Category: future

3 Thoughts on Scholarship in an AI-driven Age

One of the important issues to be addressed in recent (AI-driven) times is: how can research scholars acquire knowledge and simultaneously contribute to and communicate with society? Related to this question is: What is the role of scholarship in contemporary times?

Below are three thoughts that I wrote mainly with young researchers in mind. I am hoping that it may find use even among others.

1) Pursuit and utility of knowledge is the primary task of a scholar, and managing the perception of that knowledge is secondary. This means a scholar should use a majority of their time, resources and energy in enhancing scholarly knowledge, and in cases where there is utility, applying that knowledge in the outside ‘noisy’ world. This is your personal knowledge based on your efforts and experiences, and cannot be replaced instantaneously. This also brings uniqueness. Once you have this, you can venture into creating a realistic perception of your knowledge. Remember that learning and researching, to a large extent, are under your control; whereas how the outside world perceives your knowledge is not. Therefore, it would be prudent to pay more attention to learning and doing rather than creating a perception. Note that I am not saying that perception is unimportant. All I am saying is that perception is secondary in importance.

2) One of the key learnings in research and education is that the world is always open to good knowledge and ideas, be it in academia or industry. People are always interested in interacting with and hiring people with a sound knowledge base. It may take a while for somebody to discover your knowledge, but if you have a strong foundation and then go out to the world and interact with it, it is very difficult for the world to ignore you. This means that, having done good work, you should be able to share that work with the outside world. This can be a research paper or an engineering prototype, or any form of science, art or talent that you have. The crucial point here is to first do the hard work and then venture into the sharing of that work.

3) In your work, do not compromise on rigor. If you are a researcher, your first commitment should be towards addressing your scholarly peers or the specialized industry and then broadening your communication. Within scholarly communication, you will have to address questions within the research community. This means you will be basing your work on a large body of knowledge and subjecting yourself to internal and external criticism. This is where rigor comes in handy. Here, rigor does not mean unclear communication. It means to have thought through the questions, nuances and complications of a problem and have a broad and balanced view of the research problem. The general audience sometimes perceives rigorous scholarly communication as filled with jargon and complications. Therefore, it is always better to create two versions of your work: one for your peers and one for the general audience. In the age of AI, the second version is easier to create. Remember that your expertise will be vital in creating the second version for the general audience. That is where you can bring your authenticity and creativity. This can also broaden the scope of your knowledge without compromising your scholarship.

These are a few fleeting thoughts. You can criticize, edit, expand and adapt it to make your own version of it. After all, that is how knowledge moves forward 😊

OpenAI and Theoretical Physics

The above snapshot is from OpenAI, which has claimed to have derived a new result in theoretical physics. What is it about, and how good are the claims? Below, I discuss them.

Let me start with some background. Except for the hydrogen atom, the nucleus of all elements in the periodic table consists of neutrons and protons. Neutrons and protons are made of quarks. Quarks interact through gluons. How do these gluons interact? This is a contemporary question.

In this particular case, the authors of the study say: “We’ve published a new preprint showing that a type of particle interaction many physicists expected would not occur can, in fact, arise under specific conditions. The work focuses on gluons, the particles that carry the strong nuclear force.”[1]

The interaction can be computed in terms of probabilities[2], and these probabilities depend on quantum mechanical amplitudes (also called scattering amplitudes). Finding these amplitudes requires a deeper knowledge of strong nuclear forces. Computing such amplitudes is expensive and requires a lot of effort. Physicists, under physical constraints, take a guess on which interaction is more probable and which is not. This study shows that one of the interactions that physicists thought was not probable turns out to be probable, but under specific conditions. “The preprint studies a central concept in particle physics called a scattering amplitude. A scattering amplitude is the quantity physicists use to compute the probability that particles interact in a particular way. …….One case, however, has generally been treated as absent (having zero amplitude)……..As a result, this configuration has largely been set aside. The preprint shows that this conclusion is too strong.”[1]

Of course, this has been possible using the brute force computational capability of the GPT 5.2 model, and it has come up with a particular formula that shows the amplitude to be probable and has further validated it with a formal proof. It is a methodological breakthrough, and the authors claim, “An internal scaffolded version of GPT‑5.2 then spent roughly 12 hours reasoning through the problem, coming up with the same formula and producing a formal proof of its validity.” [1]

I think it is a good development in computational physics and helps in calculating parameters that have relevance in finding probabilities of interaction in particle physics. Overall, my hunch is that it is an important step in computational physics.

Notes:

[1] OpenAI has put out an excellent summary of this problem (without jargon), and it needs basic physics, and the flow of text is good.

[2] Also see Nirmalya Kajuri’s summary on X

AI hype..

A gentle reminder: Digital infrastructure is not equal to physical infrastructure.

The former is a smaller set of the four-dimensional space-time world we live in.

AI-based tech is fantastic for an upgrade in digital infrastructure and has already made tremendous progress. But the real deal is in the physical domain.

This also indicates where the future action is, and will be influenced by our understanding of physical sciences, including engineering domains beyond computer science.

What we are witnessing in AI is probably the peak of Gartner’s hype cycle.

Five Aspects of the Fifth Pillar – A Philosophical Perspective

In reference to a recent article on higher education in the Economic Times, a well-known tech entrepreneur and philanthropist wrote the following on X/Twitter: “75% of Indian higher education institutions still not industry-ready. Lot of work left to transform. But the 21st century requires education, research, innovation, and startups as four pillars of a university.”

This is a thought I do support, but I think there is one more important meta-pillar, perhaps a ‘foundation’ on which all these pillars are standing, and that is called ethics. Below are five aspects of ethics that I think need further attention.

  1. If one observes some of the major contemporary and pressing problems in our world, they can be connected to the ethical aspects of how humans function. A vital part of our educational system should re-emphasize this connection and make it central to everything that is done in a society.
  2. Ethics has two important elements to it: first, it has a philosophical grounding and connects to how humans function in a society. Second, it has an important connection to how trust in a society can be developed. Most of the discussions on ethics generally focus on the first element from a morality perspective, whereas the second point has an equally important utility and an economic connection.
  3. Ethical principles have great utility. It is important that we never keep it as an implicit aspect of human endeavour. Instead, we should start everything on the ethical grounds and build it up from there, including businesses, because a strong ethical foundation probably would be the best thing to happen for economic progress in any society, because trust is so important among human beings, and it is one thing that probably brings humans together. In the long run, the meaning of ‘prosper’ critically depends on the meaning of ethics. Being prosperous without being ethical is detrimental to any human pursuit. Zero-sum games are exciting, but in the limit of many games, the number of people who lose will be far more than the people who win. Instead, cooperative games have much larger dividends to all players and are inherently connected to a concept called as double thank you moment.
  4. The philosophy of ethics is something which the world has to revisit in greater detail, especially in an era where technological implications are driving human life in directions which we have not anticipated. One may think that raising ethical issues might hinder progress, but my argument here is that, instead of hindrance, one should look at it as an important requisite for human societies to not only survive but also to flourish. Large human endeavours cannot sustain without trust, and that trust is reinforced through ethical behaviour.
  5. Without ethical implications being factored in, it would be hard to really design anything related to technology. A case in point is the social media restrictions in countries such as Australia. Technology has the amazing capability to move fast before the philosophical debates can come in, but it does not mean that philosophy has to be completely ignored. The downstream of a scientific idea can become a product in a market, and positively impact society, but this evolution has a fellow-traveller, and that is ethics. The feedback loop is incomplete without the ethical considerations, and therefore, it should be looked at as an important ingredient in any human design.

There is an inherent connection between cooperation and trust, and that is founded on an ethical principle. The world requires an ethical recap, and it should be part of individuals, institutions, and governments. There is a rich history of ethics in all the cultures across the world, and it is worth revisiting them in a new light. Perhaps it is high time that we “Make Ethics Great Again.”

How to Build Atomic LEGOs?

In ~8min, I try to explain how and why to build atomic Legos and their potential applications.

The video is for non-experts.

Reference for further reading:

Geim, A. K., and I. V. Grigorieva. ‘Van Der Waals Heterostructures’. Nature 499, no. 7459 (2013): 419–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12385.

Humanizing Science – A Conversation with a Student

Recently, I was talking to a college student who had read some of my blogs. He was interested in knowing what it means to humanize science. I told him that there are at least three aspects to it.

First is to bring out the wonder and curiosity in a human being in the pursuit of science. The second was to emphasize human qualities such as compassion, effort, mistakes, wrong directions, greed, competition and humour in the pursuit of science. The third thing was to bring out the utilitarian perspective.

The student was able to understand the first two points but wondered why utility was important in the pursuit of humanizing science. I mentioned that the origins of curiosity and various human tendencies can also be intertwined with the ability to use ideas. Some of the great discoveries and inventions, including those in the so-called “pure science” categories, have happened in the process of addressing a question that had its origin in some form of an application.

Some of the remarkable ideas in science have emerged in the process of applying another idea. Two great examples came into my mind: the invention of LASERs, and pasteurization.

I mentioned that economics has had a major role in influencing human ideas – directly or indirectly. As we conversed, I told the student that there is sometimes a tendency among young people who are motivated to do science to look down upon ideas that may have application and utility. I said that this needs a change in the mindset, and one way to do so is to study the history, philosophy and economics of science. I said that there are umpteen examples in history where applications have led to great ideas, both experimental and theoretical in nature, including mathematics.

Further, the student asked me for a few references, and I suggested a few sources. Specifically, I quoted to him what Einstein had said:

 “….So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth..”

The student was pleasantly surprised and asked me how this is connected to economics. I mentioned that physicists like Marie Curie, Einstein and Feynman did think of applications and referred to the famous lecture by Feynman titled “There is Plenty of Room at the Bottom” (1959).

To give a gist of his thinking, I showed what Feynman had to say on miniaturization:

“There may even be an economic point to this business of making things very small. Let me remind you of some of the problems of computing machines. In computers we have to store an enormous amount of information. The kind of writing that I was mentioning before, in which I had everything down as a distribution of metal, is permanent. Much more interesting to a computer is a way of writing, erasing, and writing something else. (This is usually because we don’t want to waste the material on which we have just written. Yet if we could write it in a very small space, it wouldn’t make any difference; it could just be thrown away after it was read. It doesn’t cost very much for the material).”

I mentioned that this line of thinking on minaturization is now a major area of physics and has reached the quantum limit. The student was excited and left after noting the references.

On reflecting on the conversation, now I think that there is plenty of room to humanize science.

A quantum survery – 3 thoughts

One of the joys of studying quantum mechanics, at any stage of a career, is to be aware of the fact that there is more scope for interpretations and understanding. This notion has not changed for several decades. A recent survey reinforces this thought.

There are at least 3 interesting points that I infer from the situation:

1) The interpretation of reality at the quantum scale is probabilistic. This has served us well in experiments and has led to the founding of quantum technologies. We are in a situation in the history of science where the philosophical foundations are uncertain, but the technological implications are profound.

2) Having more data is always good, but for a new leap of thought, we may have to pay attention to new connections among the data. Can AI play a role in this?

3) There is more room for exploration in the foundations of quantum physics. Philosophy of physics has a role to play in this exploration. Physics students and researchers with (analytical) philosophical inclination have an opportunity to contribution. This needs a grounding in understanding mathematics and experiments related to quantum physics. I see this as a great opportunity for someone to enter the field.

Conclusion: Good time to explore the foundations of physics*

*subject to support from society

Tony Tyson and a giant CCD camera

Recently, I came across an interview with Tony Tyson, one of the main scientists related to the Rubin telescope. He says:

“We can do better than this. We can build a larger telescope by making larger mosaics of larger CCDs.”
— Tony Tyson

On a day when India lost a test match, the first sentence rings loud…anyway, the topic of this post is a fascinating development happening in observational cosmology.

Tony’s suggestion above is a great, ambitious way to explore the Universe….by building effective observational tools that can image and comprehend the observable…and perhaps unobservable too…

For students: Observational cosmology is a great place to explore cutting-edge science: physics (experiments + theory), maths, engineering & computation…all come together..

Check out the interview of Tony Tyson…one of the brains behind the cameras of Rubin Observatory…plenty to learn…

Just like test cricket, observational cosmology needs patience…perhaps a good lesson for life too…

Sanskrit subhashita – don’t waste

Here is a Sanskrit subhashita that I like.

वृथा वृष्टि: समुद्रेषु वृथा तृप्तेषु भोजनम्।

वृथा दानम् धनाढ्येषु वृथा दीपो दिवाऽपि च॥

LLMs are getting better at translations.

Below is a comparison of translations on 2 platforms

English Translation from perplexity AI:

Rain over the ocean is wasted, food for those who are already full is wasted; Charity to the wealthy is wasted, and a lamp during the daytime is wasted.

English translation from ChatGPT:

Rain over the ocean is in vain, food for one who is already full is in vain; Charity to the wealthy is in vain, and a lamp during the day is also in vain.

Optothermally induced active & chiral motion – a new paper

We have a new paper in Soft Matter

link to the paper (free to access, thanks to IISER Pune library)

We use optical illumination to generate thermal fields, creating non-reciprocal interactions between passive and active colloids. Active colloids absorb light and produce thermal gradients, driving thermo-osmotic forces that induce propulsion and chiral motion. Our Langevin simulations, backed by experimental observation, reveal how to control colloidal behavior. May have implications in light-driven chiral motion and nonlinear dynamics.

Super effort by Rahul, Ashutosh & Sneha from our group, who combined numerical simulations, analytical theory, with experimental observations.

The 2 anonymous reviewers made us think and work hard, and we thank them!

Also, the paper is part of the journal’s themed collection on “Colloidal interactions, dynamics and rheology”