Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> writes:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> writes:

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article Roy Jose Lorr <Kenthz@comcast.net> writes:

Politics of Excellence: Behind the Nobel Prize in Science
by Robert Marc Friedman

Read the reviews.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716731037/physicswebA

Oh, for pity's sake. The only two examples provided from this
"sometimes...heavy-handed analysis" are two prize winners
each of whom was each given the Prize for one of his lesser accomplishments,
rather than for another of his successes. In other words: both
deserved Nobels; both received Nobels.

And even that is moot: Michelson's accomplishments in "precision
measurements" underlay his experiment which failed to find the
ether -- thus leading to relativity -- and Einstein's analysis
of the photoeffect underlies all of quantum mechanics. And
quantum mechanics affects everyman on a day-to-day far more than does
relativity -- your computer being one example.

Changing the focus doesn't compute. Its not the work per se
but the politics behind who gets the awards.

Ah. Deserving people end up with the awards, so the the alleged
"politics" -- hardly demonstrated by your example -- lies in disputes
over exactly what to give them the well-earned Prize for?

Well, that certainly debunks the impact of the Lamb Shift.

Lesser accomplishment awarded for political reasons.

Yeah, all it did was provide an experimental underpinning which
allowed Tomonaga, Schwinger, an Feynman to come up with a
usable version of quantum electrodynamics, the practical
basis of modern quantum physics. For which they won the
1965 Nobel.

But that's my opinion' I like to hear more of yours. Please, tell me:
what were the politics behind the awarding of that particular Nobel,
who do you think was more deserving in 1955, and why do you
think that?