Skip to main content

Paul Halpern - Five Way Interview

Paul Halpern is a professor of physics at Saint Joseph's University and the author of 18 popular science books, including Collider, Flashes of Creation, The Quantum Labyrinth, Einstein's Dice and Schrödinger's Cat, and Synchronicity. He is the recipient of a Guggenheim fellowship and is a fellow of the American Physical Society. He lives near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. His latest title is The Allure of the Multiverse.

Why science?

Science embodies humanity’s longstanding passion to understand its world and to probe its frontiers.  Ancient peoples looked to the stars and strived to decipher celestial patterns, with the aim of not only predicting astral occurrences, but also trying to comprehend the fundaments of nature and how it affects human lives.  As science developed, humankind’s knowledge of the world and its vital laws grew, along with a greater sense of its barriers and limitations. Interest in multiverse ideas bears on the question of whether or not science is willing to intuit what lies beyond those frontiers, without the prospect of direct observation, with the goal of potentially obtaining a more complete theory of the measurable, observable universe.

Why this book?

Noting the increased mention of the term “multiverse” in the media, I set out to learn everything I could about the history of the topic, and current controversies surrounding it.  In my research, involving numerous interviews and looks at oral histories, I was struck by the stark contradictions in physicists’ views of what is genuine science and what is simply too wild to be discussed.  For example, some researchers dismiss eternal inflation, but advocate instead for the collision of membranes in a higher dimension. Such judgements often seem to be a matter of taste, rather than strict rules about direct measurability.

You present a balanced view in the book: what is your own position on the MWI, a multiverse driven by eternal inflation and the string theory landscape?

My personal view on multiverse theories is that we must strive to exhaust all testable possibilities before reluctantly taking steps that involve elements that are not directly detectable.  Therefore, regarding quantum measurement, it would be wonderfully if scientists developed a complete portrait of spontaneous localization of observables that explain measurements of parameters as distinct as spin and position, yet we are not there yet.  In lieu of that, the MWI has value as a potential alternative.  Similarly, if cosmologists proved that inflation occurs only once, for our own universe, there would be no need for a bubble multiverse.  However, on the contrary, as Andrei Linde showed, inflation seems to be relatively simple to trigger.  Finally, while I think we should remain open-minded to string theory, we must also continue to explore models of quantum gravity that don’t necessitate such a mind-boggling large landscape of possibilities.

What’s next?

I am currently preparing a talk about J. Robert Oppenheimer, John Wheeler, and the golden age of general relativity for the April Meeting of the American Physical Society.  The talk will be in a session honouring the work of the accomplished astrophysicist and historian of science Virginia Trimble, who recently won the Pais Prize for the History of Physics.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

I am thrilled that the history of science and culture has been honoured by recent films such as Oppenheimer and Maestro, both of which I enjoyed very much.  I would very much like to see an increased emphasis in society on scientific and cultural achievements, including greater recognition of new artists and musicians who are blazing novel trails in their fields. 

Photograph © St Joseph's University


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