[Bored chemist]

I wonder if any Nobels have ever been awarded for em radiation findings. 

2018
“for groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics”

2014"Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano and Shuji Nakamura “for the invention of efficient blue light-emitting diodes which has enabled bright and energy-saving white light sources”"
2009 Charles Kuen Kao“for groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication”

2006
John C. Mather and George F. Smoot“for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation”
2005  Roy J. Glauber“for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence”

John L. Hall and Theodor W. Hänsch“for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique”

2000 Zhores I. Alferov and Herbert Kroemer“for developing semiconductor heterostructures used in high-speed- and opto-electronics”

1997 Steven Chu, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji and William D. Phillips “for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light”

And so on... all the way back to  1901
"Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen“in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered by the discovery of the remarkable rays subsequently named after him”"

I think zero.

That seems about right.

[mad aetherist]

I wonder if any Nobels have ever been awarded for em radiation findings. 

2018 “for groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics”

2014"Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano and Shuji Nakamura “for the invention of efficient blue light-emitting diodes which has enabled bright and energy-saving white light sources”"
2009 Charles Kuen Kao“for groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication”

2006
John C. Mather and George F. Smoot“for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation”
2005  Roy J. Glauber“for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence”

John L. Hall and Theodor W. Hänsch“for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique”

2000 Zhores I. Alferov and Herbert Kroemer“for developing semiconductor heterostructures used in high-speed- and opto-electronics”

1997 Steven Chu, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji and William D. Phillips “for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light”

And so on... all the way back to  1901
"Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen“in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered by the discovery of the remarkable rays subsequently named after him”"

I think zero.

That seems about right.

Zilch for em radiation as i thort.  Some for photons, & one for particles.

Will Smoot & Co be giving their Nobels back.  Likewise all of the others who got Nobels for bigbang stuff & expanding universe stuff etc.

[Paradigmer]

It's not a matter of opinion, is it?Either it's cooling or it isn't.And the evidence says it's warming

IMO, the mechanisms that contribute to climate change is not yet fully understood and account for.

I agreed with the finding that sunspot count is a good indicator for ocean temperature change on Earth, but I reserved that this is not the only factor that significantly drives climate change. Nonetheless, IMO, his analysis is in the right direction. And that was my specific reply to mad aetherist.

But I can't say the same for the Anthropogenic Global Warming proposition.

It is a fact that water vapor the most potent greenhouse gas on Earth, and it is in the order of 10 times more potent than the natural CO2, which is >99% of the anthropogenic CO2.

And it is discovered in independent ice core studies that naturally occurring CO2 volume changes in the atmosphere, lags the global temperature change by 800 years; the IPCC Anthropogenic Global Warming proposition is a bad science.

The scientific method and the IPCC AGW model combined, is a super embarrassing science flop.

And the evidence says it's warming

What evidence?

[Paradigmer]

I havnt forgotten, i am still looking for Einstein's silly excuse. Today i am looking throo Gasser's stuff re twins paradox etc.  Refutation of Special Relativity for Dummies (Time Dilation, Twin Paradox) -- By Wolfgang G. Gasserhttp://www.pandualism.com/d/SR_refutation.html  Twins starts at #39.  And also......http://www.pandualism.com/d/twin_paradox_einstein.htmlhttp://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~nrc25/red/specrel.pdfhttp://www.pandualism.com/index.html

I need no convincing on the contemporary Einsteinian SR is a flop.

I reteriate: Einstein and Max Born debunked the Einsteinian SR with an equivalence in principle of GR, stating the acceleration of geodesic motion for explaining the time dilation phenomenon that physically transform the near light speed clock, thus eradicated the said paradox.

The obfuscations in the mixed up of the time dilation propositions are so severe that it makes a simple thing so difficult to explain to get it right. Nonetheless, responding to your remarks, I shall make another attempt:

Einstein has never mistaken higher gravitation potential would make clocks tick faster.

It is a fact that any high velocity orbiting object, would experience geodesic motion that manifests centripetal acceleration, and this would render the physical transformation of atoms to intrinsically spin at a slower rate, thus slow their aging, or its clock ticks at a slower rate.

This is despite the atoms or the clock in high speed velocity can be high up in the orbit far away from Earth with higher gravitational potential. The higher gravitational potential will physical cause the clock to tick faster, and concurrently, the centripetal acceleration will physically case the clock to tick slower, much slower when near to light speed. And the Earth bound observer observing with a referencing stationary clock, also has to account for the optical effect of simultaneous time dilation in SR for its time dilation observation.

It is not time that had undergone time dilation effect in SR. In flat spacetime, simultaneous time dilation in high velocity relative motion, is an optical effect that needs to be accounted for.

You already knew that time dilation of mesons with centripetal acceleration of geodesic motion at high velocity, was experimentally proven to a high degree of precision.

[Bored chemist]

Zilch for em radiation as i thort.  Some for photons, & one for particles.

We are not going anywhere here until you either accept that they are the same thing, or prove that they are different.

What evidence?

It's not as if there's a shortage of evidence that the world is warming. So there must be a shortage of your understanding.
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3pXJoseu4AIVApztCh1_3QoIEAAYASAAEgKHevD_BwE

https://climate.nasa.gov/

etc

[Paradigmer]

It's not as if there's a shortage of evidence that the world is warming. So there must be a shortage of your understanding.https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3pXJoseu4AIVApztCh1_3QoIEAAYASAAEgKHevD_BwEhttps://climate.nasa.gov/etc

Those are anecdotal evidence that were deliberated to support its self-fulfilling prophercy
with circular reasoning to substantiate a bad science that postulates anthropogenic global warming.

And you are ignoring the fact on anthropogenic CO2 is a miniscule factor in the greenhouse effect of the Earth. Whatever caused the observed warmings, are merely collections of observations that were being cherry picked for a niche aspect, and largely they were not caused by human activities.

Your respond boarders on the profile of a mythologist preaching his half-baked belief with his confirmation bias touted as the evidence. And your logic committed the causal fallacy.