34 minutes ago
https://aeon.co/essays/why-astrophysics-...-questions
EXCERPTS: Some questions are elevated to the status of ‘Big Questions’ to which all others inevitably become subordinate. But are these Big Questions necessarily the right ones? Who decides where to draw the boundaries between signal and nuisance, or big and small?
ields of enquiry are defined by the questions they seek to answer. If we want to understand modern astrophysics, it is not enough to understand the scientific and mathematical content of its theories. We also need to understand the human forces that shape the questions themselves and cause some questions to be prioritised, and other questions to be viewed as irrelevant or merely means to those bigger ends.
[...] To identify the Big Questions that dominate the field, you need look no further than the flagship projects set to shape the discipline for decades. These include the Square Kilometre Array Observatory, the James Webb Space Telescope, the Vera C Rubin Observatory, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. Each of these projects will cost several billion dollars over its lifetime.
[...] On that list, the early Universe, gravitational waves, dark energy and cosmology are all listed before stars, the interstellar medium and the origins of life. The official page for the much-covered James Webb Space Telescope similarly lists the early Universe – the ‘cosmic dawn’ – before more prosaic matters such as stars, planets and dust. Such priorities are often reflected in media coverage of these projects, which further shape perceptions among young researchers, politicians, funders and the general public about which questions matter most.
The boundaries between the big and small questions often fall along the lines between ‘fundamental’ physics and ‘messy’ astrophysics. [...] Particle physics enjoys a kind of mythical status in popular culture as the apex of the natural sciences. ... This hierarchy, which ranks fundamental physics above all else, is a historical contingency. Over the course of the second half of the 20th century, astronomy transformed from a distinct discipline into a sub-discipline of physics.
[...] Today, this ‘physicisation’ of astronomy has left a deep imprint on the cultural norms of the discipline. Modern astrophysics is characterised by massive, hyper-centralised international collaborations, and an often tacit belief that ‘fundamental’ physics sits at the top of the scientific pyramid, while the questions of real ‘astrophysics’ are mere nuisances.
This ideological elevation of the fundamental over the particular is evident in the architecture of modern big-data astronomy. The past few decades have been characterised by experiments yielding massive volumes of data. Yet, these pipelines are not neutral data-gathering machines; indeed, their very design reflects and reinforces the institutional bias towards astrophysics as a barrier to fundamental truth. The logic is that, with enough data, the rich and diverse astrophysical phenomena that manifest in particular cosmic environments can be statistically modelled and averaged away, leaving only what is fundamental.
[...] This is not a problem if your goal is simply to account for complex astrophysics in massive data sets to infer the underlying fundamental physics. These models are, after all, exceptional at identifying and correcting for subtle correlations in the data. But if your goal is to understand the complex physics of the astrophysical phenomena themselves, the benefit is less obvious.
Thus, modern astrophysics appears to be oriented towards a paradigm of modelling massive data sets to uncover fundamental constants. This paradigm is mutually reinforced by the questions that are institutionally prioritised and the tools used to answer them. However, this loop of reinforcement can create an illusion of field-wide consensus around what the most important questions are, which obscures the daily realities of many working astronomers.
[...] Astronomy has a unique place among the natural sciences. Its immediate practical benefits are limited – especially the further away from Earth you go. It’s hard to imagine a detailed understanding of galaxy evolution directly leading to some technological benefit in any foreseeable timeline. Yet astronomy excites the public imagination like no other science. It’s not because astronomy has the potential to uncover new physics at high energy scales. It’s because we, as a species, have always looked up to try to understand our place in the Universe.
[...] Ultimately, the priorities of a field are not immutable facts but a choice. Shifting priorities need not be seen as a crisis, but as an opportunity to ask ourselves why we study what we study in the first place – an opportunity to make different choices that better align with those reasons. Astronomers, then, have an opportunity to reorient the priorities of the field away from a reductionist view of physics, and to reclaim the value of the nuisance. (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPTS: Some questions are elevated to the status of ‘Big Questions’ to which all others inevitably become subordinate. But are these Big Questions necessarily the right ones? Who decides where to draw the boundaries between signal and nuisance, or big and small?
ields of enquiry are defined by the questions they seek to answer. If we want to understand modern astrophysics, it is not enough to understand the scientific and mathematical content of its theories. We also need to understand the human forces that shape the questions themselves and cause some questions to be prioritised, and other questions to be viewed as irrelevant or merely means to those bigger ends.
[...] To identify the Big Questions that dominate the field, you need look no further than the flagship projects set to shape the discipline for decades. These include the Square Kilometre Array Observatory, the James Webb Space Telescope, the Vera C Rubin Observatory, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. Each of these projects will cost several billion dollars over its lifetime.
[...] On that list, the early Universe, gravitational waves, dark energy and cosmology are all listed before stars, the interstellar medium and the origins of life. The official page for the much-covered James Webb Space Telescope similarly lists the early Universe – the ‘cosmic dawn’ – before more prosaic matters such as stars, planets and dust. Such priorities are often reflected in media coverage of these projects, which further shape perceptions among young researchers, politicians, funders and the general public about which questions matter most.
The boundaries between the big and small questions often fall along the lines between ‘fundamental’ physics and ‘messy’ astrophysics. [...] Particle physics enjoys a kind of mythical status in popular culture as the apex of the natural sciences. ... This hierarchy, which ranks fundamental physics above all else, is a historical contingency. Over the course of the second half of the 20th century, astronomy transformed from a distinct discipline into a sub-discipline of physics.
[...] Today, this ‘physicisation’ of astronomy has left a deep imprint on the cultural norms of the discipline. Modern astrophysics is characterised by massive, hyper-centralised international collaborations, and an often tacit belief that ‘fundamental’ physics sits at the top of the scientific pyramid, while the questions of real ‘astrophysics’ are mere nuisances.
This ideological elevation of the fundamental over the particular is evident in the architecture of modern big-data astronomy. The past few decades have been characterised by experiments yielding massive volumes of data. Yet, these pipelines are not neutral data-gathering machines; indeed, their very design reflects and reinforces the institutional bias towards astrophysics as a barrier to fundamental truth. The logic is that, with enough data, the rich and diverse astrophysical phenomena that manifest in particular cosmic environments can be statistically modelled and averaged away, leaving only what is fundamental.
[...] This is not a problem if your goal is simply to account for complex astrophysics in massive data sets to infer the underlying fundamental physics. These models are, after all, exceptional at identifying and correcting for subtle correlations in the data. But if your goal is to understand the complex physics of the astrophysical phenomena themselves, the benefit is less obvious.
Thus, modern astrophysics appears to be oriented towards a paradigm of modelling massive data sets to uncover fundamental constants. This paradigm is mutually reinforced by the questions that are institutionally prioritised and the tools used to answer them. However, this loop of reinforcement can create an illusion of field-wide consensus around what the most important questions are, which obscures the daily realities of many working astronomers.
[...] Astronomy has a unique place among the natural sciences. Its immediate practical benefits are limited – especially the further away from Earth you go. It’s hard to imagine a detailed understanding of galaxy evolution directly leading to some technological benefit in any foreseeable timeline. Yet astronomy excites the public imagination like no other science. It’s not because astronomy has the potential to uncover new physics at high energy scales. It’s because we, as a species, have always looked up to try to understand our place in the Universe.
[...] Ultimately, the priorities of a field are not immutable facts but a choice. Shifting priorities need not be seen as a crisis, but as an opportunity to ask ourselves why we study what we study in the first place – an opportunity to make different choices that better align with those reasons. Astronomers, then, have an opportunity to reorient the priorities of the field away from a reductionist view of physics, and to reclaim the value of the nuisance. (MORE - missing details)