PW_mar13_sample_issue

physicsworld.com
Feedback
Letters to the editor can be sent to Physics World,
Temple Circus, Temple Way, Bristol BS1 6HG, UK,
or to pwld@iop.org. Please include your address and
a telephone number. Letters should be no more than
500 words and may be edited. Comments on articles
from physicsworld.com can be posted on the
website; an edited selection appears here
Physics in India
As a close follower of Physics World and an
aspiring science popularizer, I found your
special report on India quite timely as it
reflects the enhanced efforts to promote
research in this country. However, the
report reflects more of the positive
changes that are happening and ignores
some of the serious problems that India
faces in producing a high-quality talent
pool at the undergraduate level.
There are many pockets of excellence
in India where high-quality research is
conducted. However, these centres of
excellence are not involved in training
undergraduates, and the institutions
that do train undergraduates are not
involved in research. Most Indian students
therefore do not go through the process
of being nurtured from an early stage by
academics who are actively engaged in
research, as the best Indian researchers
are isolated from the country’s
mainstream education system.
I think a complex set of reasons are
responsible for this situation. One key
concern is that conducting research has
been more of an exception than a norm
in most Indian universities. In recent
years, many initiatives have been set up
to address this problem and a flood of
money is now available to people who
are interested in pursuing research
projects. The problem is that most Indian
academics have not looked at research
for the better part of their careers, so
whatever research they pursue is likely to
be ad hoc and not original.
This scenario has to change if India is
to do better. Undergraduate education
should be introduced in all of the centres
that are currently dedicated only to
research. It is not just the undergraduates
who stand to benefit from this; professors
will benefit just as much when they are
teaching curious young students.
Prem Prasad
Manipal, Karnataka, India
premmirthinti@gmail.com
I found the special report on India
well planned and highly informative,
especially the article on “Igniting
a passion for physics among India’s
top students”. However, I wish that
the report had included a separate
article on the role of informal science
communications in inspiring and
inculcating the spirit of inquiry among
school students. In a country like India,
where scientific research is mostly funded
by public money, scientists ought to
use the outcomes of their research for
social benefit. Also, in order to attract
talented students to science and thereby
harness their capabilities in fostering an
understanding of nature, science needs
to be made attractive, accessible and
comprehensible in a way that does not
dilute its substance.
I am the physics curator of the National
Council of Science Museums (NCSM),
an autonomous organization under the
Indian government’s Ministry of Culture
that is currently led by G S Rautela. For
more than five decades now, the NCSM
has acted as a bridge between members
of the public and science, enhancing
understanding and appreciation of science
and technology through a network of
47 hands-on and interactive science
museums and centres spread across the
country. All NCSM units welcome people
from different walks of life, including
students in organized groups, families
and tourists, and visitors are encouraged
to get engaged with and participate in
interactive science activities.
Comments from physicsworld.com
Now hear this: the way people perceive and
analyse sounds is highly nonlinear. We know
this because there is a restriction (called the
Gabor limit) on the accuracy of linear methods
in simultaneously determining a sound’s pitch
and timing – and humans routinely beat it.
Our report on a new study of this phenomenon
(“Human hearing is highly nonlinear”,
31 January) had physicsworld.com readers
speculating about how hearing works, and
what further tests might reveal.
Maybe humans beat the Gabor limit because
they’re using more than one process – one that
does timing well but is bad at frequency analysis
and another that does frequency analysis well
but is bad at timing. I think it’s possible to devise
more tests to confirm this.
philius, Ireland
You cannot get the answer simply by using two
processes. They must be correlated. Imagine
using this dual analysis:
1. We analysed the frequency and we know there
were three pitches, A, C# and G. But we cannot
say when they occurred.
2. We analysed the timings and we know the
pitches changed at 1.4 seconds and 1.8 seconds
from the start of the first one. But we cannot say
Immersed An interactive science exhibit in India.
In addition to permanent exhibition
galleries and science parks, the NCSM
regularly organizes travelling exhibitions
on contemporary scientific issues. One
of its most remarkable activities is a
specially designed “museo-bus” that
brings exhibitions on scientific topics
relevant to the rural population to remote
villages. The NCSM has also taken on
the responsibility of building science
communication skills among teachers in
schools, colleges and universities, and
the professional development of science
teachers is one of several areas identified
as a target for future activities.
These initiatives – along with many
others I have no room to mention here –
will help to develop a “passion for physics”
not only among India’s top students, but
also members of the wider public.
Kanchan Chowdhury
National Council of Science Museums, India
kkc_154@yahoo.co.in
what the order of the pitches was.
So you see, it is a 2D problem, but the approach
you suggest applies two 1D analysis techniques.
edprochak
We already know the ear is highly nonlinear in
its amplitude response. Why would we expect it
to be linear in any other way? Anyone who has
ever played with resonant circuits understands
that as you raise the Q of the circuit to get better
frequency selection, the response time (hence
the time to detection at a certain amplitude)
increases. The two are directly related.
But that applies only to a single resonator.
As I understand it, the ear has (very) many
resonators, the cochlear hairs, to pick up each
individual frequency. It would not surprise me to
find also many resonators at the same frequency
but with different Q, allowing the ear also to pick
up timing differences at reasonable amplitudes.
Both sets of detector would work to give the
effects seen.
ajansen
Read these comments in full and add your own at
physicsworld.com
Physics World March 2013 19
NCSM