Backreation wrote a review together with Keating responded.
I used to recall that the championship was precisely a play a trick on to emphasize the importance of Keating's work: He has done run that could convey led to a Nobel prize but Nature wasn't generous enough, it has seemed for some iii years. But the 2 articles linked to inwards the previous paragraph suggest that Keating is much to a greater extent than obsessed amongst the Nobel prize. That's ironic because the mass seems to say that Keating is not obsessed, together with he doesn't fifty-fifty desire such a lame prize, but it's his colleagues, the spherical bastards, who are obsessed. ;-)
OK, allow me start to react to basic statements past times Keating together with Hossenfelder. First, Keating designed BICEP1 together with lots of us were very excited almost BICEP2, an upgraded version of that gadget. It could convey seen the primordial gravitational waves. Even though I had theoretical prejudices leading me to believe that those waves should last weak plenty together with then that they shouldn't convey been seen, I was impressed past times the actual graphs together with claims past times the BICEP2 collaboration together with willing to believe that they genuinely institute the waves together with proved us incorrect (by "us", I hateful people to a greater extent than or less the Weak Gravity Conjecture together with related schools of thought).
Keating has clearly designed a prissy gadget together with he deserves to last considered a exceed professional person inwards his field. Because that gadget hasn't made a breakthrough that nosotros would nonetheless believe to last existent together with solid, Keating hasn't won whatever major prize that also requires some collaboration of Mother Nature. He's nonetheless a exceed professional person who rightfully earns a regular salary for that run together with skills but his large lottery ticket hasn't won together with then he wasn't given a Nobel prize, an extraordinary donation.
During the excitement almost BICEP2, if you lot told me that the Keating was this obsessed amongst the Nobel prize, I would convey in all probability been to a greater extent than skeptical almost the claims than I was. From my perspective, this obsession looks similar a warning. If you lot genuinely desire a Nobel prize, it's natural to recall that you lot brand the arguments inwards favor of your uncovering human face a piddling chip clearer than what follows from your mutual depression temperature difficult data. I don't genuinely claim that Keating has committed such an "improvement" but I exercise claim that the expectation value of the "improvement" that I would convey believed if I had known almost his Nobel prize obsession would last positive together with significant.
Keating seems to combine comments almost his detail run amongst some to a greater extent than full general criticism of the Nobel prize. Only 1/4 of the Nobel prize winners inwards physics are theorists; the residue are experimenters together with observational people. Keating says that the fraction of theorists should last higher. I agree. He also says that experimenters shouldn't last getting Nobel prizes for things that some theorists outlined earlier them. I convey mixed feelings almost that claim – on some days, I would subscribe to that, on others, I wouldn't.
Hossenfelder seems upset almost that really statement:
You read that right. No Nobel for the Higgs, no Nobel for B-modes, together with no Nobel for a direct uncovering of nighttime affair (should it always happen), because someone predicted that.Ms Hossenfelder must convey missed it but i of these experimental discoveries has been made, that of the Higgs boson, together with the experimenters indeed didn't teach whatever Nobel prize. The 2013 Nobel prize went to Higgs together with Englert, 2 of the theorists who discovered the machinery together with (perhaps) the particle theoretically. There convey been several reasons why the experimenters haven't received the accolade (yet?): the CERN teams are equally good large, equally good many people could last said to deserve it (Alfred Nobel's throttle is iii – well, his volition genuinely said 1 but presently afterwards, the number was tripled together with some other alter would seem equally good radical now). But I recall that Keating's thinking has also played a role. CERN has genuinely done something straightforward. They knew what they should see. In my opinion, this makes the contribution past times the experimenters less groundbreaking.
In 2017, Weiss, Thorn, together with Barish got their experimental Nobel prize for something that was predicted past times the theorists – such equally Albert Einstein – namely the gravitational waves. But if you lot human face at the justification, they got the prize both for LIGO together with the uncovering of the gravitational waves. So they were the "first men" who created LIGO and/or made it really powerful. It seems to me that no i who has done something this groundbreaking inwards particle physics experimentation was a visible fellow member of the teams that discovered the Higgs boson. That uncovering was made past times a gradual improvement of the collider applied scientific discipline – past times a large collective of people.
I recall that if the primordial gravitational waves were discovered past times BICEP2 together with the uncovering were confirmed together with withstood the tests, Keating would both deserve the Nobel prize together with he would teach the Nobel prize. Now, some theorists convey predicted rigid plenty primordial gravitational waves. But these waves may also last weak or non-existent. The departure from the Higgs boson is that the Higgs boson was genuinely agreed to last necessarily at that topographic point past times expert particle physicists, it was the unique purpose instrumentalist that makes the \(W_L W_L\to W_L W_L\) scattering unitary. On the other hand, there's no such uniqueness inwards the representative of the primordial gravitational waves together with their forcefulness (and similarly inwards the occupation of the identity of the nighttime matter). When the answers aren't agreed to last unique past times the theorists, the experimenters play a much bigger purpose together with they arguably deserve the Nobel prize.
Some people are really upset when Keating (or I) betoken out that the confirmation of a theory past times an experiment – when the experimenter already knows what to human face for – is less spectacular. For example:
naivetheorist said: Keating writes: "I am advocating that to a greater extent than theorists should win it, together with experimentalists should non win it if they/we only confirm a theory". Merely? that's an incredibly condescending attitude. Keating's rather lame response' affirms my determination to cancel my social club for his book.The mental attitude may human face condescending but at that topographic point are really expert reasons for this "condescension". The Nobel prize simply is meant to vantage the master copy contribution together with when someone is precisely confirming the run (theory) past times someone else, this run is to a greater extent than derivative fifty-fifty if the get-go guy is a theorist together with the 2d guy is an experimenter. It's non bad that experimenters are confirming or refuting hypotheses formulated past times the theorists. But that's only the scientific "business equally usual". Prizes such equally the Nobel prize are given for something extraordinary that isn't precisely "business equally usual". One needs to last the genuinely get-go soul to exercise something – together with luck or Nature's cooperation is oft needed.
Keating seems to suggest some boycotts of the Nobel prize or lawsuits against the Nobel prize. I don't teach these comments. The inventor of some explosives got rich together with created a organization inwards which his coin is invested together with some fraction is paid to some people who are chosen equally worthy the accolade past times a commission that Nobel envisioned inwards his Nobel. It's a individual activity. Well, i that has teach globally famous, but the global fame is a number of the fame of Nobel himself together with the winners (plus the coin that attracts human eyes), non something that defines the award. Just because the accolade is followed past times many people inwards the basis doesn't hateful that these people convey the correct to alter the rules. After all, it's non their money.
As I said, the Nobel prize could last "better" according to many of us – together with a higher pct of the theorists could last a business office of this "improvement". But this give-and-take is detached from reality. The Nobel prize is whatever it is. Alfred Nobel was a really practical soul – explosives are rather practical compounds – together with I believe that if he knew the whole listing of the winners of his physics prize, he would last surprised past times the high pct of nerds together with pure theorists. And maybe he would observe it OK. And maybe he would desire to increase the number of theorists, too. We don't know. But the prize has some traditional rules together with expectations. Theorists solely teach their prizes for theories that convey been experimentally verified – similar Higgs together with Englert.
The master copy BICEP2 claims almost the really rigid gravitational waves seem largely discredited now. This uncomplicated fact seems much to a greater extent than of import for the enquiry whether BICEP2 should last awarded a Nobel prize or non than some proposals to increase the number of theorists or cut the number of experimental winners who precisely confirm predictions past times theorists.
Concerning the obsession past times the Nobel prizes, well, I recall it's normal for the people who teach unopen plenty to last eligible to recall almost the prize. Some of the fathers of QCD knew that they deserved the prize together with they were patiently waiting for some thirty years. The winners teach some coin directly, some extra coin indirectly, together with they may relish the life to a greater extent than than they did previously.
I recall that the people who run on hep-th together with ambitious hep-ph – similar string theory together with particle physics beyond the Standard Model – must know that according to the electrical current system of things, the Nobel prize for their run is unlikely. But that doesn't hateful that their run isn't the most valuable thing done inwards science. The best things inwards hep-th almost for certain are the most valuable business office of science. But things are precisely arranged inwards such a means that authors of such ground-breaking theoretical papers haven't gotten a Nobel prize together with they're expected non to teach it soon, either.
Is that such a problem? I don't recall so. The Nobel prize is a distinguished accolade together with – amongst the exception of the Nobel prize inwards peace together with perchance literature – it keeps on rewarding people who convey done something of import together with who are unremarkably really smart, too. But the precise criteria that create upward one's heed who is rewarded are a chip to a greater extent than subtle – the physics prize isn't meant to vantage people who are smart and/or made a deep contribution, without additional adjectives. The contributions must last confirmed experimentally because that's how "physics" is defined inwards the Nobel prize context. So at that topographic point are rather expert reasons why fifty-fifty Stephen Hawking hasn't always received a Nobel prize although most quantum gravity theorists – together with most formal theoretical particle physicists – would handgrip that his contributions to physics convey been greater than those of the average Nobel prize winner. But the Hawking radiations hasn't genuinely been seen. For me, the observation is a formality – I convey no existent doubts almost the beingness of the Hawking radiations together with other things – but I convey no problem to abide by the rules of the game inwards which these formalities create upward one's heed almost the prize. These are precisely the rules of the Nobel prize – together with those ultimately reverberate the rules of the scientific method.
By the way, I recall that many people who convey been doing similar things equally your humble correspondent are oft reminded that "they wanted a Nobel prize". It's possible that equally a kid, I convey independently talked almost such things equally good but at the end, I recall that the obsession amongst the Nobel prize has primarily been widespread inwards my (or our) environment, non inwards my ain thinking. The existent excitement that underlined some of my of import ideas – together with fifty-fifty the hopes that i tin give the axe teach much farther amongst these ideas – convey had virtually zip to exercise amongst the Nobel prize for over twenty years.
If you lot human face rationally, the Nobel prize is precisely an honor. I genuinely recall that my opinions almost these matters – including the importance of the Nobel prize – were largely shaped past times Feynman's see to a higher house since the minute when I read "Surely You're Joking Mr Feynman" for the get-go time. And I was 17. Well, the Nobel prize is nonetheless a better honor than almost all others. After all, e.g. Richard Feynman who didn't similar honors was i of those who got that detail honor. ;-) But it's unwise to last obsessed amongst the alternative procedure together with generic winners of that prize. At the end, the determination is i made past times a smart but imperfect committee, together with the prize primarily affects the winners only.
No comments:
Post a Comment