Science Magazine Podcast
Transcript, 4 January 2013
http://podcasts.aaas.org/science_podcast/SciencePodcast_130104.mp3
Music
Host – Sarah Crespi
Welcome to the Science Podcast for January 4th, 2013. I’m Sarah Crespi.
Host – Kerry Klein
And I’m Kerry Klein. This week: the psychology of personal change [00:53], the death of
a star [20:57], and what’s hotter than infinitely hot? [09:31]
Interviewee – Ulrich Schneider
The ordinary temperature, the Celsius scale, you can have positive numbers, negative
numbers, but you also know that there’s the absolute temperature scale, the Kelvin scale,
where you normally only have positive numbers. It starts at zero and can go up all the
way to infinity, and that’s it. Well, it’s not.
AAAS Promo
Support for the Science Podcast is provided by AAAS: the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. AAAS—the Science Society—at www.aaas.org. This podcast
is also sponsored by Audible.com, home to over 100,000 audio books.
Music ends
[00:53]
Host – Sarah Crespi
Ten years from now, will I be a much different person than the “current Sarah”? Will
“future Sarah” be as different from “current Sarah” as “current Sarah” is from the “past
Sarah” that existed ten years before? Daniel Gilbert and colleagues looked into this
question by surveying thousands of adults on the Web. I spoke with him about how we
continue to change despite our expectations and why we have so many illusions about the
future.
Interviewee – Daniel Gilbert
In our studies, we measured the personality, values, and preferences of about 20,000
people who ranged in age from 18 to 68, and we asked them to do something pretty
simple. We asked them to tell us how much they’ve changed in the last 10 years, and
how much they were going to change in the next 10 years. What we found was that
people at every age in our sample underestimated how much they were going to change
in the future compared to how much they had changed in the past. It’s as if people
recognize that change is a process they’ve experienced, but now they’re done.
Interviewer – Sarah Crespi
Your study looked at how people perceive themselves in the past, and how they perceive
what’s going to happen in the future. How did you go about studying it specifically?
Interviewee – Daniel Gilbert
Well, it’s not difficult to find out how people perceive themselves in the past and the
future; you just ask them. Human beings, unlike mitochondria or fossils, are able to talk
and tell you a whole lot of things about themselves, and that’s one of the tools that
psychologists use. In our studies, we asked people to tell us about their personalities,
about their values and their preferences 10 years prior to the moment at which we
interviewed them, and also to predict for us how those things would change in the next 10
years. What we found was that people from 18 to 68 years old all acknowledge that in
the last decade they’ve changed quite a lot. Nonetheless, they also all believed that in the
next decade they would change relatively little. And of course, most of them were
wrong.
Interviewer – Sarah Crespi
Well, how can you tell that they weren’t wrong about the past and that maybe they hadn’t
changed that much, and that their predictions about the future are right?
Interviewee – Daniel Gilbert
Yeah. So when a person who is 40 says that “I’ve changed a lot in the last 10 years,” and
a person who’s 30 says, “I don’t expect to change a lot in the next 10 years,” how do you
know who’s wrong and who’s right? Well, the tools we use are pretty simple. We first
compared the amount of change that people remembered experiencing in the last 10 years
with a publicly available database that measures how much people actually do change
over time. The MacArthur Foundation has wonderfully supplied all of us with data on
how much personality changes over the lifespan. And what we find is that in our sample,
when people look back and report how much they’ve changed in the last decade, the
amount of change they report is virtually identical to the actual amount people do change
over 10 years. Those two amounts are, in fact, much, much larger than the amount
people expect to change over the next 10 years. So those comparisons lead us to believe
that at least a good portion of the error is an error of prediction.
Interviewer – Sarah Crespi
And how do people, say, on the younger end of your sample compare with people on the
older end of your sample in terms of their predictions and their recollections of the past?
Interviewee – Daniel Gilbert
Well, you know, when we think of people who say, “Oh, my gosh, I’m never going to
change,” we think of teenagers. Teenagers get, you know, mega-death metal tattoos
because they think they’re going to like the same thing when they’re 70 that they like
when they’re 18 years old. What we found is that this typically teenage error is also
made by their grandparents. So we find that people at every age that we are able to
measure show this mistake. Now with that said, it does look like the size of this error in
some of our experiments was smaller among older than among younger people. So there
may be a sense in which we get a little bit wiser about the amount of change we’re going
to experience in the future, nonetheless, not wise enough to make exactly perfect
predictions.
Interviewer – Sarah Crespi
So I’m going to ask the question that your study didn’t really look into but I’m very
interested in the answer. So you found this big difference between what people think
about the stability of their personality characteristics. They think, “I’m set. I changed a
lot in the past 10 years, but not so much anymore.” What are some of the explanations
for this perception about the stability of our personality?
Interviewee – Daniel Gilbert
Well, you’re quite right that our data don’t give us any answers about why this happens,
but the rest of psychology surely does. There are at least two good reasons why we
expected this error to occur, and we weren’t all that surprised when we found it. First,
it’s pretty comforting to believe that change has stopped, that history has come to its end.
Why? Well, most people are pretty happy with who they are, and the idea of changing is
usually going to be change in a negative direction. Secondly, most people like to believe
that they understand themselves, and the idea that you could turn into somebody else
entirely could be a little upsetting. So the first reason why we would expect people to
show the end of history illusion is that it probably feels good to believe that change has
come to a halt. The second reason is that prospection and retrospection are very different
processes. They way we look into the future and the way we look into the past have
similarities at both the neural and the cognitive level, but they have one important
difference, which is it’s easier to look backwards than to look forwards. If I ask you what
you had for breakfast this morning, you don’t have any trouble telling me. If I ask you
what you’re going to have tomorrow, you have to sit and think a little bit, because
creating something in imagination is harder than remembering something that really
happened. Now why is that important? Because when people are asked to predict how
they’re going to be in 10 years – what will your personality be like, how will your values
have changed, what will your preferences be – they probably find that to be pretty hard.
Now instead of saying, “Gosh, that’s pretty hard, I’m not sure I can answer your
question,” they instead mistakenly think that the difficulty they’re having in predicting
change indicates that change is itself unlikely.
Interviewer – Sarah Crespi
Very interesting. So you call this the end of history illusion because people are making
an error; it is an illusion. So what are some of the consequences of this type of error
being repeated throughout the generations?
Interviewee – Daniel Gilbert
Well, any ways in which we misunderstand our future selves are bound to be
consequential. Most of the decisions we make are not decisions about the moment but
decisions about our future. They could be as minor as what do I want for dinner? They
could be as important as who should I marry, what career should I undertake, you know,
how much should I save for retirement? All of these are predicated upon our beliefs
about who we will be down the road. And for the last 15 years, my research team and I –
and many other psychologists, economists, neuroscientists – have been studying the
mistakes people make when they look into the future and try to figure out who they’re
going to be. This turns out to be another one of them. People mistakenly think that
they’re going to pretty much be who they are now. In science, we show a specific
example of how this error can be consequential. So many of our monetary decisions are
based on what we will want later on down the road. We asked people to tell us how
much they would pay right now to see the musical band that was their favorite 10 years
ago, so an oldies band. And they tell us – I think the amount they told us was
approximately $80 for that ticket. If you ask people how much they would pay to see
their current favorite band play 10 years from now, they say about $130. In other words,
we believe that in 10 years, we will really want to see the band that we currently love,
despite the fact that we know we don’t really want to see the band we loved 10 years ago.
And this was true of 18 year olds, 28 year olds, 48 year olds, 68 year olds.
Interviewer – Sarah Crespi
Wow! So is there any way to combat this effect? Is there something that people might try
to do to prevent themselves from disappointing their future selves?
Interviewee – Daniel Gilbert
Well again, we don’t have any data on this, but common sense steps in and fills the gap
where we have none. Surely, one of the ways in which we can make better decisions
about our future selves is to acknowledge that our inability to forecast change, our
inability to see the ways in which we will be different, probably doesn’t indicate that
change has come to a halt. In fact, if you look at other people, if you’re 40 years old and
you look at other people who are 50, you will probably notice they’ve changed a lot in
that 10-year decade between 40 and 50. That’s a pretty good indication that you’re going
to change a lot too.
Interviewer – Sarah Crespi
Alright. Well, Daniel Gilbert, thanks so much for talking with me.
Interviewee – Daniel Gilbert
My pleasure.
Host – Sarah Crespi
Daniel Gilbert and colleagues write about the End of History Illusion in this week’s
Science.
Music
[09:31]
Host – Kerry Klein
Imagine what it would feel like to touch the Sun, which—as far as the human experience
is concerned—is essentially infinitely hot. But what if I were to tell you that some
materials can reach temperatures that are hotter than infinitely hot? And what if I were to
tell you that those temperatures are below zero Kelvin? Ulrich Schneider, author of a
Report this week, spoke with me about the mathematical and physical reality of negative
absolute temperatures—and why they’re important for physics and cosmology.
Interviewee – Ulrich Schneider
This research is basically about extending temperature. You all know temperature
ranges. You all know the ordinary temperature, the Celsius scale – you can have positive
numbers, negative numbers – but you also know that there’s the absolute temperature
scale, the Kelvin scale, where you normally only have positive numbers. It’s thought that
zero can go up all the way to infinity, but that’s it. Well, it’s not. In some sense what
we’re doing is we’re extending this to negative absolute temperatures. And the important
thing to remember right away is that this is not colder than zero Kelvin – nothing can be
colder than that – but it’s actually the opposite. It’s even hotter than infinite
temperatures. This is kind of a pretty old and classical problem, so it’s nothing to do with
quantum mechanics. But it’s just when you look at the formulas describing temperature,
you really see that the scale starts at zero, it increases up to infinity, but it doesn’t
necessarily stop there. In fact, what we see is that it jumps from plus infinity to minus
infinity, and then continues growing. So the energy of the system grows forever and
forever and forever until it reaches zero again from below.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
Okay. So let’s start with the basics of absolute temperature. Like you said, with the
Celsius and Fahrenheit scales, temperature can be both positive and negative. But with
the Kelvin scale, which we refer to as absolute temperature, zero is considered basically
the lowest temperature possible. So how exactly is this property defined? What’s
actually happening at the molecular level to yield an absolute temperature?
Interviewee – Ulrich Schneider
What’s happening is actually that absolute temperature is directly connected, it’s in fact
directly proportional to the average kinetic energy of the particles. So it’s proportional to
how fast the particles move. So if you think of a classical gas like little balls flying
around you, like the air around you, then actually absolute temperature is a measure on
how fast these particles move on average, how high their kinetic energy is. The hotter
they are, the faster they move. Therefore, it kind of makes sense that there should be an
absolute lower limit, because at some point the particles will all be at rest, they won’t
move at all. And, obviously, they can’t be slower than not moving at all, so therefore
nothing can be colder than zero Kelvin.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
And so how, then, can we get a negative absolute temperature? How is that possible?
Interviewee – Ulrich Schneider
Well, the point is if you now get a little bit more mathematical and think about the
distribution of these energies. When you have a positive temperature, you have
something that’s described by the so-called Boltzmann distribution – that’s just the name
– but it basically just means that at a positive temperature, the atoms have different
velocities. Some atoms move fast, some atoms move slow. And when you have a
positive temperature, it means that the low energy states, they’re more occupied than
your high energy states. When you think of the ground state of zero Kelvin, then only the
lowest energy states are occupied, meaning for our moving particles, they all stand still,
and your higher ones are absolutely not occupied. If you now increase temperature, you
put energy into the system, more and more states become occupied, even the higher
energy ones, and this distribution – this Boltzmann distribution – becomes more and
more flat. And actually at infinite temperature, it becomes completely flat. All states
have the same probability of being occupied, whether they have low energies or high
energies. And now you can directly think of how to extend this. What would happen if
you now have more particles at high energies than at low energies? And that’s actually
what you would get if you would take the same formulas and would put in a negative
temperature. Another very intuitive model to think about those negative temperatures is
to think about a set of balls – normal classical balls – in an environment with a hill and a
valley. The higher up the hill the balls slide, the higher their potential energy is. At a
positive temperature you would say normally you put some hills in the valleys and they
sit there stable. And now you can take the system as a whole, shake it a little bit, and
they will remain in the valley because that’s where they are stable. And that’s another
positive temperature ensemble. And now with negative temperatures, that means that
you put atoms on the top of the hills which are already moving with the maximum
possible kinetic energy. And now it’s a very funny thing that happens. If you now shake
this whole system, the balls will stay on top of the hill.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
And that’s the high energy state.
Interviewee – Ulrich Schneider
And that’s the high energy state. Exactly. And the reason for this is that as they already
have close to the maximum kinetic energy, they cannot increase it. So they cannot roll
down the hill, because the potential energy has nowhere to go. Energy is conserved. It
should go into kinetic energy, but as the kinetic energy is already at its maximum, they
can’t. So that’s why the balls have no chance, they have to stay on top of the hill. And
that’s why negative temperature states are stable.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
So you explain this mathematically, but how does one actually create a system – how did
you actually create a system that is physically at a negative absolute temperature?
Interviewee – Ulrich Schneider
Well, what we do in the lab is we use the techniques that have been developed in the
context of ultracold atoms. So the first thing we do, surprisingly, is we have to cool
down the atoms a lot to like a billionth of a Kelvin or something – very, very cold
temperatures – and then we put them into an optical lattice, and then they all occupy just
this lowest band of this lattice. This has been used for the last 10 years to do many
interesting many-bodied physics. One famous example that we’re actually building upon
is the creation of a so-called Mott insulator. That’s the creation of an insulating state
where the particles are evenly distributed over the lattice with one particle – exactly one
particle – per lattice site. And in this state, the particles are kind of frozen out; they
cannot move anymore. The reason for this is that these particles repel each other. They
have a repulsive interaction. And then if two particles would meet on the same lattice
side, then they would increase their energy. They would have to pay a lot of interaction
energy, and therefore they don’t do it. So we now have this state. We’ve frozen out
particles – exactly one particle per lattice site. And the new trick, the new feature what
we now do is we changed interactions from repulsive to attractive. So now the particles
would love to sit under the same lattice side, because they would gain a lot of energy by
doing so. But the state in which we have created this is a state with exactly one atom per
lattice site, which means they never meet. And if we now unfreeze them, if we now
lower the lattice again so that they can start to move again, they realize that they are now
in the highest possible energy state of the system. And then it’s natural for them to
really, like, thermalize into a thermal distribution, but into a thermal distribution with
negative energy. So in a nutshell, the key points are you need to have a system where
you have an upper bound in energy. Then you have to create your system very close to
this bound, that you have a very, very high energy per particle, and then you just have to
wait. Then the system naturally thermalizes into such a negative temperature ensemble.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
And what kind of atoms were you using for this experiment?
Interviewee – Ulrich Schneider
In this case we were using ultracold potassium atoms, but that’s actually mostly a
technicality. We were using them because they do allow us very easily to switch the
interaction from repulsive to attractive.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
So how stable is a system at negative absolute temperature? You know, you created your
system in a protected vacuum environment in a lab, but can negative absolute
temperature materials actually exist naturally?
Interviewee – Ulrich Schneider
We can also create positive temperature systems in our experiment, and we see that the
positive and negative systems have the same stability. Our negative temperature systems
are as stable as our positive temperature systems. You know if you bring one very hot
and one very cold positive temperature system in formal contact, then what you get is you
get one big system at a kind of intermediate temperature. So if you would now take
several systems at several negative temperatures, they would also equilibrate in the same
way to some average negative absolute temperature. The point that we have to so well
isolate them from their environment is only that the environment that we have locally
here around us is a positive temperature environment. It’s maybe a little bit the same as
with antimatter. You know, you mix different kinds of matter, they are stable. You mix
different kinds of antimatter, they are as stable. But if you bring matter and antimatter
together, then something happens. It’s kind of similar here.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
So how does this research advance your field? What’s the greater significance of this
work?
Interviewee – Ulrich Schneider
Well, let me answer this in two ways. Number one is the very practical engineering
approach, and that is that for us this is a new tool which really enhances the parameter
space that we can probe. We have probed so far these ultracold atom systems and optical
lattices at positive temperatures, and we have already learned a lot about things related to
solid-state physics, to how electrons behave in certain types of solids, but there is many,
many more things to learn. There is also many more things that we can’t access right
now. And by now using negative temperature systems instead of positive temperature
systems, we’re kind of probing the high energy regime instead of the low energy regime,
and we can, therefore, increase the range of effects that we can describe, that we can
probe, that we can understand in the lab. I would say the stronger point for this work is
more that on a conceptual point-of-view, it enhances our way of thinking about
thermodynamics. When you say something gets hotter, there’s a little bit of confusion in
there because you can mean two things. It can mean, on the one hand, that you increase
the energy of your system. It can also, on the other hand, mean that you increase the
disorder of your system, because in the positive temperatures, that both things go handin-hand. You increase the energy of your system, you also increase the disorder of your
system. But now at negative temperatures, this turns around. If you increase the energy
in the system, you decrease the disorder. The system becomes more ordered. So at
negative temperatures, the connection between entropy and energy is kind of reversed.
And it’s a very interesting fact to think about, and it helps you to think about several
aspects in a new way. So that’s kind of the conceptual point-of-view. If you now again
look into the mathematics, you realize from thermodynamic relations that at negative
temperatures, only negative pressures can be stable. So we realize negative pressures in
the lab. And cosmology also use dark energy, which they say is a solution for negative
pressure to describe this accelerated expansion of the universe.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
Right.
Interviewee – Ulrich Schneider
And it will be interesting to see whether you can get something out of this resemblance, if
we can use this to understand anything better, or whether it’s just a curiosity.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
Great. Ulrich Schneider, thank you so much.
Interviewee – Ulrich Schneider
You’re welcome.
Host – Kerry Klein
Ulrich Schneider and colleagues write about attaining negative absolute temperatures in a
Report this week.
Music
Audible.com Promo
This week’s podcast is sponsored by Audible.com. Audible has over 100,000 audio
books, including physics titles like The 4% Universe: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the
Race to Discover the Rest of Reality, by Richard Panek, or books on genetics like The
Violinist’s Thumb, by Sam Kean. Right now, Audible is offering a free audiobook
download of your choice, just for checking them out. When you sign up for a free trial at
audiblepodcast.com/sciencemag you get a free book and you support the Science podcast.
If you choose not to continue the trial, you can cancel and keep the book. That address
again is audiblepodcast.com/sciencemag.
Music
[20:57]
Host – Kerry Klein
Supernovae, or exploded stars, are crucial to the study of the universe. And, like in so
many findings, timing is everythign. News Writer Yudhijit Bhattacharjee spoke with me
about scientists’ quick discovery of a supernova—and the human story behind it.
Interviewee – Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
This is a story about a very special supernova that was discovered in August 2011. It was
special because it was fairly close to Earth – only about 21 million light years away,
which is a stone’s throw in astronomical terms – and the other special thing was that
astronomers caught sight of it just a few hours after it had exploded. So this story tells
the tale of that discovery and the analysis and ends with an unexpected tragedy which
you will find out as we go along.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
Alright, so let’s start at the beginning then. As you said, researchers caught sight of this
supernova very early on in its explosion. So how did they lay eyes on such a
phenomenon at such a key time?
Interviewee – Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
What astronomers have been doing over the past 5 to 10 years is that they have been
getting more sophisticated about automating the searches for interesting objects such as
type Ia supernovae. The way that they do this is that they have telescopes collecting data
through the night, and then they have supercomputers and algorithms on those
supercomputers that sift through huge volumes of data, you know, looking at hundreds
and thousands of stars in the sky, and then searching through them to find the ones that
might be the most interesting, such as a supernova explosion. And that’s how this one
was found.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
And some of these algorithms were actually developed by the researchers who then found
this particular supernova.
Interviewee – Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
That’s right. The two researchers who sort of spotted the supernova in the data – they
didn’t actually spot it in the sky – Joshua Bloom and Peter Nugent – Joshua Bloom was
really the person who had developed these algorithms, along with many others, of course,
and it was a result of the sharpness of these algorithms that these researchers had begun
to find interesting objects in fairly short order after observations. And with this one they
got really lucky because it turned out to be a very special one.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
And how long does it take for a star to explode? You know, how long is the window of
opportunity the researchers have to really dig in and learn about this star?
Interviewee – Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
A supernova, once it goes off, will actually explode over weeks and months and even
years. And in this particular instance, Peter Nugent and Joshua Bloom, when they found
the supernova, it had only been something like eight or nine hours after the explosion had
begun. Now keep in mind, though, that when I say the explosion had begun, the
explosion actually occurred 21 million years ago, and the light from the explosion arrived
on Earth right around August the 24th, 2011.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
Right. But we already do know so much about supernovae and about these type Ia
supernovae. You know, why is it so exciting to catch a supernova so early in its
formation? What is the new information that we can learn in these very early hours?
Interviewee – Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
Well, you’re right. The astronomers have been finding supernovae – and specifically
type 1a supernovae – that have been burning for, you know, years. However, some of the
most interesting events in the explosion happen in the first few hours. Astronomers still
have lots of questions about how a type Ia supernova originates, how it detonates, and
how the explosion proceeds. Astronomers know that a type 1a supernova essentially
requires that the exploding star reaches what’s known as the Chandrasekhar limit in mass,
which corresponds to roughly about 1.4 times the mass of the sun. And so they know –
or they have pretty good reasons to believe – that a type Ia supernova essentially arises in
a two-star system where one star is dumping material onto the other star, and that star –
the one that’s receiving the material – ultimately acquires enough mass to set off a chain
reaction within itself that leads to this detonation. So it just brought more clarity to the
models that describe how type Ias form.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
And so what did these scientists ultimately find? What were the progenitor stars and how
big were they?
Interviewee – Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
Well, they did confirm that the star that actually exploded was a white dwarf. Now that
wasn’t very surprising, but it was very good confirmation of existing theory. However,
the other stars – the star that is dumping the material – people have less clarity on what
that star needs to be like. In this case, what they discovered was that the other star was
also a small star, perhaps it was a white dwarf. And so it just helps them to build a much
clearer picture of this one single event, and from that extrapolate to what other type Ias
are like.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
And this research was, you know, a big enough deal that quite a lot of publications came
out of it.
Interviewee – Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
Yes, this was very exciting. I think there were three papers that appeared in Nature. And
there have been dozens of papers already now in different astronomy journals about this
object.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
And that speaks to the fact that this was a really highly collaborative finding, which you
really talk about a lot in your paper.
Interviewee – Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
That’s actually one of the really exciting things about this story, in my mind, because the
detection of a supernova is sort of a dramatic event. Astronomers get very excited when
they hear that there’s something that they can begin to observe right away, and you can
sort of set up this chain of observations around the globe. And astronomers do this by
sending out what’s known as an astronomer’s telegram. They put out word that, “hey,
here’s the location of what appears to be a type Ia supernova, please go ahead and collect
more data.” So it sort of engenders this huge community feeling. And that’s kind of a
uniquely human side of astronomy. These stars are so far away, they’re so remote, and
yet they are bringing these scientists together.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
So what eventually became of these researchers? You alluded to earlier that this wasn’t
necessarily a happy ending for everyone involved.
Interviewee – Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
Right. It was actually quite tragic, because the three researchers that I describe in the
story, two of them I’ve mentioned before – Peter Nugent and Joshua Bloom – they went
on to give presentations and talks about this discovery. But Weidong Li, who was a very
important contributor who had come to this country from a farming village in China –
and he was in his early 40s, everyone knew that he was this sort of quiet, brilliant
astrophysicist – he ended up committing suicide on December the 12th, 2011, just as the
supernova had started to fade from peak brightness. It was right as a couple of these
Nature papers were coming out. It was for personal reasons that I don’t think his
colleagues really know about, but it was just very painful for them that such a talented
young scientist was no longer going to be working with them.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
But his legacy lives on in all of this ongoing supernova research.
Interviewee – Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
That’s exactly right. And so I guess that is the silver lining, that this last work of his,
that’s one of the things that he will be remembered for. And that’s why I wanted to write
the story.
Interviewer – Kerry Klein
Well, Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, thank you so much.
Interviewee – Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
Thanks for having me.
Host – Kerry Klein
Yudhijit Bhattacharjee writes about the death of a star in a News Focus in this week’s
issue.
Music
Host – Kerry Klein
And that concludes the January 4th, 2013 edition of the Science Podcast.
Host – Sarah Crespi
If you have any comments or suggestions for the show, please write us at
[email protected].
Host – Kerry Klein
The show is a production of Science Magazine. Jeffrey Cook composed the music. I'm
Kerry Klein.
Host – Sarah Crespi
And I’m Sarah Crespi. On behalf of Science Magazine and its publisher, AAAS, thanks
for joining us.
Music ends