Article

5 Questions to Hansjrg Kutterer, DVW

April 1, 2021

Innovative developments based on quantum physics will lead to further disruption of our professional field over the coming decade, predicts Hansjrg Kutterer who, besides being president of DVW, is also a professor of geodetic Earth system science. 'GIM International'asked him five questions relating to the challenges and opportunities in the geospatial industry, now and in the future.

2020 was an extraordinary year. How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the way the industry operates, and which other factors are influencing the geospatial business?

The pandemic was and is extremely influential on our professional life. At very short notice, we had to considerably change our approaches from on-site and immediate to remote and fully virtual settings. Fortunately, we could benefit from the ongoing digital transformation. The existing digital infrastructure and established procedures based on digital communication and collaboration tools could be used in order to overcome obstacles caused by the pandemic. Thus, it was possible to provide effective substitutes in the given situation, such as digital meetings, digital conferences or digital teaching. Nevertheless, both technical capacities and personal capabilities needed rapid upgrades. Actually, the accelerated digitalization is both an opportunity and an obligation for the geospatial business, as work can generally be continued on a digital basis but very often relies on digital geospatial data.

Which new technologies do you foresee becoming important to your work?

This is going to be the decade of continuous Earth observation based on a sustainably maintained infrastructure and a comprehensive open-data policy. The European Copernicus system may serve as an example. Rapidly increasing amounts of heterogeneous geospatial data are obtained within very short time spans. These new opportunities are accompanied by the strong need for effective data management using integrated research data infrastructures, for example. Moreover, advanced data processing is required which comprises things like deep learning techniques. I also expect that innovative developments based on quantum physics will lead to further disruption of our professional field over the coming decade. Quantum sensors such as optical clocks will provide accurate height differences over large distances, and quantum computers will further speed up time-consuming computations.

Is the surveying profession able to attract enough qualified personnel?

The number of qualified personnel is becoming increasingly crucial for the further development of the surveying profession. Despite the broad appeal of our professional field and the high number of vacancies, there is still a lack of public visibility and thus limited awareness among potential candidates. For this reason, there have been various activities in Germany over the years aimed at reaching and attracting more young people to the industry. For example, the Instagram campaign #weltvermesserer has been launched in 2021 by a consortium consisting of all national stakeholders, including the private sector, administration, science and all relevant professional organizations. Both the expected impact of this campaign and the increasing interdisciplinary nature of our professional community will provide a good basis for tackling this sizeable challenge successfully.

What is your policy on crowdsourcing and open data?

Due to my academic role and my volunteer position within DVW, my answer is twofold. Open data policies are mandatory for a more comprehensive scientific, administrative or private exploitation of existing and newly incoming data. This definitely refers to all stakeholders who rely on geospatial data. Data generated and used in science and education must be open and available through efficient digital data infrastructures. Sustainable open-data initiatives and programmes are highly appreciated. Crowdsourcing offers the opportunity to collect data that is either outside the scope of public agencies or could offer an alternative to existing administrative data that is only available with a licence. The DVW organization encourages any initiative that advances the fields of geodesy, geoinformation and land management.

In terms of meeting your goals, what is the biggest challenge for your organization in the next five years?

As a university professor I am very aware of the increasing need of the professional community for enhanced capabilities in the digital transformation, in smart and integrated systems, in the widespread application of our contributions, and in interdisciplinary work. This needs to be further implemented in the curricula over the coming years, including effective digital settings and dedicated competence-oriented techniques. Actually, this is also linked to DVWs activities, albeit from the perspective of a non-profit organization. As DVW, we offer professional expertise, conferences, post-graduate training, highly skilled working groups, and last but not least an attractive networking platform for our members, essentially based on volunteering. This needs to be sustainably maintained and further developed.

Read more:

Quantum Physics to Disrupt Geospatial Industry over the Coming Decade - GIM International

Mathematics is a language and languages can be used to create stories. It just takes imagination to create time travel or wormholes or theories of strings or lots of nice things theoretical physicists throw into arXiv.

Sometimes math has to create a story because real numbers don't work, even if the physics does.

Wave-particle duality, a foundation of quantum mechanics, has a fascinating science history. James Clerk Maxwell, whose equations govern the device you are reading this article on, couldn't explain everything - he died of cancer at age 46. It was left to Albert Einstein a generation later, in his 1905 paper, to describe light as photons containing properties of both particles and electromagnetic fields - the waves of Maxwell.

In 1923, Louis de Broglie came up with an idea for how particles could behave like waves and then two physicists at Western Electric, Lester Germer and Clinton Davisson, proved it with electrons. But there was still something missing from that physical proof - an explanation using using real numbers. I mentioned Maxwell's Equations being fundamental to the device you are this reading on, and they are the basis for a trillion-dollar industry, but despite that I wish you good luck defining a magnetic field without being recursive (like it's a field in the presence of a magnet). So it goes with wave-particle duality without using imaginary numbers. Real numbers are for measurable physical quantities. This has not really been an obstacle. Sometimes things work even if it's a bit of a black box how, so complex numbers have real and imaginary aspects; a and bi. a and b are real while i is imaginary.

A new paper says that rather than complex numbers being a purely mathematical invention to "facilitate calculations for physicists", quantum states and complex numbers are instead ironically and inextricably linked. They even can show it experimentally.

There is no i in the real world. You can have one pair of shoes, you can have two, and if the dog takes the left one you can have 1/2 of a pair of shoes but you can never have i pairs of shoes - shoes are not roots of negative numbers. Yet quantum mechanics deals with probability - if it will behave like a particle or a wave a la Schrdinger. Such changes in 'time' are called the wave function,and i is next to the wave function in Schrdinger's equation.

Complex numbers have an amplitude and phase and i describes the phase. Without it, the sum of all the probabilities can't be equal to one.

All fine for math, but you can see why the public thinks that is not real, any more than subject-verb agreement in a story is "real", even as it's important, or that adjectives need to go in a certain order - "size comes before colour, green great dragons can't exist"- in a story. Obviously such a thing can exist, English is not the only language and I am tempted to write a story in English using no adjective in commonly accepted order because I am a rebel. That is why complex numbers also have their place when the math is not middle school.

Scientists have debated whether or not the quantum realm can be shown with real numbers. That is what the new paper sought to answer, and they used our old friends Alice and Bob, from the seminal 1978 paper by Rivest and Adleman, when encryption was already a big concern.

If two photons are in one of two quantum states, you need complex numbers to tell them apart. Only then can you send one photon to Alice and the other to Bob where they can be measured and compared.

"Let's assume Alice and Bob's measurement results can only take on the values of 0 or 1. Alice sees a nonsensical sequence of 0s and 1s, as does Bob. However, if they communicate, they can establish links between the relevant measurements. If the game master sends them a correlated state, when one sees a result of 0, so will the other. If they receive an anti-correlated state, when Alice measures 0, Bob will have 1. By mutual agreement, Alice and Bob could distinguish our states, but only if their quantum nature was fundamentally complex," says co-author Dr. Alexander Streltsov from the University of Warsaw.

More importantly, if you value experimental physics over theoretical, is that they did an experiment using linear optics. It proved "that complex numbers are an integral, indelible part of quantum mechanics."

Credit: USTC

What does it all mean in a practical sense? Quantum superposition in the real world has been a pipe dream since I was young but that is because it is evolutionary in the real world unlike revolutionary in the theoretical. Yet the real world has to accept that some things will always be complex and proceed from there. This paper moves us along that path.

Continued here:

Imaginarity: New Paper Says The Imaginary Part Of Quantum Mechanics Can Be Observed - Science 2.0

Modern physics is full of the sort of twisty, puzzle-within-a-puzzle plots youd find in a classic detective story: Both physicists and detectives must carefully separate important clues from unrelated information. Both physicists and detectives must sometimes push beyond the obvious explanation to fully reveal whats going on.

And for both physicists and detectives, momentous discoveries can hinge upon Sherlock Holmes-level deductions based on evidence that is easy to overlook. Case in point: the Muon g-2 experiment currently underway at the US Department of Energys Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.

The current Muon g-2 (pronounced g minus two) experiment is actually a sequel, an experiment designed to reexamine a slight discrepancy between theory and the results from an earlier experiment at Brookhaven National Laboratory, which was also called Muon g-2.

The discrepancy could be a sign that new physics is afoot. Scientists want to know whether the measurement holds up or if its nothing but a red herring.

The Fermilab Muon g-2 collaboration has announced it will present its first result on April 7. Until then, lets unpack the facts of the case.

Illustration by Sandbox Studio, Chicago with Steve Shanabruch

All spinning, charged objectsincluding muons and their better-known particle siblings, electronsgenerate their own magnetic fields. The strength of a particles magnetic field is referred to as its magnetic moment or its g-factor. (Thats what the g part of g-2 refers to.)

To understand the -2 part of g-2, we have to travel a bit back in time.

Spectroscopy experiments in the 1920s (before the discovery of muons in 1936) revealed that the electron has an intrinsic spin and a magnetic moment. The value of that magnetic moment, g, was found experimentally to be 2. As for why that was the valuethat mystery was soon solved using the new but fast-growing field of quantum mechanics.

In 1928, physicist Paul Diracbuilding upon the work of Llewelyn Thomas and othersproduced a now-famous equation that combined quantum mechanics and special relativity to accurately describe the motion and electromagnetic interactions of electrons and all other particles with the same spin quantum number. The Dirac equation, which incorporated spin as a fundamental part of the theory, predicted that g should be equal to 2, exactly what scientists had measured at the time.

But as experiments became more precise in the 1940s, new evidence came to light that reopened the case and led to surprising new insights about the quantum realm.

Illustration by Sandbox Studio, Chicago with Steve Shanabruch

The electron, it turned out, hada little bit of extra magnetism that Diracs equation didnt account for. That extra magnetism, mathematically expressed as g-2 (or the amount that g differs from Diracs prediction), is known as the anomalous magnetic moment. For a while, scientists didnt know what caused it.

If this were a murder mystery, the anomalous magnetic moment would be sort of like an extra fingerprint of unknown provenance on a knife used to stab a victima small but suspicious detail that warrants further investigation and could unveil a whole new dimension ofthe story.

Physicist Julian Schwinger explained the anomaly in 1947 by theorizing that the electron could emit and then reabsorb a virtual photon. The fleeting interaction would slightly boost the electrons internal magnetism by a tenth of a percent, the amount needed to bring the predicted value into line with the experimental evidence. But the photon isnt the only accomplice.

Over time, researchers discovered that there was an extensive network of virtual particles constantly popping in and out of existence from the quantum vacuum. Thats what had been messing with the electrons little spinning magnet.

The anomalous magnetic moment represents the simultaneous combined influence of every possible effect of those ephemeral quantum conspirators on the electron. Some interactions are more likely to occur, or are more strongly felt than others, and they therefore make a larger contribution. But every particle and force in the Standard Model takes part.

The theoretical models that describe these virtual interactions have been quite successful in describing the magnetism of electrons. For the electrons g-2, theoretical calculations are now in such close agreement with the experimental value that its like measuring the circumference of the Earth with an accuracy smaller than the width of a single human hair.

All of the evidence points to quantum mischief perpetrated by known particles causing any magnetic anomalies. Case closed, right?

Not quite. Its now time to hear the muons side of the story.

Illustration by Sandbox Studio, Chicago with Steve Shanabruch

Early measurements of the muons anomalous magnetic moment at Columbia University in the 1950s and at the European physics laboratory CERN in the 1960s and 1970s agreed well with theoretical predictions. The measurements uncertainty shrank from 2% in 1961 to 0.0007% in 1979. It looked as if the same conspiracy of particles that affected the electrons g-2 were responsible for the magnetic moment of the muon as well.

But then, in 2001, the Brookhaven Muon g-2 experiment turned up something strange. The experiment was designed to increase the precision from the CERN measurements and look at the weak forces contribution to the anomaly. It succeeded in shrinking the error bars to half a part per million. But it also showed a tiny discrepancyless than 3 parts per millionbetween the new measurement and the theoretical value. This time, theorists couldnt come up with a way to recalculate their models to explain it. Nothing in the Standard Model could account for the difference.

It was the physics mystery equivalent of a single hair found at a crime scene with DNA that didnt seem to match anyone connected to the case. The question wasand still iswhether the presence of the hair is just a coincidence, or whether it is actually an important clue.

Physicists are now re-examining this hairat Fermilab, with support from the DOE Office of Science, the National Science Foundation and several international agencies in Italy, the UK, the EU, China, Korea and Germany.

In the new Muon g-2 experiment, a beam of muonstheir spins all pointing the same directionare shot into a type of accelerator called a storage ring. The rings strong magnetic field keeps the muons on a well-defined circular path. If g were exactly 2, then the muons spins would follow their momentum exactly. But, because of the anomalous magnetic moment, the muons have a slight additional wobble in the rotation of their spins.

When a muon decays into an electron and two neutrinos, the electron tends to shoot off in the direction that the muons spin was pointing. Detectors on the inside of the ring pick up a portion of the electrons flung by muons experiencing the wobble. Recording the numbers and energies of electrons they detect over time will tell researchers how much the muon spin has rotated.

Using the same magnet from the Brookhaven experiment with significantly better instrumentation, plus a more intense beam of muons produced by Fermilabs accelerator complex, researchers are collecting 21 times more data to achieve four times greater precision.

The experiment may confirm the existence of the discrepancy; it may find no discrepancy at all, pointing to a problem with the Brookhaven result; or it may find something in between, leaving the case unsolved.

Illustration by Sandbox Studio, Chicago with Steve Shanabruch

Theres reason to believe something is going on that the Standard Model hasnt told us about.

The Standard Model is a remarkably consistent explanation for pretty much everything that goes on in the subatomic world. But there are still a number of unsolved mysteries in physics that it doesnt address.

Dark matter, for instance, makes up about 27% of the universe. And yet, scientists still have no idea what its made of. None of the known particles seem to fit the bill. The Standard Model also cant explain the mass of the Higgs boson, which is surprisingly small. If the Fermilab Muon g-2 experiment determines that something beyond the Standard Modelfor example an unknown particleis measurably messing with the muons magnetic moment, it may point researchers in the right direction to close another one of these open files.

A confirmed discrepancy wont actually provide DNA-level details about what particle or force is making its presence known, but it will help narrow down the ranges of mass and interaction strength in which future experiments are most likely to find something new. Even if the discrepancy fades, the data will still be useful for deciding where to look.

It might be that a shadowy quantum figure lurking beyond the Standard Model is too well hidden for current technology to detect. But if its not, physicists will leave no stone unturned and no speck of evidence un-analyzed until they crack the case.

Read the original post:

The mystery of the muon's magnetism | symmetry magazine - Symmetry magazine

We take for granted the western concept of linear time. In ancient Greece, time was cyclical and if the Big Bounce theory is true, they were right. In Buddhism, there is only the eternal now. Both the past and the future are illusions. Meanwhile, the Amondawa people of the Amazon, a group that first made contact with the outside world in 1986, have no abstract concept of time. While we think we know time pretty well, some scientists believe our linear model hobbles scientific progress. We're missing whole dimensions of time, in this view, and our limited perception could be the last obstacle to a sweeping theory of everything.

Theoretical physicist Itzhak Bars of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, is the most famous scientist with such a hypothesis, known as two-time physics. Here, time is 2D, visualized as a curved plane interwoven into the fabric of the "normal" dimensionsup-down, left-right, and backward-forward. While the hypothesis is over a decade old, Bars isn't the only scientist with such an idea. But what's different with spacekime theory is that it uses a data analytics approach, rather than a physics one. And while it posits that there are at least two dimensions of time, it allows for up to five.

In the spacekime model, space is 5D. Besides the ones we normally encounter, the extra dimensions are so infinitesimally small, we never notice them. This relates to the KaluzaKlein theory developed in the early 20th century, which stated that there might be an extra, microscopic dimension of space. In this view, space would be curved like the surface of Earth. And like Earth, those who travel the entire distance would, eventually, loop back to their place of origin.

Kaluza-Klein theory unified electromagnetism and gravity, but wasn't accepted at the time, although it did help in the search for quantum gravity. The concept of additional dimensions was revived in the 1990s with Paul Wesson's Space-Time-Matter Consortium. Today, proponents of superstring theory say there may be as many as 10 different dimensions, including nine of space and one of time.

Spacekime theory was developed by two data scientists. Dr. Ivo Dinov is the University of Michigan's SOCR Director, as well as a professor of Health Behavior and Biological Sciences, and Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics. SOCR stands for: Statistics Online Computational Resource designs. Dr. Dinov is an expert in "mathematical modeling, statistical analysis, computational processing, scientific visualization of large datasets (Big Data) and predictive health analytics." His research has focused on mathematical modeling, statistical inference, and biomedical computing.

His colleague, Dr. Milen Velchev Velev, is an associate professor at the Prof. Dr. A. Zlatarov University in Bulgaria. He studies relativistic mechanics in multiple time dimensions, and his interests include "applied mathematics, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology, philosophy of science, the nature of space and time, chaos theory, mathematical economics, and micro-and-macroeconomics."

Drs. Dinov and Velev began developing spacekime theory around four or five years ago, while working with big data in the healthcare field. "We started looking at data that intrinsically has a temporal dimension to it," Dr. Dinov told me during a video chat. "It's called longitudinal or time varying data, longitudinal time varianceit has many, many names. This is data that varies with time. In biomedicine, this is the de facto, standard data. All big health data is characterized by space, time, phenotypes, genotypes, clinical assessments, and so forth."

"We started asking big questions," Dinov said. "Why are our models not really fitting too well? Why do we need so many observations? And then, we started playing around with time. We started digging and experimenting with various things. And then we realized two important facts.

"Number one, if we use what's called color-coded representations of the complex plane, we can define spacekime, or higher dimensional spacetime, in such a way that it agrees with the common observations that we make in (the longitudinal time series in) ordinary spacetime. That agreement was very important to us, because it basically says, yes, the higher dimensional theory does not contradict our common observations.

"The second realization was that, since this extra dimension of time is imperceptible, we needed to approximate, model, or estimate, one of the unobservable time characteristics, which we call the kime phase. After about a year, we discovered that there is a mathematically elegant tool called the Laplace Transform that allows us to analytically represent time series data as kime-surfaces. Turns out, the spacekime mathematical manifold is a natural, higher dimensional extension of classical Minkowski, four-dimensional spacetime."

Our understanding of the world is becoming more complex. As a result, we have big data to contend with. How do we find new ways to analyze, interpret and visual such data? Dinov believes spacekime theory can help in some pretty impressive ways. "The result of this multidimensional manifold generalization is that you can make scientific inferences using smaller data samples. This requires that you have a good model or prior knowledge about the phase distribution," he said. "For instance, we can use spacekime process representation to better understand the development or pathogenesis to model the distributions of certain diseases.

"Suppose we are evaluating fMRIs of Alzheimer's disease subjects. Assume we know the kime phase distribution for another cohort of patients suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease. The ALS kime-phase distribution could be used for evaluating the Alzheimer's patients," and many other neurodegenerative populations. Dinov also thinks spacekime analytics could help improve political polling, increase our understanding of complex financial and environmental events, and even the innerworkings of the human brain, all without having to take the huge samples required today to make accurate models or predictions. Spacekime theory even offers opportunities to design novel AI analytical techniques. But it goes beyond that.

Spacekime theory can help us make headway on some of the most pernicious inconsistencies in physics, such as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the seemingly irreconcilable rift between quantum physics and general relativity, what's known as "the problem of time."

Dinov wrote that the "approach relies on extending the notions of time, events, particles, and wave functions to complex-time (kime), complex-events (kevents), data, and inference-functions." Basically, working with two points of time allows you to make inferences on a radius of points associated with a certain event. With Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, according to this model, since time is a plane, a certain particle would be in one position or phase, time-wise, in terms of velocity, and another phase, in terms of position.

This idea of hidden dimensions of time is a little like Plato's allegory of the cave or how an X-ray signifies what's underneath, but doesn't convey a 3D image. From a data science perspective, it all comes down to utility. Dinov believes that if we can calculate the true phase dispersion of complex phenomena, we can better understand and control them.

Drs. Dinov and Velev's book on spacekime theory comes out this August. It's called "Data Science: Time Complexity, Inferential Uncertainty, and Spacekime Analytics".

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Excerpt from:

'Spacekime theory' could speed up research and heal the rift in physics - Big Think

Miracle drugs and revolutionary products seem to pop up daily in todays social-media-driven world. Maybe its a magic diet that will make you lose 20 pounds in a week or an amino-acid-fortified shampoo that cures baldness in 24 hours. But one way or the other, theres a good chance youve come across a few of them.

Unfortunately, these so-called miracle products are generally terrible disappointments. And that shouldnt be surprising. Most if not all of these magic products have little to no scientific evidence backing them. At best, they are a waste of your time and money. At worst? They can lead to sickness or even death.

Here's a guide to everything you need to know about pseudoscience, how to spot fake products, and a list of some of the most popular products and technologies that are all hype and no science.

First things first what exactly is pseudoscience? The word pseudo means "false," so pseudoscience simply translates to false science. Or better put it is nonsense dressed up as science. Pseudoscience is almost always either loosely based on real science or what sounds like science.

In his recently published research paper, Sven Hanson, a Swedish philosopher, defines pseudoscience as "a doctrine that is claimed to be scientific in spite of not being so." He goes on to say that, unlike science, which is open to change and new information, pseudoscience is ideological in nature. It is "characterized by a staunch commitment to doctrines that are irreconcilable with legitimate science."

Hanson identifies the three major boxes that pseudoscience must check as: 1) It refers to issues that rest within the domain of science. 2) Its results are unreliable (not reproducible). 3) It is based on a body of knowledge that is ideological and generally stands as a doctrine

According to Hanson, pseudotechnology is, an alleged technology that is irreparably dysfunctional for its intended purpose since it is based on construction principles that cannot be made to work. To paraphrase, it doesnt do what its supposed to and can never do so. Interestingly, the term pseudotechnology is pretty unpopular. In fact, as of April 2020, the word pseudoscience was searched on Google 700 times more than pseudotechnology, notes Hanson.

And heres why you dont hear so much about pseudotechnology if a piece of tech doesnt work, youll know right there on the spot. Additionally, a technology typically only impacts the end-user (or those near to them). Science, on the other hand, involves all-encompassing concepts that usually impact us all and is more difficult to refute than a technology that does or does not do a specific thing.

In an ideal world, pseudoscience would be easy to spot. Unfortunately, the many so-called experts who promote these products usually make the task more challenging. For instance, Dr. Mehmet Oz, a doctor and popular TV host, has been repeatedly accused of peddling pseudoscientific information on his show and even had to appear before the US senate in 2014. In one of his episodes, he proclaimed green coffee extract as a magic weight-loss compound. In his defense, a handful of research studies did report a mildweight-loss benefit for this compound. But heres the kicker: these studies are based on poor methodological quality, according to a systematic review on the subject published in Gastroenterology Research and Practice.

In short, Dr. Oz's claims were not based on reliable peer review or what actual science shows.

Elsewhere, Goop, Gwyneth Paltrows company, has also been heavily criticized for peddling false health claims. In fact, in 2018, they were forced to pay a $145,000 settlement in a lawsuit they faced for peddling false health claims for financial profit. For instance, Goop claimed that one of their products the vaginal jade egg could regulate menstrual cycles, balance hormones, increase bladder control and prevent urinary prolapse. Wow. Sounds like a cureall.

Unfortunately, it cannot do any of those things.

So, how do you ensure you dont fall for con artists parading as scientists? Well, here are a few telltale signs of pseudoscience-based products.

They rely heavily on testimonials

As far as real science is concerned, you dont need to oversell anything. If it works, your results should do the talking. But marketers of pseudoscientific products understand that people respond well to emotional stimulation and the story of others. So, instead of sharing real data, they emphasize the numerous testimonials they have from current users.

If the science behind a product is legit, the manufacturers will go out of their way to share the results. Testimonials will only be secondary. But if you find a so-called science-based product that is marketed largely based on testimonials, then be careful... its probably a scam.

Theyre based on new and evolving sciences

Evolving sciences are a major breeding ground for quacks and people who want to get away with whatever explanation they provide. This isnt yet fully understood, but it works, is the catchphrase they use to deceive the innocent public, so you might want to look out for that.

Speaking of evolving sciences, quantum mechanics has been heavily abused in this regard. For instance, one business created a so-called tick-repelling barrier that supposedly utilizes the "power of the bio-energetic field which surrounds all living things"to create a repelling barrier against insects and its all based on "natures energetic principles in combination with physics, quantum physics, and advanced computer software technology". But guess what quantum physics doesn't work like that.

One Product cures many diseases

Okay heres the thing the human body is very complex and even a single disease can have multiple root causes. So, the idea of a single product curing multiple ailments is simply impractical and irrational no matter how many testimonials they display or how shiny the science looks.

They ignore real scientific processes

Evidence-based products or treatments undergo multiple steps in the scientific process before theyre released for public use. For a new medicine or treatment, such steps may include basic lab research, animal tests, clinical trials, and eventually, peer-reviewed publications. If a so-called miracle product hasnt been rigorously tested enough to result in a published peer-reviewed paper, you should probably stay away from it.

One Genius figured it out

While it may be easy for a fictional Tony Stark to create some of the world's greatest technologies all by himself, the truth is far from this in the real world. Even geniuses like Elon Musk and Bill Gates dont claim to figure out everything all by themselves.

The truth is that science and medicine have been practiced for thousands of years. And even the most novel findings are largely based on building on the existing knowledge provided by many people. So, when you hear that one person figured out some new technique or cure overnight, without it going through some sort of critique or review by other experts, you can almost be certain its pseudoscience.

Read the rest here:

Your Guide to Products and Technologies That Are Pseudoscience - Interesting Engineering

In the second part of a series on the science of consciousness, Sen Duke features those who believe the human brain works more like a quantum computer.

The mystery of consciousness, according to Roger Penrose, the 89-year-old winner of the 2020 Nobel Prize in physics, will only be solved when an understanding is found for how brain structures can harness the properties of quantum mechanics to make it possible.

Penrose, emeritus professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford a collaborator of the late Stephen Hawking who won the Nobel for his work on the nature of black holes, has been interested in consciousness since he was a Cambridge graduate student. He has authored many books on consciousness, most notably The Emperors New Mind (1989), and believes it to be so complex that it cannot be explained by our current understanding of physics and biology.

As a young mathematician, Penrose believed, and still does today, that something is true, not because it is derived from the rules or axioms, but because its possible to see that its true. The ultimate truth in mathematics, he reasoned, cannot, therefore, be proven by following algorithms; a set of calculations performed to instruction.

It followed, Penrose deduced, that the truth of how consciousness operates in the brain may not be provable by algorithms or thinking of the brain as a computer. This idea set off a life-long quest to understand the mysterious processes governing consciousness going on in our heads, which, Penrose says, remain beyond our existing understanding of physics, mathematics, biology or computers.

After The Emperors New Mind was published, Penrose received a letter from Stuart Hameroff, professor of anaesthesiology at the University of Arizona, who also had a long interest in understanding consciousness. In the letter, Hameroff described tiny structures in the brain called microtubules, which he believed were capable of generating consciousness by tapping into the quantum world.

Hameroff, who has worked as an anaesthesiologist for 45 years, believes anaesthesia may work through specifically targeting consciousness through its action on the neural microtubules. After writing the letter, he met Penrose in 1992, and over the next two years they developed radical ideas about consciousness which ran counter to the thinking of most neuroscientists, and still do.

Penrose and Hameroff believe that the human brain works more like a quantum computer than any classical computers. This is because future quantum computers will be designed to harness the ability of quantum particles to exist in multiple locations, states and positions all at once. These quantum effects arise in the microtubules, they suggest, which then act as the brains link to the quantum world.

The microtubules were structures that Hameroff had studied in since his graduate student days. They interested him initially, he recalls, because of their role in cancer. The microtubules were crucial to cell division, by splitting chromosomes perfectly in two. If microtubules did not function then chromosomes could be divided unevenly in three or four, not two, he says, thus triggering cancer.

The central role that the microtubules played in cell division, led Hameroff to speculate that they were controlled by some form of natural computing. In his book Ultimate Computing (1987), he argues that microtubules have sufficient computation power to produce thought. He also argues that the microtubules the tiny structures which give the cell its shape and act like a scaffold are the most basic units of information processing in the brain, not the neurons.

The fact that microtubules are found in animals, plants and even single-celled amoeba, says Hameroff means that consciousness is probably widespread and exists at many levels. The way microtubules work to produce consciousness, he says, can be thought of as being similar to how a conductor directs the sounds produced by individual musicians and orchestrates it into a coherent functioning orchestra.

Consciousness will be a different experience in humans compared to amoeba, says Hameroff. A single-celled organism might have proto-consciousness; that is consciousness without no memory, without context, isolated, not connected with anything else, and occurring at low intensity. There wouldnt be any sense of self memory or meaning, but there would be some glimmer of feeling or awareness.

Penrose agreed with Hameroff that the microtubules could possibly maintain the quantum coherence needed for complex thought and a collaboration began that continues today. Consciousness, the two believed, was a non-logarithmic, quantum process that could only be understood by a theory that linked the brain to quantum mechanics.

This led Penrose and Hameroff to develop a theory called orchestrated reduction, or OR. This proposed that areas of the brain where consciousness occurs must be structured so that they can hold innumerable quantum possibilities all at once per the rules of quantum mechanics while permitting the controlled reduction of such endless possibilities, without destroying the quantum system.

The microtubules were, both agreed, the best currently known structures in the brain where quantum processes could take place in a stable way and be harnessed to generate our conscious experience. They agreed that consciousness might ultimately be found in many locations across the brain, not just confined to the microtubules.

According to Hameroff, the presence of pyramid-shaped cells containing microtubules organised to run in two directions, rather than in parallel, which is more usual, was the difference between the parts of the brain where consciousness happens and the unconscious brain. Its notable, he says, that these pyramidal cells are not present in the cerebellum; an area considered to be unconscious.

One of the main criticisms of the Penrose-Hameroff quantum-based theory of consciousness is that there is no way to measure whether quantum processes are happening in the microtubules or any other parts of the brain. Penrose accepts such criticism but believes such measurements will become possible over the long term.

Hameroff already has plans to test whether quantum states exist inside microtubules. If he can prove this, his next step will be to see if such states disappear under anaesthesia. If they do then he says it strengthens the theory that microtubules host conscious thought.

Brain scanning techniques like PET and MRI, have become very powerful but are of little or no use in consciousness studies, says Penrose. They can, he notes, monitor blood flow and where activity is happening in the brain but they cant say whether that activity involves conscious thought. For that something else is required.

One way to measure thought, some scientists believe, is by observing brainwaves. For example, some evidence suggests that brainwaves, oscillating at about 40 Hertz, can be correlated with consciousness.

Penrose and Hameroff would like to find evidence for quantum brain oscillations in the microtubules but have no tools yet to achieve this.

This is a long-term project, which I dont see resolving for many years, says Penrose who, given his age, would like to see things moving faster. I feel pretty sure that we havent really understood fully how biological systems are organised and how they may be taking advantage of the subtle effects of [quantum] physics.

The big difficulty with trying to measure quantum processes in the brain, Penrose points out, is that such effects are destroyed when they are observed or brought into contact with the outside world. It is going to be very hard to have direct access to consciousness, as to observe it, currently, would be to destroy it.

Read more here:

Can science explain the mystery of consciousness? - The Irish Times

Swedish Philosopher Nick Bostroms simulation argument says we might be living in a computer-generated reality. Maybe hes right. There currently exists no known method by which we could investigate the parameters of our programming, so its up to each of us to decide whether to believe in The Matrix or not.

Perhaps its a bit more nuanced than that though. Maybe hes only half-wrong or half-right, depending on your philosophical view.

What if we are living in a simulation, but theres no computer (in the traditional sense) running it?

Heres the wackiest, most improbable theory I could cobble together from the weirdest papers Ive ever covered. I call it: Simulation Argument: Live and Unplugged.

Philosophy!

Bostroms hypothesis is actually quite complicated:

But it can be explained rather easily. According to him, one or more of the following statements must be true:

Bostroms basically saying that humans in the future will probablyrun ancestry simulations on their fancy futuristic computers. Unless they cant, dont want to, or humanity gets snuffed out before they get the chance.

Physics!

As many people have pointed out, theres no way to do the science when it comes to simulation hypothesis. Just like theres no way for the ants in an antcolony to understand why youve put them there, or whats going on beyond the glass, you and I cant slip the void to have a chat with the programmers responsible for coding us. Were constrained by physical rules, whether we understand them or not.

Quantum Physics!

Except, of course, in quantum mechanics. There, all the classical physics rules we spent millennia coming up with make almost no sense. In the reality you and I see every day, for example, an object cant be in two places at the same time. But the heart of quantum mechanics involves this very principal.

The universe at large appears to obey a different set of rules than the ones that directly apply to you and I in our everyday existence.

Astrophysics!

Scientists like to describe the universe in terms of rules because, from where were sitting, were basically looking at infinity from the perspective of an amoeba. Theres no ground-truth for us to compare notes against when we, for example, try to figure out how gravity works in and around a black hole. We use rules such as mathematics and the scientific method to determine whats really real.

So why are the rules different for people and stars than they are for singularities and wormholes? Or, perhaps more correctly: if the rules are the same for everything, why are they applied in different measures across different systems?

Wormholes, for example, could, in theory, allow objects to take shortcuts through physical spaces. And who knows whats actually on the other side of a black hole?

But you and I are stuck here with boring old gravity, only able to be in a single place at a time. Or are we?

Organic neural networks!

Humans, as a system, are actually incredibly connected. Not only are we tuned in somewhat to the machinations of our environment, but we can spread information about it across vast distances at incredible speeds. For example, no matter where you live, its possible for you to know the weather in New York, Paris, and on Mars in real-time.

Whats important there isnt how technologically advanced the smart phone or todays modern computers have become, but that we continue to find ways to increase and evolve our ability to share knowledge and information. Were noton Mars, but we know whats going on almost as if we were.

And, whats even more impressive, we can transfer that information acrossiterations. A child born today doesnt have to discover how to make fire and then spend their entire life developing the combustion engine. Its already been done. They can look forward and develop something new. Elon Musks already made a pretty good electric engine, so maybe our kids will figure out a fusion engine or something even better.

In AI terms, were essentially training new models based on the output from old models. And that makes humanity itself a neural network. Each generation of human adds selected information from the previous generations output to their input cycle and then, stack by stack, develop new methods and novel inferences.

The Multiverse!

Where it all comes together is in the wackiest idea of all: our universe is a neural network. And, because Im writing this on a Friday, Ill even raise the stakes and say our universe is one of many universes that, together, make up a grand neural network.

Thats a lot to unpack, but the gist involves starting with quantum mechanics and maintaining our assumptions as we zoom out beyond what we can observe.

We know that subatomic particles, in what we call the quantum realm, react differently when observed. Thats a feature of the universe that seems incredibly significant for anything that might be considered an observer.

If you imagine all subatomic systems as neural networks, with observation being the sole catalyst for execution, you get an incredibly complex computation mechanism thats, theoretically, infinitely scalable.

Rather than assume, as we zoom out, that every system is an individual neural network, it makes more sense to imagine each system as a layer inside of a largernetwork.

And, once you reach the biggest self-contained system we can imagine, the whole universe, you arrive at a single necessary conclusion: if the universe is a neural network, its output must go somewhere.

Thats where the multiverse comes in. We like to think of ourselves as characters in a computer simulation when we contemplate Bostroms theory. But what if were more like cameras? And not physical cameras like the one on your phone, but more like the term camera as it applies to when a developer sets a POV for players in a video game.

If our job is to observe, its unlikely were the entities the universe-as-a-neural-network outputs to. It stands to reason that wed be more likely to be considered tools or necessary byproducts in the grand scheme.

However, if we imagine our universe as simply another layer in an exponentially bigger neural network, it answers all the questions that derive from trying to shoehorn simulation theory into being a plausible explanation for our existence.

Most importantly: a naturally occurring, self-feeding, neural network doesnt require a computer at all.

In fact,neural networks almost never involve what we usually think of ascomputers. Artificial neural networks have only been around for a matter of decades, but organic neural networks, AKA brains, have been around for at least millions of years.

Wrap up this nonsense!

In conclusion, I think we can all agree that the most obvious answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything is the wackiest one. And, if you like wacky, youll love my theory.

Here it is: our universe is part of a naturally-occurring neural network spread across infinite or near-infinite universes. Each universe in this multiverse is a single layer designed to sift through data and produce a specific output. Within each of theselayers are infinite or near-infinite systems that comprise networks within the network.

Information travels between the multiverses layers through natural mechanisms. Perhaps wormholes are where data is received from other universes and black holes are where its sent for output extraction into other layers. Seems about as likely as us all living in a computer right?

Behind the scenes, in the places where scientists are currently looking for all the missing dark matter in the universe, are the underlying physical mechanisms that invisibly stitch together our observations (classical reality) with whatever ultimately lies beyond the great final output layer.

My guess: theres nobody on the receiving end, just a rubber hose connecting output to input.

Published April 2, 2021 20:06 UTC

Read more from the original source:

What if youre living in a simulation, but theres no computer? - The Next Web

Fifteen PhD and three Post-Doc positions within the Collaborative Research Center SFB 1432 (f/m/d)(PhD: 75%, E 13 TV-L, Post-Doc: full time, E 13 TV-L)

Reference number 2021/048. All positions are available from now on. PhD positions are initially limited to three years. Postdoctoral researcher positions have minimal duration of two years and offer the possibility of an extension of the contract subject to positive evaluation and further funding commitment. In principle, the Post-Doc positions can be divided into two half-time positions.

The University of Konstanz is one of eleven Universities of Excellence in Germany. Since 2007 it has been successful in the German Excellence Initiative and its follow-up programme, the Excellence Strategy.

The vision of the recently approved SFB 1432 is to investigate fluctuations of systems far from equilibrium or determined by strongly nonlinear interactions in a synergistic, interdisciplinary environment. It brings together different approaches from classical and quantum physics enriched by mathematics and aims for a deeper understanding of the respective domains as well as the quantum-to-classical transition. We will work out thenature of fluctuations and nonlinearities at the cross-roads of soft matter, quantum transport, magnetism, nanoelectronics, and mechanics, and ultrafast phenomena. This interplay is expected to lead to entirely novel physical phenomena and functionalities.There are fifteen open PhD positions and three postdoctoral researcher positions in experimental physics, theoretical physics, physical chemistry, and mathematics. The positions are at the University of Konstanz and at CRC partners at the TU Munich and the University of Gttingen. For detailed information visit:https://www.sfb1432.uni-konstanz.de/open-positions/

Your responsibilities(depending on the project)

Development and implementation of

laser-based measurement techniques (exp.) high-resolution electronic transport measurement methods (exp.) microwave excitation and detection techniques (exp.)

Application of state-of-the-art

microscopy techniques (exp.) nanofabrication and ultrathin film materials deposition (exp.) low-temperature and high-vacuum facilities (exp.)

Developing methods of quantum transport and quantum optics (theor.)

Performing numerical simulations and optimization tasks (math.)

Your Competencies Excellent academic record M. Sc. degree in physics or mathematics(for PhD positions) Excellent PhD thesis in physics or mathematics (for Post-Doc positions) Profound knowledge of relevant experimental or theoretical methods Research experience relevant for the respective project High motivation, strong interpersonal and influence skills, and great motivation Strong written and oral communication skills in English

We Offer Excellent personal development and qualification opportunities Academic career support by CRCintegrated graduate school Focused scientific training on topics of the CRC Seed Funding for own research ideas Research collaborations with top level research groups worldwide Professional infrastructure for conducting research Working in an interdisciplinary young team of highly motivated scientists Family-friendly measures and dual-career program

Questions can be directed to Mr. Prof. Wolfgang Belzig via email, sfb1432@uni-konstanz.de.

We look forward to receiving your application with a letter of motivation, your CV, transcripts and letters of recommendation combined to one single pdf document until 30 April 2021 via our Online Application Portal.

The University of Konstanz is committed to ensuring an environment that provides equal opportunities and promotes diversity as well as a good balance between university and family life. As an equal opportunity employer, we strive to increase the number of women working in research and teaching. We also support working couples through our dual career programme (https://www.uni-konstanz.de/en/equalopportunities/family/dualcareer/).Persons with disabilities are explicitly encouraged to apply. They will be given preference if appropriately qualified (contact + 49 7531 884016).

See the original post here:

Fifteen PhD and three Post-Doc positions within the Collaborative - Nature.com

KARACHI:

In the words of one researcher, science is not meant to cure us of mystery. Instead, he argues, it is supposed to reinvent and reinvigorate.

For us lay people, science remains a mystery sans reinvention. For reasons mundane and existential, most of us shy away from asking the fundamental questions. Perhaps it is due to our own shyness, even fear, that many of us hold such awe for those who dare go intellectually where the rest of us are unwilling or incapable of going.

Speaking of awe and mysteries, there are a handful of places around the world that evoke both while capturing our collective imagination. If I mention the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, it may or may not mean anything to most of us. But, if I use the acronym CERN, many may find their thoughts transported to the world of Dan Brown, of scientific intrigue and where the impossible becomes possible.

Speaking still of mysteries, and of CERN, there is the question of antimatter, a material many of us may confuse with the similar sounding yet wildly different concepts of dark matter and dark energy. Beyond our own mysterious understanding of it, lie the antimatter mysteries that the scientists who study it reinvent and reinvigorate in their attempts to understand it.

As luck, or perhaps fate, would have it, one of them is Pakistani. Who better to demystify both what we know at the moment about antimatter and what working at CERN entails.

Demystifying antimatter

For Muhammad Sameed, a lifes yearning for understanding has led to a dream come true. The 32-year-old Islamabad native is among a mere handful of Pakistanis who would think themselves lucky for a chance to work at CERN. What is more in Sameeds case, he is physicist involved in studying antimatter particles at one of the worlds premier physics research organisations.

At CERN, Sameed is part of the ALPHA experiment, an acronym that stands for the Antihydrogen Laser Physics Apparatus. Just recently, the ALPHA collaboration effort succeeded in cooling down antihydrogen particles the simplest form of atomic antimatter with laser light.

Speaking with The Express Tribune, the young scientist began by admitting that the wider scientific community had perhaps contributed to some of the public misunderstandings about antimatter. I think it is us physicists fault for giving such similar names to such different concepts, he said when asked about the difference between antimatter, dark matter and dark energy.

Taking his own crack at remedying that, he explained: Before we explain antimatter, it is important remember what matter is, at the subatomic level.

Most of us learn about atoms and how they are made of electrons, protons and neutrons in school. But that is where the general awareness ends, said Sameed. If you look deeper, while electrons are fundamental particles they belong to a family of particles called leptons protons and neutrons are not. Those two are made up of two more kinds of fundamental particles: the quarks and the gluons, which bind them. He added that all matter that surrounds us and that we can interact with is made of particles from two families, namely quarks and leptons. Both families consist of six kinds of particles each.

According to Sameed, we have known all of this since the early part of the previous century, when quantum mechanics was developed. Where does antimatter come in? It was first articulated in a theoretical study by physicist Paul Dirac, he shared.

Dirac, while solving a quantum mechanics equation, arrived at two solutions, one positive and the other negative. The positive one corresponded to the electron. Dirac initially disregarded the negative solution, but later used it to hypothesise the existence of antielectrons, Sameed explained. He made that prediction in 1928, and just four years later, an American experiment actually discovered it.

How was the discovery made, you wonder? We have all these particles from outer space that pass through our planet, said Sameed. If we apply a magnetic field to them, we can determine which direction these particles turn in. If electrons turn to one side, particles with the opposite charge would turn in the other direction.

The physicist shared that since the discovery of the antielectron almost 90 years ago scientists have discovered an antimatter counterpart to each regular matter particle we know of. The story we physicists should be telling people is that not only is antimatter real, but that these are particles are found in nature, he said. The real question is this: we know from equations and experiments that when matter is produced in a lab or after the Big Bang an equal amount of antimatter is produced. So how is it that regular matter became so dominant in our universe and why is there so little antimatter occurring in nature?

According to Sameed, all research into antimatter at CERN and other organisations is focused on this question: What happened? Where did all the antimatter go? One proposed explanation, he shared, is that antimatter has some as yet unknown property that converts it into regular matter in unequal amounts. So by producing and trapping antimatter in a lab, we test it for various properties and whether those can explain what happened to most antimatter in nature. This has been the focus of research for the last 30 to 40 years.

Cooling with lasers

Explaining the recent ALPHA experiment with laser cooling, Sameed began by explaining the choice of antihydrogen. Hydrogen is the simplest atom we know of, with just one proton and one electron. Antihydrogen, similarly, is the simplest antiatom, he said.

You take an antiproton, get an antielectron to orbit it, and you should have an antihydrogen atom. But this is easier said than done, he explained. The main challenge with producing antihydrogen or any other antimatter particle is that if an anti-matter particle comes in contact with a regular matter particle, both are annihilated. So in order to capture anti-matter particles, you need to create perfect vacuum to ensure they dont come in contact with matter particles.

Sameed added that the challenge isnt just limited to creating vacuum either. You need to make sure that the container being used is designed in a way to ensure antimatter particles dont come in contact with its walls. This is done using electromagnetic fields.

Explaining how scientists study antimatter, Sameed began by explaining how regular matter particles would be studied. Take a regular hydrogen atom which is in what we call a ground state or normal state. If we shine a laser with a specific energy level onto that simple atom, its electron can jump into an excited state. He said that scientists have known about the effects of lasers on hydrogen atoms for a long time. We know what frequencies can excite it. For our experiment, we thought to test the same on anti-hydrogen atoms. We wondered if it would react differently to regular hydrogen due to differences in energy levels or other properties. Perhaps our findings could help unravel some of the mystery around why there is so little antimatter in the universe?

According to Sameed, the effects of lasers on antihydrogen were first tested in 2017. We shined a laser with the same frequency as the one that excites electrons in a regular hydrogen atom on to an antihydrogen atom. The results suggest the effect on antihydrogen was more or less the same, he said. But one side effect that we uncovered at the time and this had been predicted before the experiment was that laser light can cool particles.

Normally we use lasers to heat things, but if you shine a laser beam on an atom that is coming towards it, it has an effect of slowing down the atom, he added. So our current experiment was the first time we tested this laser cooling principle on antimatter.

Sameed further revealed that the next antimatter experiment being developed aims to study how it behaves under the influence of gravity from regular matter. We know how gravitational forces work between regular matter. Our equations suggest the same interaction would be true between two objects made of antimatter. But, we want to find out what happens in terms of gravity when there is an interaction between matter and antimatter. At the moment, we dont even have any strong theories to predict what will happen.

Easier said than done

When Sameed explains the experiment, one may get the false impression that it is as easy as pointing a laser towards antimatter. But nothing could be further from the truth.

For starters the laser we use is not the one used in laser pointers that most people know of. Ours is an ultraviolet laser, which is invisible to the naked eye and has a much higher energy level. It is not available commercially and is very difficult to manufacture, so we have to develop it in-house at CERN, he said. The laser in question is also absorbed by air particles, Sameed added. Not only must the beam travel through vacuum, it must be produced and aimed in vacuum as well.

According to Sameed, firing a laser at antihydrogen is a very different challenge that firing it at regular hydrogen. For normal hydrogen, we can shine the laser from any angle. But for antihydrogen, because the entire container is surrounded by special magnets to keep it from touching the walls, there is a very small access point for the laser itself.

Commercial possibilities

Any innovative technology can open up opportunities beyond what those who developed it are sometimes able to appreciate. Speaking on this aspect, Sameed said: We scientists develop such innovative solutions to satisfy pure curiosity and answer the fundamental questions about physics. But all research produces technological byproducts and sooner or later, they trickle down to R&D companies and eventually to wider society.

Asked if he could foresee any antimatter applications used beyond research, Sameed said there was one example already in medical imaging, even if it was difficult to predict wider uses. The PET or Positron Emission Tomography scanner. The positron is an anti-matter particle. It is essentially an anti-electron.

Beyond that, CERN in general is responsible for developing a wide-range of technologies. For instance, to trap anti-matter particles, we need strong magnetic fields. To produce those, we have to develop superconducting magnets which have various commercial uses as well. For instance, such magnets are used in hospitals in MRI scanners. A lot of technologies used in modern medicine were first developed in research centres like CERN, Sameed revealed.

Even on the software side, applications developed to track near-instant physical phenomenon have been co-opted by some financing trading companies which want to leverage the ability to process information in microseconds.

Sameed added that all CERN research is open-source and accessible to anyone in the world. You can contact our knowledge transfer centre and gain our research to use in reasonable ways.

The value of research

According to Sameed, the side effects of research for researchs sake are undeniable. We can see it over the last few centuries. The countries and regions that invested in fundamental research and technology, are the ones that are now global powers, he said. But we dont even need to look at it philosophically. Just look at the Internet.

Sameed pointed out that the World Wide Web was originally developed by CERN in the 1980s as a means to share information between physicists instantaneously. The intention at the time was only to aid research. But it was made open source, and the effect of that simple choice in reshaping life can be seen today.

Back to the future

How does one get to work at CERN? For Sameed, the yearning to become a scientist was sparked by one movie most of us watch and loved growing up. I was five or six when I watched Back to the Future. I dont think I understood much about the movie at the time, but I remember finding the character of Doc Brown fascinating, he said. I decided then that I would at least try to be a scientist when I grew up.

In terms of background, Sameed admits he had an ordinary middle-class upbringing. But I am lucky that my parents tried to provide me the best education possible, he said. Still, CERN was beyond his dreams till the time he graduated A-Levels.

For Sameed, the path to a career in science opened with his elder brothers academic pursuits. He went to the US on scholarship to study chemical and biological engineering. That made me realise that I too could get in-depth education in physics abroad. Like him, I applied for a scholarship and was able to study physics at Cornell University. That really set the stage for me.

The next chapter began when Sameed came across the example of another Pakistani who went on a summer internship to CERN. He made me aware that there was a programme international students could apply for. I applied, with no hope of getting in, and originally I was rejected. But, some time later, they contacted me again and told me that I was a better fit for another department, and here I am.

According to Sameed, he initially believed his recruiters at CERN had made an error. But once I got here, I realised that I was no different from other students, from Europe or US or elsewhere. We Pakistanis are in no way inferior to other countries in terms of talent. All that is missing is awareness.

When not busy participating in research, Sameed tries to do his part to raise awareness about opportunities for other Pakistanis at CERN. Pakistan is now an associate member at CERN and what that means is that any Pakistani can apply for any job here. This is not limited to just positions for scientists and engineers, and involves things like administration and legal affairs, etc.

Pakistan and CERN

According to Sameed, at the youth level, there is more awareness about CERN in Pakistan now. In fact, Pakistan has one of the highest number of applicants to CERN, he said. But most of these are just student positions at the moment and for higher level positions, we are still lagging behind. In terms of Pakistanis who are at CERN for the long term, there may be four or five.

Even so, Pakistanis appear to be highly valued at CERN, Sameed revealed. Pakistani engineers have made a huge contribution to CERN and they are a very well respected community here. They always trust Pakistanis who make it to CERN to do a good job, he said. There is also immense pride for Pakistanis at CERN due to Dr Abdus Salams contributions, both to physics as a whole and to CERN during the time he spent here. One of the streets is even named after him, he added.

Asked what advice he had for other young Pakistanis who choose a similar path, the physicist pointed out that there are many opportunities available, not just in CERN, but other high quality institutes. Not only are Pakistanis eligible to apply, but they are looking for people from diverse backgrounds with talent, he said. Even if you dont have the confidence, I would say apply. Because you might think youre not good enough, but the people who are recruiting may believe otherwise.

Sameed reiterated that when he joined CERN, he realised he was as good as anyone else. My hope for the future is that in addition to engineers, more Pakistani physicists will join as well.

Read the original post:

Where did the antimatter go? - The Express Tribune