Physics in Film

I really enjoyed this movie. Among the recent superhero flicks I would put this near the top along with the X-Men movies.

For a “Physics in Film” class, obviously the whole superhero genre requires at least some suspension of our disbelief; otherwise there wouldn’t be anything particularly “super” to cheer about. Still, some superhero movies stretch credulity quite a bit further than others. In that regard, “Iron Man” is certainly not the worst. In fact, there are places in the movie where real physics actually causes problems for our hero, such as when his suit ices over on his first high-altitude test flight or when he crashes through the roof of his home because it can’t support his weight.

Assignment: Although we must be willing to accept some flaunting of the laws of physics to truly enjoy movies such as “Iron Man,” I still expect you as students of physics to be able to spot the flaws. For this week’s assignment I want you to watch a superhero movie (it doesn’t have to be “Iron Man”), and analyze the physics of at least three of the hero’s powers. As an example, for a character like Iceman (from the X-men movies), you could ask how much heat has to be removed from the air for Iceman to create an entire wall of ice from the water vapor in the air (as in X2)? As a follow-up question, one has to wonder where all that heat goes. Does Iceman absorb it? If so, how much would his body temperature have to rise as a consequence? If your chosen superhero doesn’t exhibit at least three different powers of their own, then pick additional superheroes and analyze one superpower for each.

Please post your entry to your blog by Monday, 24 Nov.

Ch. 24 – Physics of Superheroes

I really like this movie; it’s the closest any feature presentation has come to showing what the life of an astronomer is really like. That’s probably because the movie is based on a novel written by the eminent astrophysicist Carl Sagan, and some of the characters in the story are based loosely on real life astronomers (Jodie Foster’s character is supposedly based loosely on the life experiences of an astronomer named Jill Tartar, and there really is a blind astronomer named Kent Cullers who worked for SETI). Besides that, though, I think “Contact” presents some compelling plot lines, most crucially the question of what really would happen to our society if we made contact with an alien civilization. It also addresses what many see as a conflict between science and religion.

I was surprised when doing some quick research for this review to find some feminists who complained about the portrayal of Jodie Foster’s character (example here); personally, I found it refreshing for presenting a strong, smart, motivated female lead character. OK, so she had some emotional issues, but do we really expect her to be perfect?

Anyway, the movie is also great because it really tries to get as much of the physics right as possible. The opening sequence has a problem with the scale of objects and distances, but it at least has everything in the right place. The idea that another intelligent civilization may discover our existence by capturing stray radio transmissions from Earth is also sound. That’s how we’re hoping to discover them after all! And wormholes (if they’re real) are our best hope for accomplishing interstellar travel in a single lifetime. However, with all its scientific successes, the movie plot does have one glaring flaw…

Assignment: Toward the very end of the movie, we are presented with a version of the “Twin Paradox.” I want you to point out what is wrong with the portrayal in the movie and come up with a revised movie script that gets this point right.

Please post on your blog by Monday, 17 Nov.

Ch. 1-4 – Physics of Star Trek

Man, some of the Star Trek heroes are looking old in this one. No wonder the brand moved on to making “Next Generation” movies.

In my opinion, this isn’t one of the best Star Trek movies; it’s a little too cheesy and there’s too little action for my taste. Still, the movie plot is built around a great irony – having to crew a salvaged enemy vessel back to Earth for your own courts martial is fantastic. That’s almost like sticking a bunch of Taliban enemy combatants in a Navy battleship (by themselves) and instructing them to sail to Guantanamo to await trial. I wonder where that ship would end up. In the world of Star Trek, though, persons must have a much stronger sense of justice because the crew does exactly as they are told. That is, until they arrive at Earth and find it under attack from some sort of alien probe. Here Kirk’s crew disobeys an order basically telling them to save themselves and get away. Instead they risk their lives to save planet Earth, and in so doing, guarantee that their trial can proceed. Of course, all ends happily (and predictably).

Still, Star Trek is a great franchise to study in a “Physics in Film” class. As with all great science fiction, Star Trek did its best to weave great science and great fiction into a very imaginitive tapestry. Many of the technologies introduced in Star Trek were predictive of technologies we already have today – the communicator devices in Star Trek are earily similar to push-to-talk cell phones that are commonly used by businesses today. Other technologies in the series are likely many centuries away or even impossible. But even here, the Star Trek series tried whenever possible to stay within the realm of things that were at least physically plausible based on our current understanding of science. Only a few of the technologies are the stuff of pure fiction.

Assignment: Most of the technologies introduced in the Star Trek series were necessary to fulfill one plot requirement or another. There were very few gratuitous technologies, which is consistent with how new technologies are really developed. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all. So what I want you to do for your assignment this week is to explain the plot need behind two of the technologies in the Star Trek series. For your first technology, I want you to consider the “warp drives” on the USS Enterprise. Why was the warp drive a necessary plot device in Star Trek? Remember, this is a physics question. So discuss what some of the physical limitations were, based on what you already know, and why it was necessary to go beyond current technology. The choice for the second technology is yours, but I’d like for you to talk about why the technology was necessary for the plot and what the feasibility of the technology is in the real world.

Ch. 24 – Bad Astronomy

I’ll admit I was a little disappointed when I watched this movie. Although it does a good job of recreating many of the elements of the Manhattan Project (most of the factual occurances in the movie are true, or at least reasonably close to the truth), I thought the portrayal of the characters lacked any real depth. This was particularly disappointing for me because each of the past two summers I have read biographies of two of the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project, Robert Oppenheimer and Richard Feynman. I can assure you both men were much more conflicted, quirky, brilliant, and interesting than they were portrayed in the movie. Nevertheless, the movie manages to convey the main dilemma I want you to comment on in your blogs this week: the morality of having scientists design and build weapons of mass destruction. Many scientists who do this hide behind one of the moral shields presented in the movie: the scientists are only responsible for developing the weapons, not using them. Other scientists openly embrace their role. Edward Teller was one prominent Manhattan Project scientist who felt that the only way to keep the world safe was for the United States to have weapons of such terror that no other nation would dare to step too far out of line. Even after WWII ended, Teller advocated further development of atomic and then nuclear weapons. In a very real sense, he was the architect of America’s modern nuclear arsenal. Still other scientists have felt that there is no way to divorce the results of such weapons’ use from their development, and therefore have refused to work on weapons-related research. (Sadly, the right or privilege NOT to work on weapons-related research is not always afforded to scientists.)

Assignment: This week I’d like for you to just write about the movie. I want you to record what you think and feel as you watch the story progress. You might want to comment on the drive and ambition of the military officer, General Groves. You might want to comment on the gradual shift in the moods of the scientists from ebullient enthusiasm and excitement to gnawing guilt and remorse. You might want to comment on Dr. Oppenheimer’s “God complex”, the notion that he could control everything around him. There are many other themes you could choose to comment on as well (I don’t really need to hear your comments on the love story unless you just can’t resist talking about it).

Alternative assignment: If you attend the Festa Lecture on Monday, Nov 3 (see entry below), then you can instead write a blog entry summarizing the main points of Dr. Roble’s talk, particularly as they relate to this course.

Please post your blog by Tuesday, 4 Nov.

I hope all of you have heard about this event already. Don’t miss this opportunity to hear from a Hollywood insider!

On Monday, November 3, at 6:30pm in Physician’s Auditorium, Dr. Doug Roble will present a talk “The Science of the Magic of the Movies.” Dr. Roble is a software engineer with Digital Domain, a California based special-effects firm. His firm has worked on such recent movies as “Speed Racer” and “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor.” Dr. Roble will describe the science involved in making realistic looking special effects.

Ch. 35, 36, & “Afterword” – The Sum of All Fears

Ch. 5 – Hollywood Science
Ch. 8 – Don’t Try this at Home