tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/science-in-film-38932/articles
Science in film – The Conversation
2022-05-31T20:12:40Z
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/182334
2022-05-31T20:12:40Z
2022-05-31T20:12:40Z
Toss aside those high heels: how Jurassic World’s Claire Dearing lights a path for women in action films
<p>The Jurassic Park and Jurassic World series of films have long featured iconic female characters. </p>
<p>Laura Dern’s Dr Ellie Sattler from the 1993 original has been <a href="https://www.stylist.co.uk/long-reads/jurassic-park-ellie-sattler-laura-dern-feminist-hero-90s-kids-films-movies-dinosaurs/218543">lauded as</a> “a female heroine unlike any other”. Julianne Moore’s Dr Sarah Harding from 1997’s The Lost World was equally as competent and compelling. </p>
<p>Bryce Dallas Howard’s Claire Dearing in Jurassic World (2015) initially provoked different reactions, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/apr/13/joss-whedon-criticises-jurassic-world-sexism">critiqued for</a> wearing in heels while deep in the jungle. </p>
<p>But we think these heels – and the rest of her outfits – are actually one of the most interesting things about Dearing, neatly tracking her character arc across the three films.</p>
<p>When audiences first meet Dearing she is presented with two major characteristics: she is a bad aunt, and she is in charge of major components of the dinosaur theme park’s operations. </p>
<p>Dearing ignores calls from her sister to schedule a visit to the park by her nephews, Zach (Nick Robinson) and Gray (Ty Simpkins), and then palms the boys off to her assistant. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, she is entertaining park investors, leading them on a rapid-fire tour of lab facilities while pitching the introduction of a new attraction. </p>
<p>Over the course of Jurassic World and its sequel Fallen Kingdom (2018), Dearing went on to become an action star. The soon-to-be-released Jurassic World: Dominion promises more of the same. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RFinNxS5KN4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/jurassic-world-if-you-make-a-monster-it-will-always-bite-back-42481">Jurassic World: if you make a monster it will always bite back</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A boss in heels</h2>
<p>The first shot of Dearing in Jurassic World pans up her body – heels, a white skirt, a neat shirt – as she arrives for a meeting with the three investors, repeating her speaking notes in a detached tone. </p>
<p>In the following shots, Dearing commands the space and attention of both the investors and the camera. She rattles off facts about the park’s turnover and coming attractions. </p>
<p>This is a woman in charge. </p>
<p>Throughout the film, Dearing largely remains in charge of responding to the chaos unfolding as the fearsome <em>Indominus rex</em> escapes. She commands the park’s staff, makes the decision to shut down and evacuate all guests and, eventually, to release the <em>Tyrannosaurus rex</em> in a bid to combat the <em>Indominus</em>. </p>
<p>The white suit that Dearing wears when introduced in Jurassic World becomes increasingly dishevelled as the film’s dinosaurs make their presence felt and her role moves from office to jungle. </p>
<p>In a somewhat comedic scene, she makes a point of altering her clothing to a form more “acceptable” to raptor trainer Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) – tying her shirt off and rolling up her sleeves before he will allow her to help find her lost nephews.</p>
<p>But those heels remain. </p>
<p>They feature as Dearing, no longer in a white business shirt and instead wearing an <a href="https://www.bustle.com/articles/90377-bryce-dallas-howard-as-claire-dearing-in-jurassic-world-was-super-stylish-in-the-best">improbably clean</a> lavender tank top, lures the <em>Tyrannosaurus</em> to confront the <em>Indominus</em>. </p>
<p>This is the outfit Dearing wears as she closes out the film, now with a few carefully placed scraps of dirt and dust from the action that has unfolded around her, as she reunites with her sister, nephews … and Owen Grady. </p>
<p>No longer the white-clad businesswoman, Dearing is now more in tune with her family and the people around her, having reckoned with the dangers of nature. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/from-outsized-dinosaurs-to-outrunning-hot-lava-in-jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-97186">From outsized dinosaurs to outrunning hot lava in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The making of an action star</h2>
<p>In Fallen Kingdom, Dearing has established the Dinosaur Protection Group, a charity devoted to protecting the creatures at the centre of the Jurassic films. </p>
<p>In this role she is managing staff, running lobbying efforts, and directing missions to capture and transport dinosaurs in the face of pending doom for their island home. </p>
<p>Early shots of Dearing in Fallen Kingdom also have her in heels. </p>
<p>Howard insists the choice was hers, telling <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2018/06/20/bryce-dallas-howard-high-heel-controversy-jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom/716644002/">USA Today</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It was originally written for me to wear sneakers. And I was like, ‘No, no, no, no. I am going to wear heels.’</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In revisiting the heels, the character (and actor) claims typically feminine traits, even as she transitions more into the action hero role. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vn9mMeWcgoM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>As the film develops, Dearing leads an expedition to the island to save its dinosaurs despite the dangers. Here, she wears a jungle-green shirt and tank top with a khaki jacket and boots. </p>
<p>Still later, Dearing dons a heavy gun designed to lure the new hybrid dinosaur – the <em>Indoraptor</em> – and helps Grady lead the creature to its death. </p>
<p>Dearing’s clothing in the sequel is more suited to the running, jumping, driving and shooting role than the white business suit from Jurassic World. She is no longer the uptight business woman; she is now a saviour.</p>
<p>This evolution appears set to continue in Dominion. </p>
<p>She appears jumping across rooftops and crawling through the jungle in a green shirt and versatile pants while pursued by dinosaurs new to this film. </p>
<p>Jurassic World: Dominion features multiple strong female characters. Laura Dern’s Dr Ellie Sattler returns, joined by teenager Maisie Lockwood (Isabella Sermon) and pilot Kayla Watts (DeWanda Wise). </p>
<p>We no longer have one woman in heels. As Dearing sheds her unsuitable footwear and is joined by a team of women, the films finally show us female action stars can be featured for what their bodies can do – rather than what they look like. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fb5ELWi-ekk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/sci-fi-and-jurassic-park-have-driven-research-scientists-say-42864">Sci-fi and Jurassic Park have driven research, scientists say</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182334/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Travis Holland has received a Jurassic World toy from Mattel/Universal and appeared in a review video. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa Watt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
Jurassic World’s Claire Dearing was critiqued for wearing heels – but her outfit choices show the development of her character.
Travis Holland, Senior Lecturer in Communication, Charles Sturt University
Lisa Watt, Adjunct Lecturer in Creative Industries, Charles Sturt University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/117233
2019-05-17T00:32:29Z
2019-05-17T00:32:29Z
‘The Big Bang Theory’ finale: Sheldon and Amy’s fictional physics parallels real science
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274985/original/file-20190516-69189-xi009a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C75%2C840%2C767&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The cast made it through 279 episodes.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://plexmx.info/2019/05/16/despues-de-12-temporadas-hoy-termina-the-big-bang-theory-en-cbs/">CBS</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After 12 successful seasons, “<a href="https://www.cbs.com/shows/big_bang_theory/">The Big Bang Theory</a>” has finally come to a fulfilling end, concluding its <a href="https://ew.com/tv/2019/03/28/big-bang-theory-longest-running-sitcom-276-episodes-cbs/">reign as the longest running</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple-camera_setup">multicamera sitcom</a> on TV.</p>
<p>If you’re one of the few who haven’t seen the show, this CBS series centers around a group of young scientists defined by essentially every possible stereotype about nerds and geeks. The main character, Sheldon (Jim Parsons), is a theoretical physicist. He is exceptionally intelligent, but also socially unconventional, egocentric, envious and ultra-competitive. His best friend, Leonard (Johnny Galecki), is an experimental physicist who, although more balanced, also shows more fluency with quantum physics than with ordinary social situations.</p>
<p>Their steadfast friends are an aerospace engineer and an astrophysicist. The story revolves around the contrast between their intellect; obsession with comic books, video games, science fiction and fantasy; and struggles with the basics of human interactions, including those with their female counterparts.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275013/original/file-20190516-69178-1hk1cn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275013/original/file-20190516-69178-1hk1cn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/275013/original/file-20190516-69178-1hk1cn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275013/original/file-20190516-69178-1hk1cn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275013/original/file-20190516-69178-1hk1cn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275013/original/file-20190516-69178-1hk1cn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275013/original/file-20190516-69178-1hk1cn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/275013/original/file-20190516-69178-1hk1cn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Physicist David Saltzberg makes sure the show’s science hits the target.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://magazine.ucla.edu/depts/quicktakes/physicist-to-the-stars/">Warner Bros. Studios</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Science, especially physics, is a recurring theme in the show and the scientific authenticity and contemporaneity are noteworthy. Part of the credit for that goes to <a href="http://www.physics.ucla.edu/%7Esaltzberg/index.html">David Saltzberg</a>, a professor of physics and astronomy at UCLA who <a href="https://www.wired.com/2011/09/tv-fact-checker-big-bang-theory/">served as a technical adviser for the series</a>.</p>
<p>Even though it is not intended to educate, “The Big Bang Theory” frequently refers to real science. Many science communicators and distinguished scientists have made guest appearances, from <a href="https://youtu.be/LtU4uUlGsb8">Bill Nye</a> to <a href="https://youtu.be/wlrOKpQ6UBI">Stephen Hawking</a>. But perhaps nothing is more recurrent in the show than the use of the “scientist” trope as the punchline of joke after joke.</p>
<p>So how would <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=F5TciCcAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">a physicist like me</a> get interested in this show? Not only is it the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang_Theory">most popular sitcom</a> on American television, but it’s also a pop culture bridge to science. While it is not the first time science has been represented in mainstream media, “The Big Bang Theory” is currently its most visible representation. In addition, it just happens that the fictional research in the show makes contact with my own real research. </p>
<h2>A science-y setting on a popular show</h2>
<p>I was first exposed to “The Big Bang Theory” through interactions with people from outside academia, who would often refer to it as soon as they pegged me as a physicist. Reports that their teenage kids loved the show were common.</p>
<p>But what really got my attention was a Guardian article in 2011 that suggested, albeit anecdotally, that the show was helping <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/nov/06/big-bang-theory-physics-boom">increase the enrollment of physics majors</a>. Why? Possibly by bringing the attention of a broad audience to the subject or by making physics look cool. Now that I am familiar with the show, I believe “The Big Bang Theory” is to physics <a href="https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-157773261/the-csi-effect">what “CSI” was to forensics</a>. It has brought physics, and especially the people doing physics, to a young audience of prospective science students.</p>
<p>As a physics professor and educator, I have a vested interest in attracting and nurturing talents in physics – and even in 2019, television can influence choices people make. While only <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05260-4">good physics teaching and mentoring</a> can convert interested students into talented scientists, a TV show like “The Big Bang Theory” can be what gets them into the classroom in the first place.</p>
<p>The show’s somewhat stereotypical image of physicists also has weaknesses, of which the most significant are the use of misogyny as a point of humor and a lack of diversity in the main cast. The perpetuation of stereotypes can reinforce the perception that certain groups don’t belong in physics. An entertainment show is not obligated to mirror real life, but this is a sensitive issue because physics still suffers from a lack of diversity and the <a href="https://physicsworld.com/a/isolated-female-students-more-likely-to-drop-out-of-phd-programmes/">dropout rates are high among certain underrepresented groups</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274987/original/file-20190516-69192-3x9nfs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274987/original/file-20190516-69192-3x9nfs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274987/original/file-20190516-69192-3x9nfs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274987/original/file-20190516-69192-3x9nfs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274987/original/file-20190516-69192-3x9nfs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274987/original/file-20190516-69192-3x9nfs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274987/original/file-20190516-69192-3x9nfs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274987/original/file-20190516-69192-3x9nfs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The show underwrites scholarships at UCLA for STEM students, including Kemeka Corry, on set here with actress Mayim Bialik, who herself holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-big-bang-theory-to-support-twice-as-many-students">Mike Yarish/©2019 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Notwithstanding, as the show developed, leading female characters took the stage: an attractive, down-to-earth neighbor, a successful microbiologist, and finally, there was the intelligent, accomplished Amy (Mayim Bialik), a neurobiologist selected through an online dating site as Sheldon’s perfect match. They married in the finale of the 11th season.</p>
<p>The same episode also marks one of the most celebrated moments of the series: Sheldon and Amy’s serendipitous discovery that put them on track for a Nobel Prize in Physics.</p>
<h2>A fictional theory worthy of a Nobel</h2>
<p>It all starts with groom Sheldon’s difficulty straightening out his bow tie. Amy tells him “I don’t think it is supposed to be even. Sometimes a little asymmetry looks good. In the Renaissance, they called it ‘sprezzatura.‘”</p>
<p>When later he explains to his mom why he’s leaving it a bit off kilter, she says, “Sometimes it’s the imperfect stuff that makes things perfect.” It’s one of the best lines of the entire show, and the one that gave Sheldon the <a href="https://the-big-bang-theory.com/quotes/episode/1124/The-Bow-Tie-Asymmetry/">final clue to their scientific breakthrough</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sheldon: My equations have been trying to describe an imperfect world, and the only way to do that is to introduce imperfection into the underlying theory.</p>
<p>Amy: So, instead of supersymmetry, it would be super asymmetry?!</p>
<p>Sheldon: Super asymmetry! That’s it!!</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274974/original/file-20190516-69209-4ipwwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274974/original/file-20190516-69209-4ipwwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/274974/original/file-20190516-69209-4ipwwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274974/original/file-20190516-69209-4ipwwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274974/original/file-20190516-69209-4ipwwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274974/original/file-20190516-69209-4ipwwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274974/original/file-20190516-69209-4ipwwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/274974/original/file-20190516-69209-4ipwwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=511&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When the light bulb turns on, Sheldon scribbles out equations in lipstick on a mirror.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://tvline.com/gallery/big-bang-theory-best-sheldon-and-amy-wedding-moments/#!3/the-bow-tie-asymmetry-5/">CBS</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The entire last season gravitates around the merits of “super asymmetry” and the threats of a competing group getting credit for it. In reality, no theory with this name exists, but the name was clearly inspired by <a href="https://home.cern/science/physics/supersymmetry">supersymmetry</a>, which does.</p>
<p>Supersymmetry concerns subatomic particles from which everything else is made. It proposes that every subatomic particle in the current <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-standard-model-of-particle-physics-the-absolutely-amazing-theory-of-almost-everything-94700">standard model of particle physics</a> has a so-called supersymmetric partner – essentially extra particles that exist in tandem with the already identified ones. This means that the underlying equations would remain unchanged under certain transformations, which has deep predictive implications. Supersymmetry has not yet been proved experimentally.</p>
<p>Now, how plausible is Amy and Sheldon’s super asymmetry as a physical theory? Depending on how you interpret what’s described in the show, it is either not sound or somewhat trivial in the subatomic world. However, it is highly nontrivial for collective behavior, which just happens to be my topic of research.</p>
<h2>The real physics of asymmetry</h2>
<p>I am an interdisciplinary physicist studying collective behavior in natural and engineered systems. Think of heart cells beating together, a power grid operating as a single system, shoals of fish schooling together, genes in a cell coordinating their activities and so on.</p>
<p>For a number of years, I’ve been working to understand why such systems can exhibit what we call behavioral symmetry – or homogeneity – even though the systems themselves are not symmetric – or homogeneous – at all. For example, your circadian clock can be well synchronized with the 24-hour cycle despite the fact that the individual neurons in the circadian system <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2004.01.022">are quite different from each other</a>. They exhibit the same period only when interacting with each other. </p>
<p>And here is how my research relates to Amy and Sheldon’s hypothetical theory. It’s generally assumed that individual entities are more likely to exhibit the same behavior <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2789(00)00094-4">if they are equal or similar to each other</a>. Imagine lasers pulsing together, birds singing the same notes, and agents trying to reach consensus. My research shows that this assumption is in fact generally false when the entities interact with each other. Being equal doesn’t mean they’ll sync up. Since individual differences are ubiquitous and often unavoidable in real systems, such asymmetry (or imperfection) can be the unexpected source of behavioral symmetry. </p>
<p>There are instances in which the observed behavior of the system can be symmetric only when the system itself is not. <a href="http://northwestern.academia.edu/TakashiNishikawa">My collaborator</a> and I called this effect <a href="https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.114101">asymmetry-induced symmetry</a>, but could have referred to it as a form of super asymmetry since it epitomizes the notion that imperfections make things perfect. Asymmetry-induced symmetry exposes scenarios in physical and biophysical systems in which we observe <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6544/aa8fe7">consensus because of – not despite – differences</a>, thus adding a new dimension to the advantage of diversity.</p>
<p>“The Big Bang Theory” ends, but the message from the most gifted couple on television remains: We do live in a “perfectly imperfect universe.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117233/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adilson Motter receives funding from ARO, ARPA-E and Northwestern University.</span></em></p>
A physicist reflects on the show’s made-up Nobel Prize-winning theory of ‘super asymmetry’ along with how the series showcased authentic science and role models for future STEM students.
Adilson Motter, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/115705
2019-04-24T08:24:12Z
2019-04-24T08:24:12Z
Avengers: Endgame exploits time travel and quantum mechanics as it tries to restore the universe
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270636/original/file-20190424-19307-g2hh9e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Even Thanos has a retirement plan...</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel Studios</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>At the end of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-biggest-clash-of-heroes-and-villains-in-avengers-infinity-war-but-can-science-survive-95421">Avengers: Infinity War</a> half the people (including heroes and villains) in the universe were gone in the snap of a finger from Thanos (Josh Brolin).</p>
<p>So how can <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154796/">Avengers: Endgame</a> (in cinemas from this week) try to bring them back?</p>
<p>Well, with that tried and tested movie plot device: time travel. Plus a surprising amount of scientific jargon thrown in, including <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/quantum-mechanics-physics">quantum mechanics</a>, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/2008/02/28/time-travel-machine-oped-time08-cx_dt_0229travel.html#45bdaa8d2a87">Deutsch propositions</a>, <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/eigenvalue">eigenvalues</a> and inverted <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/mathematical-madness-mobius-strips-and-other-one-sided-objects-180970394/">Möbius strips</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-did-a-breakthrough-speed-test-in-quantum-tunnelling-and-heres-why-thats-exciting-113761">We did a breakthrough 'speed test' in quantum tunnelling, and here's why that's exciting</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But don’t think that everything you hear during the movie was created in the minds of some crazy screenwriter. Many of the time-travel concepts in Endgame are connected, at least in name, to recent scientific theory, simulation and speculation. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TcMBFSGVi1c?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Marvel Studios’ Avengers: Endgame – official trailer.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Let’s dive into the science of quantum time travel and discuss whether eigenvalues can really save the universe, but be warned: <strong>moderate spoilers</strong> ahead.</p>
<h2>Time travel 101</h2>
<p>The key premise of the movie is that the only thing that can reverse the deaths of half the universe are the things that caused those deaths in the first place: the powerful <a href="https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Infinity_Stones">Infinity Stones</a>.</p>
<p>Problem is, Thanos destroyed these in the present day, so the stones are only available in the past. Retrieving them will require a convoluted journey back in time to multiple locations by the remaining Avengers.</p>
<p>Is <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/time-travel-158">time travel</a> actually possible? We’ve known since Albert Einstein posed his <a href="http://www.einstein-online.info/en/elementary/index.html">Theory of Special Relativity</a> more than 100 years ago that travel <em>forward</em> in time is <em>relatively</em> easy.</p>
<p>All you need to do is move at close to the speed of light and you can theoretically travel millions or even billions of years into the future within your lifetime.</p>
<p>But could you get back again? This feat appears to be much more difficult. Here are a few challenges and possible solutions.</p>
<h2>The grandfather paradox</h2>
<p>Travelling back in time can cause apparent logical inconsistencies in reality, like the well-known <a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9aakpe/the-grandfather-paradox-what-happens-when-you-travel-back-in-time-to-kill-your-father">grandfather paradox</a>.</p>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/566/gif1.gif?1556085403" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Disrespecting your elders doesn’t pan out well for you.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">iimages / 123rf.com / Michael Milford.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If you went back in time and killed your grandfather when he was young, then you could never be born, but if you weren’t born, then how did you go back and kill him? </p>
<p>Scientists have several theories about these time loops (physicists call them <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5145">closed timelike curves</a>). Some theories state that such loops are just physically impossible and therefore travel back in time can never happen.</p>
<p>But we know, also thanks to Einstein, that spinning black holes can <a href="https://blackholecam.org/black-holes-distort-space-time/">twist up both space and time</a>, which is why one side of the black hole is brighter than the other in the <a href="https://blackholecam.org/">first picture ever taken of one</a>.</p>
<h2>Time travel in the Endgame</h2>
<p>In the movie, the characters first make fun of many other time-travel movies such as <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28374-back-to-the-future-does-physics-of-martys-time-travel-add-up/">Back to the Future</a> and the <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/dp5pxv/we-asked-a-physicist-how-time-travel-in-the-iterminatori-movies-works-721">Terminator series</a> where changing your own past and future is possible.</p>
<p>Instead, Endgame goes with the alternative reality idea, where any changes back in time cause a whole new universe to be created, a so-called splitting or branching off of multiple timelines. In physics, this idea is called the <a href="https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/parallel-universe2.htm">Many Worlds Theory</a>. </p>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/567/gif2.gif?1556087980" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Changes in the past cause multiple future timelines in one theory of time travel.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">lilu330 / 123rf.com / Michael Milford.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To avoid this problem, the Avengers plan to borrow the stones from past timelines, use them in the present day, but return them to exactly the same moment once they have finished with them. But will it work?</p>
<h2>Enter quantum mechanics</h2>
<p>Quantum mechanics is mentioned a lot in the movie and there are in fact many emerging theories about <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5145">quantum time travel</a>, including some that <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-travel-simulation-resolves-grandfather-paradox/">potentially solve the grandfather paradox</a>.</p>
<p>In quantum mechanics, atomic particles are more like <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-wave-particle-duality-7414">indistinct waves of probability</a>. So, for example, you can never know both exactly where a particle is and what direction it’s moving. You only know there is a certain chance of it being in a certain place.</p>
<p>A British physicist named David Deutsch, who is mentioned in the movie, <a href="http://thelifeofpsi.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Deutsch-1991.pdf">combined this idea with the Many Worlds theory</a>, and showed that the grandfather paradox can disappear if you express everything <em>probabilistically</em>.</p>
<p>Like the particles, the person going back in time only has a certain probability of killing their grandfather, breaking the causality loop. This has been <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-travel-simulation-resolves-grandfather-paradox/">simulated successfully</a>.</p>
<p>This might seem strange, and while some of the jargon used in the movie may seem a little over the top, you can be sure that real quantum science is <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229692-600-quantum-twist-could-kill-off-the-multiverse/">even stranger</a> than movie makers could ever imagine. It’s clear that even scientists are struggling to make sense of the implications of quantum theory. </p>
<h2>Terminology for effect</h2>
<p>The time-travel theory scenes (of which there are several) are filled with technical jargon, some out of place, some in the right ballpark.</p>
<p>Here are a few of the terms we hear in the movie concerning time travel:</p>
<p><strong>Eigenvalues</strong>: In discussing their approach to time travel, characters Tony Stark and Bruce Banner mention <a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Eigenvalue.html">eigenvalues</a>. This is most likely an example of movie maths talk for effect, as eigenvalues are a fairly low-level (basic) concept in linear algebra.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> A case of the math mumbles</p>
<p><strong>Planck scale</strong>: The Planck scale is all about very small things. Planck length, time and mass are base units used in physics. A Planck length is 1.616 × 10<sup>−35</sup>m. That’s very small.</p>
<p>It is the distance that light travels in one unit of Planck time – which is also a very small amount of time. Given the movie is about quantum mechanics-based time travel, chatting Planck scales don’t seem too far off topic.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Planck has a point.</p>
<p><strong>Inverted Möbius strip</strong></p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270672/original/file-20190424-19283-h0c4a5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270672/original/file-20190424-19283-h0c4a5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270672/original/file-20190424-19283-h0c4a5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270672/original/file-20190424-19283-h0c4a5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270672/original/file-20190424-19283-h0c4a5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270672/original/file-20190424-19283-h0c4a5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270672/original/file-20190424-19283-h0c4a5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270672/original/file-20190424-19283-h0c4a5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Möbius strip.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M%C3%B6bius_strip.jpg">Wikimedia/David Benbennick</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The time-travel jargon also discusses <em>inverting</em> a Möbius strip. A normal Möbius strip is a surface with only one side. You can create one easily by taking a strip of paper, twisting it once, and then sticking it together. </p>
<p>Although a Möbius strip has a range of interesting mathematical properties, its technical relevance to time travel is tenuous, beyond <a href="http://www.cix.co.uk/%7Eantcom/mtl.html">some high-level attempts</a> to explain the grandfather paradox.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Twisting theory a little.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>From a scientific perspective, it’s intriguing to have a new movie with such a heavy plot foundation in time travel, and the movie doesn’t pull many punches in diving straight into both the jargon and implications of various time-travel scenarios.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/remember-blockbuster-nirvana-and-pagers-the-new-captain-marvel-lives-in-the-1990s-112617">Remember Blockbuster, Nirvana and pagers? The new Captain Marvel lives in the 1990s</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While some of the mathematical terminology is clearly there for effect, the plot makes a reasonable effort to adhere to current high level-thinking about time travel – to a point.</p>
<p>Time travel is one of those captivating scientific concepts that is perhaps furthest from implementation by scientists, and so its pivotal role in a movie about superheroes who can fly, go subatomic, destroy universes and change reality is perhaps particularly apt.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270668/original/file-20190424-19276-16nnc4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270668/original/file-20190424-19276-16nnc4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/270668/original/file-20190424-19276-16nnc4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270668/original/file-20190424-19276-16nnc4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270668/original/file-20190424-19276-16nnc4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270668/original/file-20190424-19276-16nnc4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270668/original/file-20190424-19276-16nnc4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/270668/original/file-20190424-19276-16nnc4x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Thinking about time-travel paradoxes makes me cry…</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel Studios</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115705/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP. He has board director and advisory roles at Motor Trades Association of Queensland and Queensland AI.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Stratton receives funding from the Queensland Brain Institute, the Asia-Pacific Centre for Neuromodulation and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).</span></em></p>
Plenty of movies have tried to play with time travel to help develop their plot. But Avengers: Endgame adds a little quantum mechanics into the mix as well.
Michael Milford, Professor, Queensland University of Technology
Peter Stratton, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of Queensland
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/112617
2019-03-07T04:51:26Z
2019-03-07T04:51:26Z
Remember Blockbuster, Nirvana and pagers? The new Captain Marvel lives in the 1990s
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262308/original/file-20190306-48441-q4jaah.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Captain Marvel has fun taking us back to the 1990s.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel Studios</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Captain Marvel flies into movie theatres from today, and apart from introducing a great new hero who combines the righteousness of <a href="https://www.marvel.com/characters/captain-america-steve-rogers">Captain America</a> and the humour of <a href="https://theconversation.com/thor-ragnarok-pitches-superheroes-against-science-and-how-does-hulk-keep-his-pants-on-86211">Thor: Ragnarok</a>, it’s also a cultural reference bonanza for anyone who grew up as a child of the 1990s.</p>
<p>There are the obligatory references to the <a href="https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/03/theres-only-one-surviving-blockbuster-left-on-planet-earth/">now-declining</a> Blockbuster video store, a fantastic music soundtrack (Nirvana, Hole, TLC to name a few), and tech jokes galore.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/fingerprint-and-face-scanners-arent-as-secure-as-we-think-they-are-112414">Fingerprint and face scanners aren’t as secure as we think they are</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We see the origin story of her character <a href="https://www.marvel.com/characters/captain-marvel-carol-danvers">Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel</a>, meet the Shield agents in the early days, and get set up with an interstellar conflict with some satisfying subversion of your typical expectations.</p>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/512/gif1.gif?1551831185" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Blockbuster takes a beating, and perhaps a premonition of its future prospects.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel Studios.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So let’s go back to the ‘90s (like the movie’s <a href="https://www.marvel.com/captainmarvel/">website</a> does) to some long-forgotten tech as well as some that has aged surprisingly well, and see how it all checks out, both scientifically and historically.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z1BCujX3pw8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Don’t mess with this pilot.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Projecting holograms through a landline phone</h2>
<p>Upon landing on Earth, Danvers raids a Radioshack shop and with a few deft modifications manages to set up a <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-surprising-ways-holograms-are-revolutionising-the-world-77886">hologram</a> communicator from a conventional wired phone.</p>
<p>The projection side of this feat would take some pretty impressive tweaking of 1990s technology (she appears to set everything up in a few minutes), but the bandwidth side of things can be analysed – that’s the amount of data needed for a hologram communication.</p>
<p>The bandwidth required for holograms varies widely, but figures of about <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254033574_3D_holographic_display_and_its_data_transmission_requirement">10Gbps</a> are mentioned in the literature. There are also <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2015/6ghz">proposals to use 5G’s up to 10Gbps bandwidth to do holographic projections</a>.</p>
<p>So if Danvers’ modifications have upped the bandwidth to modern day 5G standards, it’s feasible she could receive sufficient data to get a hologram up and running. </p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> A plausible projection.</p>
<h2>Digital reading speed</h2>
<p>There are lots of nostalgic tech moments in the movie – an internet connection dropping out, and the whole crew waiting around for a computer to read data from a CD.</p>
<p>Although done for humorous reasons, this depiction is entirely accurate, as anyone who lived through the 1990s can attest.</p>
<p>CD read speeds <a href="https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/X-compact-disc-access-time">varied</a> from hundreds of kilobytes (kB) per second to 6 megabytes (MB) per second. Even with the fastest disc drives of the time, it could take many seconds to read even a moderate-sized file, and minutes to read an entire CD’s worth of data (about 700MB).</p>
<p>Compare that to today - we have <a href="https://www.techradar.com/au/news/best-usb-flash-drives">USB drives</a> with capacities up to 1 terabyte, and read speeds of more than 400 megabytes per second.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Painfully on point.</p>
<h2>Fighters – not much has changed</h2>
<p>In one of the secret hangar bases in the movie we get a shot of what looks remarkably like a <a href="https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-22.html">Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor</a> fighter aircraft.</p>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/514/gif2.gif?1551833430" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We get a sneak peak at an F-22 Raptor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel Studios.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With the movie set in 1995, it’s somewhat plausible there could be a prototype F-22 at a secret base – the plane flew for the <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a28102/20-years-old-f-22/">first time in 1997</a>. Danvers is meanwhile seen to be <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/watch-captain-marvel-star-brie-larson-take-flight-in-an-air-force-f-16-2019-1/">flying F-16s</a> at a normal aircraft base.</p>
<p>What’s also interesting is while on-board electronics and related technology have changed significantly, the core airframe tech has not advanced much over the past nearly quarter of a century – the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-went-wrong-with-the-f-35-lockheed-martins-joint-strike-fighter-60905">F-22 is still considered to be one of the best aircraft</a> around today.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Fighter is fair.</p>
<h2>Lifting fingerprints off sticky tape</h2>
<p>To escape a fingerprint-tagged room, Nick Fury grabs a piece of plastic tape and runs it over where a staff member grabbed his ID card. He uses the fingerprint on the tape on the reader to unlock the door.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262293/original/file-20190305-48447-1dqh20h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262293/original/file-20190305-48447-1dqh20h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262293/original/file-20190305-48447-1dqh20h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262293/original/file-20190305-48447-1dqh20h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262293/original/file-20190305-48447-1dqh20h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262293/original/file-20190305-48447-1dqh20h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262293/original/file-20190305-48447-1dqh20h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lifting fingerprints.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">microgen/123rf.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Grabbing fingerprints off a surface with tape <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/finding-fingerprints/">can be done</a> if the surface is prepared through a process called dusting. Dusting uses a fine powder to stick to the oily residue left by a fingerprint, which is then transferred to a piece of tape. </p>
<p>But Fury doesn’t appear to do any surface preparation, lifting the print directly off the ID card, which is pushing plausibility.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Fury’s fingerprinting fail.</p>
<h2>What do we know about non-carbon-based life?</h2>
<p>All life on Earth is <a href="https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/why-is-life-on-earth-carbon-based.html">based on the element carbon</a>. This is why when you burn either wood or meat, all you are left with is charcoal, which is mostly just pure carbon.</p>
<p>But when one of the alien Skrulls dies and the body examined, the doctor says it is definitely not carbon-based.</p>
<p>This is theoretically possible. We’ve known for a long time that life on other planets could also be based on other elements that are similar to carbon, <a href="https://bigpictureeducation.com/possibility-silicon-based-life">for example silicon</a>.</p>
<p>Even though carbon and silicon might look very different, chemically they are very similar regarding the kinds of chemical reactions that are needed to support life. This is because they are in the same column in the <a href="http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table">periodic table of elements</a>.</p>
<p>But then the doctor says something strange, whatever the alien is made of, it’s not from the periodic table. </p>
<p>This is highly unlikely. All known matter in the universe exists on the periodic table, and the alien doesn’t seem to be made of any strange unknown substance like dark matter, just <a href="https://www.seti.org/seti-institute/news/goodbye-little-green-men-0">rubbery green flesh</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Off the planet.</p>
<h2>Paging the ‘90s</h2>
<p>Nick Fury’s pager features quite prominently in this movie. Paging technology was all the rage back in the late 1980s and '90s. </p>
<p>With today’s mobile and smart phones, texting (SMS and MMS), a huge range of messaging apps and always-on connectivity everywhere, you might think pagers would have gone the way of dial-up internet. But that’s not quite so.</p>
<p>Pagers have a much longer range than phones, are harder to hack, don’t store conversation histories (important for privacy and security), and are more reliable during natural disasters.</p>
<p>They are still used by many <a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xyw9zq/why-are-pagers-still-a-thing">emergency services</a> and <a href="https://www.rd.com/health/healthcare/hospital-pagers/">medical personnel</a> who need to be <a href="https://theconversation.com/nhs-to-banish-pagers-from-its-hospitals-but-is-this-a-rash-act-112647">contactable in extreme emergencies</a> even when all other power and communications might be down.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Retro tech still comes to the rescue.</p>
<h2>The verdict</h2>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/515/gif3.gif?1551834918" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">She gets knocked down … and she gets up again.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel Studios.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The movie is a fun chance to be reminded of all the technology and culture of a quarter-century ago, and to think how much (and how little) has changed. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/virtual-reality-adds-to-tourism-through-touch-smell-and-real-peoples-experiences-101528">Virtual reality adds to tourism through touch, smell and real people's experiences</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The movie’s depiction of the 1990s is generally pretty spot-on – a fun way for a younger audience to be introduced to what life was like before smartphones and ubiquitous high-speed internet. The pain of removable media, unreliable and slow internet connections, and having to go to the store to get a movie is all captured humorously on film. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262309/original/file-20190306-48450-1w0m6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262309/original/file-20190306-48450-1w0m6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262309/original/file-20190306-48450-1w0m6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262309/original/file-20190306-48450-1w0m6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262309/original/file-20190306-48450-1w0m6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262309/original/file-20190306-48450-1w0m6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262309/original/file-20190306-48450-1w0m6a1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel Studios</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112617/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP. He has board director and advisory roles at Motor Trades Association of Queensland and Queensland AI.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Stratton receives funding from the Queensland Brain Institute, the Asia-Pacific Centre for Neuromodulation and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).</span></em></p>
The new Captain Marvel movie takes us back to the 1990s with a look at some of the technologies of the day. Do people still use pagers?
Michael Milford, Professor, Queensland University of Technology
Peter Stratton, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of Queensland
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/110430
2019-02-13T19:12:52Z
2019-02-13T19:12:52Z
A robot that can touch, eat and sleep? The reality of cyborgs like Alita: Battle Angel
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258180/original/file-20190211-174861-1xy65f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Alita: preparing for battle.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">20th Century Fox</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0437086/">Alita: Battle Angel</a> is an interesting and wild ride, jam-packed full of concepts around cybernetics, dystopian futures and cyberpunk themes.</p>
<p>The film – in cinemas from today – revolves around Alita (Rosa Salazar), a female cyborg (with original human brain) that is recovered by cybernetic doctor Dyson Ido (Christoph Waltz) and brought into the world of the future (the film is set in 2563).</p>
<p>Hundreds of years after a catastrophic war, called “The Fall”, the population of Earth now resides in a wealthy sky city called Zalem and a sprawling junkyard called Iron City where the detritus from Zalem is dumped.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-parkour-the-sport-that-seems-reckless-but-takes-poise-and-skill-110881">The science of parkour, the sport that seems reckless but takes poise and skill</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We follow Alita’s story as she makes friends and enemies, and discovers more about her past. Her character is great – she has many of the mannerisms of a teenage girl combined with a determination and overarching sense of what is right – “I do not stand by in the presence of evil.”</p>
<p>So let’s dig into the many scientific concepts touched on in the film and see how far from reality they are, or might be in the future.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U3D2vmWD88w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Alita: Battle Angel Trailer. (20th Century Fox)</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Touch skin</h2>
<p>Alita goes through two cybernetic bodies in the film, with the second being especially advanced. A big part of the film is the interaction between the human and cyborg components, and a major component of that is touch, especially with respect to the main love interest Hugo (Keean Johnson).</p>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/469/clip1.gif?1549885349" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A touching scene from the movie.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">20th Century Fox.
</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As shown in the film, Alita’s cyborg body has a pretty advanced and location-sensitive sense of touch. In today’s world, robot touch, or tactile sensing, is relatively advanced (although not yet widely deployed) and uses a range of technologies <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1071">including deformable skin</a> that changes both its capacitance (to measure and “sense” the touch) and illuminance (to display the results of the touch).</p>
<p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921889014001833">Touch can also be detected</a> in terms of changes in temperature, conductivity, resistance or even optical changes that result from a touch.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Not a stretch.</p>
<h2>Antimatter heart</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258229/original/file-20190211-174883-1to4ut9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258229/original/file-20190211-174883-1to4ut9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258229/original/file-20190211-174883-1to4ut9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258229/original/file-20190211-174883-1to4ut9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258229/original/file-20190211-174883-1to4ut9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258229/original/file-20190211-174883-1to4ut9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258229/original/file-20190211-174883-1to4ut9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258229/original/file-20190211-174883-1to4ut9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A heart of antimatter.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source"> 20th Century Fox</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Like Ironman from <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-biggest-clash-of-heroes-and-villains-in-avengers-infinity-war-but-can-science-survive-95421">The Avengers</a> with his arc reactor, and The T-850 from the <a href="https://theconversation.com/terminator-2-in-3d-reminds-us-what-weve-still-to-learn-about-ai-and-robotics-82371">Terminator series</a> with its hydrogen fuel cells, Alita is powered by an <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-antimatter-53414">antimatter</a> heart.</p>
<p>We are nowhere close to an antimatter-type energy source at this stage - current robots of similar size like the ones <a href="https://www.bostondynamics.com/robots">Boston Dynamics builds</a> are increasingly being powered by relatively conventional <a href="https://www.therobotreport.com/better-batteries-accelerating-autonomy/">batteries</a>. </p>
<p>There are multiple <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/matter-antimatter-power-on-star-trek-3072119">major obstacles to overcome</a> in using antimatter as any type of energy source, including finding an efficient way to obtain the antimatter in the first place and capturing the energy released from a matter-antimatter event.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Beating physics is difficult.</p>
<h2>Learning to use a body</h2>
<p>Alita’s first steps upon waking up in her new body cause her to stumble, but only momentarily. </p>
<p>Robot walking and other related motion capabilities have long been an active field of research, with companies such as <a href="https://www.bostondynamics.com/">Boston Dynamics</a> making very publicly visible strides (see what we did there) in biped (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjSohj-Iclc">two legs</a>) and quadruped (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHBcVlqpvZ8">four legs</a>) movement.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LikxFZZO2sk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The two legged robot Atlas performing robot parkour. (Boston Dynamics)</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Alita has likely never used the exact body that she is given at first – but manages to walk, jump and fight fluently almost instantaneously. </p>
<p>This is in stark contrast to current robots learning from scratch to walk – which can take thousands of hours of training in simulation and then on the robot to get right. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hx_bgoTF7bs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Emergence of Locomotion Behaviours in Rich Environments. (Google Deepmind)</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Instead it’s likely that Alita has a range of pre-trained motion models for a variety of body configurations, and is able to rapidly tweak them to work on the body she is given.</p>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/472/clip3.gif?1549886670" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rapid learning.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">20th Century Fox
</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Runs well. </p>
<h2>Will cyborgs need to eat?</h2>
<p>The doctor tells Alita she has to eat to provide nutrients to her (still organic) brain. This sounds reasonable, but she would need a complete digestive system to break the food down into nutrients and absorb them into her bloodstream.</p>
<p>Since her torso is completely inorganic, it’s more likely that fluid, vitamins, minerals and macronutrients (proteins, carbohydrates and fats) would be <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC111082/">injected directly into her blood</a>.</p>
<p>Today, some people who <a href="https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/stoma-after-ileostomy-or-colostomy">have had their intestines removed</a> due to illness continue to live relatively normal lives. </p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Hard to swallow.</p>
<h2>Will cyborgs need sleep?</h2>
<p>We first see the repaired Alita as she wakes up from a deep sleep. </p>
<p>Scientists are not certain about all the reasons that sleep is needed, but it seems particularly important for the brain. While awake, your brain cells use lots of energy and produce lots of metabolic waste that accumulates around the cells.</p>
<p>At night while you sleep, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-happens-in-the-brain-during-sleep1/">your brain clears away the waste</a>. Sleep also seems vital for <a href="http://healthysleep.med.harvard.edu/healthy/matters/benefits-of-sleep/learning-memory">remembering what you’ve learned</a>. </p>
<p>Since Alita’s brain is human, it’s quite plausible she would need to sleep.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Not just a dream.</p>
<h2>Could a brain survive for 300 years?</h2>
<p>Even while you sleep, your brain still needs a constant supply of oxygen. Brain damage from a lack of oxygen starts becoming irreparable <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22154552">after about 20 minutes without it</a>, although with noted exceptions.</p>
<p>Brains can be temporarily <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625460">put into a state of suspended animation</a> by cooling them down dramatically, and operations like heart transplants are sometimes done this way today.</p>
<p>But keeping the brain cold also requires power, and a brain can only currently be kept alive like this for a few hours, not the 300 years portrayed in the movie.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> A little brain-dead.</p>
<h2>The future of humans - cyborgs</h2>
<p>Alita: Battle Angel presents a world full of cyborgs with varying remnants of their humanity (both physical and mental). Whether this is a realistic potential future is still up for debate - <a href="https://theconversation.com/merging-our-brains-with-machines-wont-stop-the-rise-of-the-robots-73275">we don’t know whether this ongoing hybridisation of humans and technology will be sustained</a> or will rapidly switch completely over to robotics technology.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-visual-illusions-appear-in-everyday-objects-from-nature-to-architecture-111178">Why visual illusions appear in everyday objects – from nature to architecture</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But if we are to have a future of cyborgs, the movie presents (sometimes realistically) a range of concepts that are fascinating to consider: will these cyborgs still need to eat, to sleep, and how will a mixed society of humans and cyborgs function. </p>
<p>Alita: Battle Angel is a vision of one such possible future, and is a worthy addition to the canon of films that provoke us to think about just what our world of tomorrow will look like.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258412/original/file-20190212-174894-gdnb8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258412/original/file-20190212-174894-gdnb8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/258412/original/file-20190212-174894-gdnb8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258412/original/file-20190212-174894-gdnb8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258412/original/file-20190212-174894-gdnb8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258412/original/file-20190212-174894-gdnb8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258412/original/file-20190212-174894-gdnb8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/258412/original/file-20190212-174894-gdnb8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alita: Battle Angel prompts us to consider what exactly our machine and technology-filled future may look like.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">20th Century Fox</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110430/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP. He has board director and advisory roles at Motor Trades Association of Queensland and Queensland AI.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Stratton receives funding from the Queensland Brain Institute, the Asia-Pacific Centre for Neuromodulation and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).</span></em></p>
We have robots that can walk and run but still a long way to go before the technology matches the cybernetic skills in the new science fiction film Alita: Battle Angel.
Michael Milford, Professor, Queensland University of Technology
Peter Stratton, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of Queensland
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/102723
2018-09-13T07:38:05Z
2018-09-13T07:38:05Z
The Predator: you’re gonna need a bigger rope to tie down this alien hunter
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235166/original/file-20180906-190662-1rxqhj8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A prettier predator we have not seen.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">20th Century Fox / Davis Entertainment</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3829266/">The Predator</a> blasts into cinemas today. While newcomers will enjoy the ride, there are some sly references for those lifelong fans who have watched all the way back to 1987’s original <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093773/">Predator</a> film, and the sequel and crossover films since then.</p>
<p>This is a modern-day Predator film, shiny and slick and updated – with even the mention of climate change as a plot point.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/50_Ala5BKBo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">I’m glad there’s a chopper to get to in this film.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But how does the science of new evolved predators stack up? Some spoilers and slightly macabre calculations follow.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-meg-when-the-giant-prehistoric-shark-bites-the-science-bites-back-101105">The Meg! When the (giant prehistoric) shark bites, the science bites back</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Invisibility cloaking</h2>
<p>We see some interesting details on the invisibility cloaking technology of the predators. </p>
<p>Their ship appears to have an external physical field that wraps around the outside of its normal exterior. Personal cloaks appear to vary from being completely invisible to slightly visible, shimmering transparent patterns in the air.</p>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/279/gif2.gif?1536756455" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Now you see him, now you don’t.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">20th Century Fox / Davis Entertainment.
</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While some progress has been made, most current invisibility experiments have only worked on <a href="https://theconversation.com/ten-years-on-invisibility-cloaks-are-close-to-becoming-a-manufacturable-reality-47663">tiny micrometre-scale objects</a>, and only for certain wavelengths. </p>
<p>For larger objects, most techniques <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1176">reflect incident light back</a>, which obscures the object but doesn’t show the viewer what is behind it – unlike in the movie. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GNGfse9ZK8&feature=youtu.be">“See-through” trucks</a> are currently being developed that use forward-looking cameras and rear displays to show cars what’s in front.</p>
<p>The main challenge with achieving invisibility using this technique is multiple viewers, which was nicely highlighted in the film <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydIPKkjBlMw">Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol</a>. While it’s possible to simulate the background behind the invisible person for one viewer, it becomes progressively more complex to simultaneously simulate multiple backgrounds for multiple viewers at different locations.</p>
<p>One piece of current human technology suggests a possible solution: new OLED TV monitors with <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/people-can-now-simultaneously-watch-different-shows-on-the-same-tv-180947762/">extremely fast refresh rates</a>. Multiple viewers wearing 3D glasses can watch different shows at the same time on the same TV. Perhaps some future technology will enable this effect without the need for glasses.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Some slight stretching of science.</p>
<h2>Will someone please tie up that monster properly</h2>
<p>People doing a shoddy job of restraining monsters is one of the most frequently used “stupidity drives the plot” elements of movies. This movie is no different, with a supposedly sedated (because these brilliant scientists know the exact dose for the animal, of course) predator held down by some dubiously thin restraints.</p>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/277/gif1.gif?1536753130" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pred is not a happy hotel guest.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">20th Century Fox / Davis Entertainment.
</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The wire rope appear to have a diameter of about 6mm, <a href="https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wire-rope-strength-d_1518.html">suggesting a breaking strength</a> of about 24.4kN, equivalent to a load of about 2,500kg.</p>
<p>But the “safe load” given for that diameter is only 4.89kN (498kg static load), to allow for factors like dynamic loading: something the escaping predator would definitely be applying.</p>
<p>Given that the predator is shown to be able to smash deep dents in solid steel tables and squash cars, it seems unlikely that this cabling (even allowing for the three cables in some places) provides a sufficient safety margin for restraining an angry predator.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Shoddy subduing.</p>
<h2>Depictions of autism and memory</h2>
<p>The son of the main character is presented as being on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/memory-and-sense-of-self-may-play-more-of-a-role-in-autism-than-we-thought-63210">autism spectrum</a>. In one character-establishing scene, he correctly sets the pieces back on at least six in-progress chess games from memory after two bullies sweep the pieces onto the floor.</p>
<p>Top chess players have reported they can <a href="http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/memory.html">remember thousands of games</a>. So it’s plausible that a good chess player could remember the configuration of six boards: it’s implied that he is a good player by his watching of other games.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236002/original/file-20180912-133892-1ira2u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236002/original/file-20180912-133892-1ira2u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236002/original/file-20180912-133892-1ira2u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236002/original/file-20180912-133892-1ira2u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236002/original/file-20180912-133892-1ira2u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=346&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236002/original/file-20180912-133892-1ira2u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236002/original/file-20180912-133892-1ira2u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236002/original/file-20180912-133892-1ira2u1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Are the memory feats demonstrated by young Rory McKenna possible?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">20th Century Fox / Davis Entertainment</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Special interests are also a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aur.1931">key characteristic of autism</a>. It’s plausible that he has developed a special interest in chess (it’s portrayed that he’s part of a chess club), and that level of attention has resulted in him being able to reconstruct the board configurations.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Care is needed with condition characterisations.</p>
<h2>Spoiler alert! I got you, you got me</h2>
<p>In the climactic final battle, two mortally injured best buddy soldiers decide to go out on their own terms and shoot each other simultaneously from a range of about ten metres.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236008/original/file-20180912-133898-9g9lz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236008/original/file-20180912-133898-9g9lz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236008/original/file-20180912-133898-9g9lz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236008/original/file-20180912-133898-9g9lz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236008/original/file-20180912-133898-9g9lz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236008/original/file-20180912-133898-9g9lz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236008/original/file-20180912-133898-9g9lz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/236008/original/file-20180912-133898-9g9lz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">At its heart The Predator is part buddy flick.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">20th Century Fox / Davis Entertainment</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On first impressions, this doesn’t seem possible because the minimum human reaction speed is <a href="https://www.iaaf.org/news/news/iaaf-sprint-start-research-project-is-the-100">no better than 100 miliseconds</a>, during which time a handgun bullet travelling at a speed of around <a href="http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.handgun-ballistics.html">300 metres per second</a> would move 30 metres, more than the distance between them (much faster than the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-blasters-miss-their-mark-and-other-science-stunners-in-solo-a-star-wars-story-96631">blasters in Star Wars</a>)</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/when-ai-meets-your-shopping-experience-it-knows-what-you-buy-and-what-you-ought-to-buy-101737">When AI meets your shopping experience it knows what you buy – and what you ought to buy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But this act of bravado is co-ordinated: one buddy isn’t waiting for the other but rather they pull the triggers at the same time. If cued off a shared wink, head nod or other visual cue, they would only need to get the delay after that consistent, still difficult but not impossible.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Tricky timing but possible.</p>
<h2>The verdict</h2>
<p>The Predator is surprisingly fun. It has its ups and downs but there’s some great humour and an entertaining cast that on the whole works well together. </p>
<p>Most of the science – if you allow the overall premise of a super alien species that trawls the galaxy for hunting challenges – holds up reasonably well, with a few exceptions that I think we can allow for the purpose of plot progression.</p>
<p>Most importantly, in a nod to the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9-Te-DPbSE">1987 film</a>, it’s good to see the characters don’t forget to <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093773/quotes/qt0490135">get to the chopper</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Dr Kate Sofronoff, Associate Professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Queensland, was consulted for advice on autism as part of this article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102723/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP. He has board director and advisory roles at Motor Trades Association of Queensland and Queensland AI.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Stratton receives funding from the Queensland Brain Institute, the Asia-Pacific Centre for Neuromodulation and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
</span></em></p>
Scientists and soldiers deal with alien invaders in the new Predator movie, but how does the science stack up? With brains and brawn you’d think they’d know how to keep an alien tied down to a table.
Michael Milford, Professor, Queensland University of Technology
Peter Stratton, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of Queensland
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/101105
2018-08-14T02:55:58Z
2018-08-14T02:55:58Z
The Meg! When the (giant prehistoric) shark bites, the science bites back
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231593/original/file-20180813-2909-1ctl3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Giant sharks are no smiling matter for Jason Statham.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Warner Bros. Pictures</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4779682/">The Meg</a> is the blockbuster shark monster movie we didn’t realise we needed in our lives. With a cast led by <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005458/">Jason Statham</a>, this is a big-budget version of several megalodon movies that have popped out over the years – including <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0284303/">Megalodon</a> (2002) and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2071491/">Jurassic Shark</a> (2012).</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-meg-is-a-horror-story-but-our-treatment-of-sharks-is-scarier-100886">Other reviewers</a> have already covered the potential for such a movie to <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-meg-the-oceans-fossil-record-is-a-treasure-trove-for-potential-monster-movies-101202">exacerbate public perception issues</a> around endangered shark species.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/udm5jUA-2bs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Warner Bros. Pictures.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We’re going to focus instead on other scientific issues raised by the movie, featuring a giant shark that is thankfully now extinct (it lived from about <a href="https://theconversation.com/giant-monster-megalodon-sharks-lurking-in-our-oceans-be-serious-53164">16 million to 2.6 million years ago</a>).</p>
<p>Warning: mild spoilers and tongue-in-cheek analysis of a fictional movie ahead.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-meg-is-a-horror-story-but-our-treatment-of-sharks-is-scarier-100886">Friday essay: The Meg is a horror story but our treatment of sharks is scarier</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Bite force and glass</h2>
<p>Smashable, crackable glass is just such a <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-breaking-glass-to-chest-bursting-the-scientists-review-of-alien-covenant-77150">great action prop for monster movies</a>.</p>
<p>In The Meg, we see the giant shark try out the glass walls of the submerged research station and the deep sea glider vehicle, cracking the glass but not immediately breaking through it.</p>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/229/gif1.gif?1534122364" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Marine research isn’t all it cracked up to be.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Warner Bros. Pictures.
</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But is this realistic, given the Meg’s famed <a href="https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00494.x">bite force of 18 tonnes</a>? (That’s 176,519.7 Newtons.)</p>
<p>First of all, let’s get it out of the way that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks3/science/energy_electricity_forces/forces/revision/4/">pressure is not force</a>: pressure depends on the area over which the force is applied. So a bite force is applied through the contact points of the teeth; if the contact area is small, the pressure can be quite high, which is why pointed teeth are better at cutting. </p>
<p>To give the movie a fair go, we can assume that the glass is overdesigned to the same extent as James Cameron’s <a href="http://www.deepseachallenge.com/">Deepsea Challenger deep-diving submersible</a>. That craft was tested to an “<a href="http://www.deepseachallenge.com/the-sub/pilot-sphere/">equivalent full-ocean-depth pressure of 16,500 pounds per square inch or 114,000kPa</a>”.</p>
<p>Massively oversimplifyingif (ignoring impact loading, angles of attack, and many other factors), we can work out the minimum contact area required for the glass to hold:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Area = force / pressure</p>
<p>= 176,519.7N / 114,000,000Pa</p>
<p>= 0.0015 m<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>That’s a contact area of about 4cm x 4cm spread out over all teeth. From the footage, it seems plausible that there would be this much contact area between the teeth and the glass, meaning the pressure would be insufficient to immediately break through. Score one for human technology, zero for nature.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Toothily tenable.</p>
<h2>Sucky shark size sensing</h2>
<p>We are expected to suspend belief many times throughout the movie, but one scene particularly stretches credulity. The team successfully poisons what they think is the Meg, and haul it onboard using the ship’s crane.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231804/original/file-20180813-2924-u74jyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231804/original/file-20180813-2924-u74jyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231804/original/file-20180813-2924-u74jyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231804/original/file-20180813-2924-u74jyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231804/original/file-20180813-2924-u74jyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231804/original/file-20180813-2924-u74jyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231804/original/file-20180813-2924-u74jyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Asking a lot of a little crane.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Warner Bros. Pictures</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The problem: the shark they have caught is clearly (at least to us viewers) much smaller than the one they’ve been fighting with for the rest of the movie. The big bad shark is still out there, and the characters are oblivious.</p>
<p>So is this plot-critical mistake plausible?</p>
<p>In the character’s defence, most of their encounters with the shark have been underwater in panicked situations with few reference objects, <a href="https://www.yorku.ca/eye/size_perception.htm">making absolute size estimation difficult</a>. Real-world studies of large whale sharks have shown that measuring their dimensions is extremely difficult, and <a href="https://www.oceanographicmagazine.com/features/trouble-measuring-bonsai-sharks/">have even involved using lasers</a>.</p>
<p>But this plot hole is nothing compared with the larger gaffe in the same scene: the supposed megalodon carcass is strung up on a flimsy crane, as shown in the picture above. </p>
<p>For reference, <a href="http://www.ashburtoncranehire.com.au/portfolio-view/50-tonne-liebherr/">this is the size of a 50-tonne capacity mobile crane</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Suspended shark suspends belief.</p>
<h2>Meg motoring along?</h2>
<p>According to the film’s production notes, the Meg in the movie can reach speeds of more than 80 knots (150kph), and appears to approach this speed when chasing Jason Statham.</p>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/230/gif2.gif?1534125189" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Meg can move! (But has slowed down for the buffet in this scene).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Warner Bros. Pictures.
</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One of the fastest current sharks is the Shortfin Mako, which can reach speeds of <a href="http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/shark_profiles/i_oxyrinchus.htm">around 50kph, with more speculative evidence of them topping 70kph in short bursts</a>. The fastest <a href="http://time.com/2826758/watch-the-worlds-fastest-whale-leap-from-the-ocean/">fin whales reach around 40kph</a>.</p>
<p>The fastest submarines reached <a href="http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/705.htm">reported speeds of more than 75kph</a>. Conventional torpedoes <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11295486/Already-faster-than-a-cheetah-the-Navys-two-tonne-Spearfish-torpedoes-are-getting-an-upgrade.html">top out at around 110kph</a>, whereas Russia’s supercavitating torpedoes <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/this-crazy-fast-russian-torpedo-could-spell-trouble-for-us-carriers-2017-8?IR=T">could reach 370kph</a>.</p>
<p>Given that the shark appears to be a “normal” shark in all respects other than its size, and without access to any special supercavitation capabilities, its slated top speed seems optimistic at best.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Shifty speed specifications.</p>
<h2>Maintaining megalodon’s menu</h2>
<p>The Meg in the movie is shown to be <em>really hungry</em> (or just nasty); it appears to eat a lot of people. But how much would it actually need to consume to sustain itself?</p>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/231/gif3.gif?1534142710" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This cracker has a nice topping!</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Warner Bros. Pictures.
</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>An <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1444603">old study</a> calculated that a 943kg shark could survive on 30kg of blubber for about 1.5 months. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01471#ref12">New studies</a> suggest that this amount of food would only last the shark about 11 days, or an equivalent daily consumption rate of about 3kg.</p>
<p>Dietary requirements of larger sharks scale with mass to the power of about 0.8, so taking a <a href="https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00494.x">Meg weight of 48 tonnes</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Meg daily intake = 3kg / day × (meg / normal shark weight)<sup>0.8</sup></p>
<p>= 3kg / day × (48,000 / 943)<sup>0.8</sup></p>
<p>= 70kg/day</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So unless the Meg had a strikingly different metabolism, it would probably only need to eat the equivalent of about one person a day. The Meg in the movie eats a lot more than that.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Plausibility requires a massively magnified Megalodon metabolism… or perhaps the shark was stocking up for the next month.</p>
<h2>Setting shark attack statistics straight</h2>
<p>In the movie, the Meg attacks enough people to skew global shark attack statistics for years to come.</p>
<p>But in reality, the average person is <a href="https://theconversation.com/factfile-the-facts-on-shark-bites-and-shark-numbers-76450">incredibly unlikely to be attacked by a shark</a>. Various statistics abound, but the chances of a person being killed by a shark in their lifetime is around <a href="https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/shark-attacks/odds/compare-risk/death/">1 in 4 million</a>.</p>
<p>Such statistics taken out of context are relatively meaningless; many people live far from the ocean and rarely go swimming, meaning their chances of attack are effectively zero (unless <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2724064/">a waterspout drops sharks on top of them</a>).</p>
<p>The statistics adjusted based on the activity undertaken at the time are significantly higher: one <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/oct/27/shark-attacks-in-australia-how-common-are-they-really">estimate of attack rates (not necessarily fatal) among those scuba diving and snorkelling</a> was more than 10 attacks per 100,000 people performing the activity.</p>
<p>Either way the chances are very low, but not as low for regular ocean-goers as for a random person plucked from a continent.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>The Meg movie combines all the typical monster movie cliches with a few nice touches and some terrifically bad dialogue (so bad it’s good in parts; it had people in our cinema in stitches).</p>
<p>It’s also somewhat liberating that the villain in this movie is not a modern shark but a fantastical creature from millions of years ago, allowing us to be a little more indulgent as viewers. Statham is great, as is ten-year-old rising star <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8528988/bio">Sophia Cai</a>.</p>
<p>The science is generally as dodgy as you would expect for a blockbuster monster movie; the only problem here being the real prehistoric existence of the Meg. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/giant-monster-megalodon-sharks-lurking-in-our-oceans-be-serious-53164">Giant monster Megalodon sharks lurking in our oceans: be serious!</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The script writers have stretched plausibility on some of the shark’s general physical capabilities with respect to <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/could-meg-really-bite-ship-half-we-took-paleobiologist-new-movie-find-out">size</a> (a little bit), speed (probably a lot), and appetite, mainly for dramatic effect.</p>
<p>But turn down your brain and it’s hard to argue with the entertainment value of a big monster spectacle, especially one that features scintillating lines like this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>That living fossil ate my friend.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Wow.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231649/original/file-20180813-2903-mdzjuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231649/original/file-20180813-2903-mdzjuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231649/original/file-20180813-2903-mdzjuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231649/original/file-20180813-2903-mdzjuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231649/original/file-20180813-2903-mdzjuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231649/original/file-20180813-2903-mdzjuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/231649/original/file-20180813-2903-mdzjuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">For a a 50 tonne Meg, chasing this tiny dog would be like us picking up a breadcrumb.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Warner Bros. Pictures</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101105/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP. He has board director and advisory roles at Motor Trades Association of Queensland and Queensland AI.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Stratton receives funding from the Queensland Brain Institute, the Asia-Pacific Centre for Neuromodulation and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
</span></em></p>
The Meg has all the typical monster movie cliches including some terrifically bad dialogue. But what about the science?
Michael Milford, Professor, Queensland University of Technology
Peter Stratton, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of Queensland
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/97186
2018-06-14T04:18:30Z
2018-06-14T04:18:30Z
From outsized dinosaurs to outrunning hot lava in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220902/original/file-20180530-120484-n184w7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who will get Chris Pratt first - the volcano or the Rex?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment, Inc. and Legendary Pictures Productions, LLC.</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>What happens when you combine genetically engineered dinosaurs, greedy capitalists, and an erupting volcano? A lot of thrills, as experienced in the most recent dinosaur movie <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4881806/">Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom</a>. It’s a different tale to the Jurassic movies we’ve been used to: a little darker, and updated for a modern world.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1FJD7jZqZEk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Humans learn from their past mistakes.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard are back as Owen (the velociraptor-taming rogue) and a wiser Claire, alongside faces from the original Jurassic Park movie in Dr Henry Wu (B.D. Wong) and Dr Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum). </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-blasters-miss-their-mark-and-other-science-stunners-in-solo-a-star-wars-story-96631">Why blasters miss their mark and other science stunners in Solo: A Star Wars Story</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But bringing back dinosaurs from the dead and then genetically engineering them necessarily involves a serve of scientific magic. In this review, we dive into the scientific concepts behind some of the scenes to check whether they are dinosaur dung or movie magic.</p>
<p>Be warned: some modest spoilers lie ahead!</p>
<h2>Testing T-Rex’s tallness</h2>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/165/gif2.gif?1528848381" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chris Pratt not measuring up as well as he normally does.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment, Inc. and Legendary Pictures Productions, LLC.
</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Monster and dinosaur movies are notorious for getting the size of (real) creatures wrong, having <a href="https://www.inverse.com/article/17301-new-king-kong-will-be-100-feet-tall-as-monsters-including-godzilla-keep-growing">inconsistent sizes</a> throughout the movie, or even <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-breaking-glass-to-chest-bursting-the-scientists-review-of-alien-covenant-77150">defying the laws of mass conservation</a>. </p>
<p>So how does the T-Rex portrayal in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom stack up? Well, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-dinosaur/famed-t-rex-sue-getting-a-makeover-at-field-museum-in-chicago-idUSKCN1BA15C">the largest T-Rex skeleton</a> found to date is named “Sue” (although we don’t know if it was a male or female dinosaur).</p>
<p>Sue measures 3.66 metres tall at the hips.</p>
<p>We have Chris Pratt for scale, whose height estimates vary but is around 1.88 metres tall (he’s a bit closer to the camera than Rexy but let’s assume they’re the same distance for simplicity).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>T-rex hip height = screen height ratio × Chris Pratt Height</p>
<p>= (10.55cm / 4.88cm) × 1.88m</p>
<p>= 4.06m</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So that’s about 10% oversized. Factoring in the likelihood of there being T-Rexes larger than Sue (we have only found a small number of T-Rex skeletons, so it’s unlikely we’ve found the largest ones), and the extra skin and muscle, this looks like the film-makers have got the size spot on.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Rexy is right.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/222939/original/file-20180613-153677-1bi2bka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/222939/original/file-20180613-153677-1bi2bka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/222939/original/file-20180613-153677-1bi2bka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222939/original/file-20180613-153677-1bi2bka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222939/original/file-20180613-153677-1bi2bka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=250&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222939/original/file-20180613-153677-1bi2bka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222939/original/file-20180613-153677-1bi2bka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222939/original/file-20180613-153677-1bi2bka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Swimming and snacking.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment, Inc. and Legendary Pictures Productions, LLC.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The giant prehistoric aquatic lizard Mosasaurus is also back, mixing it up with surfers this time.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Mosasaurus length = screen length ratio × human height</p>
<p>= 28.08cm / 2.36cm × 1.8m</p>
<p>= 21.4m</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The largest species of Mosasaurus <a href="https://www.zin.ru/journals/trudyzin/doc/vol_318_2/TZ_318_2_Grigoriev.pdf">reached lengths of 17m</a>: so this is pushing the limits a bit more, at 25% oversized, but acceptable I think for storytelling purposes. I guess prehistoric creatures were sufficiently huge and crazy that even Hollywood didn’t feel the need to make them “larger than life”.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Mosasaurus is on the money.</p>
<h2>Pteranodon portage?</h2>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/166/temp.gif?1528937913" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Up, up and away!</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment, Inc. and Legendary Pictures Productions, LLC.
</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In one scene, a Pteranodon flies in, picks up a fully armed man, and flies off fairly effortlessly.</p>
<p>Now, we don’t have them around anymore, but we do have large birds of flight such as the bald eagle. The <a href="http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=343">best estimates and observations</a> of a bald eagle put its lifting power at around one-third to one-half of its body weight.</p>
<p>Pteranodon weight is apparently <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013982">very difficult to estimate</a>, with a range of 25-50kg: making it unlikely they could lift a 90kg male.</p>
<p>But the largest pterosaurs (bigger than in this movie scene) may have weighed as much as 180-250kg - making it plausible that they could, in full flight, pick up and carry an adult man.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Struggling to fly. </p>
<h2>Mosasaurus maneuvers?</h2>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/167/temp2.gif?1528937926" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hors d'oeuvres are served.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment, Inc. and Legendary Pictures Productions, LLC.
</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Mosasaurus jumps well out the water as well in this memorable scene. This might seem an incredible feat, but modern humpback whales are only a little bit smaller and <a href="http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/hw/scientificamerican0385-84.pdf">can get much of their body out of the water</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7NAKaSo19us?wmode=transparent&start=41" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Plausible. </p>
<h2>Cracking chains</h2>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/163/gif1.gif?1528846902" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Movie plots often rely on inadequate restraint of scary things.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment, Inc.
and Legendary Pictures Productions, LLC.
</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When the T-Rex wakes up, it snaps a chain connector rather effortlessly. Now the Rex is a massive (<a href="https://www.livescience.com/23868-tyrannosaurus-rex-facts.html">around 8 tonnes</a>), powerful creature, but is this realistic, assuming the connector isn’t faulty?</p>
<p>It looks like the connector is held in place by a threaded screw – in which case we can examine the “thread stripping strength” of screws at which point the thread shears off and the connector fails.</p>
<p>Using a thread length of 50mm (estimate), an M8 bolt, and steel with a shear strength of 270MPa, we can calculate the required shear force using <a href="http://www.tribology-abc.com/calculators/e3_6f.htm">this calculator</a>.</p>
<p>We get a force of 144.82kN - or a static force equivalent to holding up a weight of 14.77 tonnes.</p>
<p>Now this weight is heavier than the T-Rex, but the T-Rex isn’t just hanging off the chain. It can exert a <em>dynamic</em> load which is a multiple of its weight: so it shearing the bolt and breaking the connector is quite possible.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Off the chain action but plausible.</p>
<h2>Laughing off lava</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/222937/original/file-20180613-153665-m9pg2u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/222937/original/file-20180613-153665-m9pg2u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222937/original/file-20180613-153665-m9pg2u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222937/original/file-20180613-153665-m9pg2u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222937/original/file-20180613-153665-m9pg2u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=365&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222937/original/file-20180613-153665-m9pg2u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=365&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/222937/original/file-20180613-153665-m9pg2u.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=365&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">My mother always said: if the genetically engineered super predator doesn’t get you, the flows of lava will.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment, Inc. and Legendary Pictures Productions, LLC.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There’s a volcano at the core of the plot in the movie, and the main characters are regularly weaving their way in and out of lava flows while dodging dinosaurs. They’re often almost touching the lava, seemingly without any adverse consequences.</p>
<p>Calculating whether this is realistic is difficult: it depends on the size of the lava flow (which varies a lot in the movie), how close the person is, their clothing type, air flow, the angle of exposure, and a range of other factors.</p>
<p>But we can get a back of the envelope idea by looking at what people have done in real life, as shown <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/meet-demian-barrios-the-hawaii-lava-chaser/9768366">here</a> and <a href="https://www.quora.com/How-close-can-you-get-to-lava-without-burning-your-skin">here</a>.</p>
<p>Given that the characters are spending extended periods of time seemingly only a few centimetres from the exposed molten lava, it seems unlikely they would have emerged unscathed like they do in the movie.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> No lava burn is a little bogus.</p>
<h2>The final verdict</h2>
<p>Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is nothing if not entertaining, and a spectacle to be viewed on the big screen. Some of the character development is a little frustrating and the plot has its usual share of holes, but if you sit back and enjoy the ride it’s a great blockbuster to take in this holidays. There are new dinosaurs to marvel at, and one or two plot twists that you might not see coming.</p>
<p>On the general science front, I was pleasantly surprised – the dinosaur sizes were often about right, as was the physics of the dinosaurs’ interaction with their environments (as best we can determine using modern science and animals). </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223127/original/file-20180614-32342-p4uz8c.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223127/original/file-20180614-32342-p4uz8c.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223127/original/file-20180614-32342-p4uz8c.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223127/original/file-20180614-32342-p4uz8c.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223127/original/file-20180614-32342-p4uz8c.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223127/original/file-20180614-32342-p4uz8c.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223127/original/file-20180614-32342-p4uz8c.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223127/original/file-20180614-32342-p4uz8c.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">They’re so cute when they’re young…</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment, Inc. and Legendary Pictures Productions, LLC.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97186/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Stratton receives funding from the Queensland Brain Institute, the Asia-Pacific Centre for Neuromodulation and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).</span></em></p>
The genetically modified dinosaurs are back in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Fantastic entertainment, and the science isn’t too bad, considering.
Michael Milford, Professor, Queensland University of Technology
Peter Stratton, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of Queensland
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/96631
2018-05-18T07:15:00Z
2018-05-18T07:15:00Z
Why blasters miss their mark and other science stunners in Solo: A Star Wars Story
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218907/original/file-20180514-100716-ouw6cw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A young Han Solo with Chewbacca.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lucasfilm Ltd</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3778644/">Solo: A Star Wars Story</a> is the first in the new line of Star Wars films and revolves around one of the most lovable characters in the films, the (young) Han Solo, played by Alden Ehrenreich.</p>
<p>Just as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/spider-man-homecoming-spins-a-web-of-fact-and-fantasy-79900">new Spiderman movie</a> took a step back from the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-biggest-clash-of-heroes-and-villains-in-avengers-infinity-war-but-can-science-survive-95421">typically epic, universe-wide scope</a> of other recent movies, Solo is a smaller, more personal story of Han and how he met his new friends Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo), Qi'ra (Emelia Clarke), Beckett (Woody Harrelson), and many others.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jPEYpryMp2s?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The movie is a lot of fun and a bit of an indulgence for lifelong Star Wars fans, with a couple of darker elements, reminding me a lot of the original film series in tone.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-the-robots-of-star-wars-tell-us-about-automation-and-the-future-of-human-work-88698">What the robots of Star Wars tell us about automation, and the future of human work</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We’re under special instructions to keep pre-release reviews as spoiler-free as possible. But being set in the Star Wars universe, there’s plenty of science that has bugged fans for decades we can get stuck into without revealing any major plot points.</p>
<h2>Can’t shoot to save themselves</h2>
<p>The Star Wars films are notorious for the wild variations in shooting accuracy, especially by the baddies, and this has spurned much <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/scifi/comments/gwtio/regarding_the_accuracy_of_stormtroopers/">debate</a> and <a href="https://logicalmisery.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/how-bad-is-stormtrooper-aim-exactly/">discussion</a> already.</p>
<p>But there are a few scientific reasons why shooting performance may sometimes not be up to the standards we expect from action-packed movies.</p>
<h3>1. Projectile velocity</h3>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/113/gif1.gif?1526597099" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bad shooting is essential for the longevity of heroes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lucasfilm.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The ray guns or blasters in Star Wars shoot some sort of energised beam. Unlike a normal beam of light, these beams have relatively low velocities: in fact even lower than a typical bullet that you’ve seen in movies set on Earth with normal guns.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219511/original/file-20180517-26277-1gew8a2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219511/original/file-20180517-26277-1gew8a2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219511/original/file-20180517-26277-1gew8a2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219511/original/file-20180517-26277-1gew8a2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219511/original/file-20180517-26277-1gew8a2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219511/original/file-20180517-26277-1gew8a2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219511/original/file-20180517-26277-1gew8a2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219511/original/file-20180517-26277-1gew8a2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A slow moving beam from a ray gun.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lucasfilm</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>Beam speed = distance / time interval</p>
<p>= 3m / (1 / 24s)</p>
<p>= 72m/s</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Now that’s very slow. In comparison, the Australian Army’s standard F88 Austeyr combat weapon fires a bullet with a <a href="https://www.army.gov.au/our-work/equipment-and-clothing/small-arms/f88-austeyr-f88a2-with-ring-sight-and-f88a2-with-acog-rmr">muzzle velocity of about 930m/s</a> - more than 12 times as fast.</p>
<p>When the target is moving erratically, as is often the case in the movies, the slow travel time of the beam means the target is more likely to move out of the danger zone before the beam gets there.</p>
<h3>2. Rate of fire</h3>
<p>The ray guns also generally shoot at a remarkably slow rate: about three rounds a second, or 180rpm - again, much slower than the F88 weapon’s <a href="https://www.army.gov.au/our-work/equipment-and-clothing/small-arms/f88-austeyr-f88a2-with-ring-sight-and-f88a2-with-acog-rmr">680-850rpm</a>.</p>
<p>So together, the low rate of fire and slow travel time of the beam means it’s not that surprising that, at times, the shooting is remarkably ineffective - which is just as well for the heroes of the story.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Hits the mark.</p>
<h2>Han shot first?</h2>
<p>The original <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/">Star Wars</a> (1977) film ignited a furious 40-year debate over whether <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/04/14/reddit-asked-harrison-ford-who-shot-first-heres-what-he-said/">Han Solo shot first</a> in a showdown with the bounty hunter Greedo (who also gets off a shot). This debate will no doubt arise again with what happens in Solo.</p>
<p>If you shoot first with a normal gun, you’re likely to get the upper hand because your opponent is unlikely to be able to react before being hit. But what about with a low-velocity ray gun?</p>
<p>Using a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4374455/">reaction speed of 131ms</a>, we can work out how far apart a duelist would need to be to react to the other shooting first:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Minimum distance to react = beam speed × reaction time</p>
<p>= 72m/s × 0.131</p>
<p>= 9.4m</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So if you’re closer than 9.4m there is a good chance your opponent will get hit by your beam before they can react. Any further apart than that, shooting first is less of an advantage.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Shooting first is no sucker punch.</p>
<h2>Kabooming coaxium</h2>
<p>A key plot device in the movie is a powerful but unstable fuel called <em>coaxium</em>. It has a tendency to go boom if it’s not stored nice and cool.</p>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/115/gif2.gif?1526600758" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Coaxium go boom.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lucasfilm.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But is this sort of energy density even possible? </p>
<p>We can use the apparent size of the fireball (a radius of about 200 metres) to work out the explosive yield, and hence the energy storage of a single train carriage-load of fuel that explodes in the movie.</p>
<p>This fireball radius matches a yield of early atomic weapons - about 20 kilotonnes, or 20,000 tonnes of TNT.</p>
<p>It’s clear that there’s not this much material in the train carriage - so the fuel source must be something with a releasable energy density in the ballpark of <a href="https://whatisnuclear.com/energy-density.html">enriched uranium</a>, more like an actual fission or fusion bomb.</p>
<p>Maybe they’ve come up with a more controlled version of <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/project-orion-nuclear-bomb-propelled-spaceships-2015-6">Project Orion</a>, which exploded atomic bombs to propel a spacecraft.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Explosively entertaining but scientifically inventive. </p>
<h2>The Kessel Run</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219529/original/file-20180518-26295-1r1mwem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219529/original/file-20180518-26295-1r1mwem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219529/original/file-20180518-26295-1r1mwem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219529/original/file-20180518-26295-1r1mwem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219529/original/file-20180518-26295-1r1mwem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219529/original/file-20180518-26295-1r1mwem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219529/original/file-20180518-26295-1r1mwem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219529/original/file-20180518-26295-1r1mwem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">I’ll be there in 12 parsecs…</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lucasfilm</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In one of the more infamous moments in Star Wars history, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/quotes/qt0440685">Hans Solo claims</a> that the Millennium Falcon made the <a href="http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kessel_Run">Kessel Run</a> in less than 12 parsecs.</p>
<p>The first, overquoted bit of trivia in response to this is that this scene is “wrong” because a <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/parsec">parsec</a> is a unit of distance, not time. One parsec is about 3.26 light years or 30 trillion kilometres.</p>
<p>But it’s quite possible that Solo is describing a more direct route for the Kessel Run, and hence the distance description is appropriate. Rather than take a longer circuitous route, his daring and navigation skills enable him to take the Falcon on a more direct path - hence Solo means distance rather than time in his claim.</p>
<p>That still leaves some potential problems with time travel, as covered in theories including one that suggests that the Kessel Run <a href="https://www.wired.com/2013/02/kessel-run-12-parsecs/">turned Hans Solo into a time traveller</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Plausible: a defensible distance-based description.</p>
<h2>Hover cars</h2>
<p>Hover cars feature in the film, which may be a stepping stone <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-flying-cars-science-fact-or-science-fiction-76701">towards full flying cars</a>. They’re in many ways more plausible because they sidestep some of the fundamental problems facing full flying cars.</p>
<figure>
<img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/118/gif4.gif?1526606384" width="100%">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hans hovers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lucasfilm.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When a hover car fails, it will only fall half a metre to the ground (much safer) and rather than spending significant energy sustaining flight, they may benefit from <a href="https://www.wired.com/2015/10/how-the-most-promising-hoverboards-actually-work/">future technologies that enable sustained elevation</a> above the ground without excessive energy expenditure.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Very plausible within the technology of a Star Wars universe, and in the near future for ours.</p>
<h2>The final verdict</h2>
<p>Solo: A Star Wars Story is an entertaining, more intimate dive into the early Star Wars universe and one of the seminal characters in movie history. It has its own standalone story to satisfy newcomers, along with enough references to the Star Wars universe and what is to come for fans. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/my-robot-valentine-could-you-fall-in-love-with-a-robot-53564">My robot Valentine: could you fall in love with a robot?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The film also explores in depth a theme of an affectionate, perhaps even tender romantic relationship between a robot and a human - something that perhaps seems not so far away in the distant future with <a href="https://theconversation.com/my-robot-valentine-could-you-fall-in-love-with-a-robot-53564">recent developments in robotics and artificial intelligence</a>.</p>
<p>Scientifically, many of the other scenarios present in the film are plausible, given a healthy dose of future (or strictly speaking past) technology from another galaxy.</p>
<p>In fact, the film is probably the most “technology-filled” film of the series, with no mention of The Force or other mystical themes from Star Wars.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219523/original/file-20180518-26258-1k42f09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219523/original/file-20180518-26258-1k42f09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/219523/original/file-20180518-26258-1k42f09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=268&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219523/original/file-20180518-26258-1k42f09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=268&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219523/original/file-20180518-26258-1k42f09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=268&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219523/original/file-20180518-26258-1k42f09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219523/original/file-20180518-26258-1k42f09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/219523/original/file-20180518-26258-1k42f09.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=336&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">New friends forever.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lucasfilm</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96631/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP.</span></em></p>
A young Han Solo gets to duck from those dodgy blaster shots that mostly miss their mark in any Star Wars movie. How does that happen and what of the rest of the science in Solo: A Star Wars Story?
Michael Milford, Professor, Queensland University of Technology
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/95421
2018-04-25T02:18:16Z
2018-04-25T02:18:16Z
The biggest clash of heroes and villains in Avengers: Infinity War - but can science survive?
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216078/original/file-20180424-94149-kmsm3h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The biggest collection of Marvel heroes ever to hit the cinema screen (so far).</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ten years of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (<a href="https://marvel.com/movies/all">MCU</a>) comes to a head with the release of <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154756/">Avengers: Infinity War</a>, the 19th Marvel Studios film to date.</p>
<p>The biggest Marvel movie ever brings with it the largest cast of superheroes (and villains) ever and the biggest stakes ever to be fought over. So far. </p>
<p>The movie also pushes our boundaries on what you think could happen in a Marvel movie - with set pieces and some pretty good pathos mixed with humour. The Iron Man and Spider-Man suit technology is cooler than we’ve seen before. It also has, by a fair margin, the most fulfilling Marvel villain so far in Thanos, played by Josh Brolin.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QwievZ1Tx-8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Avengers: Infinity War - Official Trailer.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>My <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/juxi-leitner-153132">colleague</a> and I had a great time reviewing the science in Marvel movies such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/thor-ragnarok-pitches-superheroes-against-science-and-how-does-hulk-keep-his-pants-on-86211">Thor: Ragnarok</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-volume-2-a-scientists-review-76511">Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/spider-man-homecoming-spins-a-web-of-fact-and-fantasy-79900">Spider-Man: Homecoming</a>, but I think we can resolve some unfinished scientific enquiry with Infinity War.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/thor-ragnarok-pitches-superheroes-against-science-and-how-does-hulk-keep-his-pants-on-86211">Thor: Ragnarok pitches superheroes against science (and how does Hulk keep his pants on?)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Obligatory warning:</strong> some minor spoilers follow, with one incredibly big plot revealing spoiler at the end of this review.</p>
<h2>Iron Man’s poor brain</h2>
<p><img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/86/gif1.gif?1524551214" width="100%"></p>
<h4>Iron Man best protect his brainy asset. (Marvel)</h4>
<p>There’s a lot of flying in Infinity War, and Iron Man’s flying was one of the coolest things about the original <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371746/">Iron Man</a> movie where the MCU began in 2008. </p>
<p>Now if the physics of propulsion and fuel can be solved, then parts of Iron Man’s suit abilities are plausible. But one challenge that has no immediately obvious solution is sustaining the G forces required to accelerate like Iron Man is shown to do in the movies, especially when he has his suit’s turbo propulsion mode activated.</p>
<p>Remember that Iron Man is a very fit but otherwise normal human, apart from the generator in his chest. His suit can probably stop his legs from buckling under the acceleration, but his brain is another matter.</p>
<p>Under ideal conditions, fighter pilots <a href="https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/10/why-the-human-body-cant-handle-heavy-acceleration/">can stay conscious up to about 10Gs</a>. But what is Tony’s acceleration?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216085/original/file-20180424-94154-1nuav1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216085/original/file-20180424-94154-1nuav1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216085/original/file-20180424-94154-1nuav1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216085/original/file-20180424-94154-1nuav1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216085/original/file-20180424-94154-1nuav1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216085/original/file-20180424-94154-1nuav1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216085/original/file-20180424-94154-1nuav1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216085/original/file-20180424-94154-1nuav1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Up up and away!</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The still frames above were taken about 0.21 seconds apart, and Tony has accelerated from a standing start to be about 5 body lengths away (we can say a body length is 2 metres).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Distance = 0.5 × a × t<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Where a = acceleration and t = time. So rearranging the equation gives: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>acceleration = 2 × distance / t<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>= 2 × 5 × 2 / 0.21<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>= 453.5m/s<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>acceleration in g forces = 453.5m/s<sup>2</sup> / 9.81m/s<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>= 46.23gs</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a substantial amount more than the maximum normally sustainable by a human!</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Tony Stark’s huge ego must prevent him blacking out!</p>
<h2>Throw a moon at someone</h2>
<p>I thought <a href="https://theconversation.com/thor-ragnarok-pitches-superheroes-against-science-and-how-does-hulk-keep-his-pants-on-86211">Thor:Ragnarok</a> was pushing the boundaries on physics with Thor’s hammer, but Infinity War takes it to an extreme. </p>
<p>In one scene, Thanos pulls a moon (yes a moon) out of orbit and throws it at Iron Man. We’ve had cars, trucks, even chunks of continents thrown around before, but never a moon in a Marvel movie. What exactly would it take to pull this off?</p>
<p>One way to do this would be to instantaneously stop the moon dead in its tracks.</p>
<p>The kinetic energy of (our) Moon is given by:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>E = G × earth mass × moon mass / (2 × r)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Where G = the gravitational constant and r = the radius of the Moon’s orbit around the Earth.</p>
<p>So rearranging the equation gives: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>E = 6.67 × 10<sup>-11</sup> × 5.8 × 10<sup>24</sup> × 7.4 × 10<sup>22</sup> / (2 × 3.85 × 10<sup>8)</sup></p>
<p>= 3.72 × 10<sup>28</sup> Joules</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The largest nuclear bomb ever, the <a href="http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/narayanan2/">Tsar Bomba</a>, released about 209,000 trillion joules of energy, or 2.09 × 10<sup>17</sup> J - not even close to enough, even if all the energy could be used to slow down the moon.</p>
<p>You might be able to do it over many millions of years with thrusters attached to the moon… but Thanos does it in seconds.</p>
<p><img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/89/gif3.gif?1524553056" width="100%"></p>
<h4>Ripping a moon out of orbit to throw at someone - easy. Squashing an individual very strong human - no easy feat. (Marvel)</h4>
<p>We can assume that Thanos is sufficiently powerful to do so, but then I guess we need to allow some dramatic license for that same Thanos struggling to put down Captain America, who is just an amped up normal human, later in the movie.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Thanos – titan one moment, terribly weak the next.</p>
<h2>What are the chances? (MAJOR SPOILER)</h2>
<p>You have been warned, so do not read on if you don’t want to know.</p>
<p>The massive, incredibly dramatic ending of the movie involves Thanos enacting his promise to kill one half of the universe’s population, completely at random. And boy, do the closing scenes of the movie pack a punch. I’ve rarely seen or heard an audience reaction like that at the end of a movie, as character after character dies.</p>
<p>While no-one can fault the screenwriters for an unprecedented move, a cynic might wonder what the chances were of the original big name (and presumably big box office draws) Avenger actors surviving the cull (although the <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1825683/">Black Panther</a> movie <a href="https://theconversation.com/black-panther-roars-are-we-listening-91468">put a pretty compelling case</a> for a new set of actors).</p>
<p>It also seems like waaaay more than 50% of the on screen characters still alive at the climax of the movie meet a tragic fate in Thanos’s purge (including in an end credits scene not to be missed). </p>
<p>So to help you make up your own mind, here is a handy Thanos 50% genocide chart:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216153/original/file-20180424-57578-1xqz1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216153/original/file-20180424-57578-1xqz1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216153/original/file-20180424-57578-1xqz1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216153/original/file-20180424-57578-1xqz1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216153/original/file-20180424-57578-1xqz1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216153/original/file-20180424-57578-1xqz1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216153/original/file-20180424-57578-1xqz1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216153/original/file-20180424-57578-1xqz1y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An outcome likelihood graph for the percentage of 20 characters dying in a 50% random purge.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Milford.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It shows the distribution of likelihoods for a percentage of characters dying, under a 50% purge (based on a count of 20 on screen characters at the end of the movie).</p>
<p>The most likely outcome is about 50% of the characters dying, as shown in the centre of the graph. But if you move to the left you can see that although the odds drop, there’s still some chance of as small a fraction as 25% dying, and at the other side of the graph of up to 75% dying.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Plausible enough, although contracts could be revealing.</p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Avengers: Infinity War is Marvel’s biggest movie to date and in many ways its most dramatic. Long story and character arcs have all led to this point, meaning the movie’s (frankly incredible) events are all the more powerful for the viewer.</p>
<p>The action scenes are bigger and better than ever before, and we’re treated to an ending and super villain like no Marvel movie before it. Upping the stakes, action and epic scenes means an expected further departure from “conventional” scientific reality, but that can be forgiven for the sake of an incredibly entertaining and engaging film.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216087/original/file-20180424-94115-15mbblp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216087/original/file-20180424-94115-15mbblp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216087/original/file-20180424-94115-15mbblp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216087/original/file-20180424-94115-15mbblp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216087/original/file-20180424-94115-15mbblp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216087/original/file-20180424-94115-15mbblp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216087/original/file-20180424-94115-15mbblp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216087/original/file-20180424-94115-15mbblp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Infinity War unites the biggest cast of superheroes ever.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95421/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP.</span></em></p>
Avengers: Infinity War is the biggest Marvel movie ever with largest cast of superheroes (and villains). So far. But how does the science stack up?
Michael Milford, Professor, Queensland University of Technology
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/92342
2018-03-23T04:54:43Z
2018-03-23T04:54:43Z
Some ‘bloody’ rocket science gives Pacific Rim Uprising an extra lift
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211647/original/file-20180323-54863-190lw4s.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pacific Ring Uprising.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Pictures/Legendary</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2557478/">Pacific Rim Uprising</a> is the sequel to 2013’s smash hit <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1663662/">Pacific Rim</a>, in which humanity united to create Jaegers (giant human-operated armoured robot machines, or <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mecha">mechas</a>) to fight Kaiju (giant alien monsters, which rose from the ocean). </p>
<p>While the first movie ended with humanity destroying the Breach - an inter-dimensional portal at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean through which the Kaiju were emerging - we find out that all is not well a decade later.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209866/original/file-20180312-30986-nyt4xw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209866/original/file-20180312-30986-nyt4xw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209866/original/file-20180312-30986-nyt4xw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209866/original/file-20180312-30986-nyt4xw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209866/original/file-20180312-30986-nyt4xw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209866/original/file-20180312-30986-nyt4xw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=312&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209866/original/file-20180312-30986-nyt4xw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=312&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209866/original/file-20180312-30986-nyt4xw.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=312&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In Pacific Rim Uprising we meet a new team doing battle with giant alien monsters.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Studios/Legendary</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In Uprising, society has started to rebuild, but many city areas still lie in ruins – and this is where Jake (John Boyega), the son of war hero Stacker Pentecost, thrives. </p>
<p>He is joined by familiar characters - Mako (Rinko Kikuchi), scientists Hermann Gottlieb (Burn Gorman) and Newton Geiszler (Charlie Day), and new characters Amara (Cailee Spaeny) and Nate (Scott Eastwood). There are new plot twists and concepts, including new hybrid mecha-bio Jaeger drones and mind control.</p>
<p>While Pacific Rim Uprising is definitely action-packed, there is still more to the movie than just giant robots fighting mega monsters. Characters are in parts more fully developed than in the first movie and there’s humour in the form of one liners. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8BAhwgjMvnM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">They’re back!</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But what of some of the new technologies and Kaiju shown? How plausible are they from a (forgiving) scientific perspective? </p>
<h2>Giant monsters, mechas and the square-cube law</h2>
<p>The biggest and heaviest creatures to ever walk on land were dinosaurs - with the largest sauropods like Argentinosaurus <a href="http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160201-meet-the-most-massive-dinosaur-to-ever-stomp-the-earth">likely weighing in at more than 50 tonnes</a> (weight estimation is an imperfect science). In the oceans, Blue Whales beat even dinosaurs with maximum weights of potentially <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/b/blue-whale/">up to 200 tonnes</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209847/original/file-20180312-30989-rg2m0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209847/original/file-20180312-30989-rg2m0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209847/original/file-20180312-30989-rg2m0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209847/original/file-20180312-30989-rg2m0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209847/original/file-20180312-30989-rg2m0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209847/original/file-20180312-30989-rg2m0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209847/original/file-20180312-30989-rg2m0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209847/original/file-20180312-30989-rg2m0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Jaegers and Kaiju are far bigger than anything that’s come before.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Studios/Legendary/Michael Rosskothen/Halina Koktysh/123rf.com/Michael Milford.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But nothing has evolved (that we know of) that comes close to the size of the Kaiju in Pacific Rim. We haven’t built agile humanoid-like systems anywhere near as big as a Jaeger yet either - our only mobile machines that large are ponderous mining vehicles and the Space Shuttle’s <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/launch-pad-mlp.html">Mobile Launcher Platform</a>.</p>
<p>One of the key reasons? The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law">square-cube law</a>. This law captures how the weight and volume of objects change as you make them bigger. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209848/original/file-20180312-30979-1y75eja.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209848/original/file-20180312-30979-1y75eja.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209848/original/file-20180312-30979-1y75eja.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209848/original/file-20180312-30979-1y75eja.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209848/original/file-20180312-30979-1y75eja.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=301&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209848/original/file-20180312-30979-1y75eja.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209848/original/file-20180312-30979-1y75eja.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209848/original/file-20180312-30979-1y75eja.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Doubling the size of an object in all three dimensions results in its volume going up by eight times.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Michael Milford</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If an animal is scaled up in all dimensions by a factor of two, its volume (and mass) goes up by a factor of eight (the cube of two). But the cross-sectional area of its muscles and bones (say the muscle in its legs) only goes up by four times. </p>
<p>This is why large land animals (such as an elephant) generally look very different to small animals (such as a rat). So the depictions of both creature and machine in the movie require a departure from the physics of everything that we’ve seen in our world so far, something we’ve <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-breaking-glass-to-chest-bursting-the-scientists-review-of-alien-covenant-77150">written about before</a> for other monster movies.</p>
<p>This same scaling law also applies to artificial constructs, such as the mechanical Jaegers. To be able to fight and move like they do in the movie, they would need to be made out of incredibly strong materials - perhaps some futuristic application of <a href="https://theconversation.com/beyond-graphene-scientists-are-creating-an-atomic-lego-set-of-2d-wonder-materials-81709">graphene</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Plausible only with futuristic materials science and out of this world biology - just like where the Kaiju come from!</p>
<h2>Heli dropping a Jaeger?</h2>
<p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/FIOJWfo.gif" width="100%"></p>
<h3>Heavy lifting in process. (Universal Studios/Legendary)</h3>
<p>Both movies show Jaegers being carried around by futuristic rotorcraft. But what would it take to actually lift one?</p>
<p>First we need to estimate the weight of a Jaeger. We can get a rough estimate by scaling up the 1.8 metre tall <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRj34o4hN4I">Atlas robot from Boston Dynamics</a> to become an 80 metre tall Jaeger, and assuming that in this future we have access to new lightweight materials that weigh say four times less.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Jaeger weight = 0.25 × Atlas weight × (Jaeger height / Atlas height)<sup>3</sup></p>
<p>= 0.25 × 80kg × (80 / 1.8)<sup>3</sup></p>
<p>= 1,756 tonnes</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ignoring details like the <a href="https://www.wired.com/2013/07/how-would-you-carry-a-jaeger-from-pacific-rim/">lifting efficiency of helicopters with an angled cable</a>, we can see how many current heavy lift helicopters would be required. </p>
<p>In real-life, the <a href="http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/milmi-26heavylifthel/">twin-engine Mi-26</a> can lift a payload of about 20 tonnes - so we’d need about 1,756 / 20 = 88 of those.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209863/original/file-20180312-30994-1mqk6w4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209863/original/file-20180312-30994-1mqk6w4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209863/original/file-20180312-30994-1mqk6w4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=104&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209863/original/file-20180312-30994-1mqk6w4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=104&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209863/original/file-20180312-30994-1mqk6w4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=104&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209863/original/file-20180312-30994-1mqk6w4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209863/original/file-20180312-30994-1mqk6w4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209863/original/file-20180312-30994-1mqk6w4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Transporting Jaegers is heavy work.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Maksym Dragunov/Andrei Dorogotovtsev/123rf.com/Universal Studios/Legendary</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To accomplish the feat shown in the movie of only six being required, they’d need to each have a payload capability of about 293 tonnes - which is more than that of the world record lift of 187.6 tonnes achieved in 2009 by the <a href="http://www.antonov.com/aircraft/transport-aircraft/an-225-mriya">Antonov An-225</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Struggling to fly.</p>
<h2>How about rocket launching a Jaeger?</h2>
<p>The Jaegers are shown flying in the movie - propelled by some sort of rocket and new advanced rocket fuel based on Kaiju blood. But what if we did not have this new Kaiju-based blood rocket fuel?</p>
<p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/pcJaUtS.gif" width="100%"></p>
<h3>Up, up and away. (Universal Studios/Legendary)</h3>
<p>Could Elon Musk adapt his Falcon Heavy to do the job?</p>
<p>The Falcon Heavy weighs about <a href="http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy">1,420 tonnes at launch</a> - not that much less than a Jaeger, but most of that weight is fuel, and it is a multi-stage rocket that jettisons parts of itself along the way.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sB_nEtZxPog?wmode=transparent&start=84" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But it needs to get all the way to (and stay in) low Earth orbit, requiring a velocity change of more than 9km/s (thanks to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation">Tsiolkovsky rocket equation</a>).</p>
<p>In Uprising, the Gypsy Avenger Jaeger gains a lot of altitude but doesn’t need to get up to the velocity required to stay in orbit, and hence wouldn’t require as large a fraction of the weight to be fuel.</p>
<p>The Jaeger propulsion system could also potentially be benefiting from advances in rocketry that lead to a greater effective exhaust velocity, further reducing the fraction of weight that would need to be taken up by fuel. Or they could just <a href="https://newatlas.com/orion-project-atom-bomb-spaceship/49454/">use nukes</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Elon could do it. Probably.</p>
<h2>Brain-machine interfaces</h2>
<p>The Jaegers are piloted by humans connected to them via a neural bridge called “The Drift”. In the first movie, Jaegers had two or more pilots, who had to be compatible with a close emotional or family tie - for example two brothers.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209849/original/file-20180312-30994-gopcz7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209849/original/file-20180312-30994-gopcz7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209849/original/file-20180312-30994-gopcz7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209849/original/file-20180312-30994-gopcz7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209849/original/file-20180312-30994-gopcz7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209849/original/file-20180312-30994-gopcz7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209849/original/file-20180312-30994-gopcz7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209849/original/file-20180312-30994-gopcz7.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Humanity has been investigating new ways to neurally pilot the Jaegers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Studios/Legendary.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In Uprising, there is a focus on starting young, training cadet kids to become pilots.</p>
<p>So how close are we to this in reality? As one of us wrote in <a href="https://theconversation.com/merging-our-brains-with-machines-wont-stop-the-rise-of-the-robots-73275">early 2017</a>, the technology still has a fair way to go.</p>
<p>But what about the potential appeal of using younger minds and using family members?</p>
<p>I asked Queensland Brain Institute PhD student <a href="http://mattingley-lab.uq-qbi-cogneuro.com/home/people/angela-renton">Angela Renton</a> about it.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Angela</strong>: A close, long-term relationship between BMI (Brain Machine Interface) co-pilots would probably improve performance. There are real-life BMI setups where two monkeys using their combined brain activity to control a robotic arm have better control when their brain activity is more correlated. </p>
<p>It’s also been shown that people’s brain activity becomes synchronised when they coordinate to perform joint actions. So two pilots with a long history of coordinating their actions might have more similar patterns of brain activity, and thus have better control over the Jaeger.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So where are we at with Brain Machine Interfaces today?</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Angela</strong>: BMI technology is pretty impressive these days, but we have to trade off how much control we’d like with how invasive our recording techniques are. </p>
<p>With arrays of electrodes implanted on the brain, we can decode precise gestures, in near real-time. The average person probably isn’t willing to undergo brain surgery just to control a BMI though. </p>
<p>Non-invasive methods are more difficult to decode, but we can usually detect whether you’re thinking of moving your left or right hand within about three seconds, and translate that into an action.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So it seems, if advances in BMI technology were to continue into the future, a brain-controlled Jaeger may just be possible.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> A credible control system.</p>
<h2>The verdict</h2>
<p>While it is hopefully unlikely that giant creatures will emerge from an interdimensional void to battle us, Pacific Rim Uprising previews a range of technologies that are likely to be a big part of humanity’s future.</p>
<p>The concept of humans and machines merging in ever more intimate ways, as in The Drift, is likely as scientists continue to push boundaries by combining artificial and natural intelligence. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211666/original/file-20180323-54884-1frajqg.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211666/original/file-20180323-54884-1frajqg.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/211666/original/file-20180323-54884-1frajqg.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211666/original/file-20180323-54884-1frajqg.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211666/original/file-20180323-54884-1frajqg.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211666/original/file-20180323-54884-1frajqg.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211666/original/file-20180323-54884-1frajqg.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/211666/original/file-20180323-54884-1frajqg.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jaegers, get ready!</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Studios/Legendary</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92342/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Mount does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
They’re back! Pacific Rim Uprising sees more giant robots with humans inside, fighting giant monsters. But does the rocket science add up in this action-packed blockbuster sequel?
Michael Milford, Professor, Queensland University of Technology
James Mount, PhD Student in Robotics, Queensland University of Technology
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/84955
2018-01-18T11:24:45Z
2018-01-18T11:24:45Z
New ways scientists can help put science back into popular culture
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202197/original/file-20180116-53324-11262fb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Science is one thread of culture – and entertainment, including graphic books, can reflect that.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://thedialoguesbook.com/samples/">'The Dialogues,' by Clifford V. Johnson (MIT Press 2017)</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>How often do you, outside the requirements of an assignment, ponder things like the workings of a distant star, the innards of your phone camera, or the number and layout of petals on a flower? Maybe a little bit, maybe never. Too often, people regard science as sitting outside the general culture: A specialized, difficult topic carried out by somewhat strange people with arcane talents. It’s somehow not for them. </p>
<p>But really science is part of the wonderful tapestry of human culture, intertwined with things like art, music, theater, film and even religion. These elements of our culture help us understand and celebrate our place in the universe, navigate it and be in dialogue with it and each other. Everyone should be able to engage freely in whichever parts of the general culture they choose, from going to a show or humming a tune to talking about a new movie over dinner.</p>
<p>Science, though, gets portrayed as opposite to art, intuition and mystery, as though knowing in detail how that flower works somehow undermines its beauty. As a practicing physicist, I disagree. Science can enhance our appreciation of the world around us. It should be part of our general culture, accessible to all. Those “special talents” required in order to engage with and even contribute to science are present in all of us.</p>
<p>So how do we bring about a change? I think using the tools of the general culture to integrate science with everything else in our lives can be a big part of the solution.</p>
<h2>Science in popular entertainment</h2>
<p>For example, in addition to being a professor, I work as a science advisor for various forms of entertainment, from blockbuster movies like the recent “<a href="http://marvel.com/movies/movie/222/thor_ragnarok">Thor: Ragnarok</a>,” or last spring’s 10-hour TV dramatization of the life and work of Albert Einstein (“<a href="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/genius/">Genius</a>,” on National Geographic), to the bestselling novel “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/253400/dark-matter-by-blake-crouch/">Dark Matter</a>,” by Blake Crouch. People spend a lot of time consuming entertainment simply because they love stories like these, so it makes sense to put some science in there.</p>
<p>Science can actually help make storytelling more entertaining, engaging and fun – as I explain to entertainment professionals every chance I get. From their perspective, they get potentially bigger audiences. But good stories, enhanced by science, also spark valuable conversations about the subject that continue beyond the movie theater.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202144/original/file-20180116-53295-f65cgu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Science can be one of the topics woven into the entertainment we consume – via stories, settings and characters.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://gossipandgab.com/94624/agent-carter-season-2-recap-2-3-better-angels">ABC Television</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nonprofit organizations have been working hard on this mission. The <a href="https://sloan.org">Alfred P. Sloan Foundation</a> helps fund and develop films with science content – “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0787524/">The Man Who Knew Infinity</a>” (2015) and “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1990314/">Robot & Frank</a>” (2012) are two examples. (The Sloan Foundation is also a <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/partners/alfred-p-sloan-foundation">funding partner of The Conversation US</a>.)</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.nasonline.org">National Academy of Sciences</a> set up the <a href="http://scienceandentertainmentexchange.org">Science & Entertainment Exchange</a> to help connect people from the entertainment industry to scientists. The idea is that such experts can provide Hollywood with engaging details and help with more accurate portrayals of scientists that can enhance the narratives they tell. Many of the popular Marvel movies – including “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/">Thor</a>” (2011), “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478970/">Ant-Man</a>” (2015) and the upcoming <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154756/">“Avengers: Infinity War</a>” – have had their content strengthened in this way.</p>
<p>Encouragingly, a recent <a href="http://www.journalism.org/2017/09/20/most-americans-see-science-related-entertainment-shows-and-movies-in-either-a-neutral-or-positive-light/">Pew Research Center survey</a> in the U.S. showed that entertainment with science or related content is watched by people across “all demographic, educational and political groups,” and that overall they report positive impressions of the science ideas and scenarios contained in them.</p>
<h2>Science in nonfiction books</h2>
<p>This kind of work is not to every scientist’s taste. Some may instead prefer engagement projects that allow them more control of the scientific content than can be had when working on such large projects in the entertainment industry. Often, they instead work on nonfiction science books for the general reader. Here, I think we also need a change.</p>
<p>The typical expert-voiced monologues that scientists write are a wonderful component of the engagement effort, but the form is limited. Such books are largely read by people already predisposed to pick up a science book, or who are open to the authoritative academic’s voice telling them how to think. There are plenty of people who can engage with science but who find those kinds of books a sometimes unwelcome reminder of the classroom.</p>
<p>Following from my belief that science is for everyone, I suggest that publishers need to work with scientists to expand the kinds of books on offer, assured that there is an audience for them. This is currently difficult because publishing companies are risk averse: Something truly original in form likely will have trouble getting past the book proposal stage.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202151/original/file-20180116-53320-b8jb62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=968&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Like an overheard conversation, the author’s graphic novel explores big scientific questions about life and death.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.brainpickings.org/2017/12/07/the-dialogues-clifford-johnson/">'The Dialogues,' by Clifford V. Johnson</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Progress is possible, however. Many years ago I realized it is hard to find books on the nonfiction science shelf that let readers see themselves as part of the conversation about science. So I envisioned an entire book of conversations about science taking place between ordinary people. While “eavesdropping” on those conversations, readers learn some science ideas, and are implicitly invited to have conversations of their own. It’s a resurrection of the dialogue form, known to the ancient Greeks, and to Galileo, as a device for exchanging ideas, but with contemporary settings: cafes, restaurants, trains and so on.</p>
<p>I decided it would be engaging for the reader to actually see who’s having those conversations, and where, instead of describing them in words. This led me to realize that I was contemplating a powerful form of visual storytelling: Graphic novels for adults have matured and exploded in popularity in recent years. Spiegelman’s “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/171065/the-complete-maus-by-art-spiegelman/">Maus: A Survivor’s Tale</a>,” Satrapi’s “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/160890/persepolis-by-marjane-satrapi/">Persepolis</a>” and Bechdel’s “<a href="http://www.turtleback.com/Products/Fun-Home--A-Family-Tragicomic__9781417823147.aspx">Fun Home</a>” are just three well-known examples.</p>
<p>But the storytelling tools of the graphic book have been little used in the quest to convey nonfiction science ideas to a general adult audience. The vast majority of contemporary graphic books with a science focus are presented instead as “explainer/adventure comics” for younger audiences. This is an important genre, but graphic books about science should not be limited to that.</p>
<p>And while there are several excellent graphic books for adults that include science, they typically focus instead on the lives of famous scientists, with discussion of the science itself as a secondary goal. Some excellent recent examples that balance the two aspects well include Ottaviani and Myrick’s “<a href="https://us.macmillan.com/feynman/jimottaviani/9781596438279/">Feynman</a>,” Padua’s “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/223672/the-thrilling-adventures-of-lovelace-and-babbage-by-sydney-padua/">The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage</a>,” and Doxiadis and Papadimitriou’s “<a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/logicomix-9781596914520/">Logicomix</a>.” The scarcity of science-focused non-biographical graphic books for adults is especially true in my field of physics. So I decided that here was an opportunity to broaden the kinds of nonfiction science book available to engage the public.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/202168/original/file-20180116-53320-hh02t6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Clifford Johnson at his drafting table.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Clifford V. Johnson</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So over six years I taught myself the requisite artistic and other production techniques, and studied the language and craft of graphic narratives. I wrote and drew “<a href="https://thedialoguesbook.com">The Dialogues: Conversations About the Nature of the Universe</a>” as proof of concept: A new kind of nonfiction science book that can inspire more people to engage in their own conversations about science, and celebrate a spirit of plurality in everyday science participation.</p>
<h2>What’s at stake</h2>
<p>Science increasingly pervades many aspects of our lives. If people succumb to the typical view that science is difficult and should be left to experts and nerds, the most important decisions about all of our lives will be made by just a few people: from the quality of the water we drink, our medical treatments, energy sources, through to action on climate change. That is not a democratic situation. Moreover, it makes it easier for a powerful few to sideline or misrepresent important ideas and lessons about our world that come through scientific research. </p>
<p>To push back against that scenario, it’s important for scientists to try to engage the public with science. In a changing world, it’s important to keep looking for new ways to do that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84955/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clifford Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
You might not think much about science topics as part of your everyday life. But science – like art, music, religion – is part of our culture, and scientists can help it reclaim its rightful place.
Clifford Johnson, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/86211
2017-10-25T19:05:16Z
2017-10-25T19:05:16Z
Thor: Ragnarok pitches superheroes against science (and how does Hulk keep his pants on?)
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191505/original/file-20171024-1695-abr34n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Thor: Ragnarok sees Thor do battle with Hulk.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel Studios</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3501632/">Thor: Ragnarok</a> is the latest Marvel movie <a href="https://www.flicks.com.au/movie/thor-ragnarok/">out today</a> that sees Australian Chris Hemsworth back as Thor, but he’s not on friendly home turf. </p>
<p>Instead he finds himself imprisoned on the opposite side of the universe from his beloved Asgard, and out of his depth in a gladiatorial contest with the Incredible Hulk (Mark Ruffalo).</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yoCVTzldHz0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Thor’s back!</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But Hulk isn’t his only problem. Ragnarok (the end of his homeland of Asgard) is looming and Thor has new villains to deal with, including the warlike Hela, played by Australian Cate Blanchett.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/science-fiction-helps-us-deal-with-science-fact-a-lesson-from-terminators-killer-robots-50249">Science fiction helps us deal with science fact: a lesson from Terminator's killer robots</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Other new characters include the eccentric Grandmaster (Jeff Goldblum), the fallen warrior Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson), the conflicted Asgardian Skurge (Karl Urban) and the hilarious Korg (played in motion capture by the director Taika Waititi himself).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191744/original/file-20171024-13971-6aw4tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191744/original/file-20171024-13971-6aw4tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191744/original/file-20171024-13971-6aw4tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191744/original/file-20171024-13971-6aw4tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191744/original/file-20171024-13971-6aw4tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191744/original/file-20171024-13971-6aw4tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191744/original/file-20171024-13971-6aw4tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191744/original/file-20171024-13971-6aw4tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Thor with new friends and enemies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel Studios</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Given the light-hearted tone of the movie, we’re going to have some fun looking at the “science” of Thor: Ragnarok. </p>
<p>We’ll take it as a given that there are superheroes with magical capabilities, and look instead at the numbers behind some of the characters and events. As usual, there are some minor spoilers ahead.</p>
<h2>How do Hulk’s pants stay on?</h2>
<p>Hulk is infamous for his pants staying on through his transformations, both from Bruce Banner to Hulk and back again. Given that these are normal pants, is this possible?</p>
<p>First we can calculate how much they need to stretch. In the movie, Hulk is about 259cm (8ft 6ins) tall and very solidly built, as explained by VFX supervisor Jake Morrison. Banner, according to <a href="http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Bruce_Banner_(Earth-616)">some sources</a>, is about 178cm (5ft 10ins) tall, and actor Mark Ruffalo says <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkRuffalo/status/784526464213540864">he’s around 175cm</a>. He has similar stature to me (Michael) and my waist measures about 40cm across at the front. </p>
<p>So in transitioning from Banner to Hulk, his height goes up by a factor of 1.46, while his waist circumference goes up by about 1.75 times - more than his height because in Hulk form he’s more bulky.</p>
<p>So his pants would need to stretch by about 75%.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191755/original/file-20171024-13423-gw4qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191755/original/file-20171024-13423-gw4qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191755/original/file-20171024-13423-gw4qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191755/original/file-20171024-13423-gw4qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191755/original/file-20171024-13423-gw4qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191755/original/file-20171024-13423-gw4qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191755/original/file-20171024-13423-gw4qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191755/original/file-20171024-13423-gw4qd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Maintaining decency means no high fashion for Hulk.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel Studios/Michael Milford</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Finding stretchiness factors for jeans is challenging. <a href="https://www.liveabout.com/stretch-jeans-guide-2040386">Fashion websites</a> quote figures up to 4% for stretch jeans. A <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17543260903302329">scientific study</a> found “stretchability” of up to 34% (after a few washes). So conventional jeans are probably out.</p>
<p>Pure spandex pants, on the other hand, are viable - <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/12/11/143003539/spandex-has-stretched-with-u-s-waistlines">they can stretch by more than 100%</a> and then return to their original size. So if Banner is willing to accept certain fashion choices, he can maintain decency while morphing both ways.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> It’s stretching science a bit, but plausible.</p>
<h2>Calling Mjölnir</h2>
<p>Thor’s hammer, also known as Mjölnir, has an unpleasant run-in with Hela in the movie. With some abuse of physics, we can examine how Thor might be able to call his hammer back at high speed.</p>
<p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/jHG8CmR.gif" width="100%">
<em>Source: Marvel Studios</em></p>
<p>If Thor is using and abusing normal physics, he might call the hammer back by playing with masses. The hammer looks to accelerate back to Thor faster than normal Earth gravity (9.81m/s<sup>2</sup>) would make it fall - so let’s say it accelerates back twice as fast – about 20m/s<sup>2</sup> – and he calls it back from 100 metres away.</p>
<p>There are at least two possibilities here: Thor increases his mass magically in a way that only affects the hammer, or the hammer increases its mass in a way that only interacts with a (magically unmoveable) Thor. </p>
<p>Either way, one of them has to temporarily have a much greater mass:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>acceleration = gravitational constant × mass of large body / distance<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>mass of large body = acceleration × distance<sup>2</sup> / gravitational constant</p>
<p>= ( 20 × 100<sup>2</sup> ) / ( 6.673 × 10<sup>-11</sup> )</p>
<p>= 3 × 10<sup>15</sup>kg (or 3,000,000,000,000,000kg)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is quite close to the weight of the Mediterranean sea (but concentrated in one extremely dense superhero) - so there would definitely have to be some way for the increased mass to only gravitationally affect Thor and the hammer - otherwise the environment around them would get ripped to shreds as well.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Real-world physics takes a bit of a hammering.</p>
<h2>Thor versus Hulk: Who would win in a fight?</h2>
<p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/aM4g1Zz.gif" width="100%">
<em>Source: Marvel Studios</em></p>
<p>The movie addresses this controversial and <a href="https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/thor-153/my-blog-on-thor-vs-hulk-who-should-win-638534/">much-debated question</a> in one way. Fans have disagreed on it forever. They draw upon reference material from the comics and movies, and arguments around Thor being a deity and Hulk being capable of near-infinite strength based on his rage.</p>
<p>What we can look at is what sort of strength it would take for Thor to throw the much bigger Hulk around in a gladiatorial fight.</p>
<p>Hulk probably has a specific weight. We can calculate it by scaling up the weight of a bulky human bodybuilder to Hulk’s height. Weight will scale up with the <a href="https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/scaling-laws-speed-animals/">cube law</a>.</p>
<p>One of the biggest bodybuilders in the world right now is Mamdouh Elssbiay, who is 178cm tall and weighs in at about <a href="http://www.flexonline.com/ifbb/mamdouh-elssbiay">144kg in the offseason</a>. We can scale his weight up:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Hulk weight = bodybuilder weight × height ratio<sup>3</sup></p>
<p>= 144 × (259 / 178)<sup>3</sup></p>
<p>= 444kg</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This weight is in the range that <a href="http://marvel.com/characters/25/hulk">Marvel provides</a> of 408-635kg for Hulk.</p>
<p>Thor seems to knock him straight through the air about 50 metres along a fairly flat trajectory, let’s say accelerating him up to a speed of 300km/h (83.33m/s).</p>
<p>Assuming perfect energy transfer (in reality there would be loss), Thor would have imparted the following energy to Hulk:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Hulk kinetic energy = 0.5 × mass × v<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>= 0.5 × 444 × 83.33<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>= 1,540,000 joules</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The energy in a human punch depends on the sport, the intention of the punch, and the size and training level of the human, but it appears to be in the <a href="http://www.science.ca/askascientist/viewquestion.php?qID=821">range of a few hundred joules</a>.</p>
<p>So Thor’s punches would have to impart about 10,000 times more energy than a human punch to toss Hulk around like he does. </p>
<p>From a momentum perspective, for Thor to not shoot backwards when he punches Hulk, he would either have to temporarily have a great mass or have some other magical power that defies conservation of momentum laws.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Lucky Thor’s a god.</p>
<h2>Super superheroes or wretched Ragnarok?</h2>
<p>Thor: Ragnarok is a fantastically funny movie, the best in the Thor series, and one that finally addresses some unanswered questions that comic fans have long debated.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/thor-ragnarok-a-joyous-trashy-retro-nostalgic-comedy-is-the-best-of-the-marvel-films-85743">Thor: Ragnarok, a joyous, trashy, retro-nostalgic comedy, is the best of the Marvel films</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The movie mixes elements that stay somewhat true to real-world physics (Hulk’s weight) and others that require blatant violations of them (Thor’s hammer; fighting).</p>
<p>Most importantly, we have calculated that it’s plausible for Hulk’s pants to stay on, maintaining decency through Banner to Hulk transitions and back again. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191747/original/file-20171024-13536-yilsk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191747/original/file-20171024-13536-yilsk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191747/original/file-20171024-13536-yilsk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191747/original/file-20171024-13536-yilsk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191747/original/file-20171024-13536-yilsk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191747/original/file-20171024-13536-yilsk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191747/original/file-20171024-13536-yilsk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191747/original/file-20171024-13536-yilsk4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The bromance between Thor and Hulk continues to grow.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel Studios</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86211/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Juxi Leitner is a Research Fellow in the Australian Research Council funded Centre of Excellence in Robotic Vision. Juxi is founder of the Brisbane.AI and robotics interest groups, two not-for-profit organisations aiming to raise awareness about robotics and AI research in the general public and creating opportunities for communities to interact with local researchers.</span></em></p>
The new Thor: Ragnarok movie out today tackles some of the superhero issues fans have long questioned. But how does the science stack up?
Michael Milford, Professor, Queensland University of Technology
Juxi Leitner, Research Fellow, Robotics & AI, Queensland University of Technology
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/85866
2017-10-19T21:58:06Z
2017-10-19T21:58:06Z
‘Geostorm’ movie shows dangers of hacking the climate – we need to talk about real-world geoengineering now
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191065/original/file-20171019-1078-lzm6lf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=80%2C0%2C1117%2C718&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is this the endgame for any geoengineering scenario?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncZ4Bc2xQUM">'Geostorm' still</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Hollywood’s latest disaster flick, “<a href="http://www.geostorm.movie/">Geostorm</a>,” is premised on the idea that humans have figured out how to control the Earth’s climate. A powerful satellite-based technology allows users to fine-tune the weather, overcoming the ravages of climate change. Everyone, everywhere can quite literally “have a nice day,” until – spoiler alert! – things do not go as planned.</p>
<p>Admittedly, the movie is a fantasy set in a deeply unrealistic near-future. But coming on the heels of one of the most extreme hurricane seasons in recent history, it’s tempting to imagine a world where we could regulate the weather. Despite a <a href="https://cup.columbia.edu/book/fixing-the-sky/9780231144131">long history of interest in weather modification</a>, controlling the climate is, to be frank, unattainable with current technology. But underneath the frippery of “Geostorm,” is there a valid message about the promises and perils of planetary management?</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EuOlYPSEzSc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">‘Geostorm’ is far-fetched, but scientists are taking seriously the idea of engineering Earth’s climate.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Fiddling with our global climate</h2>
<p>The technology in the movie “Geostorm” is laughably fantastical. But the idea of technologies that might be used to “geoengineer” the climate is not.</p>
<p>Geoengineering, also called <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/">climate engineering</a>, is a set of emerging technologies that could potentially offset some of the consequences of climate change. <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/latest-ipcc-climate-report-puts-geoengineering-in-the-spotlight/">Some scientists are taking it seriously</a>, considering geoengineering among the range of approaches for managing the risks of climate change – although always as a complement to, and not a substitute for, reducing emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change.</p>
<p>These innovations are often lumped into two categories. <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/18805/chapter/1">Carbon dioxide removal</a> (or negative emissions) technologies set out to actively remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. In contrast, <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/18988/chapter/1">solar radiation management</a> (or solar geoengineering) aims to reduce how much sunlight reaches the Earth.</p>
<p>Because <a href="http://fore.yale.edu/climate-change/science/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-bathtub-effect/">it takes time for the climate to respond to changes</a>, even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, some level of climate change – and its associated risks – is unavoidable. Advocates of solar geoengineering argue that, if done well, these technologies <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000465/epdf">might help limit some effects</a>, including sea level rise and changes in weather patterns, and do so quickly.</p>
<p>But as might be expected, the idea of intentionally tinkering with the Earth’s atmosphere to curb the impacts of climate change is controversial. Even <a href="http://www.etcgroup.org/fr/node/5282">conducting research into climate engineering</a> raises some hackles.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191125/original/file-20171019-1088-trs59g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191125/original/file-20171019-1088-trs59g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191125/original/file-20171019-1088-trs59g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191125/original/file-20171019-1088-trs59g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191125/original/file-20171019-1088-trs59g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191125/original/file-20171019-1088-trs59g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191125/original/file-20171019-1088-trs59g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191125/original/file-20171019-1088-trs59g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Shading the Earth from the sun’s rays shouldn’t be a solitary pursuit.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/The-Sunshade-Option/11e7b635e1fe4de6b8aad26d8a5f4483/4/0">AP Photo/Channi Anand</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Global stakes are high</h2>
<p>Geoengineering could reshape our world in fundamental ways. Because of the global impacts that will inevitably accompany attempts to engineer the planet, this isn’t a technology where some people can selectively opt in or opt out out of it: Geoengineering has the potential to affect everyone. Moreover, it raises profound questions about <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/29/messing-nature-geoengineering-green-thought">humans’ relationship to nonhuman nature</a>. The conversations that matter are ultimately less about the technology itself and more about what we collectively stand to gain or lose politically, culturally and socially.</p>
<p>Much of the debate around how advisable geoengineering research is has focused on solar geoengineering, not carbon dioxide removal. One of the worries here is that figuring out aspects of solar geoengineering could lead us down a <a href="https://thebulletin.org/trouble-geoengineers-%E2%80%9Chacking-planet%E2%80%9D10858">slippery slope to actually doing it</a>. Just doing research could make deploying solar geoengineering more likely, even if it proves to be a really bad idea. And it comes with the risk that the techniques might be bad for some while good for others, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities, or creating new ones. </p>
<p>For example, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD010050/abstract">early studies using computer models</a> indicated that injecting particles into the stratosphere to cool parts of Earth might disrupt the Asian and African summer monsoons, threatening the food supply for billions of people. Even if deployment <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full">wouldn’t necessarily result in regional inequalities</a>, the prospect of solar geoengineering raises questions about <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10784-017-9377-6">who has the power to shape our climate futures</a>, and who and what gets left out.</p>
<p>Other concerns focus on possible unintended consequences of large-scale open-air experimentation – especially when our whole planet becomes the lab. There’s a fear that the consequences would be irreversible, and that <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5965/530.full">the line between research and deployment is inherently fuzzy</a>. </p>
<p>And then there’s the distraction problem, often known as the “<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/01/geoengineering_might_give_people_an_excuse_to_ignore_climate_change_s_causes.html">moral hazard</a>.” Even researching geoengineering as one potential response to climate change may distract from the necessary and difficult work of reducing greenhouse gas levels and adapting to a changing climate – not to mention the challenges of encouraging more sustainable lifestyles and practices.</p>
<p>To be fair, many scientists in the small geoengineering community take these concerns very seriously. This was evident in the robust <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/geoengineering-scientists-berlin-debate-radicaly-ways-reverse-global-warming">conversations around the ethics and politics of geoengineering</a> at a <a href="http://www.ce-conference.org/cec17-program">recent meeting in Berlin</a>. But there’s still no consensus on whether and how to engage in responsible geoengineering research.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191062/original/file-20171019-1048-7nvvyo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191062/original/file-20171019-1048-7nvvyo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191062/original/file-20171019-1048-7nvvyo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191062/original/file-20171019-1048-7nvvyo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191062/original/file-20171019-1048-7nvvyo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191062/original/file-20171019-1048-7nvvyo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191062/original/file-20171019-1048-7nvvyo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191062/original/file-20171019-1048-7nvvyo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Climate outcomes are not good for humanity in the Hollywood version of geoengineering.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/geostorm-trailer-debuts-video-984391">Still from 'Geostorm'</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A geostorm in a teacup?</h2>
<p>So how close are we to the dystopian future of “Geostorm”? The truth is that geoengineering is still little more than a twinkle in the eyes of a small group of scientists. In the words of Jack Stilgoe, author of the book “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=jack+stilgoe">Experiment Earth: Responsible innovation in geoengineering</a>”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“We shouldn’t be scared of geoengineering, at least not yet. It is neither as exciting nor as terrifying as we have been led to believe, for the simple reason that it doesn’t exist.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Compared to other emerging technologies, solar geoengineering has no industrial demand and no strong economic driver as yet, and simply doesn’t appeal to national interests in global competitiveness. Because of this, it’s an idea that’s struggled to translate from the pages of academic papers and newsprint into reality.</p>
<p>Even government agencies appear <a href="http://issues.org/33-3/toward-a-responsible-solar-geoengineering-research-program/">wary of funding outdoor research</a> into solar geoengineering – possibly because it’s an ethically fraught area, but also because it’s an academically interesting idea with no clear economic or political return for those who invest in it.</p>
<p>Yet some supporters make a strong case for knowing more about the potential benefits, risks and efficacy of these ideas. So scientists are beginning to turn to private funding. Harvard University, for instance, recently launched the <a href="https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/">Solar Geoengineering Research Program</a>, funded by Bill Gates, the Hewlett Foundation and others.</p>
<p>As part of this program, researchers David Keith and Frank Keutsch <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603974/harvard-scientists-moving-ahead-on-plans-for-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiments/">are already planning small-scale experiments</a> to inject fine sunlight-reflecting particles into the stratosphere above Tucson, Arizona. It’s a very small experiment, and <a href="http://www.spice.ac.uk/">wouldn’t be the first</a>, but it aims to generate new information about whether and how such particles might one day be used to control the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth.</p>
<p>And importantly, it suggests that, where governments fear to tread, wealthy individuals and philanthropy may end up pushing the boundaries of geoengineering research – with or without the rest of society’s consent.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191064/original/file-20171019-1078-zzbo0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=38%2C97%2C1239%2C620&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191064/original/file-20171019-1078-zzbo0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=38%2C97%2C1239%2C620&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191064/original/file-20171019-1078-zzbo0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191064/original/file-20171019-1078-zzbo0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191064/original/file-20171019-1078-zzbo0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191064/original/file-20171019-1078-zzbo0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191064/original/file-20171019-1078-zzbo0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191064/original/file-20171019-1078-zzbo0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hollywood’s version of the technology is one thing, but it’s time to talk about what a real future could be.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5ea2z6">Still from 'Geostorm'</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The case for public dialogue</h2>
<p>The upshot is there’s a growing need for public debate around whether and how to move forward.</p>
<p>Ultimately, no amount of scientific evidence is likely to single-handedly resolve wider debates about the benefits and risks – we’ve learned this much from the persistent debates about <a href="http://issues.org/32-1/crispr-democracy-gene-editing-and-the-need-for-inclusive-deliberation/">genetically modified organisms</a>, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01682418%20or%20%20http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1987.tb00963.x/abstract">nuclear power</a> and other high-impact technologies.</p>
<p>Leaving these discussions to experts is not only counter to democratic principles but likely to be self-defeating, as more research in complex domains <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901104000620">can often make controversies worse</a>. The bad news here is that <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000461/full">research on public views about geoengineering</a> (admittedly limited to Europe and the U.S.) suggests that most people are unfamiliar with the idea. The good news, though, is that social science research and practical experience have shown that people have the capacity to <a href="https://ecastnetwork.org/">learn and deliberate on complex technologies</a>, if given the opportunity.</p>
<p>As researchers in the responsible development and use of emerging technologies, we suggest less speculation about the ethics of imagined geoengineered futures, which can sometimes close down, rather than open up, decision-making about these technologies. Instead, we need more rigor in how we think about near-term choices around researching these ideas in ways that respond to social norms and contexts. This includes thinking hard about whether and how to govern privately funded research in this domain. And uncomfortable as it may feel, it means that scientists and political leaders need to remain open to the possibility that societies will not want to develop these ideas at all. </p>
<p>All of this is a far cry from the Hollywood hysteria of “Geostorm.” Yet decisions about geoengineering research are already being made in real life. We probably won’t have satellite-based weather control any time soon. But if scientists intend to research technologies to deliberately intervene in our climate system, we need to start talking seriously about whether and how to collectively, and responsibly, move forward.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85866/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>
A disaster fantasy raises questions about tinkering with Earth’s climate. With real-life scientists exploring geoengineering, what conversations should we be having now around these technologies?
Jane A. Flegal, Ph.D. Candidate, Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley
Andrew Maynard, Director, Risk Innovation Lab, Arizona State University
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/82371
2017-08-24T02:19:00Z
2017-08-24T02:19:00Z
Terminator 2 in 3D reminds us what we’ve still to learn about AI and robotics
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182875/original/file-20170822-27077-1pjivrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator 2: Judgment Day, now in 3D.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">StudioCanal</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The classic science fiction action film <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103064/">Terminator 2: Judgment Day</a> has ticked over its 25th anniversary. To celebrate, director James Cameron went one step further than remastering the original 1991 version and has re-released the film in 4K 3D, in cinemas now.</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://imgur.com/xFAZINW.gif"></p>
<h4>Who let the killer cyborgs out again? StudioCanal</h4>
<p>T2 tells the story of two cyborgs sent back in time from the future, one (the T800, “living tissue over metal endoskeleton”, in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s most iconic role) to protect the future leader of the human resistance; the other (the T1000, a more advanced, shapeshifting liquid metal model) sent to terminate him. </p>
<p>In this 1995 timeline, the boy is a ten-year-old John Connor (Edward Furlong), protected by his mother Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), who has toughened up a lot since being the target of a failed time-travel assassination in the first <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/">Terminator</a> film (a “pre-emptive” abortion since John was not yet born at that time).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/science-fiction-helps-us-deal-with-science-fact-a-lesson-from-terminators-killer-robots-50249">Science fiction helps us deal with science fact: a lesson from Terminator's killer robots</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But how plausible are the physics and science behind some of the film’s incredible scenes, and what light does modern artificial intelligence and robotics research shed on the film, 25 years on?</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PhqCVjALwXc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Arnie’s back, in 3D.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There will be spoilers, so if you haven’t seen the film already, go see it in cinemas this week - and then make sure that <em>you’ll be back</em> here to read on.</p>
<h2>Shooting Terminators</h2>
<p>When a near-indestructible cyborg is hellbent on killing you and you’re in the United States of America, there’s only one way to defend yourself: with guns. T2 is filled with amazing action scenes where these metal monsters go toe to toe with each other and the humans that get in their way.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182877/original/file-20170822-4964-c33j7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182877/original/file-20170822-4964-c33j7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182877/original/file-20170822-4964-c33j7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182877/original/file-20170822-4964-c33j7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182877/original/file-20170822-4964-c33j7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182877/original/file-20170822-4964-c33j7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182877/original/file-20170822-4964-c33j7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182877/original/file-20170822-4964-c33j7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Shotguns, handguns, miniguns, grenade launchers… what will take down a Terminator?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">StudioCanal</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Director James Cameron referred to Arnold’s T800 Terminator model as a sort of <a href="http://www.terminatorfiles.com/media/articles/t2_008.htm">Panzer Tank</a>, in contrast to the liquid metal T1000 being more like a sleek Porsche. </p>
<p>Like any military tank, Terminators would potentially be vulnerable to sheer momentum transfer knocking them off their feet, even if bullets weren’t able to damage their endoskeleton directly. This is very different to humans, to whom bullets often do most of their damage <a href="http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/01/does-momentum-equal-stopping-power-lets-find-out/">via energy transfer rather than momentum transfer</a>.</p>
<p>The T800 first gets shot at the shopping mall by the T1000, who unloads a magazine of 9x19mm handgun ammunition into Arnie’s back. With a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_92">muzzle velocity of about 380m/s</a> and a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%C3%9719mm_Parabellum">bullet weight of 7.45 grams</a>, each bullet has a maximum momentum P of:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>P = mass × velocity = mv</p>
<p>= 0.00745kg × 381m/s</p>
<p>= 2.838kgm/s</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Assuming that all the momentum is transferred to the T800, it will change the momentum of the T800 by a certain amount: we can call this “Delta P” or “DP” for short. We can then work out what velocity each bullet would normally impart, which we’ll refer to as “Delta V”, or “DV” for short.</p>
<p>First we need a weight for the T800, which is never stated. But it can ride a motorcycle fine - so we can guesstimate a weight of 200kg:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>DV = DP / m</p>
<p>= 2.838 / 200</p>
<p>= 0.01419m/s</p>
<p>= 0.05109km/hr</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So each bullet would only impart a miniscule amount of velocity change to the T800 - so it being able to shrug them off effortlessly is entirely reasonable.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> plausible.</p>
<p>Later in the film, an entire police and SWAT team unloads on Arnold and he appears to get shaken around a bit more. Let’s repeat the calculation, for a team of ten shooters each emptying a 30-round AR-15 magazine firing 5.56x45 4gram bullets at a <a href="http://wredlich.com/ny/2013/01/projectiles-muzzle-energy-stopping-power/">muzzle velocity of 975 m/s</a>. We’ll do the calculation as if he gets hit by ten bullets at a time:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>P = Number of bullets × mv</p>
<p>= 10 × 0.004kg × 975m/s</p>
<p>= 39 kgm/s</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>DV = 39 / 200</p>
<p>= 0.195m/s</p>
<p>= 0.7km/hr</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In terms of relative effect, that’s more than an order of magnitude more than the lone handgun, so the T800 being knocked around a bit by the combined fire is reasonable.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> plausible.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182880/original/file-20170822-28350-x0thr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182880/original/file-20170822-28350-x0thr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182880/original/file-20170822-28350-x0thr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=247&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182880/original/file-20170822-28350-x0thr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=247&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182880/original/file-20170822-28350-x0thr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=247&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182880/original/file-20170822-28350-x0thr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=310&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182880/original/file-20170822-28350-x0thr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=310&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182880/original/file-20170822-28350-x0thr9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=310&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sarah Connor would suffer from the same momentum transfer issues as the T1000.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">StudioCanal</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Sarah Connor manages to knock the T1000 back a sizeable amount with single shotgun blasts in the final showdown at the steel mill. We don’t need to perform any calculations to show this is implausible. For each shot Sarah Connor should feel the same momentum effects as the T1000 that is struck.</p>
<p>While she has the benefit of being braced for the shot, it’s still unlikely the T1000 would be knocked through the air an entire metre, unless it weighed much much less than a human. This also happens in the first T800 vs T1000 showdown, where single shots from Arnie’s shotgun throw the T1000 all over the place.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> implausible.</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://imgur.com/B4PQcmU.gif"></p>
<h4>StudioCanal</h4>
<h2>Code Cracking</h2>
<p>Early in the film, a young John Connor is shown supporting himself by cracking ATM PIN codes using an early portable computer (an <a href="https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/07/forgotten_tech_atari_portfolio/">Atari Portfolio</a>).</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://imgur.com/Q2Bo8j1.gif"></p>
<h4>Maxim Sokolenko/Michael Milford</h4>
<p>He appears to use a brute force attack, trying all possible PIN combinations. Even on that early 1990s computer tech, the number of combinations required is quite small. Each digit has ten possibilities, and there are four digits:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Number of combinations = options per digit<sup>Number of digits</sup></p>
<p>= 10<sup>4</sup></p>
<p>= 10,000</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The computer appears to zip through the possibilities quickly, so it’s plausible that all 10,000 combinations could be tried in a few seconds (assuming his hack was also stopping any “lock out” security mechanism which stopped you after a few incorrect tries).</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> plausible.</p>
<h2>A learning Terminator</h2>
<p>One of the deleted scenes in Terminator 2 involved John and Sarah Connor deciding to reboot the T800’s Central Processing Unit (CPU) to enable it to learn and hence give them a fighting chance against the T1000.</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://imgur.com/7FcGSLJ.gif"></p>
<h4>Arnold’s learning-enabled T800 adapts to circumstances. StudioCanal</h4>
<p>This scene is highly relevant to the technological revolution that <a href="https://theconversation.com/deep-learning-and-neural-networks-77259">deep learning</a> has caused over the past five years, where major advances in artificial intelligence have been made using large neural networks that learn about the world.</p>
<p>The ability of robots and AIs to learn from real world experience has been critical to many recent developments.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> highly plausible.</p>
<h2>Wrong performance goals</h2>
<p>The backstory to T2 is that a human-created artificial intelligence called Skynet starts learning at an amazing rate. Humans panic, try to shut it down, and it reacts by launching nukes at Russia, which in turn launches its own nukes back.</p>
<p>In the ensuing nuclear aftermath, Skynet builds an army of killer cyborgs and flying Hunter-Killer robots to enslave the remnants of humanity.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182886/original/file-20170822-5201-1e4d5vs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182886/original/file-20170822-5201-1e4d5vs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182886/original/file-20170822-5201-1e4d5vs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182886/original/file-20170822-5201-1e4d5vs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182886/original/file-20170822-5201-1e4d5vs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=248&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182886/original/file-20170822-5201-1e4d5vs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=312&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182886/original/file-20170822-5201-1e4d5vs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=312&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182886/original/file-20170822-5201-1e4d5vs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=312&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Miles Dyson ponders what he might have done.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">StudioCanal</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Setting appropriate boundaries for intelligent, autonomous systems is a part of Trusted Autonomous Systems research, which is a big focus of effort in <a href="https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/news/2017/07/06/50-million-industry-and-defence-work-together-trusted-autonomous-systems">today’s push towards increasingly autonomous defence systems</a>.</p>
<p>It’s possible Skynet was reacting exactly as it should have, based on how it was set up, to defend against all attacks. Today’s military planners must be careful to fully understand the potential <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-you-want-to-trust-a-robot-look-at-how-it-makes-decisions-24134">unintended consequences of all the performance goals</a> they set for their high tech autonomous systems.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> highly plausible, designers must very carefully set objectives for AI systems.</p>
<h2>Terrific or Terminal?</h2>
<p>Terminator 2: Judgement Day is a classic sci-fi action film filled with action that often but not always pays heed to the laws of physics. Its re-release in 4K 3D takes what is already a visually impressive film and ramps it up another notch.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/were-close-to-banning-nuclear-weapons-killer-robots-must-be-next-80741">We're close to banning nuclear weapons – killer robots must be next</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But it is in T2’s addressing of key concepts that are incredibly important today - artificial intelligence, the importance of learning, the ability of a machine to learn the value of human life and the danger of unintended technological consequences, that it particularly shines.</p>
<p>While it will always be a part of film history, its legacy is perhaps increasingly becoming its use as a focal point for <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-fiction-helps-us-deal-with-science-fact-a-lesson-from-terminators-killer-robots-50249">almost all discussion about robotics</a>, artificial intelligence and their role in humanity’s future. And for that, it gets an A+ for scientific importance. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182888/original/file-20170822-5162-1u18aqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182888/original/file-20170822-5162-1u18aqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182888/original/file-20170822-5162-1u18aqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182888/original/file-20170822-5162-1u18aqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182888/original/file-20170822-5162-1u18aqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182888/original/file-20170822-5162-1u18aqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182888/original/file-20170822-5162-1u18aqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182888/original/file-20170822-5162-1u18aqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Today’s ten year-olds face an uncertain future… hopefully one not as bleak as John Connor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">StudioCanal</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82371/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP.</span></em></p>
It’s more than 25 years since Arnold Schwarzenegger returned in the Terminator 2: Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Now he’s back in glorious 3D, so how does the story and the science stack up today?
Michael Milford, Professor, Queensland University of Technology
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/79900
2017-07-04T20:12:08Z
2017-07-04T20:12:08Z
Spider-Man: Homecoming spins a web of fact and fantasy
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/175539/original/file-20170626-315-1h7k01d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Columbia PIctures/Marvel Studios/Sony Pictures</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>“Spider-Man, Spider-Man, does whatever a spider can”</em></p>
<p>Spider-Man: Homecoming is the <em>second</em> modern reboot of the Spider-Man film franchise, with the young Tom Holland following in the footsteps of Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield. That’s three different film series in a 15-year period!</p>
<p>The movie takes a relative step back in scale from the universe-destroying plot elements of recent Marvel films, concentrating on a young Peter Parker’s struggle to balance school and being Spider-Man.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176220/original/file-20170629-16091-1sjr0gr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176220/original/file-20170629-16091-1sjr0gr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176220/original/file-20170629-16091-1sjr0gr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176220/original/file-20170629-16091-1sjr0gr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176220/original/file-20170629-16091-1sjr0gr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176220/original/file-20170629-16091-1sjr0gr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176220/original/file-20170629-16091-1sjr0gr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Vulture is a more human villain. Columbia Pictures/Marvel Studios/Sony Pictures.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The film is great - a very funny, teenage-focused take on Spider-Man. It also benefits from a more human, more interesting villain than recent Marvel films, in the form of Michael Keaton who plays Vulture.</p>
<p>Here we’ll get stuck into some of the science behind the scenes. There are minor spoilers ahead but nothing that you couldn’t get already from the trailer, which you can check out below:</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YPUASeS6qc0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Web shooting</h2>
<p>Spiderman moves through the city effortlessly (mostly) by shooting his web out to attach onto high points and swinging repeatedly.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176224/original/file-20170629-3435-1juncxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176224/original/file-20170629-3435-1juncxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176224/original/file-20170629-3435-1juncxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176224/original/file-20170629-3435-1juncxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176224/original/file-20170629-3435-1juncxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176224/original/file-20170629-3435-1juncxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176224/original/file-20170629-3435-1juncxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176224/original/file-20170629-3435-1juncxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Swinging along. (Columbia Pictures/Marvel Studios/Sony Pictures/vitaliyvill/123rf.com/Michael Milford)</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If we assume that the web is itself not powered (more like an unpowered projectile; a bullet rather than a rocket), we can calculate the initial shooting velocity required to reach the tops of buildings with his shots.</p>
<p>First let’s try ignoring air resistance to keep things simple. We’ll need the acceleration due to gravity, <em>g</em>, and the height of the shot, <em>h</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>v = sqrt(2 × g × h)</p>
<p>= sqrt(2 × 9.81 × 100)</p>
<p>= 44.29m/s</p>
<p>= 159.5km/hr</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That’s not very fast - a bullet from a .22 rifle exits the gun at a <a href="http://www.ruger1022.com/docs/22lrballistics.htm">speed of about 300 m/s</a>.</p>
<p>However, if air resistance was taken into account, it’s likely that the web firing speed would need to be significantly higher.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Plausible, given the apparent speed of the web shots on screen.</p>
<h2>Swinging off a web</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176228/original/file-20170629-16069-13shxf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176228/original/file-20170629-16069-13shxf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176228/original/file-20170629-16069-13shxf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176228/original/file-20170629-16069-13shxf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176228/original/file-20170629-16069-13shxf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176228/original/file-20170629-16069-13shxf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176228/original/file-20170629-16069-13shxf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176228/original/file-20170629-16069-13shxf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pool Party Crasher.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Columbia Pictures/Marvel Studios/Sony Pictures</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most people have heard the common sayings about spider web being “stronger than steel”, even though <a href="https://theconversation.com/spider-silk-is-a-wonder-of-nature-but-its-not-stronger-than-steel-14879">that’s a myth</a>.</p>
<p>On screen, it looks like Spider-Man swings around on a pretty thin bundle of web. Is this realistic (assuming his web is like a normal spider’s web, not some Marvel universe “super” web)?</p>
<p>Spider web has a tensile strength of about 1,000 Megapascals (MPa). This means it can support 10<sup>9</sup> Newtons per square metre - 1 billion Newtons is the force required to hold a 100,000 tonne weight. The square metre refers to the <em>cross-sectional</em> area of the web.</p>
<p>Of course, he hangs off a web strand that is much thinner than 1 square metre - from the image it looks like the strand has a width of maybe 3 mm. If the strand is a cylinder, of radius <em>r</em> and knowing PI (𝝅) is 3.14, then we can calculate area (<em>A</em>):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A = 𝝅 × r<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>= 𝝅 × 0.0015<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>= 0.000007069 m<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>That means the web strand can hold a static force (<em>W</em>) of:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>W = A × tensile strength</p>
<p>= 0.000007069m<sup>2</sup> × 1,000MPa</p>
<p>= 7,069 Newtons</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That could support a static weight of about 720 kilograms (divide by gravity = 9.81 m/s/s).</p>
<p>Now when spider-man jumps off a building and falls, he exerts a dynamic loading on the web, increasing his effective weight from say 60 kg by several times. Even so, carrying his own weight is plausible.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Plausible for his own mode of personal transportation.</p>
<p>However, he takes on much heavier objects with his web…</p>
<h2>Holding a ship together with web</h2>
<p>During a fight between Vulture and Spider-Man, a malfunctioning Chitauri gun slices the Staten Island ferry in half, threatening to drown the passengers. Spider-Man intervenes with his web, endeavouring to hold the two halves of the ship together. </p>
<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/mVwKZWc.gif" width="100%"></p>
<h4>Spider-Man doing his best to keep everything in one piece. Columbia Pictures/Marvel Studios/Sony Pictures</h4>
<p>Doing the calculation properly for the forces involved in holding a ship together like this would be very complex and involve modelling the interaction of the ship with the water.</p>
<p>We can do an approximation by ignoring any supportive force from the water, and considering the moment at which the ship is cut in half (before the two halves tilt outwards much).</p>
<p>A Staten Island ferry can <a href="http://www.siferry.com/currentvessels.html">weigh around 3,200 tonnes</a>. Each half will feel a gravity force of 9.81 × 3,200,000 = 31,392,000N.</p>
<p>The ferry is 21 metres wide, so each half is 10.5 metres wide. If we assume the ferry is a homogenous mass, then each gravity force will act at a distance halfway out from the centreline: 0.5 × 10.5 = 5.25 metres out from the centreline.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Moment = 2 × F × d</p>
<p>= 2 × 31,392,000N × 5.25m</p>
<p>= 329,616,000Nm</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To counteract this moment, Spider-Man positions himself between the two halves of the boat and shoots spider strands out to hold the halves together - what the steel structure was doing before it was cut in two. It’s not dissimilar to the Strongman “Hercules Hold” event:</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d5qjY1cYdLM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>If we assume the ferry is about as tall as it is wide, we can say that Spider-Man’s webs are pulling the boat together at about half the height above the bottom of the ship - 0.5 × 21 = 10.5m. We can calculate the two forces he would have to pull together the boat with:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Moment = 2 × F × d</p>
<p>= Moment / 2 / d</p>
<p>= 329,616,000Nm / 2 / 10.5</p>
<p>= 15,696,000N</p>
</blockquote>
<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/IO4Thst.gif" width="100%"></p>
<h4>A splitting headache for Spider-Man (DZIANIS RAKHUBA/123RF.COM/MICHAEL MILFORD)</h4>
<p>The web would be under a total tensile force from these forces combined - so about 31,392,000N. </p>
<p>We can calculate the cross-sectional area of spiderweb required to do that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Area = F / tensile strength</p>
<p>= 31,392,000N / 1,000MPa</p>
<p>= 0.03139 m<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>And consequently the number of “normal” web shots (3mm-thick strands) he’d need to shoot:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Number of web shots = area required / web shot cross sectional area</p>
<p>= 0.03139m<sup>2</sup> / 0.000007069m<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>= 4,441 shots</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Even though he does go crazy with the web, it still doesn’t look like he gets off anywhere near that many shots…</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> It’s a nice touch that they show him targeting the strong points of the ship structure for his web reinforcement. Even with that, he was in big trouble though - so it’s pretty realistic that Ironman had to come save him and the ship. </p>
<h2>The verdict</h2>
<p>Spider-Man: Homecoming is great blockbuster entertainment, as fun as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-volume-2-a-scientists-review-76511">Guardian of the Galaxy</a> movies in a more family-friendly way.</p>
<p>It’s regularly very funny, while managing to not veer into trying too hard. Tom Holland is fantastic as Peter Parker / Spider-Man and says he will continue with the role, which is great news for fans.</p>
<p>In terms of the science, the film does pretty well. Within the “rules” of the MCU universe, most of the big scenes are plausible.</p>
<p>There’s even a nice touch in a classroom scene, when Peter is quizzed by his science teacher on the formula for angular acceleration of a pendulum. </p>
<p>Peter’s answer of <em>angular acceleration = gravity * sin(theta)</em> is both <a href="https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/computer-programming/programming-natural-simulations/programming-oscillations/a/trig-and-forces-the-pendulum">correct</a> and also a sly reference to Spider-Man’s frequent mode of transport - swinging through the city streets on a web “pendulum”.</p>
<p>So - entertaining <em>and</em> accurate: we hope that the new Spider-Man sticks around for a while yet. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176221/original/file-20170629-16091-19s9mg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176221/original/file-20170629-16091-19s9mg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176221/original/file-20170629-16091-19s9mg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176221/original/file-20170629-16091-19s9mg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176221/original/file-20170629-16091-19s9mg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176221/original/file-20170629-16091-19s9mg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176221/original/file-20170629-16091-19s9mg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176221/original/file-20170629-16091-19s9mg6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Good job on this one Tony.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marvel Studios/Columbia Pictures/Sony Pictures Releasing</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79900/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Juxi Leitner is a Research Fellow in the Australian Research Council funded Centre of Excellence in Robotic Vision. Juxi is founder of the Brisbane.AI and robotics interest groups, two not-for-profit organisations aiming to raise awareness about robotics and AI research in the general public and creating opportunities for communities to interact with local researchers.</span></em></p>
Peter Parker knows the formula for angular acceleration of a pendulum, and applies his science knowledge with gusto in the latest Spider-Man movie.
Michael Milford, Professor, Queensland University of Technology
Juxi Leitner, Research Fellow, Robotics & AI, Queensland University of Technology
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/78997
2017-06-09T01:18:53Z
2017-06-09T01:18:53Z
The Mummy struggles with the chemistry but gets the physics right with a crash
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172616/original/file-20170607-3665-ggipj9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sofia Boutella plays the new Mummy.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Pictures</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s been 18 years since the cheesy but fun 1999 incarnation of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120616/">The Mummy</a>, and we were long due for another reboot. To meet that need, along came Tom Cruise accompanied by Russell Crowe and relative newcomers Sofia Boutella and Annabelle Wallis, in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2345759/">The Mummy</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172618/original/file-20170607-3690-1l91pf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172618/original/file-20170607-3690-1l91pf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172618/original/file-20170607-3690-1l91pf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172618/original/file-20170607-3690-1l91pf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172618/original/file-20170607-3690-1l91pf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172618/original/file-20170607-3690-1l91pf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172618/original/file-20170607-3690-1l91pf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172618/original/file-20170607-3690-1l91pf6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tom Cruise and Annabelle Wallis: an awkward romance.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Pictures</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Sofia plays Ahmanet, a cursed Egyptian princess who was cast aside by her family and sought revenge in the worst way possible. For her crimes, she was entombed for eternity and erased from history. </p>
<p>Enter soldier of fortune Nick Morton (Tom Cruise), who unwittingly awakens Ahmanet from a 5,000-year slumber. It’s up to Morton, archaeologist Jenna Halsey (Annabelle Wallis), and Henry Jekyll (Russell Crowe) to stop her from reclaiming her stolen kingdom.</p>
<p>The film is clearly setting up Universal’s “<a href="http://www.darkuniverse.com/">Dark Universe</a>” alternative to the Marvel universe, with a host of famous monsters to be rebooted including <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/mummy-director-reveals-2-new-titles-universals-dark-universe-1010865">Frankenstein, Dracula and the Invisible Man</a>. The film also introduces the secret organisation Prodigium, led by Dr Jekyll, who find, examine and destroy evil manifestations in the world.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172619/original/file-20170607-3674-1xjztnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172619/original/file-20170607-3674-1xjztnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172619/original/file-20170607-3674-1xjztnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172619/original/file-20170607-3674-1xjztnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172619/original/file-20170607-3674-1xjztnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172619/original/file-20170607-3674-1xjztnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172619/original/file-20170607-3674-1xjztnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172619/original/file-20170607-3674-1xjztnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nick meet Dr Jekyll.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Pictures</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So let’s take a light-hearted cross-examination of the science behind some of the action scenes in the film. But beware, we’ll be letting some mild spoilery secrets out of the sarcophagus.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IjHgzkQM2Sg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Mummy: Trailer.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Shooting down an aircraft with birds</h2>
<p>While still inside her sarcophagus on board a military transport plane, Ahmanet summons an immense flock of ravens, who smash through the engines and front windshield, and take out the pilots for good measure.</p>
<p>But could the Mummy have taken down an aircraft with birds? </p>
<p>Bird strikes are a regular problem for aircraft of all varieties, with more than <a href="http://www.mro-network.com/maintenance-repair-overhaul/how-bird-strikes-impact-engines">65,000 incidents reported from 2011-2014</a>. High-profile recent incidents include <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-miracle-on-the-hudson-in-the-new-movie-sully-was-no-crash-landing-64748">US Airways Flight 1549</a>, which hit a flock of geese shortly after takeoff, prompting an emergency water landing nicknamed the “Miracle on the Hudson”.</p>
<p>In that incident, birds took out both engines but they can also <a href="https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/gallery/">hit the windshield</a>.</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://i.imgur.com/TggSJng.gif"></p>
<h4>Here come the birds. (Universal Pictures)</h4>
<p>The aircraft in the film is a <a href="http://lockheedmartin.com.au/us/products/c130/History.html">Lockheed C-130 Hercules</a>, with a cruise speed of 540km/h. Let’s say a raven can speed for short periods at 80km/h. This gives us a net closing speed of 620km/h between plane and bird, because it is aiming for the plane head-on.</p>
<p>For example, in this <a href="https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19810407-0">learjet collision</a> from 1981, the plane was at low altitude and likely travelling at a relatively low speed of perhaps 400km/h.</p>
<p>Let’s assume that bird wasn’t malicious and hence wasn’t flying head on at the aircraft - so the net closing speed would just be the 400km/h.</p>
<p>Impact energy scales with the square of the speed, so an increase in impact speed from 400km/h to 620km/h results in an increase in impact energy of 2.4 times, meaning a single bird impact in the film is much more damaging.</p>
<p>Some airframe standards mandate being able to withstand a <a href="https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Aircraft_Certification_for_Bird_Strike_Risk">single hit from a 1.8kg bird</a>. Indeed the windshield does seem to handle the first few impacts. But given a few thousand birds flying into the plane all at the same point, it seems highly realistic that the windshield would give way and the plane would be doomed.</p>
<p>This same principle applies to <a href="http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/08/there-is-no-such-a-thing-as-bulletproof-glass/">repeated bullet impacts</a> with bulletproof glass.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> It’s highly plausible that so many bird strikes would break the windshield, if you allow for magical undead-mummy bird-corralling capabilities.</p>
<h2>Working with mercury</h2>
<p>Superman has his <a href="http://superman.wikia.com/wiki/Kryptonite">Kryptonite</a>: for The Mummy, the element mercury does the job. Ahmanet is both entombed in a massive bath of mercury and injected directly with it later to disable her, making use of its property of being the only metal that is liquid at room temperature.</p>
<p>The film’s production notes suggest this may have some origin in Egyptian beliefs: perhaps <a href="https://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/eps2/wisc/hg.html">it was just used as a pigment</a>.</p>
<p>The plan is to inject Ahmanet with liquid mercury, then cool it down to -38°C (which is the <a href="http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/80/mercury">correct temperature at which mercury</a> transitions from solid to liquid) to “solidify” Ahmanet, then dissect her for study. One of the potential issues with this plan is that solid mercury is relatively soft (like lead or tin) and can be easily manipulated.</p>
<p>So instead of a stiff <a href="http://time.com/4685052/logan-wolverine-adamantium/">Wolverine-like corpse</a>, the Prodigium crew may just enrage her even more, which is exactly what happens.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Nice chemistry, but a little soft.</p>
<h2>Eating your way to a better body</h2>
<p>Princess Ahmanet starts the film as a weak skeleton, but rapidly regains her original physique by consuming multiple human victims. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172724/original/file-20170607-11324-14210it.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172724/original/file-20170607-11324-14210it.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172724/original/file-20170607-11324-14210it.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172724/original/file-20170607-11324-14210it.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172724/original/file-20170607-11324-14210it.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172724/original/file-20170607-11324-14210it.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172724/original/file-20170607-11324-14210it.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172724/original/file-20170607-11324-14210it.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A fully fed Princess Ahmanet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Pictures</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Her consumed victims become skeletal servants themselves. If we assume her normal weight is 60kg, approximately 15% of that weight is her skeleton, so around 9kg. She needs to gain about 51kg of mass.</p>
<p>I lost count during the film but I think she “consumed” about six people to regain her original physique. That’s about 8.5kg of flesh-eating transfer per victim.</p>
<p>But her (mostly larger male) victims are clearly mostly defleshed, suggesting they may have lost up to half their bodyweight, say 40kg per victim, or a total of 240kg.</p>
<p>That means either her consumption process is inefficient - with only a 21% mass transfer rate - or the directors thought it would be nice to have her suck the flesh off more than one victim for effect.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Something doesn’t add up.</p>
<h2>Sarcophagus suffocation</h2>
<p>As punishment, Ahmanet is entombed alive in her sarcophagus (a common theme in Mummy films), and then dipped into a well filled with mercury. This is a nightmare scenario, but how long might a normal human survive before suffocating?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172719/original/file-20170607-11336-1jga22o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172719/original/file-20170607-11336-1jga22o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172719/original/file-20170607-11336-1jga22o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172719/original/file-20170607-11336-1jga22o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172719/original/file-20170607-11336-1jga22o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=249&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172719/original/file-20170607-11336-1jga22o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172719/original/file-20170607-11336-1jga22o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172719/original/file-20170607-11336-1jga22o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">I just had the most divine Mercury bath.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Pictures</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A big sarcophagus might measure about 2 metres by 1 metre by 0.5 metres - for a total volume of approximately 1m<sup>3</sup>, or 1,000 litres of air if we ignore the walls. Subtract a small female body - about 60 litres - and you’re left with 940 litres of air, which is initially 21% oxygen - 197.4 litres.</p>
<p>You breathe in air containing oxygen, but the air you exhale isn’t completely devoid of oxygen either. We can use an approximate <em>net</em> oxygen consumption rate of <a href="http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/respiratory/question98.htm">0.4 litres per minute</a> to work out how long you’d survive:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Time to suffocate = oxygen content / consumption rate</p>
<p>= 197.4 litres / 0.4 litres/minute</p>
<p>= 493.5 minutes</p>
<p>= 8 hrs 13 minutes 30 seconds</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This assumes you can completely use all the oxygen available, which is the optimal case. In reality, you’d probably pass out and die before you’d completely sucked all the last bits of oxygen out of the air. </p>
<p>Luckily Ahmanet is cursed, presumably to live forever, so she likely has other concerns, like trying not to go insane being stuck for 5,000 years in her pitch-black sarcophagus.</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> Painfully plausible: she either suffocates 5 million times over or the curse “protects” her from dying.</p>
<h2>Behind the scenes: filming in zero gravity</h2>
<p>If you don’t have access to a film studio in orbit, your only other filming options are faking it <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/science/how-gravity-threw-sandra-bullock-zero-gravity-big-screen-8c11326787">underwater or using robot arms like in Gravity</a>, a <a href="https://www.qut.edu.au/research/research-projects/microgravity-drop-tower">drop tower</a>, or what they did for The Mummy: zero-gravity parabolic plane flights, a technique <a href="http://www.avclub.com/article/apollo-13s-20th-anniversary-look-how-they-made-fil-221536">previously used in classic films like Apollo 13</a>.</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://i.imgur.com/VrMJhvg.gif"></p>
<h4>Filming in zero gravity with parabolic aircraft loops (123rf.com/Lars Christnsen/Universal Pictures/Michael Milford)</h4>
<p><a href="https://www.gozerog.com/">Zero Gravity Corporation</a> provided the flights wherein a modified Boeing 727 flies repeated parabolic arcs that alternate between zero gravity for about 20 to 30 seconds (at the top of the parabola) and about 1.8 normal gravity at the bottom of the trajectory - where an 80kg adult will feel like they weigh 144kg.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/kc135.html">NASA also uses a KC-135 aircraft</a> to do essentially the same thing, also known as the “Vomit Comet”. </p>
<p>The crew did 16 parabolic flights within a two-hour period, twice a day, for two days - for a total of 64 weightlessness sessions. Talk about dedication. The actors performed inside a C-130 interior reconstruction encased within the larger plane.</p>
<p>Cruise talks about how hard it is to fake weightless action scenes, so the fact that they actually filmed in genuine zero gravity means the film gets an A+ there for scientific realism!</p>
<p><strong>Verdict:</strong> You can’t fake real science.</p>
<h2>The overall verdict</h2>
<p>The Mummy is a welcome revisit to the classic monster film of old, paying the right amount of homage to the classics, while introducing the modern world of 2017 and setting up a new universe within which to entertain film goers.</p>
<p>In terms of the science, we get a heap of physics and a side of chemistry, some okay, some a bit dodgy. </p>
<p>That’s all more than redeemed for by the fact that the plane crash physics involve the real thing: more than half a billion dollars worth of actors and crew doing it for real, over 64 weightless, vomit-inducing loops through the sky.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172617/original/file-20170607-3668-vwdrin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172617/original/file-20170607-3668-vwdrin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/172617/original/file-20170607-3668-vwdrin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=284&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172617/original/file-20170607-3668-vwdrin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=284&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172617/original/file-20170607-3668-vwdrin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=284&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172617/original/file-20170607-3668-vwdrin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172617/original/file-20170607-3668-vwdrin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/172617/original/file-20170607-3668-vwdrin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Dark Universe takes off with The Mummy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Universal Pictures</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78997/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP.</span></em></p>
The latest reboot of The Mummy is all you should expect from a Hollywood blockbuster on an ancient Egyptian curse. But what about the science?
Michael Milford, Associate professor, Queensland University of Technology
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/77789
2017-05-23T20:23:41Z
2017-05-23T20:23:41Z
Pirates of the Caribbean 5: there be some good science in that there film
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169703/original/file-20170517-24330-1kp21no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3982%2C2670&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The iconic Captain Jack Sparrow in action.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Disney Enterprises, Inc</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s hard to believe, but it has been more than 13 years since the first <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325980/">Pirates of the Caribbean</a> film set sail on our screens. The fifth instalment, out this week, is <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1790809/">Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales</a>.</p>
<p>Like the third film in the series, it opens with a powerful scene showing an emotional father-son reunion following events of the previous films.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169668/original/file-20170517-24325-1swxyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169668/original/file-20170517-24325-1swxyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169668/original/file-20170517-24325-1swxyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169668/original/file-20170517-24325-1swxyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169668/original/file-20170517-24325-1swxyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169668/original/file-20170517-24325-1swxyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169668/original/file-20170517-24325-1swxyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169668/original/file-20170517-24325-1swxyfr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Jack wonders how to unshrink his beloved Black Pearl.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Disney Enterprises, Inc</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Dead Men Tell No Tales introduces a new nemesis for the iconic Captain Jack Sparrow (played by Johnny Depp), in the Spanish Navy ghost captain Armando (played delightfully evil by Javier Bardem). He’s not the only villain, with Australian actor David Wenham adding to his growing list of villainous roles as well.</p>
<p>Salazar leads a ghost crew intent on eliminating every pirate on the seas. Jack, aided by the feisty astronomer Carina Smyth (Kaya Scodelario), scrambles to find the magical Trident of Poseidon with which he may defeat Salazar.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V1FNZRu4U0k?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Official Australian HD Trailer.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="http://pirates.disney.com/">Pirates films</a> have always deftly combined a basis in the “Golden Age of Piracy” with supernatural fantastical themes and regular departures from reality.</p>
<p>In this science review, I’ll examine some of the phenomena shown in the film to see whether the filmmakers have gone for entertainment (always understandable), realism or both. But beware, there be moderate spoilers ahead.</p>
<h2>How ships turn</h2>
<p>Salazar has a good reason to want his revenge on Sparrow. During an encounter in Jack’s youth, he tricked Salazar into following his ship into danger, only to lasso a nearby rock outcrop and execute what on land would be called a <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bootleg%20Turn">bootleg turn</a>.</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://i.imgur.com/CFSrKGy.gif"></p>
<h4>Sneaky Jack Sparrow executes a bootleg turn. (Walt Disney Studios)</h4>
<p>During the bootleg turn, Jack’s ship leans inwards. Water vessels behave very differently during turns, depending on a number of factors, and some will lean inwards during a turn, others outwards.</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://i.imgur.com/cYCo41b.gif"></p>
<h4>Executing a bootleg turn in a ship. (123rf.com/rustamank/Daria Yakovleva/blueringmedia/Michael Milford)</h4>
<p>When a ship turns, there is a centrifugal force that appears to act on the ship (red arrow in the animation, above). The only force available to counteract this one is the reaction force from the water the ship is immersed in.</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://i.imgur.com/SYtZFV9.gif"></p>
<h4>Tilting inwards or outwards during a turn. (123rf.com/Miro Kovacevic/Michael Milford)</h4>
<p>A ship has a centre of gravity (shown by the black and white circle, above) that stays in the same position relative to the structure of the ship, unless cargo is moved around inside the ship. The centre of gravity is the point where one can consider the gravitational force to act on the ship.</p>
<p>A ship also has a centre of buoyancy (shown by the red and white circle, above) that moves around depending on the tilt of the ship hull. It represents the location of the centre of gravity for the volume of water that the hull displaces.</p>
<p>In the left image, the water reaction force pushes in a line that passes below the centre of gravity. This force is trying to twist the ship hull in an anti-clockwise direction, tilting it to the left. The buoyancy force counteracts this, trying to twist the ship hull back in a clockwise direction.</p>
<p>In the right image, the water reaction force pushes in a line that passes above the centre of gravity. This force is trying to twist the ship hull in a clockwise direction. So the ship has tilted to the right, so that the buoyancy force can counteract it.</p>
<p>This is a bit of a simplification, in part because this is a dynamic process where the centre of buoyancy moves around as the ship tilts.</p>
<p>In Dead Men Tell No Tales, Jack throws a rope out to lasso the rock and turn his ship around. The rope is attached to the ship fairly high up, pulling at the ship most likely above its centre of gravity, and hence tilting the ship towards the rock. So that’s a plus for the science plausibility.</p>
<h2>Robbing the bank</h2>
<p>Jack hatches an audacious plan to hitch horses to a one tonne safe and drag it out of the bank. The plan comes undone when the safe doesn’t budge and the horses drag the entire bank building through town instead.</p>
<p>But can 12 horses pull a one tonne safe along the ground? What about an entire bank building?</p>
<p>I initially thought the one tonne safe was plausible but the building was ridiculous. But horses are incredibly strong, with <a href="http://modernfarmer.com/2015/12/how-much-can-a-horse-pull/">pairs of draft horses pulling up to 50 tonnes</a>.</p>
<p>This video (below) shows two draft horses pulling about 5.4 tonnes. For 12 to pull a building along a street isn’t so far outside the realms of possibility.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hf9yN0TEkjA?wmode=transparent&start=36" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Watch the draft horses pull a mighty weight.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Whirling guillotine</h2>
<p>In possibly the most memorable scene of the film, Jack is just about to be executed by guillotine when a cannonball smashes into it. What follows is the farce of the guillotine blade getting closer and then further away from his neck as the entire guillotine spins in the air.</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://i.imgur.com/bMx5Lgj.gif"></p>
<h4>Don’t try this at home kids. (123rf.com/Milosh Kojadinovich/Michael Milford)</h4>
<p>If you’ve ever spun something attached to a string, you know that if you spin it fast enough, the string stays taut.</p>
<p>To avoid the guillotine chopping Jack’s head off, it has to spin fast enough so that the acceleration of the cutting bit outwards at least counteracts the acceleration of gravity. Let’s say the guillotine is four metres tall, which is the radius <em>r</em>. We can work out the time period it takes to do one revolution, <em>T</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>acceleration = 4 × π<sup>2</sup> × r / T<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>T<sup>2</sup> = 4 × π<sup>2</sup> × r / acceleration</p>
<p>T<sup>2</sup> = 4 × π<sup>2</sup> × 4 / 9.81</p>
<p>T = 4.012 seconds</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The guillotine would need to spin in a full circle at least once every four seconds. In the film it appears to be spinning much more quickly so Jack surviving is plausible.</p>
<h2>Longitude by chronometer</h2>
<p>While navigating on the ship, astronomer Carina uses a chronometer, a highly accurate time piece developed over a long time period in the 18th century.</p>
<p>Efficient navigation at sea requires knowing both your latitude and longitude, and the chronometer was one of the critical technological developments in seafaring history. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170334/original/file-20170522-25041-l3jwp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170334/original/file-20170522-25041-l3jwp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170334/original/file-20170522-25041-l3jwp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170334/original/file-20170522-25041-l3jwp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170334/original/file-20170522-25041-l3jwp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=356&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170334/original/file-20170522-25041-l3jwp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170334/original/file-20170522-25041-l3jwp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/170334/original/file-20170522-25041-l3jwp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=447&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Longitude and latitude.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">123rf.com/lukaves</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Latitude is easy to find, for example by looking at the altitude of the sun at noon (its highest point). Longitude was much harder to find at sea, and required the combination of a knowledge of the stars and the time at a reference location, such as in Greenwich, England.</p>
<p>The chronometer kept time accurately, enabling sailors to navigate much more efficiently and reliably than ever before. The long race to win this technological race is a fantastic story and has been the subject of an award winning book, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4806.Longitude">Longitude</a> by <a href="http://www.davasobel.com/">Dava Sobel</a>.</p>
<p>It’s quite refreshing to see the film accurately portray some of the aspects of navigating on the open seas hundreds of years ago, a big plus for the science.</p>
<h2>The verdict</h2>
<p>The film itself is a lot of fun, with several moments of genuine pathos which were missing from some of the recent instalments. </p>
<p>Depp, Rush and Bardem are great as always. Kaya Scodelario does well, although she’s hamstrung by scripting at times. </p>
<p>Like all long running film series, it also benefits from the stronger familiarity and emotional investment by the audience in key characters - whether bringing them back or killing them off.</p>
<p>In terms of the action and the science, the film has a surprising amount of both. Much of it is explicit, usually through astronomer Carina, who at various times re-calibrates an astronomical telescope or uses a chronometer to work out their longitude. Other aspects are implicit in the many chases and fight scenes. </p>
<p>Also surprisingly, a lot of the science stacks up reasonably well.</p>
<p>As to the science behind ghost sharks? Well, we already have those in <a href="https://www.britannica.com/animal/chimaera">chimera (also known as ghost sharks)</a>, even if they aren’t quite as snappy as the ones in this new film.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169666/original/file-20170517-24354-cqw6f0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169666/original/file-20170517-24354-cqw6f0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169666/original/file-20170517-24354-cqw6f0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169666/original/file-20170517-24354-cqw6f0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169666/original/file-20170517-24354-cqw6f0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169666/original/file-20170517-24354-cqw6f0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169666/original/file-20170517-24354-cqw6f0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ghost sharks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Disney Enterprises, Inc</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p><em>Acknowledgements: The author thanks <a href="http://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/789">Ross McAree</a>, <a href="http://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/164">Peter Jacobs</a> and <a href="http://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/500">Alexander Klimenko</a> at the University of Queensland for their assistance with some of the theory. Any mistakes are entirely the fault of the author.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77789/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP.</span></em></p>
Captain Jack Sparrow sails the high seas again in the fifth outing of the Pirates of the Caribbean series. So did the filmmakers get the science right in the action packed adventure?
Michael Milford, Associate professor, Queensland University of Technology
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/77150
2017-05-10T06:30:23Z
2017-05-10T06:30:23Z
From breaking glass to chest bursting, the scientists’ review of Alien: Covenant
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168665/original/file-20170509-7927-125zk8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What's going to happen next in Alien: Covenant?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twentieth Century Fox</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2316204/">Alien: Covenant</a> is the sequel to the 2012 film <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/">Prometheus</a>, and follows the crew of the ship Covenant as they set out to colonise an uncharted paradise.</p>
<p>Of course things are not as they seem and they’re soon fighting for their lives in the most terrifying of situations.</p>
<p>The film introduces an almost all new cast with a few well-known faces, such as the wonderfully creepy Michael Fassbender. While touching on a new topic with a different tone, the film has the familiar <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/">Alien</a> flair and DNA attached to it. </p>
<p>It’s horrifying, visceral and a worthy new entry in the canon that began way back in 1979 with director Ridley Scott’s nightmare vision featuring the heroine Ripley, played by Sigourney Weaver. Covenant also features a strong female lead, Daniels, portrayed by Katherine Waterston. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/svnAD0TApb8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Alien: Covenant.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As proper science fiction films, the Alien movies have always been filled with scientific and mathematical concepts. Here we’ll dive into some of the ones encountered in Alien: Covenant, which echo themes present in the earlier films as well.</p>
<p>As per usual, a high-level “just for fun” analysis must make major assumptions and simplifications to do the maths, so you’ve been warned!</p>
<h2>Is that glass going to hold?</h2>
<p>Film characters often seem to find themselves in situations where there’s only a flimsy pane of glass between them and some horrifying monstrosity (remember <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Co3A3fLBo">Jurassic Park</a>?). </p>
<p>Covenant does not disappoint. In fact, glass seems to play a major part in almost every scene (from the sleeper pods to the lander).</p>
<p>In one memorable scene, when the crew is being evacuated from the planet, an alien tries to crack through the glass of the spacecraft as it takes off.</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://i.imgur.com/SresKHT.gif"></p>
<h4>(Twentieth Century Fox)</h4>
<p>We can do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on how tough that glass would have to be to stop the alien coming through it. We’re going to work off glass pressure ratings – the amount of pressure they’re rated to withstand.</p>
<p>Let’s say the alien’s head (the main battering ram in this clip) weighs 100kg. We can guesstimate how fast it’s moving. The clip plays at 25 frames per second, and the head appears to move about 0.5 metres in that one-frame interval.</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://i.imgur.com/cidszRF.gif"></p>
<h4>(Twentieth Century Fox)</h4>
<blockquote>
<p>Speed = distance / time</p>
<p>= 0.5m / (1s / 25)</p>
<p>= 0.5m / 0.04s</p>
<p>= 12.5m/s</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That gives us the impact speed. We can turn that into a momentum value by multiplying it by mass.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Momentum = mass × speed</p>
<p>= 100kg × 12.5m/s</p>
<p>= 1,250kgm/s</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We also need the time it takes for the head to stop. We can guesstimate that at 0.001 seconds, <a href="http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/impulse.htm">similar to a baseball bat hitting a ball</a>. Now we have everything we need to work out the impact force, and consequently the pressure the alien exerts on the glass.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Impact force = change in momentum / time interval</p>
<p>= 1,250kgm/s / 0.001s</p>
<p>= 1,250,000kgm/s<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>To convert a force into a pressure, we need the area the force is applied over. It looks like it’s only the tip of the alien’s head, maybe a 10cm × 10cm area, or 0.01 m<sup>2</sup>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Pressure = force / area</p>
<p>= 1,250,000kgm/s<sup>2</sup> / 0.01m<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>= 125,000,000kg/ms<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>= 125,000,000 Pascals (P)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since 1 pound-force per square inch (PSI) is the same as 6,894.76 Pascals, so:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Pressure = 18,130 PSI</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Tough tempered glass is known to break at <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-is-tempered-glass-mad/">somewhere in the 10,000 to 24,000 PSI range</a>, so it looks like it could be touch and go for the crew if there’s a big angry alien banging away at the glass trying to get through.</p>
<p>And as depicted in the film, not all glass is created equally to withstand an attack, especially inside the spacecraft.</p>
<h2>My crewmates are driving me crazy</h2>
<p>If you’re going to be spending years with your crew mates, not only on the ship but in the new colony you’re founding, you want to get on with them.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168029/original/file-20170505-20192-1m79eta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168029/original/file-20170505-20192-1m79eta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168029/original/file-20170505-20192-1m79eta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168029/original/file-20170505-20192-1m79eta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168029/original/file-20170505-20192-1m79eta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168029/original/file-20170505-20192-1m79eta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168029/original/file-20170505-20192-1m79eta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168029/original/file-20170505-20192-1m79eta.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Please come play with me Walter (Michael Fassbender).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twentieth Century Fox</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In Alien: Covenant, there are more pressing survival issues than social dynamics, but for real-life scenarios like space travel to Mars, this is a major challenge.</p>
<p>We can examine the probability of personality conflict for different size groups. </p>
<p>Let’s say there’s a 5% chance of anyone having a major personality conflict with any other person.</p>
<p>If there are just two of you, then the likelihood of neither of you hating each other is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Harmony likelihood = chance you like them × chance they like you</p>
<p>= (1 - chance you hate them) × ((1 - chance you hate them)</p>
<p>= (1 - 0.05) × (1 - 0.05)</p>
<p>= 0.9025 or 90.25%</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168018/original/file-20170505-15005-528h4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168018/original/file-20170505-15005-528h4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168018/original/file-20170505-15005-528h4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168018/original/file-20170505-15005-528h4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168018/original/file-20170505-15005-528h4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168018/original/file-20170505-15005-528h4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168018/original/file-20170505-15005-528h4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168018/original/file-20170505-15005-528h4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What a happy extended family.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twentieth Century Fox</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That’s not bad odds. But what if there are 20 of you? Then:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Harmony likelihood = chance you like the other 19 people × chance the 2nd person likes the other 19 people × … chance the 20th person likes the other 19 people</p>
<p>= (chance someone likes the other 19 people)<sup>20</sup></p>
<p>= (0.95<sup>19</sup>)<sup>20</sup></p>
<p>= 0.3774<sup>20</sup></p>
<p>= 3.4 × 10<sup>-9</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>That’s a 0.00000034% chance!</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://i.imgur.com/CjGxq7G.gif"></p>
<h4>Disharmony in numbers (Michael Milford)</h4>
<p>So grab any random group of 20 people with those individual characteristics, and there’s only a tiny chance there won’t be some significant conflict potential there.</p>
<p>That’s why there’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2013/sep/09/neuroscience-psychology">so much psychological profiling for missions to Mars</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168115/original/file-20170505-21021-1v7nzxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168115/original/file-20170505-21021-1v7nzxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168115/original/file-20170505-21021-1v7nzxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168115/original/file-20170505-21021-1v7nzxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168115/original/file-20170505-21021-1v7nzxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168115/original/file-20170505-21021-1v7nzxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168115/original/file-20170505-21021-1v7nzxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168115/original/file-20170505-21021-1v7nzxf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Things can get out of hand pretty quickly.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twentieth Century Fox</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>That’s not indigestion</h2>
<p>One of the most iconic film scenes of all time has to be the <a href="http://ew.com/movies/2017/01/28/remembering-john-hurt-alien/">young alien’s chestburster explosion</a> out of poor John Hurt’s character Kane in 1979’s Alien.</p>
<p>In Covenant a few more alien lifeforms are bursting out of humans, and the chest does not seem to be their only option. </p>
<p>Our rib cage is incredibly strong: is this why they chose other regions of the body to exit? Is the chest even remotely feasible? </p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://i.imgur.com/mZktYi1.gif"></p>
<h4>(Twentieth Century Fox)</h4>
<p>We can examine two possibilites: a brute force, bash your way out technique, or a more elegant cut your way out. We’ll draw on science from cardiac surgery, chimpanzees and boxing.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168256/original/file-20170507-7701-1hbkq0l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168256/original/file-20170507-7701-1hbkq0l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168256/original/file-20170507-7701-1hbkq0l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=139&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168256/original/file-20170507-7701-1hbkq0l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=139&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168256/original/file-20170507-7701-1hbkq0l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=139&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168256/original/file-20170507-7701-1hbkq0l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=174&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168256/original/file-20170507-7701-1hbkq0l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=174&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/168256/original/file-20170507-7701-1hbkq0l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=174&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Packing a punch.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.123rf.com/">123rf.com/Yuriy Klochan/Marcel Schauer/Ostill</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h3>Power saw approach</h3>
<p>If the alien is able to use its sharp teeth, it might be able to partially cut its way through the rib cage before bursting out. </p>
<p>The process usually takes a few seconds. Some of this could be the alien pre-cutting, which might explain the blood splattering.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.aesculapusa.com/products/power-systems/cardiac-thoracic">typical sternum saw</a> might have a peak power output of 250 watts. A human cyclist operating at peak power <a href="http://sportsscientists.com/2014/07/profile-sprint-take-win-sprint-stage/">might reach more than 1,400 watts</a> for a very short period of time.</p>
<p>But the alien is a much meaner animal than we are. Chimpanzees are about <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/02/how_strong_is_a_chimpanzee.html">twice as strong as a human per weight</a>, and we can say that the alien might be twice as strong again. Let’s assume the young alien weighs 5kg.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Chestburster peak power output = human power output × alien enhancement factor × chestburster weight / human weight</p>
<p>= 1,400W × 4 × 5kg / 80kg</p>
<p>= 350W</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So if the chestburster could apply its incredible power as efficiently to cutting its way out as a cardiac surgeon does with a saw, this approach is feasible.</p>
<h3>Bash your way out</h3>
<p>This requires the brute force of shoving a large bluntish object through the rib cage.</p>
<p>We can compare to the <a href="http://www.livescience.com/6040-brute-force-humans-punch.html">punching force of a boxer</a>. A quick blow with an impact force of 3,300 Newtons has a 25% chance of cracking an average person’s rib. <a href="https://www.connectsavannah.com/savannah/the-true-force-of-a-boxers-punch/Content?oid=2133328">A study of Olympic boxers</a> found a peak force of about 4,700 Newtons.</p>
<p>Can the chestburster apply this much force? Let’s say the chestburster is 4 times more impactful than a human by body weight; it might then have the ability to exert a peak impact force of 4,700 × 4 × 5kg / 80kg = 1,175 Newtons.</p>
<p>This force is unlikely to break open the rib cage in one go, so repeated attempts may be necessary. This might explain why the alien finds other ways to make an appearance from its host.</p>
<h2>The verdict</h2>
<p>Alien: Covenant hits a different note from the other films in the Alien franchise. It explores more philosophical topics, along the lines of Prometheus, such as where we came from, what makes us human and what does not.</p>
<p>Propped up by stunning visuals and music it packs a lot of action scenes (some more realistic than others) but at its core is still a scary film that drops us in an incredible but terrifying future.</p>
<p>On the science side, Covenant presents fascinating new twists on the science fiction concepts presented in the series so far. Allowing for a generous dose of Hollywood entertainment, we think the movie does a good job, exposing us to new scientific concepts in a horrifying way.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77150/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Juxi Leitner is a Research Fellow in the Australian Research Council funded Centre of Excellence in Robotic Vision. Juxi is founder of the Brisbane.AI and robotics interest groups, two not-for-profit organisations aiming to raise awareness about robotics and AI research in the general public and creating opportunities for communities to interact with local researchers.</span></em></p>
The latest outing of the Alien film franchise pits another human crew against a terrifying enemy. But how does the science stack up?
Michael Milford, Associate professor, Queensland University of Technology
Juxi Leitner, Research Fellow, Robotics & AI, Queensland University of Technology
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.
tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/76511
2017-04-24T07:05:11Z
2017-04-24T07:05:11Z
Guardians of the Galaxy, Volume 2: a scientist’s review
<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166397/original/file-20170424-12658-agv2pv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">They're back: Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Nebula (Karen Gillan), Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), Drax (Dave Bautista) and Rocket voice by Bradley Cooper).</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Walt Disney/Marvel Studios</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Star-Lord Peter Quill and the gang are back as <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3896198/">Guardians of the Galaxy, Volume 2</a> opens in cinemas from today in another outing of the galactic blockbuster.</p>
<p>It’s one of the most fun films I’ve seen in years, combining hilarity with characters you care about, and spectacular visuals that trump the first instalment, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2015381/">Guardians of the Galaxy</a> in 2014.</p>
<p>With the awesome music of “<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/inside-the-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-soundtrack-w477515">Awesome Mixtape #2</a>”, the team unravel the mystery parentage of Quill (played by Chris Pratt) and meet several new characters (watch the credits carefully). Old foes become new allies and there are treats in store for fans of the comics.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YZWJXO1MSXo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Guardians of the Galaxy, Volume 2.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But what about the actual science in the film, how does that stack up?</p>
<p>I’m going to start by giving the film a very generous allowance for being a blockbuster made for entertainment, not an educational documentary. That being said, it’s always fun to get stuck into some of the maths- and science-filled scenarios in the film.</p>
<p>Be warned though, there are some mild spoilers ahead.</p>
<h2>Maths fail as humour</h2>
<p>It was fantastic to see the film uses explicit maths fails as an integral part of the humour. </p>
<p>Not surprisingly, some of the villain characters in the film aren’t particularly bright, and one memorable scene has them screwing up (in several different ways) elementary maths - basic fractions and percentages - when arguing about a juicy cash bounty.</p>
<p>Maths fails have been used as humour in other films and television shows; William Shatner’s tongue in cheek maths <a href="https://youtu.be/zBuykQHFQ1Q?t=47s">in Star Trek</a> being one good example:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166350/original/file-20170423-22929-r8vxch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166350/original/file-20170423-22929-r8vxch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166350/original/file-20170423-22929-r8vxch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166350/original/file-20170423-22929-r8vxch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166350/original/file-20170423-22929-r8vxch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166350/original/file-20170423-22929-r8vxch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166350/original/file-20170423-22929-r8vxch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166350/original/file-20170423-22929-r8vxch.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some baddies are a little thick… especially when it comes to understanding bounties.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Walt Disney/Marvel Studios</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These were pretty simple maths fails though and there was a lot of other maths and science in the rest of the film.</p>
<h2>Escaping a quantum asteroid field</h2>
<p>In one of the many starship chase scenes in the film, the ships have to navigate through what is called a quantum asteroid field.</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="https://i.imgur.com/FIAdwrH.gif"></p>
<h4>Asteroids come and go. <a href="https://www.123rf.com/">123rf.com</a>/Tom De Spiegelaere/Michael Milford</h4>
<p>Asteroids randomly appear and disappear as the ships navigate through the field, making it a very dangerous way to escape (a nice twist on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvJDItC6tE0">traditional asteroid fields</a> where you can see all the asteroids).</p>
<p>So what are the chances of a ship making it through the quantum asteroid field?</p>
<p>The field looks to be mostly empty space. So let’s say that each second the ship spends in the field, there’s a 1 in 100 chance that an asteroid will suddenly materialise on top of the ship, destroying it.</p>
<p>If a ship spends 3 minutes navigating the length of the field, we can calculate the chances of any one ship making it through:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>= (survival chance per second)<sup>number of seconds</sup></p>
<p>= (1 - destruction chance per second)<sup>number of seconds</sup></p>
<p>= (1 - 0.01)<sup>3 × 60</sup></p>
<p>= (0.99)<sup>180</sup></p>
<p>= 16.38%</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That’s pretty high actually, a 1 in 6 chance. From watching the film, it looks like not many make it through (apart from the heroes of course).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166353/original/file-20170423-12658-ktg8rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166353/original/file-20170423-12658-ktg8rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166353/original/file-20170423-12658-ktg8rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166353/original/file-20170423-12658-ktg8rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166353/original/file-20170423-12658-ktg8rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166353/original/file-20170423-12658-ktg8rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166353/original/file-20170423-12658-ktg8rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166353/original/file-20170423-12658-ktg8rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There’s a lot of hair-raising chases in restricted spaces.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Walt Disney/Marvel Studios</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If we know how many of the ships actually make it through, we can work out the survival rate per second. Let’s say 1 (just the heroes’ ship) out of 100 ships make it through, then the chance of surviving the field per second becomes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>= (Chance of surviving field)<sup>1/number of seconds</sup></p>
<p>= (Chance of surviving field)<sup>1/180</sup></p>
<p>= (0.01)<sup>1/180</sup></p>
<p>= 0.9747</p>
<p>= 97.47%</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Which would suggest a higher danger from the asteroids - a 2.53% chance of being destroyed by a quantum asteroid in any second.</p>
<h2>Elevation grenades</h2>
<p>Rocket Raccoon (again voiced somewhat unrecognisably by Bradley Cooper) gets to kick some butt in this film too.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166351/original/file-20170423-22929-1962be0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166351/original/file-20170423-22929-1962be0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166351/original/file-20170423-22929-1962be0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166351/original/file-20170423-22929-1962be0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166351/original/file-20170423-22929-1962be0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166351/original/file-20170423-22929-1962be0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166351/original/file-20170423-22929-1962be0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166351/original/file-20170423-22929-1962be0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rocket Raccoon packs some seriously innovative gravity-defying weaponry.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Walt Disney/Marvel Studios</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet another unique weapon is some sort of electrical effect mine, which chucks aliens high up into the air only for them to fall back to earth again (<a href="https://youtu.be/YZWJXO1MSXo?t=1m07s">see the trailer</a>):</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="https://i.imgur.com/DS9yiT6.gif"></p>
<h4>Elevating the aliens. <a href="https://www.123rf.com/">123rf.com</a>/Beata Kraus, Chastity/Michael Milford</h4>
<p>To chuck aliens so they reach the top of the pine trees (say 30m), we can work out the velocity of the blast:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>2 × gravity × height-change = v-final<sup>2</sup> - v-initial<sup>2</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>At the top, the alien’s velocity (v-final) is zero, so:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>2 × -9.81 × 30 = 0<sup>2</sup> - v-initial<sup>2</sup></p>
<p>v-initial<sup>2</sup> = 2 × 9.81 × 30</p>
<p>v-initial = square root (2 × 9.81 × 30)</p>
<p>v-initial = 24.26 m/s</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So to knock the aliens up to the treetops, the mine would have to propel them upwards at an initial speed of about 24m/s. </p>
<p>This is actually a very low blast velocity (possibly to reduce harm), <a href="http://www.military.com/video/ammunition-and-explosives/explosives/shockwave-captured-on-high-speed/763995636001">compared to typical conventional explosives</a> that can travel faster than the speed of sound (although objects hit by the blast don’t necessarily travel as fast).</p>
<h2>Visiting every planet</h2>
<p>One of the characters, the awesomely named Ego (Kurt Russell), has spent many years visiting many, if not all of the planets in the galaxy.</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="https://i.imgur.com/BNUNjxj.gif"></p>
<h4>Visiting every planet. <a href="https://www.123rf.com/">123rf.com</a>/Viktar Malyshchyts, Vadim Sadovski/Michael Milford</h4>
<p>This, one can imagine, is not a trivial feat.</p>
<p>According to a <a href="http://www.space.com/19103-milky-way-100-billion-planets.html">recent study</a>, there might be approximately 100 billion planets in our Milky Way galaxy.</p>
<p>To work out how long it normally takes to visit all these planets, you’d have to solve the <a href="https://plus.maths.org/content/travelling-salesman">infamous travelling salesman problem</a>. This problem is about calculating the fastest way to visit a number of locations.</p>
<p>Luckily for us, this particular character regularly has to return to home base. We can simplify the calculation a little by assuming they only visit one planet per trip away from their base.</p>
<p>We also need to know how big the Milky Way is. Best estimates are that it’s between <a href="http://www.space.com/29270-milky-way-size-larger-than-thought.html">100,000 and 180,000 light years</a> in diameter. We can simplify this by saying it’s a circle of uniform diameter 140,000 light years.</p>
<p>We can also simplify matters by assuming that the home base is optimally positioned at the centre of the galaxy.</p>
<p>Our traveller is going to need to make 100 billion trips out to a planet and back.</p>
<p>Stars (and associated planets) are generally more densely distributed near the centre of the galaxy, and more sparse further out. A rough approximation we can use is that the average distance from home base to a planet is one quarter of the galaxy diameter - 35,000 light years. That’s a return trip of 70,000 light years, so the total trip distance is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>= average trip distance × number of trips</p>
<p>= 70,000 light years × 100,000,000,000</p>
<p>= 7,000,000,000,000,000 light years</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That’s 7 quadrillion (7×10<sup>15</sup>) light years. The universe is estimated to be only about 14 billion years old, which is nowhere near enough time to visit all those planets one by one.</p>
<p>With some more calculations, it turns out even visiting all the planets in one go takes longer than the age of the universe.</p>
<p>So, even with speed of light transportation, this is stretching what might be possible for Ego.</p>
<h2>Yondu kicks butt</h2>
<p>Yondu Udonta (Michael Rooker) is the morally ambiguous rogue and leader of a group of outlaw mercenaries called the Ravagers. He kidnapped Peter as a boy in the original Guardians film, and raised him into adulthood, resulting in a complex relationship to say the least.</p>
<p>Yondu is armed with one of the most unique of weapons in recent film history, a lethal arrow that he can control by whistling. He uses it to great effect in the first film, but steps up his game even further in Volume 2.</p>
<p><img width="100%" src="https://i.imgur.com/GhdmVrm.gif"></p>
<h4>Shooting the enemy, one arrow at a time. <a href="https://www.123rf.com/">123rf.com</a>/mik38, Chastity/Michael Milford</h4>
<p>In one scene, he clears out an entire ship of bad guys. It’s not clear how fast Yondu’s arrow can go, but let’s say it can go faster than a car but slower than a plane, say maybe 275kmh, <a href="http://www.mythbusterstheexhibition.com/science-content/dodge-a-bullet/">like a conventional arrow</a>.</p>
<p>A large spacecraft might have a couple of kilometres of corridors and various rooms spread out within it, so the time to clear out the baddies is: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>= total distance / speed</p>
<p>= 2km / 275kmh</p>
<p>= 0.0073 hours</p>
<p>= 26.3 seconds</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Most fight scenes involving Yondu don’t last more than a few seconds, so that sounds about right.</p>
<h2>The verdict</h2>
<p>Guardians of the Galaxy, Volume 2 is a lot of fun. Hats off to the scriptwriters and director for the explicit maths fail jokes, and for all the other science- and math-filled content. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166354/original/file-20170423-12640-fifu8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166354/original/file-20170423-12640-fifu8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166354/original/file-20170423-12640-fifu8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166354/original/file-20170423-12640-fifu8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166354/original/file-20170423-12640-fifu8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166354/original/file-20170423-12640-fifu8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166354/original/file-20170423-12640-fifu8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166354/original/file-20170423-12640-fifu8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Good job guys and… aliens?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Walt Disney/Marvel Studios</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some of the fantastical situations in the film could happen mathematically, but at least one of them would be tough.</p>
<p>Still, films are made to be entertaining, and Guardians of the Galaxy, Volume 2 delivers in an epic way.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76511/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP.</span></em></p>
The Guardians of the Galaxy team are rocking the universe again in the latest volume of the science fiction blockbuster. But how does the science stand up to some number crunching?
Michael Milford, Associate professor, Queensland University of Technology
Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.