Indian Physicist ‘cheated’ of Nobel?

[Vibs]

There are loads of scientists the world over coming up with theories and hypothesis. However, the only ones that can be accepted and recognized are the ones that are observable and the results of which can be replicated repeatedly. Also papers do not come up in a matter of months. Years of research go into it.

While this Indian scientist was obviously intelligent enough to predict this, the other 3 scientists were able to draw the same comclusions based on observations. Even if they published their findings a year later, it doesnot mean they stole the idea. Their paper gave some tangible proof of their theory and hence they have been recognized.

On a side note, I find the very act of a Nobel prize in science quite irrelevant! Science and populism do not go well together. Awards to a single research piece every year?? It'd be more apt to have a list of awardees to be recognized and rewarded for their work every year.

 

[JanjaWeed]

Nobel prize not awarded posthumously thats y they declined for M.K.Gandhi for peace and Srinivasa Ramunajam for science(mathematics). May be it lost credibility for peace category but rest of them dng fabulous.

ya.. but they din't have to award posthumously. pease prize was initiated in 1901 & gandhi's struggle did not start posthumously though!!

 

[I spikes therefore I am]

There are loads of scientists the world over coming up with theories and hypothesis. However, the only ones that can be accepted and recognized are the ones that are observable and the results of which can be replicated repeatedly. Also papers do not come up in a matter of months. Years of research go into it.

While this Indian scientist was obviously intelligent enough to predict this, the other 3 scientists were able to draw the same comclusions based on observations. Even if they published their findings a year later, it doesnot mean they stole the idea. Their paper gave some tangible proof of their theory and hence they have been recognized.

On a side note, I find the very act of a Nobel prize in science quite irrelevant! Science and populism do not go well together. Awards to a single research piece every year?? It'd be more apt to have a list of awardees to be recognized and rewarded for their work every year.

I agree with most of your part. But try to understand it won't award for single piece of research work , the fact is hw that paper is lay strong foundations for various kind of research and hw much work that researchers have done with help of that work and hw it opens new arena of research. Thats y they award NP after 10-20 yrs(from publication) of time period ,it won't happen in one night.

 

[cyphercide]

Read the article once again ,his proven theoretically but latter work on experimental observations. Anyone make hypothesis abt anything but practical implications matters. Even some theory are there about to make cancerous cells to zero(nil in one go by tagging signaling networks) so if somebody proved(in future) that in practical means that creditability gng to former one?? tonnes of such abundant hypothesis are there.

Read my post again.I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of some in here to tear into his efforts without considering his claims.He isn't asking for the Nobel itself,just pointing out that he came up with it first.

PS#

“ My theory was based on physics and mathematical calculations. The mathematical model that I followed is called fluctuational cosmology. On the other hand, the model proposed by the Nobel winners was based on observational findings while studying a supernova,”

So we can safely assume he proved the theory as well albeit without the use of giant a*sed telescopes and computers.Does that bellite his findings? absolutely not.So yeah,he was cheated out of a Nobel.

 

[I spikes therefore I am]

ya.. but they din't have to award posthumously. pease prize was initiated in 1901 & gandhi's struggle did not start posthumously though!!

haahaa yeah, sources suggesting that NP committee decided to give NP to him(1948) in the meanwhile he assassinated in same year.

 

[JanjaWeed]

haahaa yeah, sources suggesting that NP committee decided to give NP to him(1948) in the meanwhile he assassinated in same year.

wow... sounds more like it. maybe they din't want to take a chance with Obama!!lol..

 

[Vibs]

I agree with most of your part. But try to understand it won't award for single piece of research work , the fact is hw that paper is lay strong foundations for various kind of research and hw much work that researchers have done with help of that work and hw it opens new arena of research. Thats y they award NP after 10-20 yrs(from publication) of time period ,it won't happen in one night.

I know buddy. I'm not sure if my post suggested something else.
What I was saying is that the 3 scientists did not get the initial idea from the Indian guy and the future work took into account the theory that these guys came up with using observed events and not the Indian guy's theory.
That guy definitely deserves credit for coming up with the theory. But it was not tangible enough to be used for future research.

 

[hunter_hunted]

Come first have first this is all I have to say

 

[I spikes therefore I am]

wow... sounds more like it. maybe they din't want to take a chance with Obama!!lol..

heehaa Anyhow it is great denial ,but at least Nelson mandela got who followed Gandhian way. so v have to console our-self in that manner.

 

[Hemlock]

Read the article once again ,his proven theoretically but latter work on experimental observations. Anyone make hypothesis abt anything but practical implications matters. Even some theory are there about to make cancerous cells to zero(nil in one go by tagging signaling networks) so if somebody proved(in future) that in practical means that creditability gng to former one?? tonnes of such abundant hypothesis are there.

My friend,Nobel academy for science has a disturbing precedence of awarding concepts which is improved upon some one else idea but snubbing or ignoring the earlier scientist's contribution.
Theory proved by valid equations are no less important than findings through observation,mate.
If 'theory is so hypothetical' argument is to be put forth then Einstein should have to be considered a quack. because almost everything he proposed were theory and hypothesis derived from mathematical equations.
even today his theory which is considered as a mathematical anomaly or realistically absurd are proved though scientific advancements. His concept of space-time fabric and gravitational wave theory are few such example.
Albert Einstein was right, say scientists, 100 years on | Science | The Observer

I have no doubts about this Indian scientist's claims for he has clearly explained his theory in a mathematical structure rather than as an out of blue voodoo astrological prediction and published it in a prestigious journal . His Finding like many others after him were rejected as mathematically possible but realistically impossible yet when proved otherwise by observation he was ignored.
I Pity him but he is one among many others in nobel's 'i-dont-know-you-said-that-before' list.