Skip to main content

Jason Steffen - Five way interview

Jason Steffen is associate professor of physics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. A longtime science team member of NASA’s Kepler mission, he has contributed to the discovery and characterisation of thousands of planets that orbit distant stars. His new book is Hidden in the Heavens.

Why astronomy?

I originally wanted to be an aerospace engineer to design and build airplanes.  My undergraduate institution didn't have aerospace engineering:  I took an astronomy class my first quarter, and decided to major in physics.  My degrees are in physics rather than astronomy, but my research is all on topics related to astronomy in one way or another. 

For a period of time after graduate school I did experimental physics research on dark matter and dark energy.  I was working at a national laboratory, a big atom smasher outside of Chicago, called Fermilab.  At the same time that I was doing this work for Fermilab, I also worked for NASA on the Kepler mission to find exoplanets.  Half my salary came from one project, the other half from the other.  It was pretty intense, but I learned a lot.  Eventually, I decided that I needed to stick with one research area and chose to stick with exoplanets. 

Why this book?

For a long time I've been interested in writing a book.  I enjoy explaining the things that we've collectively learned and how we learned them.  It had been just over a decade since the original Kepler mission launched, so it was far enough in the past that we could give a decent assessment of what its significance was, but not so far in the past that everyone was retired or dead.  So, I still had access to my colleagues, as well as a copy of all of the emails that were shared among our working group.  It seemed that the time was right to tell the story of the mission.

We’ve now discovered thousands of exoplanets - are we still finding anything new and unexpected?

A lot of exoplanet science has moved on from discovering new systems (although that still happens).  Today, our advances often happen in characterizing the properties of those planets.  Measuring their masses, the composition of their atmospheres, the nature of the planetary system that they live within, the properties of the star that they orbit, etc.  We are learning a lot about how the sizes of different planets in a given system, and their orbits, relate to each other and what that implies for their histories, and the history of the solar system.

We also have instruments, like the James Webb Space Telescope, where we can see the different chemicals that are in the atmospheres of these planets.  That tells us about the conditions where they formed, and whether or not their surfaces might be conducive for life to exist.  Each day there are a dozen or so new papers that share new results, so there is still consistent progress in a number of areas.

What’s next?

 In exoplanets, there is ongoing work with the TESS mission (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite).  That is discovering new systems on a regular basis.  There are also plans to launch the PLATO mission, which is a successor to Kepler, this time led by the European Space Agency.  Another satellite, the Nancy Grace Roman Telescope, led by NASA will be able to detect a lot of planets across our galaxy that we currently don't have the capability to see.  So, the field of exoplanets is not slowing down any time soon.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

My current research is looking at the chemical composition of the planets themselves, not their atmospheres, but their interiors.  Planets form in a disk of material that orbits the newborn star.  As that disk cools, different minerals condense and rain down to the disk midplane where they ultimately form the building blocks of planets.  My group models the condensation of those different minerals so that we can predict what the planets will be made of.

My group also developed computer software that models the internal structure of planets given their composition.  So, we can take the output of our predictions for the composition of the planets, and then turn it into real planets using this other software.  (We called the software MAGRATHEA, after the planet in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where planets are made to order.)  Ultimately, we are trying to predict the details of what exoplanets are like, and the conditions under which they formed.

Photograph (c) Robert Royer III

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
Interview by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...

When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows: Steven Pinker *****

In the past I've found Steven Pinker's books hypnotic - I drift along enjoying the words and feeling I'm getting something deep from it without anything much sinking in. This one was different - it was sometimes a little harder to get your head around the underlying concept, descending as it tends to into infinite regression, but overall I did feel I'd gained a lot.  Pinker's focus here is 'common knowledge' which is when not only do we both/all know something, but we know that the other(s) know as well and the implications this has for human interactions. One entertaining thing to emerge from this is the ability to get into infinite loops of the 'I know that you know that I know that...' variety. Although we aren't mentally equipped to deal with more than a handful of iterations, we are told that a simple but limited interaction like a text exchange strictly needs the full infinite set to be definitive. For example, if you and a friend are tryin...