1. I have read your book (Our Physics So Far) and would like to have a discussion with you on physics/metaphysics. Is it possible?

​

- Definitely yes! I am always looking for people to discuss physics/metaphysics with, regardless of whether you've read my book. Just drop me an email at arpand2004@gmail.com (preferably mention the gist of what you would like to say) and I will get back to you as soon as possible and then we can fix a date together to meet online.

 

2. Would you be interested in reading my research paper?

​

- I would recommend not sending your research paper to me (or anyone else unless you trust that person and they are qualified to give advice). You can dig up some good journals online and submit your paper there. 

​​

​

3. What do you love the most about physics?

​

- When people listen to romantic songs (the ones in which the boy is hopelessly in love with the girl, but thinks he is not good enough for her), they usually think of their girlfriend or crush. I don't listen to such songs often, but when I do, I think of physics. Physics is my crush. Physics is my only weakness. I know I'm not good enough for her, she is way too great, but I still love her. I wasn't in love with physics from the beginning. This change came about when I realized I could never rest until I figured out how the universe works (I know I'll never be able to do that, but let's keep our dreams high). I mean, I didn't decide to do physics simply because I find it interesting, and I am curious about how the universe works. I was haunted by the universe and the complex phenomena around me, and I realized that I cannot rest if I am not at least trying to explore these questions and looking for answers. And in a way, physics is magic. You are trying very hard to answer a particular question, and then you have a fundamental insight that changes the entire worldview, answers a lot more than this particular question, and gives rise to a thousand new questions. This doesn't happen daily, but the fact that this has happened a few times, in my opinion, makes physics much, much more exciting than the best crime thriller out there. Speaking of crime thrillers, I think physics has a lot in common with crime thrillers. In the case of physics, God is the criminal, the crime being creating the universe. And the physicists are the investigators investigating this crime. Whether we are solving equations on paper or building telescopes to observe deep space, we are essentially investigating the universe (the crime scene). The crime, as I said, is creating the universe. The crime is manipulating a constant, stable and uniform state of existence to somehow set off a long series of events that led to the creation of the universe, and eventually life on Earth. This is a crime because this led to the creation of conscious beings (us) who don't have enough capacity to understand the mysteries of their origin and existence. Like a lock without a key; a problem without a solution. Physicists are essentially trying to build a key to open this lock and bring God to justice! Indeed, there is a great intellectual satisfaction in uncovering the secrets of the universe. We are playing with the mind of God.

 

When I learned that the inclusion of an extra, hidden dimension can account for electromagnetism in a world which is consistent with Einstein's general relativity, my mind was blown away. Such an ingenious way to unify gravity with electromagnetism. Both gravity and electromagnetism can be described by ripples in the fabric of a five-dimensional spacetime. Of course, we now know that these Kaluza-Klein theories are incorrect, but string theory attempts to unify the four forces using extra dimensions. The idea was very important. Then there's dark matter and dark energy. Black holes. These concepts are as fascinating to me as a Moriarty crime is to Sherlock Holmes. That's why I love physics: it's exciting, and it's totally worth it. And there's so much you can do with physics. So far I was talking about fundamental physics, but recently my interest has shifted to the physics of complex systems. My interest in physics increased manifold after I learned how we can use physics to model complex phenomena that we see in the world around us, study pattern formation and so much more. I recently published an article where I tried to model the emotional and relationship dynamics between two individuals using a system of coupled nonlinear differential equations. I also explored synchronization in a system of coupled oscillators and learned how to study biological phenomena, like cardiac contraction using these models. The principles of physics are applicable everywhere; you can use them to study wealth distribution in economies, population dynamics, how diseases spread, structure formation in the universe, possibly even human behavior. Do you need any further reasons to love physics? Well, I could list many, many more reasons, but let me stop here. 

 

4. Apart from physics, you say you’re also interested in neuroscience. Why did you choose physics over neuroscience? Also, how do you see the future of neuroscience?

- Well, I am definitely interested in neuroscience, although I don’t have much technical knowledge in this field. The main reason I chose physics over neuroscience is that I wanted to understand the nature of reality fundamentally, and although it's extremely difficult - if not impossible - to actually do that, I felt that studying physics principles would give me a better and more general understanding of the ultimate nature of reality than studying neuroscience. And I still wish to go into biophysics and maybe even consciousness research, which has got to do a lot with neuroscience as well as physics. And here’s my answer to your second question. Neuroscience will essentially progress in three directions in the future. First, it will help us to better understand the human brain, which can also help in the study of consciousness and Artificial Intelligence. Second, it will help us deal with neurological disorders. Third, neuroscience will help create a bridge between the human brain and machines, and one day, perhaps, between one brain and another. Understanding the brain will also help us to evolve new ways of learning. Maybe we will be able to download information directly to the brain! And much, much more. I think that in the future, science would be more and more interdisciplinary. To tackle the complex and relevant problems that confront humanity, we need proper collaboration between scientists from all fields of science. And the best thing about exploring your interests even if you might not pursue all of them professionally is that you often spot connections with your field of research and your understanding of both fields get enriched. 

​​

​

5. What are your views on competition and collaboration?

​

- That's a complex and interesting question. Professionally, collaboration is essential for progress. However in my view, it is not as straightforward as it sounds. It is often said collaboration is more important than competition, but I think in general both are necessary to keep a check on the other and ensure steady progress. Competition is essential to a certain extent to prove your individual strengths. Strength does not oppose the idea of peace; strength is necessary to ensure peace. As for collaboration, a collaboration can be successful only if both parties take the collaboration seriously. If one party is not serious, then working individually is much more effective, and saves you much time and complications.
If one party is committed to a lot of things outside the collaboration project, or not as capable as the other of contributing, it is not a fair collaboration. Such "collaborations" sow the seeds of dissatisfaction. Enmity cannot always be kept at bay if we are together, often staying alone is the answer. So you should know where to draw the line and ensure your work does not become dependent on someone else's schedule in the name of "collaboration". Of course, having a collaborative mindset is important, but I think there are some important benefits of not jumping to every collaboration opportunity that comes your way, or at least drawing clear boundaries even when you are collaborating. In the same spirit, not every battle is worth fighting, even if you end up winning. It takes courage to turn your back on external validation from society; jumping into every battle to prove your worth is cowardice, not courage. We should always remember to preserve our individuality, and staying alone is a good way to do that. By "staying alone" I don't imply complete isolation from people, I mean avoiding forming mental attachments or biases toward people. Staying alone, I think, is the best way to know yourself as you are, and not turn into what others want you to become. Staying alone is the only way to protect your originality. I mean to sum up, we should neither compete nor collaborate with the wrong people. When it comes to collaboration versus competition, we should be diplomatic and balance both in the right way. Strange as it may sound, I often compare diplomacy to quantum mechanics! Diplomacy is important for all of us, in every sphere of life. And diplomacy is not about working toward a fixed goal. Since we cannot predict the moves of the other players in the game, in diplomacy all we can do is talk about the different possible outcomes corresponding to the different possible moves of the other players, and the probability of each outcome. This is exactly what we do in quantum mechanics: we talk about the possibilities and probabilities of each possibility, corresponding to a particular measurement performed on a quantum system. In general, diplomacy is about building a strategy that leaves you in a relatively better off position regardless of what moves your opponents make. 

​

​

6. What, according to you, is most important in life?

- Health and wealth. And success. I mean, success brings wealth, and the opposite might also be true to some extent. At one point of time, I used to think money was not important. There was something noble about not falling for money. But I’ve realized money is important. Financial security is important. I’ve seen many people (strangers, most of them) die because they did not have the money to undergo proper medical treatment. Lack of money prevents underprivileged children from getting a proper education and living a proper life. Now, some people will say happiness is most important in life. Yes, money can’t buy happiness, but having money means you’re likely to be happier, no point denying that. And I am here for a limited amount of time, and I must spend my time as happily as possible. Happiness is important to me. But happiness maybe is not the most important thing. Certain illusions can make us feel happy, but most of us are not content with illusions. We want to know the truth. And that's the whole point of science. I think the choice between truth and meaning is a very difficult choice for all of us. To me, life is our quest to find meaning in a world that is inherently meaningless. And if we seek meaning, we will find it, that's the way we are built. But if we seek truth, we will find that there is actually no meaning. Most people spend half their lives looking forward to something, and the other half realizing how pointless it really was. But some choose to walk a path others see as pointless - and spend the rest of their lives discovering truths about life and the universe that the others cannot even comprehend. Between truth and meaning, no choice is right or wrong; both the choices have their pros and cons, and it really depends on the individual. My father once told me that most people are content with looking at the skies from their windows, they want a roof above their heads so that they're safe from the sunlight and rain. Some people, however, care more about freedom. They want to fly freely like a bird and look at the sky close-up, even if that means getting burnt in sunlight or getting drenched in rain. That's the point. The truth is pretty simple to understand, that's not the difficult part. What's really difficult is to accept it and live with it. But there is also something beautiful about this truth. I think the quest for objective truth is much like grappling in the dark, with only occasional flashes of light. However, the glimpse of the deep and underlying pattern that even these rare flashes reveal make the quest worth it. Obviously, this is a quest that is never-ending, often frustrating and might alienate you from most people. But the reward is in the feeling that instead of other humans, you are in dialogue with the universe.

 

And apart from all that, personally for me, the most important thing in life has always been working on my ideas on my own, with the help of the internet. I would always prefer that over working on a narrow, technical and conventional topic under a supervisor. It has happened many times, I get a sudden idea that is unique, work on it and write a report, which often turns out to be more satisfactory and enriching than an official internship project. The reason my number of independent reports is more than official internship reports is that I want to know myself the way I am, and not the way someone wants me to be. If I'm honest, I've done some internships and fellowships just to get some experience and enhance my CV, and to get some official exposure to conventional research, but I don't like when people advise me - "Do this, do that" - in a way like they have it all figured out. That's not true research, that's not true exploration, that's just following routine standards like any other job. So yeah, I think it is very important to stop trying to fit in and take pride in standing out and living life your own way. Your individuality is something that nobody should be able to take away from you. It is what defines you. People don’t care about you, no matter whether you cry or you laugh. So it’s better to laugh and enjoy life your way than to be a crybaby and rely on the sympathy of other people. They don’t care either way. Let the world hate you, still keep doing what you love. That is most important in life.

 

​

7. I am a singer/songwriter/musician and I would like to collaborate with you (Arpan Amplified) on a track. Is it possible?

- Yes! I am open to collaborations (as long as it is a free collaboration), and if we do make a track together and I release it, I will always mention you as a featured artist. However, if you want me to help you with one of your releases, I am quite picky about that. I may agree, or I may not, depending on your material. But I won't say no to really good material. So feel free to contact me.

​

8. I have written an article which I wish to submit to the Journal of Young Physicists. Could you take a look at it before I submit, just to make sure everything's okay?

​

- No. I can't do that. Once you submit your article to our system, a member of our team will take a look and perform a plagiarism and AI check. If your article is alright, it will be accepted for review, and subsequently published if everything is okay.

​​

​

9. Do you believe physics can explain consciousness?

​

- There are a lot of theories about consciousness and physics, and in general, I do believe physics, neuroscience and computer science can one day explain consciousness as an emergent property of physical matter. I think consciousness is an emergent property, it arises from the arrangement of and interaction between the physical matter that makes up the brain, and nobody purposefully arranged this matter in this way. It's just permutation and combination. All the possible combinations occurred, and by itself, this "magical" combination also occurred at one point of time. Although I call it "magical", I believe it is, in theory, possible to explain consciousness using the known (or not-yet-known) laws of physics. Deriving the properties of something as complex and sophisticated as consciousness from first principles would be practically impossible. We don't have the computational power to carry out a simulation of this magnitude. But all I am saying, it can be done in theory. I believe that consciousness (and everything, really) is subject to the laws of physics. However, sometimes I also consider the possibility that humans have no place within the laws of physics; consciousness could be totally random, just an accident of combination. Occasionally, physics would come up with models that simulate some aspects of consciousness, but I don't think we will understand the full thing like this. Even the laws of physics are not laws etched in eternity, they just describe the behavior of the universe well. And there is no single law describing every aspect of the universe yet. Even the law of increasing entropy, perhaps one of the most universal laws we have, is actually a statistical law. In the end, I see the universe as a system that evolves spontaneously, guided by some optimization principles, but not fully governed by them. We have to remember, the universe does not follow the laws of physics, the laws of physics only do a good job describing the behavior of the universe. The things that we do not understand are not necessarily "unknowns", some of them could be "unknowables" too.

​

​

10. What is something important that you've realized about yourself during your journey?

​

- In a single sentence? Although a particle cannot exert a force on itself, there's a person who changed my life, and that person is myself. This would probably be my greatest realization about myself. I am not saying I am proud of myself, but I acknowledge both my positives and negatives and am happy with myself the way I am. Allow me to elaborate a little more on my realizations about myself. I have hitherto not thought much about this, but a little thought revealed something interesting about this. I remember when I was a naive 15-year-old boy wondering about parapsychology, life and death after I survived a road accident, and then why and how I started exploring physics. The journey from that frightened 9th grader who spent his evenings on the roof trying to come up with better solutions to the EPR-paradox instead of studying what was in the curriculum, to this physics undergraduate and science enthusiast who has published a book and founded a physics journal… this journey hasn't been easy, although now when I look back down the memory lane, I acknowledge it could have been even more difficult. An important thing about myself that I’ve realized is that when doing science, I always put special emphasis on the quest to gain an understanding of the ultimate nature of reality; I mean, I try to always keep the big picture in mind and not get bogged down too much in the details. This would be evident from my writings. I don’t know whether this is a good strategy for success in academia - most likely it’s not - but that’s the way I am anyway. I am where I am today because I have always challenged the convention, at each and every step. I’ve faced many consequences due to this, of course, but I think, on the whole, things have mostly worked out the way I wanted. So anyway, I will always be true to myself, so that I can look my younger self in the eye and tell him: "See, I am still working on what you started five years back. I am no longer a high schooler, and even though things are more serious now that people are finally taking notice and raising their expectations, I still refuse to bow down to the system. I have not let you down. And I never will." And I’ve come too far down this road that I’ve carved out for myself anyway. I don’t regret it in the slightest, but it’s true that there’s no going back. At this point, I’m not even competing with the system. I see myself as my only competitor in the true sense. But yeah, above all, the best thing about this journey is that it has given a sense of purpose to my otherwise meaningless life, as well as moments of awe and wonder. And the worst part is the realization that my personal goal (exploring physics my own way) doesn't align with what society expects of me (becoming a conventional physicist). This just means my journey will be more difficult, but that doesn’t freak me out. I only feel bad about it because it means I'll have to work extra hard on the artificial problems created by society and as a result, I’ll have less time to devote to the actual learning, thinking, exploring and researching. Indeed, in today’s world of breakneck competition, I do sometimes feel like I’m losing sight of that ultimate goal that got me started down this path in the first place. The uncertainty in life is appealing, to some extent, but when it comes to the ultimate goal I’m pursuing, or my ideologies and principles, I could honestly do with a bit more certainty. It’s not like I’m not making progress, but am I growing inside? To be honest, I don’t even get enough time to ask this question to myself and reflect on it. And no point complaining, I’ve to accept it and move on. That’s the sad reality. I want to explore physics my own way, but society wants me to be a "physicist", in the most conventional sense of the word. At times, it indeed feels like I’m losing sight of the ultimate goal I’ve set for myself, and I can only hope that this is a temporary dip in the path leading to that goal and I still have enough energy left inside me to be able to rise up from this dip in due course of time. 

​

I have also realized that although I am very action oriented, I am not goal oriented in general. I often do things that take me far away from my primary goal. I just want to explore and keep exploring, even if it does not leave me with specific results. During an interview, I was once asked why I tend to work on broad questions spanning different areas of physics. The professor did indeed study my CV very carefully to realize this, and he pointed out that my independent as well as internship/dissertation projects mostly address broad topics in a novel way, are heavy on mathematics, but often lack specific results or simulations. The reason is simple: I believe now is the time to explore the connection between different branches of physics and also between physics and the other sciences. A fundamentally new insight, even if it is somewhat broad and speculative, is valuable to me. I figured out that during my PhD, I would not have the chance to explore as freely as now; I'd probably have to focus on a very narrow and conventional area of research then. As I always keep saying, for me it has always been less about becoming a physicist, and more about exploring physics my own way. Physics has a way of asserting the coherence of the universe and the logical continuity of our experiences, observations and theories across different scales. Physics, of course, just provides a general framework to study a wide class of phenomena. It is very important to remember that the universe doesn't "follow" the laws of physics. The apple doesn't fall due to Newton's law; the apple falls because this behavior is in sync with the way our universe evolves. That's the way our universe is. Newton's law just does a good job of describing this behavior. Much of physics is made up to make the math work out, but physics still is probably the only path that can not only be meaningful but can also take us as close to objective truth as possible. I find this even more surprising, since meaning and truth are often at odds with each other!

​

​

11. Just like you are trying to do something different in your life, there are many others who don't want to walk the conventional path as well. They want to do something big in life. Do you have any advice or suggestions for them?

​​

- Well, I think it’s neither talent nor effort that separates a genius from an ordinary person. Rather, it’s the inherent dislike for whatever is conventional, and a reckless desire to explore the unknown even at the cost of failing. If you want to do something big in life, if you want to contribute really significantly to your field - beyond routine stuff - then I believe simply loving your field is not enough. Strange as it may sound, you also need to actively hate other activities, without projecting your views on anyone of course. Great people don’t become great because of a single choice; behind that choice is a conscious and complete sacrifice of all other possible choices. And first of all, we should understand that every success is built on hundreds of failures that are not publicized. I think it's very important to acknowledge the role played by the failures, and at times even take pride in failing. Failing gives you the opportunity for a comeback! Successful people are not successful just because of their talent or hard work. Rather, it's because they handled their failures well. I believe it's more important to teach children how to handle failures rather than how to become successful. Next, it might sound harsh but if you don't love what you're doing, you'll always find excuses to take short breaks from your work, and even if you are ahead of the curve and you think you deserve a short break, the duration of your short break is all your rivals need to outrun you. You must work as hard and as smart as you can, without collapsing. But there's no time for breaks. You must not stop. And yeah, you should not only move fast, but also choose the path that is best suited to you. Both hard work and smart work is necessary. And you shouldn't work hard and smart with the intention of getting the job done quickly so that you've more free time, you should work to get the best job done in the shortest possible time, so that you've time for more jobs. That should be the mindset. Just never stop and keep striking, simply because you love it! In football, playing striker is more difficult than playing defender. A defender has to face one striker at a time, and there are many defenders. A striker, on the other hand, has to face all the defenders at once. When a good striker strikes again and again, he slowly starts to overpower the defenders. As a defender, you are trying to stop someone from scoring, you are not yourself trying to score. Of course, no game of football can be played without the defenders. But in the game of life, offense is often the best defense. So, regardless of what position you play in football, or whether you play football at all, in the game of life you should develop the mindset of a striker. (In case you are wondering, I played defender in my school football team!) And finally, while it is good to have people who care about you and would unconditionally support you in times of need, it is also equally important to not become dependent on anyone in a way that you would be finished without them. Friends are like oxygen, yes. But remember that the higher you rise, the lower the oxygen concentration. In my experience, friends are like negative feedback amplifiers who will help you live a happy, stable life, but negative feedback never allows you to go beyond the saturation point. Haters and rivals, in my view, give you positive feedback (analogous to oscillators, if you know a bit of electronics). You do something great, they hate on you and push you to do something even greater, and as you keep outdoing yourself, they keep hating you even more, and this goes on. I won't say I chose the lonely path. When I was young, even I dreamt of being "accepted", of living a normal, happy life. But something about me - I don't know exactly what - always made (and makes) people alienate me. But today, I really don't care about fitting in the crowd anymore. Plus I'd prefer to live a memorable life full of ups and downs to an ordinary life. I want my work to have some real impact - no matter how little - on at least a few people. Because one day, our entire lives will flash like a movie before our eyes; and it is up to us to make sure it's worth watching.

​

​

12. Do you watch movies? Who’s your favorite hero and villain?

- Well, I don’t watch movies actually. I have watched some movies, of course, but you’d be surprised to know that the number of movies I’ve watched is likely less than twenty-five, and definitely less than, well, thirty. I’m pretty confident about that. But yeah, I used to enjoy the Harry Potter movies when I was younger (although the books were much better). I don’t have a favorite hero, really. I liked Dumbledore a lot at one point of time, especially for his quotes, but he was cunning and manipulative. I mean, he was working for the greater good, but most Potterheads wouldn’t call Dumbledore a "hero". I also find Grindelwald's character pretty interesting. And of course, Sherlock Holmes is also one of my favorite heroes, although I haven't watched any Holmes movies, I've just read the novels and stories. But I do have a favorite villain. Guess who? The Joker from The Dark Knight. I mean, I can really relate with this character called Joker. Indeed, all it takes to reduce the sanest man to madness is one bad day. The Joker in The Dark Knight makes a similar claim: "Madness… is like gravity. All it takes is a little push." We like to believe we are in control, but indeed, a little push in one of your neurons in your brain might completely change your identity. Sanity is like a pencil balanced on its tip; a little push in any direction will inevitably make way for madness. And even if it might be hard to accept, it is the truth. We humans have a habit of finding "meaningful" patterns in things that are actually meaningless, and ignoring the obvious truth dancing in front of our eyes (because it is hard to accept). When I was young, I always had a secret desire to become a mastermind criminal and take revenge on the world. I mean, this would be obvious to those who’ve read the lyrics of my song The World Versus Me. I admit it’s just a childhood fantasy. I don’t seriously consider becoming a criminal. But still, I find the Joker’s philosophy interesting. I mean, for one, Joker was somewhat of a nihilist. He wasn’t afraid to die, and although he says he just does things, he is actually extremely intelligent and plans his crimes beautifully and carries them out even more beautifully. And although he portrays himself as a lunatic, he actually has a deep understanding of human psychology. He’s able to manipulate people so easily. And he has realized the ultimate truth of society - people are only as good as the world allows them to be. He has realized that all these social norms and laws - which seem so obvious, right and fair - are actually anything but fair. We are all monsters, without the make-up. The Joker just wants to show us who we really are, and to show us the harsh reality we’ve been trying to ignore for so long. He was not an ordinary criminal driven by monetary goals. He was a seeker of truth and a social experimenter. I admit he went to great lengths to prove his point, without caring about morals or ethics. But in the end, the Joker was probably right. I mean, his views were impartial and logical. The most interesting aspect of the Joker is his desire to pave the way for chaos. I really love Joker’s act of calling himself "an agent of chaos". In fact, these are probably my favorite lines from The Dark Knight: "Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order. And everything becomes chaos. I’m an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!" Nothing’s fair in today’s world. In the true sense, chaos is the only thing that’s fair. I am not talking about chaos theory. I am talking about real chaos. A state of complete disorder, from a physics viewpoint. Why do I call chaos fair? Because a state of complete disorder is supposed to be the same at each point in space and time. I mean, it's a complete disorder. It's not governed by any rule(s). You can’t distinguish a particular region or direction from another region or direction in space, and in its entirety it doesn’t change with time as well. If you could distinguish this state in space or over time, the implication would be that there was some order, some rule(s) giving rise to the difference. And the problem with order and rules is that they don’t treat every point in space and time equally, which isn’t fair, and hence the difference. Of course, in the context of space and time, there’s nothing "fair" or "unfair". In the context of society, well, chaos would mean some sort of anarchy. Yeah, it’s fair. Because everything is in a state of disorder. It treats everyone equally, regardless of their background or status. Order, on the other hand, implies someone or something is in control. The rules always favor the ones who made the rules. Now The Dark Knight is just a movie, and most of us don’t really want anarchy. But I love the concept. I also agree with the idea that there are two ways to think about your life: a tragedy or a comedy. And I think the latter is probably the better option. I mean, when you think deeply about it, there is something similar about tragedy and comedy. And that life is a tragedy is probably true and appealing. But there’s hardly anything you can do thinking life’s a tragedy. On the other hand, if you accept that life is a comedy show and you’re a joker, you transcend all rules and ethics, and explore life your own way: you become the joker, and life the biggest joke.

​

​

13. I would like to join the Journal of Young Physicists as a contributor/editor. How to do it? 

- We are looking for contributors and editors, especially contributors. As a contributor, all you need to do is write short physics articles for us. Not too many. You just need to contribute a few hours per month. Or less, depending on your other commitments. You can click here for more information.​​​
 

​

14. Why did you think founding the Journal of Young Physicists is important? Also, what advice would you give to the youth regarding founding an organization?

​

- Well, as I have said many times, the primary purpose of the JYP is to provide a platform for young students to publish their physics articles. Yeah, there already exist many such platforms, which are probably way better than the JYP. But I wanted to create a journal for young students dedicated specifically to physics and so I did. The JYP is also different from other journals for young students in some other respects, like its commitment to never charge authors for publication, and yet offer a quick and smooth review process. Also, the JYP is often more considerate to articles written by young students that are unique and interesting, but might not be considered fit for publication by most other journals for various reasons. The JYP is all about maintaining a balance between posting accurate and relevant content, and at the same time encouraging young students to write physics articles (which means not rejecting articles unless absolutely necessary). The JYP is committed to popularizing physics and fostering the growth of young physicists. I think science popularization is very important. If you really want to solve a problem for the sake of knowing the answer, and not for the sake of getting credited as the one who solved the problem, you should not only work hard on the problem yourself, but also try to spread awareness about and get more people interested in the problem; the more the number of people working on the problem from different perspectives, the more the chances of it getting solved increases. That’s why I think science popularization is important. Even beyond the JYP, I devote a significant amount of my time toward writing articles and creating YouTube videos about science for the general audience. It is, however, always important to popularize science in the right way. While simplifying a difficult concept and using analogies is okay, the concept must not be presented to the general audience in a way that is misleading; because it is much more difficult to unlearn a wrong idea than to learn something difficult from scratch. 

 

About the second question, well, I'm really not the right person for such kind of advice. The JYP was a sudden and crazy idea. It paid off, but that is because of the support I received from the team, the contributors and the readers. Yes, there were many who criticized my decision to create the JYP, and initially I received a lot of hate mail and stuff like that. But I just ignored all of that. So yeah, the advice I would like to give to the youth is this: no matter what, follow your passion, have patience and never give up on your dreams. In the initial days of the JYP, I literally had to beg people to write and submit articles to keep the blog going, and today, even after rejecting a couple of articles, we have so many pending articles to review and publish. So if you have a dream that is meaningful to you, even if it might not seem feasible, you should work on it. You may decide to push your ideas and dreams to the back of your mind and focus on establishing yourself first, so that you can come back to your dream sometime in the future. However, ideas and dreams fade away if they are not seriously nurtured. This would be my justification for publishing a popular science book on physics (Our Physics So Far) and founding an organization where students from all over the world can submit their physics articles for review and publication (The Journal of Young Physicists), all while I was still a high school student. All I want to say is, never give up on your dreams. ​

​​

​

15. Could you share some advice for aspiring researchers?

​

- Start with any question, however stupid it may sound, and keep asking why. This will lead you down a beautiful path, unless you reach a "why" that very few have dared to ask, and the answer to which is not known. Make a list of such questions, and then start looking up available material related to that on the Internet. Literature review is a very important step. And also reach out to people who work in that area. Not everyone will reply or be super helpful, but it is always a good idea to email people, attend conferences etc. So these are some general points, but now let me share four particular advice, based on my little experience, for young students considering a career in scientific research. First, choose your question wisely. Assuming you are a beginner, don't choose a question that is too fundamental, even if the sound of it interests you. Choose a well-defined question that aligns with your interest and expertise and that you are likely to make significant progress on. Second, learn to live with frustration. The transition from high-school (or even undergraduate) education to research is difficult. In research, if you are stuck at some point, it's unlikely that you will find the answer easily in a textbook or on the Internet. Maybe even your supervisor hasn't got a clue. It might get really frustrating, but the sooner you learn to live with this and keep going, the better. For beginners, the best you can do is randomly choose an approach and see where that takes you. If you end up at some solution, great. If not, you still learn a lot on the way and at least you can rule out that approach once and for all. As you become more and more experienced, you can intuitively choose an approach that is very likely to be the correct one. Third, start as early as possible and try to explore a wide range of topics. Starting early gives you more time, and you can afford to make more mistakes. And initially, it's a good idea to keep your options open. You may feel like you want to do research on some particular topic and nothing else, but unless you have explored everything at a sufficiently deep level, you are not in a position to make an unbiased choice. Plus, if your fascination with a particular topic comes from watching documentaries and sci-fi movies, or reading popular science books, then it is possible that after learning the topic in some depth, you lose interest in it because it turns out to be much more challenging and much less exciting than you thought. At this point, if you have previously explored other alternatives, you at least have a plan B. And fourth, talk to researchers in your field. Reach out to them and exchange ideas with them. Often you are stuck in your approach, and a good chat with someone working on a similar problem might reveal a unique perspective. And since most modern scientific research projects involve scientists from various fields, a collaborative mindset is important for a successful career in research. Apart from all that, I think the rest comes with experience. You just need to be patient and consistent.

​​

​

16. Are you a nihilist? Do you believe in God?

​

- Well, I do consider myself a nihilist. I mean, as I've probably mentioned earlier in some of my writings or videos, I just believe there is no inherent meaning in life, and this only increases my urge to live my life in a way that is meaningful to me. I also believe that some features of the universe are the way they are because of chance, and not due to some divine reason. That's all. I mean, I find nihilism - at least certain forms of nihilism - to be scientific and logical. Contrary to common misconception, nihilism is not about being pessimistic, it is about being realistic. Let me try to briefly illustrate the difference between optimism, pessimism and nihilism. Consider a sinusoidal wave. The positive portion or peaks (the part lying above the horizontal axis) correspond to optimism and the negative portion correspond to pessimism. The similarity between these two ways of viewing the world is that in both the cases, you believe that both good and bad exists. Optimists would say most of the world is good and some part of it is bad. Pessimists would say the opposite. Nihilists would say that there is no good or bad. Concepts like "good" and "bad" don't exist objectively. Think of it as a straight line (no sine or cosine wave). Another illustration: Say you have a glass half full of water. Optimists will say it is half full, pessimists will say it is half empty. Nihilists will say who cares? So nihilism promotes an unbiased and impartial view of the world. I have often been asked whether I believe there is a bigger purpose to everything. Well, let's start with physics. In a way, physics creates goals. There are two equivalent ways of describing physical laws: either as the past causing the future, or as the universe trying to optimize something (second law of thermodynamics maximizes entropy, moving objects minimize action etc). The universe evolves according to these physical laws, forming self-organizing systems that are increasingly complex. Then we have biology, where the goal becomes evolution. With increasing complexity, self-organization gives way to self-replication, and different life-forms start to evolve according to Darwinian evolution (natural selection). At this level, the immediate goal for these life-forms is self-replication. Then we have psychology, which is about self-realization and the mastery of goals. When life-forms become intelligent enough to figure out the genetic goal of self-replication, they learn to defy it within their limits. Although we - currently the most complex life-form on Earth - know that the biological goal is self-replication, we form and prioritize our own personal goals in life. Then we have engineering, which is concerned with self-upgradation through the hacking of goals. When our personal goals become so complex that they can’t be achieved just through self-reflection, we think about ways to break free of our limits. We engineer smart machines and programs that can help us achieve bigger goals. Ultimately, we aim to hack our biological systems using computer science and engineering in order to upgrade ourselves, and possibly achieve digital immortality. Finally, we have to come back to nihilism, which is concerned with the destruction of goals. Even though we have this notion that we are superior to machines, ultimately we ourselves are machines, our consciousness being a dream of this machine. Once we realize this, our notion of “self” gets destroyed (self-destruction). In the end, we are meaningless, and so are all the goals discussed above. There is no objectively meaningful goal in the universe. Even the goals of physics are ultimately meaningless. The universe, for instance, doesn’t really evolve with the goal of maximizing entropy, that’s just the way the universe is. There is no objective or inherent purpose behind the workings of the universe. There’s no place for fundamentally goal-oriented behavior in nihilism. That's the view I am currently most comfortable with.

 

As for the second question, well, I would say I am an agnostic, and I also consider spending too much time on the question "Does God exist?" a waste of time. It's not a productive use of our time, because the question is not a scientific question. In general, I believe that we don't need to invoke God to explain the universe. Either we will understand it fully in the course of time, or at least we will understand the fundamental principles on which it is based, even if we can't calculate every detail and every feature of it from this knowledge, or maybe there will always be some questions we won't ever be able to answer. It's foolish to assume that we can understand everything about the vast universe, although we have uncovered quite a lot. But I don't think it is a good idea to leave whatever we can't explain to God. It's better to just accept that we can't know everything. 

​​

​

17. Based on your experience, what do you think is the best way to increase the productivity of a team?

​

- I have only been part of teams consisting of students or young people, and our work has mostly been out of passion, and not driven by profits. So I do not know enough about this to give a meaningful answer, but I can share two insights from my little experience. First, in my experience and contrary to common perception, the more diverse and remote a team is, less is the friction and ego clash in the team. I have worked remotely with teams that consist of people from different countries, ages and backgrounds from around the world. Most of us have not even seen each other in person. But despite slow progress at times, there is mutual respect and a passion to work. Issues arise from time to time, but they are mostly due to negligence or technical issues, not created problems by people in authority who vent their frustration through ego. On the other hand, in my school and college, although we know each other, see each other daily and there is little difference in age, demographics and our subject of study, this happens all the time. I think this strengthens my argument that emotion does not support real work or progress. From a neuroscience perspective, if you work in a team where you see each other daily, and there's this peer pressure and unhealthy competition, it is not surprising that more emotions will be invoked in your mind. Some of these are downright negative emotions like hatred, jealousy and others are more dangerous emotions like attachment. 

​

The second insight is that there are two basic reward-punishment systems that can be followed in a team. First, one in which the people who put in extra effort and achieve something excellent are rewarded while the people putting in average effort are neither rewarded nor punished. And in the second system, the people who put in average effort are punished (not severely, though) while the people who work extra hard and achieve something great are neither rewarded nor punished. If asked which of these is the better system, in general, most people would probably choose the first. However, in some cases, the second one might actually work better than the first. In the first system, you are rewarding the excellent people and leaving the average people to themselves, in the hope that the average people get inspired to work harder. Except that rarely happens. What is more likely to happen is that the average people will get jealous and try to pull down the excellent people instead of trying to push themselves up. Unless they are forced to push themselves up, they won't. In the second system, people are forced to become excellent, since otherwise they will be penalized. If you are punishing the average people and neither rewarding nor punishing the excellent people, this indicates that excellence is the standard in your team. Not only the team's productivity, but also the people's individual productivities will increase in this system. However, this should not be done unethically and indiscriminately, above all team members and employees must be treated like humans.​

​​​​​

​​​​