{"id":3945,"date":"2009-07-31T09:29:40","date_gmt":"2009-07-31T09:29:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/principles\/2009\/07\/31\/the-witten-thing\/"},"modified":"2009-07-31T09:29:40","modified_gmt":"2009-07-31T09:29:40","slug":"the-witten-thing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/2009\/07\/31\/the-witten-thing\/","title":{"rendered":"The Witten Thing"},"content":{"rendered":"

I had a bit of a discussion via Twitter with Eric Weinstein<\/a> yesterday, starting with his statement:<\/p>\n

\n

Ed Witten<\/a> has no Nobel Prize. Now tell me again how this era’s physics just feels different because we are too close to it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Basically, he appears to feel that Witten is sufficiently smart that he ought to have a Nobel. My feeling is that if you look at the list of Nobel laureates in physics<\/a>, you won’t find any theorists who won before their theory had experimental confirmation. It’s not an official rule, but it seems to be well established practice.<\/p>\n

My attempt at an analogy was the late John Wheeler<\/a>, who is a Name in physics, but doesn’t have a Nobel because he, like Witten, worked on problems that did not connect with experimental observations. No data, no dynamite money.<\/p>\n

It’s an interesting topic for debate, though, so let’s throw this totally non-controversial subject out as a poll:<\/p>\n