...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Physics world >Nobel for one, not all
【24h】

Nobel for one, not all

机译：诺贝尔奖获得者不是全部

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In your editorial "Rip up the rule book" (November 2008 p15) you suggest that the Nobel Prize for Physics should, if necessary, be awarded to more than its current limit of three people per year, citing the unfairness of some recent awards in excluding those you perceive as worthy of recognition equal to the awardees. I would like to counter this with the less-popular proposal of returning to the traditional single awardee each year. It may be true that much of science nowadays is collaborative; however, major contributions of the sort recognized by the Nobel awards are invariably the result of the genius of individuals — perhaps working as part of a group, but nonetheless individually inspired. If a contribution cannot be attributed to a single individual, then it is unlikely that it is sufficiently significant to be worthy of the award in the first place. There is enough new physics done each year to make it perfectly possible to identify a single accomplishment of sufficient merit. The rule limiting the award to three recipients was instigated, as you state, to avoid the award being spread too thinly, and this applies as much to the "kudos" you associate with it as to its monetary value. This is precisely what sets the Nobel awards apart from other, lesser, accolades. Let us retain in this one instance a considered and decisive selection of the supreme achievers in physics in preference to a populist gaggle of mediocrities in the style of the Oscars.
机译：在您的社论“完善规则书”（2008年11月，第15页）中，您建议，如有必要，应将诺贝尔物理学奖授予其目前每年超过三人的上限，理由是该奖项最近的某些奖项是不公平的。不包括那些您认为值得认可的人。我想用每年返回传统的单一获奖者的较不受欢迎的提议来对此进行反击。当今许多科学确实是协作的;但是，诺贝尔奖所认可的那种主要贡献始终是个人天才的结果-也许是作为一个小组的一部分而工作，但仍然是个人启发。如果不能将贡献归于一个人，那么它就不可能具有足够的重要性以至于首先值得获得该奖项。每年有足够的新物理学完成，从而有可能完全确定出一项具有足够优点的成就。如您所述，制定了将奖励限制在三个接收者的规则，以避免奖励分布太窄，这对于您与之关联的“荣誉”就其货币价值而言同样适用。这正是使诺贝尔奖与其他较小的赞誉脱颖而出的原因。在这种情况下，让我们保留对物理学中最高成就者的经过深思熟虑的决定性选择，而不是像奥斯卡式的民粹般平庸的平民主义者。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号