On 09 Oct 2013, at 22:22, meekerdb wrote:

On 10/9/2013 12:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Oct 2013, at 23:56, LizR wrote:


http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2013/10/08/and-the-2013-nobel-prize-in-physics-goes-to/

Today the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to François Englert (Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium) and Peter W. Higgs (University of Edinburgh, UK). The official citation is “for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.”


I know him very well. I begun my work in his team, with Robert Brout. He asked me how to apply QM in cosmology, and I refer to the MWI. He added some footnote in one of his papers, just referring to Everett's original work, without any detail. He didn't like this, but somehow understood it is hard to make sense of quantum cosmology without it. I am happy that after 50 years he is recognized as one the main discover of the "Higgs boson". I am happy for Higgs too.

The seminal papers suggesting the higgs-field were written independently about the same time by Higgs, by Englert and Brout, and also by Kibble, Gaulnik, and Hagen. I've often thought the it came to called the higgs boson just because it's a lot easier to say "higgs" than "englert-brout" or "kibble-gaulnik-hagen". I understand that Peter Higgs is a very nice, modest man and is a little embarassed by having the particle named after him, although he did develop the idea a little more than the others and is certainly deserving.


But in my view, even more deserving are the thousands of engineers, technicians, and physicists who designed and built the LHC and the ATLAS and CMS detectors. Surely the most amazing machine ever built.

I agree. In a forum someone asked if the Nobel prize should not be given to those who made the LHC, and the answer was that they were too many ... I find unfair also that there is no post-mortem Nobel prize, as Robert Brout deserves it too, but then he died too early. Well, the mathematician's Field medal is worse, you have to be younger than 40!

But all this is vanity. François Englert said that he was happy with the Nobel prize, but that he was still more happier from having done his fundamental research.





Now, the Nobel prize itself has been obscured by "Obama's peace prize", like if it was giving him the right to use drones to kill civilians, or to sign the NDAA ... Englert should have refuse it, perhaps, like Sartre in France or Perelman in Russia, ... I am not really serious, as it seems than the scientific Nobel prize is more seriously attributed.


Fortunately.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been wielded as a tool of political influence and has thereby become almost meaningless. Obama got it for being a little less bellicose that George Bush.

... before his term! (may be we are in a Gödel rotative universe, with time loops, in which case they could give the Nobel prize of physics, also before the research is done ... :)

Bruno


Brent
"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."
    --- Tom Lehrer


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to