Thursday, 20 December 2018

Scientists find a way to connect quantum and classical physics


December 19, 2018, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology

Scientists find a way to connect quantum and classical physics
Hybrid quantum-classical spin system. Credit: Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology

Physicists from Skoltech have invented a new method for calculating the dynamics of large quantum systems. Underpinned by a combination of quantum and classical modeling, the method has been successfully applied to nuclear magnetic resonance in solids. The results of the study were published in Physical Review B.
Physical objects around us consist of atoms which, in turn, are made up of negatively charged electrons and positively charged nuclei. Many of atomic nuclei are magnetic – they can be thought of as tiny magnets, which can get excited by an oscillating . This phenomenon known as "" (NMR) was discovered in the first half of the 20thcentury. Five Nobel prizes have been awarded since then, first for the discovery and then for various applications of NMR—magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) being the most prominent of them.
Although NMR was discovered more than 70 years ago, it still has some blank spots, such as quantitative prediction of the relaxation of nuclear magnetic moments in solids after NMR excitation. This is a particular case representing a more general problem of describing the dynamics of a large number of interacting  particles. Direct quantum simulation is out of the question already for a few hundred particles, for it requires enormous computational resources not available to humankind.
It is then tempting to explore an approximate approach based on simulating the core of a many-particle  using quantum dynamics, while dealing with the rest purely classically—that is, without admitting quantum superpositions. However, it is precisely the quantum superpositions that make the coupling of quantum and classical dynamics a non-trivial task: a classical system is in one state at each point in time, whereas a quantum system can be simultaneously in several states, much like Schrödinger's cat which can be alive and dead at the same time. It is thus not clear which of the superimposed quantum states governs the impact of the quantum part on the classical one.
Skoltech researchers, Ph.D. student Grigory Starkov and Professor Boris Fine, overcame multiple stumbling blocks and proposed a hybrid computational  combining quantum and classical modeling. "In general, the averaging over quantum superpositons significantly reduces the action of the quantum core on the classical environment. We found a way to compensate such an averaging effect, while keeping the most essential dynamic correlations intact," Starkov explained. The proposed method was thoroughly tested on various systems by evaluating its performance against numerical calculations and . The new method is expected to offer broader capabilities to scientists in simulating the magnetic dynamics of nuclei in solids, which, in turn, will facilitate the NMR diagnostics of complex materials.
"This work culminates years of our intensive efforts," said Fine. "Many teams around the world attempted to make such calculations over the past 70 years. Here we succeeded in advancing the predictive performance of NMR calculations to a new level. We do hope that our hybrid approach will find broad use in the NMR domain and beyond."

More information: Grigory A. Starkov et al. Hybrid quantum-classical method for simulating high-temperature dynamics of nuclear spins in solids, Physical Review B (2018). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.214421 




Thursday, 13 December 2018

Whats dark energy

So what is dark energy? 

Well, the simple answer is that we don't know. It seems to contradict many of our understandings about the way the universe works.

We all know that light waves, also called radiation, carry energy. You feel that energy the moment you step outside on a hot summer day.Einstein's famous equation, E = mc2, teaches us that matter and energy are interchangeable, merely different forms of the same thing. We have a giant example of that in our sky: the Sun. The Sun is powered by the conversion of mass to energy.

SOMETHING FROM NOTHING

Subatomic Large Scale

Could dark energy show a link between the physics of the very small and the physics of the large?
But energy is supposed to have a source — either matter or radiation. The notion here is that space, even when devoid of all matter and radiation, has a residual energy. That "energy of space," when considered on a cosmic scale, leads to a force that increases the expansion of the universe.
Perhaps dark energy results from weird behavior on scales smaller than atoms. The physics of the very small, called quantum mechanics, allows energy and matter to appear out of nothingness, although only for the tiniest instant. The constant brief appearance and disappearance of matter could be giving energy to otherwise empty space.
It could be that dark energy creates a new, fundamental force in the universe, something that only starts to show an effect when the universe reaches a certain size. Scientific theories allow for the possibility of such forces. The force might even be temporary, causing the universe to accelerate for some billions of years before it weakens and essentially disappears.
Or perhaps the answer lies within another long-standing unsolved problem, how to reconcile the physics of the large with the physics of the very small. Einstein's theory of gravity, called general relativity, can explain everything from the movements of planets to the physics of black holes, but it simply doesn't seem to apply on the scale of the particles that make up atoms. To predict how particles will behave, we need the theory of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics explains the way particles function, but it simply doesn't apply on any scale larger than an atom. The elusive solution for combining the two theories might yield a natural explanation for dark energy.

STRANGER AND STRANGER

Pie Chart - 74% Dark Energy, 22% Dark Matter, 4% Visible Matter

Most of the universe seems to consist of nothing we can see. Dark energy and dark matter, detectable only because of their effect on the visible matter around them, make up most of the universe.
We do know this: Since space is everywhere, this dark energy force is everywhere, and its effects increase as space expands. In contrast, gravity's force is stronger when things are close together and weaker when they are far apart. Because gravity is weakening with the expansion of space, dark energy now makes up over 2/3 of all the energy in the universe.
It sounds rather strange that we have no firm idea about what makes up 74% of the universe. It's as though we had explored all the land on the planet Earth and never in all our travels encountered an ocean. But now that we've caught sight of the waves, we want to know what this huge, strange, powerful entity really is.
The strangeness of dark energy is thrilling.
It shows scientists that there is a gap in our knowledge that needs to be filled, beckoning the way toward an unexplored realm of physics. We have before us the evidence that the cosmos may be configured vastly differently than we imagine. Dark energy both signals that we still have a great deal to learn, and shows us that we stand poised for another great leap in our understanding of the universe.

source: hubblesuite

Monday, 26 November 2018

What is the most fundamental principle of quantum physics?

1) Particles are waves, and vice versa. Quantum physics tells us that every object in the universe has both particle-like and wave-like properties. It's not that everything is really waves, and just sometimes looks like particles, or that everything is made of particles that sometimes fool us into thinking they're waves. Every object in the universe is a new kind of object-- call it a "quantum particle" that has some characteristics of both particles and waves, but isn't really either.
Quantum particles behave like particles, in that they are discrete and (in principle) countable. Matter and energy come in discrete chunks, and whether you're trying to locate an atom or detect a photon of light, you will find it in one place, and one place only.
Quantum particles also behave like waves, in that they show effects like diffraction and interference. If you send a beam of electrons or a beam of photons through a narrow slit, they will spread out on the far side. If you send the beam at two closely spaced slits, they will produce a pattern of alternating bright and dark spots on the far side of the slits, as if they were water waves passing through both slits at once and interfering on the other side. This is true even though each individual particle is detected at a single location, as a particle.
2) Quantum states are discrete. The "quantum" in quantum physics refers to the fact that everything in quantum physics comes in discrete amounts. A beam of light can only contain integer numbers of photons-- 1, 2, 3, 137, but never 1.5 or 22.7. An electron in an atom can only have certain discrete energy values-- -13.6 electron volts, or -3.4 electron volts in hydrogen, but never -7.5 electron volts. No matter what you do, you will only ever detect a quantum system in one of these special allowed states.
3) Probability is all we ever know. When physicists use quantum mechanics to predict the results of an experiment, the only thing they can predict is the probability of detecting each of the possible outcomes. Given an experiment in which an electron will end up in one of two places, we can say that there is a 17% probability of finding it at point A and an 83% probability of finding it at point B, but we can never say for sure that a single given electron will definitely end up at A or definitely end up at B. No matter how careful we are to prepare each electron in exactly the same way, we can never say for definitiviely what the outcome of the experiment will be. Each new electron is a completely new experiment, and the final outcome is random.
4) Measurement determines reality. Until the moment that the exact state of a quantum particle is measured, that state is indeterminate, and in fact can be thought of as spread out over all the possible outcomes. After a measurement is made, the state of the particle is absolutely determined, and all subsequent measurements on that particle will return produce exactly the same outcome.
This seems impossible to believe-- it's the problem that inspired Erwin Schrödinger's (in)famous thought experiment regarding a cat that is both alive and dead-- but it is worth reiterating that this is absolutely confirmed by experiment. The double-slit experiment mentioned above can be thought of as confirmation of this indeterminacy-- until it is finally measured at a single position on the far side of the slits, an electron exists in a superposition of both possible paths. The interference pattern observed when many electrons are recorded one after another is a direct consequence of the superposition of multiple states.
The Quantum Zeno Effect is another example of the effects of quantum measurement: making repeated measurements of a quantum system can prevent it from changing its state. Between measurements, the system exists in a superposition of two possible states, with the probability of one increasing and the other decreasing. Each measurements puts the system back into a single definite state, and the evolution has to start over.
The effects of measurement can be interpreted in a number of different ways-- as the physical "collapse" of a wavefunction, as the splitting of the universe into many parallel worlds, etc.-- but the end result is the same in all of them. A quantum particle can and will occupy multiple states right up until the instant that it is measured; after the measurement it is in one and only one state.
5) Quantum correlations are non-local. One of the strangest and most important consequences of quantum mechanics is the idea of "entanglement." When two quantum particles interact in the right way, their states will depend on one another, no matter how far apart they are. You can hold one particle in Princeton and send the other to Paris, and measure them simultaneously, and the outcome of the measurement in Princeton will absolutely and unequivocally determine the outcome of the measurement in Paris, and vice versa.
The correlation between these states cannot possibly be described by any local theory, in which the particles have definite states. These states are indeterminate until the instant that one is measured, at which time the states of both are absolutely determined, no matter how far apart they are. This has been experimentally confirmed dozens of times over the last thirty years or so, with light and even atoms, and every new experiment has absolutely agreed with the quantum prediction.
It must be noted that this does not provide a means of sending signals faster than light-- a measurement in Paris will determine the state of a particle in Princeton, but the outcome of each measurement is completely random. There is no way to manipulate the Parisian particle to produce a specifc result in Princeton. The correlation between measurements will only be apparent after the fact, when the two sets of results are compared, and that process has to take place at speeds slower than that of light.
6) Everything not forbidden is mandatory. A quantum particle moving from point A to point B will take absolutely every possible path from A to B, at the same time. This includes paths that involve highly improbable events like electron-positron pairs appearing out of nowhere, and disappearing again. The full theory of quantum electro-dynamics (QED) involves contributions from every possible process, even the ridiculously unlikely ones.
It's worth emphasizing that this is not some speculative mumbo-jumbo with no real applicability. A QED prediction of the interaction between an electron and a magnetic field correctly describes the interaction to 14 decimal places. As weird as the idea seems, it is one of the best-tested theories in the history of science.
7) Quantum physics is not magic. Yeah, this was on the other list as well, but it's so important that it needs repeating. As strange as quantum physics is-- and don't get me wrong, it's plenty weird-- it does not suspend all the rules of common sense. The bedrock principles of physics are still intact: energy is still conserved, entropy still increases, nothing can move faster than the speed of light. You cannot exploit quantum effects to build a perpetual motion machine, or to create telepathy or clairvoyance.
Quantum mechanics has lots of features that defy our classical intuition-- indeterminate states, probabilitistic measurements, non-local effects-- but it is still subject to the most important rule at all: If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Anybody trying to peddle a perpetual motion machine or a mystic cure using quantum buzzwords is deluded at best, or a scam artist at worst.

source: scienceblogs

Saturday, 24 November 2018

What happens to the mass of a matter when its burnt | Law of conservation of energy

Before we move on we have to know whats matter is made up of.

whats matter? 

matter is something which occupies space it may be liquid,solid or gas anything

Universe is mainly made up of 3 types of matter:

so most of the universe is made of three types of matter i.e 
Dark energy,Dark matter and Normal matter



121236_NewPieCharts720
credits: NASA/ESA

when we burn a piece of paper wha happens

1.The atoms of molecules combine to release energy which is in the form of light and heat

2.The carbon and hydrogen in the paper combine with the oxygen in the air to form co2 and so here the solid elements carbon and hydrogen converts in to gaseous state by reacting with oxygen and released in the atmosphere

3.Thus we think that the mass or energy of the paper or anything which is burnt is reduced but actuall not.

 

 How is the question?


If we can get back the gaseous carbon which is converted and weigh with ashes of the paper then its the same mass which is equals to the paper prior to burning

Thus its been said that the energy and mass of the bodies are same i.e the energy can neither be created nor destroyed but converted from one state to other

on the other hand if you burn a metal like steel or copper it reacts with the oxygen in the air and the oxygen in the air sticks to the metal and gains mass

Sunday, 11 November 2018

How does quantum mechanics differ from classical physics?

In brief, the main difference between quantum and classical physics is the difference between a ramp and a staircase.
In classical mechanics, events (in general) are continuous, which is to say they move in smooth, orderly and predicable patterns. Projectile motion is a good example of classical mechanics. Or the colors or the rainbow, where frequencies progress continuously from red through violet. Events, in other words, proceed incrementally up a ramp.
In quantum mechanics, events (in particular) are unpredictable, which is to say "jumps" occur that involve seemingly random transitions between states: hence the term "quantum leaps". Moreover a quantum leap is an all or nothing proposition, sort of like jumping from the roof of one building onto another. You either make it or you break it! Events in the quantum world, in other words, jump from one stair to the next and are seemingly discontinuous
Electrons, for example, transition between energy levels in an atom by making quantum leaps from one level to the next. This is seen in the emission spectra, where various colors, indicative of energy level transitions made by electrons, are separated by dark areas. The dark areas represent the area through which electrons make quantum -- and therefore dis-continuous -- leaps between energy levels.
There are many other differences between quantum and classical mechanics involving, for example, explanations of the so-called "ultraviolet catastrophe", but these are too technical to discuss in detail here.
Let me just say the final difference between classical and quantum mechanics is the quantum notion of the "complementary nature of light", which states that light is BOTH a particle, which has mass, and a wave, which has none. This seemingly contradictory concept shows how weird quantum physics can be when compared to classical physics.

Sunday, 21 October 2018

Controversies and facts about Nobel Peace Prize winners

The 2016 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded October 7, 2016, to Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, who became president in 2010 and signed a historic peace deal with FARC rebel leader Rodrigo Londono in September.
The deal was hailed as an end to 52 years of war, which has cost the lives of at least 220,000 Colombians and displaced close to 6 million people. It also provided a pathway for FARC to disarm and become a political party. Although the peace deal was rejected at a referendum by a tiny margin of 50.23% to 49.76%, both sides have said they will try to salvage the accord.
The prize worth 8 million Swedish crowns ($930,000) was announced at the Norwegian Nobel Institute and will be presented in Oslo on December 10.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee each year awards the Nobel Peace Prize "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." It is one of the five Nobel Prizes established by the 1895 will of Alfred Nobel (who died in 1896), awarded for outstanding contributions in chemistry, physics, literature, peace, and physiology or medicine.
The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded 97 times to 130 Nobel Laureates between 1901 and 2016, 104 individuals and 26 organizations. Since the International Committee of the Red Cross has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize three times (in 1917, 1944 and 1963), and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize two times (in 1954 and 1981), there are 23 individual organizations which have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
For the past 10 years the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to:
2015. National Dialogue Quartet "for its decisive contribution to the building of a pluralistic democracy in Tunisia in the wake of the Jasmine Revolution of 2011"
2014. Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai "for their struggle against the suppression of children and young people and for the right of all children to education"
2013. Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) "for its extensive efforts to eliminate chemical weapons"
2012. European Union (EU) "for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe"
2011. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkol Karman "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women's rights to full participation in peace-building work"
2010. Liu Xiaobo "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China"
2009. Barack H. Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples"
In a move called “a stunning surprise” by the New York Times, Barack Obama was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize only 12 days after he took office in 2009. When he actually won the prize only months into his first term in office, many accused the Nobel Peace Prize Committee of being politically motivated since the president was chosen to receive the award for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” rather than any concrete achievements.
2008. Martti Ahtisaari "for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts"
2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"
Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize win was, according to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, awarded because “he is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted” regarding climate change and global warming. The problem was many felt Gore was undeserving of the award since he hardly practiced what he preached, The CheatSheet says. In 2006, shocking electric and gas bills from the Gore household showed that his 20-room home and “pool house” were eating up over 20 times the national average electricity usage.
2006. Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank "for their efforts to create economic and social development from below"
2005. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Mohamed ElBaradei "for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way"
The first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 1901 to Frédéric Passy (a French economist) and Henry Dunant (the founder of the Red Cross).
Among the most controversial Nobel Peace Prize winners are U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger(1973) and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (1994).
The U.S. Secretary of State during both the Nixon and Ford administrations was a joint winner in 1973 with North Vietnamese leader Le Duc Tho. Le Duc Tho rejected the award, given for the pair’s peace work in South Vietnam, because he felt that peace had not yet been achieved in the area — and doubly, didn’t want to share the award with Kissinger, who accepted the award “with humility,” but many felt that it should never have been offered to him in the first place. There were two reasons for this controversy. Kissinger was accused of war crimes for his alleged role in America’s secret bombing of Cambodia between 1969 and 1975. His win was also called premature since North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam two years after the prize was awarded, voiding his work. Two Norwegian Nobel Committee members resigned to protest Kissinger’s win.
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” wrote TIME of the heated debate surrounding Yasser Arafat’s controversial Nobel Peace Prize win. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994, sharing the award with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres for the trio’s work on the Oslo Peace Accords, a document meant to create “opportunities for a new development toward fraternity in the Middle East.” Criticism has been heaped on the committee for this award not only because of the failure of the Oslo accords but because of Arafat himself. Although Arafat publicly spoke out against terrorism, he’s been called “The worst man to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize” by his critics.
Some interesting facts
Among the Nobel Laureates, the two most common dates for birthdays are May 21 and February 28. The average age of all Nobel Peace Prize Laureates between 1901 and 2015 is 61 years. To date, the youngest Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is Malala Yousafzai, who was 17 years old when awarded the 2014 Peace Prize. The oldest Nobel Peace Prize Laureate to date is Joseph Rotblat, who was 87 years old when he was awarded the Prize in 1995.

Sunday, 14 October 2018

Which scientists were robbed of a Nobel Prize?

Dr. Yellapragada Subba Row (1895–1948) was worth not just one, but arguably 4 Nobel Prizes. His work includes:
  • Discovery of Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) as the primary source of energy in the cell
  • Based on Lucy Wills’ work, he synthesized Folic acid (Vitamin B9)
  • He synthesized Methotrexate - still used as a chemotherapy agent for Cancer (with Sidney Farber)
  • Hetrazan for Filariasis, and
  • A broad spectrum tetracycline antibiotic Aureomycin (with Benjamin Duggar)
Each one of the aforementioned is Nobel-worthy and he might very well have won it for Aureomycin, had he not died young (at 53). He was also well known for his humility in not claiming intellectual rights, even as others would claim credit and went onto win the Nobel.
Dr. Subba Rao is a remarkable human being as Doron Antrim writes "You've probably never heard of Dr. Yellapragada Subbarao. Yet because he lived, you may be alive and are well today. Because he lived, you may live longer."
Personal Note: I am especially proud of this man’s achievements as he is my maternal grand-uncle.
Source: quoran

In physics, Nobel Prizes are viewed as impacting people’s legacies to science rather than any financial rewards. Most physicists aren’t particularly concerned with money — they’re paid fairly and have a good life. They care more about their research funding than their take home pay. Most physicists care about their legacies at some level and so the impact of being “robbed” of a Nobel Prize should be viewed as having their legacies being diminished.
At the same time, no one expects a Nobel Prize — one can make a lifetime of important contributions and never have the stars align for it be “Nobel”-worthy.
There are two famous examples in the Physics Nobel Prize:
Lise Meitner is the worse example. She was arguably the intellectual leader of the group that discovered Uranium fission. Because she was a Jewish woman in Nazi Germany, she suffered immense discrimination. The Nobel Committee opened the deliberations into the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and determined that her exclusion from Otto Hahn’s prize was “unjust.” See this Physics Today article[1] for additional details:
Meitner's exclusion, however, points to other flaws in the decision process, and to four factors in particular: the difficulty of evaluating an interdisciplinary discovery, a lack of expertise in theoretical physics, Sweden's scientific and political isolation during the war, and a general failure of the evaluation committees to appreciate the extent to which German persecution of Jews skewed the published scientific record.
Vera Rubin measured the galactic rotation curves of galaxies and discovered that there was not enough visible matter to correspond to the implied gravity. This became the first basis for existence of dark matter (there is so much more now). It is completely baffling why by the late 1990s or early 2000s this wasn’t considered minimally a discovery that requires gravity to change its behavior (arguably a more radical discovery) or a new form of gravitating matter that makes up the majority of the mass in the Universe. The discovery of dark energy was awarded the Nobel Prize before Vera Rubin’s death, even though it is no more significant and arguably less established (though still deserving of a Nobel Prize).
Another less clear and less known example is Erick Weinberg — he was a precocious graduate student at Harvard working on tons of important work in Quantum Field Theory in the 1970s. Politzer, his fellow student, was given a problem by their graduate advisor, Sydney Coleman. Erick Weinberg didn’t have bandwidth to do the problem himself, but he helped David Politzer. The lore is that Erick ended up doing the whole problem — though didn't realize that lasting impact that -11/3 (the result of the calculation) would be (is arguably the most important result in theoretical physics in the second half of the 20th century). That result became known as asymptotic freedom and discovered the origin of the Strong Force. Politzer shared the Nobel Prize with Frank Wilczek and David Gross in 2004. Amusingly Wilczek and Gross initially got the sign wrong and no one believed Politzer’s results. Politzer doggedly convinced Coleman that he was right and Wilczek and Gross found their mistake. This account is contested: Politzer claims that he never saw Weinberg’s result, Weinberg claims it was in his thesis. Weinberg put his thesis online in 2005[2](after the Nobel speech by Politzer called the Dilemma of Attribution in 2004[3] ) which had the result — I personally haven’t gone to the Harvard Library to confirm Erick Weinberg’s thesis hasn’t been altered, but he has always seemed very honest and he would have more to lose (he’s editor of Physical Review D and would lose his standing in the field with a fabrication). This should be relegate to historians to figure out (it may already have been) — chances are both of these accounts are true and false.
All mathematicians, many theoretical physicists. There is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics. Why who knows? There is the Fields Medal, though that is arguably of a different nature. There are historical reasons for leaving off mathematics, but the list of prizes has grown over the years (notably medicine in 1901 and economics in 1968).
To win a Nobel Prize in Physics as a theoretical physicist, you must have your theory experimentally established. This has precluded many luminaries like Ed Witten and Steven Hawking from winning Nobel Prizes though their work is far more significant than many awarded Nobel Prizes. This has led to bizarre reasoning for some theoretical physicists winning the Nobel Prize — ’t Hooft and Veltman had to wait until the discovery of the top quark to come up with an “experimental” verification of their work that established broken gauge theories are renormalizable. This was stupid — there was zero, literally zero, doubt that their work was right and the experiment did nothing to convince anyone that their work was more right.
Footnotes

source: quoran

Which scientists deserved to win a Nobel Prize but never won?

Nobel Prize has the distinction of being the most sought after prize and the fame that it gives for the recipients is incredible. There are many prizes which are older than Nobel Prize (for e.g. Copley Medal of the Royal Society) and also which gives higher prize money than Nobel Prize (for e.g. Breakthrough Prize), yet these prize could not match the glamour of the Nobel prize. Well as a matter of fact, many times it is not the award that a person has received that counts, but the work that one did. For e.g., do you know the person who won the Nobel Prize in 1955? I don’t know, unless I search for it. In the similar manner, do you know what is the contribution of Alfred Kastler towards physics, who has won the Nobel Prize in 1966? My answer to this question will also be no, unless I google it. On the other hand, it is quite known to all people that bosons are name after Satyendra Nath Bose, it was Edwin Hubble who discovered that galaxies are moving away from each other and Ludwig Boltzmann single-handedly created the classical statistical mechanics. This list can go on. So it’s quite clear that, after a long time it is not the medals or awards that will judge one’s discovery/invention- the discovery/ invention itself will speak for its creator.
And also it is strange that Nobel Prize is not awarded in the case of mathematics, which is regarded as “the queen of Science” [as quoted in Gauss zum Gedächtniss (1856) by Wolfgang Sartorius von Waltershausen] through which all the benefits of mankind can be achieved (please note that Alfred Nobel's reads as “prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind”).
So, the emphasis of this answer is not to tell that how important Nobel prize is, rather I will assume that it is an award worthy of getting some attention from the people. Now, that being said, these are the people whom I deem worthy of awarding the Nobel Prize in Physics, but was not awarded.
  1. Henri Poincaré (1854- 1912):
Photo Courtesy: Henri Poincaré
The ruling out Poincare as a Nobel Prize winner will remain as a permanent blot on Nobel committee. He was nominated for 51 times in a time spanning from 1904 to 1912 [in a single year different nominator can nominate same person and also single nominator can nominate multiple person. That is how in 8 years, he got 51 nominations! See this link also]. To get better understanding of procedure to award Nobel Prize, it is better on look at these being done. Only one thing is has to be specified: The Academy usually approves the recommendations made by Nobel Committee, but it is not mandatory that every time Academy has to accepts the recommendations. During the course of many years, the Academy members really enjoyed in exercising this ‘veto’ power. In 1910, out of the 58 nomination that has been received, Poincaré was nominated by 34 people with a majority of 59%. But, the Nobel Prize in that year went to Johannes Diderik van der Waals, who just got only one nomination (seriously?!). And, this is not first and last time. During time spanning between 1901 and 1966, Academy favoured the majority’s decision only 29 times [see How Nobel favorites have fared]. As to why and how Poincaré didn't receive the award, I would like to quote from above reference:
Poincaré also failed to secure the support of the most influential committee member, Chairman Svante Arrhenius. Largely to oppose a rival in the academy who had initiated the campaign for Poincaré, Arrhenius pushed the candidacy of countryman Knut Ångström. Even Ångström’s death before the announcement of the prize couldn’t save Poincaré; according to Friedman, Arrhenius just dug up documentation in support of Johannes van der Waals, who had long been dismissed as a candidate and whose critical research had taken place in the 1870s. (Alfred Nobel’s bequest requires that the awards be based on achievements “during the preceding year.”) A single 1910 nomination from Harvard physicist Theodore Richards was all van der Waals needed to win the prize. Poincaré received additional votes before his death in 1912 but never won the Nobel.
2. Josiah Willard Gibbs (1839- 1903):
Photo Courtesy: Josiah Willard Gibbs
His work in mathematics, thermodynamics and related branches has made him one among the foremost scientist. Once Einstein was asked were the greatest men, the most powerful thinkers he had known, he replied, “‘Lorentz,' and added, 'I never met Willard Gibbs; perhaps, had I done so, I might have placed him beside Lorentz'” [ Pais, Abraham (1982). Subtle is the Lord. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 73]. He was not even nominated for this prize.
3. Ludwig Boltzmann (1844- 1906):
Photo Courtesy: Ludwig Boltzmann
He is mainly known for his pioneering works in statistical mechanics. Boltzmann was the person who uncovered the microscopic meaning of entropy in second law of thermodynamics. Boltzmann also laid foundation for Maxwell- Boltzmann statistics and conceived the idea of Boltzmann equation. Boltzmann could not stand up the criticism from other people, which led to his suicide in 1906. Was nominated in 1903, 1905 and 1906, but has not received the award. The famous Boltzmann equation linking macroscopic entropy to statistics of molecules is engraved in his tomb.
4. Jagdish Chandra Bose (1858- 1937):
Photo Courtesy: Jagdish Chandra BosePhoto of J.C. Bose, centre, with his students Meghnad Saha, J.C. Ghosh (both sitting), S. Dutta (from Left, standing), S.N. Bose, D.M. Bose, N.R. Sen, J.N. Mukherjee and N.C. Nag.
The person who was communicating with plants. He was a polymath who has researched into physics, botany and radio science. He was can be named as the first biophysicist in India (not sure whether there are any other) who found out that plants do indeed have life cycle and invented a instrument called crescograph for measuring the growth in plants. During a November 1894 public demonstration at Town Hall of Kolkata, Bose ignited gunpowder and rang a bell at a distance using millimetre range wavelength microwaves, much before Guglielmo Marconi tried to send electromagnetic waves through air. For this reason Bose is sometimes known as father of wireless telecommunication [ see also: the unsung Hero of Radio Communication and http://www.iisc.ernet.in/insa/ch... ]. He also was never nominated for the prize.
5. Arnold Sommerfeld (1868 – 1951):
Photo Courtesy: Born, Max. "Arnold Johannes Wilhelm Sommerfeld. 1868-1951." Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society 8.21 (1952): 275-296.
A great pioneer in the field of old quantum theory. Also, a great teacher who has produced a plethora of excellent scientists. He was nominated for a record of 84times in between 1917 and 1951, still academy couldn’t find that he is worthy enough to give award. It is interesting to note that many of his students went on to become Nobel Laurates. Max von Laue was his post graduate student at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU) under Sommerfeld. Lau got Nobel in 1914 and he had this strange fate to nominate his teacher for an award that he got- Laue nominated Sommerfeld for 5 time in the time spanning 1917-1933. Don’t worry, Nobel Committee has a reason to tell about this:
he had no single, great achievement that the committee could point to, even though his collective body of work stacked up to those of contemporaries who won the prize [see: How to almost win the physics Nobel ].
Sigh!
6. Lise Meitner (1878–1968):
Photo Courtesy: Frisch, Otto Robert. "Lise Meitner. 1878-1968." Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 16 (1970): 405-420.
Famously known as “German Marie Curie” [as called by Einstein]. In 1938, Otto Han and Fritz Strassmann showed that when you bombard Uranium with neutron, element Barium is formed. But it was Meitner and her nephew who interpreted the results correctly, thereby coining the term ‘fission’ in physics for the first time [http://www.ias.ac.in/article/ful...]. Her contribution were abated when Nobel Committee awarded Nobel Prize for Chemistry to Otto Han in 1944 "for his discovery of the fission of heavy nuclei". She was nominated for 48 times in the time spanning from 1937 to 1948, without any success. Also, one more point worth to note: note that she was Boltzmann’s student.
7. Emmy Noether (1882–1935):
Photo Courtesy: Emmy Noether
Symmetry of mathematical equation gives rise to a conserved quantity. Simple as it sound, this theorem (known as Noether’s theorem) had helped us to sort out various fundamental particles and to identify them. She was highly regarded by Einstein, Hermann Weyl, David Hilbert and Felix Klein. Her application for admission as a faculty to University of Gotteingen created much furore and it led David Hilbert to utter this words:
“I do not see that the sex of the candidate is an argument against her admission as privatdozent. After all, we are a university, not a bath house”.
She, too, was not even nominated for Nobel Prize.
8.Edwin Hubble (1889-1953):
Photo Courtesy: Edwin Hubble
Warning: Smoking is injurious to health.
Ever expanding universe in all the way was a paradigm shifting observation. Edwin Hubble found out this observation using Carnegie Institute’s Mount Wilson Observatory. Though Einstein himself found out that the Universe was expanding using his own theory of relativity, he put forward a factor (cosmological constant) to prove that Universe is static. But Hubble’s observation forced Einstein to accept the fact that Universe is expanding and made him to tell that introduction of cosmological constant was biggest blunder in his life. He got nomination for in 1953, but couldn’t convince the Committee that he is worth for it.
9. Meghnad Saha (1893–1956):
Photo Courtesy: Kothari, D. S. "Meghnad Saha. 1893-1956." Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 5 (1960): 217-236.
Let me quote Svein Rosseland, in the introduction to his well-known Theoretical Astrophysics: Atomic Theory and the Analysis of Stellar Atmospheres and Envelopes:
Although Bohr must thus be considered the pioneer in the field [of atomic theory], it was the Indian physicist Meghnad Saha who (1920) first attempted to develop a consistent theory of the spectral sequence of the stars from the point of view of atomic theory. . . . The impetus given to astrophysics by Saha’s work can scarcely be overestimated, as nearly all later progress in this field has been influenced by it and much of the subsequent work has the character of refinements of Saha’s ideas”.
He was nominated by 7 times.
10. Satyendra Nath Bose (1894- 1974):
Photo Courtesy: Satyendra Nath Bose with P. A. M Dirac
The whole world we live is filled with the particle that has been named after him. But academy could see it. He was nominated by in 1956, 1959 and 1962. It is interesting to note that both Saha and Bose was classmates in Presidency College, Calcutta along with P. C. Mahalanobis, where they were taught by J. C. Bose. In the final year exam, Bose came as first and Saha came second. Also, along with Saha, Bose produced the first English translation ever published of relativity papers by Einstein and Minkowski in 1919.
11. L. H. Germer (1896- 1971):
Photo Courtesy: L. H. Germer
Clinton Davisson (left) and Lester Germer (right) with tube used in electron diffraction work, taken at West Street, New York City, New York.
de Broglie suggested, by combining Planck’s law and relativity theory, that matter particle (for e.g. electrons) have wave like properties. The decisive test of this idea was conducted by Davisson and Lester H Germer in USA and independently by G. P Thomson from England in 1927 (ironically G. P Thomson’s father had showed that electrons are particles!). For this path breaking experiments, Davissson and Thomson got Nobel Prize in 1937, but Nobel Committee refused to give it to Germer, though he was nominated along with Germer.
12. George Uhlenbeck (1900-1988)/ Samuel Goudsmit (1908-1978):
Photo Courtesy: Pais, Abraham. George Uhlenbeck and the discovery of electron spin. na, 1989.
Seen in the above picture is George Uhlenbeck (L) with Hendrik Kramers (C) and Samuel Goudsmit (R).
The whole world of elementary particle that now we see has been classified on the basis of spin of fundamental particles. Yet the people who proposed it didn't get the award. Uhlenbeck was nominated for 47 times and Goudsmit was nominated 48 times yet success eluded them.
13. George Gamow (1904–1968):
Photo Courtesy: My world line- An informal autobiography by George Gamow
The original creator of big bang theory, one of the best popular science writer, a pioneer in QM, nuclear physicist… Gamow was not that much successful in securing the nomination itself: he was nominated for the prize for in 1943 and 1946.
14. Robert H. Dicke (1916-1997) and Jim Peebles (1935- ):
Photo Courtesy: Robert Dicke (up) & James E. Peebles (down)
Cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), which is the electromagnetic radiation left over by big bang, has an interesting story to tell. The extreme hot, dense early universe would have expanded and temperature would have drooped down substantially. Alpher (1921- 2007) and Herman (1919-1997) in 1948 have found that temperature of this thermal background would be 5K. Since their theory could not account for the abundance of other heavier elements, this theory was forgotten. Not knowing this, Dicke and his colleague Peeble carried out the calculation and came to conclusion that the temperature of the radiation will be in the microwave range. As excellent experimentalist, Dicke tried to build a microwave receiver to detect it at Princeton. The success eluded them and it was strange coincidence that another 2 people found it, accidentally. Arno Allan Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson were trying to clear out the noise that they were receiving in their microwave receiver. But seems like, this is not the effect of any other parameters like components of antenna or bird droppings. Penzias discussed this issue with Bernard Burke, who was his colleague radio astronomy, who in turn referred to Dicke. When contacted Robert Dicke, Penzias and Wilson discovered that they were listening to ‘echo’ of big bang, which Robert Dicke carried out theoretical framework and was searching for. Dicke and Peebles was happy that to see their theoretical prediction becoming reality, but sad that they couldn’t find it. Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1977, just because they accidentally discovered it. Nobel committee didn’t give a damn about the people who laid the theory for it!
As a matter of fact, it is often said that Dicke nearly missed many Nobels [ See the neat article written by Vasant Natarajan].
15. E. C. George Sudarshan (1931- 2018):
Photo Courtesy: E. C. George Sudarshan
We know him for his proposition of elementary particle which moves faster than light, which we call as tachyons. But his expertise is not limited to relativistic physics. His range of contribution ranges from Optical coherence, Sudarshan-Glauber representation, V-A theory, Tachyons, Quantum Zeno effect, Open quantum system, Spin-statistics theorem. For Sudarshan-Glauber representation, Roy J. Glauber has received the Noble in 2005, but Sudarshan was denied of it. It was a subject of big controversy (see: http://www.thehindu.com/2005/12/... and http://www.thecrimson.com/articl... )
There may be other physicists who were worth of receiving this prize, but these are images which comes to my mind when hearing about those people who missed the Nobel…

source: quoran
https://www.physicslover.in/firebase-messaging-sw.js https://www.physicslover.in/firebase-messaging-sw.js