Science Fiction: Promoting an Advance in Scientific Interest?

"Once you stop dismissing something as unattainable, then you start working on its development."

The exploration of space has captured imaginations for centuries-- ranging from references in Chinese Myths to From the Earth to the Moon by Jules Verne-- and I cannot see it waning in the near future.  Space has always been the greatest unknown, the last frontier.  It captures the imagination of some and the scientific interest in others.


In the nanotech blog I explored the usefulness and future of carbon nanotubes.  One possible use is for the creation of a space elevator.  A space elevator is essentially a taught cable strung counterweight placed in a geosynchronous orbit and Earth.  A simple example can be seen below:

"A space elevator is essentially a long cable extending from our planet's surface into space with its center of mass at geostationary Earth orbit (GEO), 35,786 km in altitude. Electromagnetic vehicles traveling along the cable could serve as a mass transportation system for moving people, payloads, and power between Earth and space." (NASA)


The interesting thing about space elevators is the fact that the idea preceded the science.  By several decades.  Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in 1895, Yuri Artsutanov in 1960, John Isaacs in 1966, Jerome Pearson in 1975, and Arthur C. Clarke in 1979 all presented ideas remarkably similar to the current imagining of a space elevator (NASA).  It wasn't until the discovery of carbon nanotubes in 1991 by Sumio Iijima that the science behind the space elevator came to fruition.  Carbon nanotubes were the last piece to the scientific puzzle.


This relationship between science fiction and (I know this is cliche but) science fact is an intriguing one.  Science fiction is often regarded as the intangible while science is definitively tangible.  In this way, science fiction can act as a "mediator" between the masses and scientists.  It presents scientific ideals in a palatable manner.  I can see this directly affecting the two cultures model.  The two cultures model assumes that the public and the sciences exist as two entirely separate beings with very little information being exchanged.  I see science fiction blurring the line between the two, showing the public the exciting potential behind current sciences.  This, in turn, interests new generations in becoming actively involved in the future of science, promoting bidirectional communication.  Bidirectional communication is active and mutual communication between the sciences and the public.  If the public has been introduced to scientific ideals in the form of literature (books, movies, videogames, etc.) they will be more likely to show interest or be involved in the scientific process in the future.  Science fiction is affecting the social enterprise of science.  Science as a social enterprise is the fact that social behaviors shape the direction of scientific discoveries.  If the public is interested in the possible outcomes of the exploration of space, science will be inevitably be directed toward that path.  Each generation of the public raised on science fiction (as I was with Star Wars and the Sci-Fi channel) will guide the masses toward an interest in the scientific discoveries, propagating an interest in science.  The popularization of science fiction allowed for scientific interest to move away from the upper organ (head) and move toward the lower organs (heart and gut).  The Four Organ Theory of Communication is the ability for reasoning to be motivated by different portions of connection to a topic--the head is logic, the heart is emotion, the gut is feelings, and the lower organs are "carnal desires."  By tying the idea of space exploration in emotions (the heart and the gut), science fiction has placed a strong connection between public interest and the advancement of scientific knowledge.


Another intriguing aspect is the cost of operating a space elevator.  While the initial cost would be huge, approximately $20 billion for a privately funded one, the running cost would be greatly reduced.  Michio Kaku (a famous theoretical physicist) does a superb job of both explaining the cost of launching a person into space using a standard rocket and the basic idea behind the space elevator:

And Neil deGrasse Tyson explaining space elevators:

One of the biggest problems with the exploration of space is the cost.  Today, it costs approximately $22,000 per kilogram to put something into space.  With a space elevator, this cost could be reduced to a meager $17,700 per 12,000 kg trip (~$1.5 per kilogram) (NASA).  This price reduction would both greatly increase the accessibility to space and diminish the necessity for high levels of government involvement in the exploration of space.  However viable space travel may be in the future, it is imperative that we communicate the risk.  Scientists must choose to share the risks behind each new discovery, as to not feed the cycle of mistrust.  The cycle of mistrust is the idea that the public does not trust the scientists to inform them of new scientific discoveries which, in turn, does not allow the scientists to trust the public with new information pertaining to a discovery.  I found some applets that easily show the risk behind a potential failure of a space elevator:


Elevator that breaks at the anchor.
Elevator that breaks 25% of the way up.
Elevator that breaks 50% of the way up.
Elevator that breaks 75% of the way up.
Elevator that breaks at the counterweight.


Each of these scenarios present a different potential disaster but the fact that they were communicated in an easy to understand medium (videos) helps the public understand the intrinsic dangers of such a new technology. If scientists inform the public of the potential for disaster (without creating a panic), they will build trust.  The general populace will see scientists as informative instead of distant and allow the continuing advancement of science.  


Science fiction is the middle ground between scientists and the public, creating the interest in scientific ideals without encumbering the public without inhibiting the scientists.  Science fiction often fosters an interest interest in future scientific discoveries while allowing for the imagination that exists in the public sector.  It is a brilliant merger of creativity and scientific discovery, allowing for science and imagination to exist simultaneously outside of the limitations of either mindset.


References:


INFINITY BOUND. (08 Sept 2009). "Space Elevator: Going up? Way way up." Retrieved 21 Nov 2011, from:  http://infinitybound.com/index.php/2009/09/08/space-elevator-materials-are-the-key/

Havely, Joe. (15 Oct 2003).  "China's Ming Dynasty astronaut." Retrieved 21 Nov 2011, from: http://articles.cnn.com/2003-09-30/tech/china.wanhu_1_astronaut-yang-liwei-spacecraft-history-making-flight?_s=PM:TECH

O'Leary, Beth Laura. (2009). "Handbook of space engineering, archaeology, and heritage."
Retrieved 21 Nov 2011, from: http://books.google.com/books?id=dTwIDun4MroC&pg=PA889&lpg=PA889&dq=1800s+space+travel+ideas&source=bl&ots=PS6r3KN70u&sig=6EWXHhCFUCsmHbuVbN9Ms8CtsY8&hl=en&ei=IWXMTo-NMPOgsQLr-5XADg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=1800s%20space%20travel%20ideas&f=false 

Wikipedia. "The Fountains of Paradise." Retrieved 21 Nov 2011, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountains_of_Paradise

NATURE. (07 Nov 1991). "Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon." Retrieved 21 Nov 2011, from: "http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v354/n6348/abs/354056a0.html

NASA Science. (7 Sept 2000). "Audacious & Outrageous: Space Elevators." Retrieved 21 Nov 2011, from: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast07sep_1/

Wikipedia. "Space elevator economics." Retrieved 21 Nov 2011, from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_economics

Cold Fusion... It's just regular fusion... minus the heat... right?

Cold fusion has been a topic of scientific interest for the better part of a century. The theory behind cold fusion is rather simple: the absorption of hydrogen gas by a palladium cathode, leading to a net creation of energy. This creation of energy, however, leads to problems.

Regular fusion, the kind that happens inside of stars, requires vast amounts of heat and pressure to sustain a reaction. This kind of fusion is very well understood.  The two requirements for fusion are high temperatures and high pressures. These two requirements alone put a damper on the plausibility of cold fusion. In order to replicate these environments "We must use energy from microwaves, lasers and ion particles to achieve these temperatures" ... and "squeeze hydrogen atoms together by using intense magnetic fields, powerful lasers or ion beams" (HowStuffWorks- How Nuclear Fusion Reactors Work). These known requirements for fusion put a significant damper on the ability for the scientific community to accept Fleischmann and Pons' experimental results.  The discrepancy between theoretical and experimental results leads to a 2-culture model in the scientific community.  Experimentalists saw the potential benefit of cold fusion while theorists knew the theory behind fusion, taking the findings with a grain of salt.  The overall inability to simply accept the results by the scientific community fueled an (overall) beneficial discourse.  If everyone had taken the findings of Fleischmann and Pons at face value, without questioning the results, who knows what results would have developed.  This illustrates one of the Necessities for Science, skepticism.  Without skepticism, we are destined to be bound by questionable results and poor experimental techniques.  The scientific community benefits from the questioning and refinement of results.  The 2-culture model, however, is not limited to the scientific community.

The public has been disillusioned by the history of cold fusion.  When Fleischmann and Pons announced positive results of their cold fusion experiment, the public was immediately interested.  The possibility of a cheap, reliable power source was a godsend.  The oil crisis of the early 70s was still a fresh wound, the world was clamoring for a power source capable of replacing a dependence on foreign oil.  This may have lead to the public placing too much merit in the results.  When these results inevitably ended up being false, the scientific community lost a considerable amount of merit with the public.  This lead to a general caution regarding new scientific discoveries, even if they were thoroughly backed up.  Following this case, the public developed a mindset, one of caution.  Overt optimism lead to disappointment and distrust.  If the scientific community would back faulty science, why should the public trust any of their discoveries?  This mindset lead fed into a preexisting cycle of mistrust.  The public didn't want to trust the results scientists published and scientists didn't trust the public with a continued involvement in the scientific process.

Something else I found interesting about this topic was the inconsistency in the scientific community itself.  Many scientific journals and individuals were quick to disregard years of theoretical data on the basis of one (rather unreliable) experiment.  The discrepancies between the acceptance of a theory and an experimental result continue to baffle me, especially after reading up on this case.  Theories are only accepted after years, if not decades, of  meticulous calculations and experimental results backing up the original claim.  The fact that the scientific community chose to override years of theoretical knowledge stating that fusion wasn't possible at room temperature (except in generally cold, locally hot fusion or Muon catalyzed fusion-- and it's important to note that both of these designs do not provide a net energy production) seems to run counterintuitive to my understanding of the scientific process.  The scientific process was built to make sure scientific discovery positively benefited mankind, not override years of theory.  Yes, theories can be proved incorrect, but the process by which theories are disproved is even more tedious than getting it approved.  Finally, the fact that years of theoretical physics work was overturned by chemists seems... improbable.  Its like a computer scientist overturning the theory of evolution; yes, its possible but it would be scrutinized heavily before anyone accepted it as fact.  If anything, this case fed a cycle of mistrust in the scientific community--one that helps regulate the influx of faulty scientific information into the public sector (the scientific community will regulate the "groundbreaking scientific discoveries" that the public hears about).

On a complete tangent, this is how I imagine the process occurred:

Scientific Community at Discovery:

Theoretical Physicists:

Scientific Community After Investigation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Generally_cold.2C_locally_hot_fusion

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/chemistry/history/chemical_history/slides/1836
http://science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-reactor2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXnr2y7SPr0
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/facepalm
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-a-trap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

Carbon Nanowires, Nanotubes, and Nanosheets

We'll start here -- How Nanotechnology Works

Simple enough concept with incredibly complicated implications.  While the chemical and physical properties of Carbon are known (quite well) on a macroscopic scale, the nanoscale is another story.  Carbon nanowires partake in both the sp and sp^2 bondings which places it as a hybrid between carbon chains (sp bonding) and graphite (sp^2 bonding).  This leads to interesting properties.

New studies on the strength of these submicroscopic cylinders of carbon indicate that on an ounce-for-ounce basis they are at least 117 times stronger than steel and 30 times stronger than Kevlar, the material used in bulletproof vests and other products.

This shows the potential benefits that nanotech has to offer the world.  Carbon nanotubes have application in almost every field of science, from medical applications to transistor technology.  Like every new discovery, it has a downside.  Studies have concluded that nanotubes are as dangerous as asbestos, which was banned in the many countries.  The United States banned asbestos in 1989 because long exposure to high concentrations is more likely to cause health problems.  If carbon nanotubes act much like asbestos, the scientific community has a massive preconception to overcome.  Nearly everyone in the United States knows (at least on some level) that asbestos is bad for their health.

Kuzma makes it a point to include the public in the risk analysis of a nanotechnology.  This may pose a problem for the scientists devoted to the development and implementation of carbon nanotubes.  Scientists will have to provide a large amount of data that runs counter to the preconceptions of the public.  This may ultimately lead to fewer unforeseen complications with the technology but it will slow down the development process.  The scientific community must find a balance between overcoming misconceptions and moving forward in the discovery process.  What leads to this balance?  I don't know, I think it's a dynamic beast that differs from case to case.  With nanotech I would like to see it lean towards trust for the scientists.  Let them make advancements.  Trust them to make good decisions.  Break the cycle of mistrust. The potential benefits of nanotech (even just carbon nanotubes) far outweighs the potential for disaster if only a modicum of caution is used.

Space Elevators -- Brought to you by carbon nanotubes

Sources:

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-05/carbon-nanotubes-may-present-cancer-risk
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=making-plastic-as-strong
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nanotechnologys-future
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/635-3.html
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nanotechnology2.htm
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20016718-247.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-nanotube-danger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#United_States
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/interview-of-brad-edwards-space.html