No Nobel Prizes to Theoretical Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity!

Here is a perspective on the previous post:

Let us consider how the Nobel Committee has awarded work of major theoretical nature on Quantum Mechanics as the foundation of modern physics: 

1932 Werner Heisenberg: Matrix mechanics, 1933 Erwin Schrödinger: Schrödinger wave equation, 1933 Paul Dirac: Dirac equation = Relativistic wave equation, 1954 Max Born: Statistical interpretation of wave function, which can be complemented with very preliminary  1918 Max Planck: Quantum of energy/action $h\nu$ 1921 Albert Einstein: Quantum of light $h\nu$ = photon. There are several Prizes to experimental work connecting to "quantum",  but none to any of the fundamentally different interpretations seeking to specify the physical meaning of Schrödinger/Dirac wave equation and wave functions including: Copenhagen Bohr-Born-Heisenberg 1927, Bohmian mechanics 1952, Many-Worlds 1957, Collapse Models 1990-2000. This means that through the 100 years history of QM as the foundation of modern physics, the physical meaning of the theory is still completely open. The common agreement is that "QM works" exceedingly well, so amazingly well that there not a single experiment not in full agreement with QM, while it is also agreed that "nobody knows why". None of the above interpretations has shown to be worthy of a prize, indicating that they are all wrong.  So the last time a Prize was awarded to QM including theory, was to Born in 1954 for his statistical interpretation in 1927, while this was the reason he was left out in 1932-33.  Modern physics is based on the theories of QM + General Relativity GR. It is very remarkable that no Prize has been given to a discovery of the physical meaning of either the "quantum" of QM or the "curved space-time" of GR.  It is natural to connect the present crisis of theoretical physics to a growing feeling of lack credibility coming from lack of Prize to theory over a very long time.  Recall also that an experiment without theory is blind. An experiment must be interpreted to have a meaning. A number or blip on a screen says nothing in itself.  Recall that all trouble comes from the generalisation of Schrödinger's equation for the Hydrogen atom with is wave function representing its one electron charge density in concrete physical terms, to atoms with more than one electron in terms of a multi-dimensional wave function without physical representation. Real Quantum Mechanics offers a different generalisation with concrete charge density representation. A Prize to RealQM is not unthinkable...

Nobel Prize in Physics to Climate Models which Do Not Model Climate

The Nobel Committee in Physics has as an act of scientific political correctness today given half of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2021 to Syukuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann for the physical modelling of Earth's climate quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming.

In other words, the Prize has been given to Climate Models which Do Not Model the Climate, as is shown in the following graph of Global Warming over time comparing Climate Model predictions with Real World observations (second image from Roy Spencer Global Warming) : 

These graphs must have been unknown to the Committee. What is the meaning of "reliably predicting global warming" when the prediction has nothing to do with the actually observed absence of observable global warming (0.2 C over 40 years)? Is the "reliability" that all climate models show too much warming, or that the spread is so big that even virtually no warming is included in the predictions?

What is a 2020 Nobel Physics Prize Singularity?

The motivation 2020 Nobel Physics Prize awarded Roger Penrose reads:

• In January 1965, ten years after Einstein’s death, Roger Penrose proved that black holes really can form and described them in detail; at their heart, black holes hide a singularity in which all the known laws of nature cease. His ground-breaking article is still regarded as the most important contribution to the general theory of relativity since Einstein.
• Penrose proceeded to prove that once a trapped surface had formed, it is impossible, within the theory of general relativity and with a positive energy density, to prevent the collapse towards a singularity (Penrose 1965).

A singularity is thus described as something in which all the known laws of nature cease. 

Let us try to understand what the meaning of such statement can be, and let first recall that mathematics is filled with singularities, and that there are ways to handle such things. As a typical example, take a look att the function $f(x)$ defined by 

• $f(x) = 0$ for $x < 0$
• $f(x) = 1$ for $x > 0$, 

with the value for x = 0 left unspecified. This is a function which "jumps" from 0 to 1 at the point $x = 0$ with a derivative which appears to be infinite. Nothing very strange, although you may recall that

•  Natura non facit saltus.   (Nature does not jump)  (Axiom of Leibniz)

meaning that the physical jump takes place over a certain distance with a large derivative. 

In any case, you may say that the function $f(x)$ "ceases to exist" for x = 0, since no value is specified. But there is something, which is well defined, and that is the jump ( = 1). So there is a form of singularity, where the function f(x) ceases to exist/is not defined, but still the jump of f(x) exists and is well defined.  

There is a well developed mathematical theory to deal with singularities and jumps, which is called distribution theory. In this theory the properties the function f(x) would be expressed through integrals

• $\int f(x)\phi (x) dx$ 

where $\phi (x)$ is any smooth test function. The jump of f(x) would then come out as

• $-\int f(x)\phi^\prime (x)\, dx = \phi (0)$  where $\phi^\prime = \frac{d\phi}{dx}$ is the derivative of $\phi$,

which can be phrased as: The derivative $f^\prime (0)$ is a delta function at 0, which gives a precise meaning to a derivative which appears to be infinite in a standard pointwise sense.  

A (unit) point mass is an elementary concept in mechanics, like a very small ball of very high density with total mass = 1, which can be represented by a delta function.  So a point mass is a singularity without any mystery whatsoever, and it would be futile to ask for any internal physics of a such a thing, or to say that inside a point mass laws of physics cease.

In mathematics singularities thus can have well defined properties (expressing laws of physics), and so a singularity may not be all that mysterious and without any physics!  Why is then the singularity discovered by Penrose worth a Nobel Prize?

Maybe then after all, physics does not cease to exist, because physics cannot cease to exist: The show must go on. (Leibniz).

  

Nobel Prize in Physics for Discovery of Singularity without Physics

The mathematician Roger Penrose receives half of the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics

• for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity

with the following further motivation:

• In January 1965, ten years after Einstein’s death, Roger Penrose proved that black holes really can form and described them in detail; at their heart, black holes hide a singularity in which all the known laws of nature cease. His ground-breaking article is still regarded as the most important contribution to the general theory of relativity since Einstein.

So Penrose receives the Prize/2 for proving: in a singularity all the known laws of nature cease. Here is an illuminating illustration from the deep scientific text underlying the motivation (watch and get enlightened):

To give perspective on this perplexing message, recall that Einstein was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics with the explicit mention that it was not for his theories of relativity. The 1921 Nobel Committee did not consider Einstein's relativity theories to be physics, only mathematics closed into its own box. It is logical that the 2020 Nobel Committee gives the Prize/2 to a mathematician. 

Maybe it can be seen as a little compensation for the lack of Nobel Prize in Mathematics. The 2020 Nobel Committee concludes the theoretical presentation with the following reservation in the spirit of the 1921 Committee: 

• The extent to which the structure of a black hole surrounded by an event horizon actually match the predictions of general relativity is still an open question. Nature may still have surprises in store.

For 100 years the Nobel Physics Committee stubbornly resisted giving the Prize to Einstein's Theories of Relativity, despite its proclaimed fundamental role in modern physics. What made the Committee change mind? Was it this (criticised) picture:

Below you find the Nobel Diploma to Einstein with the explicit mention on the first page that the Prize is 

• independent of the value, after eventual confirmation, which can be given to relativity/gravitation theory. 

It is certainly unique in the history of the Nobel Prize to  explicitly state for which landmark contribution to science the Prize is not given!

For more juice, see Ant Elzinga's interesting book Einstein's Nobel Prize, A Glimpse Behind Closed Doors.

Non-Scientific Speculations by 2019 Nobel Laureates

Stone Age scientists raising alarm about global cooling.

The traditional discussion on Swedish State Television with the 2019 Nobel Laureates has taken place under the usual title "Geniuses Speculate" as a gift to the Swedish people and to humanity.

The main theme was of course climate where all Laureates except one expressed their firm conviction  that science is settled on a rock-solid prediction of catastrophic global warming due to emission of CO2 from burning of fossil,  which must be stopped by all means and at any cost: By 2050 the World must be fossil free, and this is possible since people are willing to sacrifice.

The exception was Physics Laureate James Peebles who dared to say that science cannot tell if the globe is warming or cooling, in particular not because of a small change of the trace gas CO2 in the atmosphere, recalling Yogi Berra: Prediction is difficult, in particular about the future. Peebles also questioned the willingness of people to sacrifice the pleasures offered by the present fossil society.   

Peebles was then declared to be a "heretic" with the important role of giving additional support to the belief of the believers, as expressed by Medicin Laureate William G. Kaelin Jr: Since a heretic (by definition) is wrong, it helps to show what is right and therefore the heretic must be given the right to expression.

So Peebles as Laureate was allowed to express his skepticism to CO2 climate alarmism in Swedish State Television, as a unique exception from Swedish State controlled climate alarmism policy towards the goal of Sweden as the first fossil free society, since the Stone Age.

The view expressed by Laureate Kaelin can be seen as a misinterpretation of the proverb "the exception confirms the rule" attributed to Cicero in the form:

• exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis

which is to be interpreted as saying that an exception requires the existence of rule as background, not that a counterexample to a scientific theory proves that the theory is correct. Laureates... 

Att Dela ut Nobelpris eller Inte

Den samlade kompetensen hos Svenska Akademien

Nobelpriset har länge skänkt glans till svensk vetenskap och litteratur genom att låna prestige från pristagare till de som utser pristagare.

Att som författare skriva det verk som inom litteraturen har producerat det utmärktaste i idealisk rigtning enligt Nobels testamente, är en sak som är nog så svår. Men att rätt förstå att just detta verk är det utmärktaste, är ännu svårare och ännu mer beundransvärt, och det är precis vad Svenska Akademiens ledamöter har lyckats med så utomordentligt väl under mer än hundra år.

Detsamma gäller Vetenskapsakademien som genom att dela ut Nobelpris i Fysik och Kemi kan sägas äga den högsta vetenskapliga kompetensen på denna planet, för att inte tala om Karolinska Institutet.

Men det finns en skörhet i denna syn, som så genomsyrat vår svenska självbild, där så att säga skuggan fått äga samma dignitet och färg som originalet, eller kanske till och med snäppet bättre.

Om skuggans gråhet plötsligt, i likhet med Kejsarens nakenhet, uppenbaras för de som betraktar genom att skuggan själv börjar krumbukta sig till snedsprång, då faller illusionen och det sker snabbt.

Och då kan inte längre några Nobelpris delas ut , för vem vill utses till pristagare av sådana som begriper föga?

Så resonerade den världsberömde matematikern Grigori Perelman när han tackade nej till både Fields Medal och Clay Millennium Prize, med motiveringen att priskommitten begripit alltför lite.

PS1 Ett mått på Svenska Akademiens samlade kompetens av idag kan avläsas i det Pressmeddelande som Akademien skickade ut 20 april, vilket är en hopplös röra av dunkla motsägelser, platta vilseledanden och tomma urskuldanden, uppenbarligen skriven av inhyrd PR-konsult fjärran från Akademiens främsta uppgift att arbeta för svenska språkets "renhet, styrka och höghet", dvs. dess klarhet, uttrycksfullhet och anseende.

PS2 Dagens Nyheter meddelar 25 april  att Nobelstiftelsen överväger att låta inställa Nobelpriset i litteratur 2018.

Nobel Prize in Medicine to Computational Adaptive Finite Element Brain Mesh

The Nobel Prize in Medicine 2014 has been awarded the discovery that both a fly, rat and human being orient in space using a computational gps-map constructed by and stored in the brain in the form of a multilevel adaptive finite element mesh. This was what I conjectured 30 years ago.

How to Get a Nobel Prize

There is a new post on The World as Computation presenting a scientific method of How to Get a Nobel Prize.

Keep confidential. Do not spread!