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 Decline and Fall of the Human Empire - Henry Gee ****

In his last book, Henry Gee impressed with his A (Very) Short History of Life on Earth - this time he zooms in on one very specific aspect of life on Earth - humans - and gives us not just a history, but a prediction of the future - our extinction. The book starts with an entertaining prologue, to an extent bemoaning our obsession with dinosaurs, a story that leads, inexorably towards extinction. This is a fate, Gee points out, that will occur for every species, including our own. We then cover three potential stages of the rise and fall of humanity (the book's title is purposely modelled on Gibbon) - Rise, Fall and Escape. Gee's speciality is palaeontology and in the first section he takes us back to explore as much as we can know from the extremely patchy fossil record of the origins of the human family, the genus Homo and the eventual dominance of Homo sapiens , pushing out any remaining members of other closely related species. As we move onto the Fall section, Gee gives ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Autobiography – Charles Darwin ****

I have to confess to putting off reading this book until the last moment, as I expected it to be a typical piece of Victorian sentimental unreadable stodge. I was wrong. Darwin’s little book (only 150 small pages with appendices) was originally written for his own children, and displays a very personal style of writing – though, as son Francis comments, his style was always more populist than was common then: “In writing he sometimes showed the same strong tendency to strong expressions that he did in conversation. Thus in the Origin, p440, there is a description of a larvel [sic] cirripede ‘with six pairs of beautifully constructed natatory legs, a pair of magnificent compound eyes and extremely complex antennae’. We used to laugh at him for this sentence, which we compared to an advertisement.” The main book is delightful because it demonstrates Darwin’s self-depreciating modesty, and the fascinating path he took from enthusiastic shooter of game, to amateur geologist (still his...
Post a Comment
Read more

Zero Degrees of Empathy [The Science of Evil] – Simon Baron-Cohen ***

I’ve been a real fan of previous books by Simon Baron-Cohen like  The Essential Difference , so opening this was one was a pleasant prospect. What I found was a book that wasn’t  bad … but that could have been a lot better. I got the impression of a book that had been rushed out without a lot of work going into it. The thesis at the heart of the book – that one of the important ‘circuits’ of the brain is the one dealing with empathy, and that individuals sit on an empathy spectrum, with some residing at zero degrees of empathy – is an interesting one. Baron-Cohen introduces us to three key personality types he defines as ‘zero-negative’ including psychopaths, plus types that are ‘zero-positive’ like those with Asperger’s. In a way both of these definitions are odd, in that his zero-negatives can actually have a lot of the kind of empathy that involves being able to read another person’s emotional state, and his zero-negatives can have a lot of the kind of empathy i...
Post a Comment
Read more