Physics in Film

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

I had asked the library to get a copy of the original “Godzilla” (1954), but it appears it was easier for them to get a copy of the much more recent remake (1998). It’s not really that I thought the original (which I still have not seen myself) would be a higher quality movie (Godzilla was, after all, one of the stalwarts of 1950’s era B-rated sci-fi flicks, so you have to appreciate it for what it is). It’s just that the original (Japanese) version made a little more of a political statement about the effects of nuclear testing and the nuclear age in general. The more recent version sweeps most of the politics under the rug (blaming the French instead of the Americans for creating Godzilla, for instance) and appears satisfied to just be a corny monster movie. I could live with that except that our goal this week is to consider the role movies play in shaping and reinforcing people’s opinions about scientific issues. Nuclear power is one such issue. By some estimates 27% of Americans say they fear nuclear power, even though a far smaller percentage actually understand it at even a rudimentary level.

Assignment: Write a blog entry on how you perceive nuclear power. Do the pros of: 1) relatively cheap energy and 2) energy independence outweigh the cons of: 1) nuclear waste disposal and 2) safety concerns. What factors have influenced your thinking? What about nuclear weapons? Do you feel they have a role in modern warfare or are they too devastating to actually use? Do you favor the development of “tactical” nuclear weapons (low yield devices intended for use on the battlefield) or is that too likely to provide further impetus for other countries to develop and use nuclear weapons? Movies about nuclear armageddon were popular during the Cold War, but the theme has fallen out of favor in Hollywood in the last couple decades. Do you think a nuclear holocaust could happen in today’s world? Under what scenarios?

Please post your response on your blog by Monday, 27 Oct.

I thought I’d share a link to a physics blog a colleague pointed me to today. The blog is called “Cocktail Party Physics.” You might enjoy reading the post on “Prime Time Science” which reviews the science content of many current prime-time television shows.

Ch. 5 – Don’t Try this at Home
Ch. 17 – ISMP

Ch. 4 – Don’t Try this at Home
Ch. 15 – ISMP

There is plenty of bad physics in this movie, just like “The Core”. Enough that we could make another assignment of just trying to find as many examples as we can. Instead, though, I want to shift gears a bit with this assignment. Rather than looking at a bunch of different specific examples of science in this movie, I want you to focus on the overarching science in the movie – that of global warming. Clearly this is a controversial issue, at least among the public and politicians; scientists are mostly in agreement about the problem, although not necessarily about the potential impact or how to solve it. One of the problems seems to be that, although the bulk of the reliable scientific evidence points toward the reality of global warming and man’s role in it, there are occasionally studies released that appear to contradict this conclusion or scientists who are willing to speak out against this conclusion. However, none of these counter-claims has ever been able to produce as compelling and large a body of evidence against global warming as that in support of it. The naysayers only a few small anecdotal pieces of evidence that seem to point the other way. For unscrupulous politicians and others who have vested interests in the status quo, however, this is usually all they need. People (particularly non-scientists) are willing to discard mountains of evidence that go against their opinions in favor of a much smaller body of evidence that support them. This is a very illogical way to make decisions, but it happens all the time. This is a great week to discuss this issue because on Thursday, during class, Dr. Terry Richardson from here in the Physics department will come in to lecture exactly on the topic you are to be writing on – the science and policy of global warming. Also, on Thursday at 12:15 in our usual classroom, the Physics Colloquium speaker will be a former CofC graduate who now works as a Regional Climate Extension Specialist, whose job it is to try to bridge the gap between the science of global warming and the policy. I encourage all of you to attend that talk if you can.

Assignment: Analyze and discuss the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” from the perspective of how did/does this movie and others like it affect public discourse and opinion on the topic of global warming. Does the movie present any compelling and accurate information or arguments? You may also want to consider the role that documentaries, such as “An Inconvenient Truth”, play. Is there any evidence that either of these movies affected public opinion? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?