13enigma
Harmless
Posts: 48
Registered: 4-6-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
How difficult is it to win a Nobel Prize?
What kind of inventions or experiments in any science will get one a Nobel prize?
|
|
|
wg48
National Hazard
Posts: 821
Registered: 21-11-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Published novel and successful ones.
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6218
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Unmoved
Member Is Offline
Mood: Organised
|
|
Really difficult.
You must undertake novel research that has either dramatic applications or significantly changes the way that we understand the world.
Your work must achieve significant acclaim in the scientific community.
Your work must attract the eyes and be highly regarded by the nobel committee.
This acknowledgement of your work must happen while you are still alive -- NPs are not given posthumously.
You must be working individually or in a team no greater than three. NPs are given to individuals and not to scientific teams. This requirement is
getting harder and harder to meet since most cutting-edge stuff nowadays is the result of huge collaborative efforts.
You must get a lucky roll of the dice. Only one is given per year in each field. It depends on what else is in the running. There are notable cases
of people missing out on NP recognotion even though their work excelled those who got awarded.
Fun facts:
Lisa Meitener missed out on a Nobel even though those she was working with did receive one. A case of sexual discrimination. However, she did get
element 109 named after her.
The guy who pioneered the frontal lobotomy as a psychiatric procedure received a Nobel prize for his work -- such was the acclaim over the
effectioveness of the procedure -- overlooking the very significant (and downright evil) downside of the practice. Since then it has been common
practice to wait a few years or decades to see the implications and applications of scientific work before awarding a prize. This increases the
liklihood of dying before getting a prize.
|
|
|
Bert
Super Administrator
Posts: 2821
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".
|
|
Only the white mice who control our scientists know the algorithm, they wrote it.
Oh, and her. She knows too. By absorbing the murine nerve growth factor through her eyes for many years, she saw their secrets.
Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it
that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).
|
|
|
Deluxbert
Harmless
Posts: 13
Registered: 24-4-2017
Member Is Offline
Mood: Skurr Skurr
|
|
I had the chance to talk to a recent nobel prize winner in chemistry (2017)because he was from our uni and man its was hard to fully understand it.
The cryo electron microscopy is really really complicated.
He talked about the whole process (took multiple years for even a bare protoype)
So my guess would be. Invent a machine or something that helps us understand something in a way we couldnt before and refine it so much it basically
makes nearly all other imaging techs obsolete. (3D imaging of biomolecules is a big deal)
|
|
|
NEMO-Chemistry
International Hazard
Posts: 1559
Registered: 29-5-2016
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Try to solve a problem of importance, or advance mans understanding of something fundamental. The last thing that will ever win a prize, is something
designed to win the prize. Find something that interests you, work on it, go beyond what anyone else has ever done with it before, then maybe you will
be nominated.
Nobel prize is not like a beauty contest, in a beauty contest you got a reasonable idea where you fit on the scale. Cure cancer and its likely to get
you a prize, but seriously doing science for the sake of wining something......You have kind of failed already.
|
|
|
HeYBrO
Hazard to Others
Posts: 289
Registered: 6-12-2013
Location: 'straya
Member Is Offline
Mood: 
|
|
I might be able to give you understanding on the first part of your post. If you have any experience in academia, when doing new work you'd know how
difficult it is just to get a paper out (or even a reaction to work)- if it puts into perspective, I have been working on a project in a lab for 2
months now, and I have discovered a lot; namely that almost nothing works according to plan! Especially when working on new compounds with no
characterisation data available, so all purification comes from experience/ data on things that are vaguely similar and hoping for the best. Same goes
for reaction design. In my opinion, it takes a lot work to get a publication with chemistry that is new (but not necessarily useful), it takes skill
to produce chemistry that is new and useful, and it takes genius and luck to come up with Nobel prize material (and whatever lies in-between!).
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6218
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Unmoved
Member Is Offline
Mood: Organised
|
|
25 honorary doctorates will get you there.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
