How Did Graphene Research Lead to a Nobel Prize in Physics?

[Astronuc]

STOCKHOLM – Russian-born scientists Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov shared the Nobel Prize in physics Tuesday for "groundbreaking experiments" with an atom-thin material expected to play a large role in electronics.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences cited Geim and Novoselov, who are both linked to universities in Britain, for experiments with graphene, a flake of carbon that is only one atom thick.

Experiments with graphene could lead to the development of new material and "the manufacture of innovative electronics," including faster computers, the citation said.

"Since it is practically transparent and a good conductor, graphene is suitable for producing transparent touch screens, light panels and maybe even solar cells," the academy said.

Geim, 51, is a Dutch national while Novoselov, 36, holds British and Russian citizenship. Both are natives of Russia and started their careers in physics there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101005/ap_on_sc/eu_nobel_physics

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/announcement.html#

 

[hamster143]

36! That would make him the youngest laureate since 1973.

 

[Borek]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=435072

 

[Borek]

How strange... graphene is a pure chemistry

 

[Astronuc]

How strange... graphene is a pure chemistry

Er - umm - condensed matter - the study of which involves condensed matter physics.

 

[unusualname]

How strange... graphene is a pure chemistry

involving that well known "chemical reaction" of carbon with carbon

 

[rhody]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Geim" is the first person to win the lg Nobel prize (for levitating a frog in 2000) followed by the Nobel prize, ten years later, way to go... from wiki link...
Wow, someone sure was fast at updating the wiki page...

Ig Nobel Prize (2000)
Mott Prize (2007)
EuroPhysics Prize (2008)
Körber Prize (2009)
John J. Carty Award (2010)
Hughes Medal (2010)
Nobel Prize (2010)

Rhody...

 

[unusualname]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Geim" is the first person to win the lg Nobel prize (for levitating a frog in 2000) followed by the Nobel prize, ten years later, way to go... from wiki link...
Wow, someone sure was fast at updating the wiki page...Rhody...

Bet Josephson is the first to get an Ig Nobel after winning the Nobel, probably for something like telepathic communication with a frog

 

[Ygggdrasil]

The Economist agrees with Borek that graphene seemed to be better suited for a chemistry prize than physics (probably the main reason for the prize being given to physics is because both discoverers are physicists).

 

[brewnog]

Just heard an interview with Geim on Radio 4. He seemed pretty certain that he was going to win eventually, and wasn't entirely modest about having received the award.

 

[inflector]

How strange... graphene is a pure chemistry

Not chemistry, it's just grade-school science. Take a piece of tape, put it on a pencil tip. Voila!

 

[Gokul43201]

The Economist agrees with Borek that graphene seemed to be better suited for a chemistry prize than physics (probably the main reason for the prize being given to physics is because both discoverers are physicists).

Umm, I have to say I strongly disagree with the Economist. My guess is that graphene research has had a much bigger impact in the field of Physics than in Chemistry. A comparison of high impact publications or talks/sessions devoted to graphene at annual ACS vs APS meetings might help answer this question. I can only speak from my Physics perspective, and I believe there has been no single topic that has cornered more attention than graphene at the past 4 or 5 of the APS March Meetings (except maybe for the Superconductivity "Woodstock" of 2007, but that's only one year).

 

[Gokul43201]

Six years from discovery to Prize. That's got to be pretty close to the record for lead time with a Physics Nobel.

 

[Astronuc]

Try 1 year!

The first high-Tc superconductor was discovered in 1986 by IBM Researchers Karl Müller and Johannes Bednorz, for which they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1987. Until Fe-based superconductors were discovered in 2008, the term high-temperature superconductor was used interchangeably with cuprate superconductor for compounds such as bismuth strontium calcium copper oxide (BSCCO) and yttrium barium copper oxide (YBCO).

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconductivity
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1987/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanthanum_barium_copper_oxide

I remember the excitement and the Hype!

Probably before most PFers were born.

 

[hamster143]

Try 1 year!

At least the lead time is positive. It'll be hard to beat Peace, where that's no longer the case.

 

[unusualname]

involving that well known "chemical reaction" of carbon with carbon

er, yes, like the one which received the chemistry nobel prize

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11484773

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

Not chemistry, it's just grade-school science. Take a piece of tape, put it on a pencil tip. Voila!

But that's just the beginning. Proving there's actually graphene there and measuring it's properties gets trickier. I think the physics category is appropriate.

 

[rhody]

While browsing BBC news yesterday, I ran across this, interesting stats...

"[URL country has the best brains?
Total Nobel prizes won since 1901 top five countries[/URL]

The US outranks the UK by almost a 3 to 1 ratio

US 323
UK 117
Germany 103
France 57
Sweden 28

Rhody...

 

[hamster143]

The US outranks the UK by almost a 3 to 1 ratio

US 323
UK 117
Germany 103
France 57
Sweden 28

Rhody...

The UK leads on per capita basis.

And it would be interesting to compare countries of origin. I think that, among recent US laureates, the foreign-born share is at least 1/3 and possibly more. Just looking at 2009 laureates in sciences, 8 out of 9 had US citizenship, but only 3 were native-born.

It's the same with Fields. Many laureates work in the United States, but there has only been one bona fide American laureate since 1994.

 

[inflector]

Not chemistry, it's just grade-school science. Take a piece of tape, put it on a pencil tip. Voila!

Which solicited a reply of:

But that's just the beginning. Proving there's actually graphene there and measuring it's properties gets trickier. I think the physics category is appropriate.

I was offering up a humble joke. I don't dispute the physics of it, nor the importance.

 

[lisab]

The UK leads on per capita basis.

And it would be interesting to compare countries of origin. I think that, among recent US laureates, the foreign-born share is at least 1/3 and possibly more. Just looking at 2009 laureates in sciences, 8 out of 9 had US citizenship, but only 3 were native-born.

It's the same with Fields. Many laureates work in the United States, but there has only been one bona fide American laureate since 1994.

Ah, but the US is a nation of immigrants. A citizen is a citizen is a citizen. Born where?...who cares, we'll claim you .

 

[hamster143]

Ah, but the US is a nation of immigrants.

That's a myth. The immigration to the US has been very tightly constrained since about 1880.

 

[petergreat]

While browsing BBC news yesterday, I ran across this, interesting stats...

US 323
UK 117
Germany 103
France 57
Sweden 28

Rhody...

The UK was stronger in science in the first half of the 20th century, but now the most prestigious institutions are mostly concentrated in the US. If you look at the stats for Nobel winners in the recent 30 years, the US would have an even larger monopoly over the UK and other countries.

 

[lisab]

That's a myth. The immigration to the US has been very tightly constrained since about 1880.

Wow, not in my neck of the woods!

From wiki -

Since the liberalization of immigration policy in 1965, the number of first-generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled, from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007.

(We have a population of 307,006,550, according to the Census Bureau...that means over 10%, which is substantial.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

From the New York Times -

Now, a quarter of the residents of the United States under 18 are immigrants or immigrants’ children.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/weekinreview/27deparle.html?ref=world

 

[hamster143]

about 38 million in 2007... We have a population of 307,006,550, according to the Census Bureau...that means over 10%, which is substantial.

12-15 million of those are illegal immigrants from Mexico. If you subtract those, you get around 8%, which is lower than UK (10%), France(10%), Spain (12%), Canada (20%), or Australia (26%). The only major developed countries which are substantially more restrictive than the United States towards immigration are Italy and Japan.

 

[Office_Shredder]

EDIT: WIkipedia says the 37 million immigrants only counts legal immigrants, but apparently that's a lie

http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.html

 

[Gokul43201]

The UK leads on per capita basis.

And it would be interesting to compare countries of origin. I think that, among recent US laureates, the foreign-born share is at least 1/3 and possibly more. Just looking at 2009 laureates in sciences, 8 out of 9 had US citizenship, but only 3 were native-born.

It's the same with Fields. Many laureates work in the United States, but there has only been one bona fide American laureate since 1994.

Do you believe the majority of immigrants won their Prizes for work done in the home countries? My guess: most likely not.

Do you think most of the immigrant Laureates would have won their Prizes had they remained in the home states? Again, I think most likely not.

Would they have won had they emigrated to a different country, like the UK, Germany or France? That's a harder question, and I think, probably at a lower frequency.

Bonafide Americanness is irrelevant if the discussion is about which country creates the best atmosphere for Nobel worthy research. In some fields in particular, there is no doubting the fact the US institutions dominate.

Economics is a great example. Since the Economics Prize was instituted about 40 years ago, 70% of the Laureates have been Americans.

 

[nobahar]

While browsing BBC news yesterday, I ran across this, interesting stats...

"[URL country has the best brains?
Total Nobel prizes won since 1901 top five countries[/URL]

The US outranks the UK by almost a 3 to 1 ratio

US 323
UK 117
Germany 103
France 57
Sweden 28

Rhody...

I'm sorry, but does anyone else find these arguments a little silly? America's a bigger country. Perhaps we could compare Western Europe to America, or the 'Middle East' to the old commonwealth countries. Or Fiji to the rest of the world.

Do you believe the majority of immigrants won their Prizes for work done in the home countries? My guess: most likely not.

Do you think most of the immigrant Laureates would have won their Prizes had they remained in the home states? Again, I think most likely not.

Would they have won had they emigrated to a different country, like the UK, Germany or France? That's a harder question, and I think, probably at a lower frequency.

Bonafide Americanness is irrelevant if the discussion is about which country creates the best atmosphere for Nobel worthy research. In some fields in particular, there is no doubting the fact the US institutions dominate.

Economics is a great example. Since the Economics Prize was instituted about 40 years ago, 70% of the Laureates have been Americans.

If someone wins the nobel prize at an American Institution and their not 'American' (whatever that means), and they studied their undergraduate and/or Ph.D elsewhere, does it count as an American Nobel Prize? I'm sure the research faculties are comprised of researches from all over the world. I like your point about whether the same individual would have been able to conduct the research that won the nobel prize elsewhere; but again, America is a big country with many insitutions, which needs to be taken into account: you could have absolutely loads of colleges, and only a very small minority provide the opportunity for winning nobel prizes.
Personally, I think it's ridiculous to claim any credit for the achievements of others purely through a tenuous connection of 'nationality'. It would be absolutley absurd for me to claim any credit for Newton, Hooke, Wren, Darwin, Turing, and so on. Or for a Frenchman to claim any credit for the work of Legrange, de Broglie, Carnot, Fourier, etc. Okay, it's probably the case that, born in certain other countries, they may not have had the opportunity to go on to do the great things they did. I actually think it's extrememly likely that within the 'western' countries, individuals who would have made great scientists never had the opportunity, perhaps because of their socio-economic background, think of all the lost and wasted talent! I'm not that familiar with the American system, but don't they charge absurd amounts of money for an education at a good insitution, what happens if you can't afford it, is every single place open to a scholarship? Doubtful. So it's certainly not meritocratic.
But anyway, back to my rambling point, I think we should give the individuals credit for THEIR achievements, for all the hard work THEY have done, and stop sponging off of their hard work through a tenuous connection of nationality!

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I think the statistics on laureates that Rhody posted are less indicative of which nationalities/ethnicities are more or less intelligent, but instead reflect which national governments provide the most funding for scientific research and are therefore able to attract the best scientists. Something to keep in mind as the UK plans significant cuts to science.

 

[rhody]

I think the statistics on laureates that Rhody posted are less indicative of which nationalities/ethnicities are more or less intelligent, but instead reflect which national governments provide the most funding for scientific research and are therefore able to attract the best scientists. Something to keep in mind as the UK plans significant cuts to science.

yggdrasil,

I hesitated before posting the BBC article, knowing full well that some may take offense to it. I think anything these days that stirs "Nationalist" feelings these days is not a good thing. That being said, BBC News is all about revenues and interest, positive or negative surely helps their ratings.

Nobahar,

Personally, I think it's ridiculous to claim any credit for the achievements of others purely through a tenuous connection of 'nationality'.

and

I think we should give the individuals credit for THEIR achievements, for all the hard work THEY have done, and stop sponging off of their hard work through a tenuous connection of nationality!

With what I just said, does that make sense ? No offense was intended.

Rhody...

 

[nobahar]

I hesitated before posting the BBC article, knowing full well that some may take offense to it. I think anything these days that stirs "Nationalist" feelings these days is not a good thing.
With what I just said, does that make sense ? No offense was intended.

Rhody...

I didn't take offense! Sorry Rhody, the last part about nationalism wasn't a reply to your post, I wasn't suggesting that you thought that or took credit for their work, I just thought it was germane to the conversation. After all, comparisons between countries were being made, and there is a tendency to associate oneself with a country.

I think the statistics on laureates that Rhody posted are less indicative of which nationalities/ethnicities are more or less intelligent, but instead reflect which national governments provide the most funding for scientific research and are therefore able to attract the best scientists. Something to keep in mind as the UK plans significant cuts to science.

I know, 'apparently' other major European countries are maintaing or even increasing theirs. There's also this rather scary 'increasing the cap on tuition fees' thing being considered. Just another step the UK is taking to impede the life chances of the people who live here. Impeding the opportunity they may have to make a contribution to science (I know that just a moment ago I was arguing against nationality, but I did also say that, like Gokul, the country in which people lives does have an effect on whether or not individuals living in that country can reach their potential).
Again, sorry Rhody, that wasn't levelled at you!

 

[rhody]

Impeding the opportunity they may have to make a contribution to science (I know that just a moment ago I was arguing against nationality, but I did also say that, like Gokul, the country in which people lives does have an effect on whether or not individuals living in that country can reach their potential).
Again, sorry Rhody, that wasn't levelled at you!

Nobahar,

No offense taken, Gokul and you have made a valid argument, it seems that all of Europe is in a similar predicament, attempting to bring deficits in line with spending, and to reduce existing deficits. It is a sad fact that when a period of austerity is imposed on a country, one of the first areas hit is R&D in every sector of the scientific community. That being sad, we in the US are not far behind you. When people are suffering history repeated shows that it takes little kindling to ignite Nationalism with all of it's devastating consequences. Sorry for taking this thread off topic. Wanted to make this clear.

Rhody...