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
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