Did the James Webb Space Telescope Change Astrophysics? | 2024 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate

projects there? Are you done with James Webb, or is there more information you're waiting for or are you going to tell him to do? SOMERVILLE: Oh, James Webb isn't done at all. That's what's exciting. So it turns out that originally, Webb was designed to last five years. But the launch was so wonderful that we're now hopeful that Webb will last ten years, maybe even longer. Maybe even up to 20 years. TYSON: What...? I thought it's passively cold, so what would you be without... oh, it's the stability of its orbit? SOMERVILLE: It stands... exactly. Keeps the orbit stable.

Otherwise, it will move away and we will eventually lose the ability to communicate with it. So we need to stay in that nice orbit close enough to Earth that we can... TYSON: Just... I know it's a million miles away, but let's go over there and drag it back to where it should... .it's supposed to be! SOMERVILLE: Right. There are so many things we would love to do with this

telescope

. TYSON: Because, unlike Hubble, Webb can't be serviced. SOMERVILLE: Yes. Probably not. TYSON: I'm sorry. Unlike Hubble... SOMERVILLE: Not at this time. Humans. TYSON: No one is going to go a million miles from Earth.

SOMERVILLE: Humans cannot serve Webb. We may eventually be able to send a robotic mission to service Webb. TYSON: To drag it back to where it's supposed to be. SOMERVILLE: So there are some people who are thinking about that. TYSON: Okay. SOMERVILLE: But we want to look at much larger areas of the sky. We've only looked at very small areas of the sky, and some of these things we're seeing could just be flukes. We want to go much deeper than we predict and we should see many more objects that are even further away. TYSON: With the new models that take you there.

SOMERVILLE: As the models predict. And we want to get many more spectra, which will allow us to know how many heavy elements there are, are there hidden black holes? TYSON: You can say "metals." We've been through that. SOMERVILLE: Yes. TYSON: How many metals are there? Yes. SOMERVILLE: We speak the lingo. We should be able to see the signatures of growing black holes. So there are many, many interesting results ahead. TYSON: Beautiful. With that new understanding. Very cool. Well, keep it up. And now you're there full time. Previously at Rutgers, New Jersey. SOMERVILLE: Right. TYSON: Welcome to Manhattan.

SOMERVILLE: Thank you. TYSON: Flatiron Institute, because it's in the area of ​​the Flatiron Building, which is right there at 23rd and Broadway. SOMERVILLE: Twenty-third and Broadway is the Flatiron Building, but our building is actually on 21st Street. TYSON: Well, it's the Flatiron District, that's why you have it... SOMERVILLE: Right. TYSON: Okay. Well, welcome to town for that. SOMERVILLE: Thank you. TYSON: So, Michael. BOYLAN-KOLCHIN: Yes, sir. TYSON: Why are you looking at me like that? Like I'm... like... What kind of theory do you have left to do with pencil and paper, if most of the action is in models, simulations and data?

BOYLAN-KOLCHIN: I think it's a fair question. And there certainly isn't as much as there used to be. But I think there's always room to try to understand the basics. And when you add additional components of matter or energy, it really is: the laws of physics tell you that it is the energy content of the universe. controls the expansion rate. And then you can do this... well, maybe you don't need a million processors, you just need one processor. But you could just make a plot out of this. And that's basically a pencil and paper calculation to see how that affects the age of the universe.

How that affects the relationship. between the redshift at which we see something and the time we associate with that end of the universe. TYSON: So you're not using software or hardware, you're using wet software, the brain. BOYLAN-KOLCHIN: That's right. TYSON: I think it's wet software. Is it still called that? BOYLAN-KOLCHIN: I think so. TYSON: Alright, sounds good. Well, Wendy. Then, you will have the largest

telescope

in the country. FREEDMAN: I hope so. TYSON: And when will it be online? FREEDMAN: Well, that depends on the funding. So now funding is totally limited. The project has been reviewed, all technical milestones have been achieved.

The site has been leveled and the hard rock excavated. There are bedrooms there for people to work in and the mirrors have been melted down. So... TYSON: You're just waiting for money. FREEDMAN: We're waiting for money. TYSON: How much money do you need? FREEDMAN: A lot. TYSON: How much? BOYLAN-KOLCHIN: Who has a hat to give out? TYSON: We'll take the collection plate here. FREEDMAN: So... TYSON: Wouldn't that be... if in science we did that? Know? FREEDMAN: What? TYSON: Come hear a really cool project and we just sent a hat. So how do you... FREEDMAN: Well, no, I mean, the community has been very generous.

The astronomical community has benefited from private philanthropy. That's been true from the moment... TYSON: From the beginning. Oh yeah. Yes. FREEDMAN: Yes... TYSON: The Keck Telescope is private money. FREEDMAN: That's right. And Magellan's telescopes were private money, and a lot of... TYSON: Because telescopes have very long life expectancies, because we

change

d them, they're just buckets for collecting light. And the detector at the business end is what can improve over time, so you can have a telescope that you name at a naming opportunity in a decade, and it can still work well six or seven decades later.

FREEDMAN: And much of the funding for the Magellanic Giant comes from private philanthropy. TYSON: So how much more do you need? You have not answered my question. FREEDMAN: Approximately several hundred million dollars. That's a lot of money... TYSON: Not if you're... wait, how many? We have more billionaires than ever. That's lunch money for them. FREEDMAN: Can I get you ready? TYSON: Priya, I want you to take us as a student of philosophy and history of science. Where are we today in this field? Do you foresee that within five, ten or twenty years a completely new understanding of all this will emerge?

Or is this going to be tweaked and maybe there's just something different that we'll understand and connect to that broader, broader view of what's happening? NATARAJAN: Well, I like to think that this is just the beginning of a major kind of revolution that is going to completely transform our understanding. However, we have never been able to predict the future of science itself. I don't think Copernicus ever imagined, in 1543, that we would have the ability to make Voyager leave the solar system. So I'm not going to speculate exactly. But I'm going to enjoy the emotion of the moment.

I mean, these revolutions are simply remarkable. And to think that we, with this little gelatinous thing in our heads, helped by... TYSON: Talk about your own head. to NATARAJAN: Small head. You know, they are capable of discovering many things. I mean, it's amazing. I mean, I'm amazed by the universe and the capacity for collaboration and how science and reason has worked. It seems really incredible to me that there can be scientific denialism, taking all this into account. Good? TYSON: I didn't see him go there, but that's where he landed. Wow. Wow. Wow. Yes. That's why it's interesting that we can make these discoveries and people say, “I don't trust science.

I watched my YouTube and they didn't tell me not to trust scientists.” NATARAJAN: Correct. Good. TYSON: “They won't vaccinate me because they don't understand.” This continue. We live in that world. NATARAJAN: We live in that crazy world. TYSON: But you too. I'll end with these two questions. You're talking about our gelatinous brain. Are we genetically intelligent enough, as a species, to answer the questions we have raised about the universe? Or, even more so, are we smart enough to even know what questions to ask? NATARAJAN: Oh, I like that. That was a really beautiful second question. I think we... there's no reason...

TYSON: Or are we just touching the elephant? NATARAJAN: Correct. TYSON: And we'll never see the elephant, because we have no idea what we're touching. NATARAJAN: Correct. I think regardless of whether we as individuals have the ability, I think this is where AI is going to be interesting. It will increase our ability to understand, understand and assimilate a lot of information and data, and process it in the way we tell it to process it. TYSON: So, I like that. Therefore, a more sensible understanding of this would be AI-augmented intelligence, rather than artificial intelligence. NATARAJAN: Yes. Yes. And I think that's the way of the future, if we... you know, but on the other hand, something could explode, right?

This is science. We do not know. Something could fundamentally

change

. And maybe there is a way to improve ourselves cognitively and genetically. I don't know. I mean, you know? That is also possible. Good? TYSON: Hmm. NATARAJAN: You don't sound... TYSON: No, no. I... you know. Well. Only me- . NATARAJAN: Are you at a loss for words? TYSON: Yeah, yeah. I don't...yes. I don't want anyone playing inside my head. That's all. NATARAJAN: Oh, I see. TYSON: So. Just one last comment... oh Wendy, did you have a quick comment? FREEDMAN: So I love that we're on this philosophical curve and it's probably a good place to end.

But can I inject something practical that has to do with data, that... TYSON: Please. FREEDMAN: And JWST data. So our group right now, in these questions that we're discussing now, we have a JWST program to try to measure the expansion rate in three different ways, all in the same galaxies. And we have done something, we have blinded ourselves, literally. We take the data and add random numbers to the different catalogs, we encrypt those random numbers, so that no one in our group knows what the final answer will be. And we're doing all the analysis in this mode, just fake numbers are applied to the data so we don't know where it will end up.

It has not been applied to this program before. But we are this close to having an answer. And so, in three different ways... so, you know, all three will agree, they will not agree. Two could agree. I don't know which ones. But we will be able to do it very soon. And I'm really excited about this, because I don't know where it's going to end and it's going to be fun. TYSON: So, ways to test the integrity of your observation or your models. FREEDMAN: Yes. TYSON: Yes. Very very cool. Well, I like that, and I like the future, I like what I see here and what you have all said, and the angle with which you have approached the near and far universe.

I feel much more comfortable in this universe, hearing that we have really smart people on top of this situation. Please join me in thanking our panel.