Skip to main content

Andrew May -- Five Way Interview

Andrew May obtained his PhD in astrophysics from the University of Manchester in 1982. After a 30-year career spanning academia, the civil service and private industry he now works as a freelance writer and science consultant. He has written on subjects as diverse as the physical sciences, military technology, British history and the paranormal. He lives in Somerset and his latest title is Eyes in the Sky.

Why astronomy?

I was obsessively interested in space as a child. The first 'real world' events I was aware of were the Gemini missions of the mid-60s, and like everyone else I was glued to the Moon landings a little later. By the time of the last one, Apollo 17, I was interested in cutting-edge astronomy too - black holes and quasars and such like - so (to me at least) it seemed inevitable that I'd go on to do a PhD in astrophysics. After an exciting few years doing postdoctoral research I eventually had to get a 'proper' job, but since I became semi-retired I've been able to indulge my fascination with all things space-related through writing. 

Why this book?

The subject of space telescopes has a particular appeal for me, in that it combines both astronomy - the study of objects in distant parts of the universe - with the practicalities of space travel, getting hardware up into near-Earth space. But there's another reason too. Popular writing about astronomy tends to focus on certain aspects at the expense of others, and this book gave me the opportunity to talk about one of the less well known sides of the subject. Many people will have read about galaxies, exoplanets, black holes and the Big Bang, without perhaps having a very clear idea of how astronomers happen to know about such things in the first place. That's where telescopes come in - they're so much more than the glorified cameras taking pretty pictures that many people imagine. So that was the main message I wanted to get across.

What’s the next big thing for space telescopes?

If you mean the next big discovery they're going to make, then by definition it will be something we don't know yet! That's the great attraction of the subject, probing the very frontiers of knowledge. Personally, though, I'd like to think we'll have clear evidence of extraterrestrial life before very long. There's a good chance NASA's giant James Webb telescope will come up with something there. As regards new space telescope hardware - there are several new instruments in the pipeline, but I don't think we'll see anything as big or powerful as Webb for a long time.

What’s next?

The writing I most enjoy doing is at short length, for magazines or websites. For the last few years I've been lucky enough to have at least one commission a month for space-related articles, and I'm hoping this continues as long as possible. That kind of writing comes easily to me, but I find books much harder, if only from the effort of keeping it all clear in my head for the weeks or months it takes to write. On the other hand, nothing beats the pleasure of having written a book once it's finished! The big question for me is whether I've got something to say that another author might not say in the same way. That was the case with Space Telescopes and the other books I've done so far, and I've got a few other ideas that I'll probably do at some point. But nothing I'm going to commit myself to yet!

What’s exciting you at the moment?

As I said a moment ago, I think there's a fair chance the discovery of alien life will be the next big thing in astronomy. That's always been an exciting if distant prospect, but it's only recently that the available hardware has swung the probabilities in its favour. Of course, I'd love the first discovery to be a message from an intelligent civilisation, but realistically we're probably talking about chemical signatures from much more primitive forms of life.


 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more