Neural Networks and the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics - Sixty Symbols 

Math has the Fields Medal & Abel Prize. Computer Science has the Turing Award.

Doesn't mean Nobel can't create their own version. ​@@lenno15697

Wym “we”?

Algorithms are not science, but tools of science. Of course, this silly controversy arises out of the ludicrous narrowness of the Nobel categories. Computing wasn't a thing in 1895, but Maths was. Fit for purpose?

The inability to give the prize to more than 3 people or to teams is a big issue also with mega projects in physics and astronomy.

Your example of Chemistry and Physics illustrates the prevalence of CP invariance.

Yeah, machine learning is not yet tied to any breakthrough in physics.

Gauss died a long time ago.

@@peterfireflylund Wild that Gauss figured it out (Fourier transform and fast Fourier transform) and didn’t even publish it.

@@peterfireflylund it would have gone to cooley and tukey but they passed away (this century). Arguably FFT has been much more influential for physics than backpropagation and the whole boltzmann machine thing. And for computer science too. Yet they got no nobel prize for it. It is also weird that an argument for allowing this is that "things are multidisciplinary now, so we give this prize to other disciplines". It's still not a nobel prize in physics, call it a different thing, categorize things properly, this is science ffs. Do it right.

​@@iselgrey9332 I'm a huge fan of Fourier analysis, use the FFT almost on a daily basis, wrote a book about how Fourier transforms connect metal music and quantum physics (for one), and would heartily agree with you that a Nobel prize for the development of the FFT (an algorithm :-)) would have been in order, but... "It's still not a nobel prize in physics, call it a different thing, categorize things properly, this is science ffs. Do it right." There are exceptionally strong interconnections between statistical mechanics, information theory, thermodynamics, and the foundations of computing, to the extent that it's often difficult to tell where one starts and the other finishes. How do you categorize what's physics, what's computing, and what's mathematics in this case? Similarly, with quantum information and quantum computing -- is this physics or computer science or mathematics? Or all three (and more)? How do you categorize these "properly"? The *wrong* way to do science -- **absolutely the wrong way to do science** -- is to force arbitrary categorisations that limit scientists' (and mathematicians' and engineers') ability to cross disciplines. The true innovations happen when boundaries are crossed, not when everyone is forced into arbitrarily-defined categories. Philip (Moriarty, one of those speaking in the video)

😂😂😂

Information theory, stat mech, thermodynamics, and the foundations of computing are deeply, fundamentally linked, to the extent that an advance in one often drives an advance in the other! (See, Feynman's "Lectures on Computation", for example). Where do you, personally, draw the line between computer science, information theory, and physics? The key issue here, I guess, is that awarding the Nobel prizes in distinct disciplines just serves to entrench disciplinary boundaries that often make very little sense. Philip (Moriarty)

@@thequantumworld6960 Even if you consider there's some physics here, it's nowhere near Nobel-caliber work. The prize is being awarded for essentially chatgpt, except chatgpt has no conceivable argument tying it to physics, so they found the closest substitute. It's just cynical.

Phil is my kind of nerd

Thank you for pointing that out. The qoute tickeld some of my neurons, but they don't came to be fired.

Physics Nobel Prize goes to: Michelin star restaurant. Because there are molecules in it (chemistry) and you can use physics to descripe atoms (physics).

@@Felicia-y6n Well you could arguably give the Nobel prize for chemistry to Heston Bloomenthal for his achievements developing a scientific approach to cooking. He is already an honorary fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry in the UK.

Why not?! If statistical mechanics methods/models provide key insights into those systems -- as they did in the context of Hopfield's and Hinton's work on neural networks -- then why shouldn't that be in the domain of physics? See, for example, "Revisiting Lévy flight search patterns of wandering albatrosses, bumblebees and deer", Edwards et al, Nature 449 1044 (2007). Is that physics, biology, statistics, or mathematics? Or is it a really neat mix of all of those disciplines? I'm not a fan of prizes in any case, and even less of a fan of the disciplinary tribalism that they seem to foster (not least in this comments section)! Philip (speaking in video) P.S. There was a great paper in Nature Physics not so long ago on the fluid dynamics of ant colonies...

Probably so. Or expand the categories. But using your example, no work on ant colonies would be suited for a noble prize. 🙂

If it was foundational for learning something about physics, yeah

@@hive_indicator318@hive_indicator318 Then, in that case, there is no issue because there is a category for physics.

@@hive_indicator318You’re an idiot. The whole point was that other people have made ground breaking discoveries in condense matter physics and they didn’t win it.

ohh yeah but the nobel peace prize exists, gimme a break at least computer science is actual science and worth awarding

i've wondered if their trust/endowment grows enough that they could opt to add one. Heck even if it was prizeless many people would be proud to have it.

The Nobel committee has invented new prizes. They're technically not Nobel Prizes, but that doesn't stop every economist that has won one from claiming they're a Nobel Laureate...

@@123FireSnake I give you a break.

Turing Award

@@thequantumworld6960 If ML were used to solve a long-standing physics problem, uncover a new law of nature, or revolutionize how experiments are conducted, it might qualify for a Nobel Prize in physics. You'd expect the recognition to emphasize the fundamental discovery enabled by ML rather than just the algorithmic or computational advancement itself.

I'm quite interested what you think about the Nobel prize in chemistry going to AlphaFold, if that is your stance. That is quite clearly a computer program, and one that is based on machine learning at that.

That was the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

But how else would the physicists be asked to drone on about topics outside of their direct area of study

The video explained exactly how the research was directly related to physics. Computing doesn't have any function stand alone - it always serves another discipline.

Then science has no function standalone. It only serves to guide the engineering. Ridiculous comment.

@@xwize That may be true, but the Nobel prize is awarding science prizes - even if science has no function stand alone.

@@xwize Has it ever entered your mind that science could be done for science's sake?

and physics, of course, is just applied math

Isn't it Stockholm that awards the Nobels? 😅

​@@krissp8712 You're right. I only knew of Oslo because that's where recipient of the peace prize is selected and awarded - and I assumed the other prizes were awarded there as well.

@@thequantumworld6960 have a seperate Prize for Computer/AI related discoveries , it seems a stretch to lump machine learning under Physics and deprives Physics of a winner and relegates Computing to a sub class. I've studied CompSci, worked in IT all my life, never considered it to be part of the Physics field because it's not. If we wish to be pedantic, then nearly anything can be classed as Physics, likewise Chemistry. I understand they wish to recognise AI, and that maybe there isn't the same competitive field within Computing that merits it's own prize, but this seems off

@@thequantumworld6960 looking back at previous years, perhaps better wording is domain specific. I’m no expert on what should or shouldn’t be considered.. but entangled photons vs general AI algorithms, I know which one sits better with me! Personal opinion of course

I think you’re over focusing on rewards given from institutions. It’s just recognition and a payout. It matters little to the world at large, and even less towards the work done, and the value the individuals get out of it. Also, 4:30.

​@@michaelblakey7794 But those AI algorithms stemmed directly from statistical mechanics. (For one, they're not called Boltzmann machines for nothing!) It's a beautiful example of a physics mindset and methods being brought to bear on a problem outside the traditional boundaries of the subject. The true innovations in science tend to happen at the boundaries. Parisi was one of the winners of the Physics Nobel prize in 2021 for his work on spin glasses, which is exactly the topic that underpinned Hopfield's work in developing the associative memory network that was highlighted by the Nobel committee. (See the blog post linked in the video information for Hopfield's own view of the role of spin glass physics/stat mech in his work.) So if it's OK for Parisi to win the prize, why is it somehow verboten for Hopfield? Is it the application of the physics outside the traditional "bounds" of physics to which you're objecting? Philip

@@TheIgnoramusI do agree, my problem is that there are other places for this, and by extension those who might of got the recognition if that had happened. For instance, David Patterson could well be argued for changing the computing landscape, was this a Nobel prize in physics.. no, Turing award.

I am from physics, and I support this.

It's a defensible choice but it's motivated mostly by the Nobel Commitee's desire to keep the prize socially relevant in a way a lot of "pure" physics hasn't been. They see this as their second Gandhi opportunity

or quantitative finance

the word "similar" is doing some real heavy lifting in your argument there lol

@@danielmichael3610 I'm not hearing a refutation

What? Those are given for competitions of physical tests. How are they similar?

@@hive_indicator318 How is an algorithm physics?

@@danielmichael3610 No, I would prefer if you express your thoughts as clearly as I did and not expect others to read your mind.

Delete this i definitely won

@@candyland195 nope, sort the comments