I didn't write a single line about the second milner prize so I'll write a brief post about the third.
As can be read in "not even wrong" and in the blog of matt strassler it seems (but is not confirmed at the time of writing this entry) that the winner of the this third prize is Alexander Polyakov.
Everybody who has ever read a book on string theory know the name because of the Polyakov's action and the Polyakov path integral that are the very basics of the worldsheet aspect of string theory. Besides string theory Polyakov has made very valuable contributions to QFT such as instantons and magnetics mopopoles.
All in one it is clear that the prize is absolutely well deserved. In fact my only concern is why he hasn't also a nobel prize. It is absolutely clear that there are people awarded with a nobel who have by far less merits than Polyakov for the prize. Well, at this point I think that among theorists the milner prize should be more valued than the nobel not only for the money but for the prestige of the previous winners.
By the way, if someone wonders why I write so few posts in the last times there is an easy answer: The LHC is doing a hard work to hide any possible evidence of physics beyond the standard model. The Higgs is of the most boring type possible and no SUSY, no extra dimensions no nothing. Well, this is not the end of the world for theorethical physcis and it is sure that some surprises could be around the corner (but maybe not where people usually expects them xD) but it would have been fun to have some BTSM physics in colliders at this point.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"it would have been fun to have some BTSM physics in colliders at this point"
The important thing is to interpret the mass of the Higgs, which is the positive new information. So it is a more austere agenda, but it is still something to do.
I got the impresseion, that the Nobel Prize is more for experimental physics and things that have direct technological application ...
So it was high time that a similar prize for theoretical and fundamental physics got launched, thansk so very mach at Mr. Milner :-).
I think theoretical and fundamental physicists should rather focus their attention on the FPP, it is more important and more appropriate for them and their work.
The LHC has not yet run at the full energy, so I think there can still be surprises and cool things awaiting us ...
Cheers
Dilaton
Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on
the video to make your point. You obviously know what youre talking
about, why throw away your intelligence on just posting videos to your blog when you could be giving us something enlightening to read?
my blog: Demands of Mobile Apps
Dilaton.
I agree that the FPP is more appropiate for therethical physicisths and that we can thank a lot to Milner for his prize.
About the nobe my idea is that it is not only for applied physics but also for theorethical developments that are confirmed by experiments. Think on the works of weinberg, t'hoof or plausible a nobel for the higgs.I think that polyakov is near enought (almost on the same league) that weinberg and t'hooft and over some nobels whose names never remember. But still, ok, we now have the milner ;).
And the LHC-and now Planck has joined the game- have decided to show the most boring scenary. Scientific people maybe can be patients, but certainly it would be easier to ask for funds for future projects if somthing new and exciting would already have been found.
Post a Comment