www.astrocafe.hk

The Shaw Prize of astronomy in 2011 is awarded to Gerald Fishman and Enrico Costa for their contribution to our understanding of Gamma Ray Burst. The original lecture on 29/9 at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology was cancelled due to typhoon, and was rearranged to 30/9 3pm in very short notice that I got at 10am that day. Luckily, I checked my email.

On 30/9, Fishman has already left Hong Kong and Costa was supposed to have a sight-seeing day. However, Costa still agreed to kindly give a lecture. The small lecture theatre was completely packed, even the steps were filled with late comers. The lecture was of historical nature, tracing how our knowledge on gamma ray burst is obtained through various missions. Emphasis were on the two missions that the winners took part in:

1. BATSE

In the old days, people thought that gamma ray bursts (GRB) must be events within our own galaxy as the amount of energy seems so strong. This predicted that the the sources must be concentrated along the milky way if we scanned the sky. Fishman's BATSE mission found a uniform distribution of the GRBs, suggesting that these things may be further away beyond our galaxy.

2. BeppoSAX

This mission, led by Costa, discovered the afterglow of the GRB caused by the interaction between the stuff emitted by the GRB and the interstellar matter. The spectrum of such glow was measured. Red shift of absorption lines was measured which gives the distance assuming Hubble's law, and the distance turns out to be huge. This confirms that GRBs are indeed from way beyond our galaxy, produced when the universe was much younger.

For a basic introduction about the winners, see:
http://programme.tvb.com/news/pearlrepo ... 739/122929

Here is a more detailed documentary was made by BBC about ten years ago.The science has since become a bit outdated but the historical part was superbly done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIwdfuxF_98

有一個可能不成熟問題，經歷幾年至今，David如何評價邵逸夫奬及諾貝爾奬得奬項目的水平? 以及兩個評審取向是否有分別?

社長 寫:有一個可能不成熟問題，經歷幾年至今，David如何評價邵逸夫奬及諾貝爾奬得奬項目的水平? 以及兩個評審取向是否有分別?

The awards don't overlap to avoid direct comparison. e.g. There is no Mathematics Nobel Prize.

避免重疊性這個我知道，但我的想法是，諾貝爾奬物理學奬的認受性不用懷疑，若不考慮重疊性的話，諾貝爾天文學家應也有水平取得邵逸夫獎。

但倒過來，邵逸夫天文學或生命科學獎的項目水平，本身又是否類近諾貝爾物理及醫學奬的項目水平呢?

社長 寫:避免重疊性這個我知道，但我的想法是，諾貝爾奬物理學奬的認受性不用懷疑，若不考慮重疊性的話，諾貝爾天文學家應也有水平取得邵逸夫獎。

但倒過來，邵逸夫天文學或生命科學獎的項目水平，本身又是否類近諾貝爾物理及醫學奬的項目水平呢?

I cannot judge subjects that I don't know about (e.g. life science and mathematics). But for the astronomy prizes, I do agree that the people who got the Shaw prize made very significant advances in our understanding of the cosmos.

Can Nobel winners also get the Shaw prize? I suppose the Shaw committee would deliberately avoid it. e.g. The 2006 physics Nobel prize was awarded to physicists who developed the COBE satellite for measuring the cosmic microwave background radiation. The 2010 Shaw prize was awarded to physicists who developed WMAP satellite and involved in the data analysis. WMAP was a successor of the COBE satellite for making even more refined measurements of the radiation. The COBE people didn't get the Shaw prize after their Nobel, while the WMAP people didn't get the Nobel but got the Shaw.

明白了，我不相信邵逸夫奬評委會會對諾貝爾科學家有成見，但避免重疊的取向，肯定能讓更多出色學者獲得認可及鼓勵。

正如高錕教授那屆也是數人分享一個奬項的。

oh.....

學者奪邵逸夫獎後再奪諾獎

http://inews.mingpao.com/htm/inews/2011 ... 11841c.htm

我保證昨天提出這個問題前，並沒有派Boogie過去剌探消息的

I guess it makes more sense to get Shaw before Nobel, rather than the other way round. After all, Nobel prize is still the much much more prestigious award. If we don't live in Hong Kong, I don't think many people would know what Shaw Prize is. So the Shaw Committee would try to avoid previous Nobel winners, while Nobel committee doesn't care about Shaw at all.

Anyway, just my guess.

絶對同意你的觀點，一個奬項要獲得相當的應受性，還是經過時間洗禮及沉澱的。

而剛開始數年，奬項由科學開始也正路些，若一開始便有文學奬，相信不論結果如何，只會惹來很多爭議。

其实这两个奖项都应该有提名人推荐的吧，如果在某届邵逸夫天文学奖的评选中，无可奈何的在众多候选人当中与诺贝尔物理学奖重叠，那也不见得奇怪。
我觉得评委会不应该逃避诺贝尔奖得主夺取邵逸夫奖，应该看看当届候选人当中哪个真的值得夺取当时的奖，这样才不会永远跟在诺贝尔奖的后面，只有在香港地区才知道邵逸夫奖，评委会应该要独立思考。

对于我这个喜欢天文学的人来说，夺取邵逸夫天文学奖远比诺贝尔物理学奖来得有意义...哈哈哈。

universe24 寫:对于我这个喜欢天文学的人来说，夺取邵逸夫天文学奖远比诺贝尔物理学奖来得有意义...哈哈哈。

情感上同意這點，但實際上他們奪奬的研究，都是一些我不懂的東西，所以感受不大

對我來說高錕教授拿諾貝爾奬的感受最大，一來他是我在中大唸書時的校長，二來他的光纖每天都影響著我的生活，再加上那個訪問節目太傷感了- 他太太說，高錕"已經走了"，已經不是"那個人"了

Oh dear, the physics Nobel prize winners of 2011 were the Shaw Prize winners of 2006!

I remembered that it was in spring 1999 when I first heard about this discovery in university. It was my final year and I had to study a topic in cosmology by myself. Our lecturer suggested us to do this topic, which was similar too hot to ignore. I had to read some of the most important papers written by the winners.

So it was simply a joy to go to the Shaw lecture given by the winners. It was one of the best lectures I had ever been to because the winners shared their joy and nervousness in discovering something that was totally unexpected - a universe that is expanding at an accelerating rate! The audience were thus taken onto an amazing journey to feel what it is like to discover something - something that science magazine called 'the breakthrough of the year 1998'.

The shaw lectures given by each of the winners are available to view here:
http://www.shawprize.org/en/shaw.php?tmp=4&twoid=85

I always feel that Alan Guth should win the physics Nobel prize for his suggestion of the inflationary universe. I wonder when that will happen. But it seems well known that the Nobel committee is not kind to pure theoretical research unless it is strongly backed up by observation. People sometimes joke that Stephen Hawking haven't got Nobel prize yet only because the elusive Hawking Radiation has not yet been discovered.