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

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

Deep Utopia - Nick Bostrom ***

This is one of the strangest sort-of popular science (or philosophy, or something or other) books I've ever read. If you can picture the impact of a cross between Douglas Hofstadter's  Gödel Escher Bach and Gaileo's Two New Sciences  (at least, its conversational structure), then thrown in a touch of David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest , and you can get a feel for what the experience of reading it is like - bewildering with the feeling that there is something deep that you can never quite extract from it. Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom is probably best known in popular science for his book Superintelligence in which he looked at the implications of having artificial intelligence (AI) that goes beyond human capabilities. In a sense, Deep Utopia is a sequel, picking out one aspect of this speculation: what life would be like for us if technology had solved all our existential problems, while (in the form of superintelligence) it had also taken away much of our appare
Post a Comment
Read more