C1, C2 and life…

Dear Young People,

Below is a brief lesson that I share with those who ask me for career advice. I hope it will be useful to you.

Category 1 (C1): Honesty, humility, discipline, effort and compassion

is as important as

Category 2 (C2): Irreverence, creativity, drive, communication and risk-taking.

In this era, C1 may look boring and sound cynical, but C1 can give you as much of a competitive advantage as C2, especially in the long run.

Importantly, C1 will build your character. C1 is probably the best way to build self-confidence, and hence self-respect.

This is not to underplay C2, which is equally important. Just that C1 and C2 are not zero-sums.

C1 and C2 are incomplete lists, and you can always expand them and keep referring to them for directions in life.

Best Wishes,
from a fellow student

Chandra quotes Virginia Woolf

The well-known astrophysicist, S. Chandrasekhar, liked the writings of Virgina Woolf. In her words, he found a unique channel to philosophize his own work, as he did in 1957:

‘By accident, I found the following quotation from Virginia Wolff (Woolf) which expressed very accurately my attitude to my work of the past years. This quotation ends my Rumford Lecture.

There is a square. There is an oblong. The players take the square and place it upon the oblong. They place it very accurately. They make a perfect dwelling place. The structure is now visible. What was inchoate is here stated. We are not so various or so mean. We have made oblongs and stood them upon squares. This is our triumph. This is our consolation.”’ (Chandrasekhar, 2010, p. 41)

Source:  Chandrasekhar, S. 2010. A Scientific Autobiography: S. Chandrasekhar: With Selected Correspondence. (posthumously published)

Note: The source spells Woolf as Wolff

DeWitt is a ‘de-influencer’?

The Indian Express recently reported that “Author Helen DeWitt’s refusal to accept the prestigious Windham-Campbell Prize is a reminder that in a noisy world, the most imaginative stance may well be to let the book stand on its own.”

To quote: “DeWitt’s refusal, like Ferrante’s silence, is a reminder that in a noisy world, the most imaginative stance may well be to let the book stand on its own.” This kind of thinking and action is rare nowadays. Good to see this still persists. Perhaps, such people should be called ‘de-influencers’.

I have to add that DeWitt is already an established name in her field. By established, I mean, by name and perhaps by income too.

2 questions:

1) It may be relatively easier for a person of fame to reject further recognition. Will an upcoming writer (or equivalent in other fields) be able to do this?

2) The same person in a different situation may have reacted differently, and a different person in the same situation, too. In the human context, do we fully understand what an incentive is?

Long walk to knowledge…

I have been studying quantum mechanics for almost 30 years now. Every time I go back to study and understand something, it reminds me of a quote by Nelson Mandela: “There is nothing like returning to a place that remains unchanged to find the ways in which you yourself have altered” ~ Long Walk to Freedom (1994)

On further contemplation, I find the same with other branches of physics and certain aspects of mathematics, too.

Perhaps this is what a ‘life of a student’ means?

Einstein in conversation with Shankland

14th of March is Einstein’s birthday. There is so much written about Einstein, and every time you read about him or a text written by him, there is always something interesting to learn. Recently, I came across a wonderful paper by Shankland, who compiled his conversation with Einstein over a period of ten years and published it in 1962 in the American Journal of Physics. Below are three excerpts from the paper to give you a taste of the conversation. I would urge you to read the conversation in full, and it is a delight.


(Shankland 1963, 1)

“When I asked him how he had learned of the Michelson-Morley experiment, he told me that he had become aware of it through the writings of H. A. Lorentz, but only after 1905 had it come to his attention! “Otherwise,” he said, “I would have mentioned it in my paper.” He continued to say the experimental results which had influenced him most were the observations on stellar aberration and Fizeau’s measurements on the speed of light in moving water. “They were enough,” he said. I reminded him that Michelson and Morley had made a very accurate determination at Case in 1886 of the Fresnel dragging coefficient with greatly improved techniques and showed him their values as given in my paper. To this he nodded agreement, but when I added that it seemed to me that Fizeau’s original result was only qualitative, he shook his pipe and smiled, “Oh it was better than that!” He thought Zeeman’s later precise repetition of this experiment was very beautiful. He seemed really delighted when I mentioned to him how elegant I had found (as a student) his method of obtaining the Fresnel dragging coefficient from his composition of velocities law of special relativity.” (Shankland 1963, 2)

“I asked Professor Einstein how long he had worked on the Special Theory of Relativity before 1905. He told me that he had started at age 16 and worked for ten years; first as a student when, of course, he could only spend part-time on it, but the problem was always with him. He abandoned many fruitless attempts, “until at last it came to me that time was suspect!” Only then, after all his earlier efforts to obtain a theory consistent with the experimental facts had failed, was the development of the Special Theory of Relativity possible. This led him to comment at some length on the nature of mental processes in that they do not seem at all to move step by step to a solution, and he emphasized how devious a route our minds take through a problem. “It is only at the last that order seems at all possible in a problem.”” (Shankland 1963, 2)

“Our conversation then returned to the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Special Theory of Relativity. I could not help feeling that this elegant special theory, the product of his youthful efforts, held the place nearest to his heart. I asked him if he felt that writing out the history of the ;v[ichelson-Morley experiment would be worthwhile. He said, “Yes, by all means, but you must write it as Mach wrote his Science of Mechanics.” Then he gave me his ideas on historical writing of science. “Nearly all historians of science are philologists and do not comprehend what physicists were aiming at, how they thought and wrestled with their problems. Even most of the work on Galileo is poorly done.” A means of writing must be found which conveys the thought processes that lead to discoveries. Physicists have been of little help in this because most of them have no “historical sense.” Mach’s Science of Mechanics, however, he considered one of the truly great books and a model for scientific historical writing. He said, “Mach did not know the real facts of how the early workers considered their problems,” but Einstein felt that Mach had sufficient insight so that what he says is very likely correct anyway.” (Shankland 1963, 4)

There is a lot more to explore in the wonderful conversation paper. Link below.

Shankland, R. S. 1963. ‘Conversations with Albert Einstein’. American Journal of Physics 31 (1): 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1969236.

Leggatt asked profound questions…

Anthony James Leggett (26 March 1938 – 8 March 2026) 

pic credit: Britannica

I was informed that Anthony Leggett passed away…he made physics wonderful by asking profound questions, as below:

“……there is no good reason to accept this division of the world into a microscopic regime where QM reigns and a macroscopic one governed by classical physics; QM is a very ‘totalitarian’ theory, and if it applies to an individual and electrons, then it should prima facie equally apply to the macroscopic objects made up of them, including any devices which we have set up as measuring apparatus….” [1]

Leggett, A. J. ‘Realism and the Physical World’. Reports on Progress in Physics 71, no. 2 (2008): 022001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/71/2/022001.

Bias for action…at what cost?

This image is a modern perception of ‘bias for action’ and is extensively used in advertisements. It frames thinking and doing as mutually exclusive tasks. In doing so, it takes a potshot at thinking as an activity.

Why is thinking not popular? Probably because taking time to think delays a decision. In commercial terms, it means the consumer does not ‘buy’ instantaneously, and hence affects the commerce.

But why not consider ‘doing’ as a good thing? Indeed, doing is important, and that is how the world moves. But the point here is to criticize ‘doing without thinking’. The world has many examples of this kind of ‘action without thinking’. The argument is that we can adapt as we go forward with the action. The problem with this approach is that it does not work without a reversibility clause. It works fine for actions that can have reversible consequences. If such a clause is absent, then you are forced to work on new problems that you are not prepared for.

Now go out and observe the world closely…