Scholar’s Advanced Technological System

If it really solves the problem of controlled nuclear fusion, an institute is really nothing, and even more exaggerated treatment can be considered.

After all, China is a flexible country, and the introduction of cutting-edge international talent has always been one of the priorities of talent work.

And ignore the reactions of domestic academia.

As we get closer and closer to October, the headache is not just in physics because of the name Ark, but also because of the name, far away from the Nobel Prize for Chemistry jury in Stockholm.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, located in the clear corner of the Academy building.

Olof Rumström, who had just concluded an internal meeting of the Nobel Prize Committee for Chemistry, was sitting at his desk looking at the paper in his hand.

“Physics? You've got a really wide range of hunting involved.” Looking at the paper in the hands of his peers, Professor Peter Buzezinski, who had also just attended the meeting, raised his eyebrows and expressed interest.

“I'm not studying physics, it's just that this paper seems to have caused a lot of excitement in physics lately, and I heard several professors discussing it, so I asked an acquaintance to help me get a copy to look at. ”

For the mathematical formulas listed in the paper, Olof must not understand, after all, the specialty is not right.

But this does not prevent him from combining the Physics Review Bulletin at hand, taking into account the reviews of professionals, to understand where the paper is excellent, or which problem has been troubling the physics community for many years.

Peter stared at the paper for a while and asked in an uncertain voice, "Ark? ”

“Yes, that's the guy with the headache,” Olof paused for a moment and continued with a joke, "maybe next year we'll see him on the Nobel Prize nomination for physics. ”

Olof Ramstrom, Professor of Machine Chemistry at the Royal Swedish Polytechnic University and Academician of the Royal Academy of Sciences, is also a member of the 18-year Nobel Prize for Chemistry jury.

Peter Brzezinski, who stands beside him, is a big bull from Stockholm University in biochemistry and an academician of the Royal Academy of Sciences and a member of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry jury.

Over the course of the month, the name of the Ark, almost half of the controversy in the Nobel Committee, had been contracted, so that they had met several times and had not reached consensus on the subject of the name.

Interestingly, the focus of those controversies was not on the outcome itself, but rather on the “shuttle effect” of lithium-sulfur batteries and the issue of lithium-negative branches.

And it's not just the field of application.

Just last year, he created the "Theoretical Model of Electrochemical Interface Structure", which caused a lot of sensation in the fields of computational chemistry, surface chemistry and even condensed physics, and was honored with the Hoffman Medal.

After all, however, the Nobel Prize is not an honor in general, and it is not just one aspect or an area that needs to be considered.

Admittedly, he has achieved remarkable results, but there are not a few that are equally remarkable but still in line.

Many people have not even been selected in the queue for decades, some have even been evaluated from adulthood to early entry...

There was considerable disagreement within the Nobel Prize for Chemistry jury, with some believing that he and his findings were too young, but others believing that youth did not justify neglecting the importance of results.

Professor Olof, for example, is one of the proponents of the latter view.

In his view, the modified PDMS material and HCS-1 might still have to be considered, after all, although the prospects for industrialization were wide, they were not prominent enough in terms of contributions in the chemical field. But the theoretical model of the electrochemical interface structure, in his view, undoubtedly reached prominent levels.

Over the past year, a number of scholars have produced quite valuable results around the theoretical models he has built.

It is no exaggeration to say that his theoretical model redefines the discipline of surface chemistry and opens up new research ideas for computational chemistry.

“The 2017 Chemistry Award has been awarded to cryoscopes, and 15 years of award-winning DNA repair mechanism research is simply what Carolinska Medical School should consider. Seriously, if we don't think about the real chemistry, we at the Nobel Prize for Chemistry can simply change our name to the Prize for Biology jury. ”

Having heard that, Professor Peter, who was studying the direction of biochemistry, had a somewhat embarrassing slight cough.

“Come on, my friend, biochemistry is part of chemistry... and cryoelectronics is not entirely a result of biology, but it can actually be a study of methodologies in analytical chemistry, right? ”

Olof shook his head, "This word game doesn't make any sense, and we all know whether it's biological or chemical. ”

A very interesting statistic has been made that, of the five secondary disciplines of chemistry, Novo awarded the largest number of polymers and biochemistry, or even a third, of which 26 were awarded chemistry and 6 to structural biology.

In contrast, the organic synthesis method was awarded only 12 times to the chemist in the true sense, and inorganic chemistry is even worse...

If you look at DNA as a macromolecule, then the Nobel Prize Committee's choice is certainly not a problem and logically self-explanatory.

Yet everyone knows that this is unfair to chemists.

After all, besides the Chemistry Award, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is where biologists should go.

Now that we've even won the Frozen Electroscope Award, it's impossible to say that the chemists have no opinions at all.

Peter lightly sighed when he looked at his old friend.

“I can understand your mood. His work in the field of superficial chemistry was indeed remarkable enough, and the Berlin report, although I had not seen it on site, had been exchanged afterwards with many professors of the Maple Society, and their views were, without exception, very high… but I must say, this achievement was too young. ”

Olof asked back, "What does that matter? When we award 'Molecular Machine Design and Synthesis’, are we thinking differently about the possible future contribution of this technology? ”

“So that award was really controversial and unexpected. But none of this is really the point, and the point is that he is too young,” Professor Peter shook his head, "the 24-year-old nominee… If the Nobel Prize were awarded to him, he would undoubtedly be the youngest winner. ”

Prior to that, the youngest Nobel laureate was Lawrence Prague, 25.

Although Nobel's will does not specify how old the winner must be, not everyone is happy to break the rules and set a record in history.

Unless he's really good.

This subjective problem, however, is quite difficult to judge unless scholars in the Nobel Prize Committee who happen to have superficial chemistry can better describe his work from an objective point of view…

Regrettably, among these members, no scholars have studied the direction of surface chemistry.

In fact, Olof himself hesitated, and he insisted on it, didn't he?

But he just felt that the Nobel Prize should consider work in the purely chemical field.

Or in other words, they should award theoretical models of electrochemical interface structures.

After all, in the 21st century, it is too difficult to achieve such an important result in the field of theoretical chemistry...