Having just posited what a paper might look like if it followed the standards in the movie industry (complete with acknowledging virtually everything), we can also imagine how a review of that paper along the lines of a movie review might look…
Review of My Important Paper, a Big University publication, I.M Fun-Ding producer, Hope B. N. Hyred director. 27 pages, available open source starting Friday from The Journal of Winter Nighttime Reading.Two microscopes out of five.
Going in to Prof. Fun-Ding’s latest paper, My Important Paper, this reviewer was expecting to see real fireworks given the provocative title. But in the end, this felt like another tired retread of material we have seen before. Although director Hope Hyred has added a bit of spice in producing some dramatic images, the template and the message are clearly due to Fun-Ding’s heavy hand.
As seems rote with these tomography papers of late, the paper starts with the gratuitous demonstration of conflict within the scientific community. Really? Is there anybody left who is unaware that existing studies are inconclusive? Just how many more papers have to end with “…and more study is needed” before we get the point? Perhaps this would carry more weight if the disagreement was demonstrated in a bar fight instead of dueling abstracts in an anonymous meeting room.
At this point we start to see the elements that can make this paper worth the time, as Dr. Hyred’s mastery of 3-d surface animations carries us forward with the hope that we’ll be transported away from the tedious and into more imaginative territory, but it is not to be. We quickly return to the commonplace sequence of snippets of field work, and while workmanlike under Hyred’s direction, there is nothing here we haven’t seen before.
It is at this point that we first encounter the main players for this paper, Honor Engtruth, Bull Forth and E.Z. Duzit. While all participate in the field experiment, it is left to Ms. Engtruth to carry the torch forward, which she does with admirable intensity. She is able to make considerable homage to the groundbreaking tomography of Kei Aki while building on that earlier style with her own twist of finite-difference wave tracing and synthetic waveforms. Again, Dr. Hyred’s clever approach to illustration helps to carry the viewer into the elegant advances Ms. Engtruth is advocating.
No doubt the high point of the paper is when the cast assembles to confront discrepancies between Engtruth’s conclusions and the dogmatic past, typified by the images of Prof. Fun-Ding’s past efforts that accompany this part of the paper. Although we are rooting for Engtruth’s earnest efforts to carry the day, the discussion descends into nearly impenetrable technobabble that leads to a final confrontation with Prof. Fun-Ding. His mastery of technobabble leads to the conclusion, foregone since the early going and foreshadowed by the biased battle to start the paper, that his original interpretation was in fact the one that would emerge. Thus the paper’s climax is a fizzle as the tension of the earlier parts of the paper is dashed against the constraints of Fin-Ding’s model.
While a disappointment, we can only hope to see Dr. Hyred work with a different production team where her efforts might be rewarded more generously. And Ms. Engtruth has brought a level of earnest belief in her science that is genuinely touching. We will look to see if she can break the bounds of her lab’s format in future work. SO while this paper shows some promise for the future, the current incarnation will only appeal to those already dedicated to the Sierra tomography so beloved by Dr. Fun-Ding.
OK, shouldn’t be news that the latest (last?) Star Wars film once again has given bad guys the means to blow up planets. While this is a very Star-Warsy thing to do, the notion kicks around from time to time (for instance, the Doomsday Machine of TOS Star Trek destroyed planets). What would it take to blow up a planet?
Well, a quick approximation for the total potential energy of a uniform Earth is about – 2 x 10³² J (that is relative to everything being out at an infinite distance). To blow it up so all the pieces go far, far away would require roughly that amount of energy (maybe more as you’d lose energy to phase transitions in the rock, lost energy to radiated light and heat, etc.). One way to do this might be to park a package of antimatter at the center and use E= mc², so m= 1.25 x 10^15 kg, or 1.25 teratons of antimatter (about 2 x 10^-8 percent of the mass of the Earth, or about 0.05% of the mass of the Death Star). That is a boat load of antimatter! Even allowing for just shattering the planet enough to make a pile of asteroids, you would need a whole lot of antimatter…
The Sun puts out about 3.8×10^26 watts continuously or about 1.4×10^30 J per hour, so to get to 2 x 10³² J of total energy we need to capture all the Sun’s output for about 100 hours. Hey, that feels more doable! Though tossing that blanket around the Sun would be a big ask…
While Star Trek went the antimatter route with its doomsday machine, Star Wars prefers big bright laser blasts. But how does this work? The Physics of Star Wars took this pretty literally and imagined the laser igniting large oil deposits or, in the absence of that, melting the planet. Frankly, neither of these seem likely (though some good news: melting the planet probably easier than blowing it up). As the book noted, to blow things up you’d need a mix of oxygen and volatile fuel, but such fuels are embedded in a reducing environment in the subsurface. So your odds of getting these to react in a proper ratio are about nil–you’d need space-based hydrofracking extraordinaire. And of course you’d have to hit such deposits where they are (most of the Earth’s crust lacks oil deposits). If Earth had perhaps 10,000 billion barrels of oil, burning it all might buy you about 6 x 10^22 J of energy–a mere factor of 10 billion too small to properly blow up our planet. So tossing in natural gas as well probably isn’t going to get us where we need to go.
Is there a way to make anything deeper become explosive? Frankly, it seems hard. Our giant laser would bore a hole into the planet, probably vaporizing rock. The deeper this goes, the more pressure the rock is under and so volatilization could generate some pretty good forces, kind of like diatremes that erupt from the mantle at supersonic speeds. But that is mostly like opening a shaken can of soda: the forces developed are unlikely to really do much damage. Eventually the giant laser might go all the way through the planet. Conduction of heat from the big hole would be relatively slow, so even getting the planet to melt would probably not work well from this mode of attack; the greatest efficiency might well be flow of core material into the path of the laser. It seems implausible that this gas (well, plasma more likely) could exert an even greater force than the original metal core (more than likely, material would shoot back up the hole bored by the laser). Whether you could get stuff at those pressures to expand much at all (let alone go to gas) is problematic. So even if you hit the levels of being able to sink that kind of energy into a beam of energy, it is really hard to get your desired explosion.
And really, why blow up the planet? Even if you want to remove all life on the surface, it is a lot easier to fling huge quantities of dust or gravel into the atmosphere to produce a global microwave environment or toss a big boulder into oceans to create monster tsunamis and the like. You can come back later and reuse the planet for something else. Wasting all your effort on a galactic firecracker seems unwise, not to mention undoable.
Its been awhile since we looked at how earth science in doing in the cinema. The short answer is, not much and not well. Superhero and space opera movies have so abandoned reality that it is essentially pointless to be critical. For instance, Star Wars originally had some concept of the scale of space, but that was entirely wiped out by absolutely everything about the Starkiller Base in Force Awakens: the impossibly high stresses needed to make a planetary ditch at least 100 km high to the staggering variations in air pressure this would entail to the ridiculous notion of sucking a star into some weapon chamber to the impossibility of watching this thing fire its weapon in real time from a distant star system. With fanboy-fav and science-oblivious director J.J. Abrams returning for the 9th installment, we can expect to see evermore spectacular violations of reality…
Anyways, the point being that arguing the characteristics of vibranium in Marvel movies is pointless, as is the Bifrost or Dr Strange’s little portals just as the aerodynamics of the Millennium Falcon or TIE fighters is beyond hope. This seems to leave us with the Jurassic World movies.
There is little point here in even criticizing the dinosaurs since they were made imperfectly from the start–differences with real dinosaurs is explained simply as a result of the approximations used in making modern dinosaurs. This leaves us with Isla Nublar, supposedly off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica (Hawaii acts as a stand-in) and complete with a volcano. Unsurprisingly, there is no volcanic island off Costa Rica, but at least it is on the Pacific Ocean and has volcanoes….So as its been awhile since volcanoes were front and center–how does this one look?
Well we see a lot of smoke from the summit and a lot of lava flowing out the sides. Some of this lava is exceptionally fluid, sneaking through cracks in a building (good luck with that; there’s a lot of video now of how the fairly fluid east rift lavas on the Big Island of Hawaii behave when hitting buildings or cars and it isn’t that fluid). But of course we then get some explosions from the flanks of the mountain and what would seem to be pyroclastic flow coming from the same spot. A very slow pyroclastic flow at that, for instead of the typical speeds in excess of 100 mph usually seen, this one barely catches up to our protagonists moving at a run. Later the mountain shifts to hurling flaming boulders at everybody before some strange volcanic cloud of doom settles over the remaining dinosaurs. While not as laugh-out-loud silly as the cracks that open and close in Volcano, this is a very Hollywood volcano.
Would the volcano cause everything on the island to die? (what the movie’s news reporters call an “extinction level event,” which is not how any earth scientist would call the obliteration of a small population of animals on one island; “extinction level events” actually refer to events that cause mass extinctions, such as the asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous. Extinctions of a few geographically limited species can be caused far more prosaically–by draining a marsh or damming a river). The closest thing in recent history would be the eruption of the Soufriere Hills volcano in Montserrat 21 years ago, which led to 2/3 of the population leaving and the abandonment of the capital of Plymouth. Even here, though, the northern part of the island is largely unaffected and there remains large tracts of forest in the southern half of the island. So probably something would still be marching around on the island….
Overall not a lot of excitement geoscience-wise. GG avoided the train wreck of Geostorm and will need someday to see how the kaiju in Pacific Rim 2 were to “activate” the Pacific Rim of Fire (a callback to 1965’s Crack in the World?). We’ll have to wait and see how Alpha plays out (yes, more paleoanthropology than geoscience, but there has been speculation that human access to the New World required the domestication of wolves into dogs to be able to compete successfully with carnivores of the northern latitudes). Looks like the San Andreas sequel is stalled or dead, so maybe no more earthquakes or volcanoes coming up anytime soon.
Probably the most thorough examination of geology in the movies was put together in Earth magazine a few years ago. And GG has weighed in a few times before….
Can somebody please introduce Neil deGrasse Tyson to J. J. Abrams?
The last Star Wars movie, this planet killing weapon destroys a bunch of planets that are across the sky as viewed from another planet. Apparently orbiting another star. Far away. Hello? Seen any planets orbiting other stars when you look up at the night sky lately? And, um, seeing this would involve light which, you know, travels at light speed. Hard to imagine this taking less than a year. Kind of muddles up the plot if the Republic was demolished for a year and nobody noticed.
Fire from one solar system to another in a couple of minutes? Yes, they did say it was a hyperspace weapon, but that fast? That far?
Sucking hot gas off a star won’t just turn the star off. Or be a wonder fuel for destroying other planets. Or fit inside your little planet killer. Unless this all goes into Hermione Granger’s magic bag.
Wonder what atmospheric pressure is like at the bottom of a pit hundreds of kilometers deep. Or the temperature for that matter.
Wonder what they use to keep such a pit from collapsing gravitationally. Deviatoric stresses are truly incredible at that scale.
For all his failings, George Lucas did have a sense of cosmic scale that Abrams lacks.
While Star Wars is really fantasy rather than science fiction and so maybe can absorb this silliness, Star Trek was more mainstream science fiction in the pre-Abrams universe. Trekkers had the scales for how fast warp speeds and how far things were, etc. This all went by the boards (along with a lot of other stuff).
In Abrams’s version of Trek, there is a planet with a breathable atmosphere so close to Vulcan than that planet is moon sized in its sky. And yet all that is on this planet is a piddly Federation base. Um, this would have to be orbiting Vulcan…and they didn’t colonize it to some degree? Or is there just a big magnifying glass in the sky?
Vulcan is a few minutes at warp from Earth. The Klingon home world is only a bit farther (seemed a lot closer when coming home than heading out–did they take the scenic route?). Quite the cozy neighborhood.
This all bled into the latest Trek where a nebula suddenly becomes a goofy dreamscape of colliding rock-like things that again only required a few minutes to pass through. Super challenging going in, piece of cake going out.
Look, space is really, really, really big. Distances are equally big. Is it really that impossible to develop dramatic tension without ignoring that?
If Tyson can help us to come to terms with an unpleasant election outcome, maybe he can convince Abrams that keeping space big is OK?
(Yes, those long drives do end up inducing odd wandering thoughts…)
GG doesn’t really need to review such a prominent movie (particularly a movie that was based on a non-fiction book that hadn’t even been published when they were filming), but there are some points he’d like to make (aside from recommending both movie and book).
The movie focuses on one particular moment in time for the black women computers (yes, it was a job before it was a machine) of Langley around the time of the Mercury program. As such, the movie rearranges many of the events documented in the book into a shorter timeframe (for instance, Mary Jackson’s long hikes to the segregated bathroom in the early 50s-and her angry tirade leading her to work in the wind tunnel group-were transferred to Katherine Goble in 1961, who had in fact ignored the absence of a Colored bathroom in her building by simply using the nearest available women’s room). It also seems to amplify the racial tensions within Langley (especially with the supervisor of the white female computers and the flight engineering group) compared to the book’s broader view of Langley as more of a refuge from the Jim Crow Virginia these women lived in outside of work. These cinematic choices are not bad, and the movie does more or less convey the barriers the women faced and overcame. This does make the movie more coherent than the book, which probably needed a bit more development time, because the narrative thread in the text gets tangled from time to time. So it is a feel-good movie about the unjustly oppressed getting at least some justice based on a groundbreaking book that is long overdue.
GG’s point is that this is also a cautionary tale, and this is clearer in the book than the movie. The book (unlike the movie) addresses the educational barriers these women faced, both in being black and female in the south. By focusing on the few who had the combination of luck and skill to succeed, both the movie and book bury the fact that this means there were many others with less luck but, probably, equal skill whose contributions were never made because of discrimination. A point too rarely made is that discrimination not only hurts those discriminated against, but it denies the rest of society the contributions those victims could have made. And although the overt legal discrimination of the past is gone, the continued dearth of minority faces in science in general and in the earth sciences in particular suggests that some styles of discrimination remain. Because of that, we are poorer as a discipline.
This from a course syllabus of a geophysics class at MIT:
Formally, this course has 4 contact hours a week. If enrollment allows it, the extra one-hour session will be devoted to a discussion of a recent journal article on a topic covered in the lectures; if the class size is too large this will not be feasible and the extra time will be used for a combination of resuscitation and literature discussion.
The only question is, is it the students or the instructor needing resuscitation in large classes?
OK, while pondering the bizarre motivations for evil alien monsters (must…destroy…schoolbus…which can dodge plasma blasts even as fighter jets cannot), GG wondered, why would any alien civilization want to conquer or destroy Earth?
Arguably the most likely reason would have something to do with our biosphere. Maybe there are cool new medicines to be found–the cure for some intergalactic plague. Or maybe they really are into zoos (hmm, didn’t Kurt Vonnegut go there?). Our biosphere is presumably highly unique and probably pretty rare (current enthusiasm for planets possibly harboring life not withstanding).
Not knowing anything about alien ecosystems or diseases or the like, can’t really go any further. Is there anything else special about Earth? In the past, movies and some science fiction have used the water on Earth as a main motivation (see Oblivion for a recent example). But water is simply hydrogen–which is widespread–and oxygen, which is also pretty common. If you have the muscle to move spaceships all over the place, making water is probably not that hard to do.
Oddly enough, one possibility is one that feels more like motivation for a spy movie and not for some extra-terrestrial invasion: gold.
Now gold on Earth isn’t the most common thing, but the funny part is that there is a lot more of it near the earth’s surface than you’d expect. If you make Earth by condensing all the material in the solar nebula at about this distance from the Sun, you kind of expect the gold to all end up in the core [woo-hoo! Another motivation for a movie about the core–travel there to get gold!]. Although this difference might be related to other elements present in early Earth and issues with experimental simulation of the partitioning of gold between core and mantle, if this is real, a decent proposal is that things like gold and iridium were emplaced on the earth’s surface in the Late Heavy Bombardment period just under 4 billion years ago (a review of much of this can be found here; a popular science story here and a 2011 Nature article providing observational support is here). What this might mean is that the earth might be uncommonly rich in metals like gold. And if our solar system were unusually rich in gold to start with (the production of gold in stars requires either supernovae or even more exotic events), we might be quite unusual. So maybe a good ET movie might combine sci-fi and a Ft. Knox heist….
Of course you’d have to have some big reason for wanting gold (hint: probably not to make coins with). But gold is exceptionally malleable and resistant to corrosion; it is also an exceptional conductor. Perhaps there is some kind of gold-based superconductor out there (so Earth could be Avatar’s Pandora for some other species).
GG will wait for that call from Hollywood….
Honestly, how did the mild-mannered core become the focus of so many disaster movies? Having one–The Core, which was laugh-out-loud bad–would have seemed to have exhausted that particular aspect of earth disasters (we are still awaiting The Landslide–who knows, maybe the sequel to San Andreas can do that). But no, then we had the reboot of Star Trek drop “red matter” (or maybe we misunderstood–perhaps it was “read matter” as in science books they chose not to read) into the core to cause planets to implode. Why did you have to reach the core, anyways? If this made black holes, wouldn’t it be enough to just pitch it onto the surface?
But now, after 20 years of gestation, we get the core as once again the weak link in life on Earth. [Spoiler ahead–arguably the only thing you might not guess from ads or reviews]. Read More…
Let’s talk fluff….
Awhile back there was an op/ed in CNN arguing that Star Wars ruined science fiction by hemming in the expectations of what “science fiction” really is; basically the argument went that Star Wars made sci-fi solely into westerns in space. A lot of that discussion had to do with the kinds of story arcs that could be within science fiction and less to do with what defines science fiction.
Well, watching trailers for the new Star Wars movie got GG mildly annoyed with the notion that this is science fiction in the sense fans of science fiction know it. In fact, if anything, written science fiction has been moving away from the lazy approximations of some hazy future and deeper into developing fairly rigorous conceptualizations of a possible future. Developing such future or distant universes is so involved that authors are increasingly making multi-volume stories to fully take advantage of the effort spent in world-building in the first place. Such efforts can inspire real-world goals (space stations, asteroid mining, etc). It has even gotten to the point where authors will set their tales within a universe created by another author (see the whole Man-Kzin Wars series, for instance).
Now of course there is a longstanding continuum between hard and soft science fiction and on into fantasy that, generally, each reader defines for his or her own self. But in the popular mind, Star Wars defines science fiction. Is that fair?
There is something mildly amusing and ironic going on in the world of animation.
It is the desirability of including realism in the form of land- and cityscapes.
After spending lots of time making up fake worlds (that, um, to a geologist look fake), animators have turned to real-world datasets to make their fake worlds look real.
Most amusing is that this discovery has brought the recognition that there is a lot of data. One was Big Hero Six, where real data about San Francisco was used to create the fictional San Fransokyo. The most recent example is Pixar’s The Good Dinosaur, which apparently used USGS DEMs in order to create background landscapes that look like landscapes should look. (Indeed, it appears that Bryce Canyon, Monument Valley and perhaps part of the Colorado Rockies are used from GG’s perusal of the film). That story notes that this resulted in the use of far more data in a single image than in entire movies. This is no surprise to any earth scientist who has played with 1m LIDAR images, though to be fair probably a lot of their data use was in spreading vegetation on their landscapes.
Ironically, there is a long history of software designed to try to simulate landscape development. One particular program that stands out was Bryce, which used an unusual interface and fractal optics to create photorealistic images of artificial landscapes. Of course, the trick was to create the landscape in the first place. You wonder how long it will be before they hire geomorphologists who can operate the CHILD software to produce geologically reasonable topography from some specified geology…