Michael Green Replaces Hawking at Cambridge
Michael Green has been appointed as the Cambridge University Lucasian professor of mathematics, a position once held by Sir Isaac Newton and previously held by Stephen Hawking. Hawking resigned from the university at the end of the 2008-2009 academic year because of a university policy that requires resignation at age 67 (see "Hawking to Step Down from Professorship"). Hawking will, among other things, be working some at Canada's Perimeter Institute, where he has accepted a Distinguished Research Chair position. (The Institute recently named a new building after Hawking.)
So on to his successor, Michael Green, who assumes the professorship on November 1. He has some big shoes to fill - not only has the position been held by Newton & Hawking, but also by Charles Babbage and Nobel-winner Paul Dirac (known as the British Einstein) - but he's created some big footprints himself, as one of the major innovators in the early days of string theory. Together with John Schwarz, Green helped to show that string theory had the ability to cancel many anomalies which had almost doomed the theory, leading to the "first superstring revolution" in the early 1980s.
While Green is certainly worthy of accolades, I've got to confess that I'm a bit startled that he's been appointed to this role. Green is 63, which means that he'll only be able to hold the position for 4 years before retiring himself. Hawking, alternately, was appointed when he was 37, so was able to hold the position for 30 years. Because of the high profile of the position with Hawking leaving, Cambridge University was no doubt under pressure to give it to someone with extensive achievements, and Green is an excellent choice in this regard.
However, I wonder if this isn't partly a sign that there just not that many younger British innovators of mathematical physics to choose from. Hawking was awarded the post in 1979 for work done in the 1960's and early 1970s. Thirty years later, his replacement is largely being recognized for groundbreaking work performed in the early 1980s. What younger British physicist could be appointed the position for groundbreaking work performed in the late 1990s and early 2000s? In four years, when Green is forced to retire, what worthy successor will replace him? What young up-and-comer will have the gravitas needed for this post?
Honestly, I can't think of many, and with a new emphasis on only funding research that provides explicit economic benefit, it's unclear that the British government will foster more theoretical physics innovators in the future. Do you have any suggestions? Leave them here.
Comments
On the one hand, does it really have to be a British citizen to be appointed to the Lucasian chair, or does it really have to be groundbreaking work. Even Hawking’s work has not yet been proved experimentally. As science has become more technical, groundbreaking is an adjective that has become more distant to the every-day science work, in spite of it being excellent work for what it is.
My suggestion goes in favor of Paul Davies.
Would Brian Cox qualify?
First, the “groundbreaking” nature of the work: Lucasian professor of mathematics is the most famous academic position in the world, so they’re certainly going to be careful to give it to someone who they feel will be worthy of continuing the tradition.
Second, the British “requirement”: To my knowledge, every Lucasian chair has been British. I don’t know that it’s particularly a requirement, but I’d imagine that it’s at least an unofficial consideration.
Paul Davies, however, is the same age as Michael Green, so he’ll turn 67 the same year, so there’s no chance of him being Green’s successor in the position.
Brain Cox (the particle physicist, not the actor) would be a good choice, too.
If they go outside of the constraint of a British physicist, one possible contender would be João Magueijo who, though Portugese, earned his PhD from Cambridge. It would be a controversial choice, of course, and I doubt it would be made. This would be a case where the “groundbreaking” research is purely theoretical.
Why must they retire at 67?If its rule, when was it passed?1940.I understand how bombarded thier brains must be;but with the lack of scientists,let alone(brilliant scientists) coming up the steps.Why not formulate a test to see how well they are functioning at 67 years.If they show any signs of disfunction,give them a “rest and then bring them back.”I sincerely worry about this. Its 2009 and Iknow many 70 and 80 yrs. old still brilliant.Dont waste one teachable,brilliant brain!We really need them.
The brightest minds should teach more years. It should not be stopped forcefully by the retirement rules..
Professor Plank “calculated ” his constant at the age of 80 !!! So why 67 is the “magical” age for retirement?
Planck was born in 1858, which means he was in his early 40’s when he solved the blackbody radiation problem and introduced the basic concepts around which the Planck constant were calculated. He was awarded a Nobel Prize for this work in 1918, when he was 60, and the presentation speech explicitly references the Planck constant.
Some of this work was based on work that happened slightly earlier, and certainly it was refined over the years by others … but I’m not sure what work at age 80 you might be referencing.