Damn dreams

In October, the announcement of the Nobel Prize once again turned the global scientific community¡¯s eye to those who explored the edge of human cognition. The Physiology or Medicine Prize was awarded to insiders who revealed the mystery of the body¡¯s immune system, the Physics Prize was awarded to those who caught the ghosts of the quantum world in the macro circuit, and the Chemical Prize was awarded to the architects who revolutionized material science.

Three merits put forward a profound question: when exactly should science be crowned?

The attribution of the Physiology or Medicine Prize and the Chemistry Prize is a solemn confirmation of the mature paradigm-the former's "identity code" has long been written into textbooks, and the latter has profoundly changed the face of material chemistry. This is also in line with expectations: Nobel Prizes generally favor "proven changes."

On October 7, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced that it would award the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics to three American scientists, John Clarke and Michel H. Devoret. Devoret and John M. Martinis Martinis) for their discovery of macroscopic quantum-mechanical tunneling and energy quantization in electrical circuits.

The award of the Physics Prize presents a different climate. The foundational work of the three scientists broke the traditional perception of quantum behavior limited to the microscale, paving the way for a new generation of quantum technology. The unavoidable fact here is that although ¡°quantum superiority¡± has been demonstrated on specific tasks, genuine quantum computers with the ability to correct errors and solve actual problems are still far in the deep waters of engineering struggle, noise, degeneration, scalability ... serious obstacles are ahead.

As our scholars point out, the award of the Physics Prize can be seen as a ¡°pre-recognition¡± ¨C it rewards not only the glory of the past, but also the firm belief in the future; it honors not only the persistence of the past, but also the encouragement and expectation of changing the real world difficulties.

This is the most touching tension of the scientific spirit: rigorous scientific research sometimes requires bold foresight. The essence of basic research is to throw a beam of light into the unknown. Advance recognition is like "the bright moon grows together". If we only affirm it after the technology matures and the industry lands, it is equivalent to praising the moon after the tide recedes. Before the birth of scientific breakthroughs, the road was long and long. At this time, the Nobel Prize cast a vote of trust, which was not only an honor, but also a strategic resource mobilization order-it could condense global intelligence, attract capital injection, and inspire the younger generation to devote itself to this unwon expedition.

China's scientific and technological development path, supporting the leap is mostly a clear goal, path clear "engineering innovation". and in those areas of "0 to 1" original innovation, we need to adhere to the cultivation of a deeper scientific culture, that is, to defend the original innovation necessary free exploration, tolerance for error space and long-term perseverance.

A mature scientific research evaluation system should not only reward visible achievements, but also provide a more stable soil for those projects that have been "silent for ten years". Science not only needs to be deeply cultivated in certainty, but also needs to sow seeds in uncertainty. The courage to "recognize in advance" is essentially trust in human curiosity and exploration spirit, and it is to light a watch lamp for those who are still groping for the kindling in the dark.

This lamp not only illuminates the future of science, but also reflects our mind towards the unknown.