Captain's Log: Old Frontiers

From the beginning many if not most of the elements in the Star Trek universe were from what was then the 70 year tradition of science fiction in literature and film.  Trek honored that part of the tradition that favored scientific plausibility, especially in the technological foundations of its universe: warp drive, phasers, transporters etc. Many such elements were either projections based on new but existing technology (so that doors that swoosh open automatically would be in supermarkets in twenty or thirty years)  or fairly daring and imaginative extrapolations from scientific theories.

But as a television show, Star Trek was unique in using the latest scientific findings or theories as elements in stories or even as springboards for stories.  I think this much is generally acknowledged.  But in reading a few stories about recent scientific findings and controversies, especially regarding space and physics, I was struck by the realization that this adventurousness in using the latest science has been gone for a long time--perhaps since the later Berman era, but more surely in the Abrams era.

I felt the plausibility slipping away towards the end of Voyager, though there were of course lapses before that.  (I think the armor on Voyager did it for me finally.)  The writers for the first Star Trek JJA movie justified their new timeline reality with certain theories derived from quantum physics, but these theories weren't at all new.  I've noted that more scientifically literate fans than I have pointed out a number of plausibility lapses in the second movie.

Contrast this with the relatively new and very popular TV genre of the forensic science crime shows.  Producers for the one that some science publication judged the most scientifically accurate (Bones) embrace the idea of using the science and keeping up with new discoveries as a way to build stories.  There are staff members responsible for providing this information.

Though in some ways science is still catching up to Star Trek (and will for awhile longer), it sobering to realize that its essentials were established almost a half century ago.  Plate tectonics, for example, which is an axiom in earth sciences, was not even yet an established theory when Star Trek went on the air.

Black holes were such a new idea that there wasn't yet an established name for them. (A Trek episode referred to a "dark star.")  The term "black hole" was first used in 1967.  That was also the year that pulsars were first discovered.  The thermodynamics of black holes weren't mathematically described until the 1970s.

Just recently however an entirely new theory is being applied to how black holes behave internally, because neither general relativity nor quantum physics seem to work there.  New research is applying something called loop quantum gravity to the problem, and coming up with brand new theories involving fundamental questions about the universe.

Could this be used in a Star Trek story?  Could it even be the basis for one?  I don't know.  But recent experience suggests that it won't be, maybe not even in Star Trek novels anymore.

 Similarly, there are stories to be told that center on the vitally important and still evolving dynamics of Earth's climate crisis--not the science alone but the human responses.  But the Trek imagination seems stuck on wars and war metaphors, revenge drama and mostly on re-telling old stories with bigger visuals.  There's simply too much money at stake.  The tent pole must never shake.

Meanwhile, one basis for Star Trek from the beginning is accumulating more evidence: the existence of many worlds where life should be possible.  Applying the number of extra-solar planets already "found," the math suggests there are, yes, billions and billions of theoretically habitable planets. Geoffrey Marcy, a professor of astronomy at Berkeley, extrapolated the findings across the open void of space, adding: "With tens of billions of Earth-like planets in each galaxy, our entire universe must contain billions of billions of Earth-like planets." 

Other recent discoveries should spark all kinds of stories.  Scientists are realizing that the universe is even bigger than believed.  A galaxy has recently been found that is thirty billion light years away.

Or recent discoveries about Mars suggests that it not only once had water--it was once a watery world.  NASA has a video suggesting what it was like, and the project to study the Mars environment--launching tomorrow (Nov. 18)  is explained by LeVar Burton in this video:

[Update: This spacecraft was successfully launched. ]Which might remind us that how scientists believe the Earth obtained water and even how life may have started has completely changed since the 1960s.

Even something like the Cassini photo of Saturn with the Earth a distant dot (at the top of this column--click on it to see it much bigger) inspires not only wonder but recalls the wonder that Star Trek represents, as in this story.  Although I feel existing Trek stories still have much to suggest in other ways, it does seem that new science and its implications has dropped out of new Trek.

R.I.P. Doris Lessing

Doris Lessing died last week at the age of 94.  Famous for pioneering realistic fiction, she is quite possibly the only Nobel Prize for Literature winner to have written science fiction novels. When she did so she was criticized both by science fiction fans and guardians of literature.  Even as her first book in her Canopus in Argos series was published, she was defending herself against criticism from the literature side.  She said that "space fiction, with science fiction, makes up the most original branch of literature now...I do think there is something very wrong with an attitude that puts a 'serious' novel on one shelf and, let's say, First and Last Men on another."

She meant Last and First Men by Olaf Stapledon, who was also the author of The Star Maker, which Brian Aldiss in The Billion Year Spree calls "magnificent...the one great grey holy book of science fiction."  There are of course a number of very good science fiction writers as well as many bad ones.  But there is definitely a line of writers who combine literary quality with science fiction, beginning with H.G. Wells and Stapledon, and continuing through Kim Stanley Robinson.  That line runs through Doris Lessing as well.

Trekville News

In Star Trek news, there's an interview in which Bob Orci expresses some regret for his outbursts insulting fans (see previous Captain's Log) though I'm not sure his logic would pass the Spock test.  And I don't see  he understands that he began it by abusing the writer of a legitimate and composed critique, not a rant in a fan comment.

And there's this from Patrick Stewart.  Though I question the premise--nobody listens to old men of any race if they're not famous--he's still making us proud.

Captain's Log: Trouble in Trekdom

It's been more than a little weird over at the Trek Movie site.  A post designated an "editorial" by Joseph Dickerson entitled "Star Trek is Broken: Here's How to Fix It" elicited a blizzard of responses, including several intemperate ones from Roberto Orci, one of the principal writers of the Star Trek JJA movies. 

Apart from any judgment on the validity of his assertions, Dickerson's piece was calm, respectful and reasonably written.  I thought it was pretty tame for an indictment, sincere and quickly positive in the "Trek is dead but I know how to bring it back" tradition that goes back at least to the later Rick Berman era, and probably for some folks back to the first motion picture and the first post-TOS series.

But Orci was outraged.  He called the author "akin to a child acting out against its parents" and concludes this opening salvo with "There is a reason why I get to write the movies, and you don't."  He later responded to a commenter but telling him to F-off.  His responses were so extreme that several commenters questioned whether it was really Orci.  The moderator assured them it was.

 Later Orci returned to say "don't take me too seriously" and explained that twice a year he explodes at "morons."  But by then a commenter asserted that Orci was also on Twitter "dropping all kinds of F bombs" and asked "why can't we have writers with class?  Even Brannon Braga had more."  I could almost hear Braga laughing--he had endured far worse and more personal criticism for a much longer time without (to my knowledge) lashing out in such a public way.

Some commenters agreed with Dickerson at least in part, others didn't.  Some suggested that the polls he cited naming Star Trek Into Darkness among the least favorite Trek movies were a very small and informal sample. (This is what we had editors for in the print world.)

Now there's a new "editorial" up, predictably titled "Star Trek is Not Broken" which ironically and unfortunately is much more negative about most of Star Trek, in a series of opinions and assertions with more profanity and ideology than substantive argument.  But it has its adherents, and I doubt that many of the creators of TNG etc. will be on the board trying to muscle this guy out.

I think what bothers me about all this isn't the mud-wrestling that some fans routinely engage in, at least on the Internet.  It's that the original Dickerson piece was not an opinion slung out in the heat of online wrangling or the deliberate provocation that some take such delight in producing.  It was a considered critique--that I didn't entirely agree with, either in analysis or in prescription, a bit naive maybe, but a reasonable point of view pretty cleanly expressed.  It bothers me that the author of a legitimate editorial article was demeaned by a much more powerful person,  by a principal Star Trek movie writer, with a kind of attempted humiliation that smacks of intimidation.  (Though it must be said that Dickerson's first comment in this thread indicated a cool and even generous response.)

I simply can't imagine Trek principals of any earlier time responding as Orci did to such a critique.  It may be one of the many things that have changed, as ginning up Internet interest becomes so crucial to the first-weekend success of these explosively budgeted movies.  But what I don't want to see happen is this becoming acceptable behavior.  It may be that critiques are going to be made on the Internet rather than in print, but those that make respectable arguments in a legitimate form should be respected as legitimate.  No writers should be shamed as spoiled children, or told their ideas are worthless because they are not millionaire screenwriters.  It's unbecoming and ultimately dangerous.

I am also reminded that a lot of people thought Star Trek was broken back in 2004, as Enterprise entered its final season.  I wrote a New York Times article in which I interviewed fans and Star Trek actors and producers, to confront this question.  The article began: "Could Star Trek be dying?  It's enough to make Spock laugh."  Several quotes from Leonard Nimoy followed, to the effect that Star Trek has been declared dead many times but always came back.  (He really was laughing as he talked about it.)

I have no evidence for this, but I suspect this article and those quotes had something to do with the momentum that resulted in the first JJA film, and particularly in Nimoy's involvement.  Whether or not this is so, criticism of Star Trek has a long tradition, and while some of it has been toxic and had unfortunate consequences, much of it has been thoughtful, sincerely felt, and evidence of the deep involvement many people have in their Star Trek.  And without some of this criticism of a decade ago, Roberto Orci probably would not have gotten to write Star Trek movies.

Elsewhere in the universe....

Scientists are now really sure this time that Voyager 1 is the first space probe, and probably the first  human-made package of technology to reach interstellar space.  And it did so about a year ago when it breached the solar bubble at the far edge of the solar system.

Meanwhile this AP article about "space tycoons" like Paul Allen says they are enacting their Star Trek dreams.

This article about Disney's frantic attempts to make sure there will be some kind of Star Wars feature in movie houses every year for the foreseeable future prompts thoughts about these so-called "tentpoles" as being beyond the realms of fanaticism, entertainment and avarice.  In some ways, the worlds and characters of Star Wars, Star Trek, the Marvel superheroes, the DC superheroes, Warner's Harry Potter, etc. are the locations and figures of our predominant mythologies, substituting for the tales of Greek gods and Greek heroes, etc.  In other ways, they are in danger of being exploited into meaningless repetitions, variations and inflated cliches.  I suppose it is up to those who love them and what they mean to defend them against the monsters that consume everything, eventually including themselves.

[Both images here are from that exemplary site, Trekcore.] 

New Trek

Over at Trekmovie, Anthony Pascale has gotten new Trek movie writer Roberto Orci to admit that the forthcoming feature essentially takes place in an alternate Trek universe. (Their conversation is here, and a diligent follow-up post here checks in with Trek science experts and some real science video.)

The idea is that there's a Romulan named Nero who exists in the 24th century of the Trek universe we know. He goes back in time to alter the past, by killing off James T. Kirk's parents. He is pursued through time by Spock, who apprises his young self of what happened. There's more we don't know yet about this part of it, but Orci says that the premise is that because Kirk's past has been altered, this is an alternative universe according to the Many Worlds theory, which says there are many realities slightly different from each other, perhaps one branching out from every different action, like one for the universe in which Kirk's parents live, and this one, where they didn't. ( So it should probably should be called Many Universes theory, or "many timelines", especially because there is another Many Worlds theory that purports to show that intelligent life is likely on many worlds in our own universe.)

The theory of time travel Orci cites says that when someone goes back in time, he is going to (or is creating) a different universe (or timeline) by that very act. So when Nero goes back in time and changes the past, he creates the alternate universe the new Trek movie is in.

Orci stresses however that the essential characters are the same. (Their motto when writing the script, he says, was "different day, same ship.") He also uses an elaboration of the Many Worlds theory to account for why things are pretty close in this universe to the people and events we know--i.e. the same crew winds up on the Enterprise.

There are a bunch of things to say about this. First, the science. Orci repeatedly references "quantum mechanics" as providing the rationale for this approach, and refers to it repeatedly as the "most successful theory of science" and "the most successful, most tested scientific theory ever..."

Sheila Jones, in her introduction to her book, The Quantum Ten, makes a distinction I think is really worth making. She defines "quantum mechanics" as "the set of rules for how the physics and mathematics are used to make testable predictions," and she agrees that by this definition, these rules of quantum mechanics "have been used to unparalleled fruitfulness since their development in the 1920s."

But, she defines "quantum theory" as "explanation for why the quantum world behaves the way it does; this exercise is still fraught with controversy." She considers "quantum physics" as the umbrella term covering both the how (mechanics) and why (theory.)

So by these definitions I believe what Orci is talking about is quantum theory, not mechanics. Quantum mechanics seems to be entirely mathematical, and its "success" has been in testable results. Indeed, computers, cell phones, etc. would be impossible without successful quantum mechanics.

But quantum theory (which is also highly mathematical) largely can't be tested. It's been frustrating and embarrassing to physicists since the 1920s that they don't really know why quantum mechanics works. They have yet to come up with a "why" that is agreed upon.

Indeed, it's hard not to agree with Jones that the current state of quantum theory is very messy. There are a lot of competing ideas, and a lot of doubts about all of them (including string theory.) And that may be why Andre Bormanis (Star Trek science advisor and producer/writer) says Many Universes is "one way of looking at quantum mechanics but not everyone agrees that it is the right way, certainly it is not the only way." Or why, when The Physics of Star Trek author Lawrence Krauss considers the idea of universes branching off whenever someone goes back in time, he is "not convinced this remains consistent with the laws of physics as we understand them."

So, in terms of science, it's a respectable theory, but the success of quantum mechanics doesn't say much about whether it's true. Until somebody travels through time, it's probably not a testable hypothesis.

But in science fiction and particularly in Trek, the science is about what seems plausible at any given time, and also what sparks the imagination in terms of what future may result if it is true. Most of Star Trek is based on science fiction conventions that it either established or followed, roughly based on scientific and other possibilities.

So let's look at science fiction. Orci cites the TNG episode "Parallels" to establish the Many Universes theory as it relates to quantum physics. Which it does, but I don't see it as establishing a link between Many Universes and time travel, or that time travel places the traveler in an alternate universe forever. The story follows Worf through slightly different Trek universes, but it does get him back to the one he left--the one where he belongs. It is arguable however that every time travel in Star Trek results in a new timeline.

The Back to the Future time theory was discussed, in which Marty McFly has to avoid changing important elements of the past or he'll change the future, which is his present. The "grandfather paradox" is explored: if a time traveler shoots his grandfather as a boy, he'll prevent his own birth, but if he wasn't born, how could he travel through time to shoot his grandfather? I haven't seen another paradox discussed much, that was a key plot point in the most recent feature film version of The Time Machine, only loosely based on the classic H.G. Wells novel. In that movie, the (American) scientist is motivated to complete his time machine when his fiancee is killed by a mugger in Central Park. He goes back in time to prevent the murder, but she immediately is killed in another way. This continues to happen, and his inability to change this aspect of the past is explained to him by someone in the far future, who says that he couldn't change what motivated him to invent the time machine, because the time machine is what made it possible for him to go back to the past and try to change it.

But back to the new Trek movie. The revelation that it takes places in an alternate Trek universe seemed prompted by concerns among fans over canon--differences in the movie from the Trek universe we know. (Devoted readers know we've gone into this in excessive depth and detail before.) But I'm also going to be interested in how this movie deals with what is supposed to be the 24th century (TNG era) of the classic Trek universe. Who is this laughably named Nero anyway, and why doesn't he look like the Romulans we've known? How does he travel through time; how does Spock do it, too? (And since we're talking time travel paradoxes, what's to prevent him from doing it again?)

In moviemaking terms, the alternative universe solves problems with Trek canon in going back to the Trek past, and also allows the 23rd century Enterprise to look different--and probably much fancier and more advanced--than it did on the original series. As Orci and Pascale say, all of this may well be totally irrelevant to the average movie fan, and quite possibly a lot of Star Trek fans. Even fans may be more interested in their favorite characters, which are going to be somewhat different anyway because they're played by different actors. Although Orci justifies character consistency also with quantum theory, he also suggests it depends on "how much you believe in, for lack of a better word, their souls."

Which is a way of saying they are essentially the same, and Star Trek--including the ethos governing the stories--is essentially the same. All this of course remains to be seen... because the movie remains to be seen.

But if this movie follows quantum theory as Orci seems to be interpreting it, hasn't the Abrams Era trapped itself in an alternate Trek universe? So now there will be New Trek, separate from Classic Trek... Remind you of anything?

Back in 1985, Coca Cola saw its market share drop, and decided it was time for a reboot, a reinvention--something new, different and modernized. So the company introduced New Coke, though it wasn't called that at first. It was a new flavor that was supposed to completely replace old Coke. But gradually the public rebelled, and for awhile there was New Coke and what came to be called Coke Classic--the flavor New Coke replaced. When Classic Coke became much more popular, New Coke became Coke II, and pretty much faded from history.

What differences there really were between the two drinks, and even if Classic Coke is exactly the same as it was before the switch, remain debatable. But what's clear is that New Coke didn't triumph enough to have much of a future. Will New Trek?


I must add here a belated fond farewell to Denny Crane and Boston Legal. It was a great series, and although I'm not always a fan of all of William Shatner's activities, I deeply admire his acting work as Denny Crane. Simply as acting I feel it's the best work of his career. I would have loved to see the series continue, just for the writing--and a homemaking with Denny and Alan spin-off could be a lot of fun--but it certainly went out with a lot of class, and both Shatner and Spader did some of their best acting in those final episodes.