Sunday, October 07, 2018 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Men who missed out on the Nobel prize

A woman shared the 2018 physics Nobel prize for laser tricks, 55 years after the previous (2nd after Curie) woman, Maria Goeppert-Mayer, who was celebrated in 1963 for the nuclear shell model. (The number of Nobel prizes given for applications of lasers is just pathologically high, and I've been saying it long before this new addition. Note that neither Einstein nor Bose have even gotten the prize for the Bose-Einstein statistics.)

Before the committee has made its choice, the media were full of requests that "this time, a woman must be there" and the Nobel committee was surely under amazing pressure. There's no good reason to think it was temporary – so we may conclude that the physics Nobel prize has been downgraded to an ideologically driven and politically abused farce, much like the peace Nobel prize and others were some decades earlier.

Dr Donna Strickland is nice, modest, and she is not really responsible for this feminist Nobel insanity – which also included a selective worshiping of her as a hero as well as the media stories in which her senior collaborator, Dr Gerard Mourou, was painted as a sexist pig because he recorded a music video with much younger female lab coat dancers in 2010. These double standards are really insane given the very likely fact that she couldn't have had a chance to win such an award without Dr Mourou.



But the radical leftists continue to emit incredible garbage every day. For example, the prominent Marxist Ms Naomi Oreskes – who is notorious for her utterly fraudulent paper claiming that there's the 97% consensus about the climate hysteria – has complained about the following:


Can you answer the question why Ms Strickland dares to be the last in the Washington Post list "Ashkin, Mourou, Strickland"?



Yes, the reason is known as the alphabetical ordering. Hasn't she ever heard of alphabetical ordering? Or is the alphabet another criminal tool invented by the white men? Well, it surely is another invention of white men. But shouldn't we give the alphabet a little bit more credibility? In these contexts, the alphabetical ordering is almost a law. This law was adopted exactly to prevent someone's arbitrary decision to place some people before others – and, which is the mirror image, to prevent the speculations about the reasons why someone ordered some people in one way and not another way.

Ashkin, Mourou, Strickland are ordered in this way because it's what the alphabetical ordering dictates. You're simply assumed to mechanically order the names alphabetically – and others are assumed to read the list, check it's alphabetical, and avoid unnecessary complaints. Well, Ashkin could be treated separately because he wasn't a part of the other two people's team. But those two people in the team could still be sorted alphabetically.

And Naomi Oreskes is extremely far from being the only nut job who keeps on producing these absolutely incredible complaints. Today in the morning, The Guardian published Anna Paul's diatribe
Five women who missed out on the Nobel prize
The subtitle says:
Donna Strickland’s Nobel prize ends half a century in which the committee ignored big breakthroughs by female physicists
The whole article implicitly if not explicitly claims that it could only happen to women that they were overlooked or missed the Nobel prize for some reasons or another. Anna Paul's five examples are Burnell, Hau, Rubin, Wu, and Meitner. Many of these women could have deserved the prize under certain circumstances. But is the list representative? Is she really serious?

Why don't you open a rudimentary page on the Internet that is dedicated to this question? For example the physics section of the Nobel Prize controversies on Wikipedia? Let us just list the people who were claimed to be unfairly omitted from the list of winners. And I will omit examples such as "the LIGO collaboration" or "people who have worked with graphene" or "some Russians who scooped Chu" because no explicit names are attached (surely many men could be found in these examples, too). Let's just list the names that the section of that page explicitly lists:
Losev, Holonyak, Cabibbo, Jona-Lasinio, Brukhanov, Sudarshan (twice), Mandel, Walls, Hoyle (twice), Marshak, Feynman (again), Gell-Mann (again), Wu (woman), Alpher, Gold, Burnell (woman), Zweig, Ne'eman, Lilienfeld, Heil, Mataré, Welker, Lattes, Gardner, Chao, de Saint-Victor, Gamow, Frisch, Meitner (woman), Strassman, Bose, Saha, Einstein (again), Poincaré, Lorentz, Eddington, Tesla (from a different page).
Now, all these examples have some specifics, a minority died before the possible award, for example, but these issues are rather similar in the male and female subset. At any rate, the list above has some 34 men and 3 women who could have won the prize for a discovery that has actually been rewarded. Women have about 10% in such a list – and it seems likely to me that this figure of 10% is already an overestimate engineered by "left-leaning" Wikipedia editors.

One reason for this claim of mine is that the discoveries by many omitted men above were apparently much more important than the women's ones. Fred Hoyle was the only person who discovered the stellar nucleosynthesis! Burnell was really just one of many students of his – and a not-top-three author of a five-author 1967 paper on the discovery of pulsars which was appreciated by a 1974 prize. Poincaré and Lorentz co-discovered (some limited) relativity. (Hilbert could be added for his overlapping contributions to general relativity.) Zweig co-discovered quarks (he called them "aces"). Bose discovered the bosons' statistics – the remaining names in these quantum statistics, Einstein+Fermi+Dirac, were rewarded. Meitner was a great woman but if she were omitted, so was Otto Frisch. For "some" reasons, only Meitner is being mentioned in similar grievance studies. Analogously, Vera Rubin (who died in 2016) could have been given a prize for dark matter but in that case, Fritz Zwicky (who died in 1974) could have been an even better candidate for that. Again, due to the journalists' bias, only Rubin is being mentioned in this context.

And the list above still misses some great men who simply should have gotten it but their discoveries were completely omitted. For example, Georges Lemaître may have been the most important man behind the whole big bang paradigm – and he lived up to 1966. But he never got the prize – although similar cosmological discoveries are surely being rewarded in the modern era. No masculinists exist to defend his "entitlement" and even the Vatican fails to shout. Edwin Hubble (who observed that the Universe was expanding) hasn't gotten one, either. (In his lifetime, "astronomy" was not being rewarded and he was counted in this box.)

Also, Pascual Jordan has never gotten the prize for the pioneering steps in quantum mechanics (with Heisenberg and Born) because he was an NSDAP member and a true believer. Of course, Hawking (and Bekenstein) has never gotten the prize although every good theoretical physicist will tell you that the Hawking radiation and black hole thermodynamics are a sure thing. After all, Schwarzschild, Kerr, Newmann, Reissner, Nordström, Einstein, Rosen... and also Wheeler (and the people who observed the first evidence for black holes) have never gotten a prize for the black holes or wormholes themselves. Physicists' physicist Sidney Coleman has never gotten one for his theorems on symmetries, instantons, solitons, tadpoles, potentials, false vacuum decay etc. And there's been obviously no Nobel prize for string theory (let alone one for me and matrix string theory!), SUSY, supergravity, holography, grand unification, or beyond the Standard Model physics (given the theoretical or "unconfirmed" status of these advances, I don't claim there should have been such prizes but someone could surely find such claims justified). Virtually all of these possible prizes would have gone to men. Milutin Milanković hasn't gotten the prize for his correct celestial explanation of the glaciation cycles that were named after him. And of course, Alfred Wegener has never gotten any big prize for the continental drift. I could talk for hours.

Whatever the percentage of "arguably omitted" women is, it is surely vastly smaller than 50% – and if biases are removed, the percentage of "omitted women" is probably close to the percentage of women laureates among laureates. Most of the possible physics Nobel prize candidates who have been "arguably omitted" were men. The Guardian's text that almost explicitly claims that the Nobel committee has only been omitting women – or, similarly, that creates the illusion that the Nobel committee has "discriminated" against women – is just totally fraudulent, disgusting, or – if I use some jargon of the SJWs – it is morally reprehensible fake news.

We, the TRF community, know very well that most of such writers are dishonest far left inkspillers, liars, activists, demagogues, and scumbags. But tens of millions of people in the Western countries are genuinely brainwashed by these shameless cultural Marxists' lies that are being emitted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They don't even interrupt their lies on Sundays as Anna Paul has demonstrated today.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (0) :