Tuesday, October 01, 2013

APS prizes: Zajc; Moore; Kosower, Dixon, Bern; Volovik, Mineev

Due to its unprofessional activities in the climate debate, I am not exactly a fan of the American Physical Society. But let me mention the new winners of some of its prizes that were announced today.

Most importantly for the TRF community, and this sentence was added one day after the blog post was originally written, the 2014 Tom W. Bonner Prize in Nuclear Physics was awarded to experimental physicist and TRF reader and commenter William A. Zajc, the chairman of Columbia University's physics department "[f]or his contributions to Relativistic Heavy-Ion Physics, in particular for his leading role in the PHENIX experiment, as well as for his seminal work on identical two-particle density interferometry as an experimental tool.". Congratulations, Bill!




The 2014 Dannie Heineman Prize for Mathematical Physics goes to Greg Moore (whom I know from Rutgers, an impressive physical mathematician),
"For eminent contributions to mathematical physics with a wide influence in many fields, ranging from string theory to supersymmetric gauge theory, conformal field theory, condensed matter physics and four-manifold theory."




The 2014 J.J. Sakurai Prize for Theoretical Particle Physics goes to David Kosower, Lance Dixon, and Zwi Bern for their powerful new techniques streamlining the calculation of the QCD scattering amplitudes.

The 2014 Lars Onsager Prize winners are Grigory Volovik and Vladimir Mineev for "prediction of half-quantum vortices in superfluid He-3" using topological considerations.

Congratulations to the winners.

Incidentally, the 2013 Nobel prize in physics will be decided in 1 week from now. The theorists and experimenters linked to the Higgs boson are the likeliest options – but they may be snubbed, too.

36 comments:

  1. I meet Vladimir Mineev from time to time in our canteen and we eat together (we both work in CEA/Grenoble).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cool, Vladimír. I am writing this on my new Android tablet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It must be difficult without a keyboard, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cool choice of the winners, congratulations to them :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I personally think that one of the several reasons that APS is a devoted slave to large government is its location in Washington, DC. I'm not a member of APS, but I am a long-time member of AGU, which suffers from the same disease. These organizations have gradually evolved into quasi-governmental departments, as each advocates for increased funding for its members projects, yet neither pays taxes.


    It is all so extraordinarily divorced from any scientific enterprise: it is simply about groveling for money. Not terribly different, in some respects, from panhandlers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are often complaining the lack of financial support for your ideas and researches related to them. Have you considered using some crowdfunding platforms?

    ReplyDelete
  7. No, I have not. I am not familiar with such a thing. Is it realistic?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I suspect Kimmo that Vladimir is nowhere near constructing anything as impressive as an anti-matter bomb. He just doesn't like the idea of renormalization in QFT and has been voicing his unhappiness at every physics forum that I have visited (which means about three ;-) )


    His view seems to have been fairly common up to the 1980s but most physicists have moved on, and today, as far as I can tell, nobody has any time for this sort of thing, so Vladimir is treated like someone who claims he has designed a perpetuum mobile machine. Unfortunately, like many pm machine designers, Vladimir seems to lack the means to construct his device and nobody seems willing to fund its construction.
    (Maybe this is not a fair account of the situation but that's as much as I managed to read in between the lines ;-))

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, I can. What platform do you advise me?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lucretius, you are nearly right, except for "most physicists have moved on". No, they do renormalizations, as it was in 1948. The problem is simple: either we admit that we are so clever that are able to guess equations for bare (non observable) particles and their interactions right and then we calculate everything from "properties" of these modest heroes of the micro-world, or we admit that we failed to correctly couple good equations for physical particles and we just change obviously bad solutions and count on luck.

    Even Wilsonian point of view admits that we do not know everything, but most physicists insist on uniqueness of our present formulation. This is not true. The present formulation is not unique and we may find a better formulation leading directly to the same results in renormalizable theories. You can understand better what I mean if you read my paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3702

    ReplyDelete
  11. KickStarter.com might be the best platform. There are other platforms as well in case you are not a citizen of U.S., Canada or UK.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In my case, I *know* how to construct my "device". And I *will* do it when the time right. Naturally it would the best done with some collaborator(s).


    If that won't happen... then I'll do it by myself at latest roughly 5 years from now ;-) (The Bet)

    ReplyDelete
  13. It seems to be quite common in physics for people to claim that they have "a better formulation reading directly to the same results" and being ignored. I have no time to devote to these matters but I suspect even if I had, I would behave in the same way as everyone else. People who claim that a Nobel prize (t'Hooft's ) was awarded because of a simple mathematical mistake need to have some stronger evidence than just their word. Making a really surprising and testable new prediction of creating something spectacular (e.g. an anti-matter bomb) would help.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Proper predictions are my backup. There are many experiments already proving my model.


    1. Modified Cavendish Experiment (referenced in the paper).
    2. Modesty doesn't bring any good, so there is Rouvari Effect :-) (some videos my blog). High energy electrons ("beta radiation") are created based on my model.
    3. Prediction for upcoming Juno Earth flyby (this month).
    4. The ultimate proof (antimatter based energy production)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Vladimir KalitvianskiOct 3, 2013, 11:31:00 AM

    If you accept renormalizations, you accept bare particle physics. Good for you!

    As to "creating something spectacular", I need funds. Your hero 't Hooft did his important (but technical) thing being funded. You cannot ask a grain to produce fruits without creating reasonable conditions for producing fruits.

    A simple evidence for our mistake in coupling equations is given here: http://vladimirkalitvianski.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/popular-explanation-of-renormalization/

    ReplyDelete
  16. Vladimir KalitvianskiOct 3, 2013, 11:31:00 AM

    Thank you, Kimmo, very much!

    ReplyDelete
  17. One would have to be a much better physicist than me to decide if the "Rouvari Effect" (assuming it's more solid than, for example, "cold fusion") can be explained by standard physics. But the Juno Earth flyby prediction sounds interesting. So what is supposed to happen according to your theory and how can we test it?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Your hero 't Hooft ..."

    You seem very touchy. Did I write he was my "hero"? I wrote he got a Nobel prize. To most sensible people that counts a little more than some dubious sounding unpublished papers.

    "You cannot ask a grain to produce fruits without creating reasonable conditions for producing fruits."


    I am not asking. Lots of people could do with more funds. Choices must be made (and I don't make them).
    Also, it seems to me (though I am only guessing) that if Kimmo is right, your ideas are, beside the point, aren't they?. If so, wouldn't it be a mistake to fund both of you?
    Have you read his papers? At least he has got some predictions and promises *interesting* technology ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Spin frequency of Juno spacecraft generates an additional (anomalous) acceleration on top of the expected acceleration. Here is more on it http://www.toebi.com/blog/applications/juno-flyby-anomaly/

    The angle between Juno's spin plane and the mass point of Earth effects also but it's only relevant before and after the closest part of the flyby. During the closest part of the flyby spin plane is towards the mass point of Earth, at least I think it is (scientific measurements are done during the flyby?)

    If used spin frequency during the flyby is 2 rpm then total anomalous acceleration is \({\frac{2}{60}}^2 \approx 1.111\) mm/s^2.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Actually I suggest the same Vladimir. You might find it extremely interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Vladimir KalitvianskiOct 3, 2013, 1:08:00 PM

    "Choices must be made" - that's right. You know, Vladimir Mineev, Onsager Prise winner mentioned in Lubosh's post, informed me today that the decision makers decided to abolish his department at CEA/Grenoble as superfluous. The high decision was made this spring and the concerned researchers were informed only one week ago.

    As to my results, I explained the error we make, I explained the "success" of removing this error from solutions by renormalization, and I showed that the theory can be reformulated correctly from the very beginning. But such people as you and as those decision makers do not care about it. So do not blame us researchers.

    ReplyDelete
  22. But your paper on arXiv is in its 19th revision, with possibly more yet to come. Are you sure you have worked this out yet?

    ReplyDelete
  23. A quantified prediction, that's great! Now how are you going to measure that anomalous acceleration?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Vladimir KalitvianskiOct 3, 2013, 1:38:00 PM

    This particular paper (A Toy Model) has been finished and published here http://pubs.sciepub.com/ijp/1/4/2/index.html


    arXiv versions differ in details: some versions are short on purpose, some long. I tried different ways to present the material in order to convince different readers. My problem is that there are too few interested readers.



    Continuations, if any, will concern Classical and Quantum Electrodynamics.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I was afraid you'd say that. Have you been in contact with NASA to propose that they carry out the measurement?

    ReplyDelete
  26. No I don't. I think they'll do it in any case. Flyby anomaly is an interesting phenomenon so surely they measure and announce it, right? Right? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well, I can solemnly promise that if they do measure it ,and announce it, and if you are proved right, then I will drop whatever I am doing (and that's not entirely insignificant!) and carefully read all your papers.


    But not until then.


    Also, if you are proved right, there will be, I think, no need to bother with Vladimir (who for some reason believes that it is my duty to be interested in "renormalisation vs reformulation") which gives me more incentive to wait ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Oh, they will measure it alright, just not announce it. It will be kept a state secret.


    OK, fine. It is your hobby. As a hobby, it sure beats some other activities that some people pursue. And if it makes you happy, then by all means continue. However, if you could perhaps limit yourself to an occasional (once a year should be fine, I think) progress report I don't think most TRF readers would mind.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Fair enough. If I made a wrong prediction in Juno case then once a year would be an appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Doh! Now I must polish my papers. You know, a work in progress ain't never too pretty :-)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Vladimir KalitvianskiOct 3, 2013, 3:02:00 PM

    Your sole moral duty, Lucretius, is to be loyal to me and to Kimmo (not to our results, but to us).

    ReplyDelete
  32. One of my relatives got John H. Dillon Medal from this society. Is it a prestigious award?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Lubos, thanks for the mention in the update, much appreciated. The award was a very nice surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Greg Moore wrote about his thoughts about winning the prize.
    http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~gmoore/HeinemanEssay.pdf

    Other links from 2014 are on his website:
    http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~gmoore/

    ReplyDelete