By Xavier Rizos

What do Star Trek, popular science and democracy have in common?

Star Trek adventures across a futuristic democracy called the ‘United Federation of Planets’ and contributed to popularising science fiction?

Possibly, but not quite the topic of this post. The answer lies closer to home.

These are topics Lawrence Krauss – theoretical physicist and National Science Week tour guest – links together with his work. Stephen Hawking wrote of Krauss “He has Carl Sagan’s knack of expanding the imagination and explaining the mysteries of the universe in simple terms.”

Krauss belongs to this group of authoritative scientists who not only do deep research but also use their passion to publish popular articles discussing issues related to physics, science and society. He has championed the mantra proposed by physicist Richard Feynman: “The tradition of opening the hard field, popularizing with respect”. *

Science faces constant challenges, which is part of the raison d’être of National Science Week: why science matters and why it should be popularised with respect. An insightful passage can be found in ‘The Physics of Super Heroes‘ by James Kakalios.

“If I had ever wondered if my students found studying physics to be a waste of time, all doubt was removed several years ago. I was returning from lunch to the physics building at my university when I overheard two students as they were leaving. From their expressions and the snippet of conversation I caught, it seemed that they had just had a graded exam returned to them. I’ll quote here what I heard (but in the interest of decorum, I’ll clean it up).

The taller student complained to his friend, “I’m going to bleeping buy low, and bleeping sell high.

I don’t need to know about no bleeping balls thrown off no bleeping cliffs.”

There are two things we can learn from this statement: (1) the secret to financial success and (2) that the examples used in traditional physics classes strike many students as divorced from their everyday concerns.

The real world is a complicated place. In order to provide illustrations in a physics lesson that emphasize only a single concept, such as Newton’s Second Law of Motion or the principle of Conservation of Energy, over the decades physics teachers have developed an arsenal of overly stylized scenarios involving projectile motion, weights on pulleys, or oscillating masses on springs. These situations seem so artificial that students inevitably lament, “When am I ever going to use this stuff in my real life?”

One trick I’ve hit upon in teaching physics involves using examples culled from superhero comic books that correctly illustrate various applications of physics principles. Interestingly enough, whenever I cite examples from superhero comic books in a lecture, my students never wonder when they will use this information in “real life.”

This is what underpins Lawrence Krauss’ motivation for writing his 1995 book The Physics of Star Trek.

He explained in a recent interview to Seed Magazine that:

“A lot of people didn’t—and don’t—find physics interesting, but they found Star Trek fascinating. I’ve been involved in teaching and writing for a while, and I often tell teachers—though I think it’s true for anyone: teachers, car salesmen, artists—that the biggest mistake they make is to assume people are interested in what they have to say.

You have to think of a way therefore, as I put it, to “seduce” them into thinking about what you have to say. The Star Trek universe was a way to seduce readers into thinking about the real universe, which I happen to think is much more interesting than the Star Trek version.”

Star Trek is an interesting experiment in the science fiction body of work as it presents a rather positive view of the future. Its narrative works on the notion that science makes the world a better place and can also make people more civil and understanding; it can civilise us.

In the same Seed Magazine interview Krauss proposes that vision may be unrealistic. He believes science should civilise people  – being so tightly correlated to progress and development – but has it really succeeded at doing it so far? Krauss believes this remains unclear. “But that’s one of the reasons why engineers and scientists are so drawn to Star Trek I think,” he says. “Because science, in some way or another, is the hero.”

Why does science matter? Because it is a highly cultural and political area and thereby essential.
It is important that society collectively understands the role of science and that we are comfortable as individuals and citizens that we deal with it properly.

Support of fundamental research is a big part of this, as is stimulating our interest in science by popularising it, without bastardising it. Why? Because the political, social and environmental consequences of getting it wrong would be disastrous, precisely the point Krauss makes in Issue 28 of Cosmos Magazine in his essay ‘Under the radar: When political leaders fail to understand science, they put the health of democracy at risk’. He argues that the blurring between science, non-science and non-sense represents one of the greatest threats to peace, security and a healthy democracy.

In an age where we face issues ranging from climate change, to food crisis, to contentious stem cell medical research, we need our leaders to make – on our behalf – informed decision based on good science.

If they don’t, mumbo-jumbo and its regular assault on reason may have the last word.

The positive and negative powers that science and technology have provided humanity are unprecedented. Progress in hygiene, medicine and science has enabled humans to fight diseases. The consequence on the gene pool is the preservation of genes that might have been eliminated by natural selection. The surviving offspring are not only the ‘fittest’.

On the other hand we also basically have the power to obliterate our known civilisation, either in minutes (using our nuclear arsenal), or in a few decades by letting the collateral damages of human growth and development spoil our environment to a point of no return.

This is why the prime source of authority should come from logic and reason and also be directly proportional to scientific progress.

It’s the good old principles of 18th century philosophic and scientific enlightenment, stating that the right to enjoy ‘progress’ comes hand-in-hand with a duty to behave ethically and reasonably.

Remind yourself of these principles again, and go to see Lawrence Krauss as part of National Science Week. You can see his full itinerary here (he’s in Sydney on Monday August 24th at the Powerhouse Museum).

* Krauss is writing a scientific biography about Richard Feynman, the 1965 Physics Nobel Prize winner and also a “prankster, juggler, safecracker, and a proud amateur painter and bongo player” according to Wikipedia.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS