ASTRONOMICAL AWESOMENESS 
- Why do we ask why?
Speakers include: Cheryl Praeger (UWA), Carley Tillett (Scitech), Carmelo Amalfi (Murdoch) and Megan Argo (Curtin).
Hello and we’re starting – it’s probably about as crowded as it was last time, which means pretty packed! Our host, the very lovely and vibrant Renae, how is mentioning that all the shows are podcasted. She came over and said hello to both myself and @Grendels (apparently she read the last blog post that I did of the session? Cool!)
The people that will be talking about why we search – Prof Megan Argo of Curtin, the ‘ultimate ask-the-astronomer’. Cheryl Praeger, a mathematician and WA Scientist of the Year too! Carmelo Almafi, a science communicator, journalist and ‘media junkie’; Carley Tillet of SciTech who creates the ‘awe inspiring visualisations’. (You read that right – three are women!)
Starting with the astronomer Megan Argo, who describes herself as someone ‘who enjoys watching seeing galaxies explode’. She asks about people with kids and the ‘why game’… (oh man…).
As a scientist she ‘plays the same game – but with bigger toys‘. Science is about answering the questions, in her case, about galaxies and stars (with bigger and more expensive toys). Has been a standard in human history, the question about a grander scheme of things, for a long time. She mentions the S.K.A, the LHC, et al. Does this take away the ‘magic’ behind it all? She says no. ‘There’s so much more out there that we can look at.’
‘Up until last week, we thought 150 times the mass of the sun, was as large as stars could get. Last week, some people at Sheffield found some 300x the mass of the sun!’ We’ve always tried to explore things, and that’s the point of experiments. An eagerness for the S.K.A, as these kinds of technologies end up with finding out things that they never realised they could find. So, that’s why she does as she does.
Cheryl Praeger – she thought rather literally about the ‘awesome way that we have the ability to live and explore and understand the world’ – so, she went for navigation, as a mathematician. An astronomer, Wright, accompanied the explorers to the Azores in the time of Queen Elizabeth, to find out how to get maps accurate enough – that was at the end of the 16th century. There’s heaps of maths in astronomy, and she points out that a lot of innovative maths help us measure the universe. Sometimes the ‘why’ is rather obvious – Queen Elizabeth did it for tactical reasons. The Internet, very much depended upon, has produced new mathematical challenges. We have a new area called the ‘topology of the internet’ and that helps us to find out how to search efficiently. Her research area is the field of symmetry and she gives a basic overview of some of the progressions in economics and geology (she has four more minutes left! She’s doing a bit of a history lesson and paper flies out everywhere).
‘I can’t help it – I just do and never stop… if I see the suggestion of some beautiful structure, I’ll pull out all stops to prove it,‘ she concludes. Very cool. She mentions the necessity of pooling expertise and working with colleagues to solve problems. The why? Always almost involves people with a common goal.
Carmelo Almalfi - why ask why? He has two answers – one is ‘because we can’ and the other? ‘Because we should’. As a journalist 20 years ago, there were a great many unanswered questions, and thinking of the changes that have taken place during that time, the question why has not lessened in importance. He’s not a scientist, but a science communicator – and explaining to editors about the reason why to publish findings is really tough. He mentions hearing about the first planet that they thought might feature life and with two hours to go, wanted to hold the front page. How much that cost and how much effort that took was significant. When you make sure there’s a correct number of a ’0′ in the writing up of a few light-years is as important as anything.
‘The voyagers have left Mars – we’re possibly going to land on something new – that’s the point – because we can do these things. It’s there and because we can. The S.K.A program is taking astronomy to a new resolution (bad pun alert!!!) – and we can all be interested, if not just involved.’
Carley Tillett - thirty years ago, Sagan and co would say we are ‘children of the stars!’ – but where the hell is Australia and where’s our level of participation? What happened to us going out into space and the endeavor of Australians being explorers?
She points out that we don’t have a space agency. She doesn’t even think many realise this – that NASA isn’t ours! Every day we see research from all the other countries… but not Australia! She considers this one of the biggest travesties, and she thinks more about how we could just could tell 100 and they’d pass it on – we don’t have such an agency.
Why is that important? She likes to think we could look further. The gains from investing could help us on earth. We are VERY good at mining and supporting mineral investigations – why not exploit that and allow the next generation something more to aspire to that is out in space. She mentions Prof Steve Smith and how he talked about how our mineral wealth is finite – particularly the precious elements. With only 20 years left of extraction, what next? Compare to NASA, where there are certain countries are stockpiling rare minerals and it’s going to be harder to get solar panels and electric cars. Instead of being set on earth, to use what’s in space instead – which is where Australia’s talents in mining can be used.
About now Grendels makes the following Tweet… pictured… which gets a laugh…
AND SHE READS IT! Ooops. This fires her up to refer to the documentation she carries with her!
Immediately she seizes her handbag and refers to ‘Section Five – by memory!’ – “Lost in Space: Setting a New Direction”, a Senate report! ‘They know we’re lost in space! They know we’re going nowhere!’ With about 100 pages, it documents the economic gain from space and this amazing knowledge that constantly moves overseas. We’re talking about a multi-trillion billion dollar economy and how an economy similar to ours (Canada) shows that there’s something that we could better spend our money on. Not a space policy unit, she argues – Australia NEEDS a Space Agency!
She refers to the changes on www.Space.Gov.Au (which she also keeps in her handbag!). It USED to just be a list of fifteen links! That was it! Now there’s a proper picture – but still, what could be done by Australia, rather than just developing a website a little better? She points out that people can apply for a five million dollar grant to collaborate with research institutions, and yet she suspects that people don’t know about it! (Could SciTech use it?)
Just in case, on the off-chance, she encourages people to check it out and put in an application. This is only seed funding, while NASA is going to asteroids and doing it now – what a waste if Australia is left behind, as there isn’t the same kind of collaboration unless you have a Space Agency. Therefore – ‘space is awesome, especially if you get to go there!’
A question from the audience that she answers – near-earth asteroids are the next goal by NASA; the goal is to look up and find out about them that could be hazardous and send possible astronauts and maybe mine them. Eventually – Mars? They briefly mention that the S.K.A will not be likely to give us answers about the potential for alien life and there’s also a short discussion about the L.H.C and what it might do and how it’s about the Big Bang and may pose some answers in that regard.
Tillett, in response to a question about the Higgs Boson / God Particle and whether it is like a philosophical or religious quest – knowing that we don’t know everything is quite important – and there’s a filling of a void of our understanding with a variety of things. People seem to need to have a desire to know and hopefully the philosophy won’t stop asking why. Praeger adds that we should never stop asking why. Grendels argues (via Twitter) that it is more of a profound consequence for physics, not philosophy.
How can we best convey an interest and an excitement? Amalfi suggests National Science week and the contacting of events and scientists (particularly universities), not just MPs. ‘Just keep asking’. Argo mentions Galaxy Zoo and SETI at Home (there’s an interview I’ve conducted with Dr Pamela Gay about Galaxy Zoo on the Skeptic Zone podcast).
Question from audience: given 75% is either dark energy or matter… what’s the difference between belief in this and belief in God? Apparently, according to Argo, there’s ‘more evidence for dark energy/matter’ (the audience goes ‘Ooooo!’). Perhaps it might not be what they think – we don’t know all the answers. But on God? ‘I’m not qualified to comment…‘
How does one deal with astrologers, asks an audience member – how does one deal with pseudoscience of that kind? Argo makes an Ophiuchus joke and point out that the midwife has more of an influence. Certainly, there’s opportunities at astronomy centres for people to learn more, says Tillett. She also hopes people are going to be involved in the future looking for asteroids and how sad that talent in Australia goes overseas. She’s very passionate about how we have developing countries that know more than us in regards to efforts in space. They question our own spending habits and where it could be better used.
Argo agrees that the S.K.A is a big project $3 billion dollars by consortiums. But Australians spent 9.6 billion on gambling! She suggests perspective. While charity is certainly worthy and needs to be done, she doubts that money that could be used for science would really be used in such a fashion. Almalfi says that to go physically into space is where he draws the line and he thinks it is ‘ridiculous’ and that we’re ahead of ourselves. Why bother? We need to not put the risk on our bodies in such a fashion. ‘Should we just trust robotics?’ asks SciTech host, Renae and there’s a varied reaction.
We are introduced to ‘laser-beam eyes!’ and how it measures the composition of rocks! About then, the notion of Justin Bieber going into space distracts us via TweetStream. But why wouldn’t we use these kinds of technologies be used in collaborations to help learn more about space? I think she’s mentioned ‘space agency’ about five times already. ‘We may as well have an Australian flag on it!’
Someone asks about private space industry – why? Not answered! Just ‘it has to be government’.
Do scientists engage with the general public enough and should they continue to be funded, asks an audience member? We can’t say in the long term that human space exploration shouldn’t be done, they challenge Almalfi and they make the analogy to the traditional explorers of the seas (although referring to astronomers as ‘retired people’ is a little odd!!). Accountability as well as communication, says Praeger, is done via research councils and so forth. We have to try to have that kind of communication. (At the same time, @Grendels asks @Astro_Soichi his opinion whether space exploration is worth it!)
The asking why and the needing to act is being raised too – is there any ethical boundaries? Praeger says that these issues are mirrored in ethics committees and all scientific experiments that involve animals or humans have to go through these. Tillett points out that the risks are known, the same way explorers go to the Arctic – the best is to ask that it’s done wisely, with enough money to make it safe and go to near-earth asteroids instead. ‘I don’t believe any space agency would be ridiculous about risk’. Someone else Tweets that it is a ‘purely technological challenge that can be overcome with enough research, it’s not a deal-breaker’. Praeger continues that science is always developing.
Again, an audience member asks about how to be active and express an opinion, especially to politicians. Tillett gets excited about what potential funding could go to – Tillett says put it into training and encouraging teachers and that there’s such a demand for maths and science in the workplace that there’s not enough in schools! Argo mentions how she was inspired when she was five and how it’s also an issue in the UK.
Tillett wants to just MOVE SCITECH as it’s so small a venue!! Especially promote the hands-on factor and how with the new National Curriculum, they could cater to that – and also how funding has to continue on for over ten years, just to maintain things. ‘Stars and Dinosaurs!’ says Almalfi and how there should be monuments to both. How soon until space exploration isn’t $250 grand a person to give it a go (such as Virgin spacecraft and only for a few hours?). Tillett believes that the first few flights are sold out – and maybe the cheapness of future space exploration worries her as all the agencies have had strong and strict controls and perhaps the dollar rather than the research might change things.
Should the more regular travel be privatised and exploration be government? Tillett says that’s what’s happened with NASA and the commercialisation of low-earth orbit has happened. Lockheed-Martin will most likely be such a privatised group. ‘If people are willing to pay for it, why shouldn’t they’, asks Argo (about now, Grendels starts to talk in Russian! :p ). Tillett promotes her ‘crazy nuts’ enthusiasm for a Space station, as ‘perhaps we DON’T belong there, as it’d be so wrong that it’d be right!!’
The idea of sentient beings in space and robots – perhaps sentient beings? The idea of the role for robots should be shared with humans, argues Tillett. The end of the earth eventually, points out Argos, so we may as well go into space – just after Renae jokes about conceiving in space and giving birth on Mars. Argos discusses how some of the maths (such as multiple universes and the singularity), while is theoretical in the maths that Praeger uses, is still not achievable.
There’s a core group of science communicators and journalists, says Almalfi, who says that there’s more science in the media (and not just media, but the internet) – anything goes, you can search and check what you like – the problem is that if you go to the internet and you look for credible, useful information that is funded by governments and industry, there’s more responsibility in the correct articulation by journalistic ethics which that may not exist in a competitive area and a need to sell a story. He doesn’t think that a blog measures up, ‘unless they are a person who talks to a scientist every day’ – and that he never takes what he does as a journalist lightly. Science can be very objective, he says.
Are scientists more accountable than journalists? Grendels tweets. Praeger talks about how expertise has changed, how policy has changed over time – but there’s peer-review requirements that may not have the same priorities in communicating in other ways? ‘Behavior has to be changed by what’s valued by the community.’
Are media releases made by departments and are they potentially damaging, asks Tillett? Praeger says that even grant-writing has changed, and what the outcomes might be – to make it much more… (‘Sexier?’ asks Renae!) … easily communicated. Almalfi says that journalists are sensitive in terms of getting info from scientists and will rather try to get a phone-call instead of relying on a paper release. “Journalists need to find the scientists and find the research paper they need – re: peer review, it’s sensitive for journalists too, as the lingo is tough and if it goes over my head, I’ll go to the scientist and ask for layman’s terms”.
Argos says that it used to be frowned on, to be a science communicator. And how Sagan wasn’t seen as ‘serious’ – but now grant application asks that a certain percent, even a small amount, is about the requirement to have an abstract to get it across clearly in layman’s terms for press requirements. She does a lot of public communications and the press releases are freely available; however, the original papers aren’t as easy to get access or even understand. She is grateful for the journalists who can ‘bridge the gap’. Would we as tax payers like to know more about what is going into science? 2%? Higher? The audience agrees!
Well, it’s the end of the evening, my battery is running out… the last questioner says that he has doubts whether if oil and gas can get it right, whether space exploration will be done right as well? Almalfi says ‘Give that man a cigar!‘ while Tillett says that ‘we can make ways to get close, at the very least – move forward and up!’
An audience member finishes with ‘we can’t even cure the common cold – the challenges and how to address them will have a lot of flow-on effects that will benefit us in ways – and it’s worth finding out’.
A great free night out, thanks very much SciTech!
You must log in to post a comment.