Science models the physical world, as based upon our experience,
so that we can change the world with minimal effort. By that, I mean it is
easier to draft engineering schematics for building a bridge, than to just start
fitting pieces of steel together.
Science is also explanatory. On the one hand, the engineering
plans for the Golden Gate bridge (near where I live in San Francisco) can tell
me how the bridge works, but if I want to know why it works, I
must study calculus and physics and chemistry, etc. My scientific quest will
lead me to more fundamental models, such as the study of gravity (it keeps the
bridge in place, eh?), and quantum mechanics (it binds the elements of the
bridge together). And then I will find myself teetering on the edge of knowledge
and speculation: looking for a theory of quantum gravity.
I am confident, by the way, that one day life forms (not
necessarily humans) will construct a model of the universe that is as logical as
the schematics for the Golden Gate Bridge. But it is unlikely that there will
ever be an end to life’s quest for the ultimate model, simply because we (our
senses, our brainpans) cannot interface with everything … and here is where
philosophy intrudes.
Why this
book?
As an investigative journalist (with a bent for the absurd), I
initially began researching the material that became The Many Worlds of Hugh
Everett III: Multiple Universes, Mutual Assured Destruction, and the Meltdown of
a Nuclear Family because I thought Rolling Stone would buy a story
about a rock singer with a weird physicist dad, (Everett’s son, Mark of the band
Eels). Rolling Stone turned me down (too much “science,” the editor
said), as did about a dozen other newsy-cultural magazines. So, almost as a joke
I pitched it to the editors of Scientific American, and, remarkably, they
commissioned me to write a profile of Everett III (not caring much about his
rock singer son, or so they said). It turned out, though, that what makes both
the article and the book work for many people is the emotional connection
between the rock singer and his strange, brilliant, dead father.
Anyway, I had to learn something about quantum mechanics (not
being mathematical, I concentrated on its history and interpretation). And I
found a lot of new material about the Cold War in various archives, research
that was necessary because—Everett had made his living designing the targeting
algorithms for World War Fini. And the sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll parts wrote
themselves.
One thing lead to another and one day, I had an actual science
book weighing down my hands. Its shocking, really. Don’t quite understand how it
happened. And, some days, if it happened at all.
What’s next?
I am curating Everett’s scientific papers, which I found in his
son’s basement in some cardboard boxes. Princeton University Press has
commissioned myself and Prof. Jeff Barrett, of the Dept. of Logic & the
Philosophy of Science at the University of California, Irvine, to put together
an annotated collection of Everett’s works. We are also putting scans of his
work, including handwritten drafts of the original thesis about multiple
universes on line, with support from the National Science Foundation. Perhaps
some enterprising physicists will read the old drafts and figure out some of the
loose ends in Everett’s theory.
I think the story about Everett will make a great feature film,
too.
What’s
exciting you at the moment?
I have been doing some
investigative work, exposing corrupt practices in government, industry, academia
etc. That pays the bills. But I am now hooked on the philosophy of science,
mostly foundational physics, and I’d like to write a readable book on how the
“furniture of the world” (as the philosophers say) is represented in science.
But, since you asked about
“excitement,” I am excited to be alive and thriving in our world, even though
that is dying carbon atom by carbon atom.
However, if I
believed in the Many Worlds Theory (and I do not see any reason to demand the
existence of only one universe!), then I would feel better about reality,
since if everything that is physically possible occurs, as Everett maintained,
then things are looking up … somewhere.
DISCLAIMERS
This site has no connection with Popular
Science magazine or other sites and publications with a similar name.
Much of the content of this site is written
by popular science writers or friends of popular science writers. Inevitably
many of the reviews in such a small community are written by or about
someone we know. We always aim to be impartial in our reviews, but there is
a connection which we need make clear, as there is no intention to deceive.
The content of any review or article is solely the opinion of the author and
should not be read or understood on any other basis. The site exists to
promote popular science writing and popular science authors and for this
reason should be considered promotional material, just as the editorial
reviews in an online bookshop or the blurb on the back of a book should be
considered promotional.
The website should not be eaten or used
where it can come into contact with water.
Disagree with our review?
Want to comment on a feature? Contact us at
info@
popularscience.co.uk
- have your say!
Home Authors
Books
Subjects
Events
Software
Features
Links
Newsletter
Gifts
Blog
Write
Review What's New
Four Way Interview -
Peter Byrne
- May 2010