1. Comment #346375 by debacles on February 25, 2009 at 10:39 am

Am I the only one who gets annoyed listening to ridiculous assumptions based on quantum physics theories?

Other Comments by debacles

2. Comment #346380 by mrjohnno on February 25, 2009 at 10:45 am

Doubt it.

Theists see indeterminacy as a way to refute any claims made my atheists but fail to see that it also affects their claim also.

Johnno

Other Comments by mrjohnno

3. Comment #346397 by headcold on February 25, 2009 at 11:11 am

This is a little lame. However...

Dr. Brian Cox's commentary on the DVD of Sunshine is awesome. I was able to watch the movie and then immediately watch it again with the science commentary, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Other Comments by headcold

4. Comment #346409 by Lucas on February 25, 2009 at 11:20 am

Doh! And I replaced my avatar of Dr. Manhattan sitting on Mars just last week!

This is, by the way, science FICTION, folks. The best sci-fi takes what we know and expands upon it. As this story was written in the mid '80s, and the primary reasons for Dr. Manhattan's powers being what they are were those of character and plot, retroactively matching up the quantum physics knowledge that has been gained since then to his established abilities is a fascinating task. I also recommend the essays in Absolute Watchmen to understand more about this character.

Other Comments by Lucas

5. Comment #346410 by rod-the-farmer on February 25, 2009 at 11:20 am

What's with Minnesota ? PZ, and now this fellow. Here's what Jeff Foxworthy has to say...

If you consider it a sport to gather your food by drilling through 18 inches of ice and sitting there all day hoping that the food will swim by..

You might live in Minnesota.


If you're proud that your state makes the national news 96 nights each year because International Falls is the coldest spot in the nation...

You might live in Minnesota.


If you have ever refused to buy something because it's "too spendy"...

You might live in Minnesota.


If your local Dairy Queen is closed from November through March...

You might live in Minnesota.


If someone in a store offers you assistance, and they don't work there...

You might live in Minnesota.


If your dad's suntan stops at a line curving around the middle of his forehead...

You might live in Minnesota.


If you have worn shorts and a parka at the same time...

You might live in Minnesota.


If your town has an equal number of bars and churches...

You! Might live in Minnesota.


If you know how to say...Wayzata...Mahtomedi....Cloquet ...Edina...and Shakopee,

You might live in Minnesota.


If you think that ketchup is a little too spicy,

You might live in Minnesota.


If vacation means going "up north" for the weekend,

You might live in Minnesota.


You measure distance in hours,

You might live in Minnesota.


You know several people, who have hit deer more than once,

You might live in Minnesota.


You often switch from "Heat" to "A/C" in the same day and back again,

You might live in Minnesota.


You can drive 65 mph through 2 feet of snow during a raging blizzard without flinching,

You might live in Minnesota.


You see people wearing hunting clothes at social events,

You might live in Minnesota.


You install security lights on your house and garage and leave both unlocked,

You might live in Minnesota.


You think of the major food groups as beer, fish, and venison,

You might live in Minnesota.


You carry jumper cables in your car, and your girlfriend knows how to use them,

You might live in Minnesota.


There are 7 empty cars running in the parking lot at Mill's Fleet Farm at any given time,

You might live in Minnesota. (must be a local thing)


You design your kid's Halloween costume to fit over a snowsuit,

You might live in Minnesota.


Driving is better in the winter because the potholes are filled with snow,

You might live in Minnesota.


You know all 4 seasons: almost winter, winter, still winter, and of course, road construction,

You might live in Minnesota.


You can identify a southern or eastern accent,

You might live in Minnesota.


Your idea of creative landscaping is a plastic deer next to your blue spruce,

You might live in Minnesota.!


If "Down South" to you means Iowa,

You might live in Minnesota.


You know "a brat" is something you eat,
You might live in Minnesota. (bratwurst sausage)


You find -10 degrees "a little chilly",

You might live in Minnesota.

You actually understand these jokes, and you forward them to all your Minnesota friends,

You DO live in Minnesota.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

6. Comment #346415 by Sciros on February 25, 2009 at 11:26 am

All the quantum-mechanics-out-of-your-arse talk in the world isn't going to make Dr Manhattan look any less fake. He looks like a crummy 1999 CG character, what's up with that?

Other Comments by Sciros

7. Comment #346419 by boogerjames on February 25, 2009 at 11:31 am

Load of crap. Why is this even posted here? I get more enjoyment of out listening to Kirk Cameran and his Crocoduck.

Other Comments by boogerjames

8. Comment #346420 by lvpl78 on February 25, 2009 at 11:33 am

Cool.

I spent the best part of the last year working on the digital effects for this movie. What an honour for it be featured on RD.net!

rod-the-farmer, good list there.

Other Comments by lvpl78

9. Comment #346421 by Eshto on February 25, 2009 at 11:33 am

rod-the-farmer:

Pretty much all of those also apply to my state, Wisconsin.

God bless the northwoods, eh.

Other Comments by Eshto

10. Comment #346422 by Bonzai on February 25, 2009 at 11:34 am

How much did Warner Brothers pay this guy?

Other Comments by Bonzai

11. Comment #346423 by MaxD on February 25, 2009 at 11:37 am

Kaklios' book is splendid. I recommend it to anyone.

EDIT: I also recommend Watchmen the graphic novel. Not sure about the movie. But I only got around to reading Watchmen this year, and it made my all time top 10 sci-fi experiences. Simply stunning.

Other Comments by MaxD

12. Comment #346424 by Sciros on February 25, 2009 at 11:37 am

I spent the best part of the last year working on the digital effects for this movie.

Who worked on Dr. Manhattan? If it was you then my bad, but I'm standing by what I said.

Other Comments by Sciros

13. Comment #346425 by Bueller_007 on February 25, 2009 at 11:37 am

Seriously, how is this any better than people's post hoc reasoning about the scientific accuracy of the Koran?

This shouldn't be here. There's hardly any real science content in the video anyway.

Other Comments by Bueller_007

14. Comment #346428 by Sciros on February 25, 2009 at 11:41 am

Bueller, how dare you mock the scientific miracle that is the Qur'an!? If you read it you will see it clearly mentions a big blue guy modeled off Captain Atom, and a dude in an owl costume that's basically a crummy Batman. The Qur'an that proves the scientific legitimacy of Watchmen!

Other Comments by Sciros

15. Comment #346429 by lvpl78 on February 25, 2009 at 11:41 am

Sciros - don't sweat it my friend.

Bueller_007 - this is supposed to be science fiction. I don't think anyone is claiming this stuff is true. Better to at least try and take some cues from real science than not at all right?

Other Comments by lvpl78

16. Comment #346430 by Upgrade01A on February 25, 2009 at 11:42 am

fun stuff.

Other Comments by Upgrade01A

17. Comment #346431 by MaxD on February 25, 2009 at 11:42 am

1vpl78,
Realizing that you are probably not allowed to say much, what do you think of how Watchmen was shaping up?

Other Comments by MaxD

18. Comment #346433 by Tezcatlipoca on February 25, 2009 at 11:43 am

re Comment #346410 by rod-the-farmer
Comment #346421 by Eshto

Likewise for Michigan. I can take you by the Dairy Queen...but it won't be open until April.

-edit-regarding sci fi movies...I have been told numerous times by friends, after we've left the theatre, "it's only a movie," after I start to go on about things that "don't make any damn sense."

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

19. Comment #346435 by mrjohnno on February 25, 2009 at 11:45 am

Bueller_007

This shouldn't be here. There's hardly any real science content in the video anyway.


Know your enemy!

Other Comments by mrjohnno

20. Comment #346437 by Bueller_007 on February 25, 2009 at 11:46 am

Bueller_007 - this is supposed to be science fiction. I don't think anyone is claiming this stuff is true. Better to at least try and take some cues from real science than not at all right?

==

Except that the story was already written long ago without a scientific consultant, and they're basically just looking to get someone to come in and christen the project. All he's trying to do is explain things after the fact.

As someone pointed out on PZ's blog, Deepak Chopra could have done exactly the same thing for them.

Other Comments by Bueller_007

21. Comment #346440 by Sciros on February 25, 2009 at 11:51 am

Well, Bueller bro, to be fair it's just an exercise in seeing what is and isn't "plausible" in the superhero universe Watchmen creates. I read through "the Science of Superman" one time, and that was pretty interesting because it still brought up all of the actual science prior to talking about how it would need to be "interpreted" to apply to Supes.

Other Comments by Sciros

22. Comment #346445 by lvpl78 on February 25, 2009 at 12:02 pm

Bueller_007

I understand where you're coming from but this is only pretend. It's still interesting to talk about where the real science ends and the science fiction begins. It's not really like the Koran is it? At least this calls itself fiction.

MaxD - yeah I can't really say anything dude. Except that I like the fact that it's not your formulaic superhero action movie. As you might expect.

Other Comments by lvpl78

23. Comment #346448 by MaxD on February 25, 2009 at 12:04 pm

Bueller.
I think to be fair to the work, you need to read Watchmen. I think it stands up wonderfully as science fiction.

Also, Kaklios' approach is to give the heroes one miracle exemption and then explore the physical consequences of their powers. (The exemption is typically of course their power to begin with). This approach is a fun way to explore physics. It is certainly a fun way to approach comic books. Kaklios' chapter on the original instantiation of Superman (not the god he eventually became but the guy who came from another planet with greater gravitation than Earth's) is a very fun exploration of a wide range of physics topics.

Other Comments by MaxD

24. Comment #346449 by Cartomancer on February 25, 2009 at 12:07 pm

I really do wonder about people who deride projects like this because they're fictional and some aspects of what they describe don't really exist.

That is what fiction is all about. It contains things that don't really exist. If it didn't then it would be factual reportage or another non-fiction genre. But just because it doesn't really exist that doesn't mean it hasn't got something to say about things that DO exist. As the great Terry Pratchett once said, at bottom all fantasy universes are essentially our own universe dressed up a bit. That's why we relate to fiction - it has something to say about things we really do experience, even if it says them by presenting an implicit contrast with things we absolutely do not experience and never will.

Wuthering Heights is not science fiction. But it does include lots of things that don't exist. The crumbling old house doesn't exist. Cathy and Heathcliffe don't exist. They never had a torrid and frankly unrealistic romantic tryst. Never will. But it still resonates with many readers because it says something about the romantic aspirations that real human beings do entertain. Sure, it is the sort of thing that COULD have happened - it doesn't break any fundamental laws of physics as we know them - but the difference between a story that COULD have happened but didn't and one which COULD NOT have happened at all is entirely irrelevant from a literary point of view. Literature is not about forwarding scientific hypotheses about the nature of the world - it is not peer reviewed for consonance with current physics research. Nevertheless, if it uses a fictional conceit as a springboard for exploring certain principles and aspects of actual physics, so much the better - that's quite interesting. What is the difference between using fictional people to explore actual romantic urges and using fictional physics to explore actual physical processes?

Would a psychologist be pilloried for talking about "the psychology of Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds"? or even using examples from fiction in their work, like the Oedipus complex, or the Jungian archetypes?

What differentiates much science fiction from other fantasy genres is that it wears its scientific idiom on its sleeve. That makes it a natural point of departure for saying things about actual science. Dr. Manhattan is supposed to utilise aspects of real physics to achieve what he does, and Alan Moore uses the language of science to present his character. Contrast this with, say, Tolkein's Gandalf or Shakespeare's Prospero, who also achieve similar effects with magic. You probably wouldn't find a book called "the meteorology of The Tempest" which tries to explain oceanic microclimate with reference to the conjurations of Ariel, or "The Biology of Balrogs" which tries to explain whether a being of shadow and flame really could evolve in certain environmental conditions. The idiomatic consonance between something like Watchmen and actual scientific discourse makes it an appealing vehicle for exploring real science with a popular audience however.

Though I preferred V for Vendetta...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

25. Comment #346450 by MaxD on February 25, 2009 at 12:09 pm

lvpl78
For your failure to divulge, I will hence forth mark every commment by you as offensive, spammy and trollie.

Kidding of course.
Maybe.
No really kidding.
(silently shakes head)
Seriously kidding.
(subtle almost imperceptable head shake)

I liked the director's commitment to Frank Miller's 300, I just thought it was one of Miller's weaker works, and could hardly compare with Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire.

Other Comments by MaxD

26. Comment #346451 by Luthien on February 25, 2009 at 12:10 pm

The interesting thing about Dr Manhattan is not how his "powers" might be possible, but the complex moral dilemas. Watchmen isn't just a kids comic, it is among other things an extremely sophisticated analysis of power and control. What would you do if you had that kind of power?

Other Comments by Luthien

27. Comment #346452 by Bueller_007 on February 25, 2009 at 12:11 pm

I understand where you're coming from but this is only pretend. It's still interesting to talk about where the real science ends and the science fiction begins. It's not really like the Koran is it? At least this calls itself fiction.

==

Exactly, and that's precisely why it doesn't need BS "scientific" explanations in its favour. It's called "suspension of disbelief", and you reduce someone's ability to do that when you start spouting this kind of drivel. They're doing both science AND the story a disservice with this pathetic post hoc reasoning.

I love how in the video he says "...that's not strictly correct". Seriously dude, just say "based on what we know, this is IMPOSSIBLE". That's what an honest scientist would say. But I guess that's not what he got paid for.

Other Comments by Bueller_007

28. Comment #346457 by Frankus1122 on February 25, 2009 at 12:17 pm

At about 4:12 he says:

"Not strictly correct from a physics point of view but very cool none the less."


Can we agree on that?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

29. Comment #346458 by ahmunnaeetchoo on February 25, 2009 at 12:18 pm

what on earth is wrong with sci fi? It doesn't set out to claim truth (hence the 'fiction' bit). It demonstrates a fascination of science and decent imagination too!

Good stuff!

Other Comments by ahmunnaeetchoo

30. Comment #346459 by MaxD on February 25, 2009 at 12:19 pm

Bueller,
Of course he thinks it is impossible for Dr. Manhattan to exist. However, some of the things he does are not physically impossible, just not for human's to consciously manipulate or enact them. It does appear that particles can be in more than one place in the same instant if I understand my quantum mechanics. This is the kind of thing Kakalios enjoys playing with.

Other Comments by MaxD

31. Comment #346462 by JAMCAM87 on February 25, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Carto,

Nicely put.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

32. Comment #346466 by Wosret on February 25, 2009 at 12:26 pm

It would have been cooler if he put the tank back together again.

Other Comments by Wosret

33. Comment #346472 by Wosret on February 25, 2009 at 12:28 pm

26. Comment #346451 by Luthien

What would you do if you had that kind of power?

Split into multiple forms, and have an orgy with myself.

Other Comments by Wosret

34. Comment #346477 by flobear on February 25, 2009 at 12:34 pm

Wow. What a harsh reaction to this clip. I think he's a wonderful educator who is bending over backwards to make science interesting to students. In my opinion, he's doing one of the most important jobs out there. It's not like he's trying to trick people into believing it's real. He's just applying real physics as a fun exercise.

Other Comments by flobear

35. Comment #346479 by The Architect on February 25, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Stop taking this so seriously guys, its viral marketing. They've been doing this for a while now. They anonymously released this video to youtube a few weeks ago as another example of what they're doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cInmK6LQ

Similar things were done with Cloverfield. They made myspace pages for all the main characters in the movie and had them post on each other's walls. It's just a different way to get people interested in an upcoming movie that doesn't involve trailers and tv spots.

Other Comments by The Architect

36. Comment #346480 by bluebird on February 25, 2009 at 12:36 pm

Our younger son LOVES Watchmen-- he's read the graphic novel, and will see the movie.

O.T.--This fish seems like SciFi!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/fish-transparent-head-barreleye-picture/index.html

~~H.B.D. to Delibes & Handel~~

Other Comments by bluebird

37. Comment #346491 by quantum_flux on February 25, 2009 at 12:56 pm

Well, superheros are neat. It seems that Superman was at one point called "The Secular Jesus"....perhaps this watchmaker guy could be 'The Secular Zeus' or something of the likes. Actually, my opinion is that the Greek and Roman gods WERE the original superheros due to their special powers.

As to quantum diffraction of probability amplitudes, well, I buy into the idea that the regions of probability are just probabilities like in dice. Roll a dice a couple 1000 times and you'll get your approximately even distribution of the numbers of 1,2,3,4,5,6 most likely with some small statistical deviations.

I certainly don't buy that the photon is oscillating between the two trajectories until it is measured, but perhaps a photon is oscillating between two spins on a trajectory path though. This, I believe, puts a damper on the classical quantum theory where angular momentum is conserved, at least for a photon. Any charge still contains this conservative quantity though, but not a chargeless field. Thus we can have the symmetry breaking at the Big Bang that Penrose discusses....anyhow, I'm off on a tangent here.

(update) Mitch_486, you measure the position or momentum of a mass particle using Faraday Cups or photon recoil doppler shifts, respectively.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

38. Comment #346498 by mitch_486 on February 25, 2009 at 1:05 pm

Quantum,

Quite random. I was just reading about the double slit experiment, then I got to the measurement part, and, well.....

Other Comments by mitch_486

39. Comment #346501 by Mr. Davies on February 25, 2009 at 1:10 pm

Good post Carto. I, too, am a V fan.
When I see movies, I go on the general principle that "I like my reality real and my fantasy fantabulous".
Movies like Watchman, the Star Trek franchise, and my most favourite, Dr. Who, take a little bit o' science, and a lot of the fantastic.
I'm just glad that film makers are actually using SOME kind of scientific consultant at all.

Other Comments by Mr. Davies

40. Comment #346509 by Goldy on February 25, 2009 at 1:21 pm

Mr Davies
I agree. Even Gary Larson said once that some things annoyed him about his cartoons - the one example that sticks in my head was his annoyance at having the male mosquito coming home complaining about a hard day sucking blood. On being told only females suck blood, he was irked. That mosquitoes don't live in houses, wear clothes, get married or drive cars is neither here nor there - male mosquitoes don't suck blood and his cartoon was biologically incorrect.
I am still annoyed at films for small things. Saving Private Ryan - Tom Hanks dies against a motorcycle. It is a Russian Ural, model M63 or M66. It has a swing arm suspension. Or in the Indiana Jones movies, where they are in a Ukrainian motorcycle combination and the Citroen roadster is rear wheel drive.
These are neither here nor there - the damn things were phantasies, not real. But those small errors just jarred - they brought a reality into the movies for me which was wrong.

Bugger me, I'm a sad individual seriously in need of a life! :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

41. Comment #346513 by rod-the-farmer on February 25, 2009 at 1:27 pm

Re 25. Comment #346450 by MaxD

I too am a Gates of Fire fan. So much so that a few years ago, when my family begged for a vacation someplace, I said "How about Greece ?" And after the obligatory week on an island, we stayed a second week in Athens and took the bus out to Thermopylae. Strange place. Not at all like it was back then. Anyway, while in the hotel bookstore, I was telling the proprietor that it was because of a certain book I was there, and sure enough, they had it, in both English and Greek. At least twice I accosted men carrying English newspapers or magazines, and strongly recommend the book to them. The proprietor offered me a job. I sold three copies for her.

"300" is a crap movie due to the battle inaccuracies. No one leaves the phalanx to fight.

But Greece, and the people, are wonderful.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

42. Comment #346525 by j.mills on February 25, 2009 at 1:43 pm

My teeth are set on edge until this movie comes out. Alan Moore seems to have had nothing to do with it, having become fed up of the way Hollywood mangles his stuff. From Hell, League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen and even V For Vendetta were all soooo much better in the original graphic novels; and Watchmen is such a milestone in the medium that I am equal parts excitement and trepidation.

As regards the scientific plausibility controversy - I think what counts in any fiction is internal logic. Once you've defined the rules, plausible or not, the whole thing must accord with them. It's when they don't that you emerge from the cinema infuriated! (Matrix, anybody?)

(EDIT: Another Gates Of Fire fan here! :) )

Other Comments by j.mills

43. Comment #346548 by Greybishop on February 25, 2009 at 2:05 pm

I can take or leave the "science" in Watchmen.

In fact, I really don't care. I just really, really want to see the movie.

As a fanboy of the first order, I'm wildly optimistic that Snyder will pull it off. Kevin Smith has seen the film and says it's awesome and when it comes to fanboys, there are few more devout than he.

As a fanboy and an atheist, I'm tickled to see Watchmen and Dawkins collide, if only for a moment...

Other Comments by Greybishop

44. Comment #346553 by jeffff on February 25, 2009 at 2:11 pm

I feel like a misery guts for asking, but am I alone in wondering why this is posted on RichardDawkins.net?

I'd hate to see every bit of science fiction with a scientist consultant getting the same treatment.

Other Comments by jeffff

45. Comment #346556 by Greybishop on February 25, 2009 at 2:12 pm

Oh and for the naysayers of the science take on the film, I say just be grateful that Alan Moore didn't decide to have his one superpowered hero be "Hyper-Evolved" or some such.

It's been done repeatedly in comics and sci-fi and every time it is, the idea of a "Super-Evolved" or "Evolutionarily Advanced" being contributes to the public's misconceptions and misunderstandings of evolution.

Other Comments by Greybishop

46. Comment #346559 by ANTIcarrot on February 25, 2009 at 2:17 pm

Does anyone else think this man sounds like a creationist?

"Well you see if we take my knowledge of cloning and then apply it to Adam and Eve then I think you'll agree it makes a lot of sense."

No. No it doesn't. Adam and Eve is an important historical story and an unquestionable example of how fucked up people were a few thousand years ago.

Watchmen is a comic, and now a film. It may or may not be more entertaining than A&E, but it is not remotely real or plausible, and I can't help but feel that any claim to the contrary is a corruption and misrepresentation of science.

I echo the question that others have asked: What is this film doing here?

Other Comments by ANTIcarrot

47. Comment #346563 by neander on February 25, 2009 at 2:25 pm

Superheroes have always woried me. They are magic dressed up, NOT SF. Image superman flying by physical principles,or making love. There would be a whole lot of bodies with shot gun exit wounds ..... Superheroes are a really American thing more than anything else. I wonder if the US need for them is related to their high religious beliefs - ie super jesus etc.

Other Comments by neander

48. Comment #346566 by Sciros on February 25, 2009 at 2:33 pm

neander...

Superheroes have always woried me. They are magic dressed up, NOT SF.

Except for the most popular superhero of all time... Batman. And many others.

Image superman flying by physical principles,or making love. There would be a whole lot of bodies with shot gun exit wounds

Superman's involuntary muscles don't do "super" stuff (his heart doesn't pump blood harder than other peoples', although it's probably billions of times more durable). Supes isn't that sloppy of a character design.

Superheroes are a really American thing more than anything else. I wonder if the US need for them is related to their high religious beliefs - ie super jesus etc.

The guys that made up most superheroes aren't particularly religious... and many fans aren't either. And seeing as superheroes are globally popular despite mostly being American creations, there is probably no correlation between religiosity and liking superheroes. I'm a huge superhero fan and I'm atheist :-/

Other Comments by Sciros

49. Comment #346577 by j.mills on February 25, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Thinking aloud, superheroes in general seem to me a celebration of US culture and the American Dream, an aspirational lens through which the country can view itself (and the rest of us enjoy the spillover). Discuss. Or don't. :)

Other Comments by j.mills

50. Comment #346580 by Sciros on February 25, 2009 at 2:47 pm

j.mills,

I've thought (and read) about this a bit myself. Superheroes are also a sort of reflection of what the public needs at the time. If you think about the kinds of heroes that appeared in the late 30s and early 40s (during World War II) -- Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman. The "American icons" in a way. And a Marvel superhero that looks strangely out of place among his buddies -- Captain America.

Many other Marvel characters -- X-Men, Spiderman, etc. were created in the 60s, the civil rights era. Their stories deal with acceptance by society, etc. X-Men in particular I read was a popular comic among gay men because of its overarching themes.

Other Comments by Sciros