இந்த ஆண்டுக்கான இயற்பியலுக்கான நேபல் பரிசு 3 பேருக்கு கிடைத்துள்ளது. இவை யாவும் அணு பற்றியது (sub atomic ).
யப்பானை பிறப்பிடமாகவும் ஜக்கிய அமெரிக்காவை வசிப்பிடமாகவும் கொண்ட இயற்பியல் பேராசிரியர் . இவருக்கு நேபல் பரிசு கிடைப்பதற்கான காரணம் "for the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics " (மன்னிக்க வேண்டும் இதை என்னால தமிழ் ஆக்க முடியவில்லை)
இவருடைய சுயவிபரம்
பிறந்தது 1921 யப்பானில் தலைநகரம் டோக்கியோ...
அமெரிக்கா பிரயாவுரிமை..
University of Chicago
இக்கே இவருடைய முடிவை ஆங்கிலத்தில் தருகிறேன்.
The fact that our world does not behave perfectly symmetrically is due to deviations from symmetry at the microscopic level
" ஒரு உண்மையான விசயம் என்னவென்றால் இந்த உலகத்தில் எதுவும் அச்சொட்டான சமச்சீரில்லை. காரணம் என்னவென்றால் சமச்சீர் என்பது விலத்தி நிற்க்கின்றது துணிக்கை மட்டத்தில் " (மொழி பெயர்ப்பில் பிழையிருந்தால் மன்னிக்கவும் மற்றும் திருத்தவும்).
இந்த நேபல் பரிசு அறிவித்த போது. அவர் துக்கத்தில் இருந்தார். இவருக்கான பரிசுத்தொகை சுமார் $1.4 மில்லியன் அமெரிக்க டோலர்.
மற்றாவர்கள் ஜப்பான் நாட்டை சேர்ந்தவர்கள்.
முதலாம்மவர் பேராசிரியர் Makoto Kobayas
இரண்டாம்மவர் பேராசிரியர் Toshihide Maskawa
இரண்டுபேருடைய பங்களிப்பு ஒன்று சார்ந்ததாகவே இருக்கின்றது. அதாவது "for the discovery of the origin of the broken symmetry which predicts the existence of at least three families of quarks in nature"
Makoto Kobayas, இவருக்கான நோபல் பரிசு 0.7 மில்லியன் அமெரிக்க டோலார்.
Toshihide Maskawa ,இவருக்கான நோபல் பரிசு 0.7 மில்லியன் அமெரிக்க டோலார்.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
இயற்பியலுக்கான நோபல் பரிசு
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 பின்னூட்டங்கள்:
Thanks for the info. keep it up.
I have very different views to Nobel prize. I will share one of my points in this comment. This is regarding the Nobel prize to Mohammed Younus in 2006.
The committee that gave Henry Kissinger the Nobel peace prize has given it to Mohammed Younus, the economist who put the word "microloan" on the map with the Grameen Bank in his native land of
Bangladesh. That's progress of a sort. But in terms of hot air, any sentences linking "peace" with "Henry Kissinger" aren't immeasurably more vacuous than the notion that microloans can help to use the language of the Nobel Committee's citation "large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty."
Throughout the late Eighties and Nineties, in the verbal currency of first-world do-gooders, "microloans" became one of those magically fungible words, embedded in a thousand Foundation and NGO annual reports, like "sustainable". What could be more virtuous in terms of prudent philanthropy than giving very small loans to very poor women? Microloans breath healthful uplift, as divorced from the sordid world of mega-loans (though not, it turns out, mega interest rates), as are micro-brews from Budweiser.
The trouble is that microloans don't make any sort of a macro-difference. They have helped some poor women, no doubt about it. But in their own way they're a register of defeat. Back in the early 1970s there were huge plans afoot to change the entire relationship of the Third to the First World, to speed Third World economies towards decent living standards for the many, not just the few. At the United Nations radical economists were hard at work drafting plans for a New World Economic Order. All that went out the window and here are the caring classes thirty years later, hailing microloans.
Microloans are micro-bandaids in a scale of things today where - to take the example of India -- well over 100,000 farmers, including a large number of women, have killed themselves because their federal and state governments, plus large international institutions, have promoted the savage priorities of neoliberalism.
As the economist Robert Pollin put it pithily when I asked him what he thought of the award to Younus , "Bangladesh and Bolivia are two countries widely recognized for having the most successful micro credit programs in the world. They also remain two of the poorest countries in the world."
In the statistical tables of human development Bangladesh ranks 139th, worse than India, with 49.8 per cent of its population of 150 million below the official poverty line. In the homeland of the Grameen Bank, about 80 per cent of the people live on less than $2 a day. A UN Development Program study in the early 1990s showed that the total microcredits in Bangladesh constituted 0.6 per cent of total credit in the country. Hardly a transformation.
Against this backdrop, what have microloans achieved?
today the World Bank and the IMF, along with state-owned and commercial banks are diving into microfinance. The microloan business is fast becoming a gigantic empire, bringing back into control the very banks and bureaucracies women have been trying to bypass. Microcredit is becoming a macro-racket.
the interest rates micro-indebted women are paying in India are far higher than commercial bank lending rates.
They are paying between 24 and 36 per cent on loans for productive expenditures while an upper class person can finance the purchase of a Mercedes at 6 to 8 per cent from the banking system.
The average loan of the Grameen bank is $130 in Bangladesh, lower in India. Now, the basic problem of the poor in both countries is landlessness, lack of assets. In the Indian province of Andhra Pradesh, where there are thousands of microloan groups, land costs 100,000 rupees an acre, poor land maybe 60,000 rupees--over $2000. $130 doesn't buy you the ranch, not even a good cow or buffalo.
The trouble with publicly-subsidized credit programs is that they're public and they're large and run contrary to the neoliberal creed. That's why Younus got his Nobel prize, whereas radical land reformers get a bullet in the back of the head.
Best regards,
Vinothini Kumaran
Post a Comment
உங்கள் பின்னூட்டங்களை வரவேற்கின்றோம். அனைவரும் இந்த வலைப்பூவை வாசிப்பார்கள். எனவே நல்ல வார்த்தைப் பிரயோகங்களைப் பாவியுங்கள். அத்துடன் இடுகையின் மேற்புறத்தில் உங்கள் நட்சத்திர வாக்கையும் இட்டுவிட்டு செல்லுங்கள்.
நன்றி