Martin Rees is Master of Trinity College and Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge. He holds the honorary title of Astronomer Royal and also Visiting Professor at Imperial College London and at Leicester University. After studying at the University of Cambridge, he held post-doctoral positions in the UK and the USA, before becoming a professor at Sussex University. In 1973, he became a fellow of King's College and Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge (continuing in the latter post until 1991) and served for ten years as director of Cambridge's Institute of Astronomy. From 1992 to 2003 he was a Royal Society Research Professor.

Foto: Stanislava Kyselová, Akademický bulletin

 

In the beginning of 90th Astrophysics discovered the fact that the expanse of the universe is not slower but faster. So universe becomes emptier, cooler... Are you leaning towards a model of the universe in which the universe expands forever because there is not enough mass to counteract the expansion by means of gravitational attraction or a model of the universe in which the curvature of space is roughly spherical, entailing that the universe has finite size?
The expansion is now dominated by a mysterious 'cosmic repulsion' which dominates the effect of gravity and leads to an acceleration. If the repulsive force stays constant, it will become ever more dominant as the expansion proceeds (and the matter becomes even more diluted). The simplest hypothesis is that the expansion will continue for ever. But long-range forecasts should never be taken too seriously, and it's possible that the repulsive force changes its strength, or even reverses its sign, in the far future. I don't think we'll understand this force until we have a theory that explains the bedrock nature of space and time, and reconciles Einstein's ideas with quantum theory.

In 1982 a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect did remarkable experiment at the University of Paris. He discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram. Even the Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, one of the architects of our modern understanding-of-the brain believes that the universe itself may be a giant hologram?
I'm not really very expert on these quasi-philosophical issues. All I'd say is that we probably haven't yet developed the clearest conceptual framework for quantum phenomena, and we should be openminded about possible surprises. I think the key breakthroughs will come in future, as they have over the last 50 years, from exceptional physicists, and not from philosophers.

 

You have attended the same state school as Charles Darwin and after receiving Templeton prize this year have stated, that you will donate a certain amount of money to support a project aiming to collect Darwin's correspondence. What is it that attracts you, the Royal astronomer, to the renowned biologist and a creator of the Darwin's Theory of Evolution?
Darwin was clearly one of the greatest scientists of any age. His ideas are as lively today as they ever were, and have pervaded our culture. (He was also - unlike Newton, for instance - an attractive and admirable personality whose letters and diaries are of great interest.

 

Darwin once said that a mystery of the beginning of all things is not solvable by men. As a scientist researching circumstances of the Big Bang, would you oppose him?
Darwin would have been amazed by the advances we've made in understanding the universe. He'd have been fascinated about whether there was life beyond the earth, and how it had evolved. But as science advances, there are always new mysteries that come into focus.

 

You are not quite hiding your less than optimistic view of the future (for ex. your book Our final hour). Here you mention that there is 50procent possibility, that a civilization will suffer a serious blow and it will not be coming from "the outside". You are talking about a thread rooted in the achievements of science, environmentalism the threads arising directly from men. What is the best way to handle the so fast growing scientific cognition?
Humans are having a greater imprint on the environment - there are more of us than ever before (7 billion) and we are each consuming more. And technology empowers individuals more than ever. The stakes are therefore getting higher. It's important that scientists engage with the public and with politicians, so that we can benefit from the upside and minimize the risks. I have discussed these issues further in my latest book "From here to infinity - scientific horizons".

 

Your teacher was a British quantum physicist and theologist John Polkinghorne. How mutual is your view at the existence of God?
I am (unlike John Polkinghorne) not a religious believer

Famous and celebrated physicists as Dirac, Shrodinger, Eddington and even Einstein at the end of their lives tend to fall back on Eastern philosophies, where they were looking for answers on the existential questions as Who am I? Why am I here? The science wasn't able to give them a sufficient answer. Where do you look for peace?
I think we can take great satisfaction in science, but it must be complemented by the arts, and cannot in itself provide ethical values.

During your lecture in Prague you mentioned that you are working on a new book. Could you outline for readers its content?
I mentioned earlier my book, just published, called 'From here to infinity = scientific horizons'. I am working on another called 'What we still don't know' which will address, among other things, the limits that might be set by the capacity of human brains,

 

GABRIELA ADÁMKOVÁ