VISMAYA: History & Philosophy of Physics

Category: academia

  • Academic Scientific Writing: A Case for Two Versions

    Whenever one comes across an interesting debate in science communication, one will always find criticism about academic writing. Generally, it is considered opaque, jargon-filled and many times incomprehensible. So, when a person without a deep scientific background reads an academic paper or an academic book, they blame the writing and the writer for making it complicated.

    I am the first person to admit that academic writing needs drastic improvement. But there is another point which I want to make in this essay. Being an academic: as a student, as a teacher, as a researcher and as an editor, I have read, heard, seen and discussed with so many academics who are very creative and have great clarity of thought. Over the past many years, I have seen outstanding science communicators who can express their thoughts and opinions in a comprehensible way, and this is always inspiring.

    So, there is a disconnect between what people read, hear and see about academic scientific content and what academicians do to make themselves clear. So, this motivates two questions:  a) what academics can do to make sure that their writing and exposition are more comprehensible and cater to the public? b) how the public can consume academic scientific information? In this essay, I discuss these issues.

    The Two Versions

    One solution is to have two versions of their work at their disposal. The first version is for a specialized, scientific audience with whom they correspond as part of their research papers and academic books. In here, one uses rigorous analysis and sometimes unavoidable jargon to express precise thoughts and extract in-depth analysis. This is essential because if one is working at the forefront of knowledge, one must get to that point with minimum resistance and maximum efficiency. In the first version, the assumption is that the person reading the text has some basic scientific background and, with some effort, will be able to retrace all the assumptions made in the text. Again, I am not proposing the text to be complicated. But making a case for better communication at the forefront of knowledge. Writing a comprehensive yet academically rigorous argument is not easy. All of us, the academics, should strive to create a good text that can be understood with an in-depth reading.

    Opening to Public

    The second version is an explanation of the first version in plain language without the usage of jargon, acronyms and complicated equations. This also makes a strong case for bringing analogies where one can take the concepts that are abstract and convert them into everyday objects or relationships so that the public can comprehend the thought behind the abstraction.

    The second version is not a very easy version to create because it needs a kind of translation of thought that is not straightforward and requires one to have a deeper understanding of the relationships within the abstraction. The advantageous fallout of the second version is that it forces an expert to think in such a way that they must really go into the core principles of their work and extract meaning. This means that the second version is helping the expert to understand things better, which is vital for their own sake.

    Many times, when I have forced myself to create a second version of my primary work, I have ended up gaining more information and insight into my own abstract work, which I would have not obtained but for the initiation of the second version. Given that people are more interested in knowing what is happening in academic work and how it can be related to the public, there will always be interest among a large audience. So, this process of creating two versions is necessary nowadays. It also means that academics have a very nice way to make their work connected to a larger audience.

    Public Consumption of Scientific Information

    So, now I want to discuss about what the public can do when they come across academic work. First and the foremost aspect I want to emphasize is that research papers and academic books are not like reading novels. It needs engagement with the text, and generally, one will not come across a page-turner.  This means the general reader must spend more time on the assumptions and the questions discussed in the text. These texts are difficult to read in a single sitting. One will have to consult multiple sources and build the information which is presented in the text. This is how generally an academic text is written, and most of the time it is not compiled in one sitting. Therefore, one cannot expect a person to read academic text, especially if it is discussing some complex concepts in a single sitting. So, what I would suggest is whenever one comes across an academic work, please explore the work through a summary, if available. A summary of the abstract academic text is now becoming popular even among academic journals, and many of them publish a descriptive summary in a narrative style which is generally comprehensible to a broader audience. If the public finds the summary also to be complicated, the next best thing is to talk to a knowledgeable person who can explain things better. (Note: sometimes knowledgeable people may not explain things well. So be choosy)

    The other important aspect is if you are interested in a scientific concept and you want to learn more, explore it in a gradual way – from a broader source to a specialized source. So, for example, if you want to learn something about climate change, do a cursory reading on Wikipedia about that concept and note down the primary references furnished. Listen to some podcasts and watch some YouTube videos related to that concept.

    Thereafter, what is important is that you should extract good primary references from these platforms such as Wikipedia, podcasts and YouTube videos. This identification of primary sources and perhaps even a good book on this particular topic will help you to identify authentic information. This way of exploration gives you an advantage of first getting the big picture of the concept and then moving towards the specialized aspect that you are interested in. Therefore, this combination of the big picture and the narrow specialization will enrich your thoughts on that particular concept. So, what I would suggest you do is to explore tertiary and secondary sources such as Wikipedia articles, videos and podcasts to begin with, then extract good primary sources and secondary sources from that exploration, and then go deeper. All this depends on how deep you want to go into that topic.

    Always remember that a Wikipedia article, a podcast or a video is a kind of a tertiary or a secondary source at its best. Most of the time, they are not the primary sources and therefore, it is always important to keep this in your mind when you are citing your sources in your discussion. To be more authentic, you will always have to go to the primary source and know the nuances of a particular concept from the original work.

    Academic Thoughts with the Public in Mind

    In conclusion, academic writing surely needs drastic change, especially in the way things are expressed in a journal or an academic book. Academics will also have to think about how to generate information that is not only applicable to a specialized audience but also to the public. Such information would be of very high value not only to the public but also to people in the peripheral research areas, and importantly it will add greater understanding to the expert who is generating this kind of information.

    The public should also be a bit more patient to engage with the academic text and should explore the relevant information. This is getting easier, given that information is not at a premium nowadays. The availability of tertiary and secondary sources is abundant. How one makes use of that resource and how we connect those resources to primary data is both a craft and an art. It needs immersion with the sources.

    At the end of the day, we need better communication between the specialized experts and the public. After all, academic thoughts should have a direct implication on thoughts of the society. We academics should also be cognisant about the vice versa.

  • Discipline is a Talent – Federer’s point 

    On 9th June 2024, the great Roger Federer gave a commencement speech at Dartmouth College. In this speech, he made some interesting observations on the parallels between tennis and life. He made three relevant observations. First, he mentioned that effortlessness is a myth. Secondly, he emphasized that failure is part of one’s journey. Third, he mentioned that life is greater than the court, meaning there are bigger priorities in life, such as family, health, etc.

    One of the fascinating facts he revealed is that he ended up victorious in about 80% of the matches he played, but this was achieved by winning only about 54% of all the points. This highlighted the point (no pun intended) that one will always have lows in life’s journey. I really felt the speech made some profound observations about life by making a great analogy between life and the game of tennis. 

    During this discussion, Federer made a comparison between being gifted and gritty. He brought the ‘question of talent’ to play and made pertinent observations. He mentioned that talent has a broad definition, including human abilities such as discipline, trusting oneself, loving the work process, managing oneself and a few others. The proposition that discipline is also a talent caught my attention as it resonated with my opinion. 

    This motivated me to ask how discipline plays a critical role in learning science and mathematics? We need to put in time and effort to learn anything at some depth. This kind of dedication to be disciplined is, in fact, a talent. Other features, such as managing time and balancing breadth and depth of knowledge, are also included. Generally, such features are not considered talents, but Federer’s speech hints at broadening the definition of talent.    

         In the history of science, there are many examples of people who were not considered gifted while growing up but made important contributions to science and technology. Albert Einstein is one such example. So much so that Einstein was considered a failure by his school teachers, and many did not consider him competent even up to the stage of his PhD. Now, we all know how wrong those people and their judgements were.

    Another example is S. Chandrashekar, the famous astrophysicist. At an early age, he was considered brilliant, but a significant feature of Chandra was that he worked very hard (although he was rated highly). He was indeed very gritty and dedicated himself to the pursuit of science. He combined ‘giftedness’ with ‘grittiness’, so to speak. 

    These examples show a variety of characteristics that can lead to good work. Being patient, dedicated and hardworking can be an asset in any career and scientific research is no exception. In a way, this reinforces Federer’s thoughts on broadening the definition of talent.

    Federer was undoubtedly one of the greatest tennis players ever. There is a lot to learn from him and his recent speech. There are some profound lessons for teachers and researchers like me from his points (again, no pun intended 🙂). 

     The takeaway from all this is “discipline is a form of talent”, and the world has to take note of this. Now that is a game, set & lesson for life. 

  • Doodle video – Curiosity as a career

    The video is inspired by a blog I wrote a few years ago.

    Curiosity as a Career

  • Connection between science and creativity

  • A short comment on a bizarre claim – room temp SC

  • Why write interesting papers ?

    A lesson I keep learning from Daan Frenkel: write interesting research papers. Thanks to Arghya Dutta (on X), who brought the paper below to my notice. https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.4440

    Sometimes, interesting, well-written papers can have a deeper impact. Even otherwise, it would add clarity.

    Scholarship + interesting writing >>>> prestige of the journal.

    Don’t worship journals.

    A common question when I say so is: what about academic assessment for jobs and promotion?

    My answer is that academia (still) values consistent, scholarly output in reasonable journals.

    It is very hard to reject scholarship. Aim for this as it is under your control.

  • Some policies of my research

    In the past 14 yrs of my research group, I have made a few policies for myself, which may be helpful to others:

    1) Any group member is free to criticize my input with reason. This has been one of the most liberating experience. Importantly, it has helped me learn.

    2) Physical and mental health of group members is of primary importance. Good health and good research is not a zero sum game.

    3) Constancy of thought and work is vital. We overestimate work that can be done in short term and underestimate the long term. Constant effort, spread over months and years, can build intellectual and technical monuments.

    4) Set internal standards. Let this standard be reasonable and focused towards oneself. The biggest stress in work comes from comparison with others. Instead, compare your past with present, & strive for a +ve difference. Be sceptical of external metrics.

    5) Write regularly. Writing is not only about publication in a journal or a book. It is a way to reflect, learn, revise and communicate. Writing is the process. A publication is one of the outcomes, a temporary goal. Focus on the process, goals will follow.

    6) Share your knowledge. If possible – TEACH. Teaching informally is very enjoyable. It is devoid of judgements. In the longer run, it is perhaps the most impactful thing you will do, and will be remembered for. Remember Feynman.

    7) None of the above points matter if your work does not make you a better human being. Be compassionate to others. The biggest strength of scientific research, if done well is it elevates the individual & collective – both local & global.

    8) Academia, in its good form, can feed your stomach, brain and heart. Nurturing and enabling all the three is the overarching goal of academics. And perhaps the goal of humanity.

  • Thinking in a Classroom

    As I conclude my Optics course this week (40+ hrs, ~80 physics majors ), I have an opinion to express. There is no substitute for in-person human interaction and learning. This form of interaction is not to downplay the role of technology in education, but somehow, as humans, we still connect better in reality than in virtual space.

    I have been formally teaching for the past 14 years or so, and for a couple of semesters, I have also taught online courses during the pandemic. During these years, I have learnt that technology can add significant value to teaching but cannot be a substitute for a teacher or a student. As we teach a class with a reasonable number of students, we experience live feedback from each other, which has no equivalent during an online interaction. Humans take this feedback for granted and assume we can replicate it in a virtual space with limited success. Such feedback may have a deeper connection to the evolutionary biology of human beings.

    This feedback loop in a live class does not make teaching or learning a perfect act of communication. But it brings in a form of dissipative coherence, which indicates that the whole class, including the teacher, is thinking synchronously at the moment of exposition. I have deliberately used the word ‘dissipative’ because there is always some intellectual noise in the background. The beauty of this noise is that it adds up with the information under discussion and amalgamates with the topic of exposition. This combination is the uniqueness of learning. At that moment in the class, we are all thinking about a topic, but noise in an individual mind combines with the issue at large and possibly emerges as a new thought. This divergence of thinking at a personal level, combined with real-time feedback, makes a live class alive.

    And at that hour, it becomes a single living entity with a single meta-brain.  

  • 2023 Nobel in Sciences – A few observations and questions

    One of the interesting aspects of the Nobel Prize in Sciences this time is that all the 8 laureates are experimentalists. This is not to underplay the contribution of theoreticians but to emphasize the point that experimental observations are central to the progress of sciences and follow-up technology. Also note that many of these laureates were equally well-versed in theoretical ideas, and hence were able to connect the abstract to the real. An effective way to do science.

    Another aspect is that all the experimentalists are strongly anchored in the West. They have performed all their work in an ecosystem that has supported their efforts, even when their ideas were not well known. A case in point is Katalin Karikó (one of the medicine/physiology laureates). Although U Penn treated her badly, she was still able to sustain her research thanks to the research-driven business ecosystem in the West, including the USA and Germany, where she could establish herself in the biotech research industry. This means the Western research ecosystem, including its businesses, was open enough to allow someone who was almost discarded by the US academic system. Karikó’s is a great story, but we must not forget that eventually, the system in which she worked recognized her contribution.

    Now, some things to ponder – what if Karikó had moved to a place such as India? Could she have survived and thrived in our research ecosystem? If she had moved, was our academic and market ecosystem open to welcome her, take her expertise, and utilize it effectively? Answers to these questions are not straightforward but may indicate where we are as a research ecosystem. 

  • 2023 Nobel in Physics – Initial thoughts

    One should not be surprised nowadays if a Nobel prize in physics goes to something related to light. As a person working in optics and light-matter interaction, I welcome any recognition of one of the most profound aspects of nature: light. This time, the prize has gone to some great experimental effort dating back to the late 1980s to early 2000s when amazing progress was made in three aspects related to the prize: a) higher harmonic generation of light in rare gases, b) production of a train of attosecond light pulses, and c) eventually production of single attosecond light pulses that can interact with matter, especially electrons in matter. Such an interaction can lead to the mapping of dynamics of quantum entities such as electrons and will have far-reaching consequences in probing the internal degrees of molecules and atoms. The scientific information published by the Nobel Committee has wonderful illustrations and is worth reading.

    This time, the Nobel Prize website has published a fantastic set of illustrations to convey the relevance of the research. The above one shows the spectrum of temporal scales. It elegantly illustrates the breadth of the scale – attosecond to heartbeat:: Heartbeat to the age of the universe.. Oh, how beautiful science is!

    Via Twitter, thanks to a student who was attending a lecture by Anne (one of the Nobel laureates), we got to see continuing her lecture even after a Nobel announcement. Now that is the spirit of academics!

    This is the fundamental paper that triggered higher harmonic generation in gases and laid the foundation for attosecond pulse generation. of today, the impact factor of this journal is 1.6. The impact is not proportional to the impact factor of a journal