Science Fiction and the End of Science

Last weekend, I discussed using popular culture to present science. Yesterday, PBS's NOVA physics blog, "The Nature of Reality," published an essay from me about how science fiction influences scientists.

In that article, I discuss the ways that science fiction can inspire science, making the point that the science fiction of H.G. Wells was anticipating Einstein's relativity concepts while other scientists were thinking that science was about done with its job. (This idea was pointed out in Lawrence Krauss' book Hiding in the Mirror.)

In fact, just a few years later Lord Kelvin made a speech where described "two clouds" that were on the horizon of physics at the turn of the century:

It's safe to say that?Lord Kelvin's "two clouds" speech is among the greatest?scientific under-estimations in history. While Kelvin considered this to be a mere measurement issue, instead it turned out to set the stage for a radical transformation in our way of thinking about the universe, rivaled only by the scientific revolution itself.

Today, it's easy to once again think that maybe science has all of the answers. I'll occasionally hear people who seem to think that science is in its final days, just doing some adjustments on the decimal points and then we'll be in an age where there are no new scientific discoveries to be made. Science will be finished at that point, these people claim.

Let me assure you that we're far from having all of the answers. Every discovery made by science unlocks more doors of the imagination.

Consider this:?At best, physicists can claim that we understand 4% of the universe really well. The rest is shrouded in mystery, because it consists of the poorly-understood dark matter and?dark energy that make up the other 96%.

There are still worlds to conquer and scientific secrets to unlock, and not just in the science fiction novels. Anyone who's trying to convince you that science currently has all the answers is missing out on how cool some of the questions are.

Science is nowhere close to ending.

Related Articles:

P.S. As I was about to publish this blog post, I discovered that my article had been quoted by Nancy Atkinson over at Universe Today, in an article about a study showing that there is little evidence of alien life. (Even I question whether this particular study was needed.)

Still, this is a cool thing to show up in your inbox. I think that this means I've gone viral!

View the original article here

Vacuum Energy and Virtual Particles

One of the weirdest facts about quantum physics is that particles are constantly springing into and out of existence all around us. Even within "empty space," which seems like it should contain no energy at all, there are virtual particle pairs that manifest for a moment before annihilating each other.

This means that energy is contained even in the empty vacuum of space itself, a fact which yields all sort of strange behavior. This vacuum energy may explain the dark energy that cosmologists observe, but the problem is that the theoretical calculations and experimental observations are off by quite a lot. ?If the theoretical calculations were correct, there'd be a lot more vacuum energy (sometimes called vacuum pressure) and the universe's acceleration would be a lot faster ... so fast that, in fact, the universe probably wouldn't have been able to form galaxies, stars, and planets.

It's precisely this sort of behavior that physicist Brian Greene refers to as quantum jitters in his popular science books. In fact, there's a very high likelihood that this sort of "energy from nothing" aspect of quantum physics provides the physical basis for the formation of the universe. The Big Bang theory describes how the universe proceeded from the moment of its creation, but doesn't actually dictate how that creation occurred. Actually, once you have the laws of quantum physics in place, the idea of manifesting something from nothing becomes relatively commonplace, as described in Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing and Hawking & Mlodinow's The Grand Design. Of course, general relativity is also needed, for that universe to begin expanding ... at least until we figure out a theory of quantum gravity.

Virtual particles are important in astrophysics for at least one other reason: they provide the basis for the Hawking radiation, the radiation that should be emitted by black holes.

View the original article here

April 2012 Physics Books

March was kind of a slow month for new physics book releases, but April sees things picking up again. There are five books of particular interest in the realm of science and technology this month, and I've got them covered in our April 2012 book list. The range is wide, from one about how the Earth could be destroyed (just in time for Mayan calendar fanaticism) to one about how we could save ourselves from an energy crisis and one that explains how to survive the crazy adventures of an intrepid time traveler!

View the original article here

Avengers' Physics

When a major blockbuster film comes out, there's no shortage of attempts among scientists to make it a "teachable moment." The new comic-based film The Avengers, however, may have more than its fair share of this ... and rightfully so. As I mentioned a while back, even I got on this bandwagon with my recent article about time travel and how it is utilized in some of the Avengers comic book plotlines.

The Avengers film doesn't have time travel, but it has been steadily building its storyline and fictional universe over a serious of previous films and that effort has had scientific elements to it. As I discussed when Thor came out, the creators were making specific efforts to ensure that the universe made sense and held together in a realistic way. The comic books rarely deal with the conflict between the science that fuels Iron Man's armor and the magic that fuels Thor's hammer, but since the films were reaching beyond your average comic reader, it needed to find a way to bridge that gap.

In Thor they did so by establishing the premise that the Asgardian race of "gods" were actually trans-dimensional beings who, though they resembled humans, were able to harness far more advanced scientific knowledge and became increasingly powerful as a result. In this latest film, the entire conflict centers around this advanced science.

Specifically, the film focuses on a real scientific problem: trying to find sustainable energy. The conflict is about control of a nearly-infinite energy source. (I'm not giving much away, because this is revealed in about the first 5 minutes of The Avengers and was previously hinted at in both the Captain America film and in the post-credits teaser at the end of Thor.) The energy source is called the Tesseract, or a doorway in space.

A tesseract is a mathematical concept. The simplest explanation is that the tesseract is a four-dimensional cube (in the same way that a cube is a 3-dimensional square). More on the comic book (and film) version of the Tesseract is covered here.

Though the physics of the tesseract isn't really laid out, what is clear from the film is that it has something to do with dark energy, the mysterious substance that physicists believe is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. The discovery of this acceleration earned the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, so it's kind of a big deal these days. The thing about dark energy is that it isn't particularly strong ... but there's a lot of it. The overall impact is quite a lot of power, enough to push the universe apart more quickly than we would expect it to be expanding.

In the film, the Tesseract has the capacity to somehow draw power from the dark energy to become a nearly-unlimited energy source. I won't spoil any part of the plot about how this energy is utilized, but there's the basic science behind it.

Of course, that isn't all the science that made its way into the film. Below are some additional links to some interesting articles on how science shows up in the Avengers film (and its predecessors).

Related Articles:

View the original article here

Pseudophysics

A few weeks ago, I discussed one issue with "physics cranks," as referenced on a podcast by renowned astrophysicist and science communicator Sean Carroll. His main objection was that many of the people who believe they're revolutionizing the fundamental theories of physics do not really understand the existing theories, so they can't really quantify how their theories would resolve the problems which existing theories can solve.

The only one of them I've ever heard of is Fred Alan Wolf, who is well known for his work in trying to relate human consciousness to quantum theory. He is also quoted in both the video and book "The Secret" and here's what I said about this on my website (http://physics.about.com/od/scienceandreligionbooks/p/secretphysicserrors.htm):"Two physicists, Dr. Fred Alan Wolf and Dr. John Hagelin, are directly quoted in the book. While both are respected and accomplished in various circles, their stances on these issues of physics and consciousness are definitely not mainstream. The attempt within The Secret to make these controversial views appear to be a consensus of quantum physicists is misleading."What will very likely happen in the ALICE AND THE QUANTUM CAT book is that there will be a lot of very real science. In fact, probably about 90% of the science will be perfectly valid and correct. The other 10% will contain assumptions or conclusions that are at odds with the mainstream physics community and have no direct experimental support. The problem is that the authors will make no real effort to make it clear that this 10% is any different from the other 90% ... they'll make it sound like physicists are completely confident about everything they're saying.http://znfl.blogspot.com/2006/12/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.html

However, there is another problem that is nearly as pervasive. This comes from people who have legitimate physics credentials and do (or, at least, should) understand the complexities surrounding a scientific concept, but when they communicate these concepts they do not make these complexities clear.

I was reminded of this when a friend recently approached me about a book she'd come across, which claimed to discuss the way quantum physics affects our lives. There was a list of physicists who were involved in the book and she wanted to know if it was trustworthy. The only name I recognized was Dr. Fred Alan Wolf, who is well known for his work in trying to relate human consciousness to quantum physics. He is one of the physicists who is quoted in both the book and film of The Secret. Here is a quote from my article "Physics Errors in The Secret":

Two physicists, Dr. Fred Alan Wolf and Dr. John Hagelin, are directly quoted in the book. While both are respected and accomplished in various circles, their stances on these issues of physics and consciousness are definitely not mainstream. The attempt within The Secret to make these controversial views appear to be a consensus of quantum physicists is misleading.

I actually have a great deal of sympathy for those who investigate the foundations of quantum physics and even the role of the observer ... when it's handled carefully, as it was in the fantastic book The Quantum Enigma. This was a legitimate discussion of the issues and complexities involved in observers in quantum physics, such as the role of measurement in the quantum double slit experiment. They didn't take a bit of uncertainty and try to use it to justify things well outside the realm of what they were discussion.

And that, ultimately, is one of the major problems when quantum physics gets referenced in many books aimed at a popular audience, especially those that seem inclined to imply some sort of mystical result from quantum physics. Here is the response I provided to my friend about her book question, and I think this tends to apply broadly to these sorts of physics books:

What will very likely happen in this book is that there will be a lot of very real science. In fact, probably about 90% of the science will be perfectly valid and correct. The other 10% will contain assumptions or conclusions that are at odds with the mainstream physics community and have no direct experimental support. The problem is that the authors will make no real effort to make it clear that this 10% is any different from the other 90% ... they'll make it sound like physicists are completely confident about everything they're saying.

There are a lot of curious properties of quantum physics, such as the ways to resolve quantum entanglement issues, such as those that show up in the EPR paradox. And some very respected physicist (most notably Roger Penrose) have ventured speculations in this area. The problem is how carefully these speculations are framed and the degree to which they make their uncertainty clear.

A scientist who is truly trying to examine the possibility of these things will make it absolutely clear that they are speculating.?A true scientist will qualify their speculative claims, quantifying their uncertainty as much as possible. This is, to a large degree, the very essence of scientific inquiry.

Those who make it sound like such speculations are completely resolved questions aren't interested in furthering knowledge. They're trying to sell you something, not practice real science.

This sort of reminds me of a quote from mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russel:

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

View the original article here

Presidential Candidates Should Debate Science ... Thus Sayeth Religious People

Most people that I know are absolutely disgusted by politicians. No matter what a person's political affiliation, if you're an intelligent person then you want decisions to be based on a firm understanding of the reality of the situation. There may be perfectly valid disagreements about how best to address the problems within this reality, of course, but ultimately no one wants decisions to be made on a faulty understanding of reality.

And how do we understand reality? Well, the most well-established and consistent method for understanding the working of reality is science.

Why is this so? Basically it is because science (and, so far as I know, only science) has built into it a systematic method to continually question its base assumptions, to really get at the fundamental truths about how reality functions.?Sean Carroll put this eloquently in a recent YouTube video, when he describes skepticism:

Scientists are taught that we should be our own theories' harshest critics. Scientists spend all of their time trying to disprove their favorite ideas. This is a remarkable way of doing things that is a little bit counter-intuitive, but helps us resist the allure of wishful thinking.

Unfortunately, virtually no politicians approach things this way. Political thinking typically starts with a conviction and then proceeds to amass evidence that supports that conviction ... and disregards evidence that conflicts with their conviction.

However, when really considering the policies that we want implemented, people believe that scientific reality is a fairly good thing to consider. Some science enthusiasts believe that religion and religious people are inherently anti-scientific, but a recent poll indicates that this isn't really the case. Even people who self-identify as religious provide a strong indication that they want a scientific-based debate between presidential candidates.

In fact, a science debate came in third among presidential debate themes, right behind economy/taxes and foreign policy/national security, but well ahead of themes such as faith/values or the environment.

Do you believe that there should be a Science Debate as part of the 2012 presidential election, focusing on science-themed areas such as innovation, healthcare, and energy policy? Is this a realistic proposition, or will both parties run from such an enterprise? Offer your thoughts in the comments below.

Related Articles:

View the original article here

Science, Philosophy, and Pop Culture

My study plan in college was simple: Learn as much as I could.

Much to my mother's chagrin, this plan didn't include considering how well classes would serve me in the workforce once college was over, but rather scheduling them based on my personal interests. As much as I could, I chose classes that I thought would give me some clue for understanding an aspect of the universe that had been a mystery to me.

Physics was top on my list of interests, of course, but I also picked up a minor in Philosophy. While Physics is a degree that draws a lot of respect and demand in the workforce, Philosophy doesn't so much.

However, I found the two areas of study strangely complementary. While Physics teaches the specifics of how to think about problems scientifically, Philosophy goes beyond that to the more general question of how to think logically, even about questions which are not inherently scientific. (Of course, some would argue that there are no questions that aren't scientific ... but that, too, is a philosophical question.)

These days, I find that method of thinking logically to be very helpful. Science, after all, got its start in the realm of "natural philosophy." I apply the thinking skills from philosophy not only to scientific questions, but to the realm of politics (where logical thinking is woefully absent) and to other aspects of my own life.

And, miraculously, I've found some way to put this thinking to productive use ... and tie it directly into my scientific writing! (My mother is very proud.) In fact,?this month I'm pleased to appear in two different books which blend philosophical and scientific thinking.

Time Traveling Warlords

The first of these volumes is The Avengers and Philosophy: Earth's Mightiest Thinkers, which contains my essay:

"Can Kang Kill His Past Self? The Paradox of Time Travel"

Readers of The Avengers comic book will be familiar with Kang, a time-hopping conqueror from the distant future, who exists (and has existed and will exist) in various versions and iterations throughout the colorful history (and future) of the series. In this essay, I explore a bit of the science behind time travel as well as the paradoxes related to it, including a variation of the famous Twin Paradox featuring the superheroic twins Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch.

This essay was a lot of fun to write. These ideas are typically very esoteric, so explaining them in the context of a fictional scenario like The Avengers, which is already familiar to readers, is a great opportunity. Kang was an especially good choice, because he specifically sought to destroy alternate versions of himself. With over forty years of comic stories to pull from, an essay on time paradoxes virtually wrote itself!

Quantum Gravity Sitcom

Just today I received my contributor's copies of The Big Bang Theory and Philosophy: Rock, Paper, Scissors, Aristotle, Locke, which contains my essay:

"Sheldon, Leonard, and Leslie: The Three Faces of Quantum Gravity"

If you've watched the CBS television series The Big Bang Theory for any length of time, you likely know that Sheldon Cooper's area of expertise is string theory. But string theory is not the only approach toward a theory of quantum gravity--a theory that tries to unify the concepts of quantum physics with those of general relativity.

Probably the second most popular approach is loop quantum gravity. In the series, this is the theory studied by Leslie Winkle, one of Sheldon's numerous nemeses.?In the middle of these two warring theoretical physicists is the character of Leonard, who is clearly identified as an experimental physicist.

Against this backdrop, I use the circumstances of Leonard and Leslie's tumultuous relationship (especially the dramatic break-up from the Season 2 episode "The Codpiece Topology") to explain some of the core scientific challenges facing scientists searching for a viable theory of quantum gravity.

Related Articles:

View the original article here