Archive for January, 2009

A Different Way of Looking at “Weightlessness”

Sunday, January 25th, 2009

I’ve had the mixed pleasure of spending a fair amount of time experiencing what is usually called “weightlessness”. I say it is a mixed pleasure because while the sensation of weightlessness is amazing and so different from our everyday experience of the world, I have experienced it on parabolic airplane flights which have the unhappy side effect in a segment of the population of inducing nausea and vomiting. I am in that unlucky segment. The body does adapt, and my last flight was puke-free. Other names used to describe the state of weightlessness are zero-g, no gravity, microgravity, and freefall. The latter is the only one that is truly accurate.

As an astronomer, gravity is the force that most concerns me professionally, and it is also the force that most of us have the most direct intuitive relationship with in our daily lives. And yet the relationship between gravity and freefall or “weightlessness” seems to be as elusive to most people as the sensation itself. Whether I am lecturing to a university astronomy class, speaking to a group of elementary school kids, or giving a public lecture to educated professionals, I always try to demonstrate the amazing insight of Isaac Newton about gravity: the same force that makes the Moon orbit the Earth is responsible for apples falling to the ground. While it is easy to understand those words, their implications for how the solar system works and for “weightlessness” usually remain abstract or obscure. Working against us is not just our daily experience (and, one could reasonably argue, millions of years of evolution), but also the language we use to describe gravity and its presumed absence.

Here is my standard gravity stump speech. For these purposes we do not need to stray into the exotic terrain of warped space-time and Einstein’s general relativity. Our sensation of gravity here on planet Earth comes not from the force of gravity exerted on us by the Earth, but by the competition between that force and all the stuff that gets in the way of it. If you are sitting now, you feel your weight because the chair is stopping you from falling to the floor. The actual sensation of weight I feel right now is due to pressure of a chair seat against the backs of my legs, the pressure of the floor against the bottom of my feet, and the pressure throughout my body produced by the weight of head on neck, torso on lower back, and so forth. So there are two ways to get rid of that pressure: get rid of the Earth, or get rid of the chair. If the chair beneath you were instantly snatched away, you would fall to the floor. And in that split second you would not feel the pressure of the chair on your backside. That sensation of weight would be gone, even though the Earth’s gravity is still very much present.

How about the weight of your head on your neck, etc? Galileo’s famous experiment at the tower of Pisa gives us the answer. Here again, though we may be familiar with the facts of the experiment, the implications are difficult to internalize: gravity makes everything fall at the same speed, whether it be a feather or a hammer, a head or a body. We (and centuries of thinkers between Aristotle and Galileo) have a hard time with this because air does a better job of slowing a feather than it does of slowing a hammer, so, in fact, the feather does fall slower. But if you get rid of the air (easy enough in a small lab experiment), they all fall at exactly the same rate. So when that chair is snatched away, all parts of your body will fall toward the floor at exactly the same rate. There will be no pressure of any part pushing up against any other part. And since that pressure is what we experience as weight, its absence gives us, in that brief period before slamming into the floor, “weightlessness.”

And yet we are still experiencing the Earth’s gravitational pull. In fact, in physics the term “weight” refers not to the pressure we feel from the chair, but simply the force of gravity acting on an object. Removing the chair does nothing to alter that force. It removes instead what is called the “normal force” of the chair that exactly cancels the force of gravity acting on our bodies. The rigid structure of the chair exerts an upward force on our bodies that keeps us from moving down due to the force of gravity. One might then consider the sensation we experience when the chair disappears not to be weightlessness, but normallessness.

I don’t think that will catch on.

We usually associate “weightlessness” with the image of astronauts “floating” inside a spaceship. This gives the impression of motionlessness (I’m going to see how many words I can add “lessness” to). However, it is the very large motion of these astronauts that makes them “weightless”. They are in a spaceship that is falling toward the Earth. There is no chair holding it up. And because the spaceship and the astronaut (like the hammer and the feather) fall toward the Earth at the same rate, the astronaut does not move relative to the spaceship. She appears to float inside it, yet there is nothing holding her up. Both she and the spaceship are falling freely toward the center of the Earth. Happily, they will not hit the Earth because previously, rockets accelerated the spaceship to such a high speed that by the time it has fallen the distance needed to hit the Earth, it has zipped over so much of the Earth that the curvature of the Earth has made the surface that much further away from the spaceship again. Here, then, is the similarity between the apple and the Moon that Newton recognized: the Moon is falling toward the Earth, but because of its great speed, it keeps missing the Earth.

Orbiting = Falling
An orbiting object such as the Moon or the space station is simply falling toward the Earth, but missing it.

So the only connection between space (as in “outer space”) and weightlessness is that getting above the atmosphere is the easiest way to fall for a very long time without running into something. But the exact same thing happens (for a very short time) when you snatch the chair out from under someone. So, “weightlessness” can be achieved by finding a way to fall for an extended period of time without any slowing due to air friction or, preferably, uncomfortably hard landings. Parabolic airplane flights accomplish this by flying the same path that an object falling toward the Earth would follow if there were no atmosphere. Because this is easily calculated, pilots can fly planes on such paths. While they do so, everything inside the plane follows the path than an object falling toward the Earth would follow if there were no atmosphere. So the airplane seat is falling as fast as you are, and it therefore doesn’t push up on you. Your arms are falling as fast as your shoulders, so they do not pull down on you either. You experience “weightlessness” because you are falling freely very quickly. The pilots make sure to achieve crashlessness (okay, that’s a stretch) on the flight by having the plane pull up before it heads toward the Earth too quickly. When it does, your body wants to head toward the Earth quickly, but the plane is rudely interrupting that fall and exerts a pressure against you that is much greater than normal. We thus feel heavy or excessive weight.

In fact, you are, when “weightless” accelerating at 1-g, where g is 9.8 meters per second per second. Right now, sitting on a chair in a normal terrestrial environment, your acceleration is zero-g. Weightlessness is really motion at 1-g, and not zero-g. The net force acting on us when we feel heavy is zero, while the net force acting on us when we feel weightless is equal to the local force due to gravity.

Doubt

Sunday, January 25th, 2009

I saw this movie knowing virtually nothing about it (and if you’d like to do the same, then: (1) it’s a good character study that feels like a play but does not suffer from that at all; (2) the acting is great: Streep does her usual superb job; Amy Adams is extremely cute as a naive young nun; Philip Seymour Hoffman does a great job at the fulcrum of the film’s eponymous uncertainty; and (3) spoiler alert - stop reading now).

The movie was written and directed by John Patrick Shanley from his play, and takes place at a Catholic school where Streep plays Sister Aloysius Beauvier (!), the school’s principle, Adams plays Sister James, a sweetly innocent history teacher, and Hoffman is the parish priest. Or some kind of priest. I don’t know how Catholic works, so parts of the movie were like watching a National Geographic special about a tribe with peculiar clothes and rituals. Sister Aloysius gives a clue to Sister James (that went totally over my head) to be on the look out for shenanigans at the school. Sister James, innocent though she may be, picked up that there might be something funny going on with the Father Flynn. When the school’s one black student returns from a call to the rectory (no pun intended) acting peculiarly and with the smell of alcohol on his breath, the two nuns suspect the priest of molestation. While I had anticipated a rather subtle and intricate series of baits and traps, the movie moves directly into open confrontation between the nuns and the priest. The evidence, such as it is, has both evil and innocent explanations. Through nothing more elaborate than artful dialog, the movie forces us from one side of the issue to the other and thus to consider the elusive nature of conviction, the effects of accusations (whether they are well-founded or not), and the inescapability of doubt.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Sunday, January 25th, 2009

Benjamin Button’s body ages backwards. So when he is mentally and biologically young, he has the body of an old man, and vice versa. Abandoned as a monster by his biological father, Benjamin (Brad Pitt) is taken in by a loving black couple who, conveniently, run a home for the elderly in New Orleans at the end of World War I. By the time Benjamin is a teenager, he has the body of a healthy, if elderly man, and is able to strike out on his own to explore the world.

His curious aging means that biologically, he never stays in sync with anyone. As a young old codger, he meets the truly young Daisy (whose older self is played by Cate Blanchett). While Benjamin is smitten, they cannot go through life together because of his apparent age. Or can’t they? The movie follows Benjamin through his entire life, and at some point he and Daisy “meet in the middle”, when they are both truly middle-aged and apparently middle-aged. But ten years earlier, when Daisy is a young woman in her twenties, living a bohemian life in the big city as an up and coming ballerina, Benjamin is also actually a young man. And while his body at that point might be that of someone in his fifties, as someone approaching that decade myself I was put off by the suggestion that that physical difference made him less likely to think and act like a 30-year-old. Especially since he actually was 30 years old. I don’t want to belabor this point, but I felt that here Eric Roth’s screenplay made Button age in reverse mentally as well as physically, in order to better serve the theme of the movie.

In reality, we all drift together through time in parallel, caught in the same approximate currents until some random eddy separates us from ones we love. For Benjamin Button, these eddies are so strong that he can only connect with any individual for a brief spin around. The pull of time is stronger, and so his loves and connections are that much more fleeting. This is the theme of the movie, which is technically beautiful, and full of wonderful side characters. Taraji P. Henson as Benjamin’s adoptive mother, Queenie, for example, is terrific. And the direction is also superb. But in telling the episodic tale, the movie relied too much on voice over for my taste. Benjamin, for his part, is a quiet soul. Pitt gives a very understated performance, but in the end Benjamin Button remained curiously unknown to me.

Revolutionary Road

Saturday, January 24th, 2009

This is the best movie with the least stuff going on I’ve seen in a long time. What I mean by that, is that there’s a lot of great character insight and very little event. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet’s much anticipated screen reunion could not be much different than Titanic. Set in the suburbs of New York City in a quiet summer in the 50’s, Revolutionary Road is the portrait of people struggling with the question of whether or not to hate themselves or forgive themselves for what they’ve become. The painful irony is that there’s nothing particularly wrong with what they’ve become: a settled, stereotypical family of four in the suburbs with comfortable routines but little excitement. Frank Wheeler (DiCaprio) takes the train to work at a boring job as some sort of salesman or sales executive (even he seems unsure of, or at least totally uninterested in, what he does). He leaves behind his wife April (Winslet), and their two children (whom we almost never see), in a quaint white house on Revolutionary Road.

In this summer of their discontent, they realize that they are at the brink of coasting along on a well-worn life path with little chance of change. So April, whose dream of being an actress seems to have drowned in mediocre community theater, seizes on the idea that they can escape their destiny of routine suburban living by selling everything and moving to Paris. There, she plans to pay the bills by working as a secretary while Frank, who once upon a time was the most interesting person she had ever met, can find a new calling in life.

The depiction of their life is brutally realistic. Both actors are terrific, and I’m surprised neither got an Oscar nomination. Winslet’s husband, Sam Mendes, directed and gives this movie the same intense sense of impending doom and import that he did with American Beauty, but he too was overlooked by the Academy. My one quibble with the movie is the character of John Givings, who as a nominally crazy person is the one person in the movie who sees what is really bugging Frank and April and what is wrong with the suburban world. Givings is played by Michael Shannon who was nominated (deservedly) for a supporting actor Oscar, but his character’s insights are a bit too perfect and obvious.

The Reader

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

Kate Winslet delivers another entirely convincing performance in The Reader, the story of a German law student, Michael, who stumbles into a sexual relationship with Hannah Schmitz (Winslet) at the age of 15. Nearly ten years later, at law school, Michael observes in person the trial of Schmitz and others for Nazi war crimes. Michael is played by David Kross as a young man, and by Ralph Fiennes in later life. Both Hannah and Michael are the kind of people who make you want to, at least once during the course of the film, reach through the screen, grab them by the shoulders and vigorously shake some sense into them. They are stubborn to their own detriment, but not, it seems from any sort of principle, but from some general misguided obtuseness.

When given a clear choice between good action and bad inaction, both characters choose the latter. [SPOILER ALERT]. Hannah was an SS officer during the war who, together with several other guards, left 300 prisoners to burn to death inside a burning building rather than risk the chaos that would result from letting them out. Displaying a remarkable lack of imagination, Hannah cannot recognize what options she might have had at the time. The other accused guards, sensing an opening, decide to cast Hannah as the ringleader of the war crime. Is Hannah’s lack of imagination a product of her illiteracy? Her foreplay with young Michael is to have him read to her. Having readers is a habit she apparently picked up during the war when she would force young prisoners to read to her. So she seems more like a simply heartless person. But at the same time it is difficult to reconcile this image with the person who, years later in prison, teaches herself to read by comparing the pages of a book with the audiotapes sent to her by the older Michael, and who has the ability to recognize and cherish great literature.

Speaking of Michael, why does he withhold the information of her illiteracy from Hannah’s lawyers that would have spared her a harsh sentence? When he provides her the gift of audio tapes of books (including classics such as The Odyssey), why does he refuse to answer her plaintive letters in her newfound written hand?

I have other questions about the actions of these characters, most importantly about Hannah’s final act. I can speculate about their motives, but I think the movie does not provide us enough insight into either character to reach a conclusion. Nevertheless, I found several moments in the movie to be quite powerful. The sequence where Michael spends hours on end recording books for Hannah who ultimately, painstakingly, uses these to teach herself to read, is moving, as are Michael’s moves to reach out to his estranged daughter. The movie is an interesting character study of sorts, but ultimately left me with too many questions.

Slumdog Millionaire

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

I was eager to see this movie having heard it uniformly praised and described as a love story and a story about a poor Indian man who reaches the brink of fortune through unlikely circumstances. I was not at all prepared for the brutality of the first act of the movie, which includes torture, gruesome deaths, and child mutilation. Then I remembered it is a Danny Boyle (Trainspotting) movie and realized I should have known better. This is not offered as an indictment of the movie, but of the previous movie reviews I had read. This is a great movie (as is Trainspotting), and the brutal first act is a necessary part of the film.

This is a movie that makes you work for it, though not quite as hard, thankfully, as its protagonist, Jamal Malik (Dev Patel). Jamal has reached the last round of the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire as the movie starts. Since he grew up in the slums with virtually no formal education, reaching this level arouses suspicion. The movie tells the story of his life in flashbacks to show how he reached this point and knew the answers to the first 14 questions. It is a framing device for his story that is worlds apart from the setting of his life until that point. His story is brutal and compelling and also beautiful, as Boyle shows us India from the Taj Mahal to the slums of Mumbai and the villas and nightlife of the new Indian upper class.