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:

Buy me a coffee
Interview by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 â€˜Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more