Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "The 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics Did Not Go To Physics -- This Physicist is very surprised" video.

  1. Technically the Nobel Prize doesn't work for physics, either. Nobel wanted it to be given for discoveries of value to the human race... and few relevant physics discoveries are falling in that category. Einstein didn't get it for the discovery of relativity, even though that is the centerpiece of physics. He got it for the explanation of the photoelectric effect, which is of enormous economic importance in form of solar energy (but they could not and did not know that back then)... but Einstein didn't discover it. He merely explained how it works.
    2
  2. This isn't interdisciplinary work. Crick was awarded the prize in Medicine, not in physics.
    1
  3. Sacred? As in appeasing your invisible friend? Get a life.
    1
  4. Dude, you need to stop displaying your hate for people who are smarter than you. It doesn't negate your failure in school. It just makes you look like a horrible human being. ;-)
    1
  5. They never gave one to string theory. Why would they? It's not physics, either.
    1
  6. Well, the Fields Medal did go to mathematicians who did fundamentally important work in physics that is of little importance in mathematics, as far as I can see...
    1
  7. One has to wonder what the Nobel Prize Committee is smoking these days. I think I want some. :-)
    1
  8. There is no overlap between physics and neural networks. Physics, that's things like general relativity, magnetic properties of materials, physics of plasmas. Neural networks are, at best, information processing and applied math. They are entirely artificial structures without any relevant physical properties.
    1
  9.  @macchiato_1881  Nice to meet you. I am the Queen of Sheba. :-)
    1
  10.  @macchiato_1881  I see, you don't have a sense of humor, either. That's a left swipe for me, then. ;-)
    1
  11. Neural networks are physical, but they are not performing physical functions. If they had given the prize to somebody who would have estimated the minimum physical cost of training and operations of neural networks, then we would have had something... but that is not what they did.
    1
  12. I have no idea what this even means. Are you drunk? ;-)
    1
  13. Scientists don't give any importance to the Nobel Prize. Just like the Oscars it's an advertising vehicle to bring science to the public. It hardly serves any purpose to physicists because now they have to explain to the public that neural networks are NOT what physicists do. Quantum computers... maybe, just maybe. Neural networks... not even close.
    1