Forgive me Scientists (and physicists), I have sinned

This is a confession of mine, unashamedly based on Adam Ruben's  "Forgive Me, Scientists, for I Have Sinned" from Science Magazine. All words are his, except for those in green. Here goes -

There are some things I need to confess. Sometimes I don’t feel like a real scientist. Besides the fact that I do science every day, I don’t conform to the image—my image—of what a scientist is and how we should think and behave. Here’s what I mean:

I don’t sit at home reading journals on the weekend.

I have rarely gone to the library. I don't even know where the library of my current institution is.

I never got past the first two pages of Feynman's lectures. I have read very little of Landau and Lifshitz, even when I owned several volumes of the series.

I have skipped talks at scientific conferences for social purposes.

I remember about 1% of the Electrodynamics I learned in college. General Relativity? Even less.

I have avoided eye contact with eager grad students while walking past their poster sessions.

When someone describes research as “exciting,” I often don’t agree. Interesting, maybe, but it’s a big jump from interest to excitement.

Sometimes I see sunshine on the lawn outside the lab window and realize that I’d rather be outside in the sun.

I have gone home at 5 p.m.

I have asked questions at seminars not because I wanted to know the answers but because I wanted to demonstrate that I was paying attention.

I have never fabricated data or intentionally misled, but I have endeavored to present data more compellingly rather than more accurately.

I like the liberal arts.

I know next to nothing about the Higgs boson or any of particle physics. I read up news articles just so that I could explain the topic to family and friends. That the news articles were written for the general audience made my job easy.

When a visiting scientist gives a colloquium, more often than not I don’t understand what he or she is saying. This even happens sometimes with research I really should be familiar with.

I dread applying for grants. I resent the fact that scientists need to bow and scrape for funding in the first place, but even more than that, I hate seeking the balance of cherry-picked data, baseless boasts, and exaggerations of real-world applications that funding sources seem to require.

I have performed research I didn’t think was important. I have performed research I knew would likely be of little use.

Having spent most of my PhD building up lab skills and calling myself a "lab person", I didn't miss working in the lab when I spent most of my time doing data analysis.

I do not believe every scientific consensus.

I believe that peer review is of limited value.

When I ask scientists to tell me about their research, I nod and tell them it’s interesting even if I don’t understand it at all.

I was never interested in Star Wars.

I can’t get excited about the research to which some of my friends and colleagues have devoted their lives.

I can’t read most scientific papers unless I devote my full attention, usually with a browser window open to look up terms on Wikipedia.

I allow the Internet to distract me.

I have read multiple Michael Crichton novels.

I have mooched swag from vendors I did not talk to.

I own large science textbooks I have scarcely used. I have kept them “for reference” even though I know I’ll never use them again. I intend to keep them “for reference” until I die.

I want everyone to like me.

Sometimes science feels like it’s made of the same politics, pettiness, and ridiculousness that underlie any other job.

I decry the portrayal of scientists in films, then pay money to go see more films with scientists in them.

I have taught facts and techniques to students that I only myself learned the day before.

I know I have arrived where I am through privilege, good fortune, and circumstance. Anything I genuinely earned could not have been earned without those precursors.

I find science difficult.

The two poles of Science

Most people think that science knows the answer to everything. Why is the sky blue? What causes gravity? Is coffee good for you? A lot of it is true. We know where the colour of the sky comes from. We can make precise calculations of the gravity force. We know composition of coffee well. But, that doesn't mean we can usefully answer the simple question of whether coffee is good or bad.

The way I see it is there are essentially two poles of science. On one pole, which I shall call "rigorous", we have the rigorous scientist who makes a hundred checks before saying anything. What is said by such a scientist, which may not be relevant or useful at the time, can nevertheless be set in stone and will last forever. On the other pole, which I shall call "hot topic", we have research which is very relevant, but cannot say anything meaningful with confidence. Such topics often go through several 180 degree flips. Research doesn't have to necessarily lie on one pole or the other. Every once in a while, a discovery comes about, which is both relevant and useful. And then, a lot of research lies in between the two poles; for example a careful reasoned work with some speculation added to make an interesting claim.

At the rigorous pole lie most basic science, physics in particular. In my experience, a physicist is typically very careful about what he or she says or publishes. Everything is checked, and more experiments/calculations performed if necessary. If a physicist thinks he/she has a super result, but cannot be 100% sure, he/she might mention it, but will clearly list out caveats. This is done so that there is no loss of face in case it later turns out that he/she was wrong. Having claimed something big with confidence, and later been proven wrong turns a scientist into the pariah of the community.

A consequence of the rigor in such research is that often, nothing useful or interesting comes about. An "exciting result" in such a scientific community would sound boring to the larger world. Here is an example from recent research, taken from the journal Nature. This could be considered the most interesting piece of research from this pole of science to be published in the week.

Room temperature coherent control of defect spin qubits in silicon carbide

Pretty boring, right? I leave it for the reader to look at the abstract to see what the significance of the result is. It takes quite a stretch of imagination to apply it to anything practical, but that is what basic research is all about. This result can be used by scientists and engineers for generations to come.

To illustrate the possible significance of such a boring result, I will use a paper written in 1958 (title, authors and first two sentences of the abstract to tell you what it is about):

Infrared and Optical Masers

by A. L. Schawlow and C. H. Townes*

The extension of maser techniques to the infrared and optical region is considered. It is shown that by using a resonant cavity of centimeter dimensions, having many resonant modes, maser oscillation at these wavelengths can be achieved by pumping with reasonable amounts of incoherent light.

While boring on the face it, this paper is behind one of the greatest inventions in the last 50 years - the laser! The paper was a solid foundation of theory and experiments, on which Schawlow and Townes and others could build the laser. While initially called "A solution looking for a problem", the laser has found its way in many places like the bar code reader at stores to eye surgery to CD/DVD drives. Of course, this is the exception and a lot of good, solid research will never be used ever. Will the above Nature paper lead to a future breakthrough? Only time will tell.

The "hot topic" pole contains research we're dying to know the answers to. How many cups of coffee should I drink? Will playing music to my 2-year old help the child become musical? How can I boost my memory? Are cell phones harmful? What treatment is best for my back pain? Can we travel in time? Are there aliens? Hot topics largely tend to be in the field of health, because they are relevant and immediately applicable. Let's look at an article on coffee.

Say it’s so, Joe: The potential health benefits -- and drawbacks –- of coffee.

By Neil Osterweil
WebMD Feature

Reviewed by Jonathan L Gelfand, MD

Coffee may taste good and get you going in the morning, but what will it do for your health?

A growing body of research shows that coffee drinkers, compared to nondrinkers, are:

- less likely to have type 2 diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and dementia
- have fewer cases of certain cancers, heart rhythm problems, and strokes

The first few lines clearly spell out what we are looking for and the answer. However, a couple of lines further, and you get:

But (you knew there would be a “but,” didn’t you?) coffee isn't proven to prevent those conditions.

Researchers don't ask people to drink or skip coffee for the sake of science. Instead, they ask them about their coffee habits. Those studies can't show cause and effect. It's possible that coffee drinkers have other advantages, such as better diets, more exercise, or protective genes.

Being a reputed website, webmd gives the caveats. Many readers will only read the first few lines, and take home "Science says that coffee is good for you and will prevent certain diseases from occurring." The way I see it, the studies on the effects of coffee don't say anything useful.

A lot of people simply don't get it when told that science does not have a useful answer. They only want an answer - Should I drink coffee or should I not? What does the latest research say? They feel that they needn't bother about disagreements between scientists or anything else. That is for the scientists to figure out.

In my opinion, there are several problems with people only wanting instant answers from science. First, in not recognizing the overall inconclusiveness of say coffee research for example, people tend to forget the larger picture to staying healthy - a balanced diet, exercise, etc. Hot topic research suggesting autism (or other problems) being caused by vaccines has lead to parents not giving their kids important vaccination shots, forgetting the possible consequences of diseases of the past.

Second, in not separating the two poles of science, important cornerstones of science such as Einstein's relativity or Darwinian evolution get put in the same category as the coffee research. Yes, science does evolve, and theories do change with time, but quantum mechanics is not going to be replaced anytime soon, and that too by a flimsy piece of research that has limited backing. The latest claim that global warming is not happening does not overturn the might of evidence accumulated over the past several decades.

Third, a constant focus on the "hot topic" pole, particularly on issues that flip-flop frequently, for example "Is fruit juice good for you?", makes science look bad as experts always seem to disagree. This makes people trust everything less, even things that all scientists agree upon.

While non-scientists do make the mistake of not differentiating between the two poles of science, the scientific establishment itself is not perfect. Papers with grand claims get more prominence than they should. A controversy can be a good thing for a scientist, or even a scientific field. It often leads to higher visibility regardless of who is ultimately right, except when some work is so wrong that it needs to be retracted, in which case the controversy is a disgrace, leading to a downfall (see Judy Mikovits).

Personally, I often read letters to the editor pointing out mistakes in someone else's work, even if the subject itself doesn't particularly interest me. Why should a minor controversy in a field elevate it's visibility above that of other hardworking scientists who do good, sincere work, even among scientists? I think this is a result one of the constant tug-of-war between the two poles of science. While we all want good solid research work, we also want some spice in it. Here is a research paper, which although based on some thorough analysis, does make quite a few grand claims. Of course, the interest in this topic goes far beyond people in the field.

A draft genome of Yersinia pestis from victims of the Black Death

To conclude, as a scientist, all I wish for is a better understanding of the two poles of science. While I am not against research on the "hot topic" pole, I think we can definitely cut quite a bit out of it and focus on the more important things.

Happily Ever After

One of the big differences between what children believe and what adults know is the concept of "happily ever after". Children stories and fairy tales end with, "... and they all lived happily ever after". Adults have seen a good part of life and know that problems are a part of it, regardless of how good one's career, family and other stuff are. Problems range from minor irritations to major issues, and one considers oneself happy if one's problems are minor irritations only. But then again, major issues do keep cropping up and one has to always be ready to solve them and minimize the damage. Someone having things going well is a testament to his/her being able to tackle the major issues, amongst other things.

One of my major complaints of Indian middle class society is the perpetuation of the myth of "happily ever after" in young minds. How many kids in school have been told that getting good marks will get them successful careers, which will make them live happily ever after? How many youngsters aspire for the first great paying job in order to have their life made? How many people believe that life is perfect if one is in the USA?

We all want children to dream big. They should see all that the world has to offer to them. Also, they can be playful. Determination and seriousness is something that they need to develop growing up. However, giving a false promise is not the way to go. Rather than preparing children for the one-off goal (getting into IIT, going to US), one has to teach them about what life ahead requires. This brings me to another question. Is it the parents who themselves believe that if their kids go to IIT or the US, they (the parents) will live happily ever after? Do they believe that if their kids are "settled", earning a huge salary, everyone will live happily ever after? I remember some parents looking at their son/daughter's classmate and thinking "That kid has it made. I wish my kid were like that." The media talks about 10th standard toppers (or even 7th standard toppers) and interviews the "successful" kid. My take on that is - You're talking about a little kid who is yet to see a lot of problems in life. The kid has a lot of work to do before he/she can even be set in a career.

The "happily ever after" myth has a lot of negative consequences. I have known batchmates at IIT who have completely messed up their first year because they didn't realize that they needed to continue to work at IIT. They were told things were "made" for them when they got into IIT. Some friends of mine learned that life with their dream job was not what they imagined it to be. There were pressures at work, and always stuff to do. Looking back, their IIT days seemed happier.

Many young couples also suffer from a variation of the same myth. The marriage between the young charming prince and young beautiful princess, with the wonderful compliments of "they look so good together" doesn't lead to a "happily ever after" situation. While many couples get past the initial storm of false expectations, some don't do as well. I've known 3 school classmates who were divorced (2 are remarried) before they were 25!

The other contribution to the myth are what we see in others. Successful people look like they have it made. We never think about the day to day struggles people like AR Rahman, Anil Ambani and CNR Rao go through. That holds the same for the successful relative or neighbour. We assume their jobs are good and well paying and everything is great because they drive that nice car and that they seem happy. We forget that they also deal with people, successes, failures, family, health, things beyond their control, just like all of us. The fact that we don't know about these things is simply because we are not looking for them. We only choose to see our "happily ever after" myth.

So here's my advice to young people. There is no such thing as "happily ever after" no matter how many exams you top, or awards you win, fame you get or money you earn. Some things make life easier (having a college degree) or more satisfying (a reward for effort), but there will always be day-to-day struggles just like everyone else and the occasional bad patch, no matter what. As a corollary, no one has it perfect, not even the most successful people you've seen.

(Started this a long time ago. Decided that it was worth completing)

Legends of our times

As a kid, I often heard adults speak about things "back in the days". I never imagined that I would one day be saying exactly that, and that too before the age of thirty. Before we forget them, a list of things that we should salute to. Fill me on what I've missed.

(And of course, all these are with respect to mainstream urban life in India. Lots of villages still live in similar or more primitive times)

1. Phones

a. Dialling with an actual dial.

b. The privileged landline, with lesser fortunate ones having to share and pay per call.

c. Expensive and hard to connect STD calls

d. One phone for the family

e. Setting up rendezvous at very specific locations

2. Letters

a. Inlands - writing on every centimeter

b. Postcards - quick cheap communication

c. Aerogrammes - amazing things which travelled the seas.

3. Music

a. Audio cassettes - Sequential music! Remember the fancy players which could play both sides?

b. Tapes that get old and whiny. Reel breaks, cassette players which eat tapes.

c. The joys in dubbing, and making an assorted tape with all your favourite songs.

d. The walkman - That cool fancy device whose name is a Sony copyright.


4. Rarities

a. When Thums-up was for the special day when parents were happy with you

b. Pepsi was for the cool kids. Not for the "aam admi".

b. The 200ml of Frooty always got over so fast

c. Fancy cream biscuits. Brittania Bourbon, my favourite!


5. Transportation

a. When Ambassadors and Fiats ruled. Maruti 800 just came in.

b. Before the railways had AC.

c. When plane travel was extraordinarily rare, so rare that I thought one needed a passport to fly.


6. Television

a. How can one forget Doordarshan, it's news, shows, cricket, movies and all. Everyone watched DD.

b. When DD metro, the 2nd channel, was a privilege of the 4 metropolitan cities.

c. When Ramayan would start 20 minutes late due to advertisements.

d. VCRs & VCPs, those rare and fancy things. The effort in trying to make a copy of a video tape.


7. Cameras

a. The film roll - 36 photos, "Don't expose it to sunlight", "Make sure it has loaded properly"

b. Developing and printing - It took 2 days before you knew what kind of photo you took. Hopefully you hadn't stuck your finger in the middle.


8. Computers

I needn't state the obvious. Coming from the times of "what is a computer" to the youtube & facebook age. Still continuously changing and a lot more to come.

"Rainbows" from the plane

In my many endeavours to get good photographs from the plane, I once noticed some faint rainbow like colours in the sky below. I wasn't imagining it. On careful observation, I noticed it was more pronounced with clouds, with the overall mist providing a background. I took some photos to later analyze on my computer. Here is what I got. The phenomenon was real indeed. The left are the unprocessed images. The right are the same images with colour greatly enhanced (using Irfanview). Your eyes automatically do these things and can spot the slightest of colour.



While it puzzled me, I left it in the background to ask a physicist friend sometime. It was such a small effect that I would need to show the photo to ask the question. I forgot about it until I undertook a flight a year later. This time, the effect was very clear. With the sun behind me, I could see clear colour bands on clouds, near the shadow of the plane (Open in new tab to see better).



It made sense. I was seeing a rainbow. A rainbow is formed when light undergoes total internal reflection off a water droplet. Clouds also have water droplets. Sunlight reflected off water droplets made the rainbow. Here are some explanatory images from wikipedia .



Simple, isn't it? Well, not so. A rainbow is formed at 42 degrees. So, if you drew a line from your location (your eyes) to your shadow (with conventional rainbows, if you don't see the sun, you might have to imagine where your shadow will fall), and another one from your location to the rainbow (anywhere on it), it will make an angle of 40-42 degrees. A second rainbow (if present) forms at an angle of 50-52 degrees. However, the "rainbows" I was seeing formed at an angle 5-10 degrees and they had multiple ones close by.

With wikipedia, I found I was seeing a phenomenon called "optical glory". The name derives from the Brocken, the tallest peak of the Harz mountain range in Germany. Because the peak is above the cloud level, and the area is frequently misty, the condition of a shadow cast onto a cloud layer is relatively favored and often seen with the coloured halo around the observer's head.

Glory cannot be explained by simple ray diagrams. It is said to be due to some form of interference and back-scattering. Mie scattering, the theory which includes all kinds of scattering off particles of a certain size, predicts that 10-20 micron sized droplets (note - rain drops are 100 times larger) would produce such coloured rings. The angle of the glory tells about the size of the droplet. There are also a host of similar optical phenomenon which produce colour in the sky, depending on the kind of cloud and the position of the sun (Optical Phenomenon).

Everything explained. We're good, right? Well, not quite. Having studied optics, I would have liked an explanation which gave me a reasonable picture in mind (like the rainbow ray diagram) as opposed to "crunch the numbers and you'll get it". Mie scattering theory is one of the messiest theories, which offers very little easy insight. So, I will have to give up my privileged insider status, remain a layman and just repeat what I'm told, just as I do for questions on cosmology and String Theory. I hope the theory of optical glory does not change very soon.

Meanwhile, whenever you get a chance, take a look at the sky. And choose a window seat when flying. You never know what you'll see!

10 Things I learnt in the US - part 2

6. Guns

We've seen them in movies. People keep guns at home. But to actually meet a gun owner was still shocking. I'm also not used to people talking casually about playing with assault rifles or hunting. I happened to go to a gun show once (It was side-by-side with the Heritage India festival), and was amazed by the murder weapons all around, all on sale! Thankfully, loaded guns were not allowed inside. In trying to buy a gun, I found out that one needed to apply for a license, which typically takes 3 days (Thank God, some regulations atleast).

Many people feel that they need guns in case the government attacks them. Others go by "Who will protect your family at home against an intruder?". ("Bowling for Columbine" talks all about this). It is quite amazing that many people feel safer with a murder weapon at home.


7. The Respected Professions

In India, the respectable people are those with a high education and/or high position - doctors, professors, IAS officers, company general managers, etc. However, in the US, people respect those who do a service for the community without high pay. Doctors are CEOs are looked at as money making. Lawyers are totally detested. Professors are looked as elitist. Civil administrators are "part of the Government". School teachers, police officers, military personnel and firemen are the respected professions. They are the ones quoted in newspapers to give a true testimony as to what people feel.

8. Insurance (and Credit Card) Scams

I never realized that scamming could be part a successful business model. One of the simplest ways to make money is to make people fight in order to claim money that was rightfully theirs. Many people don't notice the "mistake", while others try to fight, but get too busy and then forget about it. Insurance companies, apart from the highly regulated home, health and car insurance, are pretty much a law upon themselves. There is always fine print, or millions of documents to provide along with hours on the telephone to claim what should have been yours at the start. For those who fight till the end, like grad students with plenty of time, the company does pay up, and despite all the trouble it has caused, can claim to have "done its job" and move on to the next victim. And until the company name is pasted all over the internet with bad reviews, the scam goes on.

9. Minority religion groups

That there were many conservative Christian groups is one thing. Finding non-mainstream groups who have ultra-conservative beliefs is more shocking. From a colleague of mine, who was once a Mormon, I found out that Mormons live in almost a parallel universe, where creationism, belief in their prophet (who lived in the 1800s), communication with God are all truths, where coffee and alcohol do not exist and where all young people must spend 2 years of their lives in missionary service. One would expect the pluralistic nature of American society, along with communication and media, to prevent people from being so orthodox. But that isn't the case. Like Mormons, there are orthodox Jews, who don't operate machinery on Saturday (due to Sabbath), Amish people who still use horses for transportation, and probably several other lesser groups too.

There are also many extreme Hindu groups, whose views on Christianity and Islam would shock the average Indian ("Christianity and Islam, Capitalism and Communism are the 4 axes of evil in the world"). Some youths take a year off from education or work, to devote their time to the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, which sounds uncannily similar to Mormons spending time for missionary service. I wouldn't be surprised if similar groups exist for Islam too.

10. Nicknames

This is one of the more everyday things which does not take long to figure out. Prior to coming to the US, I always believed your name, when formally asked was what is written in your documents. However, during my first teaching lab, when I asked a group of students what their names where, I got "Jen... Ed... Al...". I soon realized that one could choose one's first name everywhere - what your colleagues call you, your credit card, name plate - except for very serious things like your driving license or passport. Many names have an associated short form, like William-Bill, Joseph-Joe, Amanda-Mandy. Some parents even choose a name based on its short form (a friend of mine was named Amanda because her Mom liked the name Mandy). Others, who have a foreign name, choose a more American short form (my favourite is Devarajan-Dave). Still others, (I've known many such Chinese) completely abandon any resemblance to the original name (Weihao - Jennifer, Zhechun-Lance). To all those parents who have ambitious plans to name their kids, if your kids don't like their given name, you may find them being called something completely different.

10 Things I learnt in the US - part 1

Back in India, we hear a lot about the US - News, Hollywood movies and stories from people visiting from the US. Nevertheless, that isn't a complete picture. Here are a list of things that I didn't know or fully appreciate before coming here


1. Immigrants

While I always had the picture of "White America", coming to the Washington DC suburbs, I was surprised by the number of immigrants. In fact, where I live, I hardly hear a proper American accent, either at home, work or outside. My earlier post, "People I meet" talks about this.

2. The Conservative Movement

If many people want to close their eyes and not face the truth, they can create anything for that - media (FOX news), talk shows, books (Intelligent Design), experts, scientists (Will Happer - 'More C02 will be better for humanity') and even museums ('Creation Museum' Seeks to Disprove Evolution, Paleontology, Geology)! While I knew that Americans voted Bush with all his Conservative leanings, I had no idea of the extent of support structure for conservative ideals, however blatantly wrong they may be.

In India, being "conservative" has a negative connotation - "his parents are very conservative and will not allow him to stay out late." Being "liberal" has a positive connotation. Those who'd like to say that they are not enthused by modern radical ideas refer to themselves as "traditional". In the US, the "traditional" people refer to themselves as "Conservative" (which I found quite amusing). Among such circles, "liberal" is a bad word. How can being free and open ever be bad? Well, that's the Conservative Movement.

3. Racial Tensions - what really happens

Back in India, we learn about the American Civil War and racial tensions in the US. We also know of America welcoming talent from all around the world and celebrating their African-American sports heroes. Coming here, I was interested in learning the truth. Is America racist?

The short answer is no. Even in the most Conservative circles, being openly racist is looked down upon. People are polite irrespective of who you are. Still, several subtle biases still exist.

However, the question is more complicated than I initially thought. It is not just about White-Black or White-Brown racism. Tensions exist between all the various minority racial groups. In fact, such groups are more open and explicit about it, since they don't have a "racist" tag to avoid (see "Crash", a 2005 movie). My first glimpse was when I heard a black person rant to his friends about how Hispanic immigrants were a problem. "They cause all the trouble. It's not us. They should all be sent back to their country". Also, when I lived in a predominantly black housing complex, I felt the resentment towards outsiders and would occasionally encounter someone who was rude to me when I asked for directions.

4. Non-Profits

While NGOs in India are associated with social service and upliftment of the poor or underprivileged, there are Non-Profits for everything here - the environment, fiscal discipline of the government, for guns, against guns, monitor of Catholic law makers and even pro- and anti-circumcision. There is a Non-Profit for the wildest idea you may have.

Having been around for a long term, Non-Profits follow certain, almost business models. They have their standard lines, "We've been doing great work .... However, to keep up with the increasing need, we need your contribution" or "... are in great danger. If you don't act now, we will lose ...". Their methods include guilt tripping and sending you freebies (name stickers, greeting cards) to make you feel obliged.

5. Car culture

While I had heard that America was largely dependent on cars, I didn't fully appreciate it until I came here. Large parts of the country do not have decent public transport. Even the suburbs of Washington DC have places where no buses run. In many places that do have buses, they run only weekdays. The concept that you cannot go somewhere because you do not have a car was new to me.

In American culture (includes immigrants and all), people are very helpful towards those without a car. For any get together, you can always be sure that someone will give you a ride, from and to your doorstep. People who live out of public transport's reach, will pick and drop you off at the metro at the very least.

Ironically, one of the hardest things to do without a car is to buy one. The good cars get sold before you reach them. Many cars are in far flung places, out of reach. Seeing a car itself is a half day affair using the metro.

After buying a car, everything changed. There are no time restrictions to return. Far flung addresses don't evoke the question, "How will I get there". While I do my duty to help my car-less friends, I hardly spare a thought for bettering public transport to help the unfortunate people out there who don't have cars.