I believe that the conventional answer to your question (dating back to the early 1980s) is that there is always an infinite number of parallel worlds among which the various possibilities are apportioned according to the norm of the wave function.

The temptation above is to say “two” since there are two things that could happen. But suppose the amplitudes reaching detectors are 0.8 and 0.6. Then the probabilities are 64% and 36%. So now what, we have 64 “worlds” one way and 36 “worlds” the other way, or 16 and 9, or …. to get the right proportion of chance for observation? What number of versions is appropriate? What if it’s an irrational proportion? If you have infinite branchings, then how can you define “proportion” given such infinite sets? And even if you say, it really isn’t a matter of n specific separate worlds, how then does the proportion manifest if you somehow put “all” the particle into both detectors (in say only two “worlds”) to avoid collapse into only one of them?

Yeah, it would be a bit embarrassing to be associated with this. But on the positive side, it did take the trouble to attempt to distinguish the various distinct meanings of the term “parallel universe”. This was an excellent thing to do. [In the literature, one must infer from context which meaning "parallel universe" is intended.] I assume that the “Level X” terminology is Tegmark’s.

If you don’t get it just right, it can lead to allusions with which you do not want the subject to be tainted. To be responsible?

You might consider then, becoming the director?:)

Elliot’s point about leading to people in reference to Kaku is my point as well. Many books have been written by professional scientists with a “point of view” and following that lead, helps one in the direction to find good teachers to explain the concepts.

It’s what can be done with the concepts “afterwards” that you might take exception too, from a creative thinking standpoint?

It’s okay to Dream and still be responsible. Collaborations with writers to bring the truthful aspect of the science into the living room under the knowledge of an “artist’s adventure” is part of what people like Penrose as a scientist constraint will work with an artist to understand how his principals might be used, “to see into the future?” What “it” means to have this concept and go with it.

Best,

http://asymptotia.com/2008/11/24/tales-from-the-industry-xxvi-science-and-entertainment-exchange/

Yes, the focus is not just feature films, so that is indeed good news.

-cvj

Cheers,

-cvj

The laser + “extra dimension holding branes apart” thing sounds a lot like coming from Steinhart and Turok cyclic universe model (recently their book was out, “endless universe”).

As far as I understand, in the book the universe is described as two expanding branes (we live in one of them- distant from each other with respect to an extra-dimension. There is a spring-like force between the branes, which might explain the misconception.

The laser comes into play in a large scale experiment, involving several lasers arranged so as to measure the strength of gravitational waves -this is presented in the book as a way to falsify the cyclic model or to force the inflationary picture into making fine adjustments.

T.

That sounds a lot like the origin story for Galactus.

e.

(It is a related issue, but not entirely overlapping with the ones we’re discussing… seems that the focus of the symposium is not going to be TV documentaries per se, but larger projects more of the entertainment variety, and less of the educational variety… Note the name… Of course, the two are mixed up together, but all the same, the focus and pressures are quite different. But since I’m interested all all these aspects, (see, e.g. my earlier post on the upcoming Einstein movie - not Monday’s documentary) I’ll be going along.)

-cvj

http://www.scienceandentertainmentexchange.org/index.html

Looks like an attempt at a “border police” between science and entertainment.

e.

Thanks for your thoughts!

No, sadly your “obvious solution” is not a solution at all. It will just result in worse programs. Filmmakers will just keep calling other people until they get scientists (or worse) will say whatever they want them to say. When it becomes adversarial, we lose. The filmmakers know that they can simply make stuff up and keep it entertaining and nobody is going to call them on it. We can jump up and down about it, and the process and the business is simply too complicated to trace things back to a particular piece of work. Also, the general public can’t tell the difference between made up or badly told nonsense and a good piece of work…. so they will largely keep watching and be misinformed. The science and the entire enterprise suffers as a result, ultimately, including the goal of better science education.

The way to do it - short of starting our own production companies and TV channels (and who is going to fund that?) - is the way I and some others have been doing it. Contribute to these shows if you think that there’s interest in doing something in good faith and then do more than just show up and smile for the camera. There’s not much appreciation (or awareness) of it among our peers, but it is good and worthwhile work anyway, and it needs to be done. We (scientists - more of us than just a few) need to get out of our comfort zones and think of this as the hard work that it is and not just a chance to be on TV. We should, in my opinion:

(1) offer to follow up and help with ideas
(2) offer to chat more about the science and the work being done (suggest some fun entertaining *true* science they might use, or a fun analogy, and they will come back for more!)
(3) offer to help further, such as later looking at a rough cut, or over the script (be cautious… don’t make it seem like you want to censor)
(4) offer to be on call to help and chat if they need help with a concept or idea…
(5) engage the filmmaker (when receptive) in conversation about how important what they are doing is - them being a conduit between the science and the public - and the great chance they have to inspire if they do it right… and how you can help…

etc etc….

Now some filmmakers won’t take you up on that (as happened here) and they will make a poor product. It is not because they are bad people (Andy is not, for example)… they simply did not get point (5), and/or did not have enough motive to make the call to get advice, or did not realise that there are scientists out there who would take the time to help. So sometimes bad products will be made. It is the chance you take. Others will, and will see by example that they can still make a good piece of work that is popular and enjoyed by the viewers. There are several examples of that in the “The Universe” series. Please see my discussion on this when I was describing the shooting of Cosmic Holes, which while not perfect (what show is?) was a pretty good treatment of hard material that become one of the most popular episodes. See my whole series of discussions of this stuff in the “Tales From the Industry” series. The History Channel did a really good thing by going in this direction and lots of teams of filmmakers went out and sought scientists to talk to and make programs under various topics. Some of these filmmakers went for more of a collaborative mode than the “random story plus clips” mode and the result was a hugely popular series that people love.

Cheers,

-cvj

The real harm of this kind of thing is that it makes interesting speculative work look bad. We don’t want to go back to the bad old days when Phys Rev Lett etc would only publish boring papers.

It’s important to understand that the word “speculative” has many nuances. I don’t think that Inflation is particularly speculative, but it leads to strange consequences. It’s not really correct to call those consequences “speculative”. On the other hand, the fact that an idea is really boring does not mean that it can’t be speculative. The idea, for example, that there is something new and important to be learned about BRST by dressing it up in category-theoretic formalism is extremely speculative.

Elliot: Thanks!

-cvj

Its a good point that this could lead to some young people getting involved. The frustration I feel (and I think Clifford shares with me) is that there is *no* need to “fancy” this stuff up. The actual, real science is already so interesting. Randall-Sundrum braneworld models are really, really cool. So are some of the things Burt Ovrut and others have worked on where branes collide and this replaces the Big Bang. The string landscape contains roughly 10^500 vacua! I and many others have looked at the possibility of detecting a collision between bubble universes. You can agree or disagree with these theories, and many others. My point is, you could do a show on these things and be honest about the problems many of these theories have and it would be more exciting. There’s just no need for laser beams shooting us to another universe or “sciency” looking guys wearing masks looking at things. That’s mumbo jumbo, its not science.

Argh, its just frustrating much of this stuff is actually very good science. As we both say above, braneworlds, eternal inflation etc. aren’t just magical mumbo jumbo, they are actual theories (or rather theories in development) that seek to explain real world phenomena and make actual predictions (for example, bubble universes are generically slightly open, etc.). As someone currently working on some of this stuff, to be lumped in with shooting lasers to teleport to other universes is really well, disappointing. Man am I glad I forgot to tell anyone in my family to tune in.

e.

This is all so sad because there’s so much, as we say above, good TV that could be made of this material if done right.

Ok. I’m done with this. It’s very sad.

I hope the “speed of light” episode next week is better. Each episode has different writer/directors, and so if curious, please don’t use this episode as a measure of how next week’s is likely to be. I’d say this was an anomaly.

-cvj

I caught of a bit of this and was similarly disappointed. In particular, the discussion of extra dimensions was downright frustrating, when they kept talking about all the dimensions being curled up small and then went right into the braneworld scenario, where the extra dimensions are generically large (hey in RS2 they can be infinite, but warped!) so the layperson would be left with the impression that braneworld scenarios are all about curled up extra dimensions. Argh, actually, double argh. And the discussion of eternal inflation was lacking, as was not tying it into the landscape. Oh well, we do what we can.

Its too bad, because a very interesting documentary could be made on any one of these things, such as: braneworld scenarios, cyclic universes, eternal inflation/landscape, etc. All of these things are really cool, and while speculative do make some predictions that *might* be testable.

As an aside, does anyone actually talk about level x parallel universes? Is this a west coast thing?

This is quite disappointing, and not as well put together, researched, and (crucially) consulted, as most of the rather good episodes in this series (The Universe). Perhaps Andy tried valiantly to put this all together, but he overreached by not asking us to comment and help him get the story right. It’s a classic example of what I mean what I say these things can be done well as real collaborations between the filmmakers and the scientists, rather than glued together clips of edited remarks with a misleading voiceover connecting them all….

It’s such a pity. It could have been a fun discussion of some fun and thought-provoking ideas, with clear and regular indications of what’s true and what’s speculation. This is not that.

Oh well. Not to worry. Got to pick it all up and carry on. There are good examples of how to get it right and so one must keep working to get more of them made…

-cvj

Anyway…

Need. More. Whiskey*.

-cvj

Amusingly, I see that a season one episode I contributed to, “Dangerous Places”, is airing (as a repeat) just before this new one. In that one, they go around discussing all the sorts of dangerous things you can find in the universe (black holes, galaxy collisions, AGNs, jets of plasma, and so forth)… a somewhat vague and maybe sensational premise to discuss all these phenomena in one show, you might argue, but on the other hand… it certainly gets people thinking about things, and maybe gets people excited by all the wild activity that is going on in that pretty sky they look up at. (And of course I should issue an apology to everyone who watches the channel for being on at least four shows over eight days… That’s really over and above the bounds of decency…)

Cheers,

-cvj

Just saw the show on History Channel. I am not a huge fan of Kaku but it was certainly entertaining if not a bit sensational. It seems that the editors cut it to make it seem as though just about anything was possible. (including the possibility of dinosaurs in your living room!!) Anyway good to see it and hopefully it will inspire young folks to learn more about this stuff.

e.

-cvj