Skip to main content

Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Halper - Five Way Interview

Niayesh Afshordi (left) is professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Waterloo and associate faculty at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, Canada. He was a consultant to PBS’s NOVA, and outlets including Scientific American, Science, the Guardian, and the New York Times have featured his work. Phil Halper is a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the creator of the popular YouTube series Before the Big Bang. His astronomy images have been featured in the Washington Post, the BBC, and the Guardian. Their book is Battle of the Big Bang.

Why cosmology?

Cosmology is the study of the universe, its distribution, its fate and origins. As a species we are fascinated by origins, we trace out family trees, treasure photos of the past and religious creation stories are ubiquitous across cultures. But with the dawn of twentieth century, it’s finally been possible to scientifically model the evolution of the cosmos and probe these deep question that we crave answers for. We’ve come a long way in our understanding but there’s still far to go. Surely nothing can be more tantalising than revealing the trigger of the Big Bang. 

Why this book?

The Big Bang is where perhaps the biggest gap exists between what the public think and what professional scientists accept. We are told that the Big Bang has proven a beginning of time or that it came from an infinitely dense singularity or even that it came from nothing. But science says none of these things. The Big Bang only says the universe was in a hot dense state some 14 billion years ago. What came before is an open question, one we try to address and explore. We wanted to show what was established about the Big Bang and what remains mysterious. To revel in the wonder of the different possible histories of the universe that cosmologists are imagining but to provide caution against false certainty.

Is a theory that will never be experimentally or observationally verified science at all?

It’s tempting to write a two letter answer to this question: No. However, it’s often the case that things are more complicated than they seem. What is at stake is a tricky philosophical question called the demarcation problem. How do we tell science from non-science? A lot of physicists believe this was solved by Sir Karl Popper who suggested that a theory is scientific if it can be falsified by some imaginable experiment. But many philosophers think this is overly simplistic. Any theory can be saved from falsification by adding an auxiliary hypothesis, how do we know if the auxiliary hypothesis is reasonable or not? If a theory isn't testable now, does that mean it never will be? After all, when Aristarchus suggested the heliocentric model, he couldn't have possibly imagined that it would be tested by a telescope thousands of years later. How do we develop theories so that they are testable if we banish ones that are not yet so? Speculation is part of science, and we should embrace it, but at the same time we must not mistake speculation as fact. Only theories that are thoroughly tested can be admitted into our cathedral of scientific knowledge, but that doesn't mean those that haven’t aren’t legitimate parts of the discourse. Ultimately, science as Feynman put it, is 'imagination in a straight jacket' a straight jacket made of observational data. 

What’s next?

For us, writing the book was a wonderful but lengthy process. Perhaps we will do another, but there will certainly be a break. How long that would be might depend on how well The Battle of the Big Bang is received. So, if you want more, post those 5 star reviews! 

What’s exciting you at the moment?

There are so many existing new developments in cosmology and fundamental physics it’s hard to know where to start. From the Hubble tension to the possibility that dark energy might not be a constant after all, to new telescopes like Euclid, Roman, Event Horizon, Sphere X and many more. But for us the most exciting thing is the new window to the universe revealed by gravitational wave astronomy. This has the potential to probe black holes, maybe even finding echoes from the abyss, the quantum hearts of these astrophysical monsters. More importantly, the Big Bang may have emitted gravitational waves that future probes could detect and perhaps distinguish between the models we examine,  revealing  a winner in The Battle of the Big Bang. 

Images by University of Waterloo and Monica Halper

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:


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

God: the Science, the Evidence - Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies ***

This is, to say the least, an oddity, but a fascinating one. A translation of a French bestseller, it aims to put forward an examination of the scientific evidence for the existence of a deity… and various other things, as this is a very oddly structured book (more on that in a moment). In The God Delusion , Richard Dawkins suggested that we should treat the existence of God as a scientific claim, which is exactly what the authors do reasonably well in the main part of the book. They argue that three pieces of scientific evidence in particular are supportive of the existence of a (generic) creator of the universe. These are that the universe had a beginning, the fine tuning of natural constants and the unlikeliness of life.  To support their evidence, Bolloré and Bonnassies give a reasonable introduction to thermodynamics and cosmology. They suggest that the expected heat death of the universe implies a beginning (for good thermodynamic reasons), and rightly give the impression tha...
Post a Comment
Read more