We're Just Here To . . .

Previously I have recommended the Christopher Nolan film Interstellar (here and here) and I will continue to sing its praises even while encouraging us to see it for all it is and look discerningly at its message. As the main character, Cooper, says his good-byes to his family and prepares to leave the galaxy, he makes a statement that suggests depth but perhaps simply reveals the not so deep philosophy of the Nolan brothers who wrote the screenplay for this film.

"We're just here to be memories for our kids." Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) in Interstellar.[1]

On the one hand, this is not a bad concept. If we are here to be memories for our kids, we will want to make certain that the memories we leave behind are good memories and we will likely live good lives. But as a true philosophy of life, it falls far short. Our lives have an existence apart from the lives of our children. I will not get on a soap-box and preach a message that defines my own perspective on the purpose of life. Anyone who reads a few pages of this blog will soon discern what my view on this would be. Instead, I encourage you to think further about why we are here. It must be more than just to be memories for our kids. As we consider the joys and horrors of this life, we must at least admit that our purpose is to contribute to the joys and diminish the horrors. What more would you add to this? How would you answer the question of why we are here?

---

[1] Interstellar. Directed by Christopher Nolan. Written by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan. Performed by Matthew McConaughey. 2014.

The Shape of the Universe

How does one describe the shape of an ever-expanding universe? It is not easy to imagine what it might look like. Neither was it easy for some to imagine a spherical earth. For many centuries, the best model for the shape of the earth was a flat disk. This model held sway for at least five centuries in the Common  Era (CE); and, even then, a spherical model was only adopted in certain Greek philosophical circles. Imagine for a moment how difficult it would have been to conceptualize that if you traveled west long enough you would arrive back at your point of departure. Returning to the shape of the universe, apply such imagination to its shape. What if someone told you that if you kept going in one direction in the expanse of the universe, you would one day come back to your point of origin? Would that be similarly hard to comprehend? That is precisely what would happen in the current best model for the shape of the universe. The model is represented by a toroid. It is sometimes described as a donut shape but a donut shape is only the simplest of the toroidal shapes. The shapes pictured in this blog also define toroids.

The best calculations by mathematical physicists tell us that the universe is close to completely flat and could fit on the surface of such a toroid. This is a shape that is definitely hard to conceptualize for very long. I think it must have been brief glimpses into the mysteries of the universe such as this that led Albert Camus to say, “Beauty is unbearable, drives us to despair, offering us for a minute the glimpse of an eternity that we should like to stretch out over the whole of time.” We can only hold such images in our minds for the briefest of moments before they escape us or drive us mad. Those who lived in a "flat disk world-view" must have felt the same. How could one hold onto this concept for more than a few seconds? It was outside of the experience of all people until a few brought back reports of strange journeys and new understandings of geography and geometry. Now, although we take it for granted that it can be done, few have circumnavigated the globe to prove the theory. I can only dream of what the experience might be like and only astronauts have a true, immediate, experience of circumnavigation. But, in my mind, momentarily, I can capture the mystery.

Works cited:
Nature; Published online 23 May 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2008.854; "Doughnut-Shaped Universe bites back: Astronomers say Universe is small and finite."

What is it made of?

As a curious person, I often ask the question, "What is that made of?" Today's blog will take us on a journey as we ask this question about plastic. One of the simplest forms of plastic is polyethylene. The chemical formula for this molecule is (C2H4)nH2. The type of polyethylene varies with the value of n.

(You can click on any of these images for another view.)

So, this plastic is made up of carbon atoms and hydrogen atoms. Carbon atoms are made of six neutrons, 6 protons, and 6 electrons while hydrogen atoms are made of one proton and one electron.

 

Neutrons are made of two "up" quarks and one "down" quark while protons are made of one "up" quark and two "down" quarks. Electrons are made of . . . well . . . electrons. At this point, we believe electrons to be indivisible quantum particles, just like "up," "down," and other types of quarks. On the other hand, another theory is that all of these elementary particles would be better modeled as vibrating strings. But we will save the discussion of that theory for another day.

Researchers at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Cern are discovering that quarks can interact and form intermediary groupings of two, three, and four quarks. Recently a particular particle containing four quarks was discovered by analyzing the products of multiple collisions in the LHC. So, the next time someone asks you the component parts of something, ask them how far down they would like to go. This universe continues to inspire awe in the one who created it.

Gravity and Skiing

Nobel Prize Laureate Peter Higgs in Stockholm, December 2013

I "went down a rabbit hole" in Wikipedia today. I wanted to better understand gravity. On the face of the matter, it seems like a simple enough question: "What is gravity and how is it mediated?" I went cross-country skiing on Saturday and felt its effects; but what is this force that keeps me on the planet and slams me to the ground when I take a spill? The articles in Wikipedia left me wondering if it is possible to know anything for sure. Some physicists have spent their entire lives trying to understand this one force in the universe. It is thought that there must be an elementary particle that mediates gravity. The hypothetical particle, that has not yet been experimentally confirmed, is called a graviton. Could there be particles traveling between the mass of my body and the mass of the earth that pull the two together? Could these particles be traveling between our planet and the moon to keep it circling around us? Could these particles be traveling between the moon and the oceans of the earth to create tides? We know that light can travel large distances through space. We even know that light is made up of discreet little particles called photons. We know about other elementary particles that act in similar ways: W bosons, Z bosons, and gluons. In 2013 one more elementary particle was confirmed: the Higgs Boson. This particle mediates mass rather than gravity.

But, this just takes one further down the metaphorical rabbit hole for this brings us face-to-face with difficult questions about what other particles exist in the universe. The answer is that our universe and even the immediate neighbourhood is made up of a whole zoo of known particles: six types of quarks and six types of leptons which come together to form atoms. Then there are all of the anti-quarks and anti-leptons of anti-matter. Yes, such things do exist outside of the Star Trek universe. Before I lose my audience completely I will mention one other form of matter in our universe: dark matter. "Dark matter is one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics." There may be as much as five times more dark matter than ordinary matter in the universe, yet "it cannot be seen directly with telescopes" and "it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level." The existence  of dark matter can be inferred from its "gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe." This rabbit hole is considerably deep and complex.

As Edward Witten, an American theoretical physicist and professor of mathematical physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey said,

"Albert Einstein famously devoted the later part of his life to seeking a theory that would offer, at least in principle, a comprehensive description of the laws of nature. . . . In fact, there are ample reasons why one might doubt whether Einstein’s vision is achievable . . . Crucial clues may be hopelessly out of reach. . . . Moreover, even if we could somehow find the unified field theory, it is not at all clear whether we could determine that it is right. . . . some of the most important phenomena may be permanently beyond our experimental reach."1

Theoretical and experimental physicists alike have made many significant discoveries in the last century and certainly we can expect that more will be made. As the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland is scheduled to be restarted in May of 2015, there is much hope that further experimentation will confirm the properties of even more elementary particles. Yet, it would also seem that with such a long list of particles to examine, the data may take years to generate and interpret. Meanwhile, researchers have still not found the gravitons that pulled my hip resolutely toward the frozen ground. Perhaps I need to get out of this "rabbit hole" and go skiing more often.

1 (Witten 2005, 1085)

Work Cited:
Witten, Edward. "Unravelling String Theory." Nature, December 29, 2005: 1085.

Interstellar 2014

Once again Christopher Nolan (writer and director) and Jonathan Nolan (writer) have succeeded in changing our perceptions with the visually stunning, Interstellar (2014). If you have not seen the movie, you may want to see it before you continue to read this blog which contains elements of the plot (in other words: spoiler alert). From the dust-bowl farmers of the "not-too-distant" future, to scenes of communication across time, I could almost taste the dirt, feel the pull of acceleration and gravity, sense the disorientation of astronauts facing challenges never before experienced, and share the suffering of the families as their lives were torn apart by time and circumstance.

The brothers have collaborated before (Memento (2000) and The Dark Knight Rises (2012); see my analysis of that Batman movie here), but their story-telling gets better each time. Interstellar is subtle; the audience is never subjected to preaching dialogue or pedantic scenes; and even the plot moves along largely through visual and musical elements. Hans Zimmer's score is perfectly suited to their method. There are times when the dialogue is nearly drowned out by the score and flood of potent images; but one soon learns to wait for the resolution of the scene to understand its implications. Many times the film reminded me of the story-telling methodology developed in the Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke collaboration, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Many other contemporary writers and directors seem to believe that the audience will not understand a story told through images and so they clutter the story with explanations. The Nolan brothers have recovered an art-form as old as cave-drawings and stained-glass windows and only a few times did they stray from this style. They did choose to explain wormholes and multi-dimensional travel and I could hardly fault them in that choice.

Then there is their visual depiction of a wormhole which is one of their great innovations and one which I am sure other film creators will imitate. Any fan of science fiction will be familiar with the standard depiction of wormholes seen in the Star Trek or Stargate franchises (to mention two of many). The usual images are of a two dimensional hole or lens which opens into a multi-coloured tunnel of stretched light. The creative development in Interstellar is that the wormhole is depicted as a three dimensional sphere and the approach of the Endurance space-craft is shown in a way that resembles an object being drawn into the orbit of a planet. This imagery lends itself to several subtle variations on the theme of wormholes, black-holes, and rapid space travel. At one point the crew of the Endurance skips through the "event horizon" of a black hole to slingshot themselves across a galaxy. I look forward to seeing what other writers and directors might do with such innovations and plot possibilities.

The cast is full of big names in the movie industry and it is somewhat surprising that actors who had smaller roles seemed to be the ones most likely to fail to convince me of their character. I expect that one or two of them will look back on this movie and realize the creative opportunities that were missed.

Near the end of the movie we see a rich interpretation of communication across time and space. The imagery is somewhat reminiscent of the layering of time and space in Christopher Nolan's movie, Inception (2010); but here the key to communication is gravity and not dreams. The Nolans have rightly recognized that one of the last great mysteries of physics is gravity and that the resolution of this mystery will bring about a truly massive revolution in scientific development. They also realistically depict that mankind may never solve this mystery. Here, their art imitates life with an image that reflects perfectly back on their art. The brothers purposely and intelligently refrain from tying-up all of the loose ends and one is left with a sense of wonder and trepidation at the next years of life we may experience on this planet. In life and art, may we continue to encourage and celebrate the risk-takers and pioneers.

Quantum Mathematics

Two experiences within a few days have shaped my thinking for this blog. Earlier this week a friend made the statement that our world cannot fight the truth. Some in our world want to say that certain things are right when the fact is that they are not. He then used the metaphor that 2 + 2 will always equal 4 and that settled it for him. He was using common, everyday vernacular to reason about absolute truth. He was not seeking to be a philosopher and his argument was not meant to be a grand theme for every situation. He was appealing to a group of like-minded men to remember that things which God has spoken in the Bible are true for all time. His statement does make sense and I do not disagree with him.

My second experience was reading an article in Science News, a place I regularly go to keep up to date with recent developments in the world of scientific investigation. The article suggested that quantum physics calls into question many of the basic concepts of math. One of the basic principles of math is that "If you put three pigeons in two pigeonholes, at least two of the pigeons end up in the same hole." In quantum physics, because the location of a particle is uncertain, it can appear, or perhaps it can be, that a particle is in more than one place at a given time. The author of the article goes on to explain how one can have a situation where you have more particles than boxes, but no more than one particle in each box and all particles in a box. Hmm, you can read the article to see the explanation and see if it makes sense to you. Now most people reading this article will not be able to do the complex math required to prove such a concept, so we must trust the scientists who do this work on a regular basis; but the fact is that these concepts are seeping into our majority culture. People now understand that in some circumstances 2 + 2 no longer equals 4.

I write this to suggest that some of our metaphors are no longer adequate to convince others about truth. The minds of people in the majority culture have been trained to accept Schrodinger's Cat type arguments (notice how the argument has become integrated into everyday television shows, here and here). That is, people are capable of holding two opposing concepts as true at one and the same time. It is as if they are able to say two things at once: 2 + 2 equals 4, and 2 + 2 does not equal 4, and be quite comfortable with the cognitive dissonance.

It is helpful to recognize that questions of right and wrong are often more complicated and less "black and white" than we would like them to be. Making broad statements which we expect others will take as absolute unless they are insane, will alienate people more than solve arguments. Listening more and speaking grand statements less is imperative to having a voice in the majority culture. Taking the time to understand why someone else thinks that 2 + 2 does not equal 4 is an essential part of loving our neighbour. At the end of the conversation we may still disagree but we will have opportunities to speak together another time.