INTERVIEW

A scientist and an institution

Interview with Jayant V. Narlikar, astrophysicist, who retired as IUCAA Director after completing 15 years.

COURTESY: IUCAA

Early this year, Professor Jayant Vishnu Narlikar, the best-known Indian astrophysicist, stepped down from the directorship of the Pune-based Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA), after heading it for 15 years. A remarkable institution that he conceived, founded and nurtured as a common research and resource centre for university scientists from across the country, the IUCAA was his long-cherished dream. It was realised in 1988 as an institution under the University Grants Commission (UGC) thanks to the active support of eminent space scientist Professor Yash Pal, who was then the UGC Chairman.

Narlikar took over as the Director of the IUCAA on his 50th birthday and stepped down a day before his 65th birthday, on July 18, 2003 (Update, Frontline, May 23, 2003). He single-mindedly devoted his efforts to the building up of this institution while consciously staying away from the general scientocracy and science administration of the country unlike many other well-known senior scientists. His successor to the post, Professor Naresh Dadhich, who has been his long-time associate both academically and administratively at the IUCAA, says: "It is a formidable task and enormous responsibility to steer an institute of the IUCAA's proportion and reputation and more so to succeed a man like Jayant whom we all hold in great admiration and awe." The success of the IUCAA has resulted in the establishment of other inter-university centres across the country.

Academically, Narlikar rose to fame with the famous Hoyle-Narlikar theory of the steady state universe, postulated in the 1960s in association with his mentor and guide, the late Sir Fred Hoyle. The theory, however, is no longer popular among the mainstream physicists as the idea of a steady state universe gave way to Big Bang cosmology in the wake of the discovery in 1965 of the 3°Kelvin cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). This microwave background radiation, which the universe seems to be awash with, is believed to be the relic radiation of the early hot universe resulting from the Big Bang, which has now cooled down to 3 K (or 3° above absolute zero when all motion ceases, which is - 273°Celsius). Filling the universe uniformly and isotropically, the CMBR seems to have the characteristics of "thermal", or what physicists call "black body", radiation, where the spectral shape of the radiation is dependent only on the temperature and is independent of the source. In the case of CMBR, the radiation spectrum has the shape characteristic of a 3 K black body radiation.

This black body nature of CMBR its homogeneity and isotropy was dramatically verified in 1992 by the all-sky map of the relic radiation prepared by the NASA spacecraft Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), flown in 1989, which gave a tremendous boost to Big Bang cosmology. While the Standard Cosmological Model based on the Big Bang has now come to dominate mainstream discourses in physics almost to the point of dogma, Narlikar and associates have carried with them their conviction of the basic idea of a steady state universe and have sought to explain the 3K CMBR as resulting from the starlight in the universe that is scattered by inter-stellar metallic grains and attains thermal equilibrium. In the wake of the COBE results, a modified steady state scenario was put forward by Hoyle, Narlikar and Geoffrey Burbidge a decade ago, called Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC).

In February this year, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), launched in 2001 (Frontline, September 14, 2001) as a follow-up to COBE with an order of magnitude better resolution, returned data which the Big Bang theorists believe have conclusively ruled out all cosmological models except the standard model based on the Big Bang. Indeed, according to it, it is claimed that with WMAP data all cosmological parameters have been more or less determined with precision and only some details remain to be filled.

Narlikar and Co, on the other hand, have claimed that QSSC gives a better fit to the WMAP data and have continued to question steadfastly the conventional paradigm to the point of calling the approach unscientific. This is not to say that except for Narlikar and his coworkers, there is universal and unreserved acceptance of the standard Big Bang cosmological model. There are other sceptics as well who see a whole lot of unresolved issues of physics in the standard Big Bang cosmological model.

As Richard Ellis of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), United States, put it, "the reason why most astronomers believe in the Big Bang is that it is the simplest picture that is consistent with the data. But it is very important that there are people who are constantly pushing to be provocative to make us question in more detail whether this is the right picture or not".

Echoing similar views, E.P.J. van den Heuvel of the University of Amsterdam says: "It is very important that you have people like Narlikar who are exploring the other possibilities. There is a lot that people do not basically understand. And it is now being told that with WMAP there are only a few details to be filled in and then we know everything. It is not like that. I do not believe that."

"It looks like at this point of time that Big Bang cosmology is a reasonably consistent framework but there is so much of physics that we still don't understand like the dark matter and dark energy. Unfortunately, people don't discuss the underlying assumptions to the Big Bang model," he adds.

Frontline's science correspondent R. Ramachandran recently caught up with Narlikar, the physicist, the institution builder and the science populariser, for a wide-ranging interview that covered various issues, including his non-conformist position in astrophysics, the IUCAA experiment, science popularisation, and his future plans. Excerpts:

After three decades of astronomical career in India, is there a feeling of fulfilment and satisfaction?

I have stepped down from the directorship of the IUCAA while my astronomical career will hopefully continue for some more years. Yes, I have a sense of fulfilment and satisfaction as far as the IUCAA is concerned. The responsibility entrusted to me by Yash Pal in 1988 has been discharged to the best of my ability.

Have there been any regrets at all?

None, so far as the IUCAA is concerned. So far as cosmology is concerned, I greatly deplore the current trend of an almost religious belief in the so-called standard Big Bang cosmology. It is assumed by the believers that all essential matters about the universe are settled and only some superficial details are left to be sorted out. This point of view is known today as "Precision Cosmology". It is inconsistent with ground realities - even the measured value of the basic Hubble Constant (a measure of the rate of expansion of the universe) remains controversial - and is opposed to the spirit of science which asks for repeatable experiments to check a theory and not a series of speculations howsoever consistent they might be.

When I entered the field of cosmology as a research student in 1960, the subject was open and there were observational possibilities of checking theories. Today one relies on N-body simulations based on speculative initial conditions to assert what is the correct model of the universe. If I were a research student today, cosmology would not attract me.

Would you care to dwell in some detail on your `non-conformist' position?

Fred Hoyle believed that with so much brainpower devoted to the standard approach, if it were right it would have led to considerable progress. This has not happened and had not happened any time during my research career. So, like Fred, I felt that it would be intellectually more challenging to try out new avenues rather than be one of a flock (see the only photograph in the book A Different Approach to Cosmology by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar and you get the idea).

Nevertheless, some of the "alternative or non-standard ideas" proposed by Fred and me in the 1960s are today being accepted (without recognition of course!), such as: (i) negative energy scalar fields (ii) black holes in galactic nuclei (iii) superclusters and voids (iv) oscillating universe which has no singularity...

At this point of time, it is generally believed that all parameters in the standard Big Bang cosmology have been more or less determined and what remains is only some fine-tuning, especially after the recent WMAP data. What are your views?

I mentioned earlier that this position is unscientific and is not consistent with ground realities. There are no direct observations of inflation, of the last scattering surface, of dark energy or of dark matter particles, concepts that have been invoked to make the basic idea of Big Bang work. The physics dealing with the very early universe is not laboratory tested. With untested physics and no direct observations, how can you claim to have a precise and confirmed theory? All they have is a series of epicycles that fit consistently one onto another. Using quasi-steady state cosmology and directly observable quantities, we (Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar and others) have shown that all measured results about the universe can be explained without the standard paradigm.

NASA/AP

The first detailed, all-sky picture of the infant universe. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) image reveals 13 billion-year-old temperature fluctuations (shown as colour differences) that correspond to the seeds that grew to become the galaxies. Encoded in the patterns are the answers to many age-old questions, such as the age and geometry of the universe. The WMAP team has made the first detailed full-sky map of the oldest light in the universe. It is a "baby picture" of the universe. Colours indicate "warmer" (red) and "cooler" (blue) spots. The oval shape is a projection to display the whole sky, similar to the way the globe of the earth can be projected as an oval. The microwave light captured in this picture is from 380,000 years after the Big Bang, over 13 billion years ago: the equivalent of taking a picture of an 80-year-old person on the day of his/her birth.

One of the key arguments advanced in favour of the hot Big Bang cosmology model, besides the fact of CMBR itself, is the relative abundance of light elements like hydrogen, helium and lithium. How about that?

Primordial nucleosynthesis is the other test of classical Big Bang cosmology. What is not realised is that the light nuclear abundances in this cosmology are explained by a specific value of the coefficient in the time-temperature relationship. There is no explanation as to why that coefficient should be the right one to arise in the model. That is, it is put in by hand.

I was shocked to hear the view that the discovery of one WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle, a postulated candidate for a dark matter particle) would validate the standard model. I may be old-fashioned, but to me this sounds like justifying hot Big Bang by finding one nucleus of deuterium. The theory predicts certain abundance: it follows that one needs to check that claim directly.

Recently you have also been involved in another topic of controversy, namely the recent finding of microbes in space in the research supported by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and carried out in association with researchers from Cardiff and the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) in Hyderabad. This hypothesis goes back to your thesis supervisor and long-term research associate Sir Fred Hoyle. What is it exactly that has been found and what are its implications?

We have found microbes (cells and bacteria) in samples of air collected at a height of 41 km above the atmosphere. Given the protocol followed in the experiment, it is very unlikely that these are terrestrial contamination. Those who argue that they are contamination should show how! In the absence of any convincing explanation of terrestrial origin, we feel that they may have been showered on the earth from above - from comets, meteors, meteorites, etc.

I find that the "geocentric" view still persists in biology, although Copernicus banished it from astronomy. The controversy starts because scientists do not keep an open mind as to where the origin of life on earth was. Any suggestion that it came from outside the earth is taken as wrong prima facie.

There were some differences of opinion with the CCMB on the conclusions drawn from the findings. How did that happen? Has there been a reconciliation?

The protocols used by those at Cardiff and Sheffield were different from those at the CCMB. Now there will be an attempt to "wash out" the CCMB probes, which might make material sticking to the probe walls available for analysis, as was done for the Cardiff/Sheffield samples.

Moving away from academics, in your efforts at establishing the IUCAA you would have had very close brushes with the science administration in the country, in particular the UGC. What do you see as the key problems that contribute to the stifling of scientific research and education?

How an agency responds depends largely on the attitude of the agency's head. Barring a relatively brief but trying interlude, my interaction with these agencies has been very positive. Basically what one needs to emphasise is that a successful scientific institution has autonomy and working conditions different from those in a government department. At times considerable useful energy is wasted in convincing the bureaucrats of this difference of perception and for them to get over their view that "Aisa government mein nahi hota". I feel that the Prime Minister should issue a series of enlightened guidelines on how autonomous scientific institutions are to be run. Only then will this attrition stop.

Has the IUCAA turned out to be an institution that you had envisioned, and has it lived up to your expectations?

Broadly speaking, yes. I wish there was greater freedom given to university staff and students to use facilities like the IUCAA. Also, I would have liked greater interaction between IUCAA academics and the associates from universities. Having said this, I should pay compliments to my colleagues at the IUCAA for having participated handsomely in the multifaceted academic programme of the IUCAA directed at universities.

Do you think the concept of inter-university centres should be replicated more and more and expanded to other disciplines besides physics itself?

Yes, very much so, but, as I said, with greater freedom for the university researchers to use such facilities.

What pitfalls and shortcomings that the IUCAA encountered should be avoided while replicating the experiment?

One should contract out services to the maximum extent. In retrospect we should have avoided having staff cars and leased the transport as and when needed. The Director should delegate powers to his senior colleagues to the maximum extent possible. I found this very useful. Above all, insist on as much autonomy as you can while framing your rules and byelaws. We found this very useful.

Do you think this to be the only viable way of reviving the research environment in universities? Or else, what other measures should be taken to rejuvenate research in the university system?

I strongly feel that autonomous research institutions of the various science departments should be drawn more into university teaching and allow some of their facilities for university use. Only this way can they hope to have a base amongst the student population from where their own young scientists will come.

The Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) was recently accorded the status of a deemed university. Do you think this is a good move for autonomous research institutions? Indeed, what can be done given this status?

If this leads to the situation I said in my earlier reply, it is fine.

Since you arrived on the Indian astronomical scene, there has been a visible increase in astronomy research activity. It has indeed spread to smaller institutions and universities. But how do you view the overall quality of research in the country today?

The overall quality has gone up and the fraction of international level research has gone up judging from the lists of publications. However, quantitatively, basic sciences as a whole are suffering from shortage of young human power. Astronomy is no exception.

You have done a great deal of science popularisation work both in English and in Indian languages, a facet not so common among scientists of the country. Why do you think the majority of scientists in the country do not give importance to public outreach? In fact, they do not even involve themselves in producing good textbooks. Why is that so?

They argue (i) it is a waste of their time or (ii) they do not have the time for it, given their teaching and research. It is a matter of attitude and time management. As an editor of an astronomy book series, I have two authors who have kept delaying the submission of their manuscript for want of time. During that period, I was able to complete two books.

What are your immediate plans after retirement besides research which I am sure will continue to occupy a significant part of your time?

Science popularisation, textbook writing, travel...

Thank you.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail