Drinks on Essear!
Unfoggeddecacon has to happen now.
This is cool, but I heard about it on Marketplace* the day before yesterday and it peeved me horribly. They interviewed one of the winners, I think Guth, and the interviewer was all pap and avarice. What's it like to get so much money out of the blue, how did it happen, do you think this will encourage kids to get into physics. Not even a token hemipygic question about the content of his discovery/theory.
* In my defense, I needed something non-musical to listen to while cooking, and I don't have anything yet allowing me to send audio from my computer to the kitchen.
Not even a token hemipygic question about the content of his discovery/theory.
"Look, forget about the sheds three million dollars! They don't matter!"
"future recipients of the Fundamental Physics Prize...will be decided by previous winners."
"the Fundamental Physics Prize can be awarded to scientists whose ideas have not yet been verified by experiments"
That seems like a potentially bad combination.
It's not as if I got one of these. At first I thought it was 9 a year and I was thinking "eventually he's going to run out of deserving participants, and I might get one," but turns out it's only 1 prize per year from now on.
6: There's still hope!
Mr. Milner also announced that there would be a $100,000 prize to honor promising young researchers.
7: Can't we set up voting bots in favor of essear?
U. Awl
The correct spelling is "y'all".
a $100,000 prize to honor promising young researchers
I once promised a young researcher I'd call her sometime. Do I to qualify for the prize?
I once promised a young researcher I'd call her sometime. Do I to qualify for the prize?
That depends. Did you honor your promise?
8: bots in favor of essaer? I thought that was more sifu's thing.
I once promised a young researcher I'd call her sometime. Do I to qualify for the prize?
You'd call her, maybe?
One really annoying thing about this is that both Nature and Science quote Peter Wo/t about this. He left the field 25 years ago and now devotes his time to writing a blog attacking the research of others. I find it strange that "blogger" is now a credential that gets people interviews in the supposedly science-literate press.
15: so you're saying these bloggers should get off your field?
There are many more things I'd say about the prize and the people who won it, but I probably shouldn't. It's a really interesting set of choices, though, and they've all made very significant advances in our understanding of physics. (Not just unverified and untestable physics, despite what you might read elsewhere.) One of them in particular has had a huge impact on my own education and career trajectory, and is completely deserving of the recognition.
That said, if I were a Russian billionaire and wanted to advance science, I'd either use the money to fund new faculty positions or to fund experiments. These guys already have all the freedom and time in the world to dream up wacky ideas. (The fact that's all "guys" is also something that should probably give one pause....)
Hey, essear, your input might be useful in the NBC thread, which has taken a really weird turn.
One of them in particular has had a huge impact on my own education and career trajectory
How many radians was your career deflected?
That said, if I were a Russian billionaire and wanted to advance science, I'd either use the money to fund new faculty positions or to fund experiments
Think bigger! Given that the real experiment bucks are state-funded, you need to use your Russian billionaire money to fund a team of blackmailer-assassin-hotties [male or female] to 'persuade' legislators to fund science.
I think the Russian oligarchs spend enough time on blackmail and assassination as it is.
15
One really annoying thing about this is that both Nature and Science quote Peter Wo/t about this. He left the field 25 years ago and now devotes his time to writing a blog attacking the research of others. I find it strange that "blogger" is now a credential that gets people interviews in the supposedly science-literate press.
A lot of people think string theory is a bunch of nonsense. Who do you think would have been a better representative for this point of view?
A lot of people think string theory is a bunch of nonsense. Who do you think would have been a better representative for this point of view?
No one, because it's stupid point of view unless it's far more subtle. In fact, some of the people who were awarded the prize could probably give a far more incisive critique of string theory than any outsider. Also, none of these people are exclusively string theorists and all of them have made key contributions to our understanding of quantum field theory, which is the general framework that we know to describe our world pretty well.
22
No one, because it's stupid point of view unless it's far more subtle. ...
The press generally isn't looking for subtle. And string theorists don't get to decide what is or isn't a legitimate criticism of string theory.
... In fact, some of the people who were awarded the prize could probably give a far more incisive critique of string theory than any outsider. ...
Maybe they could but would they be willing to if this might offend their friends and/or colleagues? Stephen King:
Only enemies speak the truth; friends and lovers lie endlessly, caught in the web of duty.
That said, if I were a Russian billionaire and wanted to advance science, I'd either use the money to fund new faculty positions or to fund experiments. These guys already have all the freedom and time in the world to dream up wacky ideas. (The fact that's all "guys" is also something that should probably give one pause....)
Yep, this kind of ties in to what I thought when reading the story. I haven't really thought it through, probably something along the lines of 'mumble capitalism feudalism mumble mumble return of patronage'. That is, setting aside the money thing, there's something more personal about this prize than most. Those physicists were probably well-off and free to work on whatever they chose even before receiving it, but now Milner has appropriated them, somehow. Even though this is not a sinecure or anything. Also, his personal background and interest in the field increases the resemblance to, I dunno, kings who were so fond of calculus that they kept a private mathematician at their beck and call?
And string theorists don't get to decide what is or isn't a legitimate criticism of string theory.
Well, thank god we leave that to completely uninformed people on blogs, then. While you're being so helpful, why don't you let me know everything that's wrong with my research program, too?
To give a less hostile answer: first, since the prize is not specifically a string theory prize and the majority of the recipients are not string theorists, it's not clear why the news media would see the need to include a criticism of string theory in the article. Second, if they wanted to include that for some reason, they could ask someone who is not a string theorist but who is well-informed about string theory. They could interview Steven Weinberg, for instance. Or if they wanted someone more up-to-date on what's happening in the field, but outside string theory, they could interview, say, me. Not that they would know who I am, since I don't have a blog.
kings who were so fond of calculus that they kept a private mathematician at their beck and call?
Doesn't that sound like fun?
"Manservant, inform Dr. Geebie that she will attend dinner with the ambassador tonight, that we may appear cultured to our new allies. Also, tell her that she needs to explain that tiling thing again to me."
27
... They could interview Steven Weinberg, for instance. ...
Inasmuch as Weinberg is on the board of the Fundamental Physics Prize he probably isn't the ideal person for a critical perspective.
Anyway I expect the main reason Woit gets a lot of press attention is that he welcomes press attention.
27
To give a less hostile answer: first, since the prize is not specifically a string theory prize and the majority of the recipients are not string theorists, it's not clear why the news media would see the need to include a criticism of string theory in the article. ...
According to the NYT article linked in the post 6/9 have some connection to string theory. How would you classify them?
A simple algorithm is to look up their papers and see if most of them are hep-th. The faster approach of reading the website suggests 2 or 3 string theorists.
For one thing, a lot of these are truly great theoretical physicists and as such tend to be all over the map. Witten made crucial contributions to string theory, yes, but also to mathematics and quantum field theory. He was even the first to explain how to directly search for dark matter, which drives a lot of major experimental efforts today. Seiberg's major contributions are mostly in quantum field theory, but he did some important work in string theory as well. Maldacena's major contribution is to show that sometimes string theory is equivalent to quantum field theory, which sort of undermines all the haters. But he's also made major contributions to cosmology, again influencing experiments that are done now. Linde and Guth are primarily cosmologists; Linde has done some work related to, or at least inspired by, string theory, since string theory is the only framework in which one can really think about what a consistent theory of quantum gravity could look like, and certain cosmological issues make it important to think about quantum gravity. Kitaev's major work is in a sort of very abstract branch of condensed matter physics, which might be relevant for quantum computation. Kontsevich is a pure mathematician, at least from my point of view. Arkani-Hamed started out as a phenomenologist, but has made major contributions to quantum field theory and cosmology, and has written a few papers about string theory. Uh... who am I missing? Ashoke Sen, I guess, is the purest string theorist in the list. But of course he's also worked on quantum field theory, and recently decisively demolished most of the "alternative" approaches to quantum gravity by showing they're inconsistent with general relativity. So... maybe two I could call "string theorists" without feeling like I was dramatically misrepresenting the bulk of their work?
see if most of them are hep-th
I doubt hep-th is much more than half string theory these days, even being generous about what counts as "string theory".
Ok. That algorithm has worked for me in the past, and doesn't go too far wrong here either.
I think the point isn't that more than half of hep-th papers are string theory, but rather that non-string theorists also have hep-ph papers.
Those physicists were probably well-off and free to work on whatever they chose even before receiving it, but now Milner has appropriated them, somehow.
That's funny, I was going to say the opposite -- by giving the prize to people who are independently successful it makes it more of a gift and less of an incentive (in that it wouldn't make sense for any young ambitious physicist to aim for that prize, specifically).
I was recently remembering a story that Bill Russell tells about being approached with an offer for an endorsement deal, and the person saying, "if you work with us we can improve your reputation and help make you more widely known." His response was, "I already have a reputation, that's why you're coming to me, you want to rent it."
[obviously there are plenty of subsequent examples of athletes benefiting from their endorsement deals, but you can see his point.]
In this case it doesn't feel like appropriation because he doesn't have much to offer other than money.
An article I would link if not on my phone says a chunk of Witten's prize money is going to J Street.