I assume you are referring to Dr. Sheldon, Nobel Prize Winner not Nobel Gift Winner. A gift can be bestowed on anyone but awards and prizes are won through serious competition. In the case of scientific studies the winner is decided by experiment.
On a case by case bases not one Fundamental Physics Gift winner has earned a prize or reward.
If they have won an award or prize I really do not know the bases for it.
No, I’m referring to Sheldon Cooper, a character on the TV show, “The Big Bang Theory” where he is a theoretical physicist. And his thought processes match your first post quite closely.
This is a serious scientific topic regarding how what is being called a prize to individuals with highly questionable scientific accomplishments might effect the future of theoretical and applied physics. Because it is a serious scientific topic those who do not have the intellectual potential to join the conversation need not comment.
This is a serious scientific topic regarding how what is being called a prize to individuals with highly questionable scientific accomplishments might effect the future of theoretical and applied physics. Because it is a serious scientific topic those who do not have the intellectual potential to join the conversation need not comment.
Given your inability to choose correct words I see no benefit in discussing anything with you.
Ex: “bases” instead of “basis,” “effect” instead of “affect.”
If you are going to act all haughty and everything you should at least use correct grammar.
My statement is not cryptic. The Fundamental Physics Prize is a Gift because a prize is won based on a real scientific accomplishment as far as science goes. The question is deeper because the prize was established to do something real. That reality is lost because the gifts are given to those who have already benefited for science and contributed very little of note. Why not give gifts to institutions, or build institutions, or establish a diverse set of fellowships for physics students who want a career?
Many of these individuals who received gifts have destroyed theoretical and high energy physics for future generations and where rewarded with gifts. What message does that send?
I think that you’re looking at it from the wrong perspective. Look at it from the possible costs and benefits to the people providing the prize, not those receiving it.
The discussion was opened because I want a different perspective, so lets take it.
Yuri Milner is the only one giving the gift through his foundation. So there is no those or them or we. The receivers are plural. Yuri Milner’s cost is a few million every year. His benefit absolutely nothing. He was quoted as saying, “being disappointed in myself as a physicist”. Yes he was a doctoral candidate. Many people with PD’s in physics are looking real disappointed with their employment opportunities in a field that was destroyed by many of the receivers who have never been out of work with their degrees.
If Hawking or Witten were as successful in physics as Yuri Milner has been in venture capital there would be a field to gainfully employ physics students who never had a chance to work as physicist. They need not be disappointed, it is the leadership that is a disappointment and a disgrace when compared to those who made theoretical and applied physics societies most honor professions.
For starters, it sounds like you’re a disgruntled junior physicist or something. Next, the name of this prize is so generic you should have known most would not think the title on your post was refering to an actual prize, but just a generic topic. You should have provided a link and been specific that this is a real prize. Next, this prize was created in 2012 by some no name “internet entreprenuer”. Sounds fishy all around, no matter how much money is thrown at recipients. AND FINALLY…I seriously doubt any prize/gift/what have you, whether Nobel or otherwise, actually motivates scientists in any meaningful way.
You are actually wrong on all points except for the last. I am sure there are many people who are not motivated by money but everybody is sustained money. If not we could live a nice life working for nothing.
Yuri Milner’s cost is a few million every year. His benefit absolutely nothing.
Monetarily, that may be true, but there can be other benefits. Philanthropy toward individuals may have some different consequences than philanthropy toward institutions. For example, maybe taxation issues are much easier to deal with for individual gifts. Or, maybe he just trusts that the money will be more directly useful as individual awards than as group awards. There could be a lot of different factors.
I really can’t say I know what he was thinking when he established this foundation. He is a successful business man with a Masters from the Wharton School of Business so I am very sure he knows how to deal with financial systems and protect his money.
Nobel established his prize with a set of ideals. The Field Medal was established with a set of ideals. The Fundamental Physics Prize was established with a set of ideals. Successfully completing ones ideals is a benefit but coming right out the gate FPP is a failure and of little or no benefit to Yuri and what he says he was trying to accomplish.
The Nobel Prize standards are high with respect to all fields.
The Fields Medal standards are so high and unfair that any one over 40 can’t win no matter what they do. Ask Andrew Wiles who solved one of the greatest problems in mathematics but was over 40.
The Fundamental Physics Prize standards are non existent scientifically and structured so unfairly that it can only be called “String Theory’s version of, The Money Ball”. Any of these winners chances of winning a Nobel Prize is less than their chances of hitting the lotteries Money Ball.
