Seed Bed

(Another post that I had to share due to its importance)

This post is about seminars particularly the institute's weekly seminar. No, it's not about controversies raised around this matter but more on how to resurrect the spirit of scholarly activity and discussions in seminars. Regarding whatever controversy there is (if there is one), my wish is that everyone place some appropriate concern about the institute, beyond own self or own group, solving the (many) problems of the institute. I'm not too much bothered who is more right or who is more wrong but I will be more glad to see someone offering solutions in action (not simply in thoughts).

The institute has religiously conducted its weekly seminars since the early days until now. This is a good tradition to keep. I remember during my PhD days we had this weekly Friday seminars, where members of the Centre for Particle Theory from both Department of Physics and Department of Mathematical Sciences, went to these talks religiously. Besides this, we had also an internal Journal Club lunchtime talks given by both staff and students. In DAMTP, Cambridge, I remember they had several group seminars almost all days in the week and I went to some of them when the topic is highly interesting to me and the seminar rooms were always filled by interested staff and students. I also had the experience of going to String Theory Workshop(s) in DAMTP and LMS Durham Symposia where the lecture halls were filled to the brim. I had the fond memory of attending Spinors, Twistors and Complex Structures in General Relativty in 1988 (chaired by Roger Penrose and Chris Isham) and went to almost all of the talks. Remembered the incident of Claude LeBrun's talk having used index free notation and the audience wanted them with indices. He proceeded with even more notations without indices. Later when Trautman gave his talk, he joked that the audience will now see some index and he was talking about index theorems. The other symposium that I went was on Geometry of Low-Dimensional Manifolds in 1989 and Ed Witten was one of the speakers. In all of these events, the atmosphere was electrifying and the corridor and coffee conversations were about the progress in science. That is why when I go to many of the local events here, it is frustrating and embarrassing to see such an atmosphere is really rare. Our conversations tend to revolve around gossips, politics, holiday-plans and of course, food instead. When we go to parallel sessions of a conference, sometimes the audience is simply the speakers of the session themselves. Once in an international conference held locally, the audience that were left are the international speakers and participants and I heard one of them made the remark, where are all the local people. Once also in the social media, I read a remark of a participant in one of the (local) international conferences made derogatory remarks about the scientific intent of the event. This has to be taken seriously by us local academics - don't let it get any worse.

Going back to our weekly seminars, we noticed the reduced number of participants and the lack of interactions over the years. While I do not think going to all seminars being practical, I have always thought that whenever the topic is on a particular area, the appropriate research group should be there but this is often not the case. We tried different things to have better response for the seminars. We have now announcements on the social media (used to be on twitter too but I guess many of us do not do twitter). The past director had also made the change that the speakers should be from outside or among the academic staff to ensure better attraction and hopefully participation. This is because at one stage, we had too frequently student speakers for the seminars. In principle, there is nothing wrong with this, provided the student is well-prepared for the talk and willing to take up questions professionally. During my student days, we had our own separate student events separate from the official and regular ones. Presently our theoretical physics group is doing just that for the QuEST group meetings (QuEST stands for Quantum Explorations of Science & Technology). Thankfully, this is going well each week (apart from some festive season and conference periods). So the question is why can't we have the weekly seminars highly-spirited like we ought to. When I chaired the talk yesterday and I was about to start the Q&A session, the speaker even made the remark that maybe the audience was too tired for this (?). Perhaps we have hit rock bottom?

When I wanted to write up this post, I tried to search for some history of the seminar tradition. I came across two interesting ones: (i) The academic seminar as emotional community; and (ii) Creative discomfort: The culture of the Gelfand seminar at Moscow University. Let's leave the second one for some remarks at the end and focus on the first. In the first article, it tells us that the word seminar (coming from Latin seminarium) refers to nursery or seed bed. I thought this is fitting since it is from seminars and ensuing discussions, that we often get research ideas. However it was the title emotional community that really caught my attention, particularly the word emotional itself. We all know when we organise seminars, workshops and conference, they are meant to serve some particular community. But having emotional attachments? Perhaps, as discussed in the first paper, it's a spiritual fellowship or brotherhood of equals joining forces in the pursuit of truth, with the seminar (participants as fellows) as a manifestation. I quote in full, the ending sentence of the paper:

"A good seminar, based in a community of shared emotions - and in which the individual can both become part of the collective and at the same time find his or her own unique way to creative self-realisation - is still a guiding academic utopia"

Our weekly seminar should have, over the years, made some form of impact, at least, to the research ecosystem that we have built. If we have not felt it, then there must be some elements that made it ineffective. Perhaps we have not shown the seminar tradition the respect it deserves. If we did not, then it is highly unlikely that anyone else (beyond the fellowship) will. I have already heard someone mention the scepticism in passing that we have been organising the seminars for the ump-teenth time but yet the impact is unknown. On the other hand, I have also heard others being envious of our consistency in organising the weekly seminars when they still find it problematic to get people to give talks regularly. So we have to keep examining ourselves to ensure the spirit of our seminars is not lost. If we feel that our seminars are not worth going, others will probably feel the same way even more. The seminar should bind us together (and not make us fall apart).

In some places, the seminars that the institution conduct, tend to give the unique characteristic or identity that the institution (or generally the fellowship) has. I have already mention a few examples during my student years. In the past, I have always looked at the online talks of KITP, Perimeter Institute and MSRI, knowing how informative they are. Not only they organise seminars regularly but they also put them online for the whole world to see. Perhaps in the (far) future, when we do not have to deal with petty matters, we can do this also (we did try this at some point, with videos, uploaded in our YouTube channel instead of hosting it ourselves - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4HTVaRqPFA for instance, with the expertise help of Majalah Sains then - apologies for the absence of credit in the video clip).

One exceptional series of seminars that had caught the attention of many in the mathematical world is of course the legendary Gelfand Seminars led by I.M. Gelfand at Moscow State University, which one can read in the second article above. The seminar is held on Monday nights and can last to four hours straight with intimidating questioning. It is not the kind of seminar that may suit many. However, the impact that it made, are felt by mathematicians across the world. One can read the tributes to Gelfand in https://www.ams.org/notices/201301/rnoti-p24.pdf and https://www.ams.org/notices/201302/rnoti-p162.pdf. While we read in awe such exceptional cases, we should put in energy to make our weekly seminar series be impactful to us and respectable to many, the very least. We may or may not see this realised within our lifetime (particularly with the uncertainties ahead - yes, despite what we have heard earlier in Monday afternoon) but at least the future generations will not curse us for not trying.

Not Quite Equal As Yet

*Due to the importance of the issues discussed here, I will advertise again this particular post in the students and staff FB private groups.

Thank goodness, this week went by without 'unwanted incidents'. Sometimes one gets so tied up with petty matters that we forget the larger perspective of things. I join the institute (initially IMM, then ITMA and finally INSPEM) because of this larger perspective. My general vision is to establish tradition in sophisticated, technical theoretical sciences and in particular theoretical physics.

Parts of what I do are also related to some modern developments of mathematics (mainly geometry side) and thus when I joined INSPEM with better mathematical environment, I was hoping some of these get further developed with mathematicians. There was no geometrists around (the closest being algebraists) but the director then had a research group interested in number theory (and on the application side is cryptography). So when I did the first lecture series in INSPEM, EQuaLS1, it had a theme "Geometry, Number Theory and Quantum Physics". The people I brought over were top-notch scientists and my hope that it will spur interests among mathematicians and physicists that will help cross traditional disciplines. This did not quite happen; I guess being identified too much as a quantum theorist may have caused very few mathematicians were interested in the event. The same is true for the next EQuaLS2 (despite the theme is "Foundations of Quantum Science & Technology"), which I hope will attract theoretical computer scientists working on logic and category theory. The next few EQuaLS became closer and closer to physics after realizing that it is hard to garner interests from the mathematicians. The last EQuaLS was EQuaLS8 which ended with the tragic departure of mentor-friend Prof. Syed Twareque Ali. We had not done another EQuaLS since then.

Without our mentor, our international networking of established researchers shrunk. That was not the only reason; the financial support for inviting established researchers was also declining. Initially there was capacity building grant from Ministry of Science - this no longer exists. The latter events also use in part the visiting scientist programme under the institute funded by mostly our research grants. Recently, this too became difficult as additional requirements are imposed for visiting scientists namely to coauthor publications with our local researchers. This is a bit awkward - most of the scientists I invited are top-notch scientists from whom we simply wanted to learn from. To coauthor publications require long-established relationships and our local researchers are able to generate ideas/work of mutual interest for the established researchers. Thus, with such conditions, the network of international researchers became even smaller. Not having research grants the last two years made it even worse.

So what should we do now? My personal wish is that we continue with EQuaLS at a smaller scale so that the tradition at least continues with a lesser stature. I have only a few years of services left to see this happening. We do now have a small group in existent and I hope they will continue the efforts to establish sophisticated and respected theoretical research here and hopefully crossing physics-mathematics boundary. Hope my younger colleagues will continue this vision with the same sense of urgency (whether in the current institute or possible forthcoming one).

With near retirement, the usual advice one gets is to help the younger scientists to excel. This can only be done if the younger generation of scientists and students are receptive. In this respect, I still have reservations on the matter. This semester I'm supposed to teach Special Relativity and Classical Fields. The initial already small number of registered students dwindled down to the number shown in the pic below. I guess many still avoid theoretical subjects that are often perceived as difficult. Luckily the department still supports the course to continue. Last semester, I was supposed to teach Advanced Quantum Mechanics but had to cancel it as almost everyone dropped the subject. I ended up teaching another subject beginning the third week. There is truth about theoretical subjects being more difficult but I sincerely wish that the students view this more as a challenge in taking up more sophisticated materials, more in-depth skills for them to bring away from their studies.

Another matter recently brought up was the attendance to the institute's weekly seminar. The number has decreased over the years and one finds that the audience comprises more of international students than local students. While I do not expect all students to attend each seminar (which may not be on the topic of their choice) but I do expect that students of the appropriate research group to come to the seminar of the relevant topic. Has it come to the point that one perceives one's own work (whatever that may be - more often just personal work) being more important than supporting an academic tradition. What had happened to thirst of knowledge? One has to rectify this and the best way is ourselves (both staff and academics) to be exemplary in this case. I had once suggested that one should avoid having meetings on Friday afternoons (the regular time for our weekly seminars). I will also start asking my own students to avoid making appointments at this time. Take even odd hours (like lunch time - normally I stay in office) if necessary. Hopefully by doing this way, others will start to treat our weekly seminars with more respect.

Three Short Tales

It is properly clear to the staff that I practiced very open participatory management and am open to ideas and even criticisms (not toxic ones of course). As a scientist, the possibility of being at fault is very much entertained though this should not be construed as self-admission of guilt or weakness. One employs self-criticisms to help improve oneself. Having said so, one would like to see others do the same. In this post, I would like to tell three stories of recent events that made me self-reflect. I will not mention names but only retelling them for us to learn.

Story 1: Recently one hears about Cambridge International University from a politician. Don't bother looking up this university as the website has been hacked. I have no wish to comment further on the viralled news of the politician (one can look up many news items on this). But it made me remember an incident I had with an ex-Adelaidean friend. When we corresponded then, I told my friend that I am studying Part III in University of Cambridge. The person then responded, asking 'Which Cambridge am I in?' perhaps doubting my capability to be even a Cambridge student. I did not respond back and kept quiet (for those doubting, please look at this post). To me, it is not that important that I had been a Cambridge student, but more importantly is how one acts thereafter. Sometimes one finds people boasting about their prestigious university background but does not quite live up to its prestigious names. This leads me to a recent discussion about what are the traits of our university students; their employability and what-nots. The natural discussion thereafter was the traits of our university professors. While the discussion was on a particular skill, I am actually more concerned with the technical knowledge that a professor should have - particularly when interacting with professors in other parts of the world within the same area. Failure to be seen to profess the technical knowledge may tarnish the university's professorial image. One should live up to the expectations of the title of professor, much like one has to live up the expectations of being a Cambridge student (when one claimed so). Indeed, it is a heavy responsibility to have the professor title, something I always remind myself.

Story 2: This is an independent story and not to be misconstrued with the story above. Recently I was under fire by a professor for failing to defend the institute during the restructuring plans and later to defend the unique fields of study that we offered. One day, the professor met with the institute's administrative officer (and also others but not me) and complained about the institute's restructuring that we are asked to do. The officer tried to explain that the decision was the university's wish but the professor still has the opinion that we have not really done our best to defend the institute, The professor goes on to threaten that research grants under the professor's name at the institute will be pulled out. In the first place, the grant is public money (not personal money) entrusted to the professor for carrying out research at the institute but I leave this to the wisdom of our Research Management Centre if the person decides to do so. We then had a long break for the Chinese New Year and I thought everyone has cooled down and that we can resume our usual duties without too much headache. Unfortunately, the professor came again to complain about the same thing to another officer with more stories to tell. I see this as a personal attack on me and the actions seem to be like a smear campaign. The professor threatened again to pull out the grants and now also mentioned withdrawing the students as well. For me using threats is simply unprofessional and mafia-like. My immediate feelings is that I wish not to work with such a person and it will take considerable time, if ever, for me to trust this professor again. Let me add that this is not the first incident that I had problems with this professor on made-up accusations.

Story 3: Students can sometimes have very strong opinions about the academics they see or work with. They may have high opinions of themselves and at times get hypercritical of others (which I would usually cautioned them to be more self-critical with themselves first before others). The incident here is I was asked to sign a recommendation letter by a student whom I co-supervised (I was also acting as the institute coordinator for graduate studies). Frankly I do not see the idea of supervisory committee works well for mathematical or theoretical areas but this would be a different issue. I was of the opinion that I shouldn't be signing the letter since it is inappropriate. Then word gets to me that she (the student) thought (or someone else, I do not know) that I refused signing the letter because I was not listed as co-author for her proceeding papers. To me, this is an insulting accusation. At no times, I forced anyone to put me as a coauthor on their papers. Even research work with my own students, I have at many times told students that if they feel I have not contributed to the research, they can leave my name out. If in doubt, they can always refer to the Vancouver protocols. Finally, the graduate school asked me to sign her appeal letter instead of a recommendation letter.

Guests at QuEST January Group Meeting

I used to advertise my blog posts at private FB group for my students and staff. I will no longer do this, beginning with this one. The FB social media has become a circus playground of attention-seekers, propaganda and rumour-mongerers. If not for some informative and useful posts (which have become more rare these days), keeping ties with friends and relatives, I would have probably closed my FB account. I have no desire to be a 'public intellectual' (as some would like to be) in the social media and would prefer to avoid any form of herd mentality.

One of my main concern over the years has been building a local scientific tradition particularly for theoretical physics and quantum sciences. Over in Facebook, we have started a private group known as QuEST (acronym for Quantum Explorations of Science and Technology) and we often get requests from people to join this group. So we started another FB group called of Friends of QuEST for the public who is interested in our activities and restrict QuEST for our students and colleagues at UPM. We have been holding regular group meetings on Thursdays (used to have Tuesdays but it became too taxing for us). The meeting takes place just before lunch time simply because of my administrative duties that tend have to have many meetings during normal hours. At each meeting, we will have a presentation by one of the group members. Last Thursday, was a special one because we have a double presentation, one of which is by our visiting researcher Prof. Kurunathan Ratnavelu. We also had Dr. Clarissa Ai Ling Lee joining us for the meeting.

Prof. Kuru joined us last December after his retirement at Universiti Malaya. I first met Prof. Kuru probably in an IFM conference and more closely when I joined the IFM Council. His earlier work is in atomic physics but later moved to other areas including complex networks, an area that I am too exploring (mainly due to related topological and geometrical ideas). He gave a talk on "Guilt by association: A network approach to drug repositioning". I did not know about this application of complex networks before and was intrigued. The talk was based on the paper with his students "Predicting new drug indications from network analysis". Hope we get to explore other applications while he is here in the institute. We are indeed planning a workshop on data science at the institute sometime in March.

Dr. Clarissa, a staff at the Jeffrey Sachs Center on Sustainable Development at Sunway University, was also there that day since we had a meeting earlier to discuss possible projects. One of it is on the history of quantum physics in Malaysia and Singapore, which I thought would be interesting to participate. Another was art interfacing with science and I was told that there are some initiatives on this at the national level. This would be a new exploration for me (if decided to do so) and is unsure where this would lead to. Told her that we participated in Quantum Shorts and we hope to be shortlisted. Well now, I have to update her that we did not get to be shortlisted as mentioned in the previous post.

Due to the presence of our guests, we had extra food that day. Below are some pics (credit to Zahratun and Shela):

Quantum Short-Lived Attempt

After a few gloomy posts, I thought I would be able to share a good news today. Not so, unfortunately, given the results of Quantum Shorts out today. Our short film was not shortlisted (we know that it was a long-shot).

On November 16,2018, I wrote in our private FB group page, whether we should try out for Quantum Shorts. It is a sort of out-of -the-blue kind of suggestion, thinking of a group activity which is out of our normal routine. We had only a few weeks to think about it since the closing date is December 1, 2018. After some discussions, the group OK-ed it and thought of some plots to do. My student's version of how it went can be found here. I remembered at the same time I was listening to James Arthur- Anne Marie "Rewrite the Stars" (see below)



So the idea is partly inspired by the lyrics, "It Feels Impossible, It's Not Impossible, Is It Impossible, Say That It's Possible" - something that connects with the ideas of what questions are to be asked (measured) and the post-measurement states. Several themes crossed my mind: contextuality, free will theorem and Wigner's friend. The other source of inspiration was the film "Inception" which involves several levels of dreams (realities). We thought that we could apply the plot twist in the film to the one that we want to produce. Had asked my student to volunteer write a script based on some of the ideas thrown. Finally, we settled down to simply use one concept namely Wigner's Friend so that the film is simpler in ideas (easily recognisable). There are different plots being written and they evolved to the one being filmed. Much thanks to the group who was sporting enough to realise this. The final product "Rewriting Wigner's Friend" can be found below (in lower resolution for YouTube posting).



The Frauchiger-Renner paper mentioned in the film is a real paper and can be found here. The film actually has three levels of 'realities'. The first when they are acting with the coin flip (stopped abruptly before the coin flip result). The second is when they were supposedly finished acting and were discussing whether the shooting is OK. Finally, the third is the level of the viewer when the question of the scripwriter is answered. Had wanted it a bit more twisted and surprising but since this is our first attempt, we left it as that.

It is a pity that our film was not shortlisted for otherwise, we may get to be known by others. Particularly I was hoping that our 'creative work' gets to be noticed by the university. However with 176 entries from 40 countries, we knew it was a long shot (but nevertheless was still hoping). It's time to move on now.

Finally for Chinese readers of the blog, I wish you a Happy Chinese New Year.

Lend Me An Ear

This week is probably the most trying week for me. Had I not changed the blood pressure medication earlier this year, my blood pressure would probably have reached a new high.

First, there was this emotional outburst complaint made against the proposed restructuring of the institute (which did not originate from us). Second, the need to resolve an issue that was left open, coupled to the criticism that probably has led to the restructuring. Both of these seems to rekindle the faculty-institute friction despite years of coexistence and probably have upset my superiors. My emotions went to a new low and I entertained the idea of early retirement. I can't stomach all the office politics. The fact that I don't rub shoulders with top people and am controversy-shy, probably puts me in a terrible disadvantage. It was also made known to me much earlier that some think that the institute will grow unstable under my watch. I almost succumbed to make this as a self-realising prophesy.

However knowing I have supportive management colleagues and finally getting our views heard by someone, have helped comfort me a little. I still fear of what will happen next. But I guess I have to take this one step at a time. Sometimes I simply wish that we be left alone to do our usual work.