To define the question a bit, it is motivated by a book I’m reading on the periodic table. The author claims G. N. Lewis as the greatest scientist never to have been honoured with a Nobel. I can get on board with that as far as chemistry goes - Lewis basically explained reactivity in terms of electrons, the fundamental currency of chemical reactions (working in the 30s and 40s). He was a genuine titan of the field no question. Also a terrible see you next tuesday, according to the author, which was part of the reason he missed out. Is there a physics equivalent to Lewis?
As science has expanded there’s now a fairly long list of people who could have / should have won a Nobel prize. I’m more interested in the pioneers who really defined science and may not have got it, particularly those who worked when the Nobels were established and thus were blatantly over-looked (there was a queue 20 deep of mighty chemists in contention for the first Nobels in the early 1900s, many ended up overlooked just by the timing of the invention of the award, or they died before it was their ‘turn’.)
If anyone wants to be literal and name epic ecologists, geologists etc who don’t get Nobels but are still awesomely great, then that’s fine too
I don’t know that he’s the greatest, but Fischer Black certainly deserved to share the Nobel with Scholes and Miller. There’s some speculation that the prize committee specifically waited until after his death to make the award because they weren’t comfortable with giving it to a non-academic, but so far as I know there’s no actual evidence for that.
Even if you go back before the Nobel Prize, then Darwin is a bad choice. He didn’t publish until he found out someone was about to duplicate his work. Evolution would have emerged at about the same time without him.
I think James Clerk Maxwell would be a better choice.
OP should not have to spell out obvious intent to apply question only to scientists who could
have won the prize while they were alive.
Anyway, Dmitri Mendeleyev, formulator of the Periodic Table, would be a good candidate.
Perhaps there were less famous contributors or codiscoverors to the PT concept; if so
up to three can share a prize.
I have read that the only reason Edison and Tesla were not awarded a shared prize was that
word got out they hated each other so much there was a real chance they might have
disruped the ceremonies by getting into a fistfight.
Lise Meitner. Discovered nuclear fission (and provided a physical explanation for its possibility, unlike previous others who had thought that it might occur,) incidentally providing a real data point for E=MC2 along the way.
It’s puzzling that she didn’t share the Nobel Prize with her chemist collaborator Otto Hahn, even considering that Hahn published the original results by himself because he was in Nazi Germany and did not want to reveal that he had corresponded with an exiled Jew.
A convenient case of death also. The maximum number of people that can share a prize is three. The prize was given to Watson, Crick and Maurice Wilkins. If Franklin were still alive, would they have given her the share of the prize in place of her boss? They should.
Steven Hawking hasn’t won one (yet). However that may be because of the “greatest benefit on mankind” requirement, which would greatly disadvantage Theoretical Physics I guess.
R. H. Dicke also comes to mind. He’s the guy who set out to discover the cosmic background radiation, built the apparatus, and then got scooped by Penzias and Wilson, who accidentally discovered it and had no idea what it was until Dicke explained it to them. Dicke also came up with the concept of “Dicke super radiance” which is the key to the later invention of lasers and masers, and “Dicke narrowing,” which is essentially the same mechanism as the Mossbauer effect.
