I think this is the Royal Academy of Sciences way to admit that Physics as a research subject has ground to a halt. String theory suffocated theoretical high energy physics for nearly half a century with nothing to show for it, and a lot of other areas of fundamental physics are kind of done.
My sense is that we might have reached the limits of what we can do in high-energy or fundamental physics without accessing energy levels or other extreme states that we currently can't access as they are beyond our capacity to generate. From what I've read (not a professional physicist) string theory is not testable unless we can either examine a black hole or create particle accelerators the size of the Moon's orbi…
Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton [pdf]
631–640 of 876 posts
Re: Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton [pdf]
#632Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think there is much room for a "society-changing innovation" within CS that isn't either an engineering feat (Linux, Docker, FFmpeg) or an algorithm that could fit under a mathematics price (FFT, Navier Stokes). I'm not sure I agree with that. There's plenty of theoretical computer science that isn't really "engineering" and would fall into a pretty different category than stuff like FFT or Navier Stokes. I…
Let me add RSA, Elliptic curves, Runge–Kutta, Finite element analysis, and Hamming codes to the list. I would still consider CSP, Petri Nets, and Pi-Calculus mathematical enough to be wrapped under a mathematics price if they're influential enough. The first true computer scientists were mathematicians, and I still feel that much of the theoretical work in the field is closer to "mathematics useful for computers" tha…
I guess, but they certainly feel categorically different than something like Runge-Kutta. They're more about the study of algorithms, which is generally where I've drawn the line of "computer science vs math".
Re: Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton [pdf]
#633Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IMO it feels a little late / weird / irrelevant > scientific awards are more interesting when leading indicators Peter Higgs waited 50 years, the Nobel is not a "leading indicator." If it was, it would be given out on the basis of the "hype cycle," which would not be very helpful to anybody.
The Higgs boson was first detected in 2012 and he won the Nobel the following year. Saying he waited 50 years for the prize is a bit disingenuous.
Re: Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton [pdf]
#634Well maybe in time ML will help break through the high energy physics roadblocks.
Re: Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton [pdf]
#635Well maybe in time ML will help break through the high energy physics roadblocks.
it already had, bottom-quark tagging has improved O(10)x in efficiency in the last decade without any new "physics" understanding, just from training with more low-level data and better ML arch (now using Transformers) but we haven't found new physics with or without ML, making this prize a little weird.
Re: Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton [pdf]
#636Re: Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton [pdf]
#637Here is the reasoning: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2024/09/advanced-physicsp... I'm surprised Terry Sejnowski isn't included, considering it seems to be for Hopfield Nets and Boltzmann machines, where Terry played a large role in the latter.
He was probably considered since he is mentioned in the reasoning paper, still it could be one of those unfortunate omissions in the nobel history since those deciding the prize might have a hard time to measure impact.
Re: Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton [pdf]
#638Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an appropriate application of this prize considering the adage that there are now three pillars to science, the third being simulation (after theory and experiment). Also, many of the underlying theories in machine learning display deep analogy with physical laws we are already familiar with, e.g., thermodynamics. Machine learning is much bigger than chatbots.
Hey! >the adage that there are now three pillars to science, the third being simulation (after theory and experiment) Any specific place I could learn more about this? (aside from Google obv.) I do simulation for a living, so that is mega-interesting to me.
Re: Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton [pdf]
#639Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but they have made no contribution to understanding physical laws or phenomena. Neural networks are used in tons of data pipelines for physics experiments, most notably with particle accelerators. The Nobel Prize is also occasionally awarded to engineers who develop tools that are important parts of experiments. 2018 for example was awarded for chirped pulse amplification, which is probably best known for being use…
> Neural networks are used in tons of data pipelines for physics experiments With this argument you could even say Bill Gates should get an award for inventing Windows and popularized the desktop computer... Or at least Linus Torvalds since those pipelines are probably running Linux...
Re: Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton [pdf]
#640Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Higgs boson was first detected in 2012 and he won the Nobel the following year. Saying he waited 50 years for the prize is a bit disingenuous.
Not the poster, but I don't understand the downvotes: this is exactly right. Higgs was awarded the Nobel after the mechanism he theorized was experimentally confirmed, and that is 100% the reason it took so long.
Brilliant theorizing can be both brilliant and wrong.