Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental PhysicsHis 1971 paper on how to renormalized gauge fields was indeed a breakthrough, and probably did more to create the Standard Model than anything else. But it is now 54 years later.Gerard 't Hooft, winner of the Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics, is one of the world’s most pre-eminent theoretical physicists. In the early 1970s he made crucial contributions to the foundations of what would later become known as the Standard Model of the subatomic particles. He proved that Yang-Mills theories (the mathematical framework underlying theories of both the weak and strong nuclear forces) make sense when treated quantum mechanically – that they can give finite, calculable results rather than meaningless infinities – thus validating theories which became central to the Standard Model. He made several crucial contributions to understanding the theory of the strong force, including resolving a major problem involving the masses of particles through special field configurations called instantons; he developed new mathematical tools for studying strongly interacting quarks; and he introduced the fruitful approach of studying the strong force by imagining it is mediated by many more varieties of quarks and gluons than it actually is. These and other contributions helped establish the Standard Model as a workable theory and provided powerful tools for calculating its predictions. 't Hooft has studied the quantum effects that can explain how information is processed in black holes, which led to the development of the holographic principle in cosmology, and possibly to new alternative ways to interpret quantum mechanics.
I do not think that very many people realize what a failure theoretical physics has been for the last 50 years. It is hard to find anthing that can be called a breakthrough. The Golden Age of Physics is long gone.
Ah yes, the 'Standard Model', the model so complete it can't account for gravity. Thank god gravity really doesn't do anything important or we might have concerns... oh wait...
ReplyDeleteWell, anyhow, yes, let's reward the method by which math which generates infinite answers can be hand waved away...without addressing the math.
No dippy processes here. Not a kludge to be seen. Nope. none.
A model of physics which can't even account for movement and gravity isn't very good physics. It's like having a model of the human body that doesn't have a head that everyone likes to claim 'works great!'.
So...
ReplyDelete... So, Roger,
Ok. I think I get your point.
More than half a century, hasn't it been? And, a lot of money too. *After* more than half a century. Hmmm...
So... the question now is:
Do you wish also to cover something from ... err... from the more recent times on arXiv? like, from Foundations of QM and all? especially from [quant-ph] and all?
No? rather not? Is that what you are saying this weekend or the next week, Roger? Do I hear you correctly?
Just asking.
Best and all,
--Ajit