quotes – VISMAYA – History & Philosophy of Physics

Scientific understanding and AI

Let me draw attention, especially of those interested in scientific research, to a relevant review article in Nature Reviews Physics titled “On scientific understanding with artificial intelligence“

Below are a couple of paragraphs that caught my attention:

“Scientific understanding and scientific discovery are both important aims in science. The two are distinct in the sense that scientific discovery is possible without new scientific understanding….

…..to design new efficient molecules for organic laser diodes, a search space of 1.6 million was explored using ML and quantum chemistry insights. The top candidate was experimentally synthesized and investigated. Thereby, the authors of this study discovered new molecules with very high quantum efficiency. Whereas these discoveries could have important technological consequences, the results do not provide new scientific understanding.”

The authors provide two more examples of a similar kind, from different branches of science.

The authors conclude:

“Undoubtedly, advanced computational methods in general and in AI specifically will further revolutionize how scientists investigate the secrets of our world. We outline how these new methods can directly contribute to acquiring new scientific understanding. We suspect that significant future progress in the use of AI to acquire scientific understanding will require multidisciplinary collaborations between natural scientists, computer scientists and philosophers of science. Thus, we firmly believe that these research efforts can — within our lifetimes — transform AI into true agents of understanding that will directly contribute to one of the main goals of science, namely, scientific understanding.”

Worth reading the full article. Link here.

PS: Prof. Siddharth Tallur (IIT, Bombay) on LinkedIn raised an important question.

Nice.. thanks for sharing, will go through it. Although a lot of brute force seems to be passed off as understanding these days (brawn = brain?) I wonder if AI and ML of the varieties we have today are advancements in computing or intelligence?

My reply:

The computational capability is undoubtedly great, and probably the coding/software domain has been conquered, but there is a tendency to extrapolate the immediate impact of AI to every domain of human life, where even basic tech has not made an impact. That needs deeper knowledge of interfacing AI with other domains of engineering.
Embedding AI in the virtual domain is one thing, but to put it in the real world with noise is a different game altogether. That needs interfacing with the physical world, and there is also an energy expense that doesn’t get factored into the discussion. It has great potential, and I’m eager to see its impact on the physical infrastructure. Parallelly, it is interesting to see how it has been sold in the public domain.

made a video to explain the main blog:

Brillouin on Sommerfeld

“Everybody wondered (and still wonders) why the Stockholm committee systematically ignored Sommerfeld’s pioneer work in modern physics. Such an omission is actually impossible to understand.”

Leon Brillouin, in the foreword of his book WAVE PROPAGATION AND GROUP VELOCITY (1959)

Brillouin further mentions the teachers who taught him, and rates Sommerfeld among the best:

“I had the great privilege of attending, as a student, lectures given by some prominent physicists, such as H. A. Lorentz, H. Poincaré, and P. Langevin. But I was especially impressed by Sommerfeld’s mastery as a teacher.“

On Criticism

How to criticize somebody’s work? This is a question we often ask in academia, especially while writing referee reports for articles in journals and theses submitted by students. It is important to learn constructive criticism of academic work, which makes criticism a tool that can lead to positive feedback. When we talk about positive feedback, it does not mean that you will have to applaud the work. It means that anybody who is receiving the feedback should be able to build on it and improve their work.

In this regard, the philosopher Daniel Dennett has come up with some thoughts on critical commentary of somebody’s work. One of the key points he notes: ‘You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way”’.

This way of changing the perspective on a piece of work is one of the crucial aspects of constructive criticism. It helps you to understand the role as a reviewer in not only correcting somebody’s mistake but also helping them to build on their own thoughts. Many times, criticism is looked down on as a negative thing. But done this way, it is probably one of the most enriching processes, not only for the person who is receiving the feedback, but also for the person who is criticizing the work. The correct way to criticize is to think with different perspectives and add to the body of knowledge that the author has already presented. In that way, knowledge is progressed and corrected for mistakes, if any.

Create to Understand

Below are two quotes on the blackboard of Feynman’s office in Caltech which were found just after his death.

The first of these quotes by Feynman is a guiding principle for anyone who wants to learn. The second quote is an idealistic one, but a good approach to becoming a ‘problem-solving’ researcher. Feynman was a master of this approach.

From a philosophy of science perspective, researchers can be both ‘problem creators’ and ‘problem solvers’. The latter ones are usually famous.

Michael Nielsen, a pioneer of quantum computing and champion of open science movement, has an essay titled: Principles of Effective Research, in which he explicitly identifies these two categories of researchers, and mentions that “they’re not really disjoint or exclusive styles of working, but rather idealizations which are useful ways of thinking about how people go about creative work.”.

He defines problem solvers as those “who works intensively on well-posed technical problems, often problems known (and sometimes well-known) to the entire research community in which they work.” Interesting, he connects this to sociology of researchers, and mentions that they “often attach great social cache to the level of difficulty of the problem they solve.”

On the other hand, problem creators, as Nielsen indicates, “ask an interesting new question, or pose an old problem in a new way, or demonstrate a simple but fruitful connection that no-one previously realized existed.”

He acknowledges that such bifurcation of researchers is an idealization, but a good model to “clarify our thinking about the creative process.”

Central to both of these processes is the problem itself, and what is a good research problem depends both on the taste of an individual and the consensus of a research community. This is one of the main reasons why researchers emphasize defining a problem so much. A counterintuitive aspect of the definition of the problem is that one does not know how good the ‘question’ is until one tries to answer and communicate it to others. This means feedback plays an important role in pursuing the problem further, and this aptly circles back to Feynman’s quote: “What I cannot create, I do not understand”.

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.

Why is astronomy interesting? Chandra likes Wigner’s answer

The questions “Why is astronomy interesting; and what is the case for astronomy?” have intrigued me; I have often discussed these questions with my friends and associates. Granted that physical science, as a whole, is worth pursuing, the question is what the particular case for astronomy is? My own answer has been this: Physical science deals with the entire range of natural phenomena; and nature exhibits different patterns at different levels; and the patterns of the largest scales are those of astronomy. (Thus Jeans’ criterion of gravitational instability is something which we cannot experience except when the scale is astronomical.) Of the many other answers to my questions, I find the following of Wigner most profound: “The study of laboratory physics can only tell us what the basic laws of nature are; only astronomy can tell us what the initial conditions for those laws are.”

from A Scientific Autobiography: S. Chandrasekhar (2011) by edited by Kameshwar C. Wali

Polanyi’s quote

“…The example of great scientists is the light which guides all workers in science, but we must guard against being blinded by it. There has been too much talk about the flash of discovery and this has tended to obscure the fact that discoveries, however great, can only give effect to some intrinsic potentiality of the intellectual situation in which scientists find themselves…”

Michael Polanyi, in an essay titled “My Time with X-Rays and Crystals” (1969)

π and population

‘There is a story about two friends, who were classmates in high school,
talking about their jobs. One of them became a statistician and was working
on population trends. He showed a reprint to his former classmate, The
reprint started, as usual, with the Gaussian distribution and the statistician
explained to his former classmate the meaning of the symbols for the actual
population, for the average population, and so on. His classmate was a
bit incredulous and was not quite sure whether the statistician was pulling
his leg. “How can you know that?” was his query. “And what is this
symbol here?” “Oh,” said the statistician, “this is π.” “What is that?”
“The ratio of the circumference of the circle to its diameter.” “Well, now
you are pushing your joke too far,” said the classmate, “surely the population has nothing to do with the circumference of the circle.”’

These are the opening lines of Wigner’s famous essay titled: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

Ability to Wonder

More than 25 years ago, Prof. G. Srinivasan (RRI, Bengaluru), in an astrophysics class, narrated something that has stuck in my mind.

I am paraphrasing here.

He told us about a conversation he had with Prof. Jocelyn Bell, the discoverer of pulsars (rotating neutron stars).

When Jocelyn was asked: What is the most important quality to do scientific research?

She replied: ‘ability to wonder’.

Meghnad Saha – lest we forget

Meghnad Saha (6 October 1893 – 16 February 1956), of the fame of Saha’s ionization formula, was born this day. In 1993, a postage stamp in India was released commemorating his birth centenary.

Saha was an astrophysicist with a broad knowledge and appreciation of various branches of physics. One of the earliest English translations (1920) of the papers on relativity by Einstein and Minkowski was written by Meghnad Saha and S.N.Bose.

At the beginning of the book, Mahalanobis introduces the topic with a historical introduction. He begins with a thoughtful discussion on experiments that eventually ruled out the presence of ether, and it sets the stage as follows:

“Lord Kelvin writing in 1893 in hig preface to the English edition of Hertz’s Researches on Electric Waves, says many workers and many thinkers have helped to build up the nineteenth century school of plenum, one ether for light, heat, electricity, magnetism; and the German and English volumes containing Hertz’s electrical papers, given to the world in the last decade of the century, will be a permanent monument of the splendid consummation now realised.”

Ten years later, in 1905, we find Einstein declaring that “the ether will be proved to be superflous”. At first sight the revolution in scientific thought brought about in the course of a single decade appears to be almost too violent. A more careful even though a rapid review of the subject will, however, show how the Theory of Relativity gradually became a historical necessity.

Towards the beginning of the nineteenth century, the luminiferous ether came into prominence as a result of the brilliant successes of the wave theory in the hands of Young and Fresnel. In its stationary aspect, the elastic solid ether was the outcome of the search for a medium in which the light waves may “undulate.” This stationary ether, as shown by Young, also afforded a satisfactory explanation of astronomical aberration. But its very success gave rise to a host of new questions all bearing on the central problem of relative motion of ether and matter.“

Saha, in various capacities, took a stance against British colonialism. Although it affected some opportunities, he continued to do science and was recognized for his outstanding contributions. As Rajesh Kochhar mentions:

“Saha had wanted to join the government service, but was refused permission because of his pronounced anti-British stance. For the same reason, the British government would have liked The Royal Society to exclude Saha. It goes to the credit of the Society that it ignored the pressures and the hints, and elected him a fellow, in 1927. This recognition brought him an annual research grant of £300 from the Indian government followed by the Royal Society’s grant of £250 in 1929 (DeVorkin 1994, p. 164).“

Saha led a tough life. He not only had to face suppressive British colonial rule but also academic politics and battles (versus Raman, no less). His knowledge of physics, his contributions to Indian science, and his commitment to people (he was a politician too) were significant. Let me end the blog with a few lines from Arnab Rai Choudhuri’s article, which nicely summarizes Saha’s work (specifically his ionization formula), and his scientific life:

“Saha’s tale of extraordinary scientific achievements is simultaneously a tale of triumph and defeat, a tale both uplifting and tragic. Saha showed what a man coming from a humble background in an impoverished colony far from the active centres of science could achieve by the sheer intellectual power of his mind. But his inability to follow the trail which he himself had blazed makes it clear that there are limits to what even an exceptionally brilliant person could achieve in science under very adverse circumstances.“

India and Indian science should remember Meghnad Saha.