Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Futuro Antico. Interview with Francesca Matteucci
Oct 4, 2022
Marco Bassan
She has developed numerical models to calculate in detail the evolution of the abundance of chemical elements in the gas of galaxies. She is Francesca Matteucci, and we have invited her to reflect on the future in the column curated by Spazio Taverna.
What are your sources of inspiration in art?
Certainly music. I have a particular preference for opera; Mozart and Verdi provided the soundtrack during my years of study and research. For us astronomers, music is essential, especially when we have to spend the whole night in the labs for telescope observations. I believe there is a strong connection between physics and music; many physicists have been musicians, and if I'm not mistaken, Einstein himself played the violin.
What is the project that represents you the most? Can you tell us about its genesis?
I chose physics because I like challenges, and clearly, when you try to understand the physics of the universe, those challenges are plentiful. There are so many things to understand, and my focus during my younger years was specifically on a model for the formation of the Milky Way, to explore the formation of the chemical elements present in the atmospheres of stars, to understand how it was born and how it evolved over time. For us physicists, these gases are like fossils for archaeologists; from this information, we can trace the history of galaxies. At that time, I studied chemical evolution models that were still in their infancy. Many physical processes were still missing from these models, such as in-depth considerations of a certain type of supernova, which are stars that explode at the end of their life cycle. These supernovae are responsible for forming most of the iron, which is a fundamental element in both astrophysics and biology. This research had never been done before, and the reason I chose it was that it was complicated. It was 1986, and as often happens, that research done in my youth is perhaps what represents me the most. The model I developed was used by many colleagues, which allowed me to benefit from it for a few years.
What importance does the Genius Loci have for you within your work?
Our work is based on collaboration and interaction with others, so there are particular places where the environment is very stimulating and others where it is less so.
In my career, my Genius Loci have been Padua and Munich, unfortunately not Rome, despite the fact that I graduated and trained in Frascati during my early years.
I found the most stimulating environments later on; in Padua, I learned the craft, and in Munich, at the European Southern Observatory, I found a particularly inspiring atmosphere where young postdocs had the freedom to do what they wanted. So, the Genius Loci exists; there is something that inspires you and makes you feel better. In our field, it is the surrounding environment and the colleagues.
How important is the past for imagining and building the future? Does the future have an ancient heart?
It is extremely important because without the past there would be no present. Of course, especially for us in science, the past is fundamental because we are truly standing on the shoulders of giants and we don’t have to start all over again every time.
In the 1600s, Galileo invented science, and after him, a series of figures followed—from Newton to Planck to Einstein to Fermi—who contributed crucial pieces without which we wouldn’t be able to do what we are capable of doing today. So, science is based on the past, and the future definitely has an ancient heart, also because in physics, we make a lot of progress but we never erase what has been done before; it is continuously reintegrated.
What advice would you give to a young person wanting to follow your path?
First of all, I would try to understand if they have a passion, and if that is present, I would advise them to follow their heart. I believe that careers in life should only be pursued if they are a source of passion; otherwise, they become prisons. Physics is one of those disciplines that one undertakes solely out of passion; I don’t see any other reason to follow such a complex science.
Then, in addition to passion, there needs to be enjoyment. After six months, I ask my PhD students if what they are doing brings them joy, and if not, I suggest they change careers. I can testify that this job has always amused, fascinated, and attracted me.
I remember the eagerness to return to the office—when there were no laptops—to try to solve an unresolved problem.
The main thing I can say is: follow your passion; if you have passion for your work, you will surely succeed.
In an era defined by post-truth, does the concept of the sacred still hold importance and strength?
The concept of the sacred, if we confine it to religion, is still undoubtedly important, although as you know, scientists are not often very religious. In fact, the concept of the sacred that is closer to science is one that goes beyond religion: it is sacred to respect oneself and others, just as it is sacred not to betray oneself or others.
There are moral values that I personally consider sacred and inviolable, and I believe this concept is fundamental to every individual's life, whether it is related to religion or other values.
How do you envision the future? Can you provide three ideas that you think will guide the coming years?
If I leave space for imagination, I would hope that wars would cease and that the human brain would focus on more important things. Assuming science progresses, I imagine a world dominated by artificial intelligence and the colonization of other planets, as well as achieving the ability to extend human life beyond 120 years.
On the other hand, I think there could also be a more pessimistic scenario if we look at things as they are now. A scenario where wars do not end and irrational thinking prevails over rational thought. If this were to happen, I believe we would undoubtedly be heading towards self-destruction.
This thought always reminds me of a scene from the movie Planet of the Apes, where the ape steps on a computer monitor with the ruins of New York in the background. This is a warning to keep in mind because all the centuries since the 1700s have been a continuous development of science, but that does not mean it will last forever. I hope so, but I fear there could be a regression if we do not realize that irrationality must give way to rationality.