It is that time of year again. I have not made predictions for a few years.
For physics this year I predict
Experiments for testing Bell inequalities and elucidating the role of entanglement in quantum physics
Alan Aspect, John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger
They received the Wolf Prize in 2010, a common precursor to the Nobel.
My personal preference for the next Nobel for CMP would be centred around Kondo physics, since that is such a paradigm for many-body physics, maybe even comparable to BCS.
Kondo effect and heavy fermions
Jun Kondo, Frank Steglich, David Goldhaber-Gordon
Arguably the latter two might be replaced with others who worked on heavy fermions and/or Kondo in quantum dots.
Steglich discovered heavy fermion superconductivity.
Goldhaber-Gordon realised tuneable Kondo and Anderson models in quantum dots (single-electron transistors).
Unlike many, I still remain to be convinced that topological insulators is worthy of a Nobel.
For chemistry, my knowledge is more limited. However, I would go for yet another condensed matter physicist to win the chemistry prize: John Goodenough, inventor of the lithium battery.
He also made seminal contributions to magnetism, random access memories, and strongly correlated electron materials.
What do you think?
Postscripts (October 10).
I got confused about the day of the physics prize and I think when I posted my ``prediction'' the prize may have already been announced.
A few years ago I read Goodenough's fascinating autobiography. It was actually in that book that I learned about U. Chicago requiring PhD students to publish a single author paper. This observation featured in my much commented on recent post about PhD theses.
I also have a prediction for the Peace Prize. First, I hope it is not Greta Thunberg, as much as I admire her and agree with the importance of her cause. I worry whether it may ruin her life.
My wife suggested the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Abiy Ahmed and the President of Eritrea, Isaias Afwerki. I find it truly amazing what Ahmed has achieved.
Another great choice would be some of the leaders of Armenia, which has seen significant increases in human rights, political freedoms, and freedom the press. It was selected as The Economist's country of the year in 2018.
Postscript (October 30).
I was really happy about the economics prize. Six years ago, I read Poor Economics, by Banerjee and Duflo, with my son (an economics student), and blogged about it. Below a respond to a commenter who was critical of this prize.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From Leo Szilard to the Tasmanian wilderness
Richard Flanagan is an esteemed Australian writer. My son recently gave our family a copy of Flanagan's recent book, Question 7 . It is...
-
Is it something to do with breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation? In molecular spectroscopy you occasionally hear this term thro... -
If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new mat...
-
I welcome discussion on this point. I don't think it is as sensitive or as important a topic as the author order on papers. With rega...
I'm a chemical physicist. I've given up trying to predict Chemistry Nobels. They seem to be moving to giving ones for what really is engineering. Its boring.
ReplyDeleteAll the people I ever nominated have already won. The people next on my list all did their work long ago and have zero chance, in addition to being too "physicsy".
I wonder if the serious objections of some electrochemistry researchers on the last Goodenough (et al.) claims about a possible "solid state" glass battery do not cast some shadow on his chance to win the Nobel prize. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/pdf/article/2018/ee/c7ee01318c &
ReplyDeletehttps://lacey.se/2018/07/05/glass-battery-part-2/ .
FOR ADMINISTRATORS AND FUNDING BODIES SOME ENLIGHTENING NEWS.
ReplyDeleteDeanis Wirtz is VP Reaearch at John Hopkins from where two won Nobel (2019) for medicine.
https://twitter.com/deniswirtz
Interestingly, ALL early papers on HIF and its role on O2 sensing by @NobelPrize Semenza and colleagues were published in NON-GLAMOUR society journals, including JBC and Molecular and Cellular Biology http://www.jbc.org/content/270/3/1230.short … https://mcb.asm.org/content/12/12/5447.short … https://mcb.asm.org/content/16/9/4604.short …
October 9, 2019 at 8:48 AM
SOME ENLIGHTENING NEWS in the age of narcissism
ReplyDeleteand en-title-ment.
Goodenough finally received it! https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2019/summary/
ReplyDeleteNice prediction of the Chemistry prize Ross!
ReplyDeleteProf Ross , This time ARC grant, sure thing for you , reading your prediction come right.
ReplyDeleteWell, you predicted the Chemistry prize correctly. It fits my pattern: its boring engineering.
ReplyDeleteAs a chemist, I should add that the "magic" in these batteries (as described and actually used) is not the lithium but the cobalt which has particularly favorable oxidation states. This separates out one of the winners as the key one.
What did you want the prize to be given for?
DeleteI agree with you that the Chemistry prize is becoming more and more applied and engineering/medicine oriented, rather than basic science.
ReplyDeleteWhen the prize is awarded for some basic science there is a lot of hype about the associated technology.
Every five years or so the physics prize is also going for technology, e.g. Integrated circuits, blue LEDs,...
I am no expert on lithium batteries, but I think there is a lot of basic science that is poorly understood. Goodenough himself has emphasised that.
On Goodenough, I think he is worthy of the chemistry prize, solely for his contributions to magnetism and strongly correlated electron materials.
The two seminal works/reviews
Magnetism and the Chemical Bond (1963)
Metallic Oxides (1971)
laid many foundations both theoretical and experimental for the high-Tc superconductor revolution over the last thirty years.
This work also laid the foundation for Goodenough's battery work.
Prof Stanley Whiitingham , NL discusses the attitude of companies then to do basic research then in this interview.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDBQzXP4ocQ
Now , companies are different. All have gone into technology. After WTO price hike on patents , start up cultures in Universities globally has provided a new method of Rickardian economics (outsourcing type). There is scarce jobs in basic research in many pvt sector companies. Bells labs had then they produced a Bednorz and Muller (NL) . Philips Petroleum had . They also had NLs in catalsyis. I do not remember their names. Now, Unis are so crowded with postdocs , startups due to lack of real jobs for PhDs like the previous time. Academics literally do a relay race from teaching , admin , and managing startups.
This new culture adjustment has taken a toll on academics as well as fresh PhD students. What is the future?
Prof Ross , its all in the family. Your wife's prediction has come true. Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Abiy Ahmed has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Great!!!
ReplyDeleteThe ‘randomness’ of 2019’s Nobel economics laureates
ReplyDeleteThere is growing criticism of the methods advocated by this year’s prize winners
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/10/article/the-randomness-of-2019s-nobel-economics-laureates/
First one
ttp://www.bostonreview.net/world-books-ideas/pranab-bardhan-little-big
Jean Dreze below
https://www.ideasforindia.in/topics/miscellany/evidence-policy-and-politics.html?fbclid=IwAR3MAQk7ahb6FQVactSWgwIJeU3LngkwSqqYghfOImBWg0lOYghkQkU2H7M
A Deaton NPrize winner below
https://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/Deaton_Cartwright_RCTs_with_ABSTRACT_August_25.pdf
This above published in open access as reflections
http://dro.dur.ac.uk/24732/1/24732.pdf
Thanks for the comment. I have added a Postscript to the post stating how happy I was about this prize. In response to your criticisms, I think it is important to make a distinction between:
Delete1. The scholarly originality and impact of the contribution of using Randomised Control Trials (RCT) in development economics. The broader impact within in the discipline of economics: a shift from abstract idealised (and ideological) models to using real data to test models and proposals.
2. Hyped/dogmatic claims that RCTs are the one and only approach to determining public policy on poverty alleviation.
The articles you reference seem to be largely concerned with 2. and not. 1.
A helpful and balanced perspective is here
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-new-gold-standard-in-development-economics/article29826141.ece
You are right about Greta T
ReplyDeleteHear this as she spoke in Edmonton.
She says between 56 and 58 mins that main enemy is physics. Why ??
https://mobile.reuters.com/video/2019/10/18/greta-thunberg-our-future-is-at-stake?videoId=614461060&videoChannel=117760