[ISL]

Mitchell Feigenbaum has, for the last ~17 years, been my vote for the next Nobel Laureate in Physics. It is a rare thing to derive an irrational fundamental mathematical constant that appears in nature. The Feigenbaum constants are as fundamental as e and \pi, and they are readily observed experimentally (though, necessarily, not to full precision :) ).

Godspeed, Dr. Feigenbaum. Thank you.

[JackFr]

> The Feigenbaum constants are as fundamental as e and \pi

I suppose its debatable how fundamental a constant is , but there is no way the Feigenbaum constant is even in the same neighborhood as \pi and e.

[WhitneyLand]

Yes, it's kind of hard to get more fundamental than waves and circles.

Although, as I was just about to say what math could you do without them on second thought, the answer seems to be quite a lot.

For example I couldn't say without researching it but how much did Gödel or Turing rely on them, at least for their most influential work?

That question will probably come back to bite hard given their footprints.

Another conjecture, most software developers will never have to use them extensively. Yes gaming, computer graphics, and I guess all signal processing would become suddenly more challenging but corporate IT and devops ought to be pretty safe.

Maybe it depends on a personal definition of fundamental. I think you could make an argument that Newton's results were more fundamental than Einstein's, however staggeringly less complete they might seem hundreds of years in the future.

[ISL]

Agreed -- I used the word "fundamental" to suggest that it emerges from pure mathematics. In that sense, Feigenbaum's constants are in the same class as \pi and e, which is distinct from the traditional "fundamental constants" of physics like c, \hbar, fundamental charge, etcetera.

The fundamental constants of physics have, as yet, no known mathematical origin. Feigenbaum's constants, on the other hand, emerge from pure mathematics and also appear in nature. That they are expected to be irrational, like \pi and e, only adds to the charm.

[jordigh]

Do we know the constant is irrational? I'd be surprised if we did.

[Ensorceled]

Fundamental is kind of binary, something is either fundamental or it isn't. This is like arguing what element is more fundamental to human existence oxygen (65% by mass) or nitrogen (just 3% by mass); we die without both.

Now, like oxygen, pi and e are certainly more prevalent ...

[Yajirobe]

Just because the Feigenbaum constant does not pop everywhere in our formulas, it does not mean that it's not as fundamental. I would bet that if it were different, the universe would not be able to exist as it does now (akin to making pi different).

[ars]

> Nobel Laureate in Physics

They only give Nobels to living people, and typically only young people.

Maybe there is some other award recognition?

[hjalle]

Young people? They only give to living people but my impression is not that most laureates are young

Edit: 72 years in average across all prizes, although first half of 20th century was lower.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37578899

[ars]

I guess I'm wrong, but I read that they try to give it to people just starting out in their field, to encourage them to continue, rather than as a prize for finishing.

[ezequiel-garzon]

You may be thinking of the Fields Medal in mathematics, for which recipients must be under 40.

[segfaultbuserr]

You must have confused it with a different prize.

Update: user "ISL" says "that was Nobel's original intent, but the reality of the prize has changed with time."

Yes, Nobel Prize is only given by living people to encourage innovation rather than remembering the death, yes. However, it's very common for the Nobel Prize to aware scientists after a discovery has been made. Nobel Prize of Literature is the same, I believe.

For example, Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize in 1921 for "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect", but Einstein's relevant papers were published in 1905 on Annalen der Physik, it's 16 years later after the discovery. Another recent example is the Nobel Prize of Physics of 2014, given to Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano, and Shuji Nakamura for blue LEDs, it's also 20 years later.

Due to this very reason, The Breakthrough Prize was established in 2012 by multiple entrepreneurs, including Mark Zuckerberg, as a prize, which its proponents claim to be that they try to give it to people just starting out in their field, to encourage them to continue, rather than as a prize for finishing. Although it has received some criticisms of being a rockstar award as well.

Is it, by any chance, the prize you were thinking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Prize

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Prize_in_Fundamen...

[ISL]

That was Nobel's original intent, but the reality of the prize has changed with time.

The Fields Medal and the MacArthur Genius awards are very much in that spirit.

[CydeWeys]

If that's the intent then they've been failing miserably at it.

[voxl]

Are you thinking of the Fields Medal in math?