Alfred would be disgusted again with this years selection (discovery of dark energy) - His will clearly states physic prize is to recognize the greatest contribution / benefit to mankind in the last year: "Alfred Nobel left his fortune to finance annual prizes to be awarded "to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." He stated that the Nobel Prizes in Physics should be given "to the person who shall have made the most important 'discovery' or 'invention' within the field of physics." Nobel did not emphasise discoveries, but they have historically been held in higher respect by the Nobel Prize Committee than inventions: 77% of the Physics Prizes have been given to discoveries, compared with only 23% to inventions. Christoph Bartneck and Matthias Rauterberg, in papers published in Nature and Technoetic Arts, have argued this emphasis on discoveries has moved the Nobel Prize away from its original intention of rewarding the greatest contribution to society ..." From Wiki Noble Prize. IMHO, It is highly unlikely that dark energy or knowledge about it will confer on mankind as much benefit as a free cup of coffee to each would. Tarnaveanu Emil’s Rotary Piston Engine invention is much more like what Alferd was trying to reward. See concept here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrbDU_n1jqM and read some of Emil’s posts here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2546683&postcount=12 and other posts in this thread he started.
Note, the last part of the OP was by edit and delayed while I found the links given there. During that delay, Emil made post 2, which I only read after I posted about him and his invention as a choice Alfred would have liked.
Billy T, I am just going to assume you are making a joke. Not that funny but somewhat ironic. If by chance you are not joking, you will not be able to convince me otherwise so don't try.
Not joking, only quoting Alfred's will - his clear intent to encourage / reward those who have produced the most good in the past year for mankind. What good for mankind can you imagine will come from the discovery of cosmically distributed, extremely low density, "dark energy"? I'm not sure, but think the energy density of moonlight is many orders of magnitude greater, but still economically worthless. - Not much good for mankind in it either, except for the "romantic effect." I.e. in direct violation of A. Nobel's instructions, this year's physic prize will never give any benefit to mankind.
I don't understand why he recieved this because all he did was say there was something that he named "dark energy" but doesn''t know what it is. :shrug: Thanks Billy T for providing me with that correction.
If you think the prize should go to something like the youtube video why not just give it to some 10 year olds picture hanging on the refrigerator.
No I don't think that. I said in the OP what would have been, IMHO a much better choice. The video just makes it possible for one to understand a very clever idea/ invention. Perhaps you don't understand how it works? To help you understand, note it is the rod that makes the torque on the shaft. You are ducking the issue - the point of this thread: Namely the Nobel Physics committee totally ignores Alfred's very explicit instructions. What they (mainly the academics who make the nominations) actually do is very self serving gift of award honor and a great deal of money to one of their own small group. Contrast their perversion of Alfred's will to what the Medical Prize committee typical does. PS to Cosmic traveler you mean dark energy, not dark matter. Dark matter's attractive effects are being over whelmed by dark energy's "negative gravity" effects.
Duh? . . . it's really simple . . . their 'dark energy' . . . is the same as QGP (Quark-Gluon Plasma) . . . which is the same as my SQR . . .which is the same as Einstein's cosmological constant . . . go to . . . . https://sites.google.com/site/eemuhypothesis/ . . . . maybe next year, for me! (Tee Hee!) . . . .
Your right I have no idea what amazing revelation that video is suppose to be telling me. Nope. I think that dark energy is vital to understanding the universe. Seems like a big deal to me. Besides we do not know what this will mean to us in the future. QM when first discovered did not seem like it would have much impact on our everyday life - boy, how wrong was that.
Not really clever and not really an invention and not really useful. It is just a variant of the Wankel engine with a different shape of the rotor. As such, it suffers from the same weakness that has made the Wankel engine impractical, the seals, the size, the many other mechanical problems. It should have never been awarded a patent in first place, is is neither new nor useful.
Only neutrino speed is a little higher than the speed of photons and gluons - see chapter "Neutrino Speed in the Everlasting Theory" in the electronic book on my website. The obtained theoretical results are consistent with the data obtained in the MINOS and OPERA experiments and data concerning the supernova SN 1987A explosion. There assumes that TODAY the Einstein spacetime on the front of the expanding Universe (so the cosmic objects also) is moving with the photon speed. We can see that the assumption that the expansion of the Universe accelerates, leads to conclusion that the Einstein spacetime can expand TODAY with speed higher than the photons. The Everlasting Theory shows that there were the local protuberances in the Einstein spacetime with speeds higher than the c but they were possible at the beginning of the big bang suited to life and such protuberances do not violate the General Theory of Relativity (see the ET). Due to the protuberances, we see the cosmic objects for which the redshift is higher than 1. But the Everlasting Theory shows that the Einstein spacetime consists of the binary systems of neutrinos which are the carriers of the photons and gluons. There are more the gluons (8) than photons (1 – there are the left- and right-handed photons, i.e. 2 photons, but they behave the same) because the strong field and the carriers have the internal helicity whereas the electromagnetic field has not. The internal structure and properties of the Einstein spacetime show that the observed acceleration is an illusion. See the new cosmology described within the Everlasting Theory. You can read about the mistake. The applied formula for the redshift is incorrect. Moreover, there were the decays of the entangled photons produced at the beginning of the expansion of the Universe. This leads to conclusion that brightness of the cosmic objects considerably increased about 13.2 and 5.7 billion years ago. Recapitulation Cosmologists do not understand the origin of the expansion of the Universe i.e. what is the internal structure and properties of the dark energy. This caused that they started from the wrong initial conditions which lead to the illusion that expansion of the Universe accelerates. The same we can say about the neutrino speed i.e. wrong initial conditions lead to wrong conclusions. The GR is associated with spacetime composed of the binary systems of neutrinos, not neutrinos. The binary systems are moving with the speed c whereas the neutrinos with speeds higher than the c but lower than 1.000072c - see pages 104 and 105 in my electronic book ISBN 978-83-933105-0-0.
I've got to say I disagree with you. If the rotary piston engine works (and I don't understand how it would) then it might be a fantastic breakthrough that we will all use in the cars of tomorrow. However, the problem it solves is not a physics problem, it's an engineering problem, so it certainly does not qualify for the Nobel prize in physics. It doesn't look to me like it has much to do with a Wankel engine either. The line between physics and engineering can be quite fine, for example in my university one of my office mates works on nanoscale physics and they collaborate quite extensively with people in the engineering department. What you're saying seems to be that there is no room in the Nobel prize awards committee to develop the remit of the award. Physics is a far more theoretical subject than it was when the awards were founded (whether you like it or not). Alfred Nobel was not god, he was just a rich man. It's like a lot of crackpots on here like to tell us quantum mechanics is wrong because Einstein didn't like it, but that was almost 100 years ago. Physics has moved on a great deal since Nobel and Einstein so if the Nobel prize wasn't allowed to develop it would be like telling the cranks the fact that Einstein didn't like QM was a legitimate criticism.
Nobel's will, which set up the prize, does not speak about "engineering" but specifically does say the prize was for (1) inventions, which (2) made the greatest contribution to mankind. You, like the committee seem to want to ignore Nobel's clear requirements for the award - give the prize to discoveries in physics which almost certainly** will never have any benefit for mankind. ----------- * Then watch the video at link until you do. - Hint focus you attention on the rod torquing the central shaft around - that is how the fuel expanding its chamber (if it is an engine instead of a pump) puts out "shaft horsepower" to turn generator, drive car, etc. The idea is very simple but so far an "outside of the box" solution that I did not get it for five minutes either. ** The nature of Dark Energy, DE, is totally undefined / unexplained. DE is just a name suggested to restate more compactly the observation that very distant stars seem to be accelerating away from each other, instead of slowing by mutual gravitational attraction. There is not even "useless to mankind" theoretical physics here in this re-naming of an astronomical observation. Giving the Noble prize for this is like giving the prize to the guy who first noticed that all the distant stars have longer than normal wave lengths for their discrete line radiation and called that observation the "red shift" without even trying to explain the cause of the "red shift" - just for noticing and naming an astronomical observation with a compact name. DE will NEVER have any benefit for mankind because the energy density of DE is orders of magnitude lower than that of moonlight, which has energy density much too low to be utilized economically. I am just guessing but bet one flea /cc flapping its wings is a million times greater energy density than DE.
This is also my perplexity.Try to find the answer. I guarantee a much better engine than the current (perhaps half the consumption, with the same power) But I am not willing to discuss this in this thread. If you are really interested, this is the place: Rotary Piston
The greatest "contribution" or "benefit" does not have to mean "economic boon." You can quite easily argue that any significant expansion in the knowledge of mankind has its own inherent value separate and distinct from the question of its practical application to our everyday lives. Much as a great work of art is a "contribution" (and Literature has its own prize as a result) so too is a great discovery in physics. I'd say the reason inventions seem to get short shrift is that the prizes were mostly handed out in the 20th century, a century when (for all our technological progress), our fundamental view of how the universe works was forever changed in mind-boggling ways. In the context of the 20th century, an 80-20 split is understandable. Dark energy research may be a poor choice in that it is still speculative, but I am not seeing a strong case that the Nobel committee is far off course overall.
Yes, they do, but literature and art can and do improve the lives of many people. - Noble wanted the award to go for that. You can not seriously state the DE does much of that. If prize is to be given just for making a new astronomical discovery, then much more impact on the people, their lives, and the way they think, is the discovery that habital zone planets do exist and may have intelligent life on them, etc. than forever useless DE discovery concerning stars motions 10+billion light years distant.
The conclusion that the expansion of the Universe accelerates without explanation how the quite unexpected acceleration is possible is not a great discovery in physics. Such ‘acceleration’ can be due to the incomplete mainstream theories.
