Skip to main content

Speculation and science

My latest book, Interstellar Tours, is set on a tour starship of the twenty-second century. Clearly the context is fictional, to give what can sometimes seem the rather remote sciences of astrophysics and cosmology a more hands-on feel. But the science itself is based on our best current knowledge. This does, however, raise a wider question - how to deal with the relationship between speculation and science.

Given that the book is set in the future, I have to occasionally speculate about how our scientific knowledge will progress. As much as possible, I describe phenomena as we believe them to be now, but inevitably there are some circumstances where things are currently uncertain and I need to come down on one side or another. So, for example, despite visiting many planets, in my future life has yet to be discovered for certain beyond our solar system. To make sure readers don't confuse my speculation with 'real science' I have a number of speculation alerts - boxes that highlight what was not known in the 2020s.

If I'm honest, as I wrote about recently, I am not usually a great fan of speculative science. Infamously, speculation used to be at the heart of cosmology, to the extent there was a saying (with many variants) doing the rounds): 'There's speculation, then there's wild speculation, then there's cosmology.' It's fair to say that cosmology has settled down a bit, but there is still a lot of effort being put into various topics where there is little or no real evidence to date.

Speculative science is not, of course, limited to cosmology. In quantum physics, for example, while the outcomes are described and predicted with stunning accuracy, the many interpretations that attempt to show what is going on 'underneath' are currently pure speculation. Some people love this kind of thing - I find it, dare I say it, boring. Until there's some evidence to make one interpretation stand out, I really don't care. I'm not saying people shouldn't work on this kind of science. It's only by doing so that we can move our understanding beyond speculation, at least with speculation where there is some chance of ever realistically getting proper data to identify what is correct. But in some circumstances we probably never will - and even if there may eventually be evidence, while it remains speculative, I find it a bit of a yawn.

Out in space, without the benefit of experiment (yet), speculation will always rear its head. Whether it's black hole firewalls or the book by Rovelli I have sitting on the shelf yet to read on white holes, speculation is going to be rampant. And science writers need to write about it. But, for me, it dominates coverage too much in physics, cosmology and related fields. New Scientist, for example, hardly ever seems to have a lead physics story that isn't highly speculative.

It might seem hypocritical, then, to put my own speculation into Interstellar Tours - but it was necessary for the format of the book. And it is a very minor part. One aspect of speculation where I do enjoy stirring things a bit is over dark matter, where I am reasonably convinced that something based on modified Newtonian gravity (MOND) will partly or wholly supplant the existence of dark matter as a new kind of particle. I was delighted when esteemed science writer John Gribbin read the book that he commented 'The conclusions re. dark matter vs MOND are very bold and will intrigue people!' - my answer was 'I know!' 

So it's not that I don't appreciate the importance of speculation (especially when I think it's right) - but at least this speculation is based on a lot of evidence (see the excellent blog Triton Station for details). It doesn't stop me feeling, though, that speculation in science needs very careful management in the way that it is communicated. And that often isn't the case.

Image by Adrien Converse from Unsplash

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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