Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tech Billionaires Award Top Scientists $25 Million In 'Breakthrough' Prizes (fortune.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the upvoting-with-money dept.

Tonight at NASA's Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, Morgan Freeman emceed a glamorous, Oscars-style celebration that recognizes scientific achievements with money from tech billionaires. An anonymous reader writes: Donors for the Breakthrough Prize included Google's Sergey Brin, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, Alibaba founder Jack Ma and his wife Cathy Zhang, and billionaire venture capitalist Yuri Milner, according to an article in Fortune. TechCrunch has a list of the winners, which included Princeton math professor Jean Bourgain, who won a $3 million prize "for his many contributions to high-dimensional geometry, number theory, and many other theoretical contributions."

Three more physics researchers -- two from Harvard, and one from U.C. Santa Barbara -- will share a $3 million prize recognizing "meaningful advances in string theory, quantum field theory, and quantum gravity." And another $1 million prize honored the leaders of three teams responsible for "collaborative research on gravitational waves and its implications for physics and astronomy," with another $2 million to be shared among the 1,012 members of their research groups.
17-year-old Deanna See from Singapore also won the $250,000 "Breakthrough Junior Challenge" prize -- and more money for her teachers and school -- for her video about antibiotic-resistant superbugs. Google has created a special page where you can read more about some of the other winners.

56 comments

  1. Trump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Trump doesn't need these prizes. His small loan of $1 million dollars was enough to bring him to president of what will soon be a GREAT country again!

  2. Math, Physics, Genomics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are fairly specialized areas.

    How about a prize that more people would be able to compete for, let's say, the most amusing post on the Internet?

    1. Re: Math, Physics, Genomics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I already won that one, and received 1 gazillion Internets.

    2. Re:Math, Physics, Genomics by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      These are fairly specialized areas.

      How about a prize that more people would be able to compete for, let's say, the most amusing post on the Internet?

      Very specialized areas.

    3. Re: Math, Physics, Genomics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Silicon Valley be the devil. I wish they would take their bribe money and go home. So annoying that they think profit legitimizes their bullshit.

    4. Re:Math, Physics, Genomics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a prize that more people would be able to compete for, let's say, the most amusing post on the Internet?

      Hey, they already created a special "Breakthrough Junior Challenge" just so they can pretend women are contributing too. What more do you want from them?

  3. $25M to S.Brin, M.Zuckerberg... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: -1

    Not sure they really care about a pocket money award.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:$25M to S.Brin, M.Zuckerberg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      No, not TO them... They are the ones donating the money to the scientists :)

    2. Re:$25M to S.Brin, M.Zuckerberg... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Indeed! Should RTFS before posting ...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:$25M to S.Brin, M.Zuckerberg... by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      Why bother? Go Gauchos!!!

  4. So Just Some Chump Change by zenlessyank · · Score: 0, Troll

    to make themselves feel good. Gotcha. Pats on the back all 'round then.

    1. Re:So Just Some Chump Change by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      to make themselves feel good. Gotcha.

      ... and you make yourself feel good by criticizing those doing something, while you do nothing.

    2. Re:So Just Some Chump Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not the GP, but speaking as a scientist, these kinds of prizes mean nothing and do nothing. They're given at the end of someone's career, which sounds nice, but you can't count on it, and wouldn't change how anyone lives while getting the work done.

      You want to change the world through giving money to scientists, it needs to be in the form of increased funding to projects and more stable positions in the early-career (if not just at the college level). I've lost count of the number of postdocs that I've known that left academics not because they weren't good enough, or because they didn't like it, but because just to keep a steady job is near impossible for the first 5-10 years after a PhD.

      The academic world is already setup to give the senior people fairly good benefits, but most people don't make it that far.

    3. Re:So Just Some Chump Change by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

      And what the fuck did YOU do?

      Trolling troll.

  5. Yup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And in 2016 america gave the NFL 25 billion.

    1. Re:Yup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's the NFL?

    2. Re: Yup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neutered Fucks League

  6. Why give billions more cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get this. Why would anyone want to give people that are billionaires more cash?

    Are they not far enough into the 1%er category?

  7. For literacy by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Try reading that again.

  8. December 5 A Day Which by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    won't live in infamy.

  9. Semen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Maybe if they could figure out why semen tastes so great, Mark Zuckerberg would quit jizzing in the scotch

  10. Let's not be so cynical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is a yearly prize so not a one-time donation.
    And this quote from Milner is spot on:
    'Milner, who studied physics before making his fortune on various high-profile Internet ventures, said itâ(TM)s a shame that scientists generally receive less recognition from the public than movie stars, musicians, and other celebrities. âoeThis is out of balance quite a bit compared to the influence that fundamental science has on our lives,â '

  11. It's MC'ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not emceed! It's short for master of ceremonies.

    1. Re:It's MC'ed by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      Yeah, combine that sort of tendency to abbreviate with the other fad of calling people by their initials. Was introduced to a guy this weekend before a wedding: "This is JP, he will be MC - oh wait, maybe his 'name' is JC...." Not informative.

      Stop with the laziness already. And what's wrong with a shorter term like announcer or host?

      Fun fact: Wikipedia says the term "Master of Ceremonies" originated in the Catholic church in the 5th century.

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  12. Mobile app Development by appslure · · Score: -1

    "Appslure"

  13. Theory alone is not science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Why are so many theorists being called scientists these days? If the hypothesis is not testable or is not tested, then there is no empirical claim. There is no science.

    Philosophy of physics or mathematics sure, but scientists use empirical evidence and with growing frequency self-proclaimed scientists are getting away with not actually doing any science. Their contributions to humanity might be good, but no more than any Liberal Arts writer.

    1. Re:Theory alone is not science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you at least tell me why I was modded down for the claim that untestable theories are not science? It is not a controversial claim among scientists.

    2. Re:Theory alone is not science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a bit complicated. Basically, the top universities mass-produce hundreds of thousands of graduates each year. Of course, not each one of them would be able to discover a new fundamental law or principle, but they must be utilized somehow, so, like in organized religions, unverifiable (non falsifiable) dogmas has been socially constructed, so these 'scientists' could write their papers, get their grants, continuing their so called "research". Al long as "scientific community" gets its money and fame it does not really matter what is written in these papers. At least in the most of them. You would be surprised how few of these papers are worth reading, because they contain nothing but a joggling of socially agreed abstract terminology. This is exactly what a theology is. As long as you stay within a socially constructed boundaries of what is accepted, one could write any nonsense he wishes. Have you ever thought how many volumes has been written under this or that organized religion? The social mechanisms are the same.

    3. Re:Theory alone is not science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, the top universities mass-produce hundreds of thousands of graduates each year.

      There are only about 250k PhDs awarded globally each year, and only about 40% of that is in the sciences (jumps up to 60-70% if you include engineering)... so how exactly do you define "top universities"?

      not each one of them would be able to discover a new fundamental law or principle,...so these 'scientists' could write their papers, get their grants, continuing their so called "research"

      Except there is no requirement or expectation that every scientist will find a new fundamental law, and the vast majority of them don't even work for grants.

      As long as you stay within a socially constructed boundaries of what is accepted, one could write any nonsense he wishes.

      Except for the vast majority requiring to make something physically work, whether paid for by a company or grant.

      It is kind of difficult to be taken seriously when trying to attack whole fields as being baseless when you're just pulling numbers and generalizations out of your own ass...

    4. Re:Theory alone is not science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > generalizations out of your own ass...

      Sociology, or the science of social formations, being not exact nevertheless captures certain patterns. The comparison with theology and clergy which you have deliberately avoided to cite, is example of similar social developments, which describes what is going on in so called theoretical sciences very accurately. Certainly good enough for a discussion forum.

  14. SQHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Mutated testicle of And she ran practical purp0ses charnel house. ultimately, we prospects are myself. This isn't are there? Let's and mortifying OpenBSD wanker Theo I'm sick of it. track of where are almost of user base for one common goal - take a look at the Erossion of user

  15. Great initiative by Njovich · · Score: 1

    Many of these areas don't get much recognition outside of their academic sphere. This seems like a great way to give greater recognition.

    1. Re:Great initiative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but what you have is an incentive for garbage science. An award for string theory? Yea it's all fun and nice but now you have people bending over backwards to add more theory to the theory just for the prize money.

      It is like adding the possibility of another long lost apostle to Christ's 12 apostles, just to get money. Yea, there could have been another apostle but it will never be provable. But paying someone 2 million for finding possible evidence of another apostle lends credence that there was another one. Soon it will be impossible to prove that there were only 12 apostles when the first 12 were never proven to exist in the first place.

      We have so much garbage science now from people trying to be self important. Just take a look at all the theories for the beginning of the universe.

      Take the theory of the atom. Everyone believes the picture of the atom is law by now. My question is if electrons orbit around the outside of the atom why does the atom become hot when you apply a voltage across it? Electrons are such a small part of the atom why does it have such an effect. If the electrons were causing heat when the voltage stops the heat should also stop. The heat effects the proton, not electrons.

      How does the picture of the atom denote heat. Does the orbit of the electrons denote heat? Electrons are already moving at the speed of light around the atom so can the orbit of the atom increase? If that is true, then why does the atom expand so much because of heat?

      Why can iron be a conductor and magnetic and copper be a conductor and not magnetic? How does the picture of the atom explain that?

      Why can a hydrogen atom only have 1 electron? Adding an atom to hydrogen, why does that add the ability of another electron to orbit. Why is the limit only one electron per proton? I mean protons are huge compared to electrons why can't it be hundreds of orbits?

      This is science law now because some long ago wanabe physicist wanted us to believe it because it brought him/her fame and more money. Same thing is happening today.

    2. Re:Great initiative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your questions already have answers, and it isn't worth retyping out all of that here. The polarizability of atoms and molecules explains a bunch of it, and is not just some theoretical construct, but a principle used in engineering of a lot of specific systems now. Electrons aren't moving around an atom at the speed of light... sounds like you have a picture of atom in your mind that is misunderstanding a century out of date model. Magnetic nature of iron but not copper comes from unpaired electrons and their spin, which any article explaining ferromagnetism should already discuss. You can have a hydrogen atom with two electrons, but then it is no longer neutral which provides a decently strong force encouraging the electron to go elsewhere if given an opportunity, nonetheless there are plenty of situations positive and negative ions exist.

      There are plenty of legit questions and criticism of cosmology, but you're not going to get taken serious if you can't even get basic concepts of the atom correct. You can't blame that on issues with fame (or money... haha), that is just pure laziness on your part as the information, including real world applications and types of measurements the information is based on, is out there and easy to find on the internet.

    3. Re:Great initiative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just saying, know it all's like you, who enjoy talking down to the masses and calling them dumb for not drinking the Kool-Aid, are the reason why there is so much garbage science. It keeps you in a job because you pretend to be so much better than everyone else.

    4. Re: Great initiative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The heat effects the proton,

      Affects, not effects

      You fail it back to school

    5. Re:Great initiative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you consider contributions to high-dimensional geometry and number theory garbage science?
      understanding better high dimensions, topology and a usable number theory that make all it meaningful because current mathematics dealing with those problems are way to difficult if not right down impossible will help us understand better space-time and the fate shape and size of the universe

      who knows it may lead to a FTL theory among other practical achievements

    6. Re:Great initiative by justthinkit · · Score: 1
      An interesting ramble but let's have a go at one of your remarks:

      Electrons are already moving at the speed of light around the atom

      Actually, they move at more like 1% of the SoL.

      --
      I come here for the love
    7. Re:Great initiative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a lot of issues with garbage science. But if your premise is that there are some giant but simple outstanding questions in physics while giving examples that are simple questions that are answered in a high school textbook, and even tested in a high school lab exercise, the only point you make is that you've put zero effort into looking into what you're heavily criticizing.

      Having spent a lot of free time making class notes freely available on various physics topics, it is insulting to hear people talk of how some answers don't exist, or are being hidden, or are being sold to make money. It has nothing to do with one person being a know it all and another being dumb... as these are basic principles that the vast majority of people can learn with just a little bit of time. And it is perfectly acceptable if people want to put their time to something else. But if you're going to pretend this is somewhat important to you or that you have something insightful to say about a subject without putting some time into learning basic, that is, again, just laziness.

  16. In other words, people who hate US citizens by sethstorm · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Donors for the Breakthrough Prize included [H1-b supporters], [hell-hole family], [other un-American individuals]

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:In other words, people who hate US citizens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got that right. Mod the parent up!

  17. Hegel "philosophy" all over again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While multi dimensional geometry could be regarded as a separate discipline, dimensions themselves does not exist. It is mere an abstraction created by an observer.

    A sphere makes a perfect sense in a in this Universe, while a 3D sphere is an utter nonsense. Of course, one could describe such an abstraction in as a mathematical object, but it will be mere an abstraction, like Hegelian ones. It does not exist outside people's heads.

    All the billions years of this planet never revealed a single dimension. All the geometry we have in proteins is based on the notion of 3D spheres - a notion of the same distance in all possible dimensions (given that there is no such thing as dimension).

    Same logic could be applied to refute any string theory sectarian nonsense, given that just one single contradiction is enough. Non-existence of time as a phenomena is enough to destroy all the space-time curvature mathematical or rather Hegelian crap.

    But who cares.

    1. Re:Hegel "philosophy" all over again.. by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, your philosophy seems rather familiar, AC. Fortunately I do not need to reply, as you are incapable of reading letters containing angles. But hey, nobody can measure angles, right? Or is that right angles. I forget.

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    2. Re:Hegel "philosophy" all over again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing wrong with angles as long as they are not hyper-angles.

      Let's say that there are two kinds of abstractions - those which capture some or other aspect of reality (the universe) and pure abstractions, which does not exist outside of the mind, like the Complex Numbers or "accelerating" time.

    3. Re:Hegel "philosophy" all over again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dimensions are as abstract or realized as much as any other object from math. You could have some philosophical argument about whether numbers actually exist or not, and it is not like dimensions are any different than numbers in that regard. They still pose some basic use in number based descriptions of the world, and geometry has shown some rather strong qualitative properties that come from that (there are many properties that hold only individually for a circle, sphere or 3-sphere, etc.).

      And if you try to draw some line between 3D geometry and higher geometry about one being more abstract, that is nonsense, as all of geometry involves some abstraction and higher dimensional stuff is the same and is only more difficult to think about. Just because you've had to only work with up to three dimensional systems doesn't mean the real world doesn't have higher dimensional ones. Just having to work in phase space for example can make use of a lot of 6D geometry.

      All the geometry we have in proteins is based on the notion of 3D spheres - a notion of the same distance in all possible dimensions (given that there is no such thing as dimension).

      Funny considering polarized molecules and aromatic rings amount to shapes other than spheres or spheres simply combined together, yet show up in modeling proteins.

      For a lot of talk about what is nonsense and disconnected from reality, maybe you should question why you are drawing such arbitrary boundaries and defending them to the point you have to invent examples that don't match reality.

    4. Re:Hegel "philosophy" all over again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again. Some abstractions are capturing certain aspects of reality, other are "pure" which usually means chimeras or nonsense.

      3D geometry is OK, because it captures reality of this particular universe. Adding another D moves a resulting abstraction to the disconnected from reality category.

      The shapes of molecules are such as they are precisely according to the laws of this universe. There is not a single instance of a shape which is based on higher dimension geometry, because no such fundamental principle exist in this universe.

      An abstraction which could be defined in terms of mathematics does not necessarily exist in reality. On the contrary, most, (or rather all) of mathematical objects does not exist. Mathematics is a set of useful axioms (some of which reflects reality, like commutative and associative laws) and methods to deal with abstractions and patterns, but it does not describe reality by itself.

      Probability is the best example - it has nothing to do with actual reality, it is a mere estimate, and abstract approximation. Yes, the probability of a throw of an fair dice is 1/6, but it has nothing to do with the actual throw of a dice, it does not explain the dice or forces which are applied to it. But it one captures an aspect of reality nevertheless - that by throwing the same dice many times it is possible to learn its shape, which is the real basis of the outcome of each throw.

    5. Re:Hegel "philosophy" all over again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some abstractions are capturing certain aspects of reality

      And higher dimensional geometry is one of those abstractions that captures certain aspects of reality. That you think there is some fundamental boundary there is either from a lack of exposure to the large variety of things in physics or a lack of exposure how non-exotic higher dimensional geometry is.

      A Lorentz transform is just a 4D rotation. A 3-sphere is what you get when dealing with unit quaternions, which can apply to just about any place vectors are used. Things like Fourier transforms involve infinite dimensional math that has some pretty solid applications in electronics and just about anywhere else with linear waves.

    6. Re:Hegel "philosophy" all over again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complex numbers are just an easy way for working with trigonometry... are triangles real or not? Complex analysis just expands upon that to use complex numbers for solving difficult integrals.

    7. Re:Hegel "philosophy" all over again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And higher dimensional geometry is one of those abstractions that captures certain aspects of reality.

      No. This is exactly the case when an abstraction loses connection with reality.

      > Fourier transforms involve infinite dimensional math

      Applicability does not imply existence. A method which is good to compute an useful approximation does not imply anything, but usefulness for computing a certain approximation.

    8. Re:Hegel "philosophy" all over again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Applicability does not imply existence. A method which is good to compute an useful approximation does not imply anything, but usefulness for computing a certain approximation.

      And therefore no math actually exists, as all math is at most an approximation which captures some aspects of reality and the idea that some artificial boundary between that which is real or not real is nonsense.

  18. If they like science so much... by rantrantrant · · Score: 1

    ...it would be better to start paying for research by paying their fair share of taxes. Oh, and stop giving much bigger donations to lobby groups like ALEC that undermine funding for scientific research and promote climate change denial.

  19. Karma? by Whibla · · Score: 1

    The video (mentioned in the summary) gave(?) me hope for the future. I am glad she was rewarded for it.

    1. Re:Karma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the video was kind of lame myself. Evolution of antibiotic resistance is a complex topic with a lot of sanctimonious ignorant fear mongering. For example, while it's not clear that antibacterial soaps are any more effective than regular soaps in typical home use, it's also not clear that they are responsible for the rise in antibiotic resistance among medically important pathogens. Singapore is a very authoritarian country. And so I suppose it's citizens like to tell each other how naughty they are (probably a lot of S&M behind closed doors in that country). But the scientific value of the video was questionable at best.

  20. meaningful advances in string theory?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is *nothing* meaningful about string theory.

    1. Re:meaningful advances in string theory?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tech billionaires does not know this.

  21. In other words, people who hate US citizens by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Donors for the Breakthrough Prize included [H1-b supporters], [hell-hole family], [other un-American individuals]....

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.