جايزه سالانه كميته دايمي همكاري‌هاي علمي و فن‌آوري سازمان كنفرانس اسلامي ( كامستك ) در رشته فيزيك به دكتر شيخ جباري، فيزيکدان جوان پژوهشگاه دانش هاي بنيادي اعطا شد.
به گزارش خبرنگار «علمي» خبرگزاري دانشجويان ايران(ايسنا)، اين جايزه روز گذشته در جريان سيزدهمين نشست مجمع عمومي كميته دايمي همكاري‌هاي علمي و فن‌آوري سازمان كنفرانس كشورهاي اسلامي كه با حضور وزراي علوم و تحقيقات كشورهاي اسلامي در شهر اسلام آباد برگزار شد از سوي پرويز مشرف، رييس جمهور پاكستان اعطا شد.
دکتر محمد مهدي شيخ جباري، استاد جوان پژوهشكده فيزيك پژوهشگاه دانش‌هاي بنيادي(مركز تحقيقات فيزيك نظري و رياضيات) چندي پيش نيز به پاس تلاش‌ها و نقش مهمش در تئوري هاي non-commutative field در مفهوم D-branes و تئوري هاي ابرريسمان كه به دستاوردهاي جالبي در فيزيك تئوريك و رياضياتي منجر مي‌شود به دريافت جايزه مرکز بين‌المللي فيزيک نظري عبدالسلام در سال 2007 نايل شده بود.
خبرگزاري دانشجويان ايران - تهران
سرويس: علمي
۶ نظر:
من هم به ایشان تبریک می‌گویم! (:
من زیاد از وضع عمومی‌ی پژوهش فیزیک در ایران خبری ندارم. شنیده‌ام در بعضی زمینه‌ها (مثلا همین نظریه‌ی ریسمان‌ها) قوی هستیم.
اولا آیا این حرف درست است؟
مهم‌تر از آن، چرا این‌گونه است؟ آیا به خاطر وجود "اتفاقی"ی چند پژوهش‌گر قوی در این زمینه، چنین توانایی‌ای ایجاد شده یا این‌که این تفاوت ناشی از برنامه‌ای منسجم و ساختارمند است؟
خب! به نظر می‌رسد سوال‌ها پاسخ داده نمی‌شوند! (:
این که در نظریه ی ریسمان قوی هستیم حرف کاملا درستی است. من با تاریخچه ی این موضوع خیلی آشنایی ندارم و فکر می کنم این که چرا قوی هستیم را باید ریسمان کارها پاسخ بدهند، ولی می دانم که امروز ما دارای یک سنت خوب و قوی در ریسمان هستیم و این فراتر از یک یا دو نفر ریسمان کار خوب است. در واقع بهترین جا برای یاد گرفتن ریسمان به نظر من ایران است و این به هیچ وجه تصادفی نیست.
Dear Sologen,
It is Shahin Sheikh-Jabbari. You have asked some question and I
would like to make some comments about them, as answering your
questions needs several pages of writing and does not fit into a
short post.
You are right that, comparatively, string theory group in Iran,
mainly in IPM and Sharif University, and thanks to Dr Garousi in
Mashhad Uni, is not in a bad shape. The current string theory
group is a result of almost a four decade endeavor of our senior
people who "happen" to also be working on the same subject. But,
now that we have an active group in string theory, which I would
rather prefer to call it high energy theory (hep-th) group,
starting up other groups, especially in areas which already some
seeds exists, should not take that long and in a matter of ten
years period, IFF acted with devotion and with special attention,
these other areas should also reach to reasonable levels.
Regarding the other comment by "navarda", in my viewpoint, we are
certainly very far from having a real active string theory group
which is doing worldclass influential research. IPM is certainly
not even among the best places to do string theory, this is just
like a joke!. It takes a long time to develop such a group and
needs a lot of effort from all people and special notice and
care. I am optimistic and have already put a lot of effort in this
direction, let us hope, act and work hard to that end.
I would also like to make a comment, I used the term influential
worldclass research work. The question is of course how do you
measure this? Well, it is somewhat not very well defined, but I
can clarify it a bit more by making an example. Consider our
national football, for example. Do we have a worldclass national
football? This is a similar kind of question. A worldclass
national football has some key features and aspects:
-Having worldclass football players.
-Having worldclass coaches.
-Having worldclass referees.
-Having worldclass football fields.
-Having worldclass teams in the leagues.
you can only call your football worldclass if we really have the
above, otherwise we are not. Once you have the above, I am sure
some other things come with it, e.g. you will have your own
"school in football", e.g. Italy, Brazil, Argentine, Germany,
England are among the countries who have all components of the
above.....
Now judge for yourself where we stand in "string theory".....
Dear Shahin
This is not a clarification: Q: What
is a world class scientific center? A:A scientific center is somewhere in which world class scientists, referees ... work!!
You know better than any one else that this explanation not only does not solve any problem but creates many new ones.
Since you returned to Iran you have always said you will strive and do your best to create a world-class scientific center within your capacity and in fact you and a couple of other friends (including Sima, Pinocchio, Qasem, Dr Askari, ....) and me have tried our best and have made cosiderable changes in some areas.
The most manifest change is the number of seminars that are given each year.
Any body may do a survey using
http://physics.ipm.ac.ir/seminars
to check that number of seminars were about 20 per year before 2003
has reached
more than 200 per year!
More than a ten-fold increase!
That is while the number of researchers have not changed much.This is a change heralded by the new generation. A change that I believe will continue and bear fruit in a time span of 5-10 years.
But emphasizing on "world-class has had a horrible side effect. Some people have declared themselves as world-class scientists and
use this self-given title as a tool to suppress others who are
not in their opinion, world class researchers!
If a reasonable criterion for being world-class is not given, such side effects will take their toll and harm the newly born still weak community that is developing to be a strong one
In case, such criterion does not exist or you do not have access to, please do not spread the word. Spreading ill-defined concepts has proved to be harmful
As you know better,
understanding of some people from world-class research is to make a mild change in (or even copy) the works of well-known scientists such as Witten or Ashoke Sen.
I believe you agree with me that doing an original work of mediocre importance is closer to the concept of world-class research than copying works of other scientists
However, in practice, many do not agree with us! !
In line of my previous comment, I would like to emphasize that when I urge to present a reasonable criterion for the concept of world-class research I do not mean to play with words.
There are commonly concepts that are also ill-denfined: sadness, happiness, love, success, justice, injustice and ....
People have used these ill-defined concepts for ages. I believe it is a waste of time to try to come up with a comprehensive defintion for such concepts that we feel and use every day without any need to consult any philosophy book!
But the new concept of "world-class research" is different. We neither have a good definition for it nor we have a universal understanding of it. Besides emphasis on it has already created problems. That is why we should be careful about using it.
ارسال یک نظر