In the late 1800s and early 1900s, classical theories of physics began to crumble in light of new evidence accumulated by experiments on the quantum scale. The new explanations proposed at the time irked some of the biggest names in physics, mathematics, and philosophy.
For example, Poincare's philosophy of science was based on what philosophers call instrumentalism, which dismisses unobservable entities. (see for example the paper by Milena Ivanova) This viewpoint is dismissive of the reality of atoms because they are not directly observed. Even when the evidence mounted, Milena Ivanova argues that, "...Poincaré’s paper motivates a non-fundamentalist view about the world, and that this is compatible with his structuralism. ... Poincaré advanced structural realism, which commits one to the structural claims of scientific theories and not the claims regarding unobservable entities." In other words, the theory describes what is observed in terms of a mathematical structure, but the observation does not imply, for example, that atoms - an assumption underpinning the theory - exist.
The early 1900s must have been an exciting time of discovery. Scientists had to shed their preconceived notion about certainty and absolute space. I wonder if I would have been a staunch supporter of the status quo or if I would have accepted the new way of thinking. We'll never know, though I'm sure many of us would fancy ourselves falling on the right side of history.
Quantum mechanics became accepted as the theory of atoms and molecules because of its success in predicting atomic spectra and differential scattering cross-sections. As such, the underlying structure of atoms and molecules as suggested by the theory have become accepted as reality. Our classical view and intuition about the world falls apart at the quantum scale. Electrons are not tiny point-like particles whose position and momenta can be simultaneously determined to arbitrary precision.
The rates of thermodynamic processes are typically accelerated when the
temperature is increased, but we find a dramatic decrease in the rates
of self healing when we turn up the heat. Many such strange things
characterize the underlying process.
In the modern era, physicists picture a single electron in an atom as a fuzzy cloud rather than the old planetary picture of one tiny particle orbiting a nucleus. An electron can pass simultaneously through two slits in a wall and two particles can be entangled so that measuring the spin of one particle instantaneously determines the spin of another one on the other side of the universe. Observations like these are so commonplace that we accept them without question.
We have warmed to the reality of something very bizarre because all measurements support this view. Is it really that way? I would respond, yes, because reality is probed by observation, even if by indirect means. Because of the theory's great success, it is assumed to work for highly complex systems even when it is impossible to test the theory because of our computational limitations and inaccurate experiments.
In my field of nonlinear optics, we measure the nonlinear susceptibilities of molecules and compare them with theory. However, the measurements have large experimental uncertainties and the calculations use approximation techniques that render the calculations imprecise. It would be wonderful if experiments and calculations could reliably reach 10% uncertainties. In many cases, it's more like 25-50% uncertainty. Contrast this with the test of quantum electrodynamics in which theory and experiments agree to 12 decimal places. That is an amazing theory!
One of our projects seeks to understand the self-healing process and our experiments suggest that strange things are at work. When a material is burned with light, it does not recover just like ashes don't recombine into a log from which they came. We have been observing self-healing of molecules after being burned with highly intense light. Though this may seem weird to most physicists, it is commonplace in our lab, where we have been observing the phenomena for over a decade. The rates of thermodynamic processes are typically accelerated when the temperature is increased, but we find a dramatic decrease in the rates of self healing when we turn up the heat. Many such strange things characterize the underlying process.
As described in a previous post, we postulated that molecules in the company of others heal more quickly. We call these groupings domains. At elevated temperatures, thermal jiggling breaks up the domains and therefore self healing is suppressed. Do domains really exist? We haven't seen a domain but every measurement is consistent with the predictions of the theory. In other words, the mathematical structure corresponds to the reality of what we are measuring. At what point can we say that domains actually exist in our samples?
It takes lots of evidence for a theory to be accepted as the true description of a phenomena, and the picture that it suggests starts to become accepted slowly as the theory predicts other phenomena that were not intentionally added to the theory when it was originally formulated. For example, the famous Dirac Equation accurately predicts all of the relativistic corrections to the hydrogen atom, and naturally includes spin, which in the Schrodinger theory needs to be separately added -- an inelegant solution.
Dirac's theory of the electron worked flawlessly, but also had a major defect; it had negative energy solutions that were not observed. Dirac perseverated over this flaw and tried many approaches to sweep the problem under the proverbial rug. The negative energy solutions were later shown to be those of the positron, the anti-particle to the electron. The Dirac equation in effect predicted the existence of antimatter. Dirac quipped that his equation was smarter than him.
While to the best of our knowledge, the domain theory of self healing has not been making any new predictions, we have been testing it in new ways. One of my students (Ben) wrote a dissertation that focused on measurements of self healing under the influence of an electric field. An electric field induces an electric dipole moment in a molecule. The molecules in a domain will then interact with each other through the electric fields generated by the induced dipole moments. It is straightforward to calculate the energy of interaction, and thus determine if a domain grows or gets torn apart by the electric field.
Ben's calculations of the effect of the electric field on the distribution of domains in a sample, and thus it's healing properties, agrees well with his experiments. As the evidence accumulates, the domain model is not only holding up well, but predicts with reasonable precision what we observe.
The problem is that we have not actually "seen" a domain. It may be possible to do scattering experiments in which particles such as neutrons probe the microscopic structure of a domain. We have also been trying to come up with an explanation of the nature of a domain and how it is held together. My preferred picture is that a domain is made of molecules that are attached to a polymer chain (the domain model suggests wispy string-like domains and not clumps) rather than a string of molecules connected to each other. Our model allows us to determine the binding energy of a molecule to a domain, and experiments show it to be in the ballpark of hydrogen binding energies between molecule and polymer.
There is even a more intriguing possibility. This system may be exhibiting a phenomena that arises from the complexity of the system, and cannot be reduced to a description in terms of simpler units. Perhaps the picture of bonds and molecules starts falling apart when many large molecules interact with each other and with long polymer chains. The bond, which chemists hold sacred, is not as sacred as the Schrodinger equation, but rather a convenient form of book keeping that helps chemists understand what molecules are formed in reactions between smaller units.
Chances are that the explanation of the phenomena is more mundane than we propose. At worst case, we may be deluding ourselves into seeing something that is not there. We won't know until we do lots more work and other researchers test our models with new experiments.
too much research these days is focused on narrow topics, so new and interesting work might be missed simply because it falls outside the mainstream.
Our group enjoys the luxury of having a huge lead in this area of research. We may be sitting on a very interesting discovery. Though my talented grad students have done lots of excellent work to eliminate hypotheses, we are still puzzled by what we are observing. We continue to whittle away the false hypotheses in our quest to uncover the truth.
This lead is a two-edged sword. Our paper on the affect of the electric field on self-healing, which we submitted to Physical Review E and which appears on the Physics Archives, has been sent to half a dozen reviewers, all of whom have turned down the request to review. The editors subsequently notified us that they were going through a second wave of review requests. Because we are so far ahead, other researchers may not understand our work. Another unfortunate consequence of our sequential series of papers is that we reference a large number of our own papers. This is unavoidable since we have done all of the foundational work on the topic. But, it raises eyebrows in the community, which makes us cringe. However, I am happy to report that our paper eventually got two reviewers who made some good suggestions that we implemented, and the paper is in print.
I believe that too much research these days is focused on narrow topics, so new and interesting work might be missed simply because it falls outside the mainstream. Perhaps the huge success of science has lead to such a high volume of activity that researchers can only understand work in their own narrow area of specialization. We are too busy studying the scales to see the huge serpent wriggling in our midst. This is not to say that one research paradigm should be pursued at the exclusion of all others.
A balance needs to be struck between detailed narrow work, which can miss the big stuff, and broader investigations, which may temporarily lead us astray but eventually lead to something big. Though the process is sloppy, science has a way of eventually sorting through the trash and finding the real gems. Hopefully, my lifetime commitment to the process will eventually uncover something of value. Even if I fail, I take comfort in the fact that we are all part of a highly interconnected human network, where each part contributes to the success of the whole.
We must take pleasure in the process of discovery, give it our best shot, and see where it takes us. I am fortunate to be part of the most incredible journey, keeping me excited throughout my life. I still suffer fitful nights, being kept awake by ideas running around my head and starting the morning with impatience for all the administrative obligations that keep me away from my true passion. The professorial life still gives a fair amount of time and more importantly encouragement to pursue the big ideas, giving me the resolve to pursue my ideas even if in a quixotic manner. For this I am eternally grateful.
Showing posts with label physics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label physics. Show all posts
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Thanking the editor for rejecting our paper
Here is an email that I sent to an editor who rejected our paper. The names have been changed to hide the identity of the journal and editor. I probably should not have removed the names because the "lord almighty protects the innocent as a matter of daily routine" - from, The Sirens of Titan, by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Dear Editor,
I am writing this letter to you directly, and not through the editorial office, to commend you on your work as editor of Journal X. I know that this is a tough job and papers such as the one my colleague Prof. Awesome submitted to you take lots of time and effort to adjudicate; and, are emotionally taxing, taking us away from what we love - doing Physics.
I just wanted to let you know that although you rejected our paper, I believe that you did so for all the right reasons, balancing the requirements of the journal with the input you got from the referees. We understand that our work overlaps a little bit with lots of areas, making it too mathematically complex for quantum chemists, has applications in nonlinear optics which graph people do not appreciate, and deals with abstract objects that main-stream nonlinear opticians know nothing about. Though we believe that the work is significant, the field needs to develop for there to be a critical mass of researchers that can appreciate the topic. As such, I agree with your assessment that though the paper may be correct, it will probably go unnoticed for many years.
Again, we appreciate your efforts and the thoughtful manner in which you approached our paper. I hope that our paths will someday cross and wish you all the best for the new year.
Regards,
Mark
Dear Editor,
I am writing this letter to you directly, and not through the editorial office, to commend you on your work as editor of Journal X. I know that this is a tough job and papers such as the one my colleague Prof. Awesome submitted to you take lots of time and effort to adjudicate; and, are emotionally taxing, taking us away from what we love - doing Physics.
I just wanted to let you know that although you rejected our paper, I believe that you did so for all the right reasons, balancing the requirements of the journal with the input you got from the referees. We understand that our work overlaps a little bit with lots of areas, making it too mathematically complex for quantum chemists, has applications in nonlinear optics which graph people do not appreciate, and deals with abstract objects that main-stream nonlinear opticians know nothing about. Though we believe that the work is significant, the field needs to develop for there to be a critical mass of researchers that can appreciate the topic. As such, I agree with your assessment that though the paper may be correct, it will probably go unnoticed for many years.
Again, we appreciate your efforts and the thoughtful manner in which you approached our paper. I hope that our paths will someday cross and wish you all the best for the new year.
Regards,
Mark
-- Mark G. Kuzyk Regents Professor of Physics, Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164-2814 Phone: 509-335-4672 Fax: 509-335-7816 Web Page: www.NLOsource.com
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Update on Nasty Review
My last post focused on the nasty reviews of our manuscript and my former student's paper at another journal. Thanks for all of your comments. The consensus is that the two nasty reviews were written by the same person and that the editor may indeed be the same reviewer.
I sent a letter on 8/1/13 to the journal editors of our paper, which is reproduced below, with all names removed, except mine:
Dear Editors,
I am writing to you in your capacity as editors of the JOURNAL X. This communication is not an appeal of an editorial decision, but to report what I believe to be gross misconduct of an anonymous reviewer and an endorsement of this review by what appears to be an anonymous member of the editorial board. I request that this complaint be kept separate from our manuscript file, which we are appealing through the normal channels.
One of the reviews borders on libel, stating "...they bend and distort basic procedures in perturbation theory and throw in out-of-context concepts and other spicy statements without the slightest concern for the basics and in fact the ethics," without supporting evidence for this serious allegation. All statements by this reviewer that are specific are totally off the mark and oblivious to the actual contents of the paper. More egregious is the statement from the anonymous editor that (s)he agrees with a review filled with personal attacks, flippant comments and unfounded accusations; and, chooses to ignore the positive review that accurately describes the technical details of the work.
A review should focus on pointing out specific scientific issues in a manuscript rather than being a ranting blog that attacks the reputation of the authors; and, the editors are responsible for upholding the integrity of the process. Shame on the editors and JOURNAL X for this unprofessional behavior.
I look forward to hearing the results of your investigation of this incident and the actions that you plan to take to avoid this unacceptable outcome in the future.
Sincerely,
Mark G. Kuzyk
As of the date of writing this post, I have not heard from the editors of this journal. I next sent a letter to the editors of both journals on 8/5/13, shown below:
Dear Editors,
A potentially serious issue with the review process has come to my attention in which the evidence shows that a referee is rejecting papers based on the associations of the authors, independent of the quality of the science. This does not appear to be an isolated incident, but is an intentional and systematic campaign to undermine the work of any researcher that is or has been associated with my research group. Such inexcusable behavior undermines the integrity of the peer review process.
My former PhD student, Great Student, and I have noticed similarities between a reviewer's comments (attached) on one of his manuscripts, submitted to JOURNAL 1, and our paper (below), submitted to JOURNAL 2. In particular, the referee(s) uses the same wording and makes similar complaints, attacking the character of the researchers without evidence. Comments about the science are nonspecific, using colorful language and ranting rather than well reasoned arguments. I have attached both reviews so that you can form your own conclusions. At minimum, I would hope that the editors of both journals will share the identity of the reviewer(s) to determine if they are the same individual or related individuals, and if so, to take appropriate action to prevent recurrence.
A referee that systematically undermines the review process needs to be censured to ensure that this type of behavior does not become common practice. I am deeply disturbed that such reviews passed through the editorial process. I await the results of your investigation.
Note that I sent a letter to the editors of the JOURNAL 2 on Friday before Dr. Great Student alerted me to the review of his JOURNAL 1 paper.
Sincerely,
Mark G. Kuzyk
On 8/9/13, I got a letter from the editors of the journal that is considering the paper of my former student and junior colleague.
I responded that same day, as reproduced below:
Dear Dr. Editor,
I fully agree with your analysis and the course of action that you are taking. This gives me complete confidence that JOURNAL 1 will continue to be a journal that I can trust will treat all manuscripts fairly and make decisions based on the science.
I thank you for taking quick action in this matter and look forward to its resolution.
Sincerely,
Mark G. Kuzyk
I believe that the silence of the of the journal that rejected our paper based on the nasty reviewer speaks volumes about that organization. Rather than immediately acknowledging that there is a problem and to let us know that they are investigating the procedure that lead to this unacceptable outcome, they appear to be stalling while deciding how to save face. I hope that I am wrong.
As usual, I welcome your opinions.
I sent a letter on 8/1/13 to the journal editors of our paper, which is reproduced below, with all names removed, except mine:
Dear Editors,
I am writing to you in your capacity as editors of the JOURNAL X. This communication is not an appeal of an editorial decision, but to report what I believe to be gross misconduct of an anonymous reviewer and an endorsement of this review by what appears to be an anonymous member of the editorial board. I request that this complaint be kept separate from our manuscript file, which we are appealing through the normal channels.
One of the reviews borders on libel, stating "...they bend and distort basic procedures in perturbation theory and throw in out-of-context concepts and other spicy statements without the slightest concern for the basics and in fact the ethics," without supporting evidence for this serious allegation. All statements by this reviewer that are specific are totally off the mark and oblivious to the actual contents of the paper. More egregious is the statement from the anonymous editor that (s)he agrees with a review filled with personal attacks, flippant comments and unfounded accusations; and, chooses to ignore the positive review that accurately describes the technical details of the work.
A review should focus on pointing out specific scientific issues in a manuscript rather than being a ranting blog that attacks the reputation of the authors; and, the editors are responsible for upholding the integrity of the process. Shame on the editors and JOURNAL X for this unprofessional behavior.
I look forward to hearing the results of your investigation of this incident and the actions that you plan to take to avoid this unacceptable outcome in the future.
Sincerely,
Mark G. Kuzyk
As of the date of writing this post, I have not heard from the editors of this journal. I next sent a letter to the editors of both journals on 8/5/13, shown below:
Dear Editors,
A potentially serious issue with the review process has come to my attention in which the evidence shows that a referee is rejecting papers based on the associations of the authors, independent of the quality of the science. This does not appear to be an isolated incident, but is an intentional and systematic campaign to undermine the work of any researcher that is or has been associated with my research group. Such inexcusable behavior undermines the integrity of the peer review process.
My former PhD student, Great Student, and I have noticed similarities between a reviewer's comments (attached) on one of his manuscripts, submitted to JOURNAL 1, and our paper (below), submitted to JOURNAL 2. In particular, the referee(s) uses the same wording and makes similar complaints, attacking the character of the researchers without evidence. Comments about the science are nonspecific, using colorful language and ranting rather than well reasoned arguments. I have attached both reviews so that you can form your own conclusions. At minimum, I would hope that the editors of both journals will share the identity of the reviewer(s) to determine if they are the same individual or related individuals, and if so, to take appropriate action to prevent recurrence.
A referee that systematically undermines the review process needs to be censured to ensure that this type of behavior does not become common practice. I am deeply disturbed that such reviews passed through the editorial process. I await the results of your investigation.
Note that I sent a letter to the editors of the JOURNAL 2 on Friday before Dr. Great Student alerted me to the review of his JOURNAL 1 paper.
Sincerely,
Mark G. Kuzyk
On 8/9/13, I got a letter from the editors of the journal that is considering the paper of my former student and junior colleague.
Dear Dr. Kuzyk, I am writing in response to your recent email regarding the referee report on XXXXXXX "Great Paper" by Great Student et al. Let me first thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. Of course you know, the referee process can only really function if editors, authors and referees all act professionally and in good faith. A breakdown of that professionalism is of course very disturbing and warrants our immediate attention. I feel strongly that an author has the right to see all reports on his/her manuscript. Regardless of what an editor might think of a report, it is still information that plays into the editor's decision on a manuscript, whether consciously or subconsciously. Therefore, I do feel very strongly that no report should be suppressed 100%, although I have edited reports in the past to remove inflammatory statements. In this particular case, there was no way to edit the report. However, the quasi-form letter I sent that accompanied the referee report did indicate that a new referee would be consulted. As you hopefully appreciate, editors are not "vote counters" but try to carefully weigh all evidence before rendering judgment on a manuscript and will often essentially discount a report (as I am willing to say I will in this case). With regards to this particular report, I am in agreement with you that the tone of the reports are similar, as well as the language. I have written an email to be sent to the editors of the OTHER JOURNAL, sharing the referee report on XXXXX and your recent email, and requesting the name of that referee. Please rest assured that I will investigate this situation and, if I suspect unethical behavior, I will pass this up to the appropriate people within ORGANIZATION XXX. Again, thank you for bringing this unpleasant situation to my attention. Sincerely, Reasonable Editor
I responded that same day, as reproduced below:
Dear Dr. Editor,
I fully agree with your analysis and the course of action that you are taking. This gives me complete confidence that JOURNAL 1 will continue to be a journal that I can trust will treat all manuscripts fairly and make decisions based on the science.
I thank you for taking quick action in this matter and look forward to its resolution.
Sincerely,
Mark G. Kuzyk
I believe that the silence of the of the journal that rejected our paper based on the nasty reviewer speaks volumes about that organization. Rather than immediately acknowledging that there is a problem and to let us know that they are investigating the procedure that lead to this unacceptable outcome, they appear to be stalling while deciding how to save face. I hope that I am wrong.
As usual, I welcome your opinions.
Monday, July 15, 2013
April 10, 2013
"You better come right away," said the voice over the phone.
My statistical mechanics class was meeting in an hour, so I was reviewing my notes. It took a moment for those words to come into focus as my mind crept out of those deep recesses where physics lives and thrives.
I knew that my father had been hospitalized for a couple days for a severe headache and nausea, but this was nothing new. He occasionally would visit the ER for one thing or another, but it always ended up being benign; such as falling from a dizzy spell caused by dehydration (he never liked to drink water). He seemed invincible. Though he was just a couple months shy of his 97th birthday, he was still serving lunch to seniors at the Ukrainian Center, driving his own car, and being aware of the price of gas at every nearby station.
I never pictured it ending this way.
The rest of the morning is a blur. Somehow, I called my wife and my two grown children to give them the news and booked plane tickets for the next morning. We flew from three different airports, converged in Salt Lake City and were on the plane together to Philadelphia.
I decided to teach that morning. Physics always has a calming influence. It is difficult to explain to others who do not share in this passion how physics brings deep satisfaction and even comfort. The beauty of the narrative of nature as expressed by equations. We are surrounded by order that can be quantified and explained, encompassing all in a grand embrace. Puzzles today are like the excitement in the novelty of a new relationship. As one puzzle is solved another one takes its place, like a spouse that never ceases to amaze and delight. Always there; rock solid, and reliable with predictable unpredictability.
That one-hour class went by quickly. Thoughts of my father persisted, but was calm and secure as a child shielded by her parents.
The previous weekend I had devoted a few hours to calculating the wave functions of a many-particle quantum system in terms of the single particle wave functions. This calculation is not novel and appears in many textbooks; but, I never understand anything well unless I calculate it for myself. I transcribed my notes into a LaTeX file (a scientific typesetting program) for my records. Below is a screen capture of part of the document's first page.
I printed a handout for my group and preapred a Power Point version for a group meeting that was to be held at 3:00 pm that surreal day.
Lively discussions prolonged the one-hour talk to two hours -- my physics-induced euphoria amplified many-fold by their participation. I still remember this group meeting fondly though a darkness hovered in the periphery.
I had lots to prepare. Packing was the least of my worries. The doctor had asked about my father's living will; a concept never taken seriously by my father. The responsibility of my power of attorney over his well-being weighed heavily on me. I wanted to make the right decision. I needed to get into his head.
Though my father has a grumpy demeanor, I know that he enjoys life -- complaining, one of his pleasures. Just a week before his stroke, a retired social worker at the Ukrainian Center witnessed one of his dizzy spells and confiscated his car keys. He called me every day to complain and asked over and over how he would get around without his car. Having mobility is still very important to him. So, having the hope of returning to at least a semi-independent lifestyle was important. During that trip back east, I played over and over again the conversation I would have with his doctors.
When we arrived in his hospital room, he was a gray bag of jelly; not just tiny psychically but drained of life. He had always been energetic, detesting inertia, wielding strength. Here was a meek and helpless being, attached to beeping machines and tubes. In that first minute, tears flowed like huge rivers from the eyes of my wife, daughter, and even my son, who rarely shows emotion. I don't recall my son ever shedding a tear, even as a child. I held it in. I had to be strong and keep a clear head for my discussions with the doctors.
My daughter stared up at me through her tears, disapprovingly, "why aren't you shedding even one tear?" She is so much like my mother, who passed away 23 years ago, seeing me through those same eyes. My mother would have said the same thing.
The nurses kept on shaking my father, trying to bring back consciousness, but unsuccessfully. The prognoses for someone his age with a stroke is not great, they told me, but we should still try to stimulate him.
He always loved music, so we played a medley on our phones.
He perked up. His eyes were closed but you could tell from the tension in his brow that he was listening. Someone was in there.
I sang my rendition of the Ukrainian National Anthem. I could see him paying attention. His head tilted slightly and he opened his eyes, which stared blankly without focus. He was clearly listening. I continued to sing with greater vigor.
When I reached the end of the Anthem, his head fell gently back to the pillow, turning his head to me, his eyes still de-focused and glazed over. He inhaled heavily, crumpled his face as if smelling a putrid odor, and said firmly, "You STILL don't know the lyrics," making clear his disdain for my imperfection. I was giggling.
He was always angry with me for not embracing his love for everything Ukrainian, and this was always a sore topic that I tried to avoid. Now, his wrath was welcome. He was back. Over the next three days, he continued to improve and was almost his old self, but with the need for physical therapy to build his muscles after two weeks of being in bed.
I visited him again when he was moved from the hospital to a nursing home for rehab. He hated the place, with the loud synthesizer music alarm blaring each time he tried to stand up. It is understandable that the precaution is necessary for his own protection when one-on-one attention is not possible. Nevertheless, he felt like a prisoner and resented being restricted to his room most of the day and forbidden to walk.
The first day I visited him in rehab, he seemed much better than at the hospital. At times he was tired and slept, at other times, he talked about all sorts of things, fully aware of the fact that he had had a stroke. Below is a photo of my father in the back garden of the nursing home.
I found the nursing home depressing -- lucid individuals with fragile bodies waiting to expire, surrounded by others with a variety of aliments including not-so-old residents with advanced dementia, staring blankly into space, others screaming in terror for no apparent reason. The nurses, doctors, and medical professionals are very good. The head nurse spent lots of time with me reviewing the details about my father's condition and what to expect. It was the atmosphere that made me desperately want to extract my father from that horrible place, but he needed therapy to regain some weight and physical strength. A few weeks ago, he was finally out. I even saw him walking with a cane on Skype!
I'm heading back to Philadelphia to bring my father to Pullman for my daughter's wedding. She was deeply traumatized by his illness and the frailty that had conquered his invincibility. She knew that her marriage was very meaningful to him as it is to her, so she and her fiance accelerated their wedding plans so that he could be included while still lucid and gaining enough vigor to travel.
To our delight, my father is looking forward to the wedding and talks about it every time I call him. Now we are agonizing about whether we should keep him in Pullman or return him to Philly after the wedding.
It's difficult to decide what is best for him. He still has a life with his friends. He goes to the Ukrainian center twice a week for the senior lunch, where he chats with his friends. On Sundays, he goes to a Ukrainian church. In Pullman he has us, but we are pessimistic about being able to keep him at our home. We have lots of stairs and have to be at work during the day to teach. There are no Ukrainian speaking people we could hire to sit with him when we are away, and he is so stubborn, refusing to speak English, which he spoke his whole working life.
In Pullman, he has us, and we could have him over for dinner every day and take him out on weekends. And, we are his family. In Philadelphia, he has a Ukrainian couple watch him while his caretaker is at work and is somewhat of a celebrity with his friends. He can talk about the good old days and be assured of a choir of amens. We, on the other hand, need to work evenings so don't have the luxury of lounging around in idle chatter.
My immediate concern is my ability to care for him during his stay in Pullman. He has several medical conditions that a non-medical person such as I view with great trepidation. Then there are the logistics. What if he gets fatigued at the time of the wedding and we can't wake him to the ceremony? What if he gets sick on the plane?
By writing now, I am procrastinating. The wedding is in a week and I am at Salt Lake City waiting for my flight to Philly. My final report is due on a grant and 3 dissertations await my reading, all due in a week! But, with all the stress, writing about it seems to release some pressure.
As usual, the occasional calculation with pen and pencil takes me to my own cozy corner, like chatting with an old friend at a fireplace sipping on a hot beverage. And reading theses, while time consuming, can also be rewarding, especially when I can see how far the students have come and all the fine work that was generated by our collective minds. The excitement of the work, the upcoming wedding, and my father's visit all are events to celebrate. The happiness is peppered with concerns about how my decisions will affect my father's long-term well-being. And more immediately, will I be able to handle the challenges before me over the next week.
I am about to board, and plan to spend the 4+ hours on the plane working.
Gotta catch my plane...
My statistical mechanics class was meeting in an hour, so I was reviewing my notes. It took a moment for those words to come into focus as my mind crept out of those deep recesses where physics lives and thrives.
I knew that my father had been hospitalized for a couple days for a severe headache and nausea, but this was nothing new. He occasionally would visit the ER for one thing or another, but it always ended up being benign; such as falling from a dizzy spell caused by dehydration (he never liked to drink water). He seemed invincible. Though he was just a couple months shy of his 97th birthday, he was still serving lunch to seniors at the Ukrainian Center, driving his own car, and being aware of the price of gas at every nearby station.
I never pictured it ending this way.
The rest of the morning is a blur. Somehow, I called my wife and my two grown children to give them the news and booked plane tickets for the next morning. We flew from three different airports, converged in Salt Lake City and were on the plane together to Philadelphia.
I decided to teach that morning. Physics always has a calming influence. It is difficult to explain to others who do not share in this passion how physics brings deep satisfaction and even comfort. The beauty of the narrative of nature as expressed by equations. We are surrounded by order that can be quantified and explained, encompassing all in a grand embrace. Puzzles today are like the excitement in the novelty of a new relationship. As one puzzle is solved another one takes its place, like a spouse that never ceases to amaze and delight. Always there; rock solid, and reliable with predictable unpredictability.
That one-hour class went by quickly. Thoughts of my father persisted, but was calm and secure as a child shielded by her parents.
The previous weekend I had devoted a few hours to calculating the wave functions of a many-particle quantum system in terms of the single particle wave functions. This calculation is not novel and appears in many textbooks; but, I never understand anything well unless I calculate it for myself. I transcribed my notes into a LaTeX file (a scientific typesetting program) for my records. Below is a screen capture of part of the document's first page.
I printed a handout for my group and preapred a Power Point version for a group meeting that was to be held at 3:00 pm that surreal day.
Lively discussions prolonged the one-hour talk to two hours -- my physics-induced euphoria amplified many-fold by their participation. I still remember this group meeting fondly though a darkness hovered in the periphery.
I had lots to prepare. Packing was the least of my worries. The doctor had asked about my father's living will; a concept never taken seriously by my father. The responsibility of my power of attorney over his well-being weighed heavily on me. I wanted to make the right decision. I needed to get into his head.
Though my father has a grumpy demeanor, I know that he enjoys life -- complaining, one of his pleasures. Just a week before his stroke, a retired social worker at the Ukrainian Center witnessed one of his dizzy spells and confiscated his car keys. He called me every day to complain and asked over and over how he would get around without his car. Having mobility is still very important to him. So, having the hope of returning to at least a semi-independent lifestyle was important. During that trip back east, I played over and over again the conversation I would have with his doctors.
When we arrived in his hospital room, he was a gray bag of jelly; not just tiny psychically but drained of life. He had always been energetic, detesting inertia, wielding strength. Here was a meek and helpless being, attached to beeping machines and tubes. In that first minute, tears flowed like huge rivers from the eyes of my wife, daughter, and even my son, who rarely shows emotion. I don't recall my son ever shedding a tear, even as a child. I held it in. I had to be strong and keep a clear head for my discussions with the doctors.
My daughter stared up at me through her tears, disapprovingly, "why aren't you shedding even one tear?" She is so much like my mother, who passed away 23 years ago, seeing me through those same eyes. My mother would have said the same thing.
The nurses kept on shaking my father, trying to bring back consciousness, but unsuccessfully. The prognoses for someone his age with a stroke is not great, they told me, but we should still try to stimulate him.
He always loved music, so we played a medley on our phones.
He perked up. His eyes were closed but you could tell from the tension in his brow that he was listening. Someone was in there.
I sang my rendition of the Ukrainian National Anthem. I could see him paying attention. His head tilted slightly and he opened his eyes, which stared blankly without focus. He was clearly listening. I continued to sing with greater vigor.
When I reached the end of the Anthem, his head fell gently back to the pillow, turning his head to me, his eyes still de-focused and glazed over. He inhaled heavily, crumpled his face as if smelling a putrid odor, and said firmly, "You STILL don't know the lyrics," making clear his disdain for my imperfection. I was giggling.
He was always angry with me for not embracing his love for everything Ukrainian, and this was always a sore topic that I tried to avoid. Now, his wrath was welcome. He was back. Over the next three days, he continued to improve and was almost his old self, but with the need for physical therapy to build his muscles after two weeks of being in bed.
I visited him again when he was moved from the hospital to a nursing home for rehab. He hated the place, with the loud synthesizer music alarm blaring each time he tried to stand up. It is understandable that the precaution is necessary for his own protection when one-on-one attention is not possible. Nevertheless, he felt like a prisoner and resented being restricted to his room most of the day and forbidden to walk.
The first day I visited him in rehab, he seemed much better than at the hospital. At times he was tired and slept, at other times, he talked about all sorts of things, fully aware of the fact that he had had a stroke. Below is a photo of my father in the back garden of the nursing home.
I found the nursing home depressing -- lucid individuals with fragile bodies waiting to expire, surrounded by others with a variety of aliments including not-so-old residents with advanced dementia, staring blankly into space, others screaming in terror for no apparent reason. The nurses, doctors, and medical professionals are very good. The head nurse spent lots of time with me reviewing the details about my father's condition and what to expect. It was the atmosphere that made me desperately want to extract my father from that horrible place, but he needed therapy to regain some weight and physical strength. A few weeks ago, he was finally out. I even saw him walking with a cane on Skype!
I'm heading back to Philadelphia to bring my father to Pullman for my daughter's wedding. She was deeply traumatized by his illness and the frailty that had conquered his invincibility. She knew that her marriage was very meaningful to him as it is to her, so she and her fiance accelerated their wedding plans so that he could be included while still lucid and gaining enough vigor to travel.
To our delight, my father is looking forward to the wedding and talks about it every time I call him. Now we are agonizing about whether we should keep him in Pullman or return him to Philly after the wedding.
It's difficult to decide what is best for him. He still has a life with his friends. He goes to the Ukrainian center twice a week for the senior lunch, where he chats with his friends. On Sundays, he goes to a Ukrainian church. In Pullman he has us, but we are pessimistic about being able to keep him at our home. We have lots of stairs and have to be at work during the day to teach. There are no Ukrainian speaking people we could hire to sit with him when we are away, and he is so stubborn, refusing to speak English, which he spoke his whole working life.
In Pullman, he has us, and we could have him over for dinner every day and take him out on weekends. And, we are his family. In Philadelphia, he has a Ukrainian couple watch him while his caretaker is at work and is somewhat of a celebrity with his friends. He can talk about the good old days and be assured of a choir of amens. We, on the other hand, need to work evenings so don't have the luxury of lounging around in idle chatter.
My immediate concern is my ability to care for him during his stay in Pullman. He has several medical conditions that a non-medical person such as I view with great trepidation. Then there are the logistics. What if he gets fatigued at the time of the wedding and we can't wake him to the ceremony? What if he gets sick on the plane?
By writing now, I am procrastinating. The wedding is in a week and I am at Salt Lake City waiting for my flight to Philly. My final report is due on a grant and 3 dissertations await my reading, all due in a week! But, with all the stress, writing about it seems to release some pressure.
As usual, the occasional calculation with pen and pencil takes me to my own cozy corner, like chatting with an old friend at a fireplace sipping on a hot beverage. And reading theses, while time consuming, can also be rewarding, especially when I can see how far the students have come and all the fine work that was generated by our collective minds. The excitement of the work, the upcoming wedding, and my father's visit all are events to celebrate. The happiness is peppered with concerns about how my decisions will affect my father's long-term well-being. And more immediately, will I be able to handle the challenges before me over the next week.
I am about to board, and plan to spend the 4+ hours on the plane working.
Gotta catch my plane...
Monday, December 24, 2012
Errors and Creativity
In any deep and complex endeavor, it is easy to make mistakes. Even after intense scrutiny, errors in logic and reasoning can be difficult to catch. However, when properly harnessed, errors can lead to new and interesting ideas.
Recently, a bright junior colleague made a mistake in a calculation, and I am sure that he was down on himself over the whole thing; so, I wrote him the following email (which I have modified slightly for you). After rereading it, I thought it would be good general advice to all students who are struggling with work at the boundaries of the unknown where mistakes are common.
Dear Student,
Do not be hard on yourself about such errors. We all make them. When you have been around long enough to have made all the simple errors, you move on to the more complex ones. As you mature, you will make these transitions over and over again. The two of us are similar in the sense that we perhaps make more errors than the average physicist. This can become a strength if you use it to your advantage.
I believe that the tendency to make mistakes is associated with creativity. Mistakes take us into new territories that others may never imagine. Often, it's a mistake that leads me in new directions that brings me into uncharted domains. When my colleagues question me about how I ever even thought of doing X, I can't explain it. Now that I think about it, I should answer that it was a string of errors that led me to X. These random meanderings avoid the huge walls that block the straighter paths.
The key is to work hard and tirelessly in the pursuit of entertaining lots of new ideas, be slow to publish so that you can catch your mistakes before they become public, and allow yourself times of unrestrained creativity but temper those times with disciplined thought. And most importantly, do not get caught up in mathematics without thinking about the physical consequences. It is the physics that is the most fulfilling and the best guide through your intellectual hardships.
Recently, a bright junior colleague made a mistake in a calculation, and I am sure that he was down on himself over the whole thing; so, I wrote him the following email (which I have modified slightly for you). After rereading it, I thought it would be good general advice to all students who are struggling with work at the boundaries of the unknown where mistakes are common.
Dear Student,
Do not be hard on yourself about such errors. We all make them. When you have been around long enough to have made all the simple errors, you move on to the more complex ones. As you mature, you will make these transitions over and over again. The two of us are similar in the sense that we perhaps make more errors than the average physicist. This can become a strength if you use it to your advantage.
I believe that the tendency to make mistakes is associated with creativity. Mistakes take us into new territories that others may never imagine. Often, it's a mistake that leads me in new directions that brings me into uncharted domains. When my colleagues question me about how I ever even thought of doing X, I can't explain it. Now that I think about it, I should answer that it was a string of errors that led me to X. These random meanderings avoid the huge walls that block the straighter paths.
The key is to work hard and tirelessly in the pursuit of entertaining lots of new ideas, be slow to publish so that you can catch your mistakes before they become public, and allow yourself times of unrestrained creativity but temper those times with disciplined thought. And most importantly, do not get caught up in mathematics without thinking about the physical consequences. It is the physics that is the most fulfilling and the best guide through your intellectual hardships.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Science as art
Last May, I attended a conference in France at The Ecole normale supérieure de Cachan (ENS Cachan) to celebrate the 60th birthday of Joseph Zyss, a distinguished Physicist who has made many seminal contributions to the field of organic nonlinear optics. He is one of the founding scientists of this highly interdisciplinary field, which has moved into many new directions including such diverse topics as biomedical imaging and optical telecommunications.
In addition to many stimulating scientific talks, a special session was dedicated to Prof. Zyss's achievements. Several eminent scientists described his research contributions, and past students talked about the profound effect he has had on their careers and their lives.
Joseph Zyss is a multidimensional person who has many interests outside his profession; art and gourmet food. For fun, the organizers arranged for two invited talks devoted to the topics of art in science and the science of food. The culinary talk described the chemical basis for taste and touched on the interesting possibility of chemically synthesizing new foods.
The presentation on art was filled with reproductions of diverse art forms, making connections to science by juxtaposing works of art with mathematical structures and images of real physical systems. The talk ended with the implicit question, will art and science ever converge. My immediate reaction was that science is art.
Mathematics is the color pallet, clay, and media of Physics. While art pierces the soul through images and narrative to elicit emotion, science inspires a sense of awe and wonder directly through the intellect. A piece of art, such as the Pieta, represents a thing of beauty, exquisite in its execution -- recreating the artist's faith and passion. Science, in contrast, through its mathematical structure, encompasses all that is and can be in one grand yet simple set of theories that are intellectually beautiful, reflecting the ingenuity and imagination of generations of scientists.
A painting or a sculpture can recreate only one particular scene as a map portrays in miniature the geography of an area. In contrast, a theory represents everything. It is a kind of universal art that portrays all AND always. It has both predictive power and leads to a deep understanding of all things. To me, the most spiritually intense response comes from seeing the universe through the inner eye of science.
Professor Zyss is a scientist whose life has left and continues to leave many significant brush strokes on the fabric of science. Our ambitions draw each of us to the canvas in hopes that our mark will be permanent, tantalized by the beauty of what has already been revealed, in awe of the larger image that is slowly coming into focus. I am privileged to stand before the canvass, to marvel at its beauty, and to participate in humanity's efforts to leave a mark, even if my work gets covered over by those who follow.
In addition to many stimulating scientific talks, a special session was dedicated to Prof. Zyss's achievements. Several eminent scientists described his research contributions, and past students talked about the profound effect he has had on their careers and their lives.
Joseph Zyss is a multidimensional person who has many interests outside his profession; art and gourmet food. For fun, the organizers arranged for two invited talks devoted to the topics of art in science and the science of food. The culinary talk described the chemical basis for taste and touched on the interesting possibility of chemically synthesizing new foods.
The presentation on art was filled with reproductions of diverse art forms, making connections to science by juxtaposing works of art with mathematical structures and images of real physical systems. The talk ended with the implicit question, will art and science ever converge. My immediate reaction was that science is art.
Mathematics is the color pallet, clay, and media of Physics. While art pierces the soul through images and narrative to elicit emotion, science inspires a sense of awe and wonder directly through the intellect. A piece of art, such as the Pieta, represents a thing of beauty, exquisite in its execution -- recreating the artist's faith and passion. Science, in contrast, through its mathematical structure, encompasses all that is and can be in one grand yet simple set of theories that are intellectually beautiful, reflecting the ingenuity and imagination of generations of scientists.A painting or a sculpture can recreate only one particular scene as a map portrays in miniature the geography of an area. In contrast, a theory represents everything. It is a kind of universal art that portrays all AND always. It has both predictive power and leads to a deep understanding of all things. To me, the most spiritually intense response comes from seeing the universe through the inner eye of science.
Professor Zyss is a scientist whose life has left and continues to leave many significant brush strokes on the fabric of science. Our ambitions draw each of us to the canvas in hopes that our mark will be permanent, tantalized by the beauty of what has already been revealed, in awe of the larger image that is slowly coming into focus. I am privileged to stand before the canvass, to marvel at its beauty, and to participate in humanity's efforts to leave a mark, even if my work gets covered over by those who follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)