Light Saber Love Affair

Image from Wikipedia

Over the years many scientists and technologists have admitted that they were inspired to work in their field by Star Trek, but few, if any, would say the same about Star Wars. And yet the same individuals have an almost universal affection for the first trilogy of Star Wars movies. This is because, where Star Trek was solid science fiction, primarily influencing the head, Star Wars won the heart as an epic fantasy that comfortably wore the robe of 1930s pulp sci-fi. And nowhere is that more obvious than with the light saber.

Take a look at the technology of Star Trek and you’ll find a whole gallimaufry of items that have already made it to reality, or that are setting future directions. Our smartphones and tablets have left the TV show’s equivalents far behind. Even Siri is a better conversationalist than the Enterprise computer. And while we might not have warp drives or transporters, NASA is giving serious thought to ways of getting around the light speed limit, while quantum teleportation brings the transporter to life on an atomic scale. But the one really original technological development in Star Wars, the light saber, is the stuff of dreams, not of reality.

We want to use the technology from Star Trek. But can you imagine the reaction of the military if they were told that scientists had perfected a light saber and it was going to be issued as a sidearm? It would be difficult to be sure if they would laugh or cry. As a weapon, the light saber sucks. There’s a good reason why soldiers stopped using swords. They’re not much use against firearms that work from a distance. And though Star Wars creator George Lucas fudged the issue, showing Jedi masterfully stopping incoming blasts with flicks of their sabers, we all know that it just wouldn’t work. In reality, while they were busy stopping a blast to the head (which they couldn't actually do with projectile or energy weapons because of reaction time), another one would have taken them out from the rear.

Why, then, are light sabers so wonderful if we wouldn’t use them as weapons? Because we want to play with them. They are the ultimate toys. Take away the unpleasant effects of slicing through flesh and who wouldn’t want to take part in a light saber battle, clashing insubstantial glowing blade against blade to a sound track of that glorious ripping buzz? There’s a reason that there’s a toy light saber on my desk, rather than a Star Trek phaser. It’s more fun.

Image from Wikipedia

This doesn’t stop people who don’t understand science and science fiction getting it all wrong. In 2013, we saw headlines like “Scientists Finally Invent Real, Working Lightsabers” from Fox News. No, scientists didn’t. Not even close. The discovery referred to was fascinating – a mechanism for making two photons of light temporarily link together. But it was no light saber, and it never will be.

Part of the light saber’s charm is the way that it effortlessly breaks the laws of physics. It’s magic not math that makes the light saber work. So we shouldn’t look to Star Wars for technological marvels. But we should hope for movies that encourage us once more to dream of wielding the ultimate incandescent blade.

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog