Why curiosity and confusion are so important for scientists

What is the nature of dark energy? Does a multiverse exist? Are there forces beyond the four fundamental forces we know of?

These are just some of the many open questions in physics, but those mysteries — and the curiosity they inspire — are motivation for particle physicist Asimina Arvanitaki.

Arvanitaki’s career as a scientist has taken her everywhere from subatomic particles to the furthest reaches of the universe — and from her native Greece to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ont., where she currently works. At a Perimeter Institute event on Oct. 7, Arvanitaki spoke to Ideas host Nahlah Ayed about her career, the nature of science, the role of artificial intelligence and more. Here is part of their conversation.

Tell me about the role curiosity has played in your passion for science and in your research.

You don’t become a scientist if you’re not happy [being] confused all the time. 

I grew up in Greece. [And] at the end of high school … you are forced to choose a major —  which is a horrible idea because usually you have no clue what you want to do. In my case, I want to do either science or engineering. I liked math, I liked physics, chemistry — all that. And I realized that I was more interested in the “why” things are the way they are, than answering how to make things work. 

WATCH | Curiosity and the Cosmos: CBC IDEAS at Perimeter Institute:

So this is how I ended up doing physics. Eventually I ended up doing particle physics because particle physics has to do with the elementary constituents of matter. So in some ways, yes, it has to do with the smallest things, but at the same time, you have to observe the whole cosmos to understand how everything comes together. So, it’s a very broad field that allows me a lot of freedom, intellectually.  

When was the first kind of instance of scientific curiosity that you might have exhibited as a young woman? 

I was in elementary school, and I realized how far the sun was, because I learned that the speed of light is finite. I calculated that it takes eight minutes for the light from the sun to reach us and I realized, “Oh my god! We’ll never know the sun as it is now!” … It may blow up! We have eight minutes to run! 

What does curiosity look like when someone’s conducting science?  

We do it so naturally. It’s every question you will ask. For me, curiosity is in everything. It’s like, how does this microphone work? There [are] endless questions. And it can be about, why do we have this wood on the walls? Is it for acoustics? Is it for beauty? It can be about anything. 

It seems like today … often, a lot of science funding is focused on discovering or developing things that have immediate, or practical, applications. What are the dangers of putting too much emphasis on that, as opposed to curiosity-driven research? 

So, let’s go back in the 19th century. At the time Rockefeller was the richest man in the world. Let’s say he had an eye problem. So he wanted to go [for] eye surgery. He goes to his doctor. “Doctor, I don’t want to wear these glasses. Can you find me a minimally invasive procedure that doesn’t include, like, sticking stuff in my eye, that can cure me?” Meaning laser surgery. 

So, with all of his money, he would need to discover quantum mechanics, he would need to understand the emission of light from atoms, he would need Einstein’s theory of stimulated emission, and still wait for another 40 or so years for the first laser, and then try to find the application. 

Arvanitaki, left, speaking to Ideas host Nahlah Ayed about her career as a physicist, the importance of curiosity-driven research and the role of AI in science. (Gabriela Secara/Perimeter Institute)

By starting thinking of the application — the end goal — you don’t find these transformative technologies. So, all the money in the world, it cannot buy you the truly transformative things, because they come from true understanding. And true understanding requires being lost in the dark sometimes.  

I’m just wondering if there’s a danger [with AI] that we will lose our capacity for insight and for awe, for wonder, for curiosity, when something that smart is at our disposal.

No, I don’t think so.

Let’s go back to the ancient times. And one of my ancestors, Socrates [laughs] — he said that writing is the worst thing that has happened to humanity. It’s bad for the brain. So people should not write because they forget, and they don’t train their brains. 

But I mean, if you think about [it], writing and language has been the most powerful tool we have to have intergenerational continuation of the passage of knowledge. And we were able to build upon what our ancestors did. So this is how I view it.

We are living through a technological revolution right now. It will change the way we do things. We will adapt to it. I really think, for example, it would change what things are important. It’s very good at doing calculations. So, we won’t spend any time doing calculations, and I hate doing calculations. But ideas are still important.