Blogging, so I've learned, comes with tags. The best is you make yourself and your blog easily classifiable. You see, people want to know what they have to expect. I would recommend you state in your side bar something like 'I am an atheistic, non-smoking, anti-alcoholic, pro-abortion, anti-war, pro-string, anti-drug, pro-evolution, anti-matter, pro-blematic, unemployed neo-liberalist '. Or the like. Ah, and don't forget to clarify sexual preferences, we don't want to confuse anybody.
The advantage is, visitors don't even have to read what you write to disagree with you.
Anyway. I recently feel like subject to peer pressure, and I am afraid I will have to proclaim an opinion about global warming. I recently stumbled across these lists of
50 things you can do to reduce Global Warming
and I just found out via Lubos that the TIME magazine had a similar list in last week's issue: 51 Things you can do to save the environment.
The present global warming debate is in my eyes very ironic. Initially, I was happy to see how fast the environmental consciousness has increased in the last some years, not only in the USA. See, all these points you find on the list like: cover your pots while cooking, take a shower instead of a bath, reuse your shopping bag, recycle your waste - this is what we were taught in Kindergarten1. When I moved to the USA I was shocked, honestly, to see how little people cared about their environment. Okay, Tuscon AZ might have been an extreme case. But folks, when you go shopping then shut off the engine of your car. And yes, better insulation in housing would significantly reduce AC and heating cost, paper can be recycled, etc, etc. Now what's new about these insights?
To come back to global warming, from a scientific point of view it puzzles me how this debate is lead. The essence has become to scare people with the potential catastrophes that global warming can have. Then tell them it's their fault because of the carbon dioxide increase they cause with every fart. The problem is this entangles several points that were better treated separately.
So, let me first state an obvious fact. The world's natural oil and gas resources are not infinite. Experts may disagree whether we will run out of oil in 30 or 100 years, but that is not the point. If our present high-tech civilizations experience energy shortening, very many things will change very suddenly. This is a huge threat for the organization of the society you live in. Since there are so far insufficient preparations in case this happens, the thing to do is: save energy. These 50 points have a priori actually nothing to do with global warming, but are about energy saving. Whether or not you think global warming is real, you should save energy.
Why? You are convinced that bio fuel is the thing to do, or hydrogen, or nuclear fusion, or you are just an optimist who hopes somebody will come up with something at some point? Gee, there is a line where optimism turns into ignorance. The important thing is called Energy Return on Investment Ratio (EROIR), that is essentially the ratio between energy surplus you get and energy you have to invest Ein. The surplus is the difference between the total energy extracted Eout and the energy that you use, that is
EROEI = ΔE / Ein = (Eout - Ein) / Ein
(In many cases, instead of the EROEI the energy return ratio is used, which is just Eout/Ein).
If we want to access new energy sources, its not sufficient to ask how much can we get out. We have to ask what is the price to pay. I am not an expert on bio fuel and hydrogen powered cars and the like, but none of these technologies is presently sufficiently advanced to replace natural oil and gas, the EROEI is significantly lower.
I am not saying this is not possible. I am saying our civilization is presently not prepared to cope with a significant energy shortage. The reason why this concerns me is that you don't have to be a seer to predict what is going to happen if energy shortage hits us unprepared. Nuclear energy (fission) is a well known, easily accessible technique with a large energy return on investment. Current nuclear reactors return around 40-60 times the invested energy [source].
And then multiply that with the fact that the generation in charge when oil runs out will not be the generation that remembers Czernobyl from first hand.
To come back to the global warming. There is high confidence that average temperature on the earth's surface has been raising by about 0.8 degrees since mid of the 19th century. There are many other indicators of a climate change: differences in temperature between summer and winter, day and night, thickness of the Arctic ice, melting of mountain glaciers, frequency of extreme weather events (floods, storms), shifts in the average days of first frost in winter, first bloom of plants, the end of animal hibernation, onset of bird migrations in spring, decline in maple syrup productivity, and so on and so forth. You can discuss any one of these points if you like (I have my doubts about the maple syrup factor), but the evidence that the climate is changing is overwhelming.
Studies also show that the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere hasn't been as high as today in the last 650,000 years. The question is of course whether the one is causally connected to the other, and I am not the one to tell you that. But even if you shrug shoulders and say: we don't know, the smart thing to do is not to mess with nature if you don't know what is going to happen.
Why? Darwin has told us the fittest survive. There is a huge number of humans on that planet that fit very good into the present environment. We adapt to changes, but evolution works slowly. If we manage to change our environment faster than we can adapt to it, well, congratulations. The whole human race will get the Darwin award for removing itself from the earth's surface by natural selection. We have the power to cause significant effects on the equilibrium of our environment, and we should be very careful with what we do, or we risk consequences that might be irreversible (we can of course debate whether or not it would be a great loss if the human race vanishes from earth's surface).
Besides this, the most pressing problem today is coping with the present changes, whether you know where they come from or not. One problem that will most likely be worsened by climate change, energy shortage and growing population is illegal immigration. Poorer countries have more problems coping with these challenges; if the situation becomes a threat to survival, people take high risk to get into richer countries - can you blame them? Whether you are in North America or Europe, look at your south borders and imagine what the situation will be like in ten years. Twenty years. Thirty years.
I am afraid covering you pot while cooking is not going to significantly change this. Scaring people with scientifically shaky statements might be effective on the short run, but isn't going to help on the long run. What scares me is how imbalanced this discussion is. I wonder if it is the connectivity and information overflow of our modern world that amplifies our concerns, polarizes opinions, and grossly oversimplifies matters. It is tempting and easy to condense the causes of problems and come up with a 50 point list. Others might argue 10 commandments are sufficient.
My mum always said they missed the most important commandment: You shall not be stupid. In fact I think this is the only one we need. The rest are details.
To summarize:
Save Energy. And support development of alternative energy sources. Whether or not you believe global warming is caused by humans.
Don't mess with nature. As long as you don't know exactly what your actions will cause, don't disturb our environment unnecessarily, and be as little invasive as possible. Whether or not you believe global warming is caused by humans.
Don't deny. Climate changes are a fact and have consequences. We have to deal with these changes. Now. Whether or not you believe global warming is caused by humans.
So, if you want to classify me: I'm a tree hugger. I'm a pro-environment, anti-energy-waste currently sick plastic-bag-reuser who worries about the next generation. I could use a little bit of global warming though. We still have snow up here.
1: I just say "Jute statt Plastik"
TAGS: GLOBAL WARMING, TREEHUGGING, ENERGY
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Frankfurt ranks Top 7 City in the Quality of Living
When I moved to Frankfurt am Main nearly 10 years ago, I didn't know that I was going to live in a city with a quality of living ranking among the top-ten cities world-wide! That's what I learned today from the German news magazine Spiegel online, citing from the 2007 Quality of Living Survey by the Mercer Human Resource Consulting company. Here are the results for the ten highest-ranking cities:
According to the website describing details about the study, the rankings are based on data collected between September and November 2006, and 215 cities have been considered in the Quality of Living 2007 rankings. For each city, a "quality of living index" is calculated according to criteria which are are said to include Political and Social Environment, Economic Environment, Socio-Cultural Environment, Medical and Health Considerations, Schools and Education, Public Services and Transport, Recreation, Consumer Goods, Housing, and Natural Environment, and which is supposed to summarize the differences in living standards. The index is normalized for New York City, ranking at place 48, to score a value of 100. Its idea is to assess the quality of living for the delocalized workforce of the globalized markets, and supposed to be used to judge whether an expatriate is entitled to a hardship allowance...
I must say I am impressed, and a little bit positively surprised, to see three German cities among the top-ten cities world-wide!
The top cities in the Americas are Vancouver (3rd), Toronto (15th), Ottawa (tied for 18th), Montreal (22nd), Calgary (24th), Honululu (27th), San Francisco (29th), Boston (36th), Washington DC, Chicago (both 44th), Portland OR (46th), New York City (48th), and Seattle (49th).
Of course, there are some caveats connected with this list. For one thing, as stated on the MHR website, one may distinguish between "quality of living", and "quality of life":
A city with a high quality of living index is a safe and stable one, but it may be lacking the dynamic je ne sais quoi that makes people want to live in world-renowned cities such as Paris, Tokyo, London or New York. [..] What makes one person's quality of life better or worse cannot be quantified in an objective index. Therefore, Mercer's quality of living report reflects only the tangible aspects of living in a city on expatriate assignments, and leaves the question of the quality of one's life to those living it!
The second point is that you may wonder about the error bars attached to the index. I didn't see this discussed anywhere on the website, and I wonder how reliable the decimals of the index as stated in the list can be. Moreover, you may naively expect that the the index shows some Gaussian, bell-shaped distribution - I was surprised that this is not the case, and that it is nearly flat:
Now, of course, the top 50 cities are the upper end of the distribution of 215 cities (unfortunately, I could not find the complete data set) but I would have expected a different picture, and a smoother distribution with a clearer decrease with increasing index. And from this distribution, I would estimate the error in the index on the order of at least 1 point.
But even with such an error, it is quite safe to group Frankfurt among the top ten cities or so - and that's nice!
TAGS: Quality of Living, Frankfurt am Main
| Rank | City | Country | Index |
| 1 | ZÜRICH | Switzerland | 108.1 |
| 2 | GENEVA | Switzerland | 108.0 |
| 3 | VANCOUVER | Canada | 107.7 |
| 3 | VIENNA | Austria | 107.7 |
| 5 | AUCKLAND | New Zealand | 107.3 |
| 5 | DÜSSELDORF | Germany | 107.3 |
| 7 | FRANKFURT | Germany | 107.1 |
| 8 | MUNICH | Germany | 106.9 |
| 9 | BERN | Switzerland | 106.5 |
| 9 | SYDNEY | Australia | 106.5 |
According to the website describing details about the study, the rankings are based on data collected between September and November 2006, and 215 cities have been considered in the Quality of Living 2007 rankings. For each city, a "quality of living index" is calculated according to criteria which are are said to include Political and Social Environment, Economic Environment, Socio-Cultural Environment, Medical and Health Considerations, Schools and Education, Public Services and Transport, Recreation, Consumer Goods, Housing, and Natural Environment, and which is supposed to summarize the differences in living standards. The index is normalized for New York City, ranking at place 48, to score a value of 100. Its idea is to assess the quality of living for the delocalized workforce of the globalized markets, and supposed to be used to judge whether an expatriate is entitled to a hardship allowance...
I must say I am impressed, and a little bit positively surprised, to see three German cities among the top-ten cities world-wide!
The top cities in the Americas are Vancouver (3rd), Toronto (15th), Ottawa (tied for 18th), Montreal (22nd), Calgary (24th), Honululu (27th), San Francisco (29th), Boston (36th), Washington DC, Chicago (both 44th), Portland OR (46th), New York City (48th), and Seattle (49th).
Of course, there are some caveats connected with this list. For one thing, as stated on the MHR website, one may distinguish between "quality of living", and "quality of life":
A city with a high quality of living index is a safe and stable one, but it may be lacking the dynamic je ne sais quoi that makes people want to live in world-renowned cities such as Paris, Tokyo, London or New York. [..] What makes one person's quality of life better or worse cannot be quantified in an objective index. Therefore, Mercer's quality of living report reflects only the tangible aspects of living in a city on expatriate assignments, and leaves the question of the quality of one's life to those living it!
The second point is that you may wonder about the error bars attached to the index. I didn't see this discussed anywhere on the website, and I wonder how reliable the decimals of the index as stated in the list can be. Moreover, you may naively expect that the the index shows some Gaussian, bell-shaped distribution - I was surprised that this is not the case, and that it is nearly flat:
Now, of course, the top 50 cities are the upper end of the distribution of 215 cities (unfortunately, I could not find the complete data set) but I would have expected a different picture, and a smoother distribution with a clearer decrease with increasing index. And from this distribution, I would estimate the error in the index on the order of at least 1 point.
But even with such an error, it is quite safe to group Frankfurt among the top ten cities or so - and that's nice!
TAGS: Quality of Living, Frankfurt am Main
Friday, April 06, 2007
Virtual Stargazing
Searching for inspiration in the night sky, but it's all cloudy and... snowing again? Or, your husband who knows all the names of of the stars is just getting up and going to work some thousand miles east of you? No problem that the internet can't solve for you: browse the virtual night sky at WIKISKY.ORG.
The site features a map of more than half a billion astronomical objects. You can navigate around it easily by clicking and dragging the map and using a zoom-in/zoom-out sidebar. You can also search on specific objects by name from a database, and it seems pretty tolerant of requests that use informal terms. (Ask for a lobster or a rotten egg and it will find you one.)
[via newscientist.blog]
The site features a map of more than half a billion astronomical objects. You can navigate around it easily by clicking and dragging the map and using a zoom-in/zoom-out sidebar. You can also search on specific objects by name from a database, and it seems pretty tolerant of requests that use informal terms. (Ask for a lobster or a rotten egg and it will find you one.)
[via newscientist.blog]
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Springtime!
ONTARIO, ARPIL 5th 2007: As a tribute to global warming, the major of Waterloo announces the city will change its name to Snowloo.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Could Gambling Save Science?
"Could Gambling Save Science" is the title of a proposal by Robin Hanson that was brought into my attention in the comments to Science and Democracy III. The answer to that question is: No. Before I tell you why, let me briefly summarize Hanson's idea.
Robin Hanson's proposal is an interesting scenario which aims to solve problems in scientific research by betting on scientific theories. He starts by summarizing the 'Problems with Academia' and dramatically sets the stage for his suggested cure 'Academia is still largely a medieval guild, with a few powerful elites, many slave-like apprentices, and members who hold a monopoly on the research patronage of princes and the teaching of their sons.' I almost feel sorry for myself.
But he has a point that the current academic system has some weaknesses. I don't want to repeat my take on the problem here (for that see Science and Democracy I, II, and III), so let me just state how I understand him. Hanson claims that the way researchers are awarded and appreciated today favors 'being popular, fashionable, and eloquent, instead of being right'. There is certainly some truth in that, though I don't think the situation is as bad as he makes it seem. Anyway, I was interested enough to learn how he thinks one can improve the situation.
So, he goes on explaining that the process by which 'the academic' receives 'credit' for making claims does not work optimal because academics judge on the quality of their own work, and form a rather closed system in their expertise. He argues that we need a 'specific mechanism' that 'encourages honesty and fair play; the game should be open to anyone to prove him/herself.'
Update: See also Robert Hanson's reply
TAGS: SCIENCE, SCIENCE AND SOCIETY, GAMBLING
Robin Hanson's proposal is an interesting scenario which aims to solve problems in scientific research by betting on scientific theories. He starts by summarizing the 'Problems with Academia' and dramatically sets the stage for his suggested cure 'Academia is still largely a medieval guild, with a few powerful elites, many slave-like apprentices, and members who hold a monopoly on the research patronage of princes and the teaching of their sons.' I almost feel sorry for myself.
But he has a point that the current academic system has some weaknesses. I don't want to repeat my take on the problem here (for that see Science and Democracy I, II, and III), so let me just state how I understand him. Hanson claims that the way researchers are awarded and appreciated today favors 'being popular, fashionable, and eloquent, instead of being right'. There is certainly some truth in that, though I don't think the situation is as bad as he makes it seem. Anyway, I was interested enough to learn how he thinks one can improve the situation.
So, he goes on explaining that the process by which 'the academic' receives 'credit' for making claims does not work optimal because academics judge on the quality of their own work, and form a rather closed system in their expertise. He argues that we need a 'specific mechanism' that 'encourages honesty and fair play; the game should be open to anyone to prove him/herself.'
His suggestion for such a mechanism is to bet on the outcome of scientific questions. 'Somewhat like a corn futures market, where one can bet on the future price of corn, here one bets on the future settlement of a present scientific controversy'. This, so he argues, would reward being right over being popular once the question is decided. The betting market would be open for everyone, regardless of education or degree and thus dissolve the boundaries of the rather closed academic system. Since those who eventually were right with their opinion about the scientific question, will win their bet 'Everyone would have a clear incentive to be careful and honest!'. That is, he claims financial profit is the reward that will convert the bad unethical academic to a good and honest guy.
He then investigates several cases and explains how his proposal that he calls 'Idea Futures' would work (see also Wired: Idea Futures).
After this follows a long list of possible objections with answers (which I found really a good idea. I might include something like this in one of my papers as well). Some of the questions came into my mind as well, and I will only pick out these. I don't care very much whether gambling is legal, but one obvious point is that there is no real profit in that game. If the issue to be decided is one of application, there could be real profit but then the 'real thing' to deal with are patents. Hanson's reply to this is 'Being monetarily zero sum does not make betting useless'. No, it doesn't make it useless. But it makes the whole idea far less attractive for anybody interested in making profit - and let us recall that making profit was the motivation he assumes participants have.
He also addresses the point 'Is there enough interest in science questions?' but if he answers it, I don't see how. The rather vague answer is basically 'Idea futures would thrive if it tapped only a small fraction of current interest and effort.' He also points out that it would be important to have the bets properly formulated, and the Idea Futures market therefore needs a certain amount of management and organization to operate smoothly 'Claims should avoid slippery concepts and phrasing which allows many interpretations', a demand that I totally agree on. If such a management would exists, first thing I'd do is require it for all scientific publications... Do we really solve any problem here?
So, here is my opinion: Gambling can not save science. To begin with, science is not lost, and doesn't need to be saved. In fact - excuse me - but I have the impression overall seen it works quite well.
But more importantly, one has to ask exactly which problem Robin Hanson aims at solving. On the long run, there is nature which decides on the value of scientific claims. As I have pointed out in an earlier post, a problem arises in the time between the proposal of a new idea and its verification (or falsification). In the absence of nature as a judge, we have to find other ways to judge on the quality of our work. This is what I call 'the measurement problem'. It is a crucial point because misjudgement in the meantime might mean that the best proposal doesn't survive long enough, or can not be worked out sufficiently, to be verified at all.
This however is not the problem Hanson addresses. Also in his scenario, there is only one ultimate judge that decides who wins the bet, and that is still nature. Though it is not stated explicitly I think he is aware of that: 'Most scientific controversies seem to eventually get resolved enough to settle a bet. [...]. Scientific claims are often defined as claims of "fact" which future evidence could possibly disprove [...]', 'a question about a physical property of a substance, like a bond angle of some new molecule, seems quite resolvable. As a rule, one should prefer questions closer to direct observations'. This means he can not solve 'the measurement problem' on the 'marketplace of ideas'.
Instead, the problem Hanson is concerned with is the time between nature's judgement that promotes one theory to be the best, and the time its inventor receives credits for it. In fact, this is also the problem that he investigates in his examples. I have no doubts that there have been, and still are, sad cases in which the value of a model was only recognized with delay. I do not think however, this is an inherent sickness of academia, but rather the exception than the rule. It is not the main problem that concerns me. As academical research works today, everybody who would learn of a model that explains observations better than the present one, would jump on it and use it. The remaining problem is then one of information distribution, which I believe is, and will further be, significantly improved though the ongoing changes in scientific publishing.
But besides these details, the whole idea fails on a very obvious point: There are undoubtedly scientists who like gambling and betting, as there are in every other profession. But the majority of scientists is not in academia because they want to make profit by investing smartly. If that was their motivation, they had not chosen academia in the first place. I dare to say, the vast majority of scientists would completely ignore the presence of such a betting market (as they did already ignore the proposal altogether). Even if it would possible mean they make profit, they wouldn't be sufficiently interested to pay much attention to it.
Financial profit, which Hanson assumes is the driving motor of everything ('Those who invest wisely would accumulate capital and gain influence, which they could reinvest in discretionary research or in influencing future consensuses.') is just not what drives most scientists. It is probably the case for some, but these are exceptions like those who are eager on 'being popular, fashionable, and eloquent, instead of being right'.
No, the majority of experts wouldn't pay any attention to that betting market. And without experts opinion, the whole system becomes no better than a lottery. Everybody who seriously wanted to make money would chose the stock market. For example, we could ask are neutrinos Dirac or Majorana? That I would think is a question that qualifies for the proposal, and which can be decided examining neutrinoless double-beta decay. But what is going to change for anybody whether or not some physicists or laymen have fun betting on one or the other?
I guess that there would indeed be people - experts and layman - interested in betting on scientific ideas. This is done anyhow, but such a leisure-time activity will not have any backreaction effect on the scientific research itself. It can be quite entertaining though, see e.g. Physicists who fancy a flutter.
The bottomline is: Robin Hanson's proposal is a very interesting toy model, and I give the idea a high creativity and entertainment value. But its a toy model nevertheless. Based on the assumption that maximizing profit it the driving motor for researchers, it is destined to remain an empty farce because it will not attract sufficient experts. These, I am afraid will remain busy drinking coffee with their 'many slave-like apprentices'.
Update: See also Robert Hanson's reply
TAGS: SCIENCE, SCIENCE AND SOCIETY, GAMBLING
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Transatlanticism
Want to visit me but don't know how where Waterloo, Ontario is? No problem, just ask Google maps and get directions. Here is how Google recommends you get from Frankfurt/Germany to Waterloo/Ontario in 59 easy steps, for omitted details, see here.
1. Head west on Berliner Straße/K818 toward Ziegelgasse [0.4 km/1 min]
2. Slight left at K818 [1.2 km/2 mins]
3. Turn right at B44 [2.8 km/6 mins]
4. Continue on A648 (signs for Wiesbaden/F-Höchst/Kassel) [6.2 km/4 mins]
5. Merge onto A66 [16.0 km/9 mins]
6. Take exit 9-Wiesbadener Kreuz onto A3/E35 Köln [153 km/1 hour 18 mins]
...
10. Continue straight onto A3/E40 Entering Belgium [49.5 km/25 mins]
...
14. Continue straight onto A2/E19 Entering France [76.3 km/40 mins]
...
29. Take the ramp onto Quai Frissard [1.0 km/2 mins]
30. At the roundabout, take the 4th exit onto E05 [0.9 km/2 mins]
31. Swim across the Atlantic Ocean [5,572 km/29 days 0 hours]
32. Turn left at Long Wharf [0.2 km]
...
37. Keep right at the fork, follow signs for I-90, Entering New York [244 km/2 hours 26 mins]
...
38. Continue on New York State Thruway W Toll road [10.7 km/6 mins]
50. Merge onto HWY-6 N [24.1 km/23 mins]
...
58. Merge onto University Ave E [3.1 km/4 mins]
59. Turn right at Lester St [0.6 km/1 min]
Very many thanks to Andi for the pointer :-)
1. Head west on Berliner Straße/K818 toward Ziegelgasse [0.4 km/1 min]
2. Slight left at K818 [1.2 km/2 mins]
3. Turn right at B44 [2.8 km/6 mins]
4. Continue on A648 (signs for Wiesbaden/F-Höchst/Kassel) [6.2 km/4 mins]
5. Merge onto A66 [16.0 km/9 mins]
6. Take exit 9-Wiesbadener Kreuz onto A3/E35 Köln [153 km/1 hour 18 mins]
...
10. Continue straight onto A3/E40 Entering Belgium [49.5 km/25 mins]
...
14. Continue straight onto A2/E19 Entering France [76.3 km/40 mins]
...
29. Take the ramp onto Quai Frissard [1.0 km/2 mins]
30. At the roundabout, take the 4th exit onto E05 [0.9 km/2 mins]
31. Swim across the Atlantic Ocean [5,572 km/29 days 0 hours]
32. Turn left at Long Wharf [0.2 km]
...
37. Keep right at the fork, follow signs for I-90, Entering New York [244 km/2 hours 26 mins]
...
38. Continue on New York State Thruway W Toll road [10.7 km/6 mins]
50. Merge onto HWY-6 N [24.1 km/23 mins]
...
58. Merge onto University Ave E [3.1 km/4 mins]
59. Turn right at Lester St [0.6 km/1 min]
Very many thanks to Andi for the pointer :-)
Aside: Transatlanticism is a track on the very recommendable album with the same name by Death Cab for Cutie.
Spectator of the show
Next round: String theory is losing the public debate. Have fun, but don't forget that Good physics is conflict, and The End of Physics has been postponed until the return of the Boltzmann brains.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
A tree in the forest
Speaking of networks... this is an amazing photo shot by the Swedish photographer Jocke Berglund I stumbled across yesterday:
Hurricane tree © by Jocke Berglund
It's called Hurricane tree, and it has won the first prize in the The World in Our Hands category of the Adult awards for the Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year in 2006.
It shows a spot in a Swedish forest which was hit by a storm in January 2005. This spot had the shape of a tree, and the heavy forestry machines which retrieved the scrambled logs created the curious pattern in the ground, resembling the trunc and the branching boughs. The grass under the tree is made of piles of logs.
t's a coincidence that the spot where the storm cut down the trees has the shape of a tree. But there is probably a subtle reason that the structure of the branching paths of the machines is so similar to the trunc and branches of a tree: both cover, starting from the root, the area of the whole "tree" in a very similar way. It's all networks!
It's called Hurricane tree, and it has won the first prize in the The World in Our Hands category of the Adult awards for the Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year in 2006.
It shows a spot in a Swedish forest which was hit by a storm in January 2005. This spot had the shape of a tree, and the heavy forestry machines which retrieved the scrambled logs created the curious pattern in the ground, resembling the trunc and the branching boughs. The grass under the tree is made of piles of logs.
t's a coincidence that the spot where the storm cut down the trees has the shape of a tree. But there is probably a subtle reason that the structure of the branching paths of the machines is so similar to the trunc and branches of a tree: both cover, starting from the root, the area of the whole "tree" in a very similar way. It's all networks!
Friday, March 30, 2007
Sexual Network
I have learned a lot at PI. Really. Among other things I have learned that these scribbles on the blackboard are not dots with lines, but nodes with links. And here is what you can do with them: Researchers Map the Sexual Network of an Entire High School :
[Published in: Chains of Affection: The Structure of Adolescent Romantic and Sexual Networks, Bearman, Moody and Stovel, American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1 (July 2004) 44-91.]
[Published in: Chains of Affection: The Structure of Adolescent Romantic and Sexual Networks, Bearman, Moody and Stovel, American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1 (July 2004) 44-91.] I could only find one homosexual relationship, which makes me kind of wonder how honest the students were about their relationships altogether. Anyway, I could have tought the students more. The essential thing to know is how to do exchange and expansion moves in the sin network:
[from hep-th/9712148]
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Prehistoric Sidewalk
Last weekend, I decided to have a break, and visited friends who have a house in France and had invited me since long to join them there. So, I took off Thursday and Friday, and enjoyed the wonderful mild weather of early sprintime with my friends, mostly hiking and walking. The landscape around their place is just great, but what was most fascinating to me: You can literally walk over fossil remains of million years ago!
What looks like simple, terrace-like sheets of rocks in a small grove, at closer inspection, turns out to be a former seabed!
Can you spot it? There it is, next to the centre of the photo, the petrified shell of an ammonite! This is what you see when you take a closer look:
As every self-respecting amateur geologists would do, I put a hammer next to the fossil to better convey its size. This special specimen had been spotted by someone else before, who also had cleaned the spot a little bit. Wolfgang, my friend, was lucky and found another one some twenty metres away, which we could dig out using the hammer.
Our geological map told us that this spot shows rocks form the apto-albian period in the Lower/Early Cretaceous, in the time of the dionosaurs. They are called marnes bleus, or marls, and can contain quite large ammonites. They are about 100 million years old!
It is really hard to get a feeling for this enormous span of time - this nice interactive explorer of Deep Time may be a start.
When I came back, I learned from a report on BBC and the Scientific American about paper in Science just from last week, that I could walk over rocks about 40 times older! All I have to do is travel to Greenland. Some volcanic rocks there are now the oldest known rocks on the Earth's surface - more than 3.8 billion years old.
Update: There is a nice post about Geological Basics: the difference between chronology and stratigraphy at Highly Allochthonous, with a scheme of the different geological series that make up the geological timescale.
TAGS: Geology, Ammonites
What looks like simple, terrace-like sheets of rocks in a small grove, at closer inspection, turns out to be a former seabed!
Can you spot it? There it is, next to the centre of the photo, the petrified shell of an ammonite! This is what you see when you take a closer look:
As every self-respecting amateur geologists would do, I put a hammer next to the fossil to better convey its size. This special specimen had been spotted by someone else before, who also had cleaned the spot a little bit. Wolfgang, my friend, was lucky and found another one some twenty metres away, which we could dig out using the hammer.
Our geological map told us that this spot shows rocks form the apto-albian period in the Lower/Early Cretaceous, in the time of the dionosaurs. They are called marnes bleus, or marls, and can contain quite large ammonites. They are about 100 million years old!
It is really hard to get a feeling for this enormous span of time - this nice interactive explorer of Deep Time may be a start.
When I came back, I learned from a report on BBC and the Scientific American about paper in Science just from last week, that I could walk over rocks about 40 times older! All I have to do is travel to Greenland. Some volcanic rocks there are now the oldest known rocks on the Earth's surface - more than 3.8 billion years old.
Update: There is a nice post about Geological Basics: the difference between chronology and stratigraphy at Highly Allochthonous, with a scheme of the different geological series that make up the geological timescale.
TAGS: Geology, Ammonites
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
ATLAS
ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS) is the largest detector at the LHC, the World's largest microscope. The detector is designed to measure the broadest possible range of signals, rather than a specific signal, and is thus part of the philosophy to expect the unexpected. The funny looking endcaps are part of the muon detectors. You can see a very nice movie explaining the experiment at this website. When completed, ATLAS will be 46 metres long and 25 metres in diameter. You can follow the construction inside the cavern via this webcam (updated every 30 min). For more info, the Wikipedia entry is pretty useful. But the coolest thing is this 360 degree view of the cavern.
[click to enlarge]
TAGS: PHYSICS, LHC
[click to enlarge]
TAGS: PHYSICS, LHC
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Guest Post: Huang Mei
Why did I become a physicist?The day before I went back to my hometown for spring festival, I got an email from Stefan (I mean Dr. Scherer, my officemate from Frankfurt) that Sabine is inviting some physicists contributing to her Blog on the motives and the inspirations that had led them to study physics. They thought that my story might be interesting for Europeans and North Americans.
Physicists always ask and try to answer "why", but the question "why did I become a physicist?" is one of the most difficult questions I have met. I guess the most difficult task for us human beings is to understand ourselves, which should be the goal for biologists. Actually, being a biologist was even more attractive to me, but I chose to become a physicist, because to me a physical system and its evolution are much simpler than that of a biological one. We physicists always simplify problems, so today I will just focus on a linear equation with given initial condition and boundary condition, and leave the deeper question of "why" for future studies.
I am now a professional theoretical physicist in China. To me it was quite natural to become a physicist. When I was around 9 years old, my eldest brother brought to me the seed of being a physicist. What I did was just planting this seed in my mind, and making this seed sprout and slowly grow up.
I was born in a small village in a mountainous district of China. During that time, China was still in the latest stage of "culture revolution". I don't have any impression on culture revolution, but I still have memory about the People's Commune system. When I was five and half, my mother sent me to the preliminary school closest to my home. This school had only three classrooms and three teachers. My classroom was in very bad situation, its roof leaked whenever it rained. But I enjoyed going to school because I could find many friends playing games together. In the first two years, I didn't have any idea about what I was learning. Well, I learnt some Chinese characters such as "I love Beijing Tian-an-men", and I learnt counting from 1 to 100, and some basic calculating.
From the third grade year, I started to enjoy learning, especially mathematics. It was my father who really stimulated my interest in mathematics, and solving mathematical problems became the most interesting game in my childhood. Though from the third grade year, I became one of the best students in my class, I still didn't have any idea about my future, I also didn't have any idea about the world outside. I forgot to mention that in our village we didn't have electricity till the end of 1982, and we had the first TV set in the spring of 1986.
My eldest brother is one of the most important people in my life. In my forth grade year, he brought me a book about Marie Curie, a biography. He told me about the great woman scientist Marie Curie who twice won the Nobel Prizes, and he also told me about T.D. Lee and C. N. Yang who were heroes of our Chinese people. My brother learnt that in the cinema! He said that at that time, there was always a short documentary film about T.D. Lee and C. N. Yang before a movie began. My brother thought physicists are great. Therefore, when I was about 9 years old, even though I didn't have any idea about physics, I decided to become a great physicist.
I think the hero or idol plays rather important role in teenagers' life. Teenagers choose the direction of their future by choosing their heroes and idols, and they choose their heroes and idols by listening to their inner desires. The goal to become a great physicist was still too abstract and too far away for a nine year old little girl. There was a long journey to go?
Before I went to high school, my favorite subject was always mathematics. I enjoyed the happiness of solving all kinds of challenging mathematical problems, and analyzing and solving physical problems. My style was a kind of typical German style (of course neither my teacher nor I realized this) I enjoyed deriving everything logically and clearly step by step. (Hopefully physicists from Germany do not complain about this.)
It seems I was the only student in my class who continued physics study after high school. When I was sixteen and half years old, I became a student in physics department of Hua-zhong Normal University, which is in the capital city Wuhan of our Hubei province. I enjoyed very much the life in the university and also I enjoyed physics, especially quantum mechanics and statistics. I read more books on the history of modern physics, and I started to think some "deep" questions about the evolution of the universe and the microscopic world. Actually, I was more interested in self-organization of complex systems, but I started my career of research by investigating the QCD phase transition. There is a very good institute, the institute of particle physics (IOPP), in our university. The main research in IOPP is about QCD phase transition and heavy ion collisions. (In many ways, IOPP is very similar to ITP in Frankfurt.) Sometimes, professors from IOPP gave seminars for our undergraduate students, and we also had chances visit IOPP from time to time. I was very grateful to Prof. Liu, who was the director of IOPP and he spent much time and patience on me and my other two classmates. I started my graduate study in IOPP from the spring of 1994, and since then, I was on the right track of being a physicist. The story afterwards is just one straight line, so I am going to stop here.
Writing this article give me a chance to look back on my long journey of being a physicist. It was the great physicist like Marie Curie, T.D. Lee and C. N. Yang who motivated my dream of being a physicist. However, I think it is my inner desire which eventually drives me becoming a physicist. The simple answer to Sabine's question "why I became a physicist" is because I enjoy the happiness from understanding the unknown world, solving challenging problems and making discoveries. Sabine and Stefan, thank you for giving me such a chance! If you have plan visiting China, please drop me a message! I also hope to use this chance thank my eldest brother who turned out to be a manager in the bank though he dreamed to be a great writer. It is my eldest brother who brought me the seed of wisdom and provided me economic condition and spiritual support on my way of being a physicist.
Huang Mei is a 33 years old associate Professor at the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. She mainly works on the many-body system of quarks and gluons. Currently, she is studying strongly coupled system by using AdS/CFT. In her free time she likes to do some sports, read books, listen to the music...
See also the previous contributions to the inspiration-series by
and my related guest post at Asymptotia 'Sabine Hossenfelder: My Inspiration'.
TAGS: PHYSICS, PHYSICISTS
Jungfraujoch
The Jungfraujoch in Switzerland is Europe's highest altitude railway station. If you are interested to hear English with a Swiss accent, look at this video.
Besides the educational value of this post, I'm telling you that because my mum sends photos. I'm not entirely sure exactly why she's in Switzerland, or what she's doing there besides piping several megabites through myyahoo, but anyway.
For more cool photos from Switzerland see Global Warming arrives to Versoix.
Besides the educational value of this post, I'm telling you that because my mum sends photos. I'm not entirely sure exactly why she's in Switzerland, or what she's doing there besides piping several megabites through myyahoo, but anyway.For more cool photos from Switzerland see Global Warming arrives to Versoix.Saturday, March 24, 2007
This and That
- Several visitors ended up on this blog searching for 'Denzel Washington's marital status', for which we are the first Google hit. The reason you find in the footer, where I've put a quotation from the movie 'Deja vu': I asked you to explain it to me, not to talk science. In case you haven't seen the movie, it's kind of a weird wormhole-timetravel-romance with several closed loops. I was a bit disappointed by the ending because the story breaks its own inner logic for a more dramatic rescue scenario. Anyway. The quotation has to go, sorry. And I don't know whether he's married.
- Next weekend, I will give PI's public lecture for the Black Hole Session:
Frontiers of our Knowledge
Presented by Sabine Hossenfelder, Perimeter Institute
Summary: Theoretical and experimental physics work hand in hand to broaden our understanding about the universe that we live in and man's place in the world. In the 21st century, nature has given us quite some puzzles to solve, in the microscopic (particle physics) as well as in the macroscopic (cosmology) range. These open questions at the threshold of the unknown have lead theoretical physicists to formulate possible solutions whose experimental tests are awaited soon. I will talk about these current limits to our knowledge, and about the insights that new experiments like the Large Hadron Collider can provide us with. A central point will be the possibility of large extra dimensions and black hole production at the LHC.
LOCATION: Bob room, 4th floor, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
I am particularly proud of this maximally vague abstract. The problem is currently that besides the summary, I have no idea what I'm going to tell the people. In case you are around, drop in, I assure you it's going to be entertaining. - Some days ago, Jonathan Shock from Jon's Travel Adventures
nominated us for the thinking blogger award.
It turned out this is part of a meme, and I am supposed to nominate 5 further people who I think are worth the award. Though I find the idea of the award itself nice, I am 'thinking blogger' enough to realize that 'awarding' it through a meme it completely nonsensical, especially if the number of people awarded is (ideally) supposed to inflate exponentially. I don't know who started this, but this is a dead end and I'm not going to award anybody.
Many thanks to Jonathan anyhow. - The funniest thing I've read in a while: stupid things people said in court. I'm not sure whether these are all confirmed quotations, but it's funny anyhow. If you ever thought you asked a stupid question, you can't top these:
- Q: How many times have you committed suicide?
- Q: Were you present when your picture was taken?
- Q: How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the collision?
For more, see this website. My favorite is this one:
Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began
the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?
A: It is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere. - And the say of the week:
- "Reason will not lead to solution
I will end up lost in confusion"
A nice weekend to all of you!
Friday, March 23, 2007
Filtering Gravity
Most of the time, checking the arxiv's new publications is kind of boring. It doesn't happen very often that someone comes up with a really new idea. Therefore I want to draw your attention to a recent paper that I found really interesting:
If I understand it correctly, the idea is to look at the cosmological constant problem from a different point of view. The question that troubles many physicists is why the observed value of the cosmological constant is what it is, especially why it is not 120 orders of magnitude larger. In their paper, the authors point out that the question what we measure for the cosmological constant does depend on it's coupling to gravity. They propose a scenario of modified gravity in which the coupling strength of a source depends (loosely speaking) on it's typical size of structures. The more homogeneous the distribution, the less it couples to gravity. (More technically, one takes the Fourier transform of the density, and the coupling depends on the wavelength. Large wavelengths couple weaker.)
The cosmological constant is perfectly homogeneous, and therefore would couple only very weakly, or maybe not at all. In this work, they do not explicitly address the issue why it is non-zero or has the observed value, but I think this idea has a large potential.
The specific scenario that they investigated is one with a massive graviton. Because of the graviton acquiring a mass, additional polarizations arise. This concrete model is one example for the more general class of gravitational high-pass filters that they have proposed. The challenging question is of course whether this approach can be utilized to compute the value of the cosmological constant. What I find specifically intriguing is that in this case, the gravitational sector might be the cause for the observed value of the cosmological constant, and it would be essentially independent on the expected value from the matter fields.
Here is an example to underline the importance of filters. Last week, a disaster happened:
I received about 120 spam emails per hour. Luckily, I am essentially decoupled from this particular server.
See also: The Gravity Defyer
TAGS: PHYSICS
- Degravitation of the Cosmological Constant and Graviton Width
Authors: Gia Dvali, Stefan Hofmann, Justin Khoury
hep-th/0703027
Abstract: We study the possibility of decoupling gravity from the vacuum energy. This is effectively equivalent to promoting Newton's constant to a high-pass filter that degravitates sources of characteristic wavelength larger than a certain macroscopic (super) horizon scale L. We study the underlying physics and the consistency of this phenomenon. In particular, the absence of ghosts, already at the linear level, implies that in any such theory the graviton should either have a mass 1/L, or be a resonance of similar width. This has profound physical implications for the degravitation idea.
If I understand it correctly, the idea is to look at the cosmological constant problem from a different point of view. The question that troubles many physicists is why the observed value of the cosmological constant is what it is, especially why it is not 120 orders of magnitude larger. In their paper, the authors point out that the question what we measure for the cosmological constant does depend on it's coupling to gravity. They propose a scenario of modified gravity in which the coupling strength of a source depends (loosely speaking) on it's typical size of structures. The more homogeneous the distribution, the less it couples to gravity. (More technically, one takes the Fourier transform of the density, and the coupling depends on the wavelength. Large wavelengths couple weaker.)
The cosmological constant is perfectly homogeneous, and therefore would couple only very weakly, or maybe not at all. In this work, they do not explicitly address the issue why it is non-zero or has the observed value, but I think this idea has a large potential.
The specific scenario that they investigated is one with a massive graviton. Because of the graviton acquiring a mass, additional polarizations arise. This concrete model is one example for the more general class of gravitational high-pass filters that they have proposed. The challenging question is of course whether this approach can be utilized to compute the value of the cosmological constant. What I find specifically intriguing is that in this case, the gravitational sector might be the cause for the observed value of the cosmological constant, and it would be essentially independent on the expected value from the matter fields.
Here is an example to underline the importance of filters. Last week, a disaster happened:
From: System Administration
To: alllusers@itp.****.de
Subject: [allusers] Spam Surge
Last night at around midnight, a major increase in spam has caused an overload of the spam filter daemon. As an unfortunate result, the daemon gave up completely and let through all the spam until recently.
I received about 120 spam emails per hour. Luckily, I am essentially decoupled from this particular server.
See also: The Gravity Defyer
TAGS: PHYSICS
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Canada is great...
"...because Canadians made it great. The people who built this country worked hard to realize their vision. They set us on a bold course to greater hope and opportunity. They had a passion for the free, prosperous and welcoming country they called Canada.
We stand on their shoulders.
[...]
Canada is a powerful idea. We are a modern nation that stands up for Canadian values in this world. We are prosperous and compassionate. Aspirational and welcoming. Independent and strong."
With these words, Canadian Finance minister Jim Flaherty announced the 2007-08 budget yesterday. You can read more praise of the Canadian nation in his speech here, but the really important thing is:
"The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, which is devoted to the study of foundational issues in theoretical physics, is an example of [such] a world-renowned research institute. Since its creation in 1999, the Perimeter Institute has become a leader for Canadian research in the emerging field of quantum physics and a model for science education and outreach. The Perimeter Institute has demonstrated outstanding scientific merit, has a national reach and has received significant funding commitments from the private sector and the Government of Ontario. Budget 2007 provides $50 million to the Perimeter Institute in 2006–07 to support its leading research, education and public outreach activities."
[read the full report]
And while we're at praising - related: In 2007 Waterloo is again among the world's top seven intelligent communities.
We stand on their shoulders.
[...]
Canada is a powerful idea. We are a modern nation that stands up for Canadian values in this world. We are prosperous and compassionate. Aspirational and welcoming. Independent and strong."
With these words, Canadian Finance minister Jim Flaherty announced the 2007-08 budget yesterday. You can read more praise of the Canadian nation in his speech here, but the really important thing is:
"The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, which is devoted to the study of foundational issues in theoretical physics, is an example of [such] a world-renowned research institute. Since its creation in 1999, the Perimeter Institute has become a leader for Canadian research in the emerging field of quantum physics and a model for science education and outreach. The Perimeter Institute has demonstrated outstanding scientific merit, has a national reach and has received significant funding commitments from the private sector and the Government of Ontario. Budget 2007 provides $50 million to the Perimeter Institute in 2006–07 to support its leading research, education and public outreach activities."
[read the full report]
And while we're at praising - related: In 2007 Waterloo is again among the world's top seven intelligent communities.
Science and Democracy III
[I was reminded that I’ve promised repeatedly to continue the previous posts Science and Democracy I and II. To my own surprise I found an almost finished draft about the danger of using marketplace tactics in scientific research, and I added some recent comments out of the blogoshpere to underline my arguments.]I vividly recall the first thing my supervisor told me when I was an undergrad: "You have to learn how to sell yourself." Since then I have repeatedly been given well meant career advises how to survive on the scientific marketplace (most of which I ignored, but I’m still around, so I guess I’m not doing too badly).
Many of my friends and colleagues in physics regard these marketplace tactics as an annoying but necessary part of the job. To begin with, this concerns me because I feel that there is a gap between how science is, and how it should be – and an unnecessary gap in addition. But more importantly, the application of economical considerations to scientific research is inappropriate, and the reason why I did not take these career advises is that I don’t want to support strategies that will hinder scientific progress on the long run. So, if you were hoping for some career advises, you're on the wrong blog.
Though comparisons between science and economics often have a grain of truth in them, they are doomed to fail when extended naively. Whether or not you believe in the infallibility of the 'Invisible Hand' [1], scientific theories are not sold like candy bars. If one uses an economical model to analyze the dynamics of research programs, one has to be aware of the limitations of this analogy.
I: The Marketplace of Ideas
The 'marketplace of ideas' is often claimed to act as a self-regulating mechanism that ensures progress in science. It is based upon the believe that all scientific theories when made accessible to the public compete freely among each other, until it eventually turns out which idea is the best description of nature.
Being an optimist, I have no doubts that this works if one looks at the history of mankind over centuries when nature is the ultimate judge on our scientific endeavors. However, there is no reason to believe that this automatically works on shorter time periods as well. On a time scale where we do not have nature to judge (typically a couple of years, maybe up to decades - that is how long grants and employments last), the scientific community is its own judge. The obvious difference to the economical marketplace is that we do not offer our ideas ‘for sale’ to a neutral target group, and depending on whether it is bought or not our product is a success or a disaster.
Ia: The Measurement Problem
No, we are selling our theories inside our own community. And our demand for products can easily be biased if the competitive pressure is high. The situation is significantly worsened by an increasing specialization into many sub-fields and a lack of communication between these fields. Needless to say, the genuine enthusiasm that researchers have for their own field does not improve neutral judgement. If you want to use the analogy to the economical marketplace here, you’d expect it to work even if products are only sold to company managers [2].This difficulty to find criteria to judge on research programs might not have been a major issue in the previous decades, but it becomes increasingly important if
- a) the community grows to a complex system whose dynamics is little understood (E.g. the increasing influence of 'fashionable topics' is a typical sign for a non-linear feedback effect, the emergence of sub-fields with their own group dynamics is a sign for self-organization)
b) changes in the sociological, cultural and technological context require adjustment of criteria
c) financial and peer pressure endangers neutral judgement
d) timescales that are set through (inappropriate) external constraints.
In other words, it’s a 21st century issue. With increasing complexity, we are left with a decreasing number of people who have an overview on the whole ‘marketplace’. Little people are funded independently of their projects, so their opinions are biased in favor of their own research. Under such circumstances, the ‘marketplace of ideas’ will eventually result in a small number of approaches caught in feedback loops of increasing separation.
As Thomas Dent remarked at 4:27 PM, June 29, 2006:
- It should be obvious that there is no theoretical physics analog of capitalism or the free market. In capitalism there is profit which can be measured objectively, and the one who can make profit wins, the one who cannot must get out of the game. […] Since there is no objective measure of success in theoretical physics, there can never be a free market. Simple.
I would add: there is no such obvious measure on the time scale relevant for funding today. But obvious or not, measures have to be applied, and are applied, and the least we can do is to chose them wisely. Being scientists, it should not be so hard for us to find out how science works best, and to analyze whether the current conditions are optimal.
Ib: Primary goals and Secondary criteria
The primary goal: to support the most promising approaches and researchers, is of little help when you are faced with a 3 inch pile of application documents. Instead, one commonly uses derived secondary criteria that have shown to be useful. There is nothing to object to this procedure, except that the validity of secondary criteria has to be readjusted every now and then. In a time like ours, when the sociological and technological environment changes rapidly, neglect of questioning and re-adjusting applied secondary criteria can result in misleading feedback effects and sub-optimal selection processes.
The best known example might be the citation index and number of publications. These criteria are of course correlated with the originality and quality of the research, but whenever possible, one should ask for primary goals to be met. (I am not telling you this because it is something new, or because I think people in hiring committees are stupid, but to make the matter less abstract.) Other secondary criteria that have grown important over the last decades are e.g. previous employment at well-known institutions, or classifiable work on mainstream topics.
There is an obvious danger in just rewarding those who meet secondary requirements. If these criteria do not exactly match the primary goals, one promotes tactics that are sub-optimal for scientific progress but optimal for career building (see section 'Survival of the Fittest'). If you combine that with the non-linear feedback effect in complex systems, things can easily go seriously wrong.
An issue related to the necessary re-adjustment of secondary criteria to primary goals is to guarantee fairness on the marketplace. The 'Invisible Hand' always needs to be balanced by politics to ensure the marketplace is really 'free' -- this is one of the earliest lessons we have learned from industrialization. If we want the ‘marketplace of ideas’ to optimize progress in science, we have to ensure that every idea gets a chance, irrespective of its origin [3] - the matter of origin plays no role for the question whether an idea is worth supporting.
Ic: Risky Research
Another important point is that supporting risky start-ups is one of the most relevant factors for progress. Unfortunately, this factor is severely neglected by present funding strategies. Sounds familiar? Okay, okay, it’s not my idea:
 | "Do you want a revolution in science? Do what businesspeople do when they want a technological revolution: Just change the rules a bit […] Create some opportunities for high-risk/high-payoff people […] The technological companies and investment banks use this strategy. Why not try it in academia? The payoff could be discovering how the universe works." ~ Lee Smolin, The Trouble with Physics (p. 331) |
Risk averseness is a rather unsurprising consequence of insecurity caused by a lack of communication in a community falling apart into sub-fields. It is also supported by chronically short resources (if we hire anybody, then someone who works on what I find interesting), short-term funding (it takes time to work out new ideas, for more info see e.g. Temporary Display and comments to this post), and by falling for the derived secondary requirement 'If she's interested in what I do, she must be intelligent.'
In the absence of a final judgement by nature on our approaches, it is very short-sighted to discard alternative options. However convinced I am of my own research project, I always have to acknowledge the possibility that it turns out to be a dead end. As Albert Einstein said so nicely "Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose." In the London debate, Nancy Cartwright underlined the need to keep doors open by referring to J.S. Mill's essay 'On Liberty'. She argues that in the absence of nature's judgement the smart thing to do is to not prematurely discard alternative options
- "We need to allow as much liberty as possible (for people in designing their lives) because we don't know what is the best way (to live). And that's in part because we don't know what are all the good alternatives to chose from."
II. Product Placement
Presenting our research results to colleagues is an essential part of our job, in written form as well as in seminars, talks, and discussions. Clearly presented arguments, and well structured seminars are definitely beneficial to progress. However, as with many things in life, it is a matter of balance. Advertisement should not become more important than content. The most entertaining presentation can not make an idea better than it is, and scientific arguments have to remain as honest as possible – even if this means drawing attention to the flaws of the product.
For example, Thomas Larsson remarked
- At 5:53 AM, March 17, 2007,
There are some good things about the string/LQG conflict, though. Without it, I would not know about the limits of the string black hole prediction, nor would I know that LQG quantization does not work for the harmonic oscillator.
and illustrates with that a problem that arises when researchers feel the pressure to advertise their own
work. Today, many praise results in a rather unbalanced way – not because they don’t know better, but because they have to compete with a large number of people. If you put a paper out and don’t have a prominent co-author, a catchy title and exaggerated claims is the way to get others to read it. This tactic is okay for fish sales on mediterranean markets, but it is very dangerous to the standard of scientific research. It leads to rather uncritical status reports in which problems are either not mentioned, or downplayed (and if this shortcoming is pointed out, the author will claim that the problem is obvious and widely known.)Whether published articles are balanced crucially depends on the referee process [4]. One could say a lot about peer review, but to say the least, it doesn’t always work as it should, and many reports are not as objective as they ought to be. An example that I have repeatedly witnessed myself: when it comes to numerical simulations, it is common practice to point out where the model fits the data very good, and just not to mention the problematic observables. Most often, numerical simulations are hard to check, even if the code is available, and the not-so-good results just don’t get published.
Though this is not strictly speaking wrong, it is just not good practice as it is exactly understanding the failure of an approach that could lead to improvement. However, those scientists who elaborate on difficulties and drawbacks risk being understood as negative, or maybe just not exciting enough, and cause problems for themselves (and probably get the well meant career advise to better sell themselves): Here we have another gap between what would be beneficial for scientific progress (primary goal: understand model), and what is beneficial for the scientific career (secondary goal: hide bugs or declare them as feature).
:-) I know, I’m being silly. I apologize, it is far easier to retreat to sarcasm than to come up with constructive criticism.
Were was I?
Uhm, this is another example where marketplace tactics fail in scientific research. We don’t want to sell our theories to as many people as possible and optimize the citation index, but we want to optimize the quality and usefulness of publications.
Another excellent example that shows how advertisement can promote scientific nonsense when secondary criteria (here: holding patents) are in conflict with primary goals (here: quality of research), can be found at the post Micro Black Day.
III. Survival of the Fittest
The survival of the fittest is another catchy phrase (often used by those who profit from the current system) to claim that a natural selection process ensures progress in scientific research. The irony is that those who argue such actually explain why the system fails.
Survival of the fittest doesn’t mean survival of the strongest, the best looking or the most intelligent. It means literally, survivors are those who ‘fit best’. Survivors are those who adapt the behaviour that minimizes existential conflict with the environment.
Now, ask yourself, what is this environment in the context of scientific research? Well, it is our own community with the selection criteria that we apply. If these criteria are not optimal for scientific progress, we don’t only have the possibility but the duty to change it!
The optimization implied in the ‘survival of the fittest’ crucially depends on the environment and available resources. Whether you like the subtitle of Lee's book or not, he makes the important point that we have to ask how science works best – how it works now and here, how it works in this century, in this sociological and cultural environment - and whether the presently applied selection criteria are indeed optimal for progress. Whether the fitness that we reward is actually the fitness that we need. Whether our secondary criteria agree with the primary goals.
We have to blame ourselves if we accept the current conditions even though we know they are not optimal.
- Amara Graps: At 2:51 AM, March 10, 2007
One reason why the current system has been going on for so long is that scientists are a mild-mannered bunch and are passionate about their work. They are prone to self-abuse to pursue those passions too, being willing to absorb the most degrading conditions.
Repeatedly, I have met colleagues who agree that the situation sucks, but they shrug shoulders and say, that’s just the marketplace. Where does it come from, this believe that passivity is a guarantee for progress?
- amused: Mar 17th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Of course, that’s hardly a new point in these discussions, and the standard response is to shrug ones shoulders and say “oh well, that’s just market forces”. Which is true, but it’s also relevant to ask whether it is in the best interests of physics. Hopefully it’s not too controversial to suggest that the interests of physics in the long term are best served by ensuring as much as possible that jobs go to the “best” people, regardless of their preferred research topics.
We are scientists. We should be able to analyze the present situation, and to draw consequences. Science is not coming to an end if we fail to meet the challenges that the increasing complexity of our field has brought. But we run in danger to reproduce the failures of the economic marketplace: bubbles of nothing, that are a waste of time, money and energy.
If left without attention, the naïve believe that the marketplace will make things right ‘somehow’ can seriously hinder progress. Nature might have supported an approach that failed too early – because it wasn’t advertised well enough, or because the capital investment was simply insufficient to allow it to compete.
Bottomline
There are important differences between the economical and the scientific marketplace. The most obvious ones being the absence of a neutral measure (like profit), and the pitfalls of advertisement.
Currently the ‘marketplace of ideas’ works anything but optimal. Times have changed rapidly, and our community has grown significantly. These changes need to reflect in our organizational structure as well, or we run in danger of getting stuck in a dead end.
And it is easy enough to improve the situation:
- Question and doubt. Ask yourself whether the realized strategies are optimal for scientific progress, and if you don't think so, don't shrug shoulders. Don't accept criteria you have been taught are right without taking into account that times have changed.
- Analyze. Peer pressure, intense competition, short resources, project-dependent funding and short-term employment favours mainstream, conservative and low-risk work. Be aware of that. Remind yourself and colleagues that 'Good physics has to be open, critical, and responsive'. Research has shown that simply reminding people to think rationally influences their decisions.
- Trust yourself. Don't work on topics that you don't genuinely believe are relevant because you are afraid of your reputation. If this work is unavoidable, criticise - even if you are defeated, you make a contribution to science. (Hey - I told you, you're not getting career advises on this blog.)
Hmmm...
It seems, this piece got quite lengthy...
One could write books about it...
Footnote [1]: The 'Invisible Hand' was indroduced by Adam Smith in his book 'The Wealth of Nations' (1776) to describe the self-regulation of the marketplace. From Wikipedia: Many economists claim that the theory of the Invisible Hand states that if each consumer is allowed to choose freely what to buy and each producer is allowed to choose freely what to sell and how to produce it, the market will settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial to the entire community. Adam Smith already pointed out that the Invisible Hand's regulation mechanism alone does not guarantee the well-being of the society and needs to be balanced by govenmental guidance "[...] uniformity of [the employee's] stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind [..] His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expence of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which [...] the great body of the people must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it." Nevertheless, this metaphor is often abused to praise the merits of capitalism without given sufficient credits to its limitations. [Back]
Footnote [2]: In addition, there is also the question how our research is presented to the public - who after all pays us to explore the frontiers of our knowledge. This is an important point on its own but should not be mixed up with the question how the community selects promising researchers and research programs. Most people are crucially aware that it requires an appropriate education to judge on the value of very recent developments, and will rely on expert’s opinions for a good reason. The public is neither dumb nor ignorant. I welcome it very much that in the last decades - maybe starting with Hawking’s Brief History of Time - theoretical physics has become more accessible to the public. The resulting discussions of our research among non-experts are regarded by some scientists with concern and skepticism. I am sure it is only a matter of time until our community gets used to this attention and learns how to deal with this kind of feedback. I myself am perfectly sure this communication is inspiring for both sides - and one of the reason why I maintain this blog. [Back]
Footnote [3]: To give a concrete example, research papers should not be judged upon by the author. Researchers should not be selected because of the institutions they have connections to, or the country of origin. Conference invitations should not be made to famous people for the only reason that their name does attract interest – A scientific conference is not a rock concert. [Back]
Footnote [4]: At least one should be careful enought to use 'could' instead of 'does' and 'might' instead of 'will'. You can learn about the importance of weasel words here, in case you followed this discussion about this paper. [Back]
TAGS: SCIENCE, DEMOCRACY, SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Guest Post: Yidun Wan
[Preface: Dear Readers of the Inspiration Series,
I realized that most of the guest contributions are too long to be read comfortably on screen. I have therefore put them together in a pdf-file, that you can download here. A nice Sunday evening to all of you,
Sabine ]
Why did I become a physicist? This, as normally a question for successful people, appears to be really hard for someone like me, who is still a PhD candidate with no splendid past. This is a hard question also because one can hardly answer it objectively and mathematically. However, being invited by Sabine Hossenfelder to write my answer as a guest post on her famous blog, it is my pleasure to try my best to say something, which may not be an satisfactory answer as expected by the host.
Prior to my story, I would like to spend some time on the word "physicist". Why? In English, one refers to physicists as those who do research in physics, including professors, researchers, postdocs, graduate students. However, the Chinese translation of a "physicist" (and more generally, a scientist) is not merely someone, who researches in physics, but one who has contributed to physics noticeably. The Chinese counterpart of a "physicist" in English should be a "physics researcher". Therefore, considering my situation, the question I am to answer should be better understood as "why did I become a physics researcher".
If I say that I simply have followed my destiny to become a physicist, you may laugh and think I am perfunctory, since this does not sound like what a physicist should say. Nevertheless, I am just telling the truth in an efficient way. To tell more details, it is better to first outline my history. Fourteen years ago, I began my undergraduate study in China. After four years, I obtained my first Bachelor's degree in Computer Science. One year later, I got my second one in Economics. Then I started to work in some Chinese company. Six years ago, I landed on the U.S.A. and continued my study in Computer Science as a graduate student. After one year and a half, I had the opportunity to switch to physics. Hence, I took a master's degree in Computer Science and quit. In the next two years, I had been doing research in applied physics (though theoretical calculation) in Canada, which brought me a master's degree in physics. Right after this, my world line extended to doing theoretical physics at the Perimeter Institute; now I still move on in the same direction—to explore the physical nature till the singularity of my life. Having read my brief history, you may take off now if not interested in any more detail.
So ladies and gentlemen, let us begin a time travel along my world line back to the past. In the summer of 2002, I often wandered around in the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, because a critical junction of my life came to me, which put me in front of two choices: to do research in Neural Networks towards a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, and to move to the University of Ottawa in Canada and begin my academic career as a physicist. Although the former option might be able to bring me a good life with stable job and income, I chose the latter one, as you already knew. There were two reasons. The first reason, obviously, was that I could then start to realize my dream of being a physicist. (I haven't explained why I love physics, but it is coming, just be a little bit more patient in the time travel. ) The second reason was related to my personal life; my girlfriend, who became my wife in that August, was to do her master's study at the University of Ottawa, so the only way for me to keep us together should be getting into the same university. The only shortcoming of going to the University of Ottawa was that I could not do pure theoretical physics but the so-called "theoretical" Fiber Optics, since the physics department there had only research groups in applied physics. Therefore, I decided to be enrolled in the master's program only in order to move to some other place where I can do theoretical physics later. Luckily, after two years stay in Ottawa, I successfully obtained my master's degree in physics and was admitted by the University of Waterloo, and joined the Perimeter Institute to pursue research in Quantum Gravity under the supervision of Prof. Lee Smolin. Since then I have been on the right track and become what I am now: a physicist.
Life is very unpredictable and is thus fascinating; a decision, which is apparently not perfect at the moment of being made, may turn out to be perfect at a later time. Take my decision of going to Ottawa as an example; it was not perfect for sure at that time because what I truly wanted to do was theoretical and fundamental physics. However, as soon as I entered Perimeter Institute, I realized that decision was so right. Why? Before I came to Ottawa, I actually had no any real background in physics and advanced mathematics; all I knew about physics and math was what I learned from my first year undergraduate physics course, some Electromagnetism I learned by myself, calculus and some complex analysis. With such a weak background, I would easily wash out quickly if I directly jump on some graduate program of pure theoretical physics. During the 2-year stay in Ottawa, I took graduate courses like "Quantum Mechanics", "Mathematical Methods in Physics", "Statistical Mechanics", and "General Relativity", and did a great job. Interestingly, I had no any problem of understanding Quantum Mechanics. The reason, I guess, was that I never learned Classical Dynamics systematically before I encountered the quantum one. Besides taking courses, I spent a lot time on learning useful math and physics by myself. Moreover, I also did some experimental physics, which input some concrete cognition of physics to my brain. In summary, having worked hard in that two years established me a relatively ok background in physics, which was of great help to me in my first year at PI. Every time when I look back, I am grateful to my experience in Ottawa, and hence to my decision made in the summer of 2002.
Our itinerary of time travel may be mis-programmed in the computer of our spacecraft; we now stop at my childhood. Anyway, let us accept this and turn around our craft to continue our trip from here to its future. I am not very confident of my memory about very early years in my life. So we would better to start from my second year in elementary school. I remember in that year every student in my class was asked to write an essay about his/her ideal. My essay looked like a science fiction, in which I imagined the world of twenty years later, and more importantly I was a scientist, but not a physicist in particular. Frankly speaking, this does not mean that I really wanted to be a scientist at the moment. Part of the reason was that I might be too young to understand what a scientist exactly is. The other part was that "being a scientist" was a common ideal of many Chinese children at that time, since we were taught to believe that making scientific contribution to our country and even the whole world is a sublime and holy career. However, I knew that I was definitely attracted by two mysterious entities: the universe and the being. I just had been able to tell which one, the universe or the being, I was more interested in until I met a book, "the First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg, which influenced my life to a large extent. I clearly remember it was in some day during my first year in junior high school when I borrowed the book (certainly the Chinese version) from the civic library of my hometown. "The first Three Minutes" vividly elaborated the story within the first three minutes of our universe, from which I first got to know that our universe originates from a singularity through a Big Bang in about 1.3 billion years ago. In fact, I was not able to understand the physics in the book and did not even know who Weinberg was; nonetheless, I was completely captivated by the splendid and gorgeous scene of the early universe illustrated by the book. At the time of reading the book, astonishment, doubt, and excitement had been always possessed me; strong eagerness to fully understand everything in the book in some day spurred me to take to be a physicist decoding the universe as my life-long ideal.
Irony of ironies, I did not appear to be very talented in physics when I was a child, and even when I was a teenager. My talent in literature (of course the Chinese one) and arts seemed much better than that in physics. This situation drastically changed only after I went to university, the South China University of Technology. The consequence was that I did not choose physics, but rather computer science as my undergraduate major, although to be a physicist had always been a dream hovering in my head. Another factor caused me to major in computer science was my parents, who made the decision for me; this was pretty natural in China, at least at that time.
During my undergraduate study, China was experiencing a rapid increase of her national economy; various enterprises, domestic or multinational, emerged; people became richer and richer. This big tide of economy also impacted me; I felt that to be a good businessman sounds not bad at all. Interestingly, to be adapted to the development of the our country, my university offered a new program, which allowed excellent engineering students to also major in International trade towards a Bachelor's degree in Economics. I, one ridiculously forgot his ideal at the moment, joined the new program. After graduation, I successfully found a job and planned to establish my own business in the near future. Nevertheless, soon I realized that was not the life I really liked and wanted. Watching the night sky decorated with shiny stars, the ideal to be a physicist woke up in my mind; I decided to go abroad to look for my dream. Therefore, after having worked for about half a year, I resigned and went back home to prepare for TOEFL and GRE, which are required by most American and Canadian graduate schools. I had to choose computer science again so that I could successfully be admitted by American universities, because applying for graduate study in physics in the States from China without a physics background was hopeless and it ought to be easier to switch major after getting an American degree. Unfortunately, at the end of 1999, my visa application was rejected by the US Consulate in Guangzhou, China; I tried another two times in sequence, but they were all rejected. In the next year, I had to re-apply for universities and also took some time to refresh my memory on advanced calculus and geometry, and general physics. After had painfully waited for almost a year, I finally got my US visa in the end of 2000. I then went to UPenn and began my life in North America.
Since we have already read my past related to physics after 2000, our time craft should directly fly back to our current time. Thanks everyone who joined our time travel! I would like to talk about why I selected quantum gravity, in particular Loop Quantum Gravity as my research area; however, this is not a short story, which can be clearly narrated within such a guest post. Anyway, what I wrote above should be sufficient to answer the question "why did I become a physicist".
I think my world line behaves like a damping oscillator along time, which although turns aside often from the way to be a physicist, eventually converges at being a physicist. So again, I have to say: "I simply followed my destiny."
Yidun Wan is a Ph.D. candidate affiliated with the University of Waterloo. He works on Quantum Gravity at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, under the supervision of Prof. Lee Smolin. He blogs at Road to Unification and also maintains a personal webpage here. He is currently working on unifying matter with Loop Quantum Gravity.
See also the previous contributions to the inspiration-series by
I realized that most of the guest contributions are too long to be read comfortably on screen. I have therefore put them together in a pdf-file, that you can download here. A nice Sunday evening to all of you,
Sabine ]
Why did I become a physicist? This, as normally a question for successful people, appears to be really hard for someone like me, who is still a PhD candidate with no splendid past. This is a hard question also because one can hardly answer it objectively and mathematically. However, being invited by Sabine Hossenfelder to write my answer as a guest post on her famous blog, it is my pleasure to try my best to say something, which may not be an satisfactory answer as expected by the host.Prior to my story, I would like to spend some time on the word "physicist". Why? In English, one refers to physicists as those who do research in physics, including professors, researchers, postdocs, graduate students. However, the Chinese translation of a "physicist" (and more generally, a scientist) is not merely someone, who researches in physics, but one who has contributed to physics noticeably. The Chinese counterpart of a "physicist" in English should be a "physics researcher". Therefore, considering my situation, the question I am to answer should be better understood as "why did I become a physics researcher".
If I say that I simply have followed my destiny to become a physicist, you may laugh and think I am perfunctory, since this does not sound like what a physicist should say. Nevertheless, I am just telling the truth in an efficient way. To tell more details, it is better to first outline my history. Fourteen years ago, I began my undergraduate study in China. After four years, I obtained my first Bachelor's degree in Computer Science. One year later, I got my second one in Economics. Then I started to work in some Chinese company. Six years ago, I landed on the U.S.A. and continued my study in Computer Science as a graduate student. After one year and a half, I had the opportunity to switch to physics. Hence, I took a master's degree in Computer Science and quit. In the next two years, I had been doing research in applied physics (though theoretical calculation) in Canada, which brought me a master's degree in physics. Right after this, my world line extended to doing theoretical physics at the Perimeter Institute; now I still move on in the same direction—to explore the physical nature till the singularity of my life. Having read my brief history, you may take off now if not interested in any more detail.
So ladies and gentlemen, let us begin a time travel along my world line back to the past. In the summer of 2002, I often wandered around in the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, because a critical junction of my life came to me, which put me in front of two choices: to do research in Neural Networks towards a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, and to move to the University of Ottawa in Canada and begin my academic career as a physicist. Although the former option might be able to bring me a good life with stable job and income, I chose the latter one, as you already knew. There were two reasons. The first reason, obviously, was that I could then start to realize my dream of being a physicist. (I haven't explained why I love physics, but it is coming, just be a little bit more patient in the time travel. ) The second reason was related to my personal life; my girlfriend, who became my wife in that August, was to do her master's study at the University of Ottawa, so the only way for me to keep us together should be getting into the same university. The only shortcoming of going to the University of Ottawa was that I could not do pure theoretical physics but the so-called "theoretical" Fiber Optics, since the physics department there had only research groups in applied physics. Therefore, I decided to be enrolled in the master's program only in order to move to some other place where I can do theoretical physics later. Luckily, after two years stay in Ottawa, I successfully obtained my master's degree in physics and was admitted by the University of Waterloo, and joined the Perimeter Institute to pursue research in Quantum Gravity under the supervision of Prof. Lee Smolin. Since then I have been on the right track and become what I am now: a physicist.
Life is very unpredictable and is thus fascinating; a decision, which is apparently not perfect at the moment of being made, may turn out to be perfect at a later time. Take my decision of going to Ottawa as an example; it was not perfect for sure at that time because what I truly wanted to do was theoretical and fundamental physics. However, as soon as I entered Perimeter Institute, I realized that decision was so right. Why? Before I came to Ottawa, I actually had no any real background in physics and advanced mathematics; all I knew about physics and math was what I learned from my first year undergraduate physics course, some Electromagnetism I learned by myself, calculus and some complex analysis. With such a weak background, I would easily wash out quickly if I directly jump on some graduate program of pure theoretical physics. During the 2-year stay in Ottawa, I took graduate courses like "Quantum Mechanics", "Mathematical Methods in Physics", "Statistical Mechanics", and "General Relativity", and did a great job. Interestingly, I had no any problem of understanding Quantum Mechanics. The reason, I guess, was that I never learned Classical Dynamics systematically before I encountered the quantum one. Besides taking courses, I spent a lot time on learning useful math and physics by myself. Moreover, I also did some experimental physics, which input some concrete cognition of physics to my brain. In summary, having worked hard in that two years established me a relatively ok background in physics, which was of great help to me in my first year at PI. Every time when I look back, I am grateful to my experience in Ottawa, and hence to my decision made in the summer of 2002.
Our itinerary of time travel may be mis-programmed in the computer of our spacecraft; we now stop at my childhood. Anyway, let us accept this and turn around our craft to continue our trip from here to its future. I am not very confident of my memory about very early years in my life. So we would better to start from my second year in elementary school. I remember in that year every student in my class was asked to write an essay about his/her ideal. My essay looked like a science fiction, in which I imagined the world of twenty years later, and more importantly I was a scientist, but not a physicist in particular. Frankly speaking, this does not mean that I really wanted to be a scientist at the moment. Part of the reason was that I might be too young to understand what a scientist exactly is. The other part was that "being a scientist" was a common ideal of many Chinese children at that time, since we were taught to believe that making scientific contribution to our country and even the whole world is a sublime and holy career. However, I knew that I was definitely attracted by two mysterious entities: the universe and the being. I just had been able to tell which one, the universe or the being, I was more interested in until I met a book, "the First Three Minutes" by Steven Weinberg, which influenced my life to a large extent. I clearly remember it was in some day during my first year in junior high school when I borrowed the book (certainly the Chinese version) from the civic library of my hometown. "The first Three Minutes" vividly elaborated the story within the first three minutes of our universe, from which I first got to know that our universe originates from a singularity through a Big Bang in about 1.3 billion years ago. In fact, I was not able to understand the physics in the book and did not even know who Weinberg was; nonetheless, I was completely captivated by the splendid and gorgeous scene of the early universe illustrated by the book. At the time of reading the book, astonishment, doubt, and excitement had been always possessed me; strong eagerness to fully understand everything in the book in some day spurred me to take to be a physicist decoding the universe as my life-long ideal.
Irony of ironies, I did not appear to be very talented in physics when I was a child, and even when I was a teenager. My talent in literature (of course the Chinese one) and arts seemed much better than that in physics. This situation drastically changed only after I went to university, the South China University of Technology. The consequence was that I did not choose physics, but rather computer science as my undergraduate major, although to be a physicist had always been a dream hovering in my head. Another factor caused me to major in computer science was my parents, who made the decision for me; this was pretty natural in China, at least at that time.
During my undergraduate study, China was experiencing a rapid increase of her national economy; various enterprises, domestic or multinational, emerged; people became richer and richer. This big tide of economy also impacted me; I felt that to be a good businessman sounds not bad at all. Interestingly, to be adapted to the development of the our country, my university offered a new program, which allowed excellent engineering students to also major in International trade towards a Bachelor's degree in Economics. I, one ridiculously forgot his ideal at the moment, joined the new program. After graduation, I successfully found a job and planned to establish my own business in the near future. Nevertheless, soon I realized that was not the life I really liked and wanted. Watching the night sky decorated with shiny stars, the ideal to be a physicist woke up in my mind; I decided to go abroad to look for my dream. Therefore, after having worked for about half a year, I resigned and went back home to prepare for TOEFL and GRE, which are required by most American and Canadian graduate schools. I had to choose computer science again so that I could successfully be admitted by American universities, because applying for graduate study in physics in the States from China without a physics background was hopeless and it ought to be easier to switch major after getting an American degree. Unfortunately, at the end of 1999, my visa application was rejected by the US Consulate in Guangzhou, China; I tried another two times in sequence, but they were all rejected. In the next year, I had to re-apply for universities and also took some time to refresh my memory on advanced calculus and geometry, and general physics. After had painfully waited for almost a year, I finally got my US visa in the end of 2000. I then went to UPenn and began my life in North America.
Since we have already read my past related to physics after 2000, our time craft should directly fly back to our current time. Thanks everyone who joined our time travel! I would like to talk about why I selected quantum gravity, in particular Loop Quantum Gravity as my research area; however, this is not a short story, which can be clearly narrated within such a guest post. Anyway, what I wrote above should be sufficient to answer the question "why did I become a physicist".
I think my world line behaves like a damping oscillator along time, which although turns aside often from the way to be a physicist, eventually converges at being a physicist. So again, I have to say: "I simply followed my destiny."
Yidun Wan is a Ph.D. candidate affiliated with the University of Waterloo. He works on Quantum Gravity at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, under the supervision of Prof. Lee Smolin. He blogs at Road to Unification and also maintains a personal webpage here. He is currently working on unifying matter with Loop Quantum Gravity.
See also the previous contributions to the inspiration-series by
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)