Movies are dumbing down science, along with everything else

In one of the least surprising bits of advice ever, college professors at the University of Central Florida are suggesting that you don't take physics lessons from Hollywood.<BR><BR>Read More

 

[Macwarrior]

I recall seeing an episode of CSI or Law & Order or something recently. The lab tech put a test tube full of blood into a centrifuge, hit "on", and as soon as it started spinning, DNA showed up on the computer screen.<BR><BR>1. Centrifuges don't read data (ever tried to make a wire connection to a spinning object?)<BR>2. Even if they did, even a small centrifuge takes several minutes to spin up to full speed.<BR>3. (and the most important) Red blood cells don't contain DNA. Come ON!

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Interactive Civilian:<BR>Now, just out of curiosity, assuming that the dogfight was moving in that direction at pretty good speed (as was indicated in the radar room on the Aircraft carrier), how long would it take to cover 200 miles? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>If Maverick's F-14 was travelling at its maximum speed of mach 2.3, or roughly 1500 mph, it would take (200/1500)60 minutes -- roughly 8 minutes. That's in full afterburner, where a fully fueled plane only has enough fuel for about 10-20 minutes of flying in the first place.<BR><BR>And I liked chain reaction. It wasn't an oxygen-hydrogen explosion, it was a runaway acoustic bubble implosion fusion reactor. It was dramatized for hollywood for sure, but they got the basic idea right.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">when a lab tech ran a pen sized "magnet" over a bare hard drive platter and "degaussed" the hard drive to not only recover the binary data, but magically found a hidden, encrypted file. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Looks like drivesavers have some competition! Who knew I could duplicate all their dumb laser readers and bit-by-bit recreation of data with a $2 magnet from the hardware store?<BR><BR><BR>The classic "enhance that image" always does it for me. I soooo want that photoshop plugin. Want to see how photo analysis really works? Watch The Good Shepherd, and see the scenes with the CIA photo interpreters. They have a giant mess of grain projected on the screen and spend days trying to figure out what it is.

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fulgan:<BR>That's why I'm not bothered at all by the various bugs in "The 5th element" movie: it doesn't try to explain, they are just plot element for a situation, some special effect or just for the atmosphere. Don't get me out of immersion by trying to squeeze a stupid explanation that even the writer cannot believe: you're taking your audience for idiots and that's never a good idea. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Agreed. The only part of T5E that approached pseudoscience was when the scientists were analyzing Milla Jovovich's DNA and explaining how all these extra "memo groups" gave her superhuman powers...<BR>Since we currently have no idea how to genetically engineer a being with superhuman powers, I think their explanation flies perfectly well.<BR>I liked that movie.

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by olodumare:<BR><BR>Weren't they also bombarding her with "Slightly greasy solar protons" or some such? ...greasy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Kind of weird that I know this, but the quote is "slightly increasing solar atoms". I interpreted that as they were gradually shooting her with more and more UV light and related high-energy particles.<BR>How that makes her grow skin I dunno, but hey -- she's superhuman.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">August 14th Episode of Eureka. build up of acetylcholine in the CNS does not reveal any relevant toxic effect until death(such as SLUDGE-salivation, Lacrimation, Urination, Diaphoresis, GI motility (diarrhea), and Emesis), and to remove it by filtering it out of the system through the lungs? gimme a break. Has NO genius heard of acetylcholinesterase or atropine? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yeah, I didn't understand at all why they had to (or even could) use fluid breathing to get rid of it. And "there is no way to reduce it"?<BR>Um, all animals that have acetylcholine as a neurotransmitter also have acetylcholine antagonists. Don't tell me that the most advanced research facility in the world doesn't have a supply of those.<BR><BR>Oh, and the idea that "if we get his acetylcholine down to zero, his body will reset itself" it just retahted.

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Evil Peer:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fulgan:<BR>WHAT field? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I haven't actually seen the movie in question, so I was writing from what I know of Magneto based on the prior two films and what was described of the scene. If he doesn't have powers and is moving the bridge as an ordinary man, then yeah, its completely bogus. But Magneto doesn't have super-strength, so even if he's grabbing onto the bridge when he moves it, he's still using magnetism to do so (in the comics, even though his powers are supposed to be based on magnetic fields, they sometimes take on gravitic effects, so it may not be magnetic per se). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think the question he was asking is "if Magneto is just manipulating an existing magnetic field to move the bridge, where is the field coming from?".<BR>Which is a valid question. Fields don't come out of nowhere.

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Garfield the Cat:<BR>And no mention of the 100mile Exocet range mentioned in the movie? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think that, in general, getting weapon specifications wrong is less of a deal than violating the laws of physics. In Independence Day, Will Smith looks at a box and says "It's just like the AMRAAM launch pad on a B-2 stealth". The B-2 doesn't carry AMRAAMs, the launcher is integrated into the plane's weapon computer, not a separate pad, etc -- but that kind of fades away in comparison to the drastic issues with the rest of the movie.<BR><BR>For instance, the aliens wouldn't need to have all the assault saucers and little ships. Just parking their mothership where it was ("one quarter the size of the moon", "halfway between the earth and the moon") would cause such massive tidal forces that the entire planet would be ripped to pieces by tidal waves, earthquakes and volcanoes. No need for antimatter death rays.

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Paul Hill:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<BR>I think the question he was asking is "if Magneto is just manipulating an existing magnetic field to move the bridge, where is the field coming from?".<BR>Which is a valid question. Fields don't come out of nowhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The Earth's got a pretty big one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>So, when he alters the earth's field lines so that they all bunch up in san francisco, what happens to the rest of the world?

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MarkL:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Paul Hill:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<BR>I think the question he was asking is "if Magneto is just manipulating an existing magnetic field to move the bridge, where is the field coming from?".<BR>Which is a valid question. Fields don't come out of nowhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The Earth's got a pretty big one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>So, when he alters the earth's field lines so that they all bunch up in san francisco, what happens to the rest of the world? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Nothing, since at the same time, he causes the earth's molten iron core to spin more rapidly, generating a stronger magnetic field everywhere to compensate for the fact he's drawing away most of it to the Bay.<BR><BR>What really irks me ... where do (move-version) Wolverine's claws go when they are retracted? In the coic book they come out the top of his hand and could probably be retracted to lay along the bones in his forearm, but in the movies they come out from between his knuckles. I guess he had all the bones in his hand removed to make room for the claws? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>But where does this enormous amount of additional energy come from? How does magneto generate the trillions of trillions of trillions of joules of energy he needs to alter the speed of a spinning ball of solid iron 800 miles across?<BR><BR>And I always figured that the blades slid nicely between the metacarpals. I was worried more about what would happen if he accidentally extended the blades if his wrist wasn't perfectly aligned.

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASMatic:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fulgan:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ASMatic:<BR>And a watertank full of hydrogen (and bubbling water...) exploding with the force of a tactical nuke is also quite funny. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, the number of common objects that turn into very respectable military grade explosive (or incendiary devices) is astonishing:<BR><BR>- Microwaves.<BR>- Cars (for some reason, they often explode in mid-air even before hitting the bottom of a cliff).<BR>- Any computer keyboard.<BR>- Falling lifts.<BR>- etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Huh... I was being quite literal with the tactical nuke. We're talking multiple city blocks here... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I told you what it was. They didn't explain it as a regular chemical explosion, but rather as a hydrogen fusion reaction that went out of control. If you suspend disbelief long enough to accept that their machine is a fusion reactor, there was enough reactant in that tank of water to take out a lot more than a few city blocks.<BR><BR>Sometimes I don't fully understand why people get upset at some science fiction movies. Some things can be explained as logical progressions of today's technology, some can't.<BR><BR>Case in point: it's kind of pointless to get upset at Chain Reaction's fusion system, since acoustic bubble fusion is plausible today. No, we don't know how to do it, but it doesn't defy any laws of physics that we know of.<BR><BR>In another fusion example, Doc Ock poking at a nuclear fireball from 10 feet with robot arms is a little harder to understand. The neutron flux alone should have fried every living thing in a large radius, let alone the observers in the room. Oh, right -- they were wearing goggles.<BR><BR>Something else about that movie bugged me. Weren't the robot arms AI-controlled? Like, wasn't that some kind of major plot point -- that each arm was independently intelligent and able to act on its own accord?<BR>So WHY THE HELL did he need to graft them to his central nervous system? Even if the arms needed human input to control, wouldn't something like, say, a joystick make more sense?

 

[Macwarrior]

Ooh! I thought of another one that I still don't believe. I don't think it necessarily defies physical laws, but it's so damn implausible that it might as well.<BR><BR>There's a scene in Transporter 2 where the hero has a bomb attached to the bottom of his car. So, does he climb underneath and pull it off? Does he cut the red wire? No.<BR>He drives his car at maximum speed onto some kind of ramp, flies through the air, does an axial roll, and catches the edge of the bomb on a hanging crane hook. The bomb peels off, the car completes it roll and lands.<BR>I wanna be able to predict motion like that. I'll be some scientists with supercomputers would too.<BR><BR>For that matter, how about security systems that defy all principles of good security design? you can bet your ass that if I ever build a security system, I'm not going to make it so that you only have to cut one wire to disable it. Any security contractor worth his salt knows that multiple redundant systems are worth much more than a single "unbreakable" system. Especially when you're up against James Bond or a 12-year-old with a laptop.<BR><BR><BR>Oh, and as to the previous poster's ideas re. lasers -- a red line that goes "pew pew" was a lot easier to make in the past, requiring just some red ink and an oscillator circuit. As effects get more complex, they also get cooler.

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robrod:<BR>What's really dumb is this topic. Maybe we should bash Disney 'cause animals can't talk...or can they? Oh, and there is no such thing as magic or fairy god-mothers. <BR><BR>Huh, I guess that's why they call the Science Fiction and Fantasy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Please read the lines in my 2nd-to-previous post, beginning with "Some things can be explained as logical progressions of today's technology, some can't.".<BR><BR>Science fiction is based on science, with extrapolations. You're thinking of plain old fiction.

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuckG:<BR>I am ok with suspension of disbelief and laws of physics being messed with for the sake of a movie. But I draw the line and the internal logic not making any sense.<BR><BR><BR>ex/<BR><BR>The Core<BR><BR><BR>The material used in the hull of the ship gets stronger as you increase temperature and pressure. As a chemist, I flinch but can buy it for the sake of the movie. The material also however takes this energy and converts to electricity.<BR><BR>Ok, fine -- I can even buy that (ugh), but when they are welding heavy duty power cables to the ship with their <B>BARE FRACKEN HANDS</B> !!!<BR><BR>NO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Well, those properties are hypothetically plausible. Some metals get stronger with stress (cold working), and many ceramics produce electrical charges as they are deformed (piezoelectrics).<BR><BR>However, they just stuck the cables on arbitrarily -- isn't it convenient that the ship deals with all those nasty circuit intricacies itself? And that it seemingly produces power at 220v 60 Hz AC, or whatever the ship needs?<BR><BR>Also, if it converts heat and pressure to electricity, and the only place the ship is going is THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, why didn't they even CONSIDER having a backup power system that runs on all this power? And for that matter, where did it all go before they started drawing it off?

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The Shadow:<BR>Anything that actually jars a structure the size (more importantly, mass) of the Enterprise far enough to fling people across the bridge is going to completely destroy it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I always wondered about the shield generators. Presumably, what they're doing is resisting the impact of the object being fired at the spaceship. In order to provide resistance, though, they need something massive to push against -- the ship, of course. So the generators are basically distributing the force of the impact over the entire mass of the ship. Makes sense, most armor works that way.<BR><BR>But think about it some more. The point that the impact's force transfers from shield to ship is, necessarily, the generator. So in order for this transfer to work properly, the shield generator has to be coupled to the bulk of the ship with some method that can effectively transfer all the force of whatever is hitting the shields.<BR><BR>I'd like to see the bolts that hold the generator in place against a photon torpedo impact...I always have this picture of the generator being torn out of its mounts and flying backwards through the hull of the ship.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"The goggles - they do NOTHING!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I was waiting for that. The quote is actually "my eyes -- the goggles do nothing!" though.

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fiendish:<BR>My guess is that the people complaining about the magical computer "Enhance" button don't understand the current state of computer vision. Super-resolution is real. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>And the ability to zoom in until the image is a foggy mess, then generate detail that was not in the original image, is not. Photoshop can work wonders on images, and some filtering techniques can do a hell of a lot to bring out detail that wasn't apparent, but going from a shot where the guy is a dot on a beach to reading the number he's punching into his cell phone is not possible with today's cameras or image processing.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Great Scott:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ronelson:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lasers producing visible beams of light. This would include just about any movie with a laser that's not used to play with a cat. Yes, they can reflect off dust particles, but in most cases, the dust would have to be too thick to actually see anything else in the room. And there's not much dust in most areas of space. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Lasers don't produce visible light, but you may be able to see an after-image in your retina. Chances are you won't see green for good guys and red for bad guys, though! Hell, in some movies the laser colors change depending on who's holding the gun.<BR><BR>Rob Nelson<BR>rnelson0@gmail.com </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'm going to show my ignorance and get schooled now, I'm sure, but nonetheless I'm compelled to ask...<BR><BR>1) Can't laser light be emitted in a visible wavelength?<BR><BR>2) Is there some sort of energy limit to visible-wavelength lasers?<BR><BR>I admit that there is no good reason to make lasers visible (especially for military applications, you probably would NOT want that...) but I just don't get that it's "not possible" - just because it's in a movie? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Of course lasers can be produced in visible wavelengths. A free-electron laser can work in just about any range, from microwave to x-ray. That's not the issue though.<BR>The issue is that you can't see a laser beam from the side. Unless there's something scattering the light in your direction, the beam is invisible -- no matter what color it is. The point of light you see from a laser pointer is scattered light from the surface, not the beam itself.<BR>A real laser weapon wouldn't be a visible red blob shooting through the air; it would be a big gun with a lens on the front, and when you fired it, you wouldn't see anything. There might be a heat ripple in the air, and your target would instantly heat up and glow, but the actual beam would not be visible in any way.

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fiendish:<BR>Yes, it actually is. See figures 6 and 8 and the text in figure 4 in:<BR>www.cse.ucsc.edu/~milanfar/SR-challengesIJIST.pdf<BR>(not my paper)<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Well, that's amazing. It's not quite the same as the movies' using a low-res image to create high-res ones, since it relies on an image sequence, but still -- it looks like that part of machine vision is getting much much closer to hollywood's ideal.

 

[Macwarrior]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fiendish:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fiendish:<br>Yes, it actually is. See figures 6 and 8 and the text in figure 4 in:<br>www.cse.ucsc.edu/~milanfar/SR-challengesIJIST.pdf<br>(not my paper)<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Well, that's amazing. It's not quite the same as the movies' using a low-res image to create high-res ones, since it relies on an image sequence, but still -- it looks like that part of machine vision is getting much much closer to hollywood's ideal. </div>
</blockquote>You don't know that they aren't looking at one of many video frames in the movies. -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --<br>There are also techniques, like I said, that don't require more than one image. They just don't work as well in general. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Actually, page 6 indicates that they're using temporal data from 45-frame (or more) sequences to do the analysis. Impressive nonetheless.<br><br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Horseradish:<br>(not to mention how the ruby sunglasses can absorb the energy without re-radiating it in some fashion).<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>It's even more strange in light (ha ha) of the fact that his optic beams are red -- you'd think that a dark blue or green lens would do a much better job of absorbing that energy, while a red lens would just pass it through.

 

[Macwarrior]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fiendish:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You don't know that they aren't looking at one of many video frames in the movies. -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --<br>There are also techniques, like I said, that don't require more than one image. They just don't work as well in general. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Actually, page 6 indicates that they're using temporal data from 45-frame (or more) sequences to do the analysis. </div>
</blockquote>I meant that the next time you see someone looking at an image in a movie or on television, just remember that it could be one of many frames. Also remember that 45 frames is only about a second and a half of video, so it's not like that would be much more difficult to acquire than a still shot. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Ah, I see. And yeah, you're right -- even with a cell phone taking 15 fps video, only 3 seconds could be enough to create a high-res picture. Opens up new avenues for spying.<br>I can't wait for someone to release an image-processing library based on that paper...it's only a matter of time. -- View image here: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/forum/smilies/biggrin.gif --

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by IdeaHamster:<BR>Interesting tech to be sure. Still, the thing I hate most about these sorts of filters/tricks (methods combining multiple video frames notwithstanding) is that they unfortunately play down the human ability to recognize shape. The human brain, by most measures, is way better at basic shape/pattern recognition than any computer. In other words, if you can't tell what the license plate number on the car is at full res, then chances are that the computer can't either no matter what sorts of fancy tricks you want to throw at it.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No, the machine isn't doing the recognition. What it's doing is running mathematical algorithms and making guesses of what sort of image the original was. When the machine has enough samples, it can sort of narrow down the "list" of possible features that could have created the low-res images, then generate a higher resolution image with those in mind. Basically, it has no idea what it's working on, but it knows the shapes and patterns that are statistically likely to be in the original. A human still needs to interpret the image.

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irfoton:<BR>in the movies they show lasers on f-16s or f-15s blowing up asteroids. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That sounds AWESOME. Neither of those planes go in space, dangerous asteroids haven't come any closer than about 500,000 miles from earth since the time of the dinosaurs, laser weapons are nowhere near powerful enough to destroy something in space from an atmospheric firing point, those planes don't carry laser weapons in the first place -- I want to see it! What's the movie called?<BR><BR>Oh, and The Physics of Star Trek was written by a physics prof at my university. Yay for minor fame!

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tkulla:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by codifex:<BR>Good thing I read the posts before posting... otherwise I would have said that humans as batteries from the Matrix annoyed me.<BR><BR>Anybody, with any knowledge of science whatsoever, knows that you always get less usable energy out of a process than you put into it. i.e. It would take more energy to feed those humans than the energy you get out of em.<BR><BR>More believable would have been the machines hooking up all the humans into a matrix of human minds to form an organic supercomputer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Morpheus does add "combined with a form of fusion..." Of course, it's not clear if the humans are necessary for that fusion to work. Oh man, now I'm thinking about how crappy the 2nd and 3rd movies were. Grrrr... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I remember an excellent review of The Matrix, which I'll paraphrase here.<BR><BR>"Morpheus states that humans, combined with a form of fusion, provide all the power for the machine society. This is like the flight attendant on a 747 holding up a bag of rubber bands and stating "these, combined with four jet engines, get the plane off the ground". One of the two technologies does more than the other."

 

[Macwarrior]

Read the paper that whatshisname posted earlier. It's excellent in describing what goes on in their machine vision process. The thing that keeps coming up is "we improved the efficiency in this point, because even though machines have been able to run this algorithm since 1985, they're SO DAMN SLOW that they're currently useless outside of a research context."

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fiendish:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irfoton:<BR>Actually I don't think I was the one who brought up laser rifles. I said movies always show lasers smaller than they would really be (specifically the ones used to blow up things).<BR><BR>But, the Star Trek pilot and a few original episodes had laser pistols/rifles. <BR><BR>Mind you there are small lasers that can be used to dazzle eyes and cause other bio-effects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If I can fit a laser capable of burning through wood and plastic inside a mini flashlight the size of my finger, I don't see why a laser rifle is necessarily smaller than it really would be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It's not the size of the diode/tube assembly. It's the size of the power supply and the cooling systems. First of all, lasers today are only up to about 30% efficient, and usually much less (as low as 0.1%). Even if your laser was capable of converting all its input energy into its beam, you would still need a compact energy storage device that would hold all the energy you intend to use to destroy your target. Unless you've got some kind of tiny nuclear reactor, you're not going to get much energy out of something the size of a rifle magazine. Your wood-burning battery-powered laser has a few problems:<BR>- it probably only lasts for a few minutes of total CW on-time<BR>- the beam will dissipate rapidly in air<BR>- burning wood is a far cry from weapon use (consider that I can burn wood from a distance equally well with a match on a stick)<BR><BR>Furthermore, diode lasers are insanely sensitive to temperature; if anywhere from 70% to 99.9% of the input energy is converted to heat, you will need massive heat sinks and cooling fans to keep the gun working.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hrm? Rubies are red, because that's the dominant color in the spectrum of light reflected off them. The basic idea behind using a red object to reflect Cyclops' red eye-beams is correct.<BR><BR>Cyclops' visor could be reasonable given today's scientific knowledge - photonic crystals are structures that do not allow certain wavelengths to propagate through them and essentially reflect 100% of all light of those wavelengths that fall on them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That would be true is it was an opaque ruby. However, cyclops needs to be able to see through his visor, so it must be a transparent ruby -- in which case the red color is because it only allows red light to pass through. Furthermore, if it was reflective, a white or mirrored object would technically work better than red.<BR><BR>I won't ask how cyclops manages to keep from vaporizing his own head if his headgear does reflect the optic beam back at his eyes, since he seems to manage just fine having it come out in the first place. And what happens when he blinks? Does he have no eyelids? Not anymore I guess!<BR><BR>You're right that it could be a photonic crystal. The only other thing I can think of that satisfies all the requirements is that his glasses are dichroic filters, passing only green or blue from the back and red from the front. That way, his optic blasts would be blocked, he could see through them (albeit in a green-tinted world), and they'd look red to outside observers. Also, since dichroics filter through interference rather than absorption, that's also the only way I can think of that his glasses would be able to eliminate the light without being destroyed themselves or reflecting it back to his head.

 

[Macwarrior]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyolio:<BR>ok, i enjoy star trek enough to watch the episodes when they're on, but one episode of Voyager was stupid enough to make me turn off the TV and sleep until the show was over.<BR><BR>they were analyzing a bit of DNA. <I>ok, fine.</I><BR><BR>they zoom in. <I>yay for futuristic video technology.</I><BR><BR>...to the point where you could see every individual atom as a clearly defined sphere. <I>suspension of disbelief... activate!</I><BR><BR>...and they keep going. <I>suspension of disbelief... maximum power!</I><BR><BR>...and there is a BARCODE that was PRINTED on the side of one atom. <I>SoD generator going critical! abort, abort!</I> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I have a new favorite TV episode.

 

[Macwarrior]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by operagost:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Panick:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by operagost:<br>And apparently, all the books and web sites written about the use of logical fallacies won't keep internet trolls from pulling out red herrings in every debate. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Touchy!<br><br>I was simply pointing out that rational thought is not something Americans are known for. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>Just Americans, eh? -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>I was trying to think of a good way to come back to that "americans" comment, but I couldn't. Congratulations -- you've encapsulated my feelings.<br><br>Also, regarding things exploding in space (as mentioned above) -- as cool as it looks, I hate it when things explode with a giant annular shockwave (a fiery ring). Especially things that are enormous, like the death star. The reason you get an annular shockwave like that on earth is because the shock front is actually a sphere, cut off at the ground, and only visible near the ground cause that's where the dust is. Hence, it looks like a ring.<br><br>If you've ever seen pictures of candles burning in space, you'll see what a space explosion would look like: a perfectly spherical flame front.<br><br>I'm willing to ignore the whole flames-in-space-in-the-first-place problem by believing that whatever blew up was loaded with oxidizer or a hypergolic mixture of some kind. Even then the flame front would only travel a certain distance before all its oxidizer was exhausted.<br><br>I'd guess that a space explosion would be a bright light that quickly fades out, followed by a bunch of shrapnel flying outwards in more or less a sphere.<br><br>(Also I loved the seismic charges in Attack of the Clones. They had an awesome sound. You see the obvious problem with a sonic weapon working in space. PLus, it made the annular ring).<br><br>(PS for all the music geeks out there: did you know that those bombs explode in the key of D minor? Also, what sort of a name is Jango Fett? Super karma++; to the one who makes the connection...I think the sound designers were being very clever.)

 

[Macwarrior]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tigerion:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Macwarrior:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irfoton:<br>in the movies they show lasers on f-16s or f-15s blowing up asteroids. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>That sounds AWESOME. Neither of those planes go in space, dangerous asteroids haven't come any closer than about 500,000 miles from earth since the time of the dinosaurs, laser weapons are nowhere near powerful enough to destroy something in space from an atmospheric firing point, those planes don't carry laser weapons in the first place -- I want to see it! What's the movie called?<br><br>Oh, and The Physics of Star Trek was written by a physics prof at my university. Yay for minor fame! </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Actually Near earth objects are a bigger threat than you think<br>Apophis is an approximately 400 meter near-Earth object (NEO), which will come closer to Earth in 2029 than the orbit of our geostationary satellites.<br><br>But the rest of your post remains valid -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Well, that's a future example, so my post _is_ still valid -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif --<br><br>I recall reading a report some time ago saying that there were maybe 2-3 extinction-level asteroids (<1km, roughly) that come within a million miles per century, but none had passed within the moon's orbit since we started recording. Could be wrong about the specific numbers. In any case, I agree with you: there are a lot of NEOs out there.<br><br>Oh, and it's pretty miraculous that we haven't had an ELE in 65 million years. I thought that, statistically, we were supposed to have a meteor impact that big every few million.