Fill-in post

Maintaining a blog is like owning a car! It requires constant updates and a slightly longer than permitted break can lead to acute mental blocks. Right now, I am just trying to change all possible oils in my head. Ya.. I know. It sounds dumb to write something just for the heck of it. With no real motivation or even a point to prove - I am actually surprised that with all those heated debates we regularly have, there isn't anything interesting enough to write about - it is difficult to conjure up a story. The best I can do is to keep blabbering some nonsense and hope that whoever has ever tried reading my blogs are not overtly offended and come back to sample more posts later. If you aren't annoyed already, bear with me a few more sentences as I desperately try to sand the connections between my neurons clean. I promise that 'soon enough', I will try my best to put up a more sensible post. You surely agree with me that every system deserves a decent maintenance time, don't you? Even the finest F1 cars need pit stops! What chance does a pitiful writer like me stand against the odds of breakdown? The fault is all mine though. I have postponed writing for all possible reasons under the Sun, my favorite being 'I have lots of work to do' - with both my advisors out of town, which work am I talking about anyways? If you are still reading, please accept my heart felt gratitude. Thanks to your patience, the worst is over. With the hope of retaining a good reader like you and a better post next time, let me end your suffering here. Gracias!

Is Physics in principle Mathematics?

I recently had arguments with a couple of friends on whether science, in particular physics, is in principle a continuation of mathematics. They were heated debates and I still stand by my point- physics is in principle different from mathematics. I am aware that my hard-line stance may brand me as a "Physics chauvinist", but I have to do what needs to be done. Before I prove my point, let us first understand what is meant by being "same in principle". To make things more concrete, I will first prove that chemistry is in principle physics (no offense to anyone in chemistry).

Chemists may want to believe that they are unique, but unfortunately they are not. To their credit, they have developed many hand waving arguments that can often lead to approximately the same results as physics will predict (and are observed in experiments). These arguments sometimes tend stretch beyond what a computer can calculate using physical laws, but this is purely a material limitation. Physics can predict exactly how hydrogen molecule is formed. Physics can also explain very nicely the unusual stability of aromatic molecules like benzene. Left alone, chemist will attribute their stability to a bunch of diagrams which can be very misleading! More complicated molecules have been successfully described within the limits of quantum mechanics, but as their complexity increase, more powerful computers are required for calculations. Because of technological limitations, physicists can only go up to a certain level of complexity without having to spend disproportionate amounts of money or time. However, in principle, if one had an infinitely powerful computer, one can predict everything in chemistry using physics. The most striking example to substantiate this claim is that chemists still come to physicists to gain better insight of what they are doing!

I hope we are clear with the meaning of being "same in principle". Now, let me prove that physics is not in principle the same as mathematics. I start with an admission that physics relies heavily on mathematics for any significant numerical prediction. However, these predictions wont come naturally from mathematics unless a leap in understanding is achieved through physics and there is no way this leap can be circumvented. Again, to make things more tangible, let me give you an example. Let's imagine a conversation with a hypothetical mathematician friend.

Me: Hey dude*, can you tell me what this is? d^2(x)/(dt)^2=-(k^2)x

(* I don't know the corresponding word for ladies. This choice of word is purely due to my limited vocabulary. I will appreciate if you don't brand me as a male chauvinist for this!)

Mathematician: Oh! This is a second order linear differential equation.

Me: So?

Mathematician: It can be solved easily. The most general solution will have the form A*sin(kx) + B*cos(kx)

Me: So?

Mathematician: It mean that x has, in general, two oscillating components. You can draw figures... blah blah..

Me: So?

Mathematician: What do mean by so?

Me: Well.. I mean, what now?

Mathematician: What the f**k! Are you playing with me?

Me: No. I just want to know what happens now.

Mathematician: You are nuts dude. Get the f**k out of here! @#$%$#$%..... blah blah.

You get the general idea of how the rest of the conversation must have been. Our mathematician friend is pretty disturbed. So, let's leave him in peace for a while and turn our attention to our hypothetical physicist friend who has been listening quietly.

Me: Hey! Could you believe he got so mad at me for asking such a simple question? What do you think of it?

Physicist: You mean the mathematician or the equation?

Me: Oh! Well... Let's stick to the equation.

Physicist: That equation describes a simple harmonic oscillator like a pendulum. According to Newton's second law, a pendulum oscillates about its mean position. It also says that the time of oscillation is independent of the amplitude. That's why pendulum clocks were so reliably used in the past. Time period depends only on the length of the pendulum, assuming Earth's gravity is fixed.

Me: Oh.... Now that is a lot of stuff.

The large chunk of information about pendulums and clocks, as we see, cannot be naturally derived from the equation unless one had the physical intuition. One may be tempted to argue that every information comes from the same equation after all. There is nothing different in principle. It is just the way one interpretes it. To this, all that I can say is that nature is the same to all, but only a true artist can capture its essence and not every body can claim to be an artist!

Induced Conciousness

Have you ever felt that you were oblivious of something completely until somebody pointed it out, and then you become so conscious of it that you wish it was never brought to your notice in the first place? I had a similar experience recently. One of my friends wrote a blog on how his hands have become extra baggage since winter got over. Winter was really cold in Columbus and walking in the snow with hands cozily tucked inside jacket pockets had its own charm. Now the snow has gone and it is nice warm weather with beautiful flowers everywhere. Along with the snow, jackets and their pockets have also gone. My friend pointed out that with no pockets to put his hands in, he sometimes felt them hanging by his torso with no purpose. I thought this was a ridiculous idea, but unfortunately, I have also started wondering what my hands are doing when I have nothing in particular to do. Being very conscious makes things look weird. Thanks to my friend, I am beginning to find my hands annoying at times.

This is a very queer phenomenon. How does someone else's opinion impose itself on us? Even when the idea sounds ridiculous and we disagree completely, the fact that we are aware of it sometimes changes the way we perceive things! Logic dictates that such cirumstances should never arise. If something is so outrageously inane, why should anyone buy it? And yet, it affects us so deeply. It is as if we are a peice of iron and whenever a magnet is nearby, whether we like it or not, we acquire some magnetism! In this context, the term "social magnet" can mean quite different. I cannot help but wonder "why do we get affected in such strange ways?". It may not always be bad but opinions propagate in subtle ways. Maybe there is a deep connection between individuals in a social setup and an attempt to parametrize it will be fun. Someday, I may come up with a definition of "social magnetic susceptibility" and subtly force other people to believe in it. I am not sure if it will be a good parameter, but I know for sure that Babubhai wont like it!

dress up for the occasion!

Not dressing up for the occasion can often lead to social faux pas. I realized this the hard (and very embarrassing) way today. I and some of my friends were playing tennis. It was not planned and I wasn't wearing proper sports apparel. Being newbies, we started slow, but as adrenaline kicked in, I went for more daring shots. It was one such bold shot that exceeded the limit of my shorts. I tore it at its most sensitive part. To make things worse, there were three girls playing in the adjacent court. I had to make a quick exit but the nearest other pair of trousers was in my office, half a mile away. I walked all the way with just a bag held strategically to minimize further humiliation. This was one of most embarrassing things I have faced. Don't ever fail to dress up for the occasion!

Romance Vs Reason

Harmony is a funny term. It may not mean the same thing to different people and they can all be right at the same time. I had been trying to draw the perfect line of harmony between romantic tendencies and reason, with very confusing results. Please don't mistake my use of the word 'romance' for 'love'. Here, I am referring to being ardent, passionate or fervent with little or no regard for feasibility. Being a PhD student in Physics, I tend to be more logical than romantic. My first reaction to anything new is to analytically dissect it into pieces and reassemble them in all possible permutations and combinations. For somebody relying on physics to be his source of bread and butter, this may not sound so bad. However, I sometimes sense a lack of feelings. Too much of logic makes man mechanical.

On the other hand, being romantic doesn't fit into our current society very well. At every step, we are forced to make decisions that can change the course of our lives. For example, we had to choose between 'science' and 'arts' in school before we were legally allowed to even choose our leaders in an election! Being fanciful or utterly idealistic won't help in making the right decisions. Competition is fierce in today's world, and more is the demand for a pragmatic approach. How then do we strike balance between these two facets of human life? If good reasoning guides us to our goal, it is romance that adds color to the journey!

Have you noticed that I have clinically dissected this issue already? It helps me gain insight but it also deprives me of emotions. It is sort of a conundrum. To find the optimal balance I need to understand the issue first. However, an attempt to understand inevitably destroys the balance. Anyways, keeping this shortcoming aside, let's continue with our analysis. The crucial step is to define 'happiness'. Being successful in one's career or earning lots of money doesn't necessarily imply a fulfilled life. Partying all the time wont lead to long lasting happiness either. Requirements for a content life may differ from one person to another, but it is clearly the key to reaching the optimal state. So, the question we need to answer now is "How do we stay happy?". My answer is "flow with the natural current". One needs to live in the present and let things take their natural course. It means that one's effort should be in the direction of the flow and not against it. One wise Zen master once said, " Through non-action, everything can be done". I just wish it was so simple.

Song of the darkness

There was nothing but darkness around.
Yes, darkness of an everlasting night.
The wind thundered through swaying trees;
The loudest noise, just a pin's drop.
But through the piercing cries I heard a voice-
A sweet mysterious voice from afar,
So like a happy song of a happy soul.
And yet, in the darkness, hard to believe.
Human nature is the greatest puzzle of all.
In the cursed storm, a soul could sing merrily.
Could there be inspiration from darkness?
Or could it be ignorance, for ignorance is bliss?
An unanswered question it shall remain,
But one truth I know for sure.
The song was sweet and mysterious
Sung above the ominous cries of the darkness.

Why Blog?

Am I slow or is time running faster? I love to think of myself as a well informed guy in tune with current trends. Apparently I wasn't. Instead, I was a perfect example of "ignorance is bliss"! Can you believe I didn't know how RSS feeds work until yesterday? Being trained in Physics, doing non trivial mathematics on Mathematica, I had come to think of myself as tech savvy. I couldn't have been more wrong! There is a whole new world out there. What will I do without some engineer friends and a proactive girlfriend? An irrepressible need to assure myself that I am not 'outdated' in this fast evolving world made me start this blog. Expressing oneself freely helps.

Hmmm.. How do I start then? How about I was bullshitting so far? I don't really care if I am up to date or not! I just needed a medium to throw out my ideas. Today Prof. Randeria talked about Lars Onsager who was a reclusive mathematical genius known in the physics community for his solution of the 2D Ising model. For all the brilliant ideas he had, he didn't care to publish all of them. When he solved the 2D Ising model, he just stood up in a conference and announced his result. It took almost a decade for people to confirm he was right! For a genius like him, it didn't really matter whether his ideas got published or not. He anyways won the 1968 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. But what about an ordinary guy like me? I seriously need to peddle my ideas. Nobody is going to spend a decade to find out what I thought about anything. In fact, there is a necessity to sometimes force feed theories that I cook up to unsuspecting victims (sorry Babubhai!). It is precisely with this intention that I have started this blog. I cannot promise that you will like all that is going to come, but at least you will get to know how I think. Cheers! I just saved a decade for you!