Gold from Lead: What CERN Actually Made — and What It Did Not

By Dhinakar Rajaram

Reading time: Approximately 15 minutes

Translation: This article may be read using the translation facility available on the blog. Machine-translated versions may contain inaccuracies in terminology, particularly in scientific vocabulary.

Foreword

Few words possess the power to excite the human imagination quite like gold. For thousands of years, the metal has represented wealth, rarity, permanence and beauty. It has also occupied a remarkable place in the history of human attempts to understand and transform matter.

It was therefore hardly surprising that the announcement that the ALICE experiment at CERN had detected the transmutation of lead into gold attracted considerable attention. Some reports presented the story in language that seemed to suggest that CERN had achieved the ancient alchemist's dream: take an ordinary metal, put it into an extraordinarily expensive machine and obtain gold.

The scientific reality is both less commercially spectacular and considerably more interesting.

CERN did not manufacture gold bars, flakes or even a microscopic piece of usable gold. The ALICE experiment observed a nuclear transmutation in which lead nuclei, under extreme conditions at the Large Hadron Collider, lost three protons and became gold nuclei. The resulting gold nuclei existed only for a tiny fraction of a second before striking components of the accelerator and fragmenting.

The experiment nevertheless represents a genuine and remarkable achievement in nuclear physics.

It also provides an excellent opportunity to examine several ideas that are frequently mixed together in public discussion: alchemy, chemistry, nuclear physics, natural materials, laboratory-grown materials, scientific evidence and the difference between what something is and where it came from.

This essay therefore asks a simple question:

When the headline says that science has made gold, what has science actually done?

Article 51A(h) — Scientific Temper

The Constitution of India places upon citizens the fundamental duty to develop “the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform” under Article 51A(h).

This essay is written in that spirit.

Respect for a cultural tradition, a religious belief or a piece of folklore does not require that its scientific claims be accepted without evidence. Equally, questioning a claim scientifically need not amount to disrespecting the people or traditions associated with it.

Science asks a different question:

What is the evidence?

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. A statement does not become scientifically established merely because it is ancient, popular, repeatedly narrated or attributed to an authority. Scientific claims must withstand observation, measurement, experiment, reproducibility and scrutiny.

About the Author

I am Dhinakar Rajaram, a Chennai-based writer with a longstanding interest in science, astronomy, technology, music and the many ways in which the natural world reveals itself to an enquiring mind.

My interest in astronomy has led me to observe the night sky as an amateur astronomer, while my long association with technology and communications has kept me curious about the science underlying everyday phenomena. I am also a licensed amateur radio operator, with the call sign VU3DIR.

Through my writing, I try to examine subjects that often appear simple on the surface but conceal interesting scientific principles underneath. My approach is to explain the science in clear language without sacrificing accuracy, and to distinguish established evidence from assumption, speculation and popular misconception.

This essay on CERN, gold, alchemy and laboratory-grown diamonds follows that same approach. The subject interested me because a sensational headline appeared to turn a sophisticated nuclear-physics experiment into a modern version of the alchemist's dream. I wanted to look beyond the headline and examine what actually happened.

I respect the traditions, beliefs and folklore through which people have sought to understand the world. At the same time, I believe that a science blog has a responsibility to maintain a clear boundary between belief and evidence, tradition and experiment, possibility and demonstrated fact.

For me, the most rewarding part of science is not merely finding an answer, but asking the right question and following the evidence wherever it leads.

Preface — From Alchemy to Nuclear Physics

Long before modern chemistry and nuclear physics existed, human beings wondered whether one substance could be transformed into another.

The dream of turning a common metal into gold became one of the great themes of alchemical traditions in different parts of the world. Indian traditions associated with rasaśāstra and related disciplines contain extensive historical literature concerning metals, minerals, mercury and processes claimed to transform or purify substances. Other alchemical traditions developed in China, the Islamic world and Europe.

Such traditions are part of the history of human thought and deserve to be studied in their historical context.

But history and science operate by different rules.

A traditional account is evidence that a belief existed. It is not, by itself, evidence that the claimed physical process actually works.

That distinction becomes particularly important when a modern scientific experiment is described in language that resembles an ancient legend.

CERN did not discover an alchemical recipe.

It demonstrated a phenomenon predicted by nuclear physics.

And therein lies the real story.

1. The Headline That Awakened the Alchemist

The phrase “CERN made gold” is technically derived from a real scientific result, but it is capable of creating a thoroughly misleading mental picture.

A reader may imagine lead entering the Large Hadron Collider and gold emerging from the other end.

That did not happen.

There was no vat of molten lead.

There was no gold bar at the end of the experiment.

There was no collection of precious metal.

There was no secret chemical formula.

There was no modern philosopher's stone.

What occurred was a nuclear process involving individual atomic nuclei.

CERN's ALICE collaboration reported in 2025 that near-miss encounters between high-energy lead nuclei at the Large Hadron Collider could produce intense electromagnetic fields capable of knocking three protons out of a lead nucleus. Since lead has 82 protons and gold has 79, removing three protons changes the identity of the nucleus from lead to gold.

This is not metaphor.

It is genuine elemental transmutation.

But it is also not the sort of gold that an alchemist, jeweller or bullion dealer could use.

2. What Makes Gold Gold?

The key to understanding the entire story lies in one number:

79.

Gold has atomic number 79.

That means that every neutral atom of gold possesses a nucleus containing 79 protons.

Lead has atomic number 82.

Thus, in the simplest description:

Lead: 82 protons

Gold: 79 protons

The difference is not merely a difference in colour, density or appearance. It is a difference in the nucleus itself.

Chemical reactions normally involve electrons and the ways in which atoms bond with one another. They can change molecules, compounds and chemical states, but they do not ordinarily alter the number of protons in an atomic nucleus.

Changing the number of protons changes the element.

That is why converting lead into gold is not a chemical trick.

It is nuclear transmutation.

3. What CERN Actually Did

The Large Hadron Collider accelerates particles to enormous energies. In the ALICE experiment, lead nuclei can be brought into extremely close encounters.

The nuclei need not collide head-on.

During a near-miss encounter, the extraordinarily strong electromagnetic field surrounding a lead nucleus can produce interactions capable of ejecting three protons from another lead nucleus.

The original lead nucleus therefore undergoes a change in nuclear composition.

With three protons removed:

82 − 3 = 79

The resulting nucleus is a nucleus of gold.

The process is an elegant demonstration of one of the fundamental facts of nuclear science:

An element is defined by the number of protons in its nucleus.

CERN reported that during LHC Run 2, from 2015 to 2018, approximately 86 billion gold nuclei were produced across the relevant lead-beam interactions. In mass, that amounted to approximately 29 picograms, or 2.9 × 10⁻¹¹ grams.

That is an astonishingly small quantity.

More importantly, the gold did not accumulate as a usable substance. The energetic gold nuclei travelled through the accelerator and struck the beam pipe or collimators downstream, where they fragmented into other particles.

The gold therefore existed only fleetingly.

The irony is delightful.

The alchemists wanted riches.

Nuclear physics produced evidence.

4. Twenty-Nine Picograms — Gold That Cannot Become Jewellery

Numbers can sometimes conceal more than they reveal.

“Gold was produced” sounds impressive.

“Twenty-nine picograms were produced during Run 2” tells a very different story.

A picogram is one trillionth of a gram.

The reported 29-picogram quantity is therefore:

0.000000000029 grams.

Even that figure should not be interpreted as a quantity of gold that could have been collected.

The gold nuclei were extraordinarily energetic and survived only for a tiny fraction of a second before interacting with accelerator components and fragmenting.

Thus the CERN experiment did not create a microscopic piece of gold that could be placed beneath a microscope and admired.

There was no gold particle waiting to be picked up.

There was a nuclear event.

That distinction is crucial.

5. Was the LHC a Five-Billion-Dollar Gold-Making Machine?

Another popular interpretation deserves correction.

The Large Hadron Collider has indeed been an enormously expensive scientific undertaking, and figures of several billion dollars are often associated with its construction and infrastructure.

But describing it as a five-billion-dollar machine built to make gold is misleading.

The LHC was built as a facility for fundamental particle physics. Its scientific purposes include investigating the fundamental constituents of matter, the behaviour of matter at extreme energies and conditions relevant to the early Universe, and phenomena such as the Higgs boson and quark–gluon plasma.

Gold production was not its purpose.

The lead-to-gold transmutation observed by ALICE is a consequence of nuclear interactions occurring within a facility designed for entirely different scientific objectives.

A scientific facility should therefore not be assigned the cost of a particular incidental phenomenon simply because that phenomenon makes a striking headline.

The cost belongs to the scientific infrastructure.

The gold was a fleeting consequence of the physics.

6. Does This Prove That the Alchemists Were Right?

No.

It proves something more precise — and scientifically much more interesting.

The ancient alchemical objective was broadly the transformation of one substance into another, including the aspiration to obtain gold from less valuable materials. The methods proposed historically were generally rooted in the scientific understanding available at the time, including chemical processes, metallurgy, symbolism and elaborate theories concerning the purification and transformation of matter.

Modern nuclear transmutation works because the atomic nucleus can be changed.

The distinction is fundamental.

A chemical reaction rearranges electrons and chemical bonds.

A nuclear reaction changes the nucleus.

No herb, juice, secret mixture or ordinary chemical reagent can cause lead to become gold merely by rearranging its electrons.

To change lead into gold, the nuclear composition must change.

Thus, when a modern experiment produces gold from lead, it does not vindicate the alchemical recipe.

It demonstrates that nature permits elemental transmutation under nuclear conditions.

The ancient question had a modern answer, but not the ancient mechanism.

7. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

This is where scientific temper becomes indispensable.

Suppose somebody claims that a particular herb, plant extract, powder, liquid or secret combination of chemicals can convert lead into gold.

That is an extraordinary claim.

The appropriate scientific response is neither ridicule nor credulity.

It is:

Show the evidence.

The claim would require controlled experiments, precise identification of the starting materials, accurate measurement of the products, appropriate controls, repeatability, independent verification and a physically plausible mechanism.

If genuine gold were produced, modern analytical techniques would have no difficulty establishing its elemental identity. Its elemental composition, isotopic characteristics and other measurable properties could be examined.

A claim does not become scientific because it is old.

It becomes scientific when it survives testing.

That is one of the great strengths of science: the authority of a claim ultimately rests not upon who said it, but upon whether nature repeatedly behaves as predicted.

8. Chemistry Cannot Turn Lead into Gold

This distinction is worth stating plainly because much confusion arises from treating chemistry and nuclear physics as though they were interchangeable.

Lead is element 82.

Gold is element 79.

Ordinary chemical reactions do not change those atomic numbers.

Heating lead, dissolving it, mixing it with another chemical, filtering it, distilling it or combining it with plant extracts cannot ordinarily remove three protons from its nucleus.

Chemical energy is associated principally with electrons and chemical bonds.

Nuclear energy involves the atomic nucleus and is enormously greater in scale.

The difference is not a matter of finding the correct secret ingredient.

It is a difference in the level of nature at which the transformation occurs.

The philosopher's stone of chemistry does not exist.

The nuclear transmutation of elements does.

9. Natural Gold and Artificially Produced Gold

Here we arrive at an important distinction.

Suppose, purely hypothetically, that scientists eventually develop an economical method for producing stable, usable quantities of gold through nuclear transmutation.

Would that gold be fake?

No.

If the resulting atoms possess the defining nuclear characteristics of gold, they are gold.

Nature does not recognise a certificate of origin.

An atom does not carry a label saying “mined in South Africa” or “produced in a laboratory”.

Gold is gold because of its atomic identity.

Therefore, calling laboratory-produced gold “fake gold” would be scientifically incorrect.

But that does not mean that natural gold and laboratory-produced gold would necessarily have the same provenance, rarity, history or economic significance.

Those are different questions.

This distinction is essential:

Chemical identity and origin are not the same thing.

10. Natural Diamond and Laboratory-Grown Diamond

The same distinction becomes particularly interesting when considering diamonds.

Natural diamonds formed deep within Earth under high pressures and temperatures, often over geological timescales. They were subsequently brought towards the surface through geological processes associated with volcanic activity.

Laboratory-grown diamonds are produced by human technology.

Two principal methods are used commercially:

HPHT — High Pressure, High Temperature

and

CVD — Chemical Vapour Deposition.

HPHT attempts to reproduce important conditions associated with diamond formation by using high pressure and high temperature.

CVD is fundamentally different. Carbon-containing gases are activated under controlled conditions, allowing carbon to deposit upon a diamond seed and grow into diamond.

Here science gives us an important correction to popular terminology.

A laboratory-grown diamond is not a diamond imitation.

It is not comparable to cubic zirconia or another diamond simulant.

It is genuine diamond.

The Gemological Institute of America states that laboratory-grown diamonds possess essentially the same chemical composition, crystal structure and physical properties as natural diamonds. They can nevertheless be distinguished by advanced gemological techniques because their growth histories leave characteristic signatures.

Thus:

Natural diamond — natural geological origin.

Laboratory-grown diamond — controlled technological origin.

Both — diamond.

11. If They Are Both Diamond, Why Does the Distinction Matter?

Because identity is not the only property humans value.

A natural diamond may contain evidence of an extraordinarily long geological history: inclusions, growth patterns, defects and chemical characteristics inherited from the environment in which it formed.

A laboratory-grown diamond has a different history.

Its growth may take weeks rather than geological ages.

The difference is therefore not necessarily one of “real” versus “fake”.

It is one of origin and provenance.

A collector may value an ancient object partly because of its history. A geological specimen may be scientifically interesting precisely because nature produced it. A manufactured object may possess equal or greater technological sophistication while having an entirely different story.

Science does not dictate what a person must value.

It tells us what the material actually is.

The marketplace, culture and individual preference determine what significance people attach to its origin.

12. Natural and Synthetic Are Not Always Opposites of Real and Fake

The word synthetic is often misunderstood.

In scientific terminology, synthetic can mean that something has been produced artificially rather than formed through the corresponding natural process.

It does not automatically mean counterfeit.

A laboratory-grown diamond is synthetic in origin but genuine as diamond.

A laboratory-produced gold atom, if stable and genuinely possessing the nuclear identity of gold, would likewise be genuine gold.

The scientifically useful distinction is therefore not:

natural = real

and

synthetic = fake.

It is:

natural = formed through natural processes

and

synthetic = produced through an artificial process.

Whether the two deserve the same price or cultural value is a separate question.

13. The Orange-Flavour Analogy — With a Scientific Qualification

There is an intuitive comparison with natural and synthetic flavourings.

A natural orange is the product of a living organism interacting with soil, water, sunlight, climate and biological processes. Its flavour is a complex sensory consequence of numerous compounds.

A synthetic orange flavouring may reproduce selected aspects of that sensory experience using compounds manufactured or isolated through controlled processes.

The flavouring is not the orange.

But this analogy must not be carried too far.

Gold and diamond are materials whose scientific identities can be defined much more precisely.

A laboratory-grown diamond really is diamond.

A laboratory-produced gold atom really would be gold.

Therefore, the more accurate lesson from the analogy is not that everything artificial is an imitation.

Reproducing a property does not necessarily reproduce the history or provenance of the original.

14. What Science Can Reproduce — and What It Cannot Reproduce

Human technology has become extraordinarily capable.

We can reproduce materials, structures, temperatures, pressures, crystals, biological molecules and many other phenomena once thought accessible only to nature.

But reproduction has different meanings.

We may reproduce the composition.

We may reproduce the structure.

We may reproduce the physical properties.

We may reproduce the appearance.

We may even reproduce a material with astonishing fidelity.

But we cannot retroactively reproduce the geological history of a natural diamond.

Nor can we make laboratory-produced gold possess the geological provenance of gold deposited naturally in Earth's crust.

The material and its history are separate facts.

This is not mysticism.

It is simply the distinction between what something is and how it came to be.

15. CERN's Gold Is More Interesting Than the Headline

The media-friendly version of the story is:

“CERN made gold.”

The scientifically meaningful version is:

“ALICE measured lead-to-gold nuclear transmutation produced by electromagnetic interactions during near-miss encounters of high-energy lead nuclei.”

The second sentence is considerably less suitable for a sensational headline.

It is also vastly more informative.

The experiment tells us something profound about matter.

Lead and gold are not permanently fixed categories imposed upon the Universe. Their identities arise from the structure of their atomic nuclei. Under sufficiently energetic nuclear conditions, one nucleus can be transformed into another.

That is not magic.

It is not alchemy.

It is nuclear physics.

And perhaps that is the real wonder.

16. The Difference Between an Extraordinary Claim and an Extraordinary Experiment

There is a temptation to say that CERN has finally demonstrated that the ancient dream was correct.

That is too broad.

The scientific statement is narrower:

A process exists by which lead nuclei can be transformed into gold nuclei.

That statement is supported by experimental evidence.

The statement:

“A secret herbal preparation can turn lead into gold.”

is an entirely different claim.

It requires entirely different evidence.

Science does not transfer credibility from one claim to another simply because the two happen to concern the same subject.

The fact that CERN has demonstrated nuclear transmutation does not make an untested alchemical recipe credible.

Indeed, it makes the distinction clearer.

We now understand why elemental transmutation is possible.

We also understand why ordinary chemistry cannot accomplish it.

17. What the Future May Hold

Could humanity one day manufacture gold in meaningful quantities?

In principle, nuclear physics permits elemental transmutation.

In practice, the economics are an entirely different matter.

A process may be physically possible and commercially absurd.

The CERN result illustrates this beautifully.

Producing fleeting gold nuclei at a particle accelerator is one thing.

Producing kilograms of stable gold economically is another matter altogether.

The energy requirements, reaction rates, accelerator infrastructure, target handling, nuclear products and overall cost would have to be considered.

The periodic table does not come with a promise that every possible transformation will be commercially sensible.

Science answers the question:

Can nature permit this process?

Engineering asks:

Can we control it?

Economics asks:

Is it worth doing?

Those are three different questions.

18. The Real Lesson

The CERN experiment should therefore not be reduced to a tale of modern alchemists finally discovering the philosopher's stone.

It is a story about the structure of matter.

It shows that an element's identity is rooted in its nucleus. Lead has 82 protons. Gold has 79. Under extreme nuclear conditions, a lead nucleus can lose three protons and become a gold nucleus.

The resulting quantity is fantastically small.

The gold is fleeting.

There is no practical route from the experiment to jewellery or bullion.

And the enormous cost of the Large Hadron Collider was not an expenditure incurred to manufacture gold.

The experiment nevertheless demonstrates something that medieval alchemists could only speculate about:

elements can indeed be transmuted.

But science arrived at that conclusion not through secret recipes, mystical substances or inherited claims.

It arrived through theory, experiment, measurement, detectors, mathematics and evidence.

That distinction is the heart of scientific temper.

Conclusion — Gold, Science and the Discipline of Evidence

Human beings have always asked extraordinary questions.

Can one substance become another?

Can the ordinary become precious?

Can matter be transformed?

Those questions belong to our intellectual history.

But answers belong to evidence.

CERN has demonstrated that lead nuclei can be transformed into gold nuclei. The achievement is real. The gold is real in the nuclear sense. But the popular image of CERN manufacturing useful quantities of gold is not.

Nor does the experiment prove that traditional alchemical recipes work.

Nor does it make laboratory-grown diamond an imitation of natural diamond.

Nor does science require us to pretend that natural and laboratory-produced materials have identical histories or identical market values.

The proper scientific distinctions are much more precise.

A natural diamond and a laboratory-grown diamond can both be genuine diamond while having different origins.

A naturally occurring gold atom and a laboratory-produced gold atom can both be genuine gold while having different histories.

And a nuclear physicist converting one element into another is not an alchemist merely because both are concerned with transmutation.

The difference is evidence.

Alchemy asked whether matter could be transformed.

Nuclear physics demonstrated how certain transformations actually occur.

That is not the triumph of myth over science.

It is the triumph of evidence over conjecture.

In science, an extraordinary claim does not become true because it is ancient, attractive, popular or repeated.

It becomes credible when nature itself provides the evidence.

Glossary

ALICE

A Large Ion Collider Experiment at CERN designed to study strongly interacting matter, including quark–gluon plasma.

Alchemy

A group of historical traditions concerned with the nature, transformation and purification of matter.

Atomic number

The number of protons in an atomic nucleus. It determines the identity of an element.

CERN

The European Organisation for Nuclear Research, an international centre for particle physics.

CVD

Chemical Vapour Deposition, a method used to grow laboratory-grown diamond from carbon-containing gases.

Element

A pure chemical substance defined by the number of protons in its nuclei.

HPHT

High Pressure, High Temperature, a method used to produce laboratory-grown diamonds under high-pressure and high-temperature conditions.

Isotope

A form of an element having the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons.

Lead (Pb)

A chemical element with atomic number 82.

Nuclear transmutation

The conversion of one chemical element into another through a change in the atomic nucleus.

Picogram

One trillionth of a gram.

Proton

A positively charged particle found in the nucleus of an atom. The number of protons determines the element.

Synthetic material

A material produced artificially rather than through the corresponding natural process. “Synthetic” does not automatically mean “fake”.

Gold (Au)

A chemical element with atomic number 79.

References & Further Reading

1. CERN — ALICE detects the conversion of lead into gold at the LHC, 8 May 2025.
2. ALICE Collaboration — Research concerning electromagnetic dissociation and the production of gold nuclei in lead–lead collisions at the Large Hadron Collider.
3. International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) — Periodic Table of the Elements.
4. Gemological Institute of America (GIA) — Research and educational material concerning natural and laboratory-grown diamonds, including HPHT and CVD growth.
5. Gemological Institute of America (GIA) — Research concerning the differences between natural and laboratory-grown diamonds and the scientific methods used to distinguish them.

Copyright

© Dhinakar Rajaram 2026

This article is an original work written for the author's science blog. Scientific facts and interpretations have been checked against authoritative scientific sources. Reproduction of the article in whole or in substantial part without permission is prohibited.

Hashtags

#Gold #CERN #ALICE #NuclearPhysics #NuclearTransmutation #Physics #Science #ScientificTemper #ScienceCommunication #Alchemy #LeadToGold #GoldScience #Diamonds #NaturalDiamond #LabGrownDiamond #HPHT #CVD #Chemistry #AtomicNumber #EvidenceBasedScience #DhinakarRajaram

The Star That Spins Faster Than Thought

The Star That Spins Faster Than Thought

PSR J1748-2446ad and the extraordinary physics of a neutron star rotating 716 times every second

Foreword

The Universe contains objects whose behaviour can appear almost contrary to ordinary experience. Among the most remarkable are neutron stars: the extraordinarily compact remnants left behind when massive stars undergo catastrophic stellar collapse. Within a sphere scarcely a few tens of kilometres across, matter is compressed to densities beyond anything that can be reproduced on Earth.

One such object is PSR J1748-2446ad, a millisecond pulsar associated with Terzan 5 in the direction of Sagittarius, approximately 18,000 light-years from Earth. It rotates at about 716 times per second. Its rotational period is only about 1.396 milliseconds.

This essay examines what that astonishing figure actually means, how such a star can acquire so much angular momentum, why its rotation places important constraints upon neutron-star physics, and what pulsars reveal about gravity, matter and the structure of the Universe.

This article is written in accordance with the spirit of Article 51A(h) of the Constitution of India, which calls upon citizens to develop “the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform”.

Approximate reading time: 8–10 minutes.

Translation: A translation option may be available through the translation facility of the blog. Machine translations may not always preserve the exact scientific terminology or nuances of the original English text.

About the Author

I am Dhinakar Rajaram, an amateur astronomer with a long-standing interest in the night sky and in the science that enables us to understand it. Through my writing, I endeavour to examine astronomical subjects in a manner that is scientifically responsible, readable and accessible without sacrificing the precision of the underlying science.

My interest is not merely in collecting astronomical facts, but in understanding what those facts signify. A pulsar rotating hundreds of times in a second is therefore more than a spectacular number: it is an opportunity to examine gravity, angular momentum, stellar evolution, dense matter and the extraordinary limits imposed by the laws of physics.

Preface

Imagine an object roughly the size of a city, containing more mass than the Sun, turning upon its axis hundreds of times every second. Such a description sounds like science fiction, yet it is a measured property of a real astronomical object.

PSR J1748-2446ad is presently recognised as the fastest known spinning pulsar, with a measured spin frequency of approximately 716.36 hertz. In simpler terms, the neutron star completes more than seven hundred rotations every second. One minute would contain nearly 43,000 rotations.

The number is extraordinary, but the physics behind it is even more remarkable. The pulsar did not begin its life spinning at such a rate. Its present rotation is understood in the context of binary evolution, in which matter transferred from a companion star can also transfer angular momentum to the neutron star. This gradual process is commonly called recycling.

The Body

1. A Star Reduced to a Stellar City

A neutron star is the compact remnant of a massive star whose core has collapsed during a supernova. The collapse is so violent that atomic structure is largely destroyed. Matter is compressed into an extraordinarily dense state in which neutron-rich material dominates.

Neutron stars typically possess radii of only around ten to fifteen kilometres, although the precise radius depends upon their mass and the still incompletely known equation of state of ultra-dense matter.

In the particular case of PSR J1748-2446ad, the discovery observations established an important constraint: if the neutron star has a mass below two solar masses, its radius must be less than approximately 16 kilometres. Thus, the figure of 16 kilometres should be understood as an upper constraint rather than a direct measurement of the star's radius.

The scale is astonishing. A body with a radius of only a few kilometres can contain roughly a stellar mass. Its enormous gravitational field is a consequence of packing such a quantity of matter into such a small volume.

2. Seven Hundred and Sixteen Rotations Every Second

The measured spin frequency of PSR J1748-2446ad is approximately 716.36 hertz. Hertz means cycles per second; therefore, the neutron star rotates approximately 716 times in one second.

Its rotational period is about 1.396 milliseconds. Expressed as revolutions per minute, the rate is approximately 42,981 revolutions per minute.

These are not estimates produced merely by extrapolating from an astronomical model. The rotation is inferred from the highly regular periodic radio pulses emitted by the pulsar and measured with radio telescopes.

3. What Happens at the Equator?

Rotation becomes especially remarkable when its linear velocity at the equator is considered. The relationship is simple:

v = 2πR f

where v is the equatorial speed, R is the stellar radius and f is the rotational frequency.

If an upper radius of 16 kilometres is used, the equatorial surface speed is approximately 2.3 × 10^{5, or about 24 per cent of the speed of light. The exact value depends upon the actual equatorial radius, which is not directly known.}

This is an extraordinary velocity. Yet the star does not simply fly apart. Its intense gravity provides the force required to keep the material gravitationally bound while the star rotates.

4. The Balance Between Gravity and Rotation

Every rotating body experiences an outward tendency in its rotating frame. For an ordinary object, the relevant forces are familiar from everyday experience. For a neutron star, however, the conditions are extreme and general relativity becomes important.

If a neutron star rotates sufficiently rapidly, material at its equator can eventually reach the mass-shedding, or Keplerian, limit. At that point, the star can no longer retain material at its equatorial surface.

PSR J1748-2446ad is therefore of considerable importance because its observed rotation rate places it close to the range in which centrifugal effects become decisive for neutron-star structure. The precise theoretical limit depends upon the star's mass and upon the equation of state describing matter at nuclear and supra-nuclear densities.

It is consequently inaccurate to regard 716 rotations per second as a universal absolute maximum for every possible neutron star. Theoretical models permit higher rates under some conditions. Rather, the importance of PSR J1748-2446ad lies in its being the fastest known observed pulsar and in how strongly its rotation tests models of dense matter and stellar stability.

5. How Does a Neutron Star Become Such a Rapid Spinner?

The answer is closely connected with its binary companion. PSR J1748-2446ad belongs to an eclipsing binary system. Its companion has a minimum mass of approximately 0.14 times the mass of the Sun, and the orbital period is about 26 hours.

The system provides an excellent illustration of the process known as recycling.

A newly formed neutron star may rotate relatively slowly compared with a millisecond pulsar. If it subsequently exists in a close binary system, matter from its companion can be transferred towards the neutron star. As this matter falls inward, it carries angular momentum with it.

The effect can be compared, cautiously, with a person sitting on a rotating platform and drawing mass towards the centre: the distribution of angular momentum changes, and the rotation can become faster. In a binary neutron-star system, however, the actual process involves accretion physics, magnetic fields, radiation and strong gravitational fields, making the astronomical mechanism vastly more complicated.

Over a very long period, the transfer of angular momentum can spin the neutron star up to millisecond periods. The result is a millisecond pulsar.

6. Why Is It Called a Pulsar?

A pulsar is a rotating neutron star whose electromagnetic radiation is observed as periodic pulses. The neutron star possesses a powerful magnetic field and rotates about an axis that is generally not perfectly aligned with its magnetic axis.

Radiation associated with the magnetic poles can sweep across space as the star rotates. If the beam crosses the Earth, astronomical instruments can detect a regular series of pulses.

The effect resembles the beam of a lighthouse sweeping across a dark landscape. The star itself does not switch on and off hundreds of times per second; rather, its rotating emission geometry causes the observer to receive pulses at extremely regular intervals.

7. A Clock in the Cosmos

The remarkable regularity of pulsars gives astronomers a natural timing standard. Their pulses can be timed with extraordinary precision, allowing changes in the arrival times to be studied.

Pulsar timing has become an important tool for investigating fundamental physics. In suitable systems, timing measurements can reveal the effects of orbital motion, relativistic gravity and the propagation of gravitational disturbances.

Pulsar timing arrays take this principle further by monitoring many pulsars across the sky. Tiny correlated variations in pulse arrival times can provide evidence of a very low-frequency gravitational-wave background. Thus, pulsars can function collectively as a kind of galactic-scale timing instrument.

8. A Window into Matter We Cannot Reproduce

The significance of PSR J1748-2446ad extends beyond its spectacular rotation rate. Neutron stars provide one of the few natural laboratories in which matter is subjected to densities far beyond those encountered in ordinary terrestrial environments.

The relationship between mass, radius, rotation and stability depends upon the equation of state of dense matter. Different theoretical descriptions predict different internal structures. Observations of rapidly rotating neutron stars therefore help to narrow the range of physically acceptable models.

A pulsar spinning 716 times per second is consequently not merely an astronomical curiosity. It is a stringent test of our understanding of matter under extreme conditions.

9. Terzan 5: A Remarkable Stellar Environment

PSR J1748-2446ad lies in the crowded stellar system known as Terzan 5, in the direction of the Galactic bulge. For many years Terzan 5 was classified as a globular cluster and became famous for its unusually large population of millisecond pulsars.

There is an important modern qualification. Observations made with the James Webb Space Telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope have shown that Terzan 5 contains multiple distinct stellar populations, including younger populations. NASA reported in June 2026 that these observations establish that Terzan 5 is not a globular star cluster in the conventional sense in which it had long been classified. It is now better understood as a relic stellar system associated with the formation of the Milky Way's bulge.

This recent development is itself a useful reminder that scientific knowledge is not a fixed catalogue of facts. Astronomical classifications can change when better observations reveal that an object is more complex than previously believed.

10. The Fastest Known Does Not Mean the Fastest Possible

PSR J1748-2446ad holds a remarkable observational distinction: it is the fastest known spinning pulsar, rotating at approximately 716 Hz.

Yet astronomy must distinguish carefully between fastest observed and fastest physically possible. The latter depends upon the internal composition of neutron stars, their mass, their radius, their equation of state and the mechanisms that may limit their rotation.

The absence of an even faster observed pulsar may therefore have several explanations. Such objects may be intrinsically rare, they may be difficult to form, or their radio beams may simply not sweep across the Earth. Astronomical surveys can detect only those objects whose signals reach our instruments in a sufficiently favourable manner.

11. The Extraordinary Lesson of a Dead Star

A neutron star has no continuing nuclear-burning life comparable with that of an ordinary star like the Sun. It is a stellar remnant. Yet its existence demonstrates that the end of a star's conventional life does not mark the end of its physical significance.

Within a remarkably small sphere, gravity, nuclear physics, electromagnetism, rotation and relativity all meet. The star's pulses cross interstellar space and arrive at Earth carrying information about a body that cannot be visited, photographed as an ordinary surface and sampled directly.

PSR J1748-2446ad therefore represents something considerably more significant than a record-breaking spinner. It is a natural experiment conducted by the Universe itself.

A star that once lived as part of a massive stellar system ended its ordinary stellar life in catastrophic collapse. What remained became a compact remnant, acquired angular momentum from a companion and ultimately reached a rotation rate of more than seven hundred turns every second.

The spectacle is almost beyond imagination, but the science is precise: a period of approximately 1.396 milliseconds, a frequency of about 716.36 hertz, and a rotation approaching 43,000 revolutions per minute. Behind those numbers lies a profound lesson. Nature can compress a stellar history into an object scarcely larger than a city and make that object one of the most precise clocks available to astronomy.

The star may be a remnant, but its signal is very much alive. Every pulse is a reminder that even the ashes of a star can continue to illuminate the deepest questions of physics.

Glossary

Angular momentum

A physical quantity associated with rotational motion. In an isolated system it is conserved, although it can be transferred between bodies.

Binary system

Two astronomical objects gravitationally bound to one another and orbiting their common centre of mass.

Equation of state

A physical description relating quantities such as pressure, density and energy under specified conditions. For neutron stars it describes the behaviour of extremely dense matter.

Hertz (Hz)

The SI unit of frequency, equal to one cycle per second.

Mass-shedding limit

The rotational limit at which material at a star's equator can no longer remain gravitationally bound to the stellar surface.

Millisecond pulsar

A pulsar with a rotational period of only a few milliseconds. Many are thought to have been spun up through prolonged accretion from a companion.

Neutron star

An extremely compact stellar remnant formed principally from the collapsed core of a massive star after a supernova.

Pulsar

A rotating neutron star whose periodic electromagnetic emission is detected as regular pulses.

Recycling

The evolutionary process by which a neutron star in a binary system can be spun up by the transfer of matter and angular momentum from its companion.

Terzan 5

A dense stellar system in the direction of the Galactic bulge, long classified as a globular cluster and now recognised from recent observations as a more complex relic stellar system.

References & Further Reading

1. Hessels, J. W. T., Ransom, S. M., Stairs, I. H., Freire, P. C., Kaspi, V. M. & Camilo, F. (2006), A Radio Pulsar Spinning at 716 Hz, Science, 311, 1901–1903. arXiv:astro-ph/0601337
2. National Radio Astronomy Observatory, A Radio Pulsar Spinning at 716 Hertz. NRAO
3. NASA Science (2026), NASA Webb, Hubble Reveal History of Relic of Milky Way's Formation. NASA Science
4. NASA, 'Extreme' Telescopes Find the Second-fastest-spinning Pulsar. NASA
5. SIMBAD Astronomical Database, PSR J1748-2446ad. SIMBAD
6. Cipolletta, F. et al. (2015), Fast Rotating Neutron Stars with Realistic Nuclear Matter Equation of State. arXiv

Copyright

© Dhinakar Rajaram 2026. All rights reserved.

This article is an original work prepared for publication on the author's blog. The scientific facts have been checked against astronomical literature and institutional sources. Reproduction, republication or substantial adaptation without permission is not authorised.

Integrated Hashtags

#PSRJ17482446ad #Pulsar #MillisecondPulsar #NeutronStar #Terzan5 #Astronomy #Astrophysics #SpaceScience #StellarEvolution #CosmicClocks #GravitationalWaves #NeutronStarPhysics #Science #ScientificTemper #AstronomyIndia #DhinakarRajaram

Why a Knife Cuts: The Physics of Pressure

For Students and Science Enthusiasts

Foreword

A knife is an ordinary object, yet its ability to cut demonstrates a fundamental principle of physics with remarkable clarity. The hand supplies the force, but the geometry of the blade determines how that force is delivered to the material. The decisive factor is therefore not force alone, but force acting over a particular area.

The familiar expression pressure equals force divided by area provides the starting point. From a knife edge to a snow-shoe, from a drawing pin to a stiletto heel, the same physical principle appears whenever the distribution of force over an area determines the result.

This essay examines that principle in a straightforward manner, whilst also distinguishing pressure from the more complete mechanics of cutting. A sharpened blade does not merely create high pressure; its thin edge and wedge-shaped geometry concentrate the applied force and initiate deformation, fracture or shearing in the material.

Reading time: approximately 6 minutes.
Language availability: This article may be translated using the translation facility provided by the website. Machine translations may not always preserve the exact scientific terminology or meaning of the original English text.

Constitutional Point

The article is presented in the spirit of Article 51A(h) of the Constitution of India, which calls upon citizens to develop “the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.”

Examining an everyday object through physics is a simple exercise in scientific temper: rather than accepting that a knife cuts merely because it is “sharp”, we ask what physical circumstances make cutting possible.

About the Author

I am Dhinakar Rajaram, a writer with a longstanding interest in science, astronomy, technology, music and the principles behind familiar things. I have always found that ordinary objects often provide the best introduction to scientific reasoning. A knife, for example, is commonplace, but its edge offers a remarkably clear demonstration of how force, area and material behaviour are connected.

Through my articles, I endeavour to examine such subjects in accessible language without sacrificing scientific accuracy, encouraging the reader to look beyond appearances and ask what principle is operating beneath them.

Preface

Why does a sharp knife cut through a material when a blunt portion of the same blade does not? Why does pressing the broad side of a blade against an object produce a very different result? The answer begins with a quantity known as pressure.

The distinction between force and pressure is essential. Force describes a push or pull. Pressure describes how that force is distributed over an area. Thus, the same force can produce very different physical effects according to the size of the area over which it acts.

A knife makes practical use of this relationship. Sharpening reduces the effective contact width of the cutting edge, allowing the force supplied by the hand to be concentrated into a very small region. The blade's wedge-shaped geometry then helps initiate and extend the cut.

The Physics of Pressure

Force and Pressure Are Not the Same

Force is a physical quantity describing a push or pull. In the International System of Units, force is measured in newtons (N).

Pressure, by contrast, is the normal force acting upon a unit area. It is measured in pascals (Pa), where one pascal is equal to one newton per square metre.

Pressure = Force ÷ Area
P = F/A

The equation is simple, but its implications are considerable. If the same force is applied over a smaller area, the pressure increases. If it is distributed over a larger area, the pressure decreases.

This does not mean that pressure is a mysterious additional force. It is a way of describing the intensity with which force is distributed over an area.

What Happens at the Knife Edge?

Consider a knife being pressed against a material. The broad back or blunt side of the blade presents a relatively large contact area. For a given applied force, the resulting pressure is correspondingly lower.

At a properly sharpened cutting edge, however, the contact region can be extremely narrow. The applied force is consequently concentrated into a much smaller area. The local stresses in the material become large enough to produce deformation and, when the conditions are suitable, to initiate a crack, shear zone or other form of material failure.

The knife therefore does not cut simply because the hand supplies an enormous force. A person can cut many materials with a comparatively modest force because the blade's geometry concentrates that force effectively.

Sharpness Is More Than Pressure Alone

It is tempting to say that sharpening a knife merely increases pressure. That is a useful first approximation, but it is not the whole story.

A cutting edge is part of a wedge. Its geometry influences how the material is deformed and displaced as the blade advances. The angle of the edge, the thickness of the blade behind it, the friction between the blade and the material, and the mechanical properties of the material being cut all affect the required cutting force.

A very sharp edge can therefore begin the failure of a material at a highly concentrated region, while the wedge-shaped blade continues the separation as it moves forward.

Did You Know?

The principle can be understood by considering the dimensions of the area. If a given force is applied to one-tenth of the original area, the corresponding pressure is ten times as great, provided the force is unchanged and the relevant contact is comparable.

Why the Blunt Side Does Not Cut

Suppose the same hand presses first with the broad back of a knife and then with its narrow cutting edge. The force supplied by the hand may be broadly similar, but the contact geometry is very different.

With the broad side, the force is distributed over a comparatively large region. The resulting local stresses are generally insufficient to produce the kind of concentrated material failure required for cutting.

With the cutting edge, the contact region is much narrower. The local mechanical effect is consequently far greater. The material begins to deform or fail close to the edge, and continued movement of the blade extends the separation.

This is why merely having a knife in one's hand is not enough. The orientation, edge geometry and manner in which the blade meets the material matter greatly.

The Same Principle in Everyday Life

The relationship between force and area is by no means confined to knives. Several familiar objects demonstrate the same principle.

Snow-shoes: A person's weight remains essentially the same, but snow-shoes spread that weight over a much larger area. The pressure on the snow is thereby reduced, making it less likely that the person will sink deeply.

Drawing pins: The broad head permits the thumb to apply force comfortably, whilst the pointed end concentrates the resulting force into a very small area of the material. The point can therefore penetrate a surface under a comparatively modest applied force.

High-heeled shoes: A person's weight may be unchanged whether wearing a broad shoe or a narrow heel, but a narrow heel concentrates the load over a much smaller area. Consequently, the pressure exerted upon a floor can be considerably greater.

Wide vehicle tyres: Tyres distribute the vehicle's weight over contact patches between the rubber and the road. Increasing the effective contact area, all other relevant conditions being comparable, reduces the average pressure on the surface.

Pressure, Stress and the Real Mechanics of Cutting

There is an important scientific distinction between pressure and stress. Pressure is commonly used for forces acting normally upon a surface, whereas stress is a more general description of internal force per unit area within a material. Cutting can involve normal stresses, shear stresses and complex local deformation.

The simple equation P = F/A therefore gives us the essential intuition, but it should not be mistaken for a complete mathematical theory of cutting. Real materials differ greatly. Wood, paper, meat, plastic, rubber, metal and brittle glass do not respond to a blade in the same manner.

A material's hardness, toughness, elasticity, fibre structure, brittleness and frictional behaviour all influence what happens when the edge meets it. The blade itself also matters: its material, thickness, edge angle and surface condition affect the force required.

Why Sharpening Works

Sharpening a knife changes the geometry of its edge. A worn or rounded edge makes contact over a broader region, so the applied force is less concentrated. A properly maintained edge presents a much narrower region to the material.

The result is a greater concentration of mechanical action at the beginning of the cut. Once the material has begun to deform or fracture, the wedge-shaped blade can advance through it.

Sharpening is consequently a practical application of a basic physical idea: the distribution of force matters as much as the amount of force being applied.

A Simple Numerical Illustration

Imagine a force of 100 newtons acting over an area of 0.01 square metres. The average pressure is:

P = 100 N ÷ 0.01 m² = 10,000 Pa

If the same force were applied over an area one hundred times smaller, namely 0.0001 square metres, the average pressure would become:

P = 100 N ÷ 0.0001 m² = 1,000,000 Pa

The force has not changed. The area has changed, and therefore the average pressure has increased by a factor of one hundred.

This simple calculation captures the essential reason why concentrating force onto a small region can produce a markedly different physical result.

The Broader Lesson

The knife is an excellent example because the principle can be observed directly without sophisticated apparatus. A broad surface distributes a load; a narrow edge concentrates it. The same relationship appears in tools, footwear, snow equipment, engineering structures and countless other applications.

What appears to be a commonplace property of a knife is therefore an elegant demonstration of mechanics. Sharpness is produced by geometry; geometry controls contact; contact determines how force is distributed; and that distribution influences the stresses and deformation produced in the material.

Conclusion

A knife cuts because its edge enables an applied force to act intensely upon a very small region of a material. The fundamental relationship is expressed by the equation P = F/A: when the area decreases, pressure for a given force increases.

Yet pressure is only the beginning of the explanation. The wedge geometry of the blade, the angle of its edge, friction and the mechanical properties of the material determine how the concentrated force produces deformation, shearing or fracture.

The essential lesson is simple. A sharp knife does not possess some mysterious additional form of force. Rather, its carefully engineered geometry allows an ordinary applied force to be concentrated where it can do useful mechanical work.

Thus an everyday knife provides a small but particularly clear lesson in physics: force tells us how much push is applied; area tells us how widely that push is distributed; and pressure describes the resulting concentration of force over the area.

Glossary

Area

The amount of surface occupied by a two-dimensional region, measured in square metres (m²) in the SI system.

Force

A push or pull capable of changing an object's motion or deforming it. Its SI unit is the newton (N).

Pressure

Normal force distributed over an area. It is expressed as force divided by area and measured in pascals (Pa).

Stress

Internal force per unit area within a material. Stress may be normal or shear, among other forms.

Shear

A deformation or failure associated with forces acting parallel to a material surface or plane.

Sharpness

A practical description of how effectively a cutting edge can initiate and sustain a cut, strongly influenced by edge geometry and condition.

Wedge

A tapered object or geometry that converts an applied force into forces that separate or deform material.

Pascal

The SI unit of pressure. One pascal equals one newton per square metre.

References & Further Reading

1. International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM), The International System of Units (SI), 9th edition.
2. OpenStax, University Physics, sections dealing with force, pressure and mechanics.
3. Encyclopaedia Britannica, entries on pressure, force and mechanics.
4. J. R. Davis, ed., ASM Handbook: Mechanical Testing and Evaluation, ASM International.
5. Standard introductory physics texts covering mechanics, stress, strain, friction and material deformation.

These references provide the physical framework underlying the explanations presented in this article. Numerical examples in the article are illustrative calculations rather than measurements of a particular knife.

Copyright

© Dhinakar Rajaram 2026. All rights reserved.

This article may not be reproduced, republished, substantially altered or redistributed for commercial purposes without prior permission from the author. Brief quotations for legitimate review, criticism or educational discussion should be appropriately attributed.

Integrated Hashtags

#Physics #Science #Pressure #Force #Mechanics #KnifePhysics #ScientificTemper #ScienceEducation #PhysicsExplained #STEM #MaterialScience #EverydayPhysics #DhinakarRajaram

© Dhinakar Rajaram 2026

On the Prospect of a Second Reckoning: India's Strategic Exposure to Long-Range Drone and Missile Warfare

On the Prospect of a Second Reckoning: An Analysis of India's Strategic Exposure to Long-Range Drone and Missile Warfare

A sequel to my earlier essay on the changing geography of aerial warfare (readers unacquainted with the prequel are invited to consult Part 1 before proceeding), occasioned principally by the recent addresses of Major Madhan Kumar (Retd.)

Dhinakar Rajaram  ·  © 2026

Essay Current Affairs & Defence OSINT Strategic Affairs Reading time: approximately 25 minutes

Principal addresses which occasioned this essay
Major Madhan Kumar (Retd.) — Video I
Watch Video I

Major Madhan Kumar (Retd.) — Video II
Watch Video II

Author's note. This essay is a sequel to my earlier essay, Beyond the Border: A Sober Reflection on Major Madhan Kumar's Warning and the New Geography of Warfare. It is occasioned principally by the recent video addresses of Major Madhan Kumar (Retd.), whose observations concerning the changing reach of unmanned and missile warfare into India's interior have prompted me to examine the matter further. I have also considered publicly available open-source information, contemporary reporting and other publicly accessible material relating to the present strategic environment. The principal input for this essay is therefore open-source intelligence (OSINT). Where information remains unverified, reported or inferential, I have endeavoured to identify it as such. Nothing in this essay should be read as a classified assessment, an intelligence report or an official military judgement. The observations and conclusions expressed here are entirely my own. They should not be attributed to Major Madhan Kumar, Major Gaurav Arya, the Armed Forces of India, the Government of India or any other institution.

Foreword

Between 2010 and 2012, I wrote from time to time upon current affairs, defence and matters of national security. After a long interval, I have returned to the subject, prompted initially by the observations of Major Madhan Kumar (Retd.) and subsequently by the rapidly changing character of unmanned and missile warfare.

My earlier essay considered the proposition that geographical distance, which for generations constituted one of India's quiet strategic advantages, may no longer provide the reassurance which it once did.

This essay proceeds one step further.

It asks a rather uncomfortable question: what if the lessons of the first engagement have themselves been studied, absorbed and incorporated by the adversary?

I do not put this question forward as a prediction of war. Nor do I suggest that another conflict is imminent. Indeed, the very opposite is my purpose. A prudent citizen ought to examine a possibility before it becomes an emergency, rather than afterwards.

I remain entirely confident in India's Armed Forces and in the country's growing air-defence and counter-UAS capabilities. Nothing in this essay is intended to diminish that confidence.

Confidence, however, is not the same thing as complacency.

The former is a strength.

The latter can become a weakness.

A Second Look at the First Reckoning

Operation SINDOOR in May 2025 demonstrated the effectiveness of India's air-defence and counter-drone architecture against a substantial unmanned threat directed towards Indian positions.

The engagement was not insignificant. Pakistani forces attempted drone intrusions at numerous locations along the western and northern fronts, and India's defensive systems succeeded in denying those attacks the results which the attacker presumably sought.

That achievement deserves to be acknowledged plainly.

There is no virtue in diminishing one's own country's success merely in order to make an argument about future vulnerability.

Indeed, the opposite is true.

It is precisely because India's air defence demonstrated its effectiveness that one may examine the next question with a calm mind.

What happens when the next attack is designed by an adversary who has studied the previous one?

This is not an extraordinary proposition. It is one of the oldest principles of warfare.

Every engagement produces information.

The attacker learns what was detected.

He learns what was intercepted.

He learns what was not intercepted.

He learns where his equipment failed.

And he learns which methods might be worth trying again in a modified form.

The Enemy Learns

There is another point which deserves particular emphasis.

An enemy must never be taken lightly.

The men on the other side are human beings, just as we are. They observe, they study, they analyse, they improvise and they learn.

India has done precisely the same throughout her military history.

When a method proves inadequate, we alter it. When equipment proves insufficient, we improve or replace it. When an adversary demonstrates a new capability, we study it. When a conflict reveals a weakness, we attempt to correct that weakness.

Why, therefore, should we imagine that an adversary will behave differently?

The first attack is consequently not necessarily the final examination. It may be the first examination.

The failure of yesterday's attack may become the starting point for tomorrow's improvement.

OSINT and the Difficulty of Seeing What Is Not Publicly Declared

The present essay relies substantially upon open-source intelligence.

That requires a certain discipline.

OSINT is neither clairvoyance nor classified intelligence. It is the systematic examination of information available in the public domain: official statements, satellite imagery, aircraft movements, photographs, video material, specialist reporting, commercial data, social-media material and other observable indicators.

The great strength of OSINT is that information which might once have been available only to governments can now sometimes be observed, compared and analysed by independent researchers.

Its great weakness is equally obvious.

Not every photograph is authentic.

Not every aircraft movement reveals its cargo.

Not every intelligence-source report can be independently verified.

Not every inference drawn from several apparently connected events is necessarily correct.

That is why I have deliberately avoided treating every recent report as established fact.

The distinction between observation, reporting, assessment and fact is particularly important in matters of defence.

A responsible civilian discussion of national security ought not to discard that distinction merely because a particular interpretation happens to be attractive.

The Sixty-Hour Question

In the third week of August 2026, reports emerged of unusual military air activity involving Chinese and Turkish transport aircraft travelling to Pakistan, including reported activity associated with Nur Khan near Rawalpindi and Masroor near Karachi.

The reports attracted considerable attention because the activity was said to have occurred repeatedly over a period of approximately sixty hours.

This is precisely the kind of development which OSINT analysts are likely to examine closely.

Aircraft movements can be observed.

The identity and destination of an aircraft may sometimes be established.

Its cargo, however, is an entirely different matter.

A necessary qualification: Reports have suggested that drones, military equipment or other defence matériel may have been transported during this activity. At the time of writing, however, the precise nature and quantity of any such cargo has not been independently established in the public domain. I therefore do not present the reported airlift as proof that China or Türkiye has delivered a particular weapon system to Pakistan.

That distinction is not pedantry.

It is the difference between analysis and assertion.

Nevertheless, unusual military activity is worthy of observation precisely because it may form part of a larger pattern which only becomes intelligible when several independent pieces of information are considered together.

The prudent position is therefore neither to dismiss the reports nor to convert them into certainty.

One watches.

One compares.

One waits for corroboration.

And one prepares for the possibility that the activity may signify something more consequential.

Turkey, China and the Question of External Assistance

The Turkish connection is not a new subject in this discussion.

During Operation SINDOOR, Turkish-origin unmanned systems were reported among the systems employed by Pakistan. Indian reporting also raised questions concerning Turkish assistance and the possible involvement of Turkish personnel or operators.

Such claims must be distinguished according to the strength of the available evidence. The presence of Turkish-origin equipment is one matter; claims concerning the direct operational involvement of Turkish personnel are another.

The larger strategic point, however, is independent of the precise details of any one report.

Modern military technology is no longer confined neatly within national boundaries.

A system developed in one country can be manufactured elsewhere, supplied to a partner, modified in another theatre and employed against an entirely different adversary.

China and Türkiye possess substantial unmanned-system and defence-industrial capabilities. Pakistan has longstanding defence relationships with both countries.

That does not mean that every rumoured transfer has occurred.

It does mean that India must reasonably expect an adversary to seek external assistance where such assistance is available.

Why Ukraine Matters to India

The war in Ukraine has changed the meaning of strategic distance.

For much of the twentieth century, deep strikes required aircraft, missiles or specialised long-range platforms whose cost and complexity placed them largely beyond the reach of smaller powers.

The proliferation of long-range unmanned systems has altered that equation.

Ukraine has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to strike targets deep inside Russian territory with unmanned systems.

The precise range, payload and operational circumstances vary from one system and one mission to another. Nevertheless, the broad lesson is difficult to ignore:

A border is no longer necessarily a meaningful measure of the practical reach of a weapon.

The significance of this development for India is not that Ukraine and India possess identical circumstances.

They plainly do not.

The significance lies in the technology.

Once a capability has been demonstrated, other states may seek to acquire it, copy its principles, improve upon it or develop their own equivalent.

Technology migrates.

Experience migrates.

Doctrine migrates.

And warfare learns from itself.

The Prospect of Technology Transfer

There have also been reports and discussions concerning possible Ukrainian interest in wider international cooperation relating to long-range unmanned systems.

Here again, caution is necessary.

A reported discussion is not a signed contract.

A proposed transfer is not an operational capability.

A technological relationship is not necessarily the same thing as the delivery of a weapon system.

Nevertheless, India would be unwise to assume that capabilities developed under the pressure of the Ukrainian conflict will remain permanently confined to that theatre.

If a technology is useful, other states will study it.

If it is affordable, other states may seek it.

If it is capable of being manufactured in quantity, its strategic importance may increase still further.

This is one reason why OSINT deserves serious attention.

It may provide the earliest indication that a capability which was once remote has begun to approach India's neighbourhood.

The Economics of Saturation

The fundamental difficulty presented by large-scale drone warfare is not merely technological.

It is economic.

A relatively inexpensive unmanned aircraft may be manufactured and expended in considerable numbers.

A high-end interceptor missile is an altogether different proposition. It incorporates sophisticated guidance, propulsion, sensors, electronics, testing, storage and logistics.

The defender therefore faces a fundamental problem:

How much should be spent to destroy each incoming threat?

The answer cannot always be the most expensive weapon available.

Nor can every incoming object be ignored.

This is why the future of counter-UAS warfare is likely to involve a combination of electronic warfare, guns, short-range interceptors, directed-energy systems as they mature, inexpensive counter-drone technologies, layered radar coverage and other methods suited to the particular threat.

The objective is not merely to destroy the drone.

The objective is to do so economically, repeatedly and at scale.

When Drones Are Followed by Missiles

The more serious problem arises when unmanned systems are not the principal weapon but part of a larger sequence.

A large number of drones may be used to complicate detection and engagement. Some may be genuine attack systems. Others may serve as decoys or create additional demands upon the defensive network.

Only subsequently may more expensive and more destructive weapons appear.

This is the central concern behind the idea of saturation.

One should not conclude that every air-defence system will inevitably be overwhelmed by such a method.

That would be an unjustified assertion.

Layered air defence exists precisely because military planners understand that no single weapon can solve every problem.

But neither should one imagine that defensive resources are infinite.

Sensors have limits.

Engagement channels have limits.

Interceptors have limits.

Reloading has limits.

Human attention has limits.

Time has limits.

The question is therefore one of capacity, depth and endurance.

The Israeli Lesson

The confrontation between Iran and Israel in June 2025 provides another useful illustration.

Israel possesses one of the world's most sophisticated layered missile and air-defence architectures, including Arrow, David's Sling and Iron Dome, supported by extensive surveillance, command-and-control and allied assistance.

The system performed impressively.

That should be stated without qualification.

But the same engagement also illustrated the arithmetic of mass.

Even a very high interception percentage does not mean that the defender can treat an unlimited number of incoming weapons as an inconsequential matter.

If the number of incoming weapons increases dramatically, the absolute number which may penetrate can increase even when the percentage intercepted remains extraordinarily high.

This is not a criticism of missile defence.

It is the mathematics of finite systems.

The stronger the shield, the more important it becomes to ensure that the shield possesses depth, redundancy and endurance.

Pakistan's Internal Situation

There is another dimension which should not be ignored: the internal condition of the adversary.

Pakistan continues to face serious political, economic and security difficulties, including unrest and militant violence in several regions. Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa remain particularly important in this regard, while questions concerning Pakistan-administered territories also continue to attract attention.

History provides numerous examples of governments facing internal difficulties seeking external confrontation as a means of diverting domestic attention.

But history also warns us against assuming that this will necessarily happen.

Internal difficulty does not automatically produce external war.

It is therefore more responsible to regard Pakistan's internal condition as a factor in the strategic environment rather than as evidence of an impending decision to attack India.

A wise analyst considers the possibility without declaring the conclusion in advance.

The Diplomatic Backdrop

The strategic picture cannot be considered solely through the lens of military hardware.

Diplomatic developments also matter.

On 19 August 2026, United States Ambassador to India Sergio Gor, during his visit to Srinagar, described Jammu and Kashmir as an important part of India. Pakistan subsequently protested the remarks through diplomatic channels.

This is diplomatically noteworthy, although I would caution against treating one ambassadorial statement as a comprehensive declaration of American policy on every aspect of the Kashmir question.

Similarly, Poland's Ambassador to India, Dr Piotr Antoni Świtalski, has recently spoken of Poland's support for India's right to pursue terrorists wherever they operate.

These developments are interesting pieces of the wider diplomatic picture. They are not, however, military guarantees.

A mature assessment must distinguish diplomatic sympathy, political support, strategic partnership and treaty commitment.

India Watches

The most reassuring element in this entire discussion is perhaps the simplest.

India is not asleep.

The Indian military has studied the lessons of Operation SINDOOR.

India has continued to develop counter-UAS capabilities.

Indigenous defence production has expanded.

The importance of electronic warfare, surveillance, layered air defence and unmanned systems is now understood far more clearly than it was even a few years ago.

There is therefore no reason for the public to imagine that the country has simply returned to the circumstances which prevailed before May 2025.

The first reckoning itself has produced lessons.

The question is whether we continue learning those lessons before the next reckoning, should one ever occur.

The Interior Cannot Be an Afterthought

The central argument of my earlier essay concerned India's interior cities. That argument remains relevant.

Calcutta, Madras, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi and other major urban centres are not merely concentrations of population.

They contain industry, communications, finance, transport, energy infrastructure, technology centres and other components essential to the functioning of the Republic.

Their protection is consequently a national-security question.

This does not mean that every city requires a ring of expensive missile batteries.

It means that the country requires depth.

Detection must possess depth.

Command and control must possess depth.

Counter-UAS capability must possess depth.

Interception must possess depth.

Critical infrastructure must possess resilience.

And, above all, the defensive system must possess the ability to continue functioning after the first exchange.

The Second Reckoning Need Not Be a War

The phrase second reckoning in the title requires explanation.

I do not mean that another war is inevitable.

I do not mean that Pakistan is preparing an attack upon India's interior.

I do not mean that the recent reports of military air activity constitute proof of an impending operation.

I use the expression in a broader sense.

The second reckoning may simply be the moment at which the assumptions formed after the first engagement are tested against a new technological reality.

It may never take the form of a war.

It may instead occur through procurement, exercises, technological demonstrations, intelligence discoveries, diplomatic developments or changes in military doctrine.

Preparedness begins before the test.

Neither Alarm nor Complacency

There are two equally undesirable reactions to developments of this nature.

The first is alarmism.

Every aircraft movement becomes an impending attack. Every drone becomes a harbinger of war. Every diplomatic statement is interpreted as evidence of a secret alliance.

That approach is neither intelligent nor responsible.

The second danger is complacency.

Everything is dismissed as propaganda. Every new technology is considered irrelevant. Every warning is described as fear-mongering because India's existing defences performed successfully in the previous engagement.

That approach is equally unwise.

The proper position lies between the two.

Watch carefully. Verify patiently. Prepare quietly.

What I Take From Major Madhan Kumar's Warning

Major Madhan Kumar's addresses have prompted me to return to a subject which I had not written about for many years.

I do not necessarily agree with every inference which may be drawn from every individual piece of information discussed in the wider public debate. That is not the purpose of this essay.

What I do find compelling is the underlying question:

Are we preparing only for the war which we have already experienced, or are we preparing for the war which an adversary may design after studying that experience?

That is a very different question.

The first requires memory.

The second requires imagination.

And national security requires both.

A Final Observation

I began this essay by making clear that I have complete confidence in India's Armed Forces and in the country's air-defence capabilities. I repeat that position without hesitation.

Operation SINDOOR demonstrated that India possesses formidable defensive capabilities.

The lesson of Ukraine is that distance is becoming less protective.

The lesson of Israel is that even highly sophisticated defensive systems must contend with the arithmetic of mass and finite inventories.

The lesson of the drone is that relatively inexpensive unmanned systems can alter the economic calculation of warfare.

The lesson of OSINT is that the public can now observe military developments which would once have remained almost entirely invisible — but that observation must always be accompanied by scepticism and verification.

And the lesson of history is perhaps the simplest of all:

An enemy must never be taken lightly. He is human. He learns — just as we do.

India has learnt.

India continues to learn.

There is every reason to believe that our adversaries are doing the same.

That is not a cause for fear.

It is a reason for preparedness.

Nor should preparedness be mistaken for pessimism.

A confident nation does not close its eyes to unpleasant possibilities. It examines them calmly, prepares for them intelligently and continues with its affairs without allowing fear to dictate its conduct.

That, in my humble opinion, is the balance which India must maintain.

We should neither fear the adversary nor underestimate him.

We should neither doubt our own strength nor allow confidence to become complacency.

The first reckoning taught us what our defences could accomplish.

The next reckoning, should history ever require one, must find us prepared for what the adversary has learnt in the meantime.

Not fear, but preparedness.

My humble opinion.

Did You Know?

OSINT: Open-source intelligence is the systematic collection and analysis of information available from publicly accessible sources. In modern conflicts, publicly visible aircraft movements, satellite imagery, photographs and other digital traces can sometimes provide useful indicators of military activity.

Distance is changing: Long-range unmanned systems have demonstrated that a weapon need not be a manned aircraft or a conventional ballistic missile to reach targets deep inside an adversary's territory.

Mass changes the calculation: A defensive system may perform exceptionally well against individual threats and nevertheless face a different engineering and economic problem when confronted with very large numbers of simultaneous or successive threats.

Observation is not proof: An aircraft can be observed arriving at a military airfield without the public being able to establish with certainty what its cargo was. This is one of the fundamental cautions required when analysing OSINT.

Glossary

OSINT: Open-Source Intelligence; the collection, verification and analysis of information obtained from publicly accessible sources.

Counter-UAS: Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems; technologies and procedures intended to detect, identify, track, disrupt or defeat unmanned aircraft.

Loitering munition: An unmanned weapon capable of remaining in an area before identifying or receiving a target and subsequently attacking it.

Saturation attack: An attack involving sufficient numbers or varieties of incoming threats to place exceptional demands upon defensive sensors, engagement channels, weapons, communications and personnel.

Layered air defence: A defensive architecture employing different systems and methods at different ranges and against different classes of threat rather than relying upon a single weapon.

Swarm: A term used for the coordinated employment of numerous unmanned systems. A large number of drones operating together is not necessarily a fully autonomous or networked swarm in the strict technical sense.

Strategic depth: The geographical, infrastructural and operational space available to a state between its frontier and its vital centres, which may provide additional time and opportunity for defence.

Interceptor: A defensive weapon designed to engage and destroy an incoming aircraft, missile, drone or other aerial threat.

References & Further Reading

1. Major Madhan Kumar (Retd.): Video address that principally occasioned this essay — Video I .
2. Major Madhan Kumar (Retd.): Second video address which forms part of the immediate background to this essay — Video II .
3. Government of India: Public statements and briefings concerning Operation SINDOOR, including the reported scale of Pakistani drone intrusions.
4. Office of the President of Ukraine: Public statements concerning Ukraine's development and testing of long-range unmanned systems.
5. Israel Ministry of Defence: Public assessment of the performance of Israeli defensive systems during Operation Rising Lion.
6. Contemporary OSINT and defence reporting: Reports concerning unusual Chinese and Turkish military transport activity involving Pakistani airbases during August 2026. Such reporting should be treated as open-source reporting and not as independent confirmation of the identity or quantity of any cargo.
7. Contemporary diplomatic reporting: Reporting concerning United States Ambassador Sergio Gor's August 2026 visit to Srinagar and his description of Jammu and Kashmir as an important part of India.
8. Contemporary Polish diplomatic reporting: Public remarks by Poland's Ambassador to India concerning Poland's support for India's right to pursue terrorists wherever they operate.

About the Author

I am Dhinakar Rajaram, a Chennai-based independent writer with long-standing interests in science, technology, astronomy, history, music and contemporary affairs.

Between 2010 and 2012, I wrote periodically on current affairs, defence and matters of national interest. After a long interval, I have returned to that field of writing, not as a military professional but as an independent civilian observer interested in examining matters which have a bearing upon the country and its future.

This essay follows my earlier examination of India's vulnerability to the changing reach of drone and missile warfare. The present article has been prompted principally by the observations of Major Madhan Kumar (Retd.) and by the wider body of publicly available information which has emerged around the subject.

I do not claim to speak for the Armed Forces, the Government of India or any defence establishment. My purpose is more modest: to examine publicly available information, distinguish established fact from reported information and inference where possible, and place my own observations before the reader for consideration.

Language & translation: I have written this essay in the formal British/Indian English in which I was educated and which characterised much of the writing of the newspapers and broadcasting institutions with which my generation grew familiar. A translation facility may be enabled on the blog's side panel where available. Machine-translated versions may contain inaccuracies in terminology, nuance or proper nouns; the English original should therefore be regarded as authoritative.

Scientific temper and civic responsibility: I regard informed public discussion, reasoned examination of evidence and the willingness to question assumptions as part of the spirit of inquiry and reform envisaged by Article 51A(h) of the Constitution of India. This essay is offered in that spirit.

© Dhinakar Rajaram 2026  ·  © இரா. தினகர் 2026
Published on the Dhinakar Rajaram blog.