

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2009 - edw519
http://nobelprize.org/cgi-bin/print?from=%2Fnobel_prizes%2Fphysics%2Flaureates%2F2009%2Fpress.html

======
arfrank
If you would like to read a fantastic book about the history of Fiber Optics,
what Charles Kao worked on, I would suggest this book:
[http://www.amazon.com/City-Light-Story-Optics-
Technology/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/City-Light-Story-Optics-
Technology/dp/0195162552/)

I found it fascinating and shows the development from first concept through
research phases to practical/commercial use.

------
nebula
<quote> and the other half jointly to

Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, USA
</quote>

For a moment there I didn't see that this one was for work on CCD; And was
surprised thinking Bell labs is still producing Nobel quality stuff;

------
vinutheraj
Why did it take them so many years to recognize this ? Or is it normal from
their parts ?!

~~~
huangm
Theoretical breakthroughs in physics often have an immediate impact on the
theory community, or are solving already 'big' problems (QED, QCD, etc). These
tend to be recognized very quickly.

Engineering breakthroughs tend to take a bit longer to be recognized because
determining whether they are significant takes much longer. There is a
necessary grace period to see whether the breakthrough actually has impact.

~~~
anigbrowl
Agreed, though you'd have to have been living under a rock not to be aware of
the huge impact of fiberoptics even a decade ago. Mr Kuo made his discovery in
1996 and retired in 1996. I wish they would try to be a bit more timely with
these things; sometimes it feels like 'oops, that guy is really old now - we'd
better give him the prize before he passes away'. Oh well - I'm glad to see
these advances recognized, since I use both CCDs and fiberoptics on a regular
basis.

~~~
varjag
True, but is it more or less important than discovering superfluidity in a
helium isotope (1996 prize)? There are plenty of candidates, and waiting lists
tend to be long.

------
timothychung
Yey! Charles is from Hong Kong! :-)

------
Patient0
This seems like more of a technology award than a Physics award. How long has
it been since a pure theoretical physics Nobel has been awarded? Doesn't that
say something?

~~~
tlammens
1 year ago? <http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2008/>

~~~
tlb
A valid version of the question is when was the last prizeworthy discovery was
made. Giant magnetoresistance (2007 prize) was discovered in 1988. Bose-
Einstein condensates (2001 prize) were figured out in 1995. I can't find any
more recent discoveries.

They seem to be trying to clear the backlog. This year's prize is shared by
two basically unrelated ideas, which must be a strategy to catch up.

~~~
DrJokepu
As far as I know this delay is intentional as new discoveries need to stand
the test of time. It would be rather humiliating to award a Nobel prize for
something discovered the previous year just to find out next year that there
is some better, alternative model or there is some experiment which can
disprove the original model.

~~~
nebula
While I agree with the "test of the time" point of view, I don't think the
other part of your argument makes much sense:

1)better alternative model: generally it would not be that hard to guesstimate
the possibility of a significant improvement in the very near future. And even
if someone comes along and proposes a better alternative next year, I don't
think there is anything to feel humiliated about, as long as the original work
that was recognized by the award is really Nobel material.

2) Disproving the original model/theory: Do you know of any theory/model in
physics that was considered proven to be correct, and later disproved?
improvements, enhancements, yes but disproved?

~~~
DrJokepu
I concur, there's nothing wrong with gradual progress of course. On the other
hand, about your second point, there are a number of such models. The
geocentric view of the universe got deprecated with Galilei's discovery of the
Jupiter's moons. More recently, I could mention the Bohr model (electrons
traveling in circular orbit around the nucleus). It was widely considered as
correct at the time and it was in accordance with experimental observations.
However, the Bohr model wasn't improved (although many scientists tried to
save it with extensions of some kind or other), it was completely dropped as
it is simply wrong. It can be disproven by a number of different experiments.

Wikipedia actually has a great collection of superseded scientific theories:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories>

