Skip to main content

Paul Parsons - Four Way Interview

Dr Paul Parsons was a theoretical cosmologist at the University of Sussex, and is now a science journalist and author. He has contributed articles to the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph and New Scientist, and has served as editor of the award-winning BBC science magazine Focus and as managing editor of BBC Sky at Night magazine. His previous books include The Periodic Table, How to Destroy the Universe, The Science of Doctor Who (longlisted for the 2007 Royal Society Prize for Science Books) and 30-Second Theories: The 50 Most Thought-provoking Theories in Science. His latest book is The Beginning and the End of Everything.

Why science?


The short answer is I’m very lazy! I just don’t seem to get very much work done if I don’t find the work obsessively, head-hurtingly interesting. I’ve loved maths, physics and astronomy since school. Understanding how things work, and using that knowledge to make predictions and solve mysteries is fascinating to me. And the systematic nature of maths and the physical sciences is especially appealing. So that’s what I studied at university, and it’s what I’ve tried to make a part of my work (if you can call it that) ever since – whether that’s actually doing science or writing about it.

Why this book?

That’s a good question. In the past I’ve often lamented the appearance of so many new books all telling the story of the origin and evolution of the universe. The Beginning and the End of Everythingis a bit different for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it tries to include or at least give more weight to the end of the universe, and how that fits into the story – and how we can speculate about the ultimate demise of the cosmos by combining our current theories with the observations that we’re able to make. But also, there have been some interesting new discoveries and some interesting new mysteries that have emerged in the last few years. So the time seemed right to pull all of the latest new findings and new thinking together and take stock of how it all changes the story of the universe as we understand it. That’s what I’ve tried to do with the new book.

What’s next?

I’m working on a couple of projects for packagers – essentially book projects that they’re producing for other outlets – which I’m probably not allowed to elaborate on just yet. After that, I’m not sure. Lots of possible ideas kicking around, but so far nothing fleshed out in sufficient detail for a book. My day job involves a lot of statistical analysis, and I’ve often thought there’s room for more popular writing in this area. If coverage in the newspapers is anything to go by, the general standard of the public understanding of stats and probability still seems pretty low. 


What's exciting you at the moment?


There have been a lot of new discoveries lately. I think the most exciting of these for me is the detection of gravitational waves – ripples in the fabric of space and time itself, that were predicted by Einstein’s general theory of relativity. In the early 1990s, I did my undergraduate project on modelling the emission of gravitational waves by dense, dead stellar objects called neutron stars. It was thought, or perhaps hoped, that the detection of these waves was just a few years away back then, rather than the decades that it actually turned out to be – they were finally seen experimentally in 2015. Now the study of gravitational waves looks set to open a new window through which to observe the universe, in much the same way that neutrino astronomy did back in the 60s and 70s. Measuring the gravitational waves from objects in far-off galaxies promises to give us more accurate determinations of cosmic distances. This will refine our estimates of how fast the universe is expanding and, crucially, how fast that expansion is accelerating – which will help to pin down the nature of dark energy. This mysterious stuff is thought to account for around 70 percent of the mass-energy of the universe. It’s dominated the evolution of our universe and it will probably have the final say in how the universe actually ends. Understanding its nature is one of the biggest mysteries in modern cosmology today.








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...