Re: [Phys-L] prizes

[jbellina <inquirybellina@comcast.net>]

In a previous life I was one of those materials electronics guys. I watched what was originally thought of as physics slowly evolve into chemistry so the time of the events is important.  

I was at the meeting, don't recall if it was MRS or APS with about 1000 others when one of them gave a talk and then held up a lite blue led for the first time.  Everyone cheered like at a concert.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 9, 2014, at 7:45 PM, John Denker <jsd@av8n.com> wrote:
>
> It is amusing that this year's prize in chemistry went to
> three guys I've always thought of as hard-core physicists
> ... while the physics prize went to three hard-core
> electronics / materials engineering guys.
>
> The same body makes the final decision on both prizes (even 
> though the /nominations/ come from different subcommittees) 
> ... so I assume there was some horse-trading involved.
>
> You could perfectly well have reversed the labels on the 
> two prizes.
>
> This is not the first time something like this has happened.
> Marie Curie joked that the labels on her two prizes would
> make at least as much sense if they were reversed.
>
> I consider all of this to be a Good Thing.  A great deal 
> of the world's best work fits in more than one discipline
> -- or none.  To say the same thing the other way:  paying 
> attention to artificial boundaries and labels is almost 
> always a bad idea.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l