An excuse for UPS late delivery - Derailment

I just realized that a package I had expected to arrive a few days ago had not yet arrived, so I clicked on my UPS tracking number, and here is a screen shot of what I found. The train with my package got derailed. I never saw this excuse before!

Zeroing in on the cause of self healing

As I have mentioned in the past, one of our biggest projects seeks to develop an understanding of the mysterious self healing process following damage to a molecule by a zap of light. Recently, a former graduate and I developed a model of the healing process that hinges on the formation of domains of molecules. Members of these domains are highly cooperative: they accelerate the healing of a damaged molecule in proportion to the size of the group and they prevent their comrades from being damaged. This behavior is as strange from the sociological perspective as it is from the underlying physics. Why do the molecules aggregate and how does their community enhance healing and prevent physical damage?

We have gone out on a limb and made what I believe is a bold assertion; that there are forces between the molecules that cause them to aggregate, and that these same forces are responsible for healing. Such an assertion would be just a wild guess if it were not for lots of data that we find to be consistent with our model. With only three parameters, our data fits the model as a function of temperature, concentration, time, and intensity. The model also makes predictions beyond our present experimental capabilities, so it will gain acceptance only if it holds up to future scrutiny.

When submitting something this interesting (at least to us) that may go past the present paradigms (Shiva got some lifted eyebrows and jaw dropping during an interview talk, which turned to nods of approval after he presented supporting evidence), one always worries that the work will not be understood. There are many examples of Nobel-prizewinning work being rejected by a journal. In our case, the first journal did not even send the paper out to review, claiming that our work was not appropriate. How can a physics paper not be appropriate to a physics journal?

Of course, I have no illusions that this is a Nobel-prizewinning paper, but if the underlying mechanism is found to be new, it could very well end up being a significant achievement for whoever makes this discovery.

Rather than fight the editor, back in mid May, we sent the paper to a second journal of equal quality. Then we waited. I was still concerned that the reviewers may not see the importance of the work. But alas, they accepted it on the first pass, suggesting only minor revisions. And it was also incredibly fast given the nature of our paper. The first reviewer summarizes the paper as follows,

"This interesting manuscript continues the authors' work aimed at discovering the mechanism behind the observation of self-healing of photoluminescence in chromophore doped polymers. The authors have proposed a phenomenological model for their observations that is able to predict aspects of the time, temperature, concentration and intensity dependence. The model focuses on the formation of dye domains in the polymer and studies the dynamics of these..."

Then (s)he goes on,

"While these are interesting results, the manuscript could be more satisfying if the authors did more to understand the physical mechanisms behind the model. Some well-considered speculation on the materials physics in the conclusions would suffice. "

We tried to hold back on speculation, but this review gives us an opportunity to present what we think is happening. Incidentally, the reviewer is right that we need to work more on the mechanisms, which is exactly what we are doing now. We are already getting data that is pointing at the mechanism, but its still too premature to mention.

The second reviewer made no suggestions for revisions and believes that the paper is in good shape in its present form. (S)he writes,

"In this paper authors present a model on photodegradation/self-healing kinetics of dye molecules doped in a polymer matrix. This investigation is an extension of their previous work. Using phenomenological arguments the authors generalize their model. They allow (implicitly) for association of dye molecules which form correlated domains interacting with the polymer matrix. A healing rate is assumed to be proportional to the number of undamaged molecules in a correlated region and a decay rate is proportional to the intensity normalized to the correlation volume. The model proposed by the authors predicts decay and recovery of the population of doped molecules. The results of the theory are successfully tested with experimental data.

"The paper is generally well written and contains several interesting results. I recommend it to be published as it stands..."

The next step will be to determine the physical significance of these parameters. I am excited by the prospects that we may be looking at some very new physics because this process is like no other that I have ever seen. As I sit at my computer bogged down with lots of administrative tasks, new physics is in the air. I hope to be able to get back with pencil and paper to work on the next set of ideas. But first I need to work on some proposals so that we have the resources to do lots of wonderful work in the future. And as penance for writing proposals, I also have some that I need to review. Similarly, I have a pileup of papers to review.

Hopefully in my next post I will report on even more interesting physics. On another project, something very exciting is brewing. Again, new physics! Until then, ...

The good old days

I had lunch yesterday with a hockey buddy who plays on our Old Geezers team. The discussions, of course, started with hockey, but then went all over the map and eventually ended on our mutual interest in astronomy. This reminded me of the days that I used to enjoy spending under the stars.

As I get older, I find it more difficult to make time for things that I enjoy because work takes up more of my life. Recently, I accepted two editorial posts, which together do not take a whole lot of time, but when combined with my other responsibilities, consumes day and night. I keep on kicking myself for constantly making choices that bring me angst, but I always feel compelled to provide service in my area of expertise.

During our lunch conversation, I recalled one particular night on which I observed a spectacular meteor. Early that evening, long ago, I viewed familiar objects with my new 10" Dobsonian such as the Pleiades and the Andromeda galaxy. Then I focused on M31, M32, and M110. The night was warm and dark, and as midnight approached, the skies got darker as the lights went out one by one all around my neighborhood.

My log book (my memory is too unreliable these days), dated September 26, 2003, reads "Later that night (about midnight) I went up on the upper deck to take in the wonderful sky. I was looking at the Milky Way with its clean dust lane down the center when a meteor shot right along its length through the middle of the dust lane. It started somewhere above 45 degrees from the horizon, maybe near Perseus, and beyond the zenith before it broke up into pieces. It looked like fireworks with maybe 4 obvious fragments. This was one of the brightest meteors I have seen. This wonderful evening made me realize that I want to spend more time under the stars."

Almost 10 years later, I still recall the deep satisfaction of seeing nature at work, the meteor silently streaking across the sky along a smooth arc until it broke up.

In my next entry, dated December 17, 2003, I wrote, "I read my last entry and am ashamed at how long it's been since I went out observing! Though, I did get some nice pictures of Saturn a few nights back (and also the moon)." (See an older post at http://unknownphysicist.blogspot.com/2010/12/nostalgia.html)

Sadly, my last entry in my log book was on 5/8/04, the day after I bought a large 12.5" Dobsonian (I had sold my 10" scope to raise some cash). It ends with "When looking for M81/M82, I found a very dim and broad patch at 50x. At 212x, I could not see it. It was in the vicinity of Caddington Nebula, and it fits the description, so I believe I was looking at IC2574."

Life got too busy to do much observing. I have occasionally (perhaps 5 times in total since 2003) taken out a telescope to show a friend the wonders of the night sky. Though I really enjoy my research, I think I spend much too much time on related service activities to the university and my profession. I continually break promises to myself to take out my telescopes in order to meet my work commitments.

(To the right is a photo I took with my digital camera and telescope back in 2002 of M13, the Great Globular Cluster in Hercules.  This is a spectacular cluster to view in the eyepiece of a telescope, appearing as a scattering of diamonds on black velvet.)

So, next time you visit me, if the skys are clear, ask me to show you the wonders of the heavens. I would appreciate the kick in the butt to take out my telescope. Perhaps such a reboot will get me into the habit of occasionally enjoying some quiet time under the stars.

Clear Skies!

Fame for its own sake

After giving a talk in Milan, my host, another visitor from the US, and I had lunch. Discussions meandered from our work to our profession and then to the topic of how trailblazers often do not get credit for their discoveries. A book that I am now reading, "The Infinity Puzzle," describes this phenomena in the development of the standard model in particle physics.

In 1783, the geologist John Michell wrote a letter to Henry Cavendish proposing the existence of a super-massive body whose gravity was so great that even light could not escape. The letter was published in the Transactions of the Royal Society in 1784, yet this incredible human mind is not generally recognized for the very reason that it should be - it was way ahead of its time.

People who end up getting credit for a discovery usually live at a time when others are around to appreciate the work. Being a good communicator also helps. Our conversation at the outdoor cafe culminated in an interesting question. Would it be better to enjoy fame and fortune in this life for work that is posthumously found to be wrong; or, to make a discovery that is only appreciated long after we are gone?

I would rather play a part in the development of a new paradigm of thought that is right than to get credit for a transient fad that ends up being wrong. What would you prefer?

Expertise is stagnation

A PhD degree in Physics represents a new contribution to the body of scientific knowledge; but, it is more than that. The power of new physics is not in the generation of new information, though that is one important side effect. It is the new or deeper understanding of the nature of how how things work that are its treasures. It is not a process in which a student goes through steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and then is done, but a journey of exploration that often can come up empty handed. Putting in lots of time and effort is not enough. There needs to be a tangible result that adds to the corpus of Physics.

The dissertation documents the contribution a PhD student has made to science. The process of writing up ones work and results inevitably uncovers errors, weakness in logic, and oversights that need to be addressed. As such, the period of writing prior to submitting the dissertation to the examining committee is filled with stress. One never knows if the errors that are uncovered will be fatal to the thesis. Many students are unaware of the magnitude of the demands. In the end, it has to be right (internally self consistent and in accord with the rest of Physics) and the dissertation committee needs to be convinced that the work is significant enough to be worthy of a PhD.

I write this as Shiva is finishing up his dissertation and getting ready to defend. The work is excellent and I believe that it will be a major contribution to the body of Physics. We have proposed a novel model based on experimental observations that pass the test of simplicity - with only three parameters all of the data is explained over a huge range of conditions; and, it suggests new physics, namely, that a polymer mediates the interaction between molecules in a way that coerces them into healing after they are damaged by powerful laser pulses. This phenomena is new and its explanation is bound to be controversial; and it may end up being wrong...

In the process of writing his dissertation, Shiva had to make major changes to the analysis of the data, needed to take additional data, and had to take into account complications that had slipped by our attention. Each time he thought he was done, there always seemed to be one more thing to check, one more experiment to do or one more calculation to correct. I can imagine the ups and downs associated with the relief of being done followed by the anxiety over a potential error that could mean the downfall of the dissertation.

As I write this post, I believe that his dissertation is finally done, and I am comfortable with the scrutiny that is to come from the committee. There are certainly loose ends that will be addressed, but those can be completed prior to the oral or as minor revisions after the defense.

I have advised dozens of graduate students over the years. Many have vocalized the childhood question asked of parents during a long road trip, "are we there yet?" Others think about their progress quietly while some may assume that they will get a degree as a result of making an effort. In the end, only students who persevere after what appears to be endless failure and hardships will make it through to the end. The process includes hard work, independence, cleverness, deep thinking, and extreme grit. As a result, the future employer of a PhD physicist is not getting just an expert. If that is what they think, the employers miss the best part. They are getting an individual who is fearless in the face of new challenges that require a nonexistent expertise.

Expertise is stagnation. Dealing with the unknown is wrought with fear, insecurity, and doubt; but, there is an air of exhilaration from the possibility of successes. The PhD student builds problem-solving skills and the ability to think beyond his or her knowledge base and to thrive in a world of uncertainty. It is character not just expertise that the PhD represents.

The beauty of nature is that she is consistent and filled with rich and wondrous phenomena. On the downside, she holds the highest standards and is intolerant of contradiction. I am glad to have a job that allows me to be continually confused, insecure and humbled. Every new piece of knowledge or expertise gained drives me into a new unknown realm. I am simultaneously frustrated and ecstatic, perhaps a required blend of opposites that lead to fulfillment and happiness.

Having acquired a taste for this life, I wish the same for my students. As Shiva is finishing up, I look to the next generation of students coming up through the ranks in the hopes that they too will succeed.

Quantity, quality and language

I write more for myself than for an audience. The act of writing flushes out ideas and provides a record of what I was thinking so that I do not spend time reinventing the wheel (by wheel, I mean my personal wheel, not new ideas to the world, which I am sure are few). Sadly, I often get hot about an idea, start writing about it, and then get too busy with other things to finish. As a result, my ideas are lost.

I spend a few minutes every few months erasing incomplete posts. Today, while I was clearing several such posts, I pondered about the wasted effort of the process and the added entropy to the universe each time I hit "delete." So, I decided to share this one with myself and anyone else who cares to read it.

To place the state of my mind in perspective, I was writing this post in the first half of August, 2011, just before the start of the semester, when I was slated to teach Classical Mechanics. I recall being excited about my insights on the topic, but sadly, I no longer recall the punchline. Perhaps one of you can help me out.

Here it is:

Language is often inadequate to describe what we are feeling. A far greater problem is that language permits imprecision and inconstancy. As a result, we are falsely lulled into a sense of meaning when there is none.

The classic example of self contradiction is the sentence: "This sentence is false." We can reject this construction for obvious reasons. However, consider the statement, "His action was immoral." The first three words are well defined, but the last is not.

At issue is the fact that many concepts in language are based on subjective feelings, that when assigned a word, may be imprecise or nonsensical yet carry an absolute sense of its existence. When analyzed dispassionately, we can surmise that the sense of morality is an inbred feeling that was shaped by evolution, and helped the survival of our species. Thus, when someone cheats, our sense of distaste stems from our collective disapproval of behaviors that weaken the group.

However, our gut assigns to the concept of morality a sense of absoluteness of "right" and "wrong" of actions - two additional words of the same ilk. Morality is thus elevated to an absolute standard that cannot be questioned. It is wrong for women to vote. Why? Because it is an absolute, and absolutes cannot be questioned. Thus, the sense of morality can lead to concepts such as women being mere property to serve at the pleasure of men, homosexuality as an evil, drawing a cartoon of certain individuals an objectionable action deserving of death, etc.

One may argue that without an absolute morality, humans would be lost and unable to decide what is right. Humans have been making the "right" decisions for ages without religion; but, this is not the point of this post. Instead, I want to speak about a different kind of language that does not suffer through the same pitfalls; but ironically, is responsible for the development of imprecise language; and that is, mathematics.

One of the earliest incarnations of mathematics was counting. Shepherds wanted to make sure that all their flock was accounted for by the end of the day. The simple act of counting may seem trivial and lack meaning. As it turns out, it is the basis for everything.

Mathematics became more sophisticated with the introduction of multiplication, which is the act of counting groups of groups of things. Three families of four make twelve people. Division is then the inverse of multiplication as is subtraction to addition. Aside from keeping track of cattle and assigning value to property, mathematics in this guise appears devoid of any deep meaning.

But, mathematics progressed. Variables were introduced to assign unknown quantities, functions to describe relationships between variables, etc. The growth of mathematical structure grew hand in hand with applications. Exponential functions could be used to describe the growth of livestock, the degree of hotness was associated with temperature, etc.

Then operations on functions were introduced. Derivatives gave slopes of curves and integration, the reverse of a derivative, yields the area under the curve. It was a stroke of intense insight when someone recognized that numbers associated with various physical quantities behaved in correspondence with what the operations predicted. This is a subtle point that deserves more - later.

Then came abstract mathematics that deals with groups theory, linear algebra, differential geometry. Even these seemingly non-practical concepts describe things such as the curvature of space-time, that governs the the motion of spacecraft and makes the GPS system possible, and predicts the groupings of elementary particles.

All of this leads to the obvious conclusion that there is no dichotomy between quantity and quality. Quality is in fact described in terms of quantity.

For example, we may say that gold has the qualities of being soft, yellowish, and shiny. Silver, on the other hand, is harder, greyish or some would say colorless, is shiny and half as dense as gold. As it turns out, the difference between the two atoms is in the numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons. Silver has 47 protons in a tiny nucleus and 47 orbiting electrons Gold, on the other hand, has 79 protons and 79 electrons (we ignore the neutrons since they don't affect an atom's chemical properties). It is the number of electrons and protons that determines the quality of the material. Thus quantity determines quality.

The numbers of various atoms in a molecule determine its properties. As we go up the later and make complex molecules, cells, organs, people, communities, and the universe, the properties of each object is determined by numbers that quantify the underlying things.

I have failed to mention forces, which determine how matter "sticks" together. The forces, which behave according to simple laws, determine the structures of molecules, galaxies, and nuclei. The simple laws that describe forces are formulated in terms of equations that represent numbers. So there are numbers everywhere that determine the quality of things.

However, the macroscopic universe is so complex, that it is difficult on human scales to express its properties in terms of the numbers that quantify the smallest units. This is where it is easier to think in terms of quality. You would prefer to think of your winter coat as warm and cozy rather than describe it in terms of the thermal conductivity of its parts, the chemical reactions in your body that create heat, etc.

-- This is where my post ends, with typos and incomplete thoughts. Perhaps someone can figure out what I had in mind. If so, please send me a note.

The dark side of the internet

Bill Andrews writes in the August issue of Astronomy Magazine, "People confuse their inalienable right to their opinion with a fictitious right to be right, and it's growing increasingly acceptable. The level of science education in this country has apparently sunk so low that a significant portion of the population doesn't even know how to distinguish verified data from personal opinion, and no one seems to care. It doesn't get get more basic, or scary, than that."

Is the internet, with websites such as Reddit - which elevates popularity and opinion over fact, part of the problem?