Yesterday evening we held our third annual Comic-Con panel on the science of science fiction. And in our unbiased opinion, it rocked. (Attendees said the same, but then they probably wouldn’t have told us it was lame, would they?)

One theme that emerged from the panel was that skillful use of science could make stories better. But being Discover, we needed some evidence. And how better to present this evidence than as a scientific publication:

The Enhancement of Dramatic and Aesthetic Qualities of Fictional Works Through Application of Authentic or Apocryphal Scientific Theories

Abstract: Anthropological evidence suggests humans have engaged in storytelling since at least the birth of complex culture. Over the past century, these stories increasingly take the form of science fiction, in which advances in science and/or technology figure prominently in the story. Here we present evidence supporting Carroll’s Hypothesis: that clear, consistent use of rules corresponding to real-world or even imagined scientific theories increases the artistic value of fictional works.

Methods: A panel of science-fiction experts was assembled at the San Diego International Comic-Con. Experts showed clips from films where successful use of scientific rules enhanced value and where unsuccessful use decreased value. The moderator was Phil Plait (Bad Astronomy blog), and the panel comprised Sean Carroll (Cosmic Variance, CalTech), Kevin Grazier (Science Not Fiction, JPL), Jamie Paglia (Eureka), and Zack Stentz (Fringe).

Results: Plait showed a clip from Armageddon in which rain falls on Bruce Willis as he stands on an asteroid. (We leave it to the reader to surmise the feasibility of this type of event.) Grazier showed a clip from the same film illustrating the effects of a massive asteroid impacting Earth, and pointed out inaccuracies in the depiction. He also showed a similar but much more scientifically accurate clip from Deep Impact. Plait argued that Armageddon is “the worst film ever made”; Grazier agreed.

Paglia showed a clip from Eureka in which tiny robotic “nanoids” self-assemble into human forms. The protagonists of the show use a speaker to broadcast powerful infrasound waves at the nanoids’ communication frequency, shaking the human-shaped nanoid collectives into dust. Paglia asserted that assuming the existence of the as-yet unrealistic nanoids, the internally consistent logic of their destruction led to a strong climax of a strong episode.

Stentz showed a scene from the film The Arrival, in which a radio astronomer who is fired from his job becomes a professional antenna installer and cleverly coordinates the antennae to operate with the power of a much larger one, much as the Very Large Array does. Stentz said the implausible aspect of the scene was actually not a scientific point: Charlie Sheen’s casting as a brilliant radio astronomer.

Discussion: An entirely subjective regression of the anecdotal data presented shows a strong causative connection between adherence to scientific rules (even imaginary ones) and artistic success of fictional works. Stentz pointed out one potential explanation for the connection: “Drama comes from a struggle–from characters not being able to do something they’re trying to do.” The rules of science can provide those obstacles–and also methods to circumvent them. Crucially, the science invoked should be internally consistent within the work. If writers use scientific-based miracles to advance plots, “that’s not science fiction, that’s science magic. That’s the line we try not to cross,” said Paglia.

To test the basics of quantum theory, physicists recently pulled out an antique. In a paper published today in Science, they confirmed a staple of quantum mechanics, using a test derived from a classic nineteenth century light experiment.

In particular, the researchers questioned how particles move through three slits, something previously too difficult to measure. They found that the particles behaved just like quantum theory–or more specifically the Born Rule–would have predicted.

As physicist Chad Orzel describes in his blog, that’s bad news for theorists hoping to tweak this rule to solve Nobel Prize-worthy problems related to quantum gravity or Grand Unifying Theories.

[The study is good news if] you’re the ghost of Max Born, or the author of an introductory quantum book…. This was disappointing news for some theorists, though, as there are a number of ways to approach problems … that would require some modification of the Born rule. [Uncertain Principles]

But how did they do it?

Step 1: Watching Light Waves

Throw a pebble in a pond and it creates waves. Throw two pebbles in a pond and they will create waves that interact. Where the peaks of two waves meet, they will create an even bigger wave. Where the peak of a wave meets the trough of another, they will cancel each other out–as if there is no wave at all.

Thomas Young’s 1800s double-slit experiment involves shining one color of light through two open slits to hit a screen. If light is a particle, Young imagined, then you get two streaks, like spray-paint through a stencil. That’s not what he saw. Invisible ripples created visible effects. On the screen, bright lines appeared where the waves built on one another. Other places the light waves canceled each other out leaving only darkness.

Step 2: Watching Particles Wave, Too

In the 20th century, quantum physicists did a similar experiment with particles, including electrons, firing them through two open slits. Classical physics would predict that the particles would land in two streaks on the other side. Instead, they saw a sight just like Young’s interference pattern. The particles were somehow interfering with each other, and more amazingly, even a particle fired alone created the pattern. It was interfering with itself.

This surprising effect provided one of the first clues to the weird world of quantum mechanics. Now precise measurements have been made on a version with three slits–and they again confirm the predictions of quantum mechanics. [New Scientist]

Why would you even bother trying three slits? That gets into the specifics of quantum mechanics and the Born Rule.

Step 3: Watching Probability Waves

So what type of waves are crashing into one another when a particle passes through a slit? Probability waves.

The value of a probability wave in various experiments is in part calculated by the Born Rule. In a double slit experiment–the probability waves values show that the electron is more likely to appear in one of the “bright” spots of the interference pattern and less likely to appear in one of the dark spots.

The Born Rule says that that we need to look at the interactions of probability waves only from two slits at a time–as opposed to looking at how ripples from all three slits interact at once. If the probability could include an extra value from interactions including all three slits at once, then interference pattern would change.

There was no experimental verification of this proposition until now…. “The existence of third-order interference terms would have tremendous theoretical repercussions–it would shake quantum mechanics to the core,” says [coauthor Gregor] Weihs. [ScienceDaily]

Step 4: Adding and Subtracting Slits

Urbasi Sinha of the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada and his team made a comparison. First they looked at the probability values formed by all three slits. Then, by covering up each of the slits in turn, they looked at the pattern formed from two slits at at time.

Adding up the values from each of the two slits, they got the overall pattern formed by three–meaning the Born Rule was right for as close as they could measure.

[T]he three-path interference term came to more or less zero. Co-author Ray Laflamme of the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, “always hoped for three-path interference”, says Weihs. “But then he’s more of a theoretician. If there was three-path interference, there would be a Nobel prize waiting.” [Nature News]

Related content:
80beats: Quantum Cryptography Improves by Factor of 100; Ready for Primetime?
80beats: Quantum Leaf? Algae Use Physics Trick to Boost Photosynthesis Efficiency
80beats: Physicists Achieve Quantum Teleportation Across a Distance of 10 Miles
80beats: Confirmed: Scientists Understand Where Mass Comes From

Image: Wikimedia / Copyright © Armedblowfish, all rights reserved.

Dr. Daniel MacAthur & Dan Vorhaus offer their takes on the recent hearings in Congress on the direct-to-consumer genomics industry, A sad day for personal genomics & “From Gulf Oil to Snake Oil”: Congress Takes Aim at DTC Genetic Testing. I guess I lean toward light regulation. I don’t think that DTC personal genomics will result in systemic decrease in human happiness, and tight regulation will increase the costs of innovation and constrain access and reduce affordability. Though I guess that for some that’s a feature, not a bug.

My main point, which I think I got across on the Genomes Unzipped comments is that fraud, error and misrepresentation are rife across many health-related sectors in American society. The nutrition and diet industry are prime examples. Bad journalism on the health beat causes way more suffering than DTC genomics kits ever will, as people who are not intelligent make precipitous decisions based on the latest result which managed to slip through the p-value gauntlet and are sexy enough to be written up in USA Today. And, there are widespread distortions within our health care sector which really need to be addressed (I’m thinking in particular of frank talk about end of life palliative care). With that as the basis for judgement I don’t think that the fraud and misrepresentation one can find in DTC personal genomics is exceptionally worrisome or notable to warrant such attention or focus. This is an inefficient allocation of concern and regulatory resources, driven more by the industry’s puffed up claims and the apocalyptic projections of the skeptics.

I like the Milky Way. I dare say it’s my favorite galaxy, being home and all. But a blue star called HE 0437-5439 is in one big hurry to leave.

The star is zooming away from the Milky Way’s center at 16 million miles per hour, three times faster than our own sun glides across the galaxy. Astronomers had spotted the hasty traveler before—it’s one of 16 known “hypervelocity” stars. Now, with the help of the Hubble Space Telescope, Warren Brown of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics traced the path of the star back to the event that allowed it to reach such great speed: a meeting with a black hole.

A hundred million years ago this star was one of three traveling together at a more sedate pace.

But the threesome passed dangerously close to the center of our galaxy where the supermassive black hole lurks. The space scientists say it swallowed up one of the stars and booted the other two out of the Milky Way. As they flew, the two stars merged to form one super-hot blue star [Christian Science Monitor].

After the stellar smashup, the black hole flung this remaining star away. That helps explain its path and its haste, Brown says.

“The star is traveling at an absurd velocity, twice as much as it needs to escape the galaxy’s gravitational field. There is no star that travels that quickly under normal circumstances — something exotic has to happen” [Wired.com].

The conflagration also explains the star’s blue appearance, which has scientists scratching their heads—it looked like it was only 20 million years old, but its long trajectory meant it had to be much older. Brown says that when the star absorbed its partner, that refreshed its appearance and made it look young again.

The study appears in The Astrophysical Journal.

Related Content:
DISCOVER: Amazing Images of the Heart of the Milky Way
80beats: Massive Blue Supergiant Challenges Theory of How Big a Star Can Be
80beats: Astronomer: Earth-Like Planets Are Common, But Stars Have Eaten Many
80beats: How a Massive Star Is Born (with gallery)

Image: NASA

Guess what?  It’s time for another bonus riddle.  Get ready, get set… Monday, August 9th will be the day.  For a prize this time, we’re offering a copy of Confessions of an Alien Hunter, by Dr. Seth Shostak, and a mug from the SETI Institute.

Dr. Shostak's book - a very enjoyable read

Dr. Shostak is the lead astronomer for the SETI Institute.  He’s an author, lecturer, educator, astronomer, and all-around cool guy.  His book, Confessions of an Alien Hunter is a look at SETI from the inside.  He also talks about the ideology behind SETI, and with whom (or what) we can anticipate contact… in the next twenty years.  The book is an enjoyable read on all levels, and a great addition to your library.

While you’re curled up reading, you’ll be able to enjoy your favorite beverage in a SETI mug — direct to you from the SETI Institute.  You cannot buy this mug in stores.

One side of the SETI mug

I know you know this, but let’s go over the rules again:

• Tom and I will post the bonus riddle at noon CDT, August 9th.  That’s Monday. You’ll have a few more chances to solve a riddle to become eligible to participate.
• Guesses will be by email to Tom or Marian.
• You will have 24 hours to submit your guesses; from noon CDT Monday August 9th, until noon CDT Tuesday August 10th.
• You get three guesses.
• Comments will be closed on the bonus riddle until after the submission deadline.
• The winner will be the first person to submit the correct answer.  If nobody solves the riddle by noon CDT August 10, it will be opened for everybody to give it a shot.
• Tom will have the final say in any controversy.

Remember, you will not get any feedback from us, except that we received your guess.  We will compare your emailed guesses against previous comments to make sure we have the right person.  Again, it’s not that we don’t trust you; we want to be able to prove the prize went to someone to whom we’re not related.  Besides — Tom and I both really, really want that SETI mug.

The riddle winners so far for this cycle (bonus riddle to bonus riddle) are:  Carl Legge, Rob, George, Sean, Nick, Roger, Steve, Emily, Kristian, Frank, Jerry, Ubiraci, Dwight, and Amresh.  You still have the riddles July 24th, July 31st, and August 7th to get your name on the list.