Physics Today

Points of View, the Physics Today section for unusual jobs in science, is currently featuring my piece on working as a science consultant for Stargate: Putting the science in science fiction

Posted in Stargate, Television | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Supervolcano

I haven’t watched Supervolcano, but Erik Klemetti wrote up some science-centric thoughts on the docudrama.

Posted in Disasters, Movies | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Alien Lifeforms

The How-To guide to Alien Life over on io9 is lovely.

Posted in Fiction | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Tsunami of “Deep Impact”

At the AGU 2010 Fall meeting, the Science & Entertainment Exchange hosted a panel on Hollywood science. On it, screenwriter for Deep Impact, Bruce Joel Rubin, revealed that he got a bit carried away doing science research while writing. For anyone who missed the movie when it came out, a major impact hits the Earth, sending out waves of devastation including a tsunami.

Tsunami generated by meteorite impact.

Tsunami generated by meteorite impact.

Tsunami are formed by any major displacement of water. Meteorite impacts into oceans displace huge quantities of water, sending out a tsunami. Historically, this may have happened with the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event.

 

In open ocean, where water is a few kilometers deep, tsunami are visually undetectable, with a small wave height (10 cm to 1 m) spread over an enormous wavelength (200 to 400 km). Instead, they are detected via pressure changes on the ocean floor. As a tsunami enters shallower water, the wave shoals, reducing in wavelength and increasing in height.

Deep Impact: tsunami strikes New York

A tsunami devastates New York in "Deep Impact."

Shallower water begins at the continental shelf, which may be hundreds of kilometers off shore, so tsunami may be visible (and cause damage) offshore. Shane Wanless points out this image is reinforced in the movie by a scene of an offshore oil platform destroyed by the incoming tsunami. Although floating oil platforms can be in incredibly deep water, fixed platforms are in relatively shallow water depths of up to a few hundred meters. For a bit of bonus good science, Deep Impact successfully depicted a tsunami near shore as a wall of water (akin to an incredibly rapidly rising tide) instead of the more typical Hollywood image of a plunging breaker perfect for surfing.

 

Posted in Disasters, Movies | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Tsunami of Hawaii Five-0 “Kai e’e”

I am in no way affiliated with Hawaii Five-0, but as a disaster specialist and instructor of a university course on tsunami, I can’t refrain from commenting on season 1, episode 15: “Kai e’e”, where the science of tsunami and the functioning of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center play a central role to the plot.

My attempts to discover if the writers did their own research or got some help from a science consultant are thus far unsuccessful so I don’t know who to credit, but I’m overall impressed. The basics are good, the level of accurate detail is downright impressive, and the scientific mis-steps are mostly acceptable within the context of entertainment. A few details stand out as downright strange, but the level of science is high enough that I’m considering using scenes to promote student discussion my natural catastrophes course.

Tsunami Science

A tsunami is generated by some form of displacement of the water column. This can be subduction earthquakes (moving the sea floor), landslides (under or into water), meteor impacts, or anything else that moves a lot of water rapidly. Like ripples from a stone tossed in a pond, the tsunami will spread from the source in multiple waves. A tsunami consists of multiple waves, both crest and trough.

Warnings and Prediction

Watchstanders at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center

Watchstanders at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center is the central coordination point for detecting and evaluating tsunami hazards for the Pacific Rim, with a secondary center is in Alaska. The center is manned 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by two scientists (watchstanders) who must make a decision on if an event has likely triggered a tsunami within seconds of the event.

The warning center has pre-generated tsunami propagation models for many trigger scenarios (commonly for subduction earthquakes along the ring) so that when an event is detected, it can be rapidly evaluated for probable risk. Not every eligible event actually triggers a tsunami: the existence of a tsunami is verified by data from the DART buoy system. This data is also used to update arrival times, adjusting models to a particular event.

It is relatively easy to predict tsunami speed, thus arrival times, and incredibly difficult to predict tsunami height. Although we only care about large tsunami, it is possible for a tsunami to come on shore only a few centimeters tall. Wave height can only be verified when a tsunami first comes on shore.

Tsunami at the Shore

Tsunami have wavelengths so large that they act as a shallow-water wave even in deep ocean, so it doesn’t break as it comes onshore. A single wave consists of both crest and trough: in shallow water, this looks like the ocean pulling back exposing sea floor (the trough) and a rapidly rising tide (the crest). The odds are 50/50 that the crest or trough will arrive first. A tsunami consists of multiple waves; the first wave may not be the largest.

Tsunami shoal, slowing down, decreasing in wavelength, and increasing in height as the water gets shallower. In open ocean, a tsunami has a wave height of only a few centimeters, and travels as fast as a jet. Near shore, the waves increase to tens of meters in height, slowing down to freeway-car speeds. The period stays constant, with anywhere from minutes to an hour between crests.

Damage from 1946 seiche in Hilo, Hawaii. Image credit: NOAA

Tsunami can be amplified in semi-enclosed water bodies forming a seiche: waves growing from constructive interference when the wavelength matches the resonance frequency. This means that tsunami damage is often worse in harbours and bays than it is along straight coastlines.

The order of preferred actions for surviving a tsunami are 1. to evacuate inland and uphill, 2. to seek out vertical refuge (getting to the top of a strong, tall structure, or when desperate, climbing a tree), and when all else is impossible, 3. to cling to something that floats.

Science in Fiction

The episode successfully communicated the existence, location, and purpose of the warning center, and did a good-enough-for-entertainment explanation of the tools used and the challenges of tsunami prediction. The only bit that made me sigh in mild exasperation was the plot-necessary one-and-only be-all/end-all key specialist required to interpret wonky data. In reality any pair of watchstanders is totally capable of dealing with inconsistent data (and even accepting only inexperienced graduate students were on-call, all the data could be analyzed remotely by far-away experts). Redundancy and resiliency in all things, including personnel, is a basic part of emergency planning; it’s ridiculous to think that the center would fall to pieces with one person missing.

The chaos in the response room bent plausibility for me. Emergency response experts drill for these moments, and everyone has clearly-defined jobs. Operations centers are places of stress with focused, intense concentration. A more credible portrayal would mirror that of mission control during shuttle launches in space-rocket movies, and I think it’d make for a more striking dramatic background.

I really liked that the tsunami trigger was attributed to a submarine landslide, as that would be something that cannot be directly detected by the existing sensor network (unlike earthquakes, where global seismographic data would need to be falsified).

Steve McGarrett, the locally-raised and tsunami-aware hero character, protests a lack of draw-down proceeding a tsunami as evidence of Something Wonky, which is 50/50 good science and dangerously bad science. Teaching that draw-down = “Run for your life!” can and has saved lives, but a mistaken belief that lack-of-draw-down = safe could conceivably cost lives. Still, considering how many lives have been lost to people curiously exploring suddenly-exposed sea floor and the potential a few viewers might now instead run for high ground, I’ll count it as overall positive.

That ships are safe from tsunami in open ocean (where the wave height is centimeters) was inconsistently conveyed; the navy moved its ships to open ocean yet even with hours of warning the harbour stayed fully occupied with pleasure craft. Considering Hilo’s historic problems with seiche (the 1946 tsunami is a textbook example of the phenomena) I don’t buy that boat owners would leave their property in such risk with so much warning time. This is one of those moments where reality is more compelling than fiction: the shock of an empty harbour would be dramatic on par with a silent space scene. …but it’d probably be budget-bustingly expensive, and filming at waterfront non-harbour locations would be less visually diverse as most episodes already feature a beach scene.

The episode did incredibly well with casual conversation, with the local (and thus presumably tsunami-aware) hero talking about the “first wave” with the implication that a tsunami consists of a series of waves. I was also impressed that the non-local hero Danny “Danno” Williams was both unaware of tsunami characteristics (relative speeds mentioned by his daughter and by the warning center personal) yet took the time to learn local hazards by recognizing that when you have insufficient time to evacuate inland, vertical refuge (flee up a strong, tall building) is a very good idea. I was a bit peeved that the emergency response routes during the frantic driving around town did not feature the appropriate signage, since that would be a nice lesson in “this sign means Authorized Personnel Only during disasters!”, but I would’ve been shocked with the attention to detail if it had.

Having a local refusing evacuation on the premise that they’d survived previous tsunami and thus would survive this one just fine is an excellent representation of one of the common issues with ordering evacuations. This problem is exacerbated when false positives become common, thus why tsunami warnings step up in intensity as the events are first verified and first come on shore.

The use of sandbags to protect against a tsunami just baffled me, although it was a plot-necessary device. Yes, a tsunami appears more like a rapidly-rising tide than it does a perfect surfing crest (because of its incredibly long wavelength, a tsunami is a shallow-water wave even in deep ocean), but a few sandbags really isn’t going to hold it back.

Overall, the episode is a very fun and accurate hook to trigger discussion tsunami science and mitigation.

Posted in Disasters, Fiction, Science | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Disclaimers for Fiction

As an episode or movie closes and the credits roll, one day I’d love to see one last warning at the end:

No scientific ideas were seriously harmed in the making of this story.

Posted in Fiction, Science | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Scifi in Nature

Nature, yes, that Nature of scientific paper publishing prestige, has opened public access to its archive of science fiction stories. I’m adding them to my collection of hard scifi short stories; anyone have any favourites or specific recommendations?

Posted in Books, Fiction | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ethics of Stargate: Universe “Air”

Dr. Rush, the lead scientist in Stargate: Universe, is a character who embodies a non-standard moral stance compared to the usual characters in Stargate. The following observations on ethics and morals are used considering the initial character only, how he was presented during the series premiere “Air” and not how he was developed over the remainder of the series.

Society by Consensus

With the notable exception of reality competition shows (Survivor), most North American television programs carry a moral imperative in favour of cooperation. “Good” characters value being aware and sensitive to the feelings of others, and attempt to synchronize their own views with those of other members of their group;

Among “good” characters, actions which deviate from the moral code established by group consensus are actions used to drive the plot. The central story of Stargate: SG-1 Shades of Grey revolves around Colonel O’Neill seemingly deviating from the synchronized moral stance of the rest of his group; the driving interest of 24‘s Jack Bauer as a character is his strongly independent moral code.

Usually, valuing consensus and cooperation is limited by excepting the need to incorporate the values or opinions of extreme outliers. Characters with beliefs far different than surroundings are usually established as ill, insane, or evil, and thus may be safely ignored when building consensus.

Dr. Rush is interesting in part because his moral code is independent of that of his peers. He acts on his own judgment of the best decision for a situation without spending time to establish consensus and letting it override his decisions. The consequence? A huge step forward for the plot as he strands the cast on a space ship far from home.

Consequentialist and Deontological Morality

Consequentialism versus deontological morality are often illustrated via a pair of hypothetical scenarios:

  1. A train is rushing down the track towards five people. With the flip of a lever, you can redirect the train down a track towards one person, saving the five others. Do you flip the lever?
  2. A train is rushing down the track towards five people. If you push one person off a bridge you can stop the train, saving the five others. Do you push the person?

The consequences are the same in both cases (kill one person to save five). In the first scenario, the life is lost indirectly, while in the second scenario you are directly physically responsible. In consequentialist morality, both cases are an equivalent exchanges of lives. In deontological morality, some things are unthinkably evil, so the difference between indirectly causing a death (scenario 1) and directly causing a death (scenario 2) are distinctly different moral choices.

When the air on Destiny was running out, Dr. Rush concluded that many could be saved at the expense of one life. He realized that the choice of who died could potentially have large consequences for the continued survival of everyone else. He demonstrated consequentialist morality by considering on which other character was most expendable and voicing the opinion that the sacrificed character should be deliberately selected. The surrounding characters (Eli, Chloe, Scott…) found this unthinkably evil, subscribing to deontological morality in their opinion that they would rather all die than face the decision of picking someone to sacrifice for the survival of the rest of the group. Dr. Rush gained moral authority for his willingness to face hard choices even at the cost of the wrath of the group for breaking from the moral consensus (choosing consequentialist over deonotological principals), then immediately abandoned this authority by refusing to take responsibility for making the hard choices when he denied responsibility for ordering a man shot.

This post is the result of lively debate with M. Chudek.

Posted in Fiction, Stargate, Stargate: Universe, Television | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Stargate: From Fiction to Science

I’ve written before on the value of using good science in works of fiction; the Stargate franchise embraced this philosophy and I worked as their science consultant for several seasons.

I’ve been asked why Stargate cared about having detailed, plausible science in their shows. The level of detail is transparent to casual viewers; without freeze-frames and familiarity with the specific starting science of an episode it is unlikely anyone would ever notice if a particular equation made sense. Yet as long as the science doesn’t disrupt or distract from a story, the science entertains and challenges the viewers who are interested, and provides consistency and plausibility for the viewers who do care about the details. Like the novel mathematical proof written by Ken Keeler in Futurama The Prisoner of Benda, the equations of Stargate provide depth and support the story while providing suprises for curious fans to discover.

As the science consultant for Stargate, my job was to provide equations for our fictional geniuses to puzzle over, both in background set decorations and as props the actors interacted with (most commonly by completing the equations). I made sure the science was plausible and related to the plot, recognizable to those who know the subject area yet complex enough to be justifiably challenging. It would break plausibility for our genius-scientists to be stumped by a high school physics problem, or for them to be struggling with chemistry equations when trying to figure out the orbital dynamics of a strange solar system.

Science fiction requires creativity in applying scientific research and a willingness to go where no sane or practical researcher would tread; a science consultant takes responsibility of starting with the real science we know in our universe today, and maintaining plausible, consistent extensions of that science to support a fictional world. All the science presented in any Stargate episode I’ve worked on is a plausible extension of real-world, peer-reviewed research. For every episode, I have a (massive) list of articles I used as the starting point for the science, then modified, recombined, and extended their work into our fictional setting. I’ve often wondered if academic authors would include being referenced in a television episode when calculating their impact factor!

For every episode, I start with the real science, and modify the it to fit the scenario. In some cases this is feeding the energy of solar flares into wormhole generation equations (Stargate: Atlantis Last Man), in others I ran interrelated equations from the underpinnings of string theory and parallel universes, through thermodynamics, ending in the consequences to atmospheric science of a steady temperature imbalance (Stargate: Atlantis Brain Storm). The laws of science in the Stargate universe are modified from our own, but those laws are consistently applied and evolved from episode to episode, season to season, and even series to series. The consequences of particular choices in one episode extend into the future scientific research in other episodes: the matter bridge from Stargate: Atlantis Trinity and McKay and Mrs. Miller was justified by Steven Conboy (friend, string theorist, and science consultant immediately before me), with his mathematical formulation consistently evolved for use in Brain Storm. A further evolution of the technology makes its way into the scribblings on the walls in Stargate: Universe, a side problem our heroes continue to chisel away at for possible future applications.

This level of detail adds to the richness of the story, providing support for unlikely scenarios and solid groundings for the “what if…?” of science fiction to be explored. Plausible science helps a viewer suspend their disbelief and get lost in the story for an hour, enjoying their show without being distracted. Then, if the science does fascinate them, they can look for clues, pull out more of the story, and see the details that help describe the world our heroes inhabit.

Posted in Fiction, Science, Stargate, Stargate: Atlantis, Stargate: Universe, Television | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Book Review: The Physics of Christmas

If you’re looking for a holiday-themed “The Science of…” book, I thought “The Physics of Christmas” was pretty good.

Posted in Books, Fiction, Science | Tagged , | Leave a comment