I absolutely agree with you guys; “whomever provides the money for the prize gets to sets the rules”. There will always be dissenting opinions on EVERYTHING, especially when such a big ($) award is involved. The way the prizes are awarded may not be perfect, but in a society that as a whole mistrusts and misunderstands science, any way of highlighting scientific discoveries and celebrating scientists is a good thing…

In short, they likely could not change this even if they wanted to.

What seems almost as inevitable as disputes over the prize, is people suggesting new prizes or rule changes, without realizing how little legal room there is to maneuver in. They’re effectively the executors of Nobel’s will, so it doesn’t really matter if the rules are absurd or outdated. (And there _are_ lots of absurd and anachronistic such organizations out there, handing out “scholarships for unwed former-milkmaids who want to learn needlepoint”, or what-have-you. I don’t think the Nobel Prize rules are quite so absurd as to ever relegate the Nobels to that status, though.)

Frankly, I’m not too sure it’s anachronistic either. Even if we all know science isn’t done so much by individuals anymore, with today’s short-attention-span media, having a handful of individuals to focus on probably garners them (and thus the discovery) more attention than awarding a huge group would.

“It would have been fun to watch Schmidt go up against the Nobel Prize committee. He would have lost, of course, but at least he would have made an important point.”

Oh, this falls under the Nobel Foundation too. Not that I think the post is erroneous on this point, but Schmidt (and/or the Committee) would eventually have to haggle it out with them.

While the Nobel Prize correction was correct, this is wrong. It is entirely clear that dark energy causes the accelerating expansion of the universe, as it is an indelible part of the theory that is the only one that explains the observations to date.

What is unclear is what dark energy is. (But there is a most reasonable mechanism that predicts many similar observations of vacuum interaction, namely vacuum energy.)

Also, it isn’t cleverness in physics but in politics that makes the Nobel Committee prefer observations over theories as the Nobel will is geared towards inventions and “discoveries”. Observations is a much easier sell towards the Noble Foundation, that oversees the will and how it is used. This is presumably why Einstein couldn’t get a prize for his theories but for his models based on theories (“explanation” of photoelectric effect).

[I was curious of why Riess would question dark energy. Turns out he doesn't: "However, we have really just literally and figuratively reached the end of the beginning for acceleration and dark energy. Our quest now is to understand the nature of dark energy, i.e., the physical principles behind its existence." He is just hedging above.]

It has long seemed to me that the limit on 3 prize winners, and the requirement to be living, are more than a little arbitrary.

Yes they may address certain (potential) problems, but a rules modification could easily address those situations just as well.

@ Matt – Exactly.

Adam Riess spells it out:
“The Nobel committee were cleverly able to separate the cause and effect. They identified the observation of the acceleration of the universe as what the Nobel prize is for; whereas the cause of it may be dark energy, but it may not. That’s something we are still unsure about. The Nobel prize is not for that.”

[CZ: Thanks. I'll edit the post.]

The same goes for all awards, but as a commenter before me wrote – if the other scientific awards were equally prominent it wouldn’t be an issue. The Nobel prize would be one among them.

Celebrate Science!