Arsen Ivanov

By Ratheon Corp. [h/t: NewScientistTech (click link to see)]. Only thing this thing needs is a battery that can last a day….sweeet!

$10M to the First Team to Sequence
100 Human Genomes in 10 Days

source: X PRIZE Foundation

Whether or not Anthropogenic Global Warming actually exists, I hope it will not be decided by a scientifically-ignorant ex-lawyer Al Gore whether the “scientific consensus” is reached or not. [h/t: JunkScience.com]

Science is the realm of sceptics, and righlty so. The scientific process on based on proof, not on belief. But herein lies the greates problem of modern science - paralysis by scepticism. Why were previous centuries so enthralling in their wealth of fundamental discovery, while our time is so poor? Where are Netwon, Leibniz, and Lenoardo Da Vinci of our time? Where are Fermat, Euler and Gauss of today? Sure, our generation has great discoveries to claim - DNA for instance, - but that is more an exception rather than the rule. Most importantly from engineering perspective, the latest fundamental knowledge we use modern technology dates back to early 19th Century. Sure, people come up with new ways to use old principles, is that enough to say that our science works? I, as an electronic engineer, think there must be much more to signal processing than combination of statistics, probability, and Fourier Theorem, all of which were developed long time ago. Something is amiss.

The problem is scepticism. We do not believe we can do great discoveries. We preach to ourselves that science is difficult and hard, and that it is not up to us to be any good at it. I have a disturbing feeling that in the end, the reason why Newton, Leibniz, Gauss and Euler were able to flip the world upside down with their intellect was that they had, pardon my language, balls to believe they can do it and act on it. When I became part of Spectral Analysis Lab, Dr. Jian Li (the director of the lab and my boss) made is read a speech by Richard Hamming to new graduates of Stanford Engineering (if I am not mistaken) in which he advised them to find the most important problems in their field and attack them, instead of focusing on small and easy stuff nobody cares about. It seems like such a simple suggestion - why is it necessary to have Hamming tell you so in the first place? Because you are afraid to think of it on your own. Because you are intimidated by science like a rabbit by a snake. “I can’t possibly understand it, I can’t possibly be any good at it.” There is the our Greatest Enemy - fear!

I am not trying to say that once you “believe” you will make great discoveries. It is as absurd as saying that once you “believe” you are the fastest runner you will be a champion. All I am saying is that this lack of believe robs our generation of more than half our potential. How fast would you run if you believed you were slow? My final example would be to cite Muhammad Ali - remember how he would intimidate everyone and inspire himself? Remember “I am the greatest”? Maybe he was right to do so? Maybe that was a necessary ingredient inunlocking his boxing talent? Maybe the same will work for our generation?

Conclusion: scepticism is science’s greatest tool, but greatest threat to the scientist. In this business, you must not let yourself be intimidated, otherwise, you will not get anywhere. Believe you can achieve, believe it is easier than it seems, and maybe, just maybe, it will be so. I am not saying science is not hard - it is. It is a lot of hard work, but being intimidated with it makes it just plain impossible.

It seems to me that the greatest problem with science and engineering is that of courage.

People seem to lack courage to achieve. To achieve often means to take calculated risk, to put yourself and your reputation on the line. So, many people choose not to achieve because they are more scared of being wrong than of being right and not saying it. Many avoid difficult problems in science, because they would rather fail at solving the problem by default rather than maybe, just maybe, solving it.

You have to wonder if Einstein would create Relativity if he would be afraid of being wrong. Actually, I think that because he was just a government clerk, he had nothing to loose, and that is why he came up with the idea in the first place. After all, when he became a sort of international science superstar, he never produced anything new again on the same scale. He solidified Relativity, sure, but no new groundbraking ideas came from him. Maybe it was because he tried and failed - like with Unified Field Theory - or maybe he did not try at all, because he was afraid of failing. I do not know. Unfortunately, I am not as familiar with his biography to give a conclusive opinion on this example.

The best analogy I can come up with is one of a good boxer, who knows he is good, who knows he has good chances to win championship, but who doesn’t compete for fear of being beaten. Can you be beaten? Sure! Can you win also? Yes! So, should the possibility of being beaten deter you from trying to win a difficult bout? Absolutely no!

The stereotype is that research is something very abstract, done by people not concerned with reality.

Maybe, research is a theoretical, abstract activity, but it is very reality-based. Research is a business — you compete with your peers in the field for money, for position of being 1st or 2nd or 3rd most-cited author in the field etc. You compete with the researchers who work on the same problem as you. You compete with them for the title of being the first to discover the new solution - with benefits not only being titular, but also monetary. The person who is the top dog, gets the top research-funding dollar.

In this way it is easy to see how researcher, or group of researchers, are essentially engaged in “idea” entrepreneurship. The goal is to:

1. find a problem that matters to people; If nobody cares about what you do, nobody will fund your work.

2. find solution that is useful to people; People want results.

3. be the first to do so. Only then the benefits come.

Let the most competetive win!

Is mathematics a consistent and rigorous system? Or is it an fundamentally intuitive system of abstract ideas describing the physical world?

According to Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, all “precise” knowledge is founded on at least one axiom — a fact accepted on faith, without logical proof. From this follows, that no matter how hard mathematicians might work, they will never achieve a perfect , logically consistent mathematical system. 19th Century has seen proliferation of various geometries — such as Lobachevsky-Bolyai-Gauss Geometry, Riemann Geometry, and Spherical Geometry, all proven to be as consistent well-founded in real world as the Geometry of Euclid. So, is there a true Geometry out there? Are all those mutually exclusive systems of geometry equally correct? I think so.

In my view, mathematics is not a precise science. Herman Weyl has, for instance, stated that perhaps mathematics might be as much a creative activity for man as “language or music.” Mathematics is a tool to understand the physical world, as much as painting or music are tools to understand the world of emotions.

The raw material of any useful activity is the fresh and ready mind. There is nothing you can do, when your mind is tired and heavy. Unfortunately, men are not machines, and everyone who is truly serious about doing serious work, have to grasp this concept.

I am not suggesting that people should work less. By no means, NO! My point is that work cannot be possible without rest, that to rest properly and efficiently should be viewed as preparation for productive work. One must prepare for work by resting sufficiently for work to be fruitful.