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.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T

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