41–50 of 110 posts
This award involved some clever engineering to set up quantum effects in a macroscopic system, but was there any new physics involved here? (Still better than last year's award which wasn't really physics at all!)
For those looking for a good pop-sci introduction to these sort of quantum effects and why demonstrating macroscopic quantum effects is a big deal for the foundations of the field I recommend “Through Two Doors at Once” by Anil Ananthaswany.
For those looking for a good pop-sci introduction to these sort of quantum effects and why demonstrating macroscopic quantum effects is a big deal for the foundations of the field I recommend “Through Two Doors at Once” by Anil Ananthaswany.
Is this inferring to the double slit experiment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comments like these make me realize most people have no clue what science is really like.
I don't think so, I just think they expect that Nobel Prize level physics should feel less incremental, and everything that doesn't involve a revolution in physics (like supersymmetry) or at least an expected confirmation of an old revolution (like the Higgs boson or gravitational waves) feels incremental.
This award involved some clever engineering to set up quantum effects in a macroscopic system, but was there any new physics involved here? (Still better than last year's award which wasn't really physics at all!)
Exactly, also in it's goal to "demonstrate quantum tunneling macroscopically" haven't we had tunneling diodes for quite a while? The device uses tunneling for its basic functionality
Great to see the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Cambridge, UK continuing to add to their already outstanding number of Nobel laureate alumni. The Paris-Sud University was a new name to me. Apparently, this will be the 4th Nobel laureate associated with the university.
So it's hard to have a good grasp.
More than deserved! Both Devoret and Martinis are also highly involved in pushing quantum engineering to new levels - Devoret at Google Quantum AI and Martinis (formerly at Google) with his company, Qolab. Coincidentally, I have a close friend doing his PhD with Devoret and know someone working with Martinis. I am curious to see if they will ever see their respective supervisors again, given that the Nobel Prize atte…
The prize rules stipulate that they need to hold one lecture related to their winning topic with the institution that picked the winner within 6 months.
Iirc the 2024 physics prize lecture (on the roots of neural networks) was held in the days just before the prize giving ceremony and can be watched on the Swedish broadcasters "education" channel as well as youtube.
https://urplay.se/program/239905-nobelforelasningar-2024-geo...
Michel H. Devoret, Chief Scientist at Google Quantum AI, and in April 2020 John M. Martinis resigned from Google after being reassigned to an advisory role. [0] Sounds like there was some politics shenanigans between them where Martinis was moved into a useless role and took the hint at the height of covid lockdown. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Devoret
You linked the wrong article
He kept working on the problem. The question now looking back over 6 years is did Google make a mistake. I've seen this at IBM and other large research divisions where people who did something significant 20 or 30 years in fields like AI become stagnant burning tens and hundreds of millions. There was a political battle and Martinis got pushed out. The question I have is did the people who pushed him out know the path forward in quantum computing or did they just know how to play office politics licking the correct behinds.
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/moorinsights/2020/04/30/googles...