<p>Honestly, Marie Curie became my first female role model in science because she was the first woman in the physical sciences I had heard of. Even many of the most accomplished women in physics were not mentioned to me until college. Noether’s theorem has profoundly influenced all of modern physics, but I didnt learn about her until college. I didn’t hear about Henrika van Leeuwen until the year long electromagnetism (the Bohr-van Leeuwen theorem shows that magnetism cannot be understood by the laws of classical mechanics, very profound given the large number of known diamagnets at the time before quantum mechanics was formulated).</p>
<p>Wow, I can’t conceive of thinking that Chien-Shiung Wu is not useful as a role model because she is not current!</p>
<p>She is a giant among physicists! One of her key experiment shows that parity (a way of characterizing the behavior of a physical system when all of the coordinates are inverted) is not conserved by the weak interaction. She proved this by studying beta decay of cobalt-60 experimentally. This was a stunning result, which gets at the heart of how physics works in mirror-imaged systems. It shows that there is some intrinsic handedness in fundamental interactions (at least in our universe). </p>
<p>Some people think that this may be related to the fact that the amino acids found in natural proteins (in the human body, for example) are the left-handed form, rather than the mirror image right-handed form. There are papers on this topic, though I have not personally seen a clear-cut proof.</p>
<p>The Wu experiment is described here:
<a href=“Wu experiment - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_experiment</a> </p>
<p>The weak interaction is described here:
<a href=“Weak interaction - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction</a></p>
<p>We currently think that the combination of parity, charge conjugation (change the signs of the charges on the particles) and time reversal are conserved when taken together, according to the PCT theorem.</p>
<p>Here is the women speakers list from the American Physical Society:
<a href=“http://www.aps.org/programs/women/speakers/index.cfm”>http://www.aps.org/programs/women/speakers/index.cfm</a></p>
<p>I agree that Lisa Randall is great. She is also the anti-nerd.</p>
<p>I greatly enjoyed the autobiography of Rita Levi-Montalcini, In Praise of Imperfection. Levi-Montalcinin shared the 1986 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of nerve growth factor. She died in 2012 at the age of 103, but I wouldn’t overlook her just because she is not current. The title of her autobiography is taken from a poem by Yeats.</p>
<p>Barbara McClintock is inspiring to me personally, because she worked in a field that seemed to be out of the mainstream (genetic mapping of maize), yet by her dedicated work with corn, she discovered “jumping genes,” also called “transposable elements” These are segments of the DNA sequence that can “jump” around within the molecule, sometimes causing or eliminating mutations. The wikipedia article on this topic is here:
<a href=“Transposable element - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposon</a></p>
<p>She won the 1983 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, and I think she is the only woman so far to have won that Prize unshared. Her work has major implications for our understanding of changes in DNA–it’s not a static molecule.</p>
<p>Poeme, suppose they hadn’t had to reach back to Curie, suppose she wasn’t the first (only?) mentioned to you, til college. (And, who did they mention in college, that caught with you?)</p>
<p>I was trying to find ladies who would inspire current hs kids, young ladies who may be skilled and curious, but not see how their contemporary paths can evolve (need I add, “today?”) That’s different than what attracts adults already committed and immersed. Guess even that can’t go without controversy.</p>
<p>Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin is very important in the history of astronomy. Her Ph.D. thesis on stellar atmospheres was called “undoubtedly the most brilliant Ph.D. thesis ever written in astronomy,” by Otto Struve. The wikipedia entry on her is here:</p>
<p><a href=“Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilia_Payne-Gaposchkin</a></p>
<p>This wikipedia article bears reading. Payne-Gaposchkin had shown that the Sun made of hydrogen as the overwhelmingly preponderant element. Astronomer Henry Norris Russell (well known among astronomers) persuaded her to put this conclusion in her thesis–at the time, it was thought that the elemental composition of the Sun was essentially the same as that of the Earth. What followed is quite interesting.</p>
<p>Payne-Gaposchkin also did very important work on deducing the temperatures of the stars from the extent of ionization of various elements, which could be determined by studying absorption lines in the spectra. </p>
<p>LF,</p>
<p>My only bone of contention was with your feeling only “current” examples of female scientists are “relevant”. </p>
<p>I never said anything about taking inspiration from male physicists. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth, thank you. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s interesting you cited them as tech inspirations as most computer techies IME would be ROTFLOLing over your selections…especially Gates. </p>
<p>First, Bill Gates first major product, MS-Dos wasn’t innovated from scratch, but was bought from Tim Paterson, a Seattle programmer for $75k and modified so they would have an operating system. </p>
<p>An operating system from which he implemented an non-techie innovation he’s most known for, the concept of the software end user license which is marketed and sold separately from the computer hardware it is installed on. An innovation more related to marketing and intellectual property, not an actual technical innovation. Moreover, it’s a concept which has been roundly denounced and regarded as a killer of true techie innovation in some corners of the computer techie world. In short, he’s someone who is actually more of an inspiration for marketers and intellectual property lawyers, not hardcore computer techies. </p>
<p>In Jobs’ case, his main innovations are also mainly non-techie based: the conceptualization of the marketing and aesthetic design of the computing products themselves. As for the actual techie in Apple’s corner, the credit for that goes to Steve Wozniak who engineered and designed the earlier Apple hardware upon which Jobs was able to apply his innovations.</p>
<p>In addition, both Bill Gates/Microsoft and Jobs & Wozniak/Apple copied plenty from Xerox’s Parc labs regarding the concept of window-based graphical user interfaced based operating systems from which Apple/Mac OS and OSX and Microsoft Windows came about. </p>
<p>I said we can take inspiration from men.
And, No offense to her, but I think we’re talking about influencing today’s young gals with some contemporary women.
I don’t need a lecture about Gates, btw.<br>
So much for role models. Argue on.</p>
<p>Sharon Bertsch-McGrayne has written a book called “Nobel Prize Women in Science: Their Lives, Struggles, and Momentous Discoveries.” This covers 15 women who either won Nobel Prizes or contributed significantly to the work for which a prize was awarded. (Yes, it has Marie Curie in it.)</p>
<p>Another woman (in the book) whom I think all physicists should know is Emmy Noether:
<a href=“Emmy Noether - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether</a></p>
<p>Noether established the fundamental connection between symmetry and conservation laws. For example, why is energy (strictly mass-energy) conserved? Why is momentum conserved? Why is angular momentum conserved?
<a href=“Noether's theorem - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether’s_theorem</a></p>
<p>In mathematics, she made fundamental contributions as well. She is especially well-known for her work on a type of ring (a mathematical structure) which is now known as a Noetherian ring. Her influence extends across many fields of mathematics. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you cited him as a tech inspiration. </p>
<p>A citation most computer techies who are aware of early computing history would scoff at. His main inspiration are ones appreciated much more by marketers and IP lawyers. That and the innovation behind it is one which is regarded dubiously by many in the computer tech community. </p>
<p>So, why mention the Nobelists or near-Nobelists who are women? If you are a young woman studying mathematics or physics, you will hear about important man after important man. Epoch-making. You will hardly ever hear about women of that stature. I think it is important in refuting the Larry Summers-es of the world to know about the extremely important discoveries made by women.</p>
<p>Another very important woman in the history of physics is Maria Goeppert-Mayer. Goepper-Mayer explained the shell structure of nuclei and the so-called “magic numbers” (numbers of protons and neutrons that confer special stability on nuclei) with her work on spin-orbit coupling in nuclei. With her spouse, Joseph Mayer, she made major contributions to the theory of liquids.</p>
<p>I wil try to come up with a list of younger women scientists who are also great role models.</p>
<p>Living women. if there’s really a dearth, I’d even settle for older, living women. Wonder if anyone else sees the humor here. As scout said, “Somehow it feels like studying George Washington Carver over and over again.”</p>
<p>Oh, yes, Poeme–Henrika van Leeuwen. She made a classic contribution to the understanding of magnetism. I was always irritated by reading about “<em>Miss</em> van Leewen’s theorem” in books. C’mon. Did anyone ever write “Mr. Einstein’s theorem”?</p>
<p>Ingrid Daubechies (<a href=“Ingrid Daubechies - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingrid_Daubechies</a>) is an eminent woman mathematician who has made important contributions in the theory and application of wavelets. She was named a Baroness in 2012, by King Albert II of Belgium, in recognition of her mathematical work.</p>
<p>Ingrid is still very much alive!</p>
<p>what wonderful posts today : )</p>
<p>imho modeling may be the most important part of parenting, not only parents modeling behaviors but finding appropriate role models for their children when they can’t provide the needed model themselves. Also, I firmly believe kids generally grow up to be what you tell them they are: kind, smart, etc. (to the extent of their innate abilities) Kids who don’t have role models, or someone to tell them they are kind, and that they have the potential to do great things if they work hard, are growing up disadvantaged. imho</p>
<p>Also, kindness is just easier for some than others. That isn’t an idea original to me, but one expressed by C.S. Lewis as well as other writers. It does seem as though kindness can be learned and nurtured, even when it isn’t a natural tendency. But maybe we should value it even more in those for whom it doesn’t come naturally?</p>
<p>Just ordered fretfulmother’s book recommendation. Thank you.</p>
<p>mathmom: I’ve been wondering where you were!</p>
<p>Nice. But the baroness thing, funny you highlight that (just saying, ok?)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny that…and you cited Jobs who is no longer living. Wouldn’t that make him “non current” for inspiring young folks aspiring to be future techies…or more appropriately…conceptualizers in marketing and aesthetic design? </p>
<p>To some extent, this is reminding me of the 60’s era boomer adage “Never trust anyone over 30” or the idea that one must demonstrate one’s loyalty to one’s generation/favored musical genre by foregoing anything perceived to be in opposition to it…whether by perception or “because it’s not current”. Both concepts I find to be too narrow-minded and dare I say it…provincial. </p>