David J. Thouless of Seattle won 50%, F. Duncan M. Haldane of Princeton won 25%, J. Michael Kosterlitz won 25%. All 3 men were born inwards Britain too convey moved to America.
The condensed affair insights are genuine too real of import – the brain 1973 theoretical paper has close 9,000 citations piece Haldane's 1983 newspaper on the Haldane gap inwards 1D Heisenberg anti-ferromagnets (chains) has over 2,400 citations – but I believe that this selection is a surprise for virtually everyone, anyway.
In fact, I am convinced that fifty-fifty most of those people who were suggesting a Nobel for "topological" things inwards condensed affair physics were betting on other names. For example, inwards 2014, Thomson Reuters predicted a Nobel prize for topological insulators – to theorist Charles L. Kane, experimenter Laurens W. Molenkamp, too theorist Shoucheng Zhang.
Breakthrough Prize winner Alexei Kitaev could convey been awarded a prize for the topological quantum computers but his piece of occupation is belike equally good mathematical (although less too so than e.g. Maxim Kontsevich's). Various other condensed affair physicists comparable to the newest winners too their collaborators – e.g. Ian Affleck – could convey won, too.
Just to travel sure, the piece of occupation past times these 3 men is real closely related to the quantum Hall outcome too the 1998 prize was for the (fractional) quantum Hall effect. Two prizes for that sort of stuff is arguably 1 equally good many.
The Nobel officials were showing their tiffin too holes inwards their doughnuts from the Cheesecake Factory, only similar Brian Greene inwards the popularization of string theory. The human being also added a motion-picture demo of a tornado which was his vortex.
Those explanations are highly low-brow too when it comes to the world-class research, I would prefer lowly high-brow explanations addressed to the scientific public. You know, these guys were real far from inventing the genus or Euler characteristics of surfaces too similar things. The presenter didn't larn real far inwards explaining what these guys were actually awarded for.
But Kosterlitz too Thouless did innovate the notion of "topological order" inwards 1973. They also showed superconductors too superfluids to travel possible inwards 2D. Haldane added his insights inwards the 1980s too applied the previous insights to 1D anti-ferromagnetic chains. Another 1983 newspaper past times Thouless (with 750+ citations) was also explicitly mentioned too was the argue why Thouless got a greater percentage than the other ii men.
So Barry Barish is belike happy that the Nobel commission has waited alongside the LIGO. (The Jan 31st deadline for the nomination could convey been the argue that delayed the Nobel prize for LIGO, later all.)
Most of the journalists who were yell for questions to Duncan Haldane – who was on the telephone – were stupid too obnoxious females who asked questions similar "where are the devices based on your work, Sir" too "why the hell did y'all create something equally wearisome equally physics that youth is increasingly uninterested in". Haldane didn't permit them to spoil his proficient mood too enthusiasm, however. Nevertheless, I mean value that journalists who are openly hostile towards physics equally a pure scientific discipline shouldn't travel allowed at similar ceremonies whose brain piece of occupation is to celebrate the physicists' achievements.
You may read a review of the topics of this Nobel prize.
Congratulations to everybody!
Yesterday, the medicine Nobel prize went to Yošinori Ohsumi (JP) for his clarification of autophagy (cells' self-eating past times which they sometimes recycle the material).
BTW, yesterday, the New York Times published an opinion piece claiming that the Nobel prizes should travel "updated" too vantage less prestigious disciplines such equally ecology too around downright pseudoscientific disciplines such equally the global warming hysteria that are closer than physics etc. to the journalists too the stupid people too that convey spread all over the gild too fifty-fifty the Academia.
If I weren't tired past times this sort of idiocratic junk inwards which we're increasingly drowning too that I convey debunked too so many times inwards the past, I would react again.
No comments:
Post a Comment