11–20 of 54 posts
Shuji Nakamura originally received only $200 from Nichia for the invention. He later received an $8.1M settlement. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/business/worldbusiness/12l...
An amazing choice of something that is used daily, which unlike many Nobel price level physics, everybody can relate to. Generations of physics students will be raised by this particular choice.
I'm still on the hedge about it. Yes, it's more relate-able and inspiring, but it isn't really a contribution to physics as much as engineering. If they had been given the prize for their underlying work on semiconductors, that would have been a lot more valid. While I'm happy for them, and am in no way qualified to question the Nobel committee, it just doesn't strike me as an "outstanding contribution to the field o…
You have to consider it within the context of the intention of the Nobel prize, which is to reward the "invention of greatest benefit to mankind". So perhaps it's not fundamental physics per se, but it's certainly in the spirit of the prize. [Disclaimer: I work on this stuff, and was lucky enough to see Nakamura talk just recently. So I'm definitely biased!]
Edit: Also, coming from a background where I've gone through the whole gamut of physics, chemistry, materials science, engineering and the rest, I have to say that there's a tendency to undervalue the contribution from actually going from something that's theoretically possible to actually practical. In some respects, the fundamental physics is the 'easy' part–nice neat equations describing nice neat systems. Actually trying to make them, when you're up against entropy introducing all manner of crystal defects and impurities and what-not, is a whole different story. And it's so complex, and the tools you use so rudimentary, you can very much feel like a blind man feeling around in the dark just trying to understand what's going on, and what you've actually managed to make. To go from that to a functioning, reproducible device? It definitely deserves recognition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm still on the hedge about it. Yes, it's more relate-able and inspiring, but it isn't really a contribution to physics as much as engineering. If they had been given the prize for their underlying work on semiconductors, that would have been a lot more valid. While I'm happy for them, and am in no way qualified to question the Nobel committee, it just doesn't strike me as an "outstanding contribution to the field o…
> it just doesn't strike me as an "outstanding contribution to the field of physics" You have to consider it within the context of the intention of the Nobel prize, which is to reward the "invention of greatest benefit to mankind". So perhaps it's not fundamental physics per se, but it's certainly in the spirit of the prize. [Disclaimer: I work on this stuff, and was lucky enough to see Nakamura talk just recently. S…
It's just a shame that that the key dude in all this got the shaft for years. The performance of these LEDs was a big deal at the time in a lot of different industries, so it was obvious that lots of money would be flowing around... there really was just no need for anyone to deny him his, well deserved, part in that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it just doesn't strike me as an "outstanding contribution to the field of physics" You have to consider it within the context of the intention of the Nobel prize, which is to reward the "invention of greatest benefit to mankind". So perhaps it's not fundamental physics per se, but it's certainly in the spirit of the prize. [Disclaimer: I work on this stuff, and was lucky enough to see Nakamura talk just recently. S…
Is it possible for you, with the HN forum limits, to describe some such interesting major issues with LED (for a physics illiterate)?
So, to start at the beginning: how do we grow these things?
At the heart of every LED is a crystal. For blue LEDs, this crystal is gallium nitride (GaN). How do we grow these crystals at scale? This achievement is behind this Nobel prize, but it's far from a solved problem even today. They found out you could grow GaN by flowing hot gasses containing Ga and N on top of an artificial sapphire film, which would act as a template for the crystal to grow. The problem is that GaN crystals and sapphire crystals are slightly different sizes (the gaps between their constituent atoms is different) so they don't match up exactly, and this resulted in a lot of strain and defects in the GaN crystals–but sapphire was the best we had, and it worked. The trouble is, sapphire isn't great: it's expensive and you can only make small crystals.
The big push now is to find a way of growing GaN on top of silicon. This would make it a lot easier to grow larger crystals and would also make it a lot easier to incorporate GaN into silicon-based devices. But growing on silicon comes with its own problems, so it's even harder to grow high quality films. Specifically, cracking as the crystal cools from its growth temperature is a big problem because the thermal conductivity of silicon and GaN is so different.
There's also a push to try and grow GaN directly from a liquid, which would be more like how we grow silicon 'from scratch' (rather than growing on top of a template). This shows a lot of promise but it's a long way from commercial viability yet.
I'll try and come back and comment on some other issues later on if there's interest :)
I think this is really well deserved. Back in the day I was working on R&D for medical diagnostic devices. These kinds of LEDs were a critical part of our sensors. No one but Nichia could make them exactly like we needed and without them we would have never had the success we did. It's just a shame that that the key dude in all this got the shaft for years. The performance of these LEDs was a big deal at the time in…
How much are they now!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it possible for you, with the HN forum limits, to describe some such interesting major issues with LED (for a physics illiterate)?
Sure. I can give a flavour of some of the issues that people are interested in within the nitrides, but it wouldn't be an exhaustive list... So, to start at the beginning: how do we grow these things? At the heart of every LED is a crystal. For blue LEDs, this crystal is gallium nitride (GaN). How do we grow these crystals at scale? This achievement is behind this Nobel prize, but it's far from a solved problem even…
I work on biomolecular crystallography and nucleation is half the battle! The other half, used to be size, but thanks to microbeam beam lines, at synchrotrons like APS, we can get away with very tiny crystals for X-Ray diffraction data.
I am fascinated by the idea of using semi/synthetic materials as seeding agents. But then again, biomolecular crystals have huge unit cells compared to semiconductors. People have tried zeolites in the past, but surprisingly a random speck of dust sometimes works better than the best designed substrate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm still on the hedge about it. Yes, it's more relate-able and inspiring, but it isn't really a contribution to physics as much as engineering. If they had been given the prize for their underlying work on semiconductors, that would have been a lot more valid. While I'm happy for them, and am in no way qualified to question the Nobel committee, it just doesn't strike me as an "outstanding contribution to the field o…
> it just doesn't strike me as an "outstanding contribution to the field of physics" You have to consider it within the context of the intention of the Nobel prize, which is to reward the "invention of greatest benefit to mankind". So perhaps it's not fundamental physics per se, but it's certainly in the spirit of the prize. [Disclaimer: I work on this stuff, and was lucky enough to see Nakamura talk just recently. S…
I do definitely agree that there is not enough appreciation for the boots-on-the-ground aspect of science, and that those who do it deserve more recognition.
For those who read only the 'Blue LED' part from the heading -- most white light produced by LEDs is actually just Blue LED light that mixes with yellow light, produced when it passes through a phosphor layer. The first blue LED was demonstrated in 1994! The 'white' LED saw mass production only in the last decade. So a phenomenal discovery indeed that touches physics, electronics and material science, and something t…