[eigenket]

I think this is (very) inaccurate. It feels more like them trying to jump on a "hot topic" bandwagon (machine learning/AI hype is huge).

Physics as a discipline hasn't really stalled at all. Fundamental physics arguably has, because no one really has any idea how to get close to making experimental tests that would distinguish the competing ideas. But even in fundamental physics there are cool developments like the stuff from Jonathan Oppenheim and collaborators in the last couple of years.

That said "physics" != "fundamental physics" and physics of composite systems ranging from correlated electron systems, and condensed matter through to galaxies and cosmology is very far from dead.

[620gelato]

> trying to jump on a "hot topic" bandwagon

I don't know exactly what they hope to gain by jumping on that bandwagon though; neither the physicists nor the computer scientists are going to value this at all. And dare I say, the general populace associated with the two fields isn't going to either - case in point, this hn post.

If there weren't any noble-worthy nominations for physics, maybe skip it? (Although that hasn't happened since 1972 across any field)

[soheil]

It could also be that CS is saturated with too many noble-worthy nominations so they had to spill some over to another field with vacant seats.

Another guess is maybe they're trying to divert some of the insane attention in CS/AI to physics to get more people to join that field.

But still really bizarre decision,

AI/ANN/CS != Physics

[klwant]

One possibility is that they think this will access hype funding. Put "AI" in a physics paper and watch the grants roll in.

[eigenket]

I kinda doubt it. The kind of people who end up nominating people for Nobels or even making the decisions on these aren't really struggling for grant funding.

[ImaCake]

But the system they have succeeded in optimises for people who can sell themselves well enough to get that funding. These people live and breathe selling themselves for funding. Every buzzword, sexy plot, and dynamic presentation has got them here and it's not like they plan to stop.

[pas]

There's no need to skip it, there's probably a big backlog from previous shortlists :)

But yeah, they could have passed. That would have been cool.

Also, there's a ton of extremely amazing shit in astronomy, or even photolithography, or simulations of physics (though that's basically what the chemistry prize was this year).

[Ma8ee]

I just briefly looked into what Jonathan Oppenheim is working on, and I’d say he’s part of the problem. More speculative work that might or might not be testable in a distant future.

[eigenket]

I would say that's an overly simplistic view. The only way we ever obtain testable things is by working on things which are not currently testable.

[Ma8ee]

It used to be that there was some experimental result or other phenomena that required explanation which lead to a theoretical model that could be tested. That worked very well.

Now there’s some theoretical considerations that leads to a theoretical model that can’t be tested. It didn’t work for Aristotle and it doesn’t work for string theorists (and similar).

[eigenket]

Why doesn't this experimental result count as requiring explanation?

We know (for example) silver atoms have mass, and that massive objects exert gravity (which we understand as warping of space-time according to GR).

We know that we can put silver atoms in quantum superpositions of being in different positions (for example in a sequential Stern-Gerlach type experiment).

We have (essentially) absolutely no theoretical understanding of what is going on to space-time when a thing with mass is in such a superposition. Quantum mechanics does not successfully model gravity, and general relativity contains no superpositions, so the situation is completely beyond our theoretical understanding. This isn't a theoretical consideration, this is something real that you can do in an undergrad physics lab experiment pretty easily.

Now the problem is that the models we have developed so far to deal with this situation turned out to be (wildly) too difficult for us to test. I think it is very far from clear that the Oppenheim & co model falls into this category - imo its completely reasonable for them to be spending theoretical effort working out what is needed to test their model.

[Ma8ee]

Because it's not an experimental result. There are two disparate experimental results, one about superpositions and one about gravity. There's no experimental result about gravity being or not being in superpositions. What will happen to gravity (if there is any) in a double split experiment is pure theoretical speculations.

And I readily admit that it would be interesting to know what would happen. But many decades of more or less convoluted hypotheses has proved to be unfruitful. We need a new way to do fundamental physics, or if possible go back to the old way, because the current one clearly doesn't work.