Skip to main content

Chris Impey - Five Way Interview

Chris Impey is University Distinguished Professor of Astronomy at the University of Arizona. He has won numerous teaching awards and authored textbooks and nine popular science titles, including Beyond our Future in Space, How it Ends and Einstein's Monsters: The Life and Times of Black Holes. His latest book is Worlds without End.

Why science?

Science is the best way humans have found to make sense of the world. It's not perfect, and the people who do it can be flawed too, but science is powerful in its reach. In my fields of physics and astronomy, it has let us understand the invisible world within atoms and the remote realm of the universe a fraction of a second after the big bang. Science is also a unifying force in society. The worldwide community of scientists speaks a common language, shares common goals, and maintains an optimistic view of human potential. But science is opaque to most people and its process is widely misunderstood, so I believe scientists have an obligation to communicate the results and benefits of their work to the general public.

Why this book?

Exoplanets are booming. Within a few decades, we've gone from zero to over 5000, with hundreds of habitable worlds identified. The current stage is exciting as we move toward the characterisation of these exoplanets, and attempt the difficult experiment to detect life on Earth-like worlds. The detection of life beyond Earth will be the discovery of the century. 
I felt it was time for a snapshot of this rapidly-moving research field, laying out what we may learn in the next five to ten years.

Given all the uncertainty involved in several of the parameters, is the Drake equation any better than those newspaper equations on, say, how to make the best sandwich?

Even Frank Drake was modest about the efficacy of his equation, calling it a 'container for ignorance.' But it is still a useful framing device for thinking about life in the universe, and in particular, intelligent life. Astronomers have now measured the first three terms so there has been real progress, and the fourth term is in view if we can determine the fraction of habitable planets that actually host biology. The final term, L, is a sobering reminder that technological civilizations like ours may not be long-term stable, and that dictates the odds of cosmic companionship. So yes, not a mathematical tool in the usual sense, but still a very good way to communicate astrobiology to a larger audience.

What’s next?

Having mentioned how essential and successful science is earlier, I'm acutely aware that it is under assault as evidence-based reasoning is in short supply and misinformation spreads like wildfire on the internet. The threat is particularly acute in the United States, where it  has a political overtone, but the problem exists in Europe as well. I'm motivated to reboot Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World, now almost 30 years old, for the modern era. His book was a clarion call for rational thinking and a paean to science. Perhaps it is immodest of me to try and replicate the work of a master of science communication, but it feels like the time is right to advocate for the power of science and push back against the pseudoscience, superstition, and illogical thinking that permeates modern society.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

Gravitational waves. Since the field broke open with LIGO's first detection in 2015, a big new field of science is available. Seeing with 'gravity eyes' is the biggest innovation in astronomy since the invention of the telescope. LIGO and similar detectors are now seeing black hole mergers every week, letting us test general relativity at a new level. These are the most precise physics experiments ever built. The recent use of networks of pulsars to detect the 'hum' of merging supermassive black holes in the early universe is very exciting. 

Image © Chris Impey


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more