Skip to main content

Ananyo Bhattacharya - Five Way Interview

Ananyo Bhattacharya holds a PhD in biophysics from Imperial College London and a degree in physics from Oxford University. He has worked as a science correspondent at the Economist, an editor at Nature, and a medical researcher at the Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute in San Diego, California. He lives in London. The Man from the Future is his first book.

Why maths?

I remember my maths teacher in school many years ago being asked by a bored student what the point of maths was. A look of blind panic crossed his face then, after a good deal of hemming and hawing, he mumbled something about checking your till receipt after shopping in a supermarket. Popular maths books are often about fun puzzles or perhaps one person's passionate, otherworldy pursuit of some arcane theorem. I wanted to try something different. My book was an effort to show that maths isn't really about sums or shopping bills. It has shaped the modern world and informs the way we think about everything from nuclear strategy to our own happiness. 

Why this book?

If you want to show how maths has changed our lives, there are few better ways to start than with John von Neumann. He's much less well known than Einstein or even Turing but his impact on our lives is much greater than either. Over the past twenty years or so in journalism, I kept hearing his name more and more often in an astonishing variety of different contexts. This struck me as odd. Von Neumann died from cancer over sixty years ago, aged just 53. So though his name’s faded away from public consciousness, his legacy seemed more important than ever. So what better subject for a book?

Which of von Neumann’s contributions would you say was most significant?

Every computer you’re likely to use from smartphone to desktop runs on the von Neumann architecture. And because von Neumann insisted much of work on building his computer should be in the public domain, he could be considered the father of the open source movement. So I’d have to say his most significant work was in catalysing the information age.

But I think in another couple of decades we might look at his theory of reproducing automata and his extraordinary mathematical proof that machines could reproduce and say that was actually his most influential work, as by then I suspect that either through synthetic biology or nanotechnology we'll have programmable factories that can make copies of themselves.

What’s next?

I'm in the middle of a science fiction novel for kids, which I hope to finish in the next few months. Anyone that's read The Man from the Future or knows something about von Neumann will recognise a few of his ideas in there, assuming it's published!

What’s exciting you at the moment?

The Man from the Future was really a biography of von Neumann's ideas rather than the man. What I'd like to do with my next non-fiction book is to trace a big idea over time, following its evolution through art, philosophy and literature as well as mathematics and physics. That may prove too ambitious but if so, at least it'll be fun failing.





Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on
Post a Comment
Read more

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more