Who is the new Lucasian professor at Cambridge University?

[fourier jr]

& the new Lucasian prof is...

this didn't very long at all:

A Cambridge physicist who pioneered the idea that everything in the universe is made up of tiny vibrating strings of energy is to succeed Stephen Hawking in the most prestigious academic post in the world.

Professor Michael Green, a fellow of the Royal Society and co-founder of the fiendishly complex idea of string theory, was offered the position of Lucasian professor of mathematics following a meeting at the university this month.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/20/stephen-hawking-michael-green-cambridge

 

[arildno]

Why should he be awarded a prestigious chair when he actually has done something important in the past??

 

[George Jones]

I wish there were a physics or science general discussion into which I could place this.

Michael Green is the new Lucasian Chair. At 63, Green is only four years younger than Hawking, so Green will be replaced in four years! Green is the only person to accept an offer of the Chair while in his sixties, and only one person accepted an offer while in his fifties (in 1739). The average age (excluding Green) at acceptance is 37 (Hawking's acceptance age).

Why was the Chair offered to a 63-year-old? Possibilities:

1) no suitable younger candidate;

2) this appointment has been thought (possibly for years) a suitable reward for the first string revolution, but this had to wait until Hawking stepped down;

3) combination of 1) and 2);

4) other reasons.

Comments? No string bashing. Also, note that it is the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics.

I know a guy who applied to be (and was accepted as) Green's Ph.D student a few years before the first string revolution. Due to lack of funding, he decided not to go.

 

[qspeechc]

Um, it is the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics right? I feel like this is a dumb question, but Hawking and Green are both physicists; why hasn't the chair gone to the mathematicians? I would nominate Terrence Tao, but then again he's probably very happy with his current position, and anyway what do I know. Is it just a title, or do you have to actually do something with the title?

 

[cristo]

Why was the Chair offered to a 63-year-old?

I'd say it was a modification of your option 1): no suitable younger candidate who accepted the position.

Um, it is the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics right? I feel like this is a dumb question, but Hawking and Green are both physicists; why hasn't the chair gone to the mathematicians?

In Cambridge, (most) theoretical physicists are in the maths department. Most of the recent chairs have been theoretical physicists.

 

[Kurdt]

I agree with Geroge's #1 option. It has been relatively lean the past few decades on the side of great advances in physics.

 

[arildno]

I agree with qspeech.

The Lucasian Chair has rotted ever since that darned physicist Newton cheated himself into it.

 

[George Jones]

The Lucasian Chair has rotted ever since that darned physicist Newton cheated himself into it.

So, the Lucasian Chair was non-rotten only for the five years that Isaac Barrow held it, then? And Newton only did physics?

 

[arildno]

So, the Lucasian Chair was non-rotten only for the five years that Isaac Barrow held it, then? And Newton only did physics?

Something like that.

On the other hand, we might say that the Lucasian Chair has a VERY strong tradition in applied maths/theoretical physics.

Of previous 17 chairholders, we have, in addition to Newton:
Airy
Babbage
Stokes
Larmor
Dirac
Lighthill
Hawking

So a string theorist is in very good company, applied-mathwise.
http://www.lucasianchair.org/

 

[humanino]

It has been relatively lean the past few decades on the side of great advances in physics.

What would be the general answer to the question "has theoretical physics advanced last year ?" in say 1906 for instance ?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Pretty sure Albert Einstein won a Nobel prize for something he did in 1905.

 

[Kurdt]

What would be the general answer to the question "has theoretical physics advanced last year ?" in say 1906 for instance ?

I don't see the point you're making. Are you referring to the fact that it generally takes a few years for major advances to be worked through before they're fully accepted?

 

[humanino]

Pretty sure Albert Einstein won a Nobel prize for something he did in 1905.

He published five revolutionary papers in 1905, each of them pretty much deserving a Nobel on its own. Yet he was awarded in 1921 only and (I know we can all subtract, but jeeeez) that's 16 years later, and that is not for general relativity.

Are you referring to the fact that it generally takes a few years for major advances to be worked through before they're fully accepted?

Yes. There is tremendous and continuous progress in theoretical physics. The problem is more of a disconnect with experience. I am pretty sure whoever chose Green does not ignore those points, and I think choosing Green (whose appointment will be short) allows them neither to address those point nor to raise too much controversy in their "beyond the standard model" choice. For instance, Hawking's evaporation of black-holes and entropy is considered robust enough (just thermodynamics and quantum mechanics after all) not to raise any controversy.

It is amusing to look at the table (which I just copied from wikipedia)
1839 Joshua King
1849 George Gabriel Stokes
1903 Joseph Larmor
1932 Paul Dirac
1969 James Lighthill
1979 Stephen Hawking
2009 Michael Green
We have shorter and longer terms. I chose to begin with Joshua King after reading about him (also on wikipedia)

Joshua King came to Cambridge from Hawkshead Grammar School. It was soon evident that the school had produced someone of importance. He became Senior Wrangler, and his reputation in Cambridge was immense. It was believed that nothing less than a Second Newton had appeared. They expected his work as a mathematician to make an epoch in the science. At an early age he became President of Queens’; later, he was Lucasian Professor. He published nothing; in fact, he did no mathematical work. But as long as he kept his health, he was an active and prominent figure in Cambridge, and he maintained his enormous reputation. When he died, it was felt that the memory of such an extraordinary man should not be permitted to die out, and his papers should be published. So his papers were examined, and nothing whatever worth publishing was found.

Of course this is no rule. There are also pretty important contributors with shorter terms, such as 2 years for George Biddell Airy, or a comparable 11 years for Charles Babbage.

This being said, string theory is a very beautiful and important piece of mathematics, so I do not see much controversy.

 

[Kurdt]

I won't disagree with you humanino but notice the context and the terms I use in my post.

 

[humanino]

I'll take an example then : if Alain Connes (had been briton and) turns out to be right (that the geometry out there is really non-commutative), I think the position would be more appropriate for him for instance. I know that's a big if, especially since he's french ! Would Abhay Ashtekar being originally indian qualify better ?

 

[Kurdt]

Like i say humanino I don't disagree with you. I was merely pointing out why the position may have been given to an older person. If you can think of a suitable younger person then please suggest them.

 

[humanino]

Like i say humanino I don't disagree with you. I was merely pointing out why the position may have been given to an older person. If you can think of a suitable younger person then please suggest them.

Although I will suggest more, I do not disagree with you either. I would have chosen George Jones.