Wu was just one more of the many who were ignored or deliberately left out when handing out accolades, due to her gender, and possibly ethnicity, too. It's tragic!
@@cybervigilante They are not necessarily ignored or intentionally left out. Rosalind Franklin had sadly passed away before the Nobel Prize was awarded to Crick and Watson and since they don't give the award posthumously she was left out. You did not mention Maurice Wilkins and incorrectly named Rosie as 'the third discoverer' when there were in fact 4 people making contributions to the co-discovery but since Wilkins doesn't fit the confirmation bias then we can't count him (and really to tell the story one has to talk about Linus Pauling, another famous scientist not well recognized among the general population.) Science is like that, there's just too many people involved and not everyone can be recognized. The discovery of the top quark had over 1000 scientists and tons of unnamed technicians but I doubt they'll be getting the recognition because it takes time to go through all those names and mention them. Heck in your comment you didn't even mention Rosalind Franklin by name, so who is leaving people out here?
It is interesting and curious decision making by the Nobel committee to award a prize only on theoretical grounds when almost all prizes historically (both before and after her snub) are awarded for actual physically demonstrable experimental findings confirming theoretical propositions. Why would they do this to Madam Wu? Apparently there is no parity in their decisions to award the prize either…..
Just watched your interview with Dave Rubin. It was the MOST ENJOYABLE interview between two people I have ever watched! Very excited to have found you and your channel. Thank you!
I would love to have sat in a few of Mrs Wu's lecture and know i watched such a mind, talking about the universe, forget oppenheimer this lady here deserved more books written about her and a film too
Somehow it didn't quite sound right when you mentioned Einstein 2:43. Ok, I figured it out. I've been conditioned to hearing it pronounced in a German accent, followed by _"Yes, that guy again!"_ 🤣
It was the 1950s here, to paraphrase and time-travel a Dickens statement, "the best and worst of times" simultaneously. It had parallels to physics, both quantum and relative, depending on your location, situation and viewpoint. Experimentalists eagerly toiling away in labs sometimes don't get their due respect, both in the 1950s and today? How enlightening Mme. Wu's findings were it appears, that got a most brilliant physicist and seer of neutrinos (W. Pauli's) knickers in a twist! As an aside, Mach and Boltzmann's relationship and ideas were interesting, can this be asked re: inertia and momentum- could an observer in a universe "gravitationally collapsing" toward a zero-gravity centroid tell the difference in a tensor space, whether their universe was expanding, if the most distant galaxies were rather gravitationally red shifted nearer t=0? Like counting sheep trying to figure this out can help one sleep, bonne nuit.
You're all right Brian. Of course Mme. Wu deserved a Nobel prize. Mdm. Wu could use a wrench. Some of those guys couldn't change their tire. The ones who build the stuff to see if they know what they are talking about. Saw it a dozen times in my life, try to do it without me, see if you can. :-) Experimental physicists, they can't do it without you. Great Show, keep it up.
Regarding the twisted nature of DNA: it’s a non trivial minimal surface thing. It is a function of flow dynamics on multiple minimal surfaces, flat, catenoid, spheroid, helicoid. The flow of particle-wave as Quaternion progression flows and creates a helicoid minimal surface. DNA as well as protein twists and folds are minimal surface flow dynamics patterns. Imho
When is Jocelyn Bell coming on then Brian? Love her take on imposter syndrome. Another treasure. And when she does come on can you ask if she ever met Madame Wu?
presentation has alway been terrible, mr keating can't stop fiddling with stuff, it's incredibly distracting when he is interviewing people. do your set up, check it works, leave it alone.
Great Video! Another lady which missed it closely was Henrietta Swan Leavitt who invented the "Harvard Standard", ... same with her. Josef Gaßner, host of the german youtube channel "Urknall, Weltall und das Leben", decided to name the James-Webb-telescope - to her honour - the Henrietta-Leavitt-telescope, any time mentioning it in the future, join the meme ;-)
She probably deserved the prize. However this is not a new thing. Recall that Gregor Mendel held 2 lectures in 1865 to an audience of 40 scientists, published his work in 1866 and held a long correspondence with a prominent biologist Carl Nageli and told a friend, Gustav von Niessl, over several years that his time would come. Darwin tried to explain inheritance via pangenesis. It is presumed, I think in error,that had Darwin known of Mendel’s work he would have recognized it appropriately. It was not until 1900 when his work was twice duplicated independently and thereby Mendel’s work rediscovered that he was appropriately recognized. Consider that he was ignored because he was a monk and not part of the “system “ of intellectual discourse. Was it that the scientists were blind or otherwise incapable due to heuristics, hybris and ate’? Furthermore there are those who got credit for covering up someone else’s discovery or outright taking claim as first.
The Nobel Prize Committee should add a new category and be the first to receive a "Nobel Prize of Shame" for all the deserving recipients who denied the Nobel Prize for the outstanding contributions, and for tarnishing the name of Nobel. And that doesn't even begin to address those who received the prize who were undeserving. Madame Wu was clearly deserving of winning the Nobel Prize, as was Jocelyn Bell.
i agree with Napoleon - he was asked, at some fancy dinner, who the greatest woman to ever live was ... his response - which one had the most children?
Haven't started yet, but I wonder if the answer ultimately is gravity. There are two ways to blow up a balloon. The regular way and inside-out. We have left-handed neutrinos, inside out would be right-handed.
Nature still has parity, you just need to include antimatter. Normal matter is weakly left-handed, antimatter is weakly right-handed. Parity and charge (as well as time) are all linked in the so-called CPT symmetry, which is never broken as a whole, even though individual parts it can be on their own. So the real asymmetry is why there is so much more matter than antimatter, which is one of the biggest questions in physics.
If there is a better way to interpret empirical evidence, then the physics community is bound and required to debate it. Otherwise, it's not science, it's religion.
Although recognition and prizes are great to some extent...I find they are often somewhat questionable, contentious and debatable.... as all new knowledge should be valued and celebrated equally...especially when they don't include key contributors. Luckily prizes to some are never as meaningful or gratifying as the pursuit of progressing our knowledge or understanding.
Greatest video I've stumbled over. ..you're a neutrino and and anti neutrino simultaneously ... Too poor £ size to contribute now... I will soon Love your channel X
So Dr Wu demonstrated that Nobel prize gender parity did not exist. But she proved the existence of the Nobel prize parody process to nominate candidates.
I agree that women are underrepresented in the Nobel Prize. I also agree that Madame Wu should have been included. Just look at the 2020 prize in physics. Penrose won it as a theorist. Genzel and Genz won it for their observational work (basically the experimental part). Of course, you have also to look at the representation of women in physics, and science in general. If you look at any university class in physics, you will find few women. I started in physics in the early 1970. I later switched to computer science. That is a whole other story. in math, statistics and computer science you will see many more women. It is a self selection process. Schools do not set quotas in physics. In fact, physics is not generally a selective major. If one is admitted to the university, one can choose to major in physics without much, if any, restriction.
Symmetry breaking is artifact of the fact, fact, that time is a single infinitesimal moment, a single Planck second. Don’t quibble re infinitesimal vs Planck. Functional infinitesimal. This membrane of present time has exactly on its inverse side, our perfect mirror in time. Neutron decay cosmology. The neutrons which invert when a black hole forms are transported via marangoni effect to re emerge in lowest energy points of space (diffusion through membrane of present time) where they travel for 14ish relativistic minutes and then decay. This decay from neutron into amorphous atomic hydrogen is a volume increase of 10^14 times. This is Lambda and this is why it’s always perfectly balanced. The topolgy of the universe maintains equilibrium. This hydrogen then follows usual evolution path to nebula, proto star, star, white dwarf, neutron star, event horizon. The universe is a hypercardioid with double membrane and vacuum energy is interstitial marangoni flow. A Schwartz surface of insane complexity but because fully lorentzian we can never experience the curve of space really since all local space is curving along with.
Every paricle creates a ripple in space time since muon is 200 times heavier it allows us to detect back ground gravitational wave.similary if there is much heavier or equal weight particle it will behave similar to muon g2 experiment.
I'm ashamed to say as an academic with a mere amateur interest in physics I hadn't Mme. Wu on the list quiet either. I did hear about the matter-antimatter parity vilation though. So even on the public domain credit often is not given out to those who deserve it and wasn't communicated properly by the ones in the know.
Please do not entitle your video as if you were going to describe the experiment and then talk for 10 minutes about litterally anything but the actual experiment
![Kumamoto Masters Japan 2024 | Gregoria Mariska Tunjung (INA) [5] vs. Akane Yamaguchi (JPN) [2] | F](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EIjZybhsWqA/mqdefault.jpg)
![FORTNITE CLASSICS IS BACK! Fortnite Item Shop [November 15th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RbQURbeFwqs/mqdefault.jpg)
Do you think Madame Wu really did lose the Nobel Prize?
Oh absolutely!
Definitely, yes! Dr. Keating if I am not wrong even the great Wolfgang pauli believed so !
Does it matter?
Yes
@@andyoates8392 yes, it matters, can’t fix the dysfunctional Nobel awards process without recognizing its many failures
More books should be written about her, and the parity violation too
Genius ahead of her time
Wu was just one more of the many who were ignored or deliberately left out when handing out accolades, due to her gender, and possibly ethnicity, too. It's tragic!
And there was the woman who was the Third discoverer of DNA's structure, but we only hear about Crick and Watson.
@@cybervigilante They are not necessarily ignored or intentionally left out. Rosalind Franklin had sadly passed away before the Nobel Prize was awarded to Crick and Watson and since they don't give the award posthumously she was left out. You did not mention Maurice Wilkins and incorrectly named Rosie as 'the third discoverer' when there were in fact 4 people making contributions to the co-discovery but since Wilkins doesn't fit the confirmation bias then we can't count him (and really to tell the story one has to talk about Linus Pauling, another famous scientist not well recognized among the general population.) Science is like that, there's just too many people involved and not everyone can be recognized. The discovery of the top quark had over 1000 scientists and tons of unnamed technicians but I doubt they'll be getting the recognition because it takes time to go through all those names and mention them. Heck in your comment you didn't even mention Rosalind Franklin by name, so who is leaving people out here?
It is interesting and curious decision making by the Nobel committee to award a prize only on theoretical grounds when almost all prizes historically (both before and after her snub) are awarded for actual physically demonstrable experimental findings confirming theoretical propositions. Why would they do this to Madam Wu? Apparently there is no parity in their decisions to award the prize either…..
Just watched your interview with Dave Rubin. It was the MOST ENJOYABLE interview between two people I have ever watched! Very excited to have found you and your channel. Thank you!
Thanks very much! It’s great to hear. Have a great week
I would love to have sat in a few of Mrs Wu's lecture and know i watched such a mind, talking about the universe, forget oppenheimer this lady here deserved more books written about her and a film too
Somehow it didn't quite sound right when you mentioned Einstein 2:43.
Ok, I figured it out. I've been conditioned to hearing it pronounced in a German accent, followed by _"Yes, that guy again!"_ 🤣
she's a rock star
Oh yess
Thanks for flashing our comment!
It was the 1950s here, to paraphrase and time-travel a Dickens statement, "the best and worst of times" simultaneously. It had parallels to physics, both quantum and relative, depending on your location, situation and viewpoint.
Experimentalists eagerly toiling away in labs sometimes don't get their due respect, both in the 1950s and today? How enlightening Mme. Wu's findings were it appears, that got a most brilliant physicist and seer of neutrinos (W. Pauli's) knickers in a twist!
As an aside, Mach and Boltzmann's relationship and ideas were interesting, can this be asked re: inertia and momentum- could an observer in a universe "gravitationally collapsing" toward a zero-gravity centroid tell the difference in a tensor space, whether their universe was expanding, if the most distant galaxies were rather gravitationally red shifted nearer t=0? Like counting sheep trying to figure this out can help one sleep, bonne nuit.
Though I am not privy to the Nobel prize committee’s minds it nonetheless seems that mdme Wu ought to have been a recipient of the Nobel award.
You're all right Brian.
Of course Mme. Wu deserved a Nobel prize.
Mdm. Wu could use a wrench. Some of those guys couldn't change their tire.
The ones who build the stuff to see if they know what they are talking about.
Saw it a dozen times in my life, try to do it without me, see if you can. :-)
Experimental physicists, they can't do it without you.
Great Show, keep it up.
Thanks bill !!
Regarding the twisted nature of DNA: it’s a non trivial minimal surface thing. It is a function of flow dynamics on multiple minimal surfaces, flat, catenoid, spheroid, helicoid. The flow of particle-wave as Quaternion progression flows and creates a helicoid minimal surface.
DNA as well as protein twists and folds are minimal surface flow dynamics patterns.
Imho
"Will it go round in circles?" -Billy Preston. Honey, _everything_ goes_round in circles!!
When is Jocelyn Bell coming on then Brian? Love her take on imposter syndrome. Another treasure. And when she does come on can you ask if she ever met Madame Wu?
Recording in December!
Are you with me, Dr Wu?
That is the purpose of spin
I vote HENRIETTA LACKS for her contribution to medical science.Nobel prize yes indeed.
You are really cool Dr. Keating.
Consistent program. Brilliant guests, host and presentation. Inspiration into interstellar, all systems nominal. 💚♾
Amazing thanks Andy !! Have a great weekend!
presentation has alway been terrible, mr keating can't stop fiddling with stuff, it's incredibly distracting when he is interviewing people. do your set up, check it works, leave it alone.
Great Video! Another lady which missed it closely was Henrietta Swan Leavitt who invented the "Harvard Standard", ... same with her. Josef Gaßner, host of the german youtube channel "Urknall, Weltall und das Leben", decided to name the James-Webb-telescope - to her honour - the Henrietta-Leavitt-telescope, any time mentioning it in the future, join the meme ;-)
In my opinion, the sexism so easily apparent in the list of Nobel Laureates greatly diminishes the value of the prize.
She is deserving of the award 🥇
She probably deserved the prize. However this is not a new thing.
Recall that Gregor Mendel held 2 lectures in 1865 to an audience of 40 scientists, published his work in 1866 and held a long correspondence with a prominent biologist Carl Nageli and told a friend, Gustav von Niessl, over several years that his time would come.
Darwin tried to explain inheritance via pangenesis. It is presumed, I think in error,that had Darwin known of Mendel’s work he would have recognized it appropriately.
It was not until 1900 when his work was twice duplicated independently and thereby Mendel’s work rediscovered that he was appropriately recognized.
Consider that he was ignored because he was a monk and not part of the “system “ of intellectual discourse.
Was it that the scientists were blind or otherwise incapable due to heuristics, hybris and ate’?
Furthermore there are those who got credit for covering up someone else’s discovery or outright taking claim as first.
Upvote if Sabine Hossenfelder sent you.
good vid, good work.
Amazing Thank you,
That Heisenberg had a big brain
The Nobel Prize Committee should add a new category and be the first to receive a "Nobel Prize of Shame" for all the deserving recipients who denied the Nobel Prize for the outstanding contributions, and for tarnishing the name of Nobel. And that doesn't even begin to address those who received the prize who were undeserving. Madame Wu was clearly deserving of winning the Nobel Prize, as was Jocelyn Bell.
i agree with Napoleon - he was asked, at some fancy dinner, who the greatest woman to ever live was ... his response - which one had the most children?
What I want to know is that is there an explanation of this parity violation or is it still a mystery? Why is nature weakly left-handed?
Haven't started yet, but I wonder if the answer ultimately is gravity. There are two ways to blow up a balloon. The regular way and inside-out. We have left-handed neutrinos, inside out would be right-handed.
Nature still has parity, you just need to include antimatter. Normal matter is weakly left-handed, antimatter is weakly right-handed. Parity and charge (as well as time) are all linked in the so-called CPT symmetry, which is never broken as a whole, even though individual parts it can be on their own. So the real asymmetry is why there is so much more matter than antimatter, which is one of the biggest questions in physics.
I didn't actually hear you explain "why" this was "the most important experiment ever."
If there is a better way to interpret empirical evidence, then the physics community is bound and required to debate it. Otherwise, it's not science, it's religion.
Galilean relative motion has the earth approaching the released object. How little we know of motion.... obviously almost nothing.
Although recognition and prizes are great to some extent...I find they are often somewhat questionable, contentious and debatable.... as all new knowledge should be valued and celebrated equally...especially when they don't include key contributors.
Luckily prizes to some are never as meaningful or gratifying as the pursuit of progressing our knowledge or understanding.
Why, oh why did I think this was Cov19 related. My brain hurts.
You've been effectively propagandaized? And yes, that is in fact a real word.
Greatest video I've stumbled over. ..you're a neutrino and and anti neutrino simultaneously ...
Too poor £ size to contribute now...
I will soon
Love your channel
X
So Dr Wu demonstrated that Nobel prize gender parity did not exist. But she proved the existence of the Nobel prize parody process to nominate candidates.
Oh interesting!
Thanks you’ll like it
I agree that women are underrepresented in the Nobel Prize. I also agree that Madame Wu should have been included. Just look at the 2020 prize in physics. Penrose won it as a theorist. Genzel and Genz won it for their observational work (basically the experimental part).
Of course, you have also to look at the representation of women in physics, and science in general. If you look at any university class in physics, you will find few women. I started in physics in the early 1970. I later switched to computer science. That is a whole other story. in math, statistics and computer science you will see many more women. It is a self selection process. Schools do not set quotas in physics. In fact, physics is not generally a selective major. If one is admitted to the university, one can choose to major in physics without much, if any, restriction.
Loved it!! even laughed
Amazing to hear! Thank you, so much
Realy strange, the propretis of the Universe, your book in the way, it take few days more, cause it come from England i belive. ...
If i wanted to read the book..
Yup
Know
Symmetry breaking is artifact of the fact, fact, that time is a single infinitesimal moment, a single Planck second. Don’t quibble re infinitesimal vs Planck. Functional infinitesimal.
This membrane of present time has exactly on its inverse side, our perfect mirror in time.
Neutron decay cosmology. The neutrons which invert when a black hole forms are transported via marangoni effect to re emerge in lowest energy points of space (diffusion through membrane of present time) where they travel for 14ish relativistic minutes and then decay. This decay from neutron into amorphous atomic hydrogen is a volume increase of 10^14 times. This is Lambda and this is why it’s always perfectly balanced. The topolgy of the universe maintains equilibrium. This hydrogen then follows usual evolution path to nebula, proto star, star, white dwarf, neutron star, event horizon.
The universe is a hypercardioid with double membrane and vacuum energy is interstitial marangoni flow. A Schwartz surface of insane complexity but because fully lorentzian we can never experience the curve of space really since all local space is curving along with.
Definitely, yes! Dr. Keating if I am not wrong even the great Wolfgang pauli believed so !
Every paricle creates a ripple in space time since muon is 200 times heavier it allows us to detect back ground gravitational wave.similary if there is much heavier or equal weight particle it will behave similar to muon g2 experiment.
The video does not answer why should this be the most important experiment ever conducted. The title is a clickbait.
Great video. Madame Wu wuz robbed.
I'm ashamed to say as an academic with a mere amateur interest in physics I hadn't Mme. Wu on the list quiet either. I did hear about the matter-antimatter parity vilation though. So even on the public domain credit often is not given out to those who deserve it and wasn't communicated properly by the ones in the know.
Magnetic anomaly detection mad-ame trans metals periodic table. mutual assured destruction. Madame symbiosis
🇺🇳8:47
Please do not entitle your video as if you were going to describe the experiment and then talk for 10 minutes about litterally anything but the actual experiment