What exactly is dark energy? Is there a multiverse? Are there additional forces beyond the four fundamental ones we recognize?
These represent just a fraction of the numerous unresolved inquiries in physics, yet such enigmas — along with the curiosity they provoke — serve as inspiration for particle physicist Asimina Arvanitaki.
Arvanitaki’s journey in science has led her from the realm of subatomic particles to the vast expanses of the universe — transitioning from her homeland of Greece to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, where she is currently based. During an event at the Perimeter Institute on October 7, Arvanitaki discussed her career, the essence of scientific inquiry, the influence of artificial intelligence, and more with Ideas host Nahlah Ayed. Below are excerpts from their dialogue.
Can you elaborate on how curiosity has influenced your dedication to science and your research?
One does not pursue a career in science without enjoying the state of constant confusion.
I was raised in Greece. At the conclusion of high school … you are compelled to select a major — a rather dreadful decision since most individuals are uncertain about their future paths. In my situation, I was torn between science and engineering. I found joy in mathematics, physics, and chemistry — all those subjects. Eventually, I became more fascinated by the “why” behind things rather than merely figuring out how to make things function.
This led me to the field of physics. In the end, I specialized in particle physics, which explores the fundamental components of matter. While it indeed involves the tiniest elements, one must also consider the entirety of the cosmos to grasp how everything interconnects. Thus, it is a broad discipline that affords me considerable intellectual freedom.
What was the first instance of scientific curiosity you displayed as a young girl?
In elementary school, I discovered the vast distance to the sun when I learned that light travels at a finite speed. I calculated that it takes eight minutes for sunlight to reach us and thought, “Oh my god! We can never know the sun as it is right now!” … It might explode! We have eight minutes to escape!
What does curiosity manifest as during scientific investigation?
We engage with it so instinctively. Every question we pose reflects our curiosity. For me, curiosity permeates all aspects. It could be about how this microphone operates. There are countless inquiries. It could also pertain to why we have this wooden paneling on the walls. Is it for sound quality? Is it for aesthetics? It can be about anything.
It seems that currently, much of science funding is prioritized towards projects that yield immediate or practical results. What are the risks of overemphasizing this approach compared to curiosity-led research?
Let’s reflect on the 19th century. At that time, Rockefeller was the wealthiest individual globally. Suppose he had a vision issue. He might seek eye surgery. He approaches his physician: “Doctor, I want a solution that doesn’t require glasses. Can you discover a minimally invasive procedure that doesn’t involve inserting instruments into my eye?” This would imply laser surgery.
With all his wealth, he would still need to uncover quantum mechanics, comprehend light emission from atoms, grasp Einstein’s theory of stimulated emission, and then wait another four decades for the first laser to be developed before searching for its application.
Arvanitaki, left, conversing with Ideas host Nahlah Ayed regarding her role as a physicist, the significance of curiosity-driven research, and AI’s influence in science. (Gabriela Secara/Perimeter Institute)
By initiating the thought process with the application — the end result — transformative technologies are often overlooked. Therefore, no amount of money can procure genuinely revolutionary advancements since they arise from deep understanding. Such comprehension sometimes necessitates navigating through uncertainty.
Do you perceive a potential risk with AI in that it might diminish our ability to experience insight, wonder, and curiosity when we have access to something so intelligent?
No, I don’t believe that will happen.
Let’s hark back to ancient times. One of my ancestors, Socrates [laughs] — proclaimed that writing was the worst occurrence for humanity. It hampers cognitive function. He argued that people should refrain from writing as it leads to forgetfulness and inhibits mental training.
-
Chemist who transformed energy storage nabs Canada’s top science prize
-
Canadian astronaut Joshua Kutryk conducts his 1st spacewalk
However, when considering it, writing and language have served as the most potent tools for the intergenerational transmission of knowledge. We have been able to build on the achievements of our forebears. This is how I perceive the situation.
We are currently experiencing a technological revolution that will transform our practices. We will adapt accordingly. I genuinely believe, for instance, it will redefine what we deem significant. AI excels at performing calculations, meaning we will no longer spend time on them, which I personally dislike. Nonetheless, the generation of ideas remains critical.