[eigenket]

I think this is (very) inaccurate. It feels more like them trying to jump on a "hot topic" bandwagon (machine learning/AI hype is huge).

Physics as a discipline hasn't really stalled at all. Fundamental physics arguably has, because no one really has any idea how to get close to making experimental tests that would distinguish the competing ideas. But even in fundamental physics there are cool developments like the stuff from Jonathan Oppenheim and collaborators in the last couple of years.

That said "physics" != "fundamental physics" and physics of composite systems ranging from correlated electron systems, and condensed matter through to galaxies and cosmology is very far from dead.

[620gelato]

> trying to jump on a "hot topic" bandwagon

I don't know exactly what they hope to gain by jumping on that bandwagon though; neither the physicists nor the computer scientists are going to value this at all. And dare I say, the general populace associated with the two fields isn't going to either - case in point, this hn post.

If there weren't any noble-worthy nominations for physics, maybe skip it? (Although that hasn't happened since 1972 across any field)

[soheil]

It could also be that CS is saturated with too many noble-worthy nominations so they had to spill some over to another field with vacant seats.

Another guess is maybe they're trying to divert some of the insane attention in CS/AI to physics to get more people to join that field.

But still really bizarre decision,

AI/ANN/CS != Physics

[klwant]

One possibility is that they think this will access hype funding. Put "AI" in a physics paper and watch the grants roll in.

[pas]

There's no need to skip it, there's probably a big backlog from previous shortlists :)

But yeah, they could have passed. That would have been cool.

Also, there's a ton of extremely amazing shit in astronomy, or even photolithography, or simulations of physics (though that's basically what the chemistry prize was this year).

[Ma8ee]

I just briefly looked into what Jonathan Oppenheim is working on, and I’d say he’s part of the problem. More speculative work that might or might not be testable in a distant future.

[eigenket]

I would say that's an overly simplistic view. The only way we ever obtain testable things is by working on things which are not currently testable.