded Nobel prizes. There is a reason for this which I do not want to discuss publicly. They are having a whole bunch of their own prizes, e.g. Abel prize, which are much more costly than Nobel. If you count how many mathematicians have received respective prizes in mathematics for developing Einstein's relativity ideas , you would really be surprised. Please, do your homework diligently. Please, also take a look at http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540653172

Enjoy!

Einstein did know higher math. And many mathematicians did got an equivalent of Nobel Prize, but in mathematics, not physics, by developing Einstein's ideas. Please read http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540653172 or

http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540741206

Thanks!

Thank you dear Professor for the details. It is now very clear in my opinion. I was very impressed by what the awarded Nobel prizes were working on, but especially to their issues.

Thanks !

There is no equivalent to the Nobel prize in mathematics. There are prizes in mathematics, some very prestigious, but the way and the criteria of their attribution are quite different. For example the Fields Medal is awarded each fourth year to someone under 40 of age.

Dear Claude Pierre,

Your example concerning Galileo is more speaking. I like it. The confirmation of the heliocentric system didn't come before the next century, after his dead. So Galileo were right, but the problem with him seems to have been pushing his ideas too hard. Scorning at the Church didn't follow him, while there was not any convincing proof of his theory. in this case, Galileo was not the first working on that. Isaiah in the bible (Isaiah 40:22) gave this idea many centuries before: Which suppose that the religious men who refuted his thought did not use the Bible properly.. Galileo brought more precise details.

Thanks!

Guembou Shouop Cébastien Joël, the story of Galileo is long and complicated, but what he was asked first by the Church was to present the heliocentric system only as a hypothesis. Later he published the book Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo in Italian instead of Latin, cheating to get the imprimatur. This book was unfairly "pushing hard," and that's then he was the most severely condemned.

Pythagore and Platon already had the idea of the earth revolving around the sun, but an indisputable proof was only provided by the observation of the aberration of light and by the Foucault pendulum.

Thanks!

I'll say it bluntly, if the Nobel prize were a purely academic one, what would be doing the literature and peace prize beside the physics one, and still less the mathematics one? The goal of the prize is to reward "benefit to humanity," not recognition by the peers, there are refereed journals for that. The Fields Medal in mathematics rewards "outstanding achievement," beside being very vague, it is manifestly different from the Nobel prize. Even the Abel prize can't be compared, although it was its goal. Anyway, why should there absolutely be a Nobel prize in mathematics? Everyone its own. For getting back to Einstein, what is more "beneficial to humanity" in relativity than in the photoelectric effect?

Claude (Masse). I wonder what is beneficial for humanity in Lobachevskii/Bolyai hyperbolic geometry? What is beneficial for humanity in asymptotic analysis by Poincare', what use one can make from Minkowskii's contribution into number theory (not of his contribution to special relativity) and, since you are from France, what use one can make out of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOWlP-ctCoc

As for me, the REAL PRIZE is how long people are using this or that piece of human activity. Nobody knows where is grave of Leonardo da Vinci or Mozart. In the snobbish Austria they had erected a monument for Mozart inside Vienna only after year 2000....Just because people there, like those in the Nobel committee, are operating like horses with blinders....

Arkady, it was Nobel's money, he chose the discipline that are the most beneficial to humanity according to him. Now the Nobel committee makes its own opinion about who deserve the prize the most according to it and to the will of Alfred Nobel. Being of another opinion doesn't prove it wrong. There is no prize for mathematics, and relativity wasn't deemed worth a prize, let it be. As to Mozart, many people don't like him, it is a matter of taste, and different people at different times have different ways to pay a tribute. I don't think the theory of p-adic number bettered the way of life of anyone, even if some mathematician in his ivory tower find it an "outstanding achievement," according to him.

Dear Claude, I know about Alfred Nobel and the Nobel Prizes as good as you and I know that just about everything can be disputed. For instance, as professor I am working with students from different countries, e.g. Pakistan on Bangladesh, etc. I know first hand that the Western European values of literature, music, philosophy, etc. are entirely unknown and even useless for these people... However they do use i phones, i pads, internet and so on. This brings about deeper question: What is all this human life means? Is it far superior to that of animals, insects, etc.? Well, even if people will fly to Mars or to planets of Alpha Centauri, there will be no answer to my questions. The Nobel Prizes are not going to move us closer to answers whatsoever. I feel that people like Mozart or Leonardo , etc. are just messengers of ultimate truth which, even these people, only can transmit from elsewhere but not to take advantage of their capabilities. To evaluate things one needs both the technical and philosophical background. Without it, people always are bound to be users only. Perhaps, they are users while killing animals and fish on this planet needlessly. Some of them believe that their souls is going to live forever since they are so much superior to animals, insects, etc. I do not think so, however.

Dear Claude. Just one more remark. I would strongly suggest you to take a listen and a look at opera by Mozart "Idomeneo" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idomeneo Mozart was only 25 when he wrote it and it was performed for the 1st time. It is as good as Belinni's " Norma", or may be even much stronger. If some people do not like Mozart, let them to take a listen and a look (look is mandatory)of this opera.Should Mozart only write this opera, he still would be forever appreciated. At age 25 to select such a plot and to write such an incomparable music is beyond capacities of any mortal. How many Nobel prizes such piece of work deserves?!!!!...Decide for yourself.

Dear Guembou!

The crux of your question is: "... to which the Nobel jury did not believe at the time." The Nobel price should be awarded for recognitions about the reality and not for the belive of a majority in certain theories. Einstein himself said: "An der Grenze des Wissens beginnt der Glaube." (On the border of recognition starts the belive.)

Are you or the Nobel jury absolutely sure that the present theories in physics are the last word of wisdom? They are only the accepted declarations of the reality in present. Five hundred years ago was the religious belief the measure of all things. In contrast to this bygone times it came out of fashion to heap pyres and burn the new ideas. But new ideas are combated also in science at all times.

My Regards! Hans

Arkady, there is a Nobel prize in literature, thus Nobel recognised the benefit for humanity of art, but hadn't enough money to reward everything on earth. Now why wasn't Pasteur awarded a Nobel prize in medicine? Because he died in 1895, before the prize even existed. The Nobel prize has this particularity that it must be awarded to somebody still in activity, though already having some of his work benefited to humanity. Clearly, at the time Einstein was rewarded, the photo electric effet was more worth it than relativity. In art it is still more complicated, since its value is measured by the passage of time. In terms of purely classical stylistic standards, Mozart's music was probably not very appreciated at his time, but it has go through three centuries and various standards, which couldn't be known before three centuries. All that to say that there is no absolute assessable, even less academical, value that allows to say whether someone has been penalised or not.

I congratulate Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barish, and Kip S. Thorne for winning the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics. Their decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves improve Physics applications.

Thanks!

Claude (Masse') All what you are saying was said already by Friedrich Nietzsche and by Arthur Schopenhauer . Nothing is new under the sun. One thing I would add though. Almost all exact sciences were made out of fear. Leonardo was valued for his fortification projects, not for his paintings, etc. If, God forbid, some country will make such a technological advancement that it will be capable to destroy all others, this would be the REAL NOBEL prize equivalent. Alfred Nobel -the father of dynamite-is perfect example. Sooner or later there will be others. All boils down to the following issue: Should one country possess a technological advance that it can destroy all other countries uninhibitedly, will such a country dominate the whole world for a very long time? Well take all domestic animals and fish, and pets, etc. They are subordinated to seemingly more clever mankind and, apparently, will stay in such a state indefinitely long. Can one nation be so much clever than the rest, that it can control the rest of nations indefinitely long. Roman empire was a good example and it was a good example of how internal causes made such empire to dissolve. With existing pyramid of wealth, with 1 year tuition in best schools of US now being in the range of 60-65 thousand dollars per year, one should not be a genius to foresee what will happen with the US science (and the process is ongoing now) in not too distant future.

Arkady, the USA had the nuclear bomb, put and end to WWII, but didn't destroy everything. Why? Because the human prerogative is to be able to transmit knowledge, which has the corollary that no however powerful nation can make outstanding technological advancement alone. Even if tuition fees are soaring, it not necessary get to the right people (a dreadful phenomenon in the USA, I should say,)* and anyway only to too few people for being useful. Consequently, the nuclear technology was known a little everywhere in the world, so that other countries could catch up quickly enough, and now it is the so-called "equilibrium of terror." The truth is, each country need the collaboration of all the others in order to improve its well being, and that is the strongest drive to peace, that has been realised namely in Europe. As for the Roman empire, they weren't that powerful, they had only iron weapons, their strength was rather in the organisation. They could rule a sizeable chunk of the Ancient World, but not destroy or fully control the populations. There were slavery, but actually not more than today.

*The best universities are in the USA, but that must be qualified. There is not much selection on ability, and there is on money. The consequence is that these universities can afford a very good pedagogy, but for "average" students so that the actually taught level is not very high. That is in contrast with European universities where the level would seem incredible to an American. They rely much more on personal work, so that a gifted and really motivated student easily overdoes a well-off USA citizen in the best domestic university.

Claude. I tend to agree with you on some details but, I am in disagreement on the whole. Atomic bomb..how to make it .. Klaus Fuchs transferred this knowledge to Russians....Incidentally, Rosenbergs have not transferred this secret to Russians. I watched a documentary about Russian sculptor S.Konenkov who was living with his wife in the West, and in particular, in US. The wife slept with whoever she wanted to sleep and, in particular, with Albert Einstein. Recently about 1000 or so letters between Einstein and her were sold out in auction...Well, while Einstein was mad in love for her, she was a center of spy network in US. It is through her the USSR got an access to the atomic bomb . US would surely use it against Russia should they not discover to their regret that USSR detonated its own atomic bomb and then the Hydrogen bomb, even sooner than the US. Roman empire was the strongest because of their many advancements, e.g. Roman system of laws http://www.crystalinks.com/romelaw.html. The same advancements were in the Roman military. Nobody else on this planet was having such an advanced system of social organization. As for organization of science, US is surely sliding into the state in which it was BEFORE people like Enrico Fermi, John von Neumann and so on came to the US. These times are gone forever and with them the superiority of the US science. Recall that heavy lifting to space station is made by the Soviet era rocket jets Russia is still supplying to US, also, uranium, titanium and so on. Russian mathematicians and physicists were supplying US science with ideas since 1970ies till late 1990ies and the US science is moving forward still only on this ideological fuel...which is about to expire.

@Arkady: I agree by and large with your statements. But: Don't forget please the german scientists which were working in the USSR after WW2 more or less voluntary. The atomic bomb(s) in Russia were not only a result of spying. I remaind also A.Sacharow. The technology of rockets was in the fifties in particular an outcome of german ingenieurs and scientists in all countries. You know Wernher von Braun.

Hans, I completely agree with you! Influence of German science is manifestly reflected in my latesdt paper (with Lou Kauffman).German physics and mathematics were #1 in the world thanks to people likeRiemann,Klein,Hiilbert,C ourant and quite a number of lesser known names whose contributions are also phenomenal.Here,in US lives a wonderful person, David Delphenich.He single handedly made translations of 100's of scientific papers from German to English.It is fundamentally bad that nobody else in US takes care of this.My latest paper uses a lot of this translated material

In Germany there were Hahn and Meitner who discovered the nuclear fission in the first place. The German were also very near to building the bomb in 1945, it has no longer be possible later for a reason everyone knows. But it is a pity that so great physicists are unable to read in German...

@Claude: You say: " The German were also very near to building the bomb in 1945 ..." This statement is mainstream and it's simply wrong.

Until 1942/43 the Germans would have the resources to build a bomb. In 1945 Germany was destroyed. Compare with the enormous costs of the American Manhattan-project.

There was never a serious attempt in Nazi-germany to build the atomic bomb but experiments about the controlled nuclear fission (scientists of the 'Diebner-Gruppe'). Merly the SS made some experiments (1943?) to build a deuteron-bomb which should be kindled by a shock wave . It was unsuccessful.

You can find an objective presentation of the german atomic experiments in: Dr. Günter Nagel: Atomversuche in Deutschland; Heinrich-Jung-Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Zella-Mehlis

Dear Guembou Shouop Cébastien Joël,

You wrote: "But Einstein had the Nobel Prize for quantum mechanics (the photoelectric effect -W = h.nu--theory which he refuted in part "

Einstein indeed received the Nobel for having discovered the photoelectric effect, but the photo electric effect has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics.

It has to do with the proof that photons behave like localized particles when being absorbed by any material, and that as they are absorbed, they transfere their kinetic energy to that material.

Also, he did not refute Quantum Mechanics even in part. He completely agreed with Quantum Mechanics. He only was convinced that Quantum Mechanics does not completely describes elementary electromagnetic particles in motion.

Here is what he wrote in 1952 about Quantum Mechanics in the introduction to a book published in 1953 as a tribute to Louis de Broglie for his 60th birthday, each of them providing one chapter, Einstein even collaborating to 2 distinct chapters, and contributing the introduction, the complete text drafting a detailed overview of the state of knowledge in fundamental physics in 1952:

Einstein A., Schrödinger E., Pauli W., Rosenfeld L., Born M., Joliot-Curie I. & F., Heisenberg W., Yukawa H., et al. (1953). Louis de Broglie, physicien et penseur. Éditions Albin Michel, Paris.

In the first chapter, that he personally contributed in his own language, German, which he felt more comfortable using (translated to French by the editors on the facing pages) here is how he began this intro on page 6 of this book:

"Ich zweifle gar nicht daran, dass die gegenwärtige Quanten-Theorie (genauer " Quanten-Mechanik ") die vollkommenste mit der Erfahrung vereinbare Theorie ist, solange man der Beschreibung die Begriffe materieller Punkt und potentielle Energie als elementare Begriffe zugrunde legt. Was ich aber an der Theorie unbefriedigend finde, stellt sich verschieden dar je nach der Interpretation, welche man der " ψ-Funktion " gibt. Jedenfalls aber steht am Anfang meiner Auffassung eine These, die von den meisten gegenwärtigen Theoretikern entschieden abgelehnt wird:

Es gibt so etwas wie den " realen Zustand " eines physikalischen Systems, was unabhängig von jeder Beobachtung oder Messung objektiv existiert und mit den Ausdrucksmitteln der Physik im Prinzip beschrieben werden kann.

Nun ist es kein Zweifel, dass die ψ-Funktion eine Art Beschreibung eines "realen Zustandes" ist. Die Frage ist aber, ob diese Beschreibung den realen Zustand vollständig oder unvollständig charakterisiert."

Here ist the English translation:

"I have no doubt that quantum theory (more precisely "Quantum Mechanics") is the most perfect theory compatible with experience, inasmuch as its description is made to rest on the concept of the material point and potential energy as being elementary concepts. But what I find unsatisfactory in the theory resides elsewhere, in the interpretation that is given to the "ψ-function ". In any case, this is at the origin of my conception of a thesis which is categorically rejected by most current theoreticians:

There is something like "the real state" of a physical system, that exists objectively, independently of any observation or measure, and that can in principle be described by physics description means.

Now, there is no doubt that the ψ-function is a manner of description of a "real state". The question is then to determine if this description of a real state is complete or incomplete."

So what he thought, was that the wave-function could not give a clear description of moving elementary particles and he felt that this should eventually be possible by some means yet to be discovered, and that consequently no stone should remain unturned in the search for a clearer picture of elementary particles in motion.

Here are still some inexactitude about the work of Einstein. Of course he didn't discovered the photo-electric effect. Contrary to what was expected, the energy of the electrons don't depends on the intensity of the light but of its frequency. It was a know puzzle just like the one of the ultraviolet catastrophe in the black body radiation. Einstein succeeded in explaining both puzzles with the same idea, that was already suggested by Planck. It was the beginning of quantum theory, since he didn't postulate that light is localised (this has been a failed attempt of explanation,) but that it is quantised in the meaning that only packets of energy h omega can interact at once, as if light was made of corpuscules (this was already the stance of Newton.)

At the beginning, the opposition of Einstein to quantum mechanics seemed unmotivated, but he is the one who pointed to the non locality, although it didn't think about it. Now that it have been decided that quantum mechanics no longer present any mystery, his opposition is despised anew. But in the whole, Einstein had a huge influence in the development of quantum mechanics, as we know it today.