Renowned Physicist Dr. Young Suh Kim Honored By Close Up Radio in the Field of Science
Close Up Radio honors one of our most respected guests, Dr. Young Suh Kim
BELTSVILLE, MD, UNITED STATES, April 21, 2025 / EINPresswire.com / -- How do the orbits of the hydrogen atom appear to you while you are in motion? Einstein asked this question in the 1950s. In 1978, Dr. Young Suh Kim answered. His paper, 'Representations of the Poincaré Group for Relativistic Extended Hadrons' was published by the Journal of Mathematical Physics in 1979. Dr. Kim reflects, 'It wasn't Einstein's fault. He didn't have access to high-energy accelerators—but fortunately, we do.'
Born in Sorae, Korea in 1935, Dr. Kim shares that the United States has been very good to him. 'I could never accomplish all I have in any other country except America.' Poverty, political unrest, and cultural norms would have made a life in academia impossible. 'Growing up in Korea during the 1950s gave me a solid work ethic. We attended the Sorae Church, which was founded by Horace Underwood, the first American Presbyterian missionary to come to Korea. My grandfather was a very good friend of Underwood's and took care of his properties while Underwood was traveling.' Kim explains.
This foundation is what Dr. Kim brought to America in 1954, where he attended Carnegie Institute of Technology (now Carnegie Mellon University). That's where Dr. Kim first learned about Albert Einstein.
'I just knew I had to meet Dr. Einstein, who had worked with Princeton University. In 1958, I was accepted to Princeton and my dream came true (as best it could),' explains Dr. Kim. 'Even though Einstein had passed in 1955, I was able to work with him through his research.'
That's when Dr. Kim learned that during the time Einstein formulated his Theory of Relativity in 1905, all particles were considered 'point particles,' or particles that do not take up space. Later, particles such as the hydrogen atom or the proton, were found to have very rich internal structures that do take up space. This discovery created a problem—how do particles appear when in motion?
Being so close to Dr. Einstein, Dr. Kim had to discover the answer. 'While at Princeton, I began studying Dr. Eugene Wigner's 1939 paper titled, 'On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogeneus Lorentz Group.' That's when I discovered a sort of dark period in scientific history.'
During the early years of the 20th Century, Niels Bohr was researching the hydrogen atom, while Einstein was studying how particles appear to moving observers. Although the two scientific icons met occasionally to discuss physics, they left no writings on whether or not they discussed how moving hydrogen atoms appear to observers at rest.
After 20 years (1966-1986) of continuous research, Dr. Kim discovered Wigner's 1939 mathematical paper is applicable to the internal space-time structure of particles. When Einstein formulated his theory of relativity in 1905, particles were considered to be 'point particles.' Later, particles such as the hydrogen atom or the proton, were found to have very rich internal structures. According to Dr. Kim, 'Wigner's 1939 paper allows us to extend Einstein's theory of relativity to the insides of those particles.'
While a graduate student and post-doc at Princeton, Dr. Kim met Professor Wigner. Both men are honored to now have a place in Einstein's genealogy as scientific leaders who made discoveries Einstein could not. Dr. Kim became known as Wigner's youngest student.
In 1962, Dr. Kim became an assistant professor of physics at the University of Maryland. After retiring from teaching duties in 2007, Dr. Kim is a Professor of Physics Emeritus at UMD where he has been focusing on research. A prolific author of several books and scientific articles, Dr. Kim most desires to expand Dr. Einstein's theories.
Although the competitive academic life has not always been easy for Dr. Kim, he is very happy to have created his very own Einstein-Wigner-Kim genealogy. 'I believe in what I believe,' concludes Dr. Kim. 'I endured a lot of hardship in delays in promotion to create this genealogy, and I succeeded. This is what makes me proud.'
So how do the orbits of the hydrogen atom appear to you while you are in motion? 'Spherical, of course,' Dr. Kim proudly replies.
Close Up Radio featured Dr. Young Suh Kim in an interview with Jim Masters on Friday, March 29th, 2024 at 2pm Eastern
Listen to His Show
For more information about Dr. Kim and the University of Maryland, please visit https://www.ysfine.com/ and https://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~yskim//yspapers/index.html
Lou Ceparano
Close Up Television & Radio
+1 631-850-3314
email us here
Visit us on social media:
Facebook
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content 'as is' without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
11 hours ago
- Forbes
The Ardent Belief That Artificial General Intelligence Will Bring Us Infinite Einsteins
In today's column, I examine an AI conjecture known as the infinite Einsteins. The deal is this. By attaining artificial general intelligence (AGI) and artificial superintelligence (ASI), the resulting AI will allegedly provide us with an infinite number of AI-based Einsteins. We could then have Einstein-level intelligence massively available 24/7. The possibilities seem incredible and enormously uplifting. Let's talk about it. This analysis of an innovative AI breakthrough is part of my ongoing Forbes column coverage on the latest in AI, including identifying and explaining various impactful AI complexities (see the link here). There is a great deal of research going on to further advance AI. The general goal is to either reach artificial general intelligence (AGI) or maybe even the outstretched possibility of achieving artificial superintelligence (ASI). AGI is AI that is considered on par with human intellect and can seemingly match our intelligence. ASI is AI that has gone beyond human intellect and would be superior in many if not all feasible ways. The idea is that ASI would be able to run circles around humans by outthinking us at every turn. For more details on the nature of AI, AGI, and ASI, see my analysis at the link here. AI insiders are pretty much divided into two major camps right now about the impacts of reaching AGI or ASI. One camp consists of the AI doomers. They are predicting that AGI or ASI will seek to wipe out humanity. Some refer to this as 'P(doom),' which means the probability of doom, or that AI zonks us entirely, also known as the existential risk of AI. The other camp entails the so-called AI accelerationists. They tend to contend that advanced AI, namely AGI or ASI, is going to solve humanity's problems. Cure cancer, yes indeed. Overcome world hunger, absolutely. We will see immense economic gains, liberating people from the drudgery of daily toils. AI will work hand-in-hand with humans. This benevolent AI is not going to usurp humanity. AI of this kind will be the last invention humans have ever made, but that's good in the sense that AI will invent things we never could have envisioned. No one can say for sure which camp is right and which one is wrong. This is yet another polarizing aspect of our contemporary times. For my in-depth analysis of the two camps, see the link here. Let's momentarily put aside the attainment of ASI and focus solely on the potential achievement of AGI, just for the sake of this discussion. No worries -- I'll bring ASI back into the big picture in the concluding remarks. Imagine that we can arrive at AGI. Since AGI is going to be on par with human intelligence, and since Einstein was a human and made use of his human intelligence, the logical conclusion is that AGI would be able to exhibit the intelligence of the likes of Einstein. The AGI isn't especially simulating Einstein per se. Instead, the belief is that AGI would contain the equivalent of Einstein-level intelligence. If AGI can exhibit the intelligence of Einstein, the next logical assumption is that this Einstein-like capacity could be replicated within the AGI. We already know that even contemporary generative AI allows for the simulation of multiple personas, see my analysis at the link here. With sufficient hardware, the number of personas can be in the millions and billions, see my coverage at the link here. In short, we could have a vast number of Einstein-like intelligence instances running at the same time. You can quibble that this is not the same as saying that the number of Einsteins would be infinite. It would not be an infinite count. There would be some limits involved. Nonetheless, the infinite Einsteins as a catchphrase rolls off the tongue and sounds better than saying the millions or billions of Einsteins. We'll let the use of the word 'infinite' slide in this case and agree that it means a quite large number of instances. Einstein was known for his brilliance when it comes to physics. I brought this up because it is noteworthy that he wasn't known for expertise in biology, medicine, law, or other domains. When someone refers to Einstein, they are essentially emphasizing his expertise in physics, not in other realms. Would an AGI that provides infinite Einsteins then be considered to have heightened expertise solely in physics? To clarify, that would certainly be an amazing aspect. No doubt about it. On the other hand, those infinite Einsteins would presumably have little to offer in other realms such as biology, medicine, etc. Just trying to establish the likely boundaries involved. Imagine this disconcerting scenario. We have infinite Einsteins via AGI. People assume that those Einsteins are brilliant in all domains. The AGI via this capacity stipulates a seeming breakthrough in medicine. But the reality is that this is beyond the purview of the infinite Einsteins and turns out to be incorrect. We might be so enamored with the infinite Einsteins that we fall into the mental trap that anything the AGI emits via that capacity is aboveboard and completely meritorious. Some people are more generalized about the word 'Einstein' and tend to suggest it means being ingenious on an all-around basis. For them, the infinite Einsteins consist of innumerable AI-based geniuses of all kinds. How AGI would model this capacity is debatable. We don't yet know how AGI will work. An open question is whether other forms of intelligence such as emotional intelligence (EQ) get wrapped in the infinite Einsteins. Are we strictly considering book knowledge and straight-ahead intelligence, or shall we toss in all manner of intelligence including the kitchen sink? There is no debate about the clear fact that Einstein made mistakes and was not perfect. He was unsure at times of his theories and proposals. He made mistakes and had to correct his work. Historical reviews point out that he at first rejected quantum mechanics and vowed that God does not play dice, a diss against the budding field of quantum theory. A seemingly big miss. Would AGI that allows for infinite Einsteins be equally flawed in those Einsteins as per the imperfections of the modeled human? This is an important point. Envision that we are making use of AGI and the infinite Einsteins to explore new frontiers in physics. Will we know if those Einsteins are making mistakes? Perhaps they opt to reject ideas that are worthy of pursuit. It seems doubtful that we would seek to pursue those rejected ideas simply due to the powerful assumption that all those Einsteins can't be wrong. Further compounding the issue would be the matter of AI hallucinations. You've undoubtedly heard or read about so-called AI hallucinations. The precept is that sometimes AI generates confabulations, false statements that appear to be true. A troubling facet is that we aren't yet sure when this occurs, nor how to prevent it, and ferreting out AI hallucinations can be problematic (see my extensive explanation at the link here). There is a double-whammy about those infinite Einsteins. By themselves, they presumably would at times make mistakes and be imperfect. They also would be subject to AI hallucinations. The danger is that we would be relying on the aura of those infinite Einsteins as though they are perfect and unquestionably right. Would all the AGI-devised infinite Einsteins be in utter agreement with each other? You might claim that the infinite Einsteins would of necessity be of a like mind and ergo would all agree with each other. They lean in the same direction. Anything they say would be an expression of the collective wisdom of the infinite Einsteins. The downside there is that if the infinite Einsteins are acting like lemmings, this seems to increase the chances of any mistakes being given an overabundance of confidence. Think of it this way. The infinite Einsteins tell us in unison that there's a hidden particle at the core of all physics. Any human trying to disagree is facing quite a gauntlet since an infinite set of Einsteins has made a firm declaration. A healthy principle of science is supposed to be the use of scientific discourse and debate. Would those infinite Einsteins be dogmatic or be willing to engage in open-ended human debates and inquiries? Let's consider that maybe the infinite Einsteins would not be in utter agreement with each other. Perhaps they would among themselves engage in scientific debate. This might be preferred since it could lead to creative ideas and thinking outside the box. The dilemma is what do we do when the infinite Einsteins tell us they cannot agree? Do we have them vote and based on a tally decide that whatever is stated seems to be majority-favored? How might the intellectual battle amid infinite Einsteins be suitably settled? A belief that there will be infinite Einsteins ought to open our eyes to the possibility that there would also be infinite Issac Newton's, Aristotle's, and so on. There isn't any particular reason to restrict AGI to just Einsteins. Things might seem to get out of hand. All these infinite geniuses become mired in disagreements across the board. Who are we to believe? Maybe the Einsteins are convinced by some other personas that up is down and down is up. Endless arguments could consume tons of precious computing cycles. We must also acknowledge that evil doers of historical note could also be part of the infinite series. There could be infinite Genghis Khan's, Joseph Stalin's, and the like. Might they undercut the infinite Einsteins? Efforts to try and ensure that AI aligns with contemporary human values is a vital consideration and numerous pathways are currently being explored, see my discussion at the link here. The hope is that we can stave off the infinite evildoers within AGI. Einstein had grave concerns about the use of atomic weapons. It was his handiwork that aided in the development of the atomic bomb. He found himself mired in concern at what he had helped bring to fruition. An AGI with infinite Einsteins might discover the most wonderful of new inventions. The odds are that those discoveries could be used for the good of humankind or to harm humankind. It is a quandary whether we want those infinite Einsteins widely and in an unfettered way to share what they uncover. Here's the deal. Would we restrict access to the infinite Einsteins so that evildoers could not use the capacity to devise destructive possibilities? That's a lot harder to say than it is to put into implementation. For my coverage of the challenges facing AI safety and security, see the link here. Governments would certainly jockey to use the infinite Einsteins for purposes of gaining geo-political power. A nation that wanted to get on the map as a superpower could readily launch into the top sphere by having the infinite Einsteins provide them with a discovery that they alone would be aware of and exploit. The national and international ramifications would be of great consequence, see my discussion at the link here. I promised at the start of this discussion to eventually bring artificial superintelligence into the matter at hand. The reason that ASI deserves a carve-out is that anything we have to say about ASI is purely blue sky. AGI is at least based on exhibiting intelligence of the kind that we already know and see. True ASI is something that extends beyond our mental reach since it is superintelligence. Let's assume that ASI would not only imbue infinite Einsteins, but it would also go far beyond Einstein-level thinking to super Einstein thresholds. With AGI we might have a solid chance of controlling the infinite Einsteins. Maybe. In the case of ASI, all bets are off. The ASI would be able to run circles around us. Whatever the ASI decides to do with the infinite super Einsteins is likely beyond our control. Congrats, you've now been introduced to the infinite Einsteins conjecture. Let's end for now with a famous quote from Einstein. Einstein made this remark: 'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe.' This highlights whether we could suitably harness an AGI containing infinite Einsteins depends upon human acumen and human stupidity. Hopefully, our better half prevails.
Bloomberg
2 days ago
- Bloomberg
Harvard Gets Other Universities' Backing in Trump Funding Fight
A group of 18 leading US research universities, including Princeton, MIT, Caltech and Johns Hopkins, asked a federal judge for permission to file legal arguments in support of Harvard University in its high-stakes showdown with the Trump administration over more than $2 billion in frozen grant money. The institutions have all received millions of dollars from the federal government for research that has 'advanced scientific knowledge, safeguarded national security, strengthened the American economy, and saved countless lives,' they said in a court filing Friday in Harvard's lawsuit.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Soligenix Highlights Dr. Ellen Kim's Recent Q&A and the Promise of HyBryte™ in Ongoing Clinical Trials
PRINCETON, N.J., June 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- via IBN – Soligenix, Inc. (Nasdaq: SNGX) (Soligenix or the Company), a late-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing products to treat rare diseases where there is an unmet medical need, today spotlights the efforts of Ellen Kim, M.D., Lead Principal Investigator for the Company's Phase 3 FLASH (1 and 2) studies in early stage cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), in advancing HyBryte™ (synthetic hypericin) as a potential new therapy for patients living with mycosis fungoides (MF), the most common form of CTCL. In a recent Q&A hosted by Susan Thornton, CEO of the Cutaneous Lymphoma Foundation, a patient advocacy group, Dr. Kim shared her gratitude to clinical trial participants and emphasized the urgent need for safer, more effective therapies for CTCL. The conversation underscored the progress being made with HyBryte™, Soligenix's novel, non-mutagenic photodynamic therapy. 'We need new therapies and access to therapies [for patients],' said Dr. Kim, noting that CTCL is a chronic disease which means that therapies with possible side effects, such as the development of contact dermatitis, sun damage or skin cancer from phototherapy, can become a real issue for patients over time. 'There hasn't been an FDA-approved, new skin-directed therapy for over 10 years, so we really need new ones that are safe and hopefully safer [than the ones currently in use].' Clinical results from ongoing studies have been promising, with Dr. Kim noting that participants have experienced positive outcomes and that the therapy has been well tolerated, with no dropouts due to serious adverse events. "HyBryte™ has a unique mechanism of action, so it doesn't damage DNA, unlike phototherapy, so theoretically it's less mutagenic and there's less risk of skin cancer. It's not systemically absorbed, based on prior studies, and seems to be quite well tolerated in terms of its effects on the local skin area,' added Dr. Kim. As a professor of dermatology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Director of the Penn Cutaneous Lymphoma Program, Dr. Kim is keen to continue her research into CTCL with colleagues and patients alike. 'There aren't that many clinical trials going on for early-stage disease,' Dr. Kim stated, adding she is very excited for what lies ahead now that open enrollment in HyBryte™ clinical trials is available. 'Hopefully we can get this over the finish line. We can't thank patients enough; it's so critical for getting new therapies approved.' To watch Dr. Kim's interview and learn more about the real-world clinical study of the treatment of Mycosis Fungoides with Synthetic Hypericin and Visible Light, please visit: About Soligenix, Inc. Soligenix is a late-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing products to treat rare diseases where there is an unmet medical need. Our Specialized BioTherapeutics business segment is developing and moving toward potential commercialization of HyBryte™ (SGX301 or synthetic hypericin) as a novel photodynamic therapy utilizing safe visible light for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). With successful completion of the second Phase 3 study, regulatory approvals will be sought to support potential commercialization worldwide. Development programs in this business segment also include expansion of synthetic hypericin (SGX302) into psoriasis, our first-in-class innate defense regulator (IDR) technology, dusquetide for the treatment of inflammatory diseases, including oral mucositis in head and neck cancer (SGX942), and in Behçet's Disease (SGX945). Our Public Health Solutions business segment includes development programs for RiVax®, our ricin toxin vaccine candidate, as well as our vaccine programs targeting filoviruses (such as Marburg and Ebola) and CiVax™, our vaccine candidate for the prevention of COVID19 (caused by SARS-CoV-2). The development of our vaccine programs incorporates the use of our proprietary heat stabilization platform technology, known as ThermoVax®. To date, this business segment has been supported with government grant and contract funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). For further information regarding Soligenix, Inc., please visit the Company's website at and follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter at @Soligenix_Inc. This press release may contain forward-looking statements that reflect Soligenix's current expectations about its future results, performance, prospects and opportunities, including but not limited to, potential market sizes, patient populations, clinical trial enrollment. Statements that are not historical facts, such as "anticipates," "estimates," "believes," "hopes," "intends," "plans," "expects," "goal," "may," "suggest," "will," "potential," or similar expressions, are forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results in future periods to differ materially from what is expressed in, or implied by, these statements. Soligenix cannot assure you that it will be able to successfully develop, achieve regulatory approval for or commercialize products based on its technologies, particularly in light of the significant uncertainty inherent in developing therapeutics and vaccines against bioterror threats, conducting preclinical and clinical trials of therapeutics and vaccines, obtaining regulatory approvals and manufacturing therapeutics and vaccines, that product development and commercialization efforts will not be reduced or discontinued due to difficulties or delays in clinical trials or due to lack of progress or positive results from research and development efforts, that it will be able to successfully obtain any further funding to support product development and commercialization efforts, including grants and awards, maintain its existing grants which are subject to performance requirements, enter into any biodefense procurement contracts with the U.S. Government or other countries, that it will be able to compete with larger and better financed competitors in the biotechnology industry, that changes in health care practice, third party reimbursement limitations and Federal and/or state health care reform initiatives will not negatively affect its business, or that the U.S. Congress may not pass any legislation that would provide additional funding for the Project BioShield program. In addition, there can be no assurance as to the timing or success of any of its clinical/preclinical trials. Despite the statistically significant result achieved in the first HyBryte™ (SGX301) Phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma or any other studies (including the open-label, investigator-initiated study), there can be no assurance that the second HyBryte™ (SGX301) Phase 3 clinical trial will be successful or that a marketing authorization from the FDA or EMA will be granted. Additionally, although the EMA has agreed to the key design components of the second HyBryte™ (SGX301) Phase 3 clinical trial, no assurance can be given that the Company will be able to modify the development path to adequately address the FDA's concerns or that the FDA will not require a longer duration comparative study. Notwithstanding the result in the first HyBryte™ (SGX301) Phase 3 clinical trial for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and the Phase 2a clinical trial of SGX302 for the treatment of psoriasis, there can be no assurance as to the timing or success of the clinical trials of SGX302 for the treatment of psoriasis. Additionally, despite the biologic activity observed in aphthous ulcers induced by chemotherapy and radiation, there can be no assurance as to the timing or success of the clinical trials of SGX945 for the treatment of Behçet's Disease. Further, there can be no assurance that RiVax® will qualify for a biodefense Priority Review Voucher (PRV) or that the prior sales of PRVs will be indicative of any potential sales price for a PRV for RiVax®. Also, no assurance can be provided that the Company will receive or continue to receive non-dilutive government funding from grants and contracts that have been or may be awarded or for which the Company will apply in the future. These and other risk factors are described from time to time in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), including, but not limited to, Soligenix's reports on Forms 10-Q and 10-K. Unless required by law, Soligenix assumes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements as a result of new information or future events. Corporate Communications IBN Austin, Texas 512.354.7000 Office Editor@ in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
