March 14, 2008
Cosmic Symphony and String Theory
Subatomic particles are notes on a vibrating string..
Physics is the laws of harmony you can write on strings..
Chemistry is the melodies you can play on vibrating strings..
Universe is a symphony of strings..
And the mind of God is cosmic music resonating through 10-11 dimensional space.
-Michio Kaku
http://www.mkaku.org/
http://www.myspace.com/mkaku
Posted by Anuj at 02:01 PM | Comments (0)
September 11, 2007
Mathematics
Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty--a beauty cold and austere, like that of a sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as in poetry. What is best in mathematics deserves not merely to be learned as a task, but to be assimilated as a part of daily thought, and brought again and again before the mind with ever-renewed encouragement. Real life is, to most men, a long second-best, a perpetual compromise between the real and the possible; but the world of pure reason knows no compromise, no practical limitations, no barrier to the creative activity embodying in splendid edifices the passionate aspiration after the perfect from which all great work springs. Remote from human passions, remote even from the pitiful facts of nature, the generations have gradually created an ordered cosmos, where pure thought can dwell as in its natural home, and where one, at least, of our nobler impulses can escape from the dreary exile of the natural world.
--Bertrand Russell
Posted by Anuj at 07:18 PM | Comments (0)
June 22, 2007
So what is a 'pe-h-dee' (PhD)? (Part I)
A question that more than 99% of the people on Earth ask more than once in their lifetime. And yet, not a clear answer ever emerges. Less than 1% of people in this world opt for the most advanced degree in Science and Engineering: the Doctor of Philosophy. Ever wonder why all these people get awarded the same basic degree even though they work in highly specialized but diverse areas with little or no overlap. Why would a Mathematician get the same degree as a Biologist? A little later I will examine this question in more detail.
The question that needs to be addressed first is: 'What is a PhD?' To be frank I didn't know the answer to this before I joined the PhD program. And I think it is very difficult to give a straight answer to this even if you have actually experienced it first hand. To most of the people outside the community, a PhD is an extended Master's. And this can enrage anyone even remotely associated with the PhD. I know it makes me pretty mad.. To put it simply, a PhD is NOTHING LIKE a Master's.
I once heard a conversation which I found very amusing. Two people were discussing about what the difference between a Master's and a PhD is. Their conclusion was as follows: ' A person pursuing a PhD is a fool. Why? Because what a Master's can do in two years..it takes a PhD to get the same thing done in five..'. These guys had no knowledge about what a PhD degree meant and were the perfect examples of 'Ignorance is bliss..'. All the more reason for me to write this article. In a way you really can't blame these guys also. I have a Master's degree, and it took me quite a long time after joining the PhD program to realize the true essence and meaning behind it.
So finally, What is the PhD degree all about? The formal definition and essence of a PhD as defined perfectly by this article is:
" To earn a Ph.D., one must accomplish two things. First, one must master a specific subject completely. Second, one must extend the body of knowledge about that subject....The essence of a Ph.D., the aspect that distinguishes Ph.D. study from other academic work, can be summarized in a single word: research. To extend knowledge, one must explore, investigate, and contemplate. The scientific community uses the term research to capture the idea. "
In a Master's one almost always works on a specific project and gets a mere glimpse into the world of research. The assumptions that go into using a particular model are stated but are rarely questioned with work done at the Master's level.
A PhD on the other hand is expected to know exactly what one is doing. He is expected to bring innovative ideas to the table and come up with something original for a problem that has intrigued him for a long time. This requires a PhD student to read all the books/papers that can be found in the particular area of interest and apply ideas to a new problem that has never been looks at. Since the student is treading in unknown waters, he is unaware of the newer problems that crop up and his aim is to solve these along the way to get to his destination. A PhD is expected to go out into the World and be able to tackle any problem that may be given to him. He is taught to break a specific problem into smaller and solvable problems, and put these back together to get answers for the bigger unsolved issues.
The reason why a PhD takes time is because of the training that goes into making one. The first few years are spent in training oneself to read the literature that is out there. In some cases the problems that need to be tackled are so new that not enough work is available for study. Small teaser problems are usually assigned to the student to get his hands dirty, which is also the best way to learn about the issues that can crop up later on. This experience is what makes the PhD study very different from anything else.
So to sum it all up a PhD student at the end of his study is a trained and experienced person who is ready to delve deeper into issues which have intrigued him during his PhD study. He is by no means an expert as it takes years and years of effort and contribution to the field of study before one can be called one. He is merely someone who knows what he will be getting into. The end of graduate study is when he knows exactly which field he can contribute to in the future and how he will go about doing it.
A PhD usually takes 5-7 years of work. 5 years is the maximum for an Engineering one whereas it takes roughly 6-7 years for a PhD in science. Most of the times it is dependent on the advisor and the kind of work being done. If the work is very fundamental (which is very difficult most of the time) then it can take quite some time. On the other hand it also depends on how well established the research group is. If the group is just starting it can take longer as all the initial set up work will be done by you. If the group already has all the resources available then your work is easier (comparatively!).
In my opinion the single most important factor in a PhD is the advisor. I have seen most people drop out of graduate study simply because of problems and clashes with their advisors. If the advisor is new and on tenure track (Assistant that is) then he/she will have a lot of driving energy and this can keep you motivated and going for a long time. On the other hand they will not be as experienced as you would want them to be. They are learning from you as much as you are from them. If the advisor has been in the field for quite some time and has a big group, then it will definitely be beneficial in terms of guidance and support. But most of the times senior Professors are extremely busy and are not really worried about publishing papers etc. (there are exceptions to this rule however!). So choosing an advisor I feel is the most important step before deciding to go graduate school. Your entire career would depend on it.
The key ingredients for PhD study are - dedication, effort, patience, strong will and love for the subject of research. I can't emphasize the importance for the last one as it is what ultimately drives the individual when everything else has failed. But remember it takes time and a lot of reading to actually know what you love. It is a search and has to be done over and over and over again till you finally find that one thing, which keeps you hooked and you spend countless hours in the lab working on it.
In this part, I have tried to convey how a PhD is different from a Master's and what the key factors to look out for before deciding to go to graduate school. In the next part I will discuss how a PhD in the Sciences(Physics/Chemistry/Math) is different from that in Engineering and what does one usually do after a PhD-a post doc, industry or academics. And why is that the most people assume a PhD will 'always' lead to one to academics.
Posted by Anuj at 07:30 PM | Comments (1)
June 20, 2006
Where do we stand?
An article in the NY Times brings to light the fast pace with which China is moving in basic sciences. It has started pumping loads of money in training researchers in areas of Physics and Mathematics. It has also been rising economically over the past few years. All in all they have realized that the only way to become a World leader is to become a excel in Science and Technology.
In all this India still lags way behind any other country when it comes to research in basic sciences. Instead we are content with the ongoing drive in the IT sector. As I had mentioned in my earlier posts a country's progress is mainly due to Science and Technology and India's needs to do something drastic to train people in Physics and Mathematics. In the past we have seen countries like the US and UK attracting scientists in large numbers. This led to the 'Scientific Revolution' in the early 80's and 90's and saw the US emerge as the scientific hub of the World.
Unfortunately India still believes that IT is the answer. I firmly believe that given this attitude, the rise of India will be shortlived. I think more money needs to go into basic sciences especially at the high school and university level. Rashmi's last few entries have been about this changing attitude among students that 'If there's nothing else to do, let's do an MBA' or 'Let's earn more money by doing an MBA'.
Indeed a sad state of affairs. Hopefully something is being done to improve this.
Posted by Anuj at 10:16 AM | Comments (0)
April 03, 2006
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
One of the greatest Astrophysicists that Science has seen or will see for a long time. It is really amazing to know that he accomplished so much at an early age (1930), yet was awarded the Nobel prize for his work only in 1983.
1930 was the year when he first came out with theory of the maximum mass that a white dwarf can have which came to be known as the Chandrasekhar limit. For those who are unaware-white dwarfs are a class of stars which have a mass between 0.5 and 1.4 times the mass of sun. It is typically formed when a heavier star radiates its energy and starts to cool down. If the mass of the star lies in the limit above, it settles down as a white dwarf. There are many reasons why this happens but I won't go into them.
The amazing thing about his work is that it is impeccable and very systematic and logical. All his papers and articles are methodical and the results logically derived. It's very difficult to achieve this kind of clarity of thought and understanding, but then again we are talking about a legend.
I can see many parallels between him and Feynman in terms of being methodical and clear. Inarguably one of the greatest minds in Physics Chandrasekhar truly inspires me. His biography is next on my list to read. Some of his work I am already reading and find it fascinating.
Some links :
1. White Dwarf
2. S. Chandrasekhar - As I knew him : A nice article by one of his former students
3. Chandra Observatory : The X-ray Observatory named after him
4. Chandra : A biography
Posted by Anuj at 05:02 PM | Comments (0)
March 03, 2006
Pioneers in Science
Its always overwhelming to meet/listen some of the biggest names in your field or outside. I have had the oppurtunity to meet some of the greatest minds in the fields of nanoscience, chemistry, physics, mathematics. I was just trying to remember some of these names and thought I should pen them down.
1. Dr. Mildred Dresselhaus - Professor of Physics and Elec Engg. at MIT
Well know for her contribution to the field of Carbon materials esp. Carbon Nanotubes, Raman Spectroscopy, Estimation of properties and characterization, she's has 21 honorary degrees and more than 60 PhD's have graduated from under her, she also won the coveted National Medal of Science. A true legend and an inspiring person. I attended her lecture only last Wednesday.
2. Dr. Thomas Kane - Emeritus Professor of Mech Engg. at Stanford
He known for his newest approach to Dynamics, called Kane's Dynamics after Newtonian, Lagrangian and then Hamiltonian Dynamics. I met him when I was at Knoxville. A truly exceptional genius and a very nice man.
3. Dr. Stephen Wolfram - Creator of Mathematica and Wolfram Research
I had attended his lecture last year. He is one of the brightest young minds of today, got his PhD at the age of 20 from Caltech in Theoretical Physics. He has been working for more than 10 years now on his thoery of Cellular Automata and says he is closer to answering all the questions of Theoretical Physics which have haunted scientists for ages now. Most people contend this, including me, but that does not stop him from being a genius.
4. Dr. Jacob Israelachvili - Professor of Chemical Engg. and Chemistry at UCSB
I was a part of small group of people who attended a small workshop at Oak Ridge National Labs and was honored to meet this great legend. I had been reading his book on Intermolecular forces and was really overwhelmed to see him talk to us. His contributions to the science of Surface Chemistry, Nanotribology, Friction at Nanoscale have been tremendous.
5. Dr. Uzi Landman - Professor of Physics at Gatech
At the same ORNL meeting I also got a chance to listen to Professor Uzi Landman. Winner of the Feynman Prize of Nanotechnology, Dr. Landman has been instrumental in bringing us closer to the dreams of a nano world. His contributions have been in Hydrodynamics, physics of materials and Nanoscience.
I shall keep updating this list as and when I meet other great legends of our time.
Posted by Anuj at 09:59 AM | Comments (0)
September 11, 2005
Global Warming--Glaciers melting
I continue my interest in Global Warming by bringing this article from the CNN news website, which talks about the melting of the Gangotri glacier in the Himalayan ranges. This glacier brings water to parts of Northern India, Nepal, China and many other countries in South Asia. Scientists estimate that in another 50 to 100 years the glacier could melt completely depleting the region of its biggest source of water supply. And all 'thanks' to the catastrophic effect of Global Warming.
Read more on this here:
Photo Courtesy: CNN.com
Posted by Anuj at 03:01 PM | Comments (0)
August 29, 2005
El Nino and La Nina
As hurricane Katrina continues to batter the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, the worse is yet to come. The cities of Mobile, New Orleans and Baton Rouge are right now flooded with close to 5-6 and in many places more than 10 feet of water. Let's pray for the people battling with the fury of nature.
A more serious question which has been raised is over the dramatically changing climatic conditions on Earth for the past few years. Everyone knows about Global Warming and yet chooses to ignore it. This article in Time raised a few questions in the relation between the storms and the warming effect. It has been estimated that the hurricanes have become more than 50% stronger in the past few years and this could only be the beginning.
I also happened to come across this very strange phenomenon called El Nino. It is a sort of disturbance or fluctuation in the Southern Pacific Ocean which causes the formation of warm water puddles over colder waters. This could have strange effects such as flooding in many places and droughts in others. Since the ocean temperatures are warmer in this region, it could become a potential site for hurricanes and tropical storms. Another effect of global warming. The surprising thing is that the exact cause is unknown. A number of sites are dedicated to this study and more information can be found on them.
I beleive every one of us is morally responsible to care for our planet. We need to act fast and act strongly to save the planet from the effects of burning fossil fuels and look for alternate sources of energy. Else the day is not very far when Earth would return to the same fiery ball of fire it once was.....
El Nino information sites:
1. Wikipedia
2. PBS
3. NOAA
4. National Academy of Sciences
Posted by Anuj at 05:28 PM | Comments (0)
July 19, 2005
Professor Richard Feynman
One of the greatest theoritical physicists of the 20th century, Feynman is widely known in the Physics community for his unconventional teaching methods. He said,
" What I cannot create, I do not understand! "
I find his lectures on Physics the best source of first hand layman explanation of phenomena around us. The other books written on his life talk about his mischievous nature and playful banter.
Among these I came across the set of lectures he gave at The Univ. of Auckland, New Zealand in 1979 where he talks about the theory of light, electromagnetism and QED (Quantum Electrodynamics, the theory of interactions of photons and electrons etc.) for which he won the Nobel prize in 1965. I think this is a must for everyone interested in Physics as it not only helps to understand the concepts in a very simplistic manner, but also gives an insight into the kind of happy-go-lucky man Feynman was. I loved the first lecture and will listen to the others asap.
Posted by Anuj at 03:29 PM | Comments (1)
Maximum Entropy or Equilibrium?
A few days ago a friend of mine asked me this question,
" Why does everything tend towards an equilibrium? "
Now basic laws of physics always tell us that everything in nature if left alone would lead to a maximum state of entropy, increase in disorder, an equilibrated state and a decrease in free energy or useful work avaliable. But why should this always happen is somehow governed by the second law of thermodynamics. The question of why this has to be true becomes philosophical and I don't think anyone has an answer.
Looking at the other end if one takes one's life, everything is governed by order, patterns and in a way decrease in entropy. Nobel prize winner Albert Szent-Gyorgyi who isolated Vitamin C said,
" Life is a paradox . . . the most basic rule of inanimate nature is that it tends toward equilibrium which is at the maximum of entropy and the minimum of free energy. The main characteristic of life is that it tends to decrease its entropy. It also tends to increase its free energy. Maximum entropy means complete randomness, disorder. Life is made possible by order, structure, a pattern, which is the opposite of entropy. This pattern is our chief possession; it was developed over billions of years. The main aim of our existence is its conservation and transmission. Life is a revolt against the statistical rules of physics. Death means that the revolt subsided and statistical laws resumed their sway. "
Now what I think is that even though the entropy is decreasing, the overall entropy is always increasing taking into account the entropy of the surroundings or nature. But it is still baffling.
The current work on finding a unified theory of everything by uniting all the fundamental forces of nature (mainly gravity with the electromagnetic forces) would explain quite a few things. Also fundamental work towards non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems would also help in better understanding of equilibrium and the interplay between energy and entropy.
Posted by Anuj at 11:48 AM | Comments (1)
February 15, 2005
Stephen Wolfram and his "New Kind of Science"
I just came back from a lecture by Stephen Wolfram. For those that are unfamiliar he is the inventor I should say of Mathematica and founder of Wolfram Research which is the company which sells it. Mathematica is a mathematical program which is used in a wide variety of ways to do mathematical computations like Integrate, Differentiate, Plot etc., much like Maple or Matlab.
Now Stephen Wolfram is a child prodigy. He graduated from Caltech and got his PhD at the age of 20 (which is something amazing considering that I might finish mine when I am 30 :-)) But nevertheless his talk today was on his new book "A New Kind of Science" where he proposes to have discovered the causes of many complex phenomena in many simple models. By using his theory of "Cellular Automata" he even proposes that we could someday find even the reason for the very existence of the Universe. Ofcourse the book has not been accepted very widely among the scientific community and you could read loads of reviews on Amazon or search in google and find this. But he sounded very confident today that things he says are true.
Some of them are and I found most of his slides today similar to ones I have seen in the book by James Gleick "Chaos" which I reviewed sometime back. The mandelbrot set was there, the snowflakes, the julia sets, the turbulence experiments etc. And he has been widely criticized for this very fact that he is discovering nothing new. He is merely tweaking the parameters of some simple nonlinear equations to get results which are diversely different yet have a definite pattern.
But I still enjoyed his talk. I might end up not buying the book as the book speaks only about Cellular Automata and how this theory would solve everything. I don't beleive that is true, but I do beleive that nature is built on a set of fundamental rules and it is the set of all the rules and their permutations that produce complex behavior. But man is very far away from deducing them. As you unfold nature it will become more and more complicated and hit back at you. But again that's the whole point of research!
Posted by Anuj at 08:34 PM | Comments (0)
January 21, 2005
Unusual weather
Sarath just sent an amazing story about the unusual weather hitting the world. Well some of the things seemed unusal. Anyways check it the article here.
Well "Day after tomorrow" may be true after all ! We just have to wait and see.
Posted by Anuj at 03:26 PM | Comments (0)