Hmmm. This years' nobel prizes are a bit more boring compared to prior ones. I understand that not all ideas or inventions are created equal, but I prefer more raw epicness.
What do you mean boring? MOFs are a fascinating area of chemistry. Outside of nature, they are most likely our best example of rationally designed nanoscale systems. In chemistry, rational design - that based on rules - is a rare thing. Molecules bump around and stick together in unpredictable ways, but MOFs allow us to create very well defined nanoscale frameworks. They’re famously tricky, though!
While quantum-tunneling is quite niche I think it's given to demonstrate something with everyday life application (considering the outsized impact of microprocessors on society).
This MoF thing is quite damn cool though, advancing moisture capturing in arid regions itself is big.
But also being able to separate chemicals in a more controlled manner sounds like something really groundbreaking that will probably impact chemistry for a long time to come.
Right, but it's not anything that most people will be directly exposed to (quantum tunneling effects in microprocessors might be more relevant but still hard to grasp for people).
If water capture in arid environments actually scales with this method, then that's far more directly exposed to people.
Nobel prizes in Physics and Chemistry tend to be awarded long after discovery. It's part of the process in evaluating the impact of a specific discovery.
When you have a yearly prize, you're bound to get off-years. Maybe the Nobels should be structured to only be given out every 4 years, like the Olympics. But that would be a huge blow to the Stockholm hospitality business.
You hit it on the head: comparing the Nobel prizes to the Olympics. Perhaps to some they look too much like the Olympics: periodic, awarded in various categories. I suggest the similarities end there though.
