10 Greatest Scientists Who Never Won A Nobel Prize

Top 10 Great Scientists Who Never Won A Nobel Prize

This is a list of scientists who have contributed greatly to our understanding of the world but who unfortunately never won the top honors. While some of the nobel snubs were the product of personal grudges or general biases particularly against women, others were matters of bad timing.

10. Stephen Hawking


Top 10 Great Scientists Who Never Won A Nobel Prize
British physicist and mathematician

The ailing theoretical physicist was known for his contributions to the fields of cosmology, general relativity and quantum gravity, especially in the context of black holes. For a man who was given just a few years to live in his twenties not only did he beat the odds but also revolutionized physics for next half a century.


9. Jocelyn Bell Burnell


Her discovery of rotating neutron stars was recognized by the award of the 1974 Nobel Prize in Physics, but despite the fact that she was the first to observe the pulsars, Bell was excluded from the recipients of the prize.

Top 10 Great Scientists Who Never Won A Nobel Prize
Irish astrophysicist

As a postgraduate student, she helped in building the 16,000 m² radio telescope over two years and was the first person to notice the anomaly, sometimes reviewing as much as 29 meters of paper data per night.


8. George Sudarshan


Top 10 Great Scientists Who Never Won A Nobel Prize
Indian physicist

In 2005 several physicists wrote to the Swedish Academy, protesting that Sudarshan should have been awarded a share of the Prize for the Sudarshan–Glauber representation in quantum optics, for which American physicist Roy J. Glauber won his share of the prize.


7. Chien-Shiung Wu


Top 10 Great Scientists Who Never Won A Nobel Prize
Chinese experimental physicist

She is best known for conducting the Wu experiment, which contradicted the most revered law of conservation of parity. This discovery resulted in her colleagues Lee and Yang winning the 1957 Nobel Prize in physics. Wu was not publicly honored until 1978.


6. Lise Meitner


Top 10 Great Scientists Who Never Won A Nobel Prize
Austrian-Swedish Chemist

Lise Meitner along with long-time collaborator Otto Hahn led a small group of scientists who became the first to discover the nuclear fission of Uranium. The 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded exclusively to Otto Hahn and once again, a deserving candidate was not recognized.

According to Physics TodayMeitner's exclusion from the chemistry award may well be summarized as a mixture of disciplinary bias, political obtuseness, ignorance, and haste. Today, nuclear fission is used to produce electricity in the nuclear power plants.


5. Georges Lemaitre


Top 10 Great Scientists Who Never Won A Nobel Prize
Belgian Cosmologist

Lemaître proposed the Big Bang theory. He was the first cosmologist ever nominated for the 1954 Nobel Prize in physics for his prediction of the expanding universe. Remarkably, he was also nominated for the 1956 Nobel prize in chemistry for his primeval-atom theory. He did not win both times.


4. Henri Poincaré


Top 10 Great Scientists Who Never Won A Nobel Prize
French scientist

Poincaré is considered brighter than Einstein by many a scientists. He was the first to propose gravitational waves emanating from a body and propagating at the speed of light as being required by the Lorentz transformations. Poincaré was nominated a record 51 times for the Nobel Prize but never won.


3. Nikola Tesla


Top 10 Great Scientists Who Never Won A Nobel Prize
Serbian Inventor

Nikola Tesla was a brilliant inventor known for his contributions to physics and engineering. He is most recognized for developing the alternating current electric system, which is still the predominant system used across the world today. His other inventions include Tesla coil, remote control and wireless telegraphy.


2. Edwin Hubble


First, he revolutionized cosmology by showing that ours was not the only galaxy. The clouds of light which astronomers saw in the night sky were actually other galaxies beyond our Milky Way. He calculated distances to these galaxies.

Top 10 Great Scientists Who Never Won A Nobel Prize
American Astronomer

Second, he took the world by storm by proving that the galaxies were moving away from one another. The entire universe was expanding. He calculated the speeds at which the galaxies were receding. At the time of these two crucial discoveries, the Nobel Prize in Physics did not recognize work done in astronomy.


Hubble spent much of the latter part of his career attempting to have astronomy considered an area of physics. Shortly after his death, the Nobel Prize Committee decided that astronomical work would be eligible for the physics prize, however, the prize is not one that can be awarded posthumously.


1. Satyendra Nath Bose


Top 10 Great Scientists Who Never Won A Nobel Prize
Indian Theoretical Physicist

Bose is best known for his work on quantum mechanics in the early 1920s, providing the foundation for Bose–Einstein statistics and the theory of the Bose–Einstein condensate, the fifth state of matter.

Bose's work was evaluated by an expert of the Nobel Committee, Oskar Klein, who did not see his work worthy of a Nobel Prize.

Several Nobel Prizes were awarded related to the field initiated by him but Bose himself was never presented the coveted prize. Yet half the particles in the universe obey him and that itself is a remarkable achievement.

Is gravity a theory or a law?

Is gravity a theory or a law?

Why is it called Newton's law of gravity and not Newton's theory? Is Einstein's theory of general relativity scientifically inferior to Newton's law? Since in our day-to-day usage, the law carries more weight than the word theory?

Questions like these are doing the rounds on the internet. So we see it fit to explain, once and for all, what scientific terminology is. Before studying science, you must know the meanings of such terms like: axiom, hypothesis, experiment, model, law and theory.

Luckily, this terminology is well incorporated in the method of science. So, let us first understand the scientific method with an example and then we will answer whether gravity is a theory or a law. You will be surprised.

It is observed that bees are attracted to flowers. This statement is taken to be true to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. This is called an axiom.

Bumblebee

Then, a natural question arises. Why are bees attracted to flowers? This is the first step of the scientific method. An observation is followed up by a question. Like, on one summer day, Isaac Newton had questioned the fall of an apple.

One may guess that bees are attracted by the color of flowers. Another person may say that bees are attracted by the nectar inside flowers.

All guesses are called hypotheses.

A scientific hypothesis can be tested in laboratory with the help of an experiment. First, bees are let inside a glass chamber containing artificial flowers. Second, bees are let inside another glass chamber containing real flowers. Further observations are noted down.

example of scientific method

It is observed that bees are attracted to artificial flowers, they sit on them briefly, then fly away. Thus, the first hypothesis stands true as bees are indeed attracted by the color. In the second set-up, bees sit on real flowers and remain there for long. So, the second hypothesis is also true.

After hypotheses have been tested, it is time to formulate laws, theories or conclusions on basis of the result. In our case, we come to the simple conclusion: "bees are attracted to flowers due to both color and nectar."

A law, on the other hand, is a formula. Like, Newton's law of universal gravitation is used to calculate the "magnitude" of the gravitational force between two objects of mass separated by a given distance.

Is gravity a theory or a law?
Newton's law

Newton's law is also used in a model so as to mimic remote physical phenomena locally, say on one's computer, such as sky-diving or revolution of Moon around Earth. Thus, a model is generally a simulation. But Newton's law does not attempt to explain how or why gravity works.

In science, theory holds a special place. It is a well-substantiated explanation of the natural world that can incorporate all facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. So, Einstein's theory of general relativity explains "why" things fall.

While laws rarely change, theories get modified whenever new evidence is discovered. Einstein published his version of the theory in 1915 and since then the theory has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

Is gravity a theory or a law?
Is gravity a theory or a law?

So, is gravity a theory or a law? Well, first of all, it is an always acting force that one can feel. Second, it is both a theory and a law. The law of gravity calculates the amount of attraction while the theory describes why objects attract each other in the first place.

You have now an understanding of terms such as axiom, hypothesis, experiment, law, model and theory, by our use of the scientific method. Whenever you encounter a phrase like "it is just a theory" from the other party, you will know where they lack in their understanding.

Origin of Life on Earth According To Science

Origin of life on earth

Man has always wondered how he came into existence, who created him, and why he was created. Questions of such nature have been asked throughout human history. Every ancient thinker, philosopher or prophet, has tried to give some answer to this question and suggest some mechanism for the birth of life.

Man is but a small part of life. In reality, there is a vast variety of creatures lingering around us. How did they come into existence? Are we related to them in any manner whatsoever? This article proposes to take you back to a distant past when there was no life on our planet and helps you imagine how life could have originated on it.



Panspermia

According to an ancient Greek idea, life exists throughout the universe. It is distributed to different planets in small units through space dust, meteoroids, asteroids or comets. It was assumed that under favourable conditions of temperature and moisture, these units of life would come alive and give birth to the initial living beings.

origin of life on earth
Panspermia

Panspermia was first mentioned in the writings of the 5th century BC Greek philosopher Anaxagoras. Despite being old, the idea is quite witty, isn't it? It has assumed a more scientific form in the recent years thanks to the contributions of astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.

It is a very well known fact that the cosmic dust is present throughout space. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe proposed in 1974 the hypothesis that most of the dust in the interstellar space has to be largely organic, for life to spread, which Wickramasinghe later proved to be correct.

But Panspermia assumes that there is a universal storehouse of life throughout space and thus indeed avoids answering the question as to how life anywhere originated in the first place.


Divine Creation


One belief, common among the people of all cultures, is that all the different forms of life including human beings were suddenly created by a divine order about 10,000 years ago. These large number of creatures have always been the same and will last without change from one generation to another, until the end of the world.

Such a theory of creation is unreasonable because fossils of plants and animals suggest that life is of much older origin. In fact, some researches show that life on Earth existed even 3.5 billion years ago. There are very many reasons why this particular idea is untrue. It is therefore surprising as to why people may still hold on to this belief system.

Spontaneous Generation


The theory known as spontaneous generation held that complex, living organisms could come into existence from inanimate objects. Mice might spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots could spontaneously appear in meat. It was synthesized by the Greek philosopher and biologist Aristotle.

Aristotle

According to Aristotle, animals and plants come into existence in earth and in liquid because there is water in earth, and air in water, and in all air is vital heat so that in a sense all things are full of soul. Therefore, living things form quickly whenever this air and vital heat are enclosed in anything.

Aristotle's influence was so large and powerful that his construct of spontaneous generation remained unchallenged for more than two thousand years. According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth. But, in 1668, Italian biologist Franceso Redi proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs.

origin of life on earth
There is no spontaneous generation

Spontaneous generation is no longer debatable among biologists. By the middle of the 19th century, experiments by Louis Pasteur and others refuted the traditional theory of spontaneous generation and supported biogenesis, the idea that only life begets life.

Chemical Evolution


The life as we know it is based on carbon containing molecules. Therefore, Soviet biochemist, Oparin, and British biologist, Haldane, proposed that life could have arisen from simple organic molecules. In other words, to understand the origin of life, one must have a knowledge of the organic molecules on earth.

The early Earth was a hot ball of fire. Sources of energy such as cosmic rays, UV radiation, electrical discharges from lightning and heat from volcanoes, were readily available. Therefore, the earth acted like a big factory producing thousands of compounds a day. This was a state of agitation.

early earth with warm waters

In these severe conditions, oxygen, could not remain as free oxygen. It was combined with other elements in compounds such as Water and Limestone. Compounds of carbon and hydrogen, such as methane, were also formed. Nitrogen and hydrogen combined to form ammonia. These compounds are today called organic compounds.

With the passage of time, the earth had started cooling down. As it cooled sufficiently, prolonged rains were caused due to condensation of steam. The rains began accumulating in the depressions on the earth and so the oceans were formed. The water was warm and soup-like containing various kinds of organic molecules in abundance.

organic molecules

Interaction between these compounds in the warm waters resulted in the formation of yet more compounds, which among other things also contained amino acids having a composition of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen. These amino acids combined with one another in large numbers to form proteins, which are the building blocks of life.

Miller-Urey Experiment


In discussing events which must have happened billions of years ago, there is a certain amount of guess work and uncertainty involved. But the reasoning has to conform to a good deal of available evidence as well as to the basic laws of physical sciences.

The above idea could be tested by recreating the proposed conditions of the early earth in a laboratory.

In the year 1952, American biochemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey did exactly the same thing but on a very small scale. They subjected a gaseous mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapour and hydrogen in a closed flask at 80 degree Celsius to electric sparking, for a week.

origin of life on earth

When examined a week later, the arrangement was found to have formed simple amino acids in the bottom, which are essential for the formation of proteins. Miller and Urey had shown that several organic compounds could be formed spontaneously by simulating the conditions of earth's early atmosphere, as hypothesized by Oparin and Haldane.

Elements of life, produced by man, in laboratory.

The scientific community worldwide was largely impressed by this accomplishment. In fact, three years after the success of Miller's experiment, American physicist Richard Feynman wrote a poem, titled, an atom in the universe, celebrating man's knowledge of the origin of life on earth.


Miller continued his research until his death in 2007. He not only succeeded in synthesising more and more varieties of amino acids, but also produced a wide variety of inorganic and organic compounds vital for cellular construction and metabolism. We salute the efforts of such a scientist who devoted his life studying the most important question known to man.

How To Live Your Life Like A Scientist?


A scientist is someone who studies or has expertise in science. More generally, they are people who love figuring out how or why things happen. They conduct research in an area of interest to advance our understanding of nature. The fruits of their labour make ordinary life a rich, comfortable and overall a worthwhile experience.

Throughout history, we have witnessed that scientists have propelled our society forwards. Wouldn't it be better then if everyone lived their lives more scientifically? In this post, we will explore what it would mean to live life like a scientist. Let us see.


1. Question Authority


Nearly 400 years ago, during a time when scientific thinking was curbed by the church, Nicholas Copernicus, a Polish priest, gave a clear and detailed explanation for the rotation of the Earth, and other planets on their axes, and their motion around the Sun. Galileo Galilei came in support of the Copernican ideas, openly.

This first scientific movement created a great sensation because the 2000-year-old model of heavenly bodies going round the earth was threatened. The new knowledge disturbed the stability of the church and the social order itself. It immediately led to conflict with the church which resulted in Galileo's trial. He was condemned and forced to go back on his words.

Question authority

However, he did not stop, even after being tried and condemned by church. Galileo really wanted to describe how the Copernican system was valid because he had seen things, through a telescope, that is, four tiny objects circling Jupiter.

Galileo boldly questioned all the accepted world-views. He was daring enough to publish his controversial discoveries in a book and dedicated it to the pope. Then eventually when Galileo Galilei became an authority himself, he was wise enough to turn back to question his own arguments, through carefully created experiments.


2. Think Creatively


On a nice summer day, Isaac Newton happened to observe the falling of an apple. Instantly, he asked why. Then, he proposed the possibility of an invisible attractive force between the apple and the earth. Newton did not stop there. He went on to describe the amount of attraction between any two bodies of mass with mathematics, of course.

But even the genius of Isaac Newton wasn't accomplished enough to explain why the objects attracted each other in the first place. More than 200 years later, it was the creativity of Einstein's thinking that successfully explained what even Newton couldn't.

Curved Space and time
falling bodies in curved space

The world is spinning on a stretchable fabric of space and time, said Einstein. This flexible fabric is disturbed by the existence and motion of masses. The objects move through it, distorting it, falling into it, and so on. The little masses, for instance, circle the bigger one, simply because they are falling into the space-time curvature created by it.


3. Overcome Limits


Michael Faraday was born on 22 September 1791 to a very poor family in South London. From a very young age, he used to work menial jobs to support his education. At the age of 14, while working at a book-binding shop, Faraday came across a physics book. This book introduced him to the wonders of experimental science.

self-made scientist

Faraday went on to become not only a renowned scientist but also an inspiration for the likes of Einstein and Tesla. He introduced the world to the relationship between electricity and magnetism. The discovery of electromagnetic induction and invention of dynamo were the main reasons for crowning Faraday as the father of electricity.

Now, in recent years, we have the example of professor Stephen Hawking. He could not talk without computer assistance, sat on only one chair, but still, despite limitations, in his case physical limitations, he was able to accomplish mostly everything.

while there's life, there's hope

When in his twenties, Hawking was diagnosed with motor neuron disease. At the age of 21, he was informed by the doctors to put his affairs in order and prepare for death. At such a young age, anybody could falter. But, on the contrary, Hawking went on to complete his PhD on the properties of expanding universes, in 1965, aged 23.


4. Brave criticism


A revolting thought is welcomed with criticism and sometimes dealt with punishment like in the case of Galileo. But it is the job of a scientist to introduce the world to new ideas and therefore he/she must not be afraid of criticism.

Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein were in good terms on a personal level. They were in fact the best of friends if some sources are to be believed. But then, it came, a quantum revolution, which created professional rivalry between the two greats. Bohr was the vocal supporter of the new theory. On the other hand, Einstein its leading opponent.

criticism is a part of life

During this time, Einstein ridiculed Bohr by saying, "Does God play dice with the universe?" to which Bohr had famously replied, "Please, do not tell God what he can and cannot do." Einstein was so discomforted by the new quantum theory that he went on to devise experiment after experiment aiming to destroy it.

But Bohr emerged victorious each time.

Their debates are remembered because of their importance to the philosophy of science. Bohr respected Einstein's persistence and Einstein praised Bohr's brilliance. The two scientists were involved in one of the highest points of scientific research in the first half of the twentieth century.


Today, scientists are facing criticism because of the growing ignorance among people. In a time when we are planning to colonize Mars, there are still those who say that the earth is fixed and flat. There are plenty who use astrology in day-to-day life. Evolution which is a well-backed theory is declared a propaganda.

Scientific progress is at risk.

bring about a change

In such a case, science communicators like Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins and others are needed. They have spoken strongly against pseudoscience and rightfully so. We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows or cares anything about science and technology, which is a shame, really.


Summing up

Now you have the four essential qualities of a scientist. You must not be afraid to question authority, especially when they are wrong, you must think creatively, think out-of-the-box, overcome limits and most importantly accept criticism a part of life. These traits of a scientist will build a distinctive personality in an otherwise boring existence.
© 2019-2022
made with by vedang