See subject. Reading obit I just kinda figured.
Did you read the obituary in The New York Times? Because it quotes him saying, “The Nobel is given only for theoretical work that has been confirmed by observation. It is very, very difficult to observe the things I have worked on.”
He will never get one now. The Nobel Prize cannot be awarded posthumously.
Here is a reason why he never got it:
ETA: Ninja’d!
Dewey Finn beat me to it, with a quote from Hawking saying basically what I was going to say. I once read up on the evidence for/against the existence of black holes, and was surprised at how skeptical I became of them. And his highly praised work appears to have been exclusively about black holes.
There’s two factors, here. First, while Hawking was in fact much smarter and more accomplished than you or I, his reputation built him up to be much smarter and more accomplished yet than he actually was. I can think of several current physicists who are greater, who you’ve probably never heard of. He was a very good popularizer, and the trope of “genius mind in a physically useless body” resonates strongly with people, but neither of those will win you a Nobel prize.
Second, the Nobel Prize is meant to reward work with practical implications. This isn’t always followed, and purely theoretical work is sometimes awarded, but it’s much less often. And all of Hawking’s work was theoretical, with very little practical implication. In short, aside from its quality or quantity, Hawking’s work just wasn’t the right kind of work to win the Nobel.
Fifty-five years ago, he was told he had two years to live. If there was a Nobel prize for defying probability, he would have won it hands down.
His is the loss of a great mind. Rest in peace, Stephen!
For comparison’s sake, Einstein received his Noble for the photoelectric effect.
And not, it should be noted, for special relativity which was published in the same year. As noted above, the Nobel awarders prefer practical results that have been confirmed by observation.
Agree.
It is doubtful he would have become famous had he never succumbed to a debilitating disease.
Just like we’ve never heard of Roger Penrose? :dubious:
Likewise, while Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, and Jared Diamond were/are respected scientists with important contributions in their fields, they are primarily known to the general public as popularizers, not for their scientific accomplishments.
You may have heard of him, but Hawking is far better known to the general public. For one thing, how often has Penrose appeared on The Simpsons, Futurama, and The Big Bang Theory?
Yes, in 1963 the NHS gave him two years to live. Which just goes to show how bad the delays are in UHC systems.
<bazinga>
I get a sense here from the scientists responding that “popularizer” is a dirty word and not something to be well regarded. As if the real scientists are busting their asses in obscurity while some few make bank off their work.
Maybe there is something to that but I think Carl Sagan started an important movement to have science brought to the masses in an understandable and interesting way. It is hard to get science funding when the populace paying for that funding has no freaking idea what is going on or why it is important.
As such I very much appreciate Sagan and Hawking and others for making science cool and interesting. It may not get them a Nobel but it is worthy work.
True and ironic because it’s the “popularizers” who are the ones who fire the minds of young people and persuade them to pursue science, not the droves of scientists “laboring in obscurity”. It was **Michio Kaku ** who fired my interest in Quantum Theory, not a group of nameless scientists working in the Fermi Lab.
It could be another hundred years (or more) before Hawkings theories are conclusively proven and then applied to a useful application.
It’s like the Theory of Special Relativity. Einstein published it in 1905. Generally accepted but it wasn’t conclusively proven and applied until after the Manhattan Project in the early 1940’s.
.
Einstein signed a letter in 1939, urging Roosevelt to support the Manhattan Project and that the potential for a weapon of unprecedented power was possible.
All the different “types” of scientists - the ones whose work has immediate practical applications, the ones who are more or less purely theoretical, even the ones whose work is headed down a blind alley… even, for that matter, the ones who publish dishonest material - all of them have a role in the scientific endeavour as a whole.
The Nobel is like an Oscar for one certain type of role, and while Stephen Hawking was doing a fine job, that role isn’t the one he was playing.
OK, I’ll admit, I have no idea who Roger Penrose is. I did look it up, though.
I guess Penrose fits in yet another category - “extremely famous, IF you like that sort of thing”. 
I seem to recall Hawking said ALS forced him to use his mind and theorize? He had an amazing ability to focus and concentrate regardless of the condition of his body
Otherwise he would have done more lab experiments and research. A much more conventional physicist. His career would have been much different and perhaps not as ground breaking.