Not being prone to any Nobel prizes, I watch them pretty objectively.
Alfred Nobel established it due to his biting conscience: he wanted to
eliminate ALL wars by inventing (and starting to manufacture) the stuff he
deemed too aggressive to let people wage wars in his future: a wholesale
production of nitro glycerin. He observed the failure: HIS stuff made WARS
even more ferocious - so he dedicated his fortune (from nitro) to serve
good humanitarian ( scientific) achievements. He honored the Swedish
Royal Family with assigning the prizes - a body surely not on top of new
science, but trustable in objectivity and choice of experts.

I don't know much about the *Higgs boson*, according to some scientific
gossip he tried to withdraw it - to no avail, it was already 'too big' to

I am also quite ignorant about the chemistry choice of the following day's
decision: in *computerized chemistry* (3-way split) which started to unfold
during the time of my retirement when I still 'believed' IN atoms and
molecules. (Lately being washed away into agnosticism as explanatory
figments of a Physical World level)

The so called *Peace Prize* (maybe the No.1 as added to Nobel's original
list) is tricky in a world of constant warring. This year's choice *(the
UN-based - Organization to supervise the annihilation of Assad's chemical
weapons*) - and not the Assad-regime *DOING* the annihilation is again a
joke. It leaves out the AlQaeda and ilk ("rebel"?) parties holding a good
part of such weaponry - mostly conquered earlier from the Syrian forces.

And an agreeing remark to Bruno: IMO: not *Brout "died early"*: the Nobel
Committee was late. Peoples should get celebrated even in 'posthumus'

John M

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:

> 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:
> 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
>  --
> 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
> To post to this group, send email to
> Visit this group at
> For more options, visit

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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to