Unruled Notebook

Today’s Cinema Plus carries an interview with Kamal Sir[*]. As usual Kamal’s uncanny wit shows up when inquired about why he is not into politics as his peers seem to do, when he quips

It is a matter of choice. None of them have learnt Bharatanatyam or Carnatic music. I have!

But he goes on to say this (talking about Dasavatharam his recent success in which he dons ten characters with aplomb):

It is a complex subject simply told. I haven’t used chaos theory as a solution. No theory could be a solution. The theory of relativity resulted in the atom bomb. Even Darwinism is being challenged. I have used chaos theory to explain the disorganised world we live in. Something seemingly innocuous may have unexpected larger consequences in the future. It has been used in the past in films such as The Butterfly Effect. Mine is a new interpretation.

Let me leave out ‘no theory could be a solution’ and its ilk and take three sentences.

Sentence 1: The theory of relativity resulted in the atom bomb.

Science: The theory of relativity (special or general) didn’t result in the atom bomb. The understanding of nuclear fission – among others, by Lise Meitner, Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann and after several laborious interpretations and engineering – is used to make the nuclear bomb. Without nuclear fission there is no nuclear bomb (read more about fundamental particles and their interaction in the guest post by Anant). If at all one wants to connect theory of relativity and atom bomb, one can do it it perhaps in this way. Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence () helped in determining the energy that could be released from a mass of nuclear fissile material. So, it helps to rate the power of a nuclear bomb. Mass energy equivalence relationship can be seen as one of the consequence of the two postulates (constancy of speed of light and invariance of physical laws to reference frames) of Einstein’s theory of relativity (read Bee’s posts on relativity).

Also, if I can recollect correctly (readers can correct me), special relativity could be used to find the discrepancies in the half-life of elementary particles when propelled at high speeds. Knowledge of the energy of such ‘nuclear radiation’ is required to determine the thickness of radiation shields to stop them from ‘leaking out’ of a reactor. But even without this relativity knowledge the nuclear bomb can still be made, albeit in unsafe surroundings and without the absolute energy values.

Sentence 2: Even Darwinism is being challenged.

Science: Darwinism challenged by whom? Perhaps by those like you Kamal Sir [*], who don’t understand it but have enough power over the masses to pass on their rubbish as alternate scientific theories. As of today, Darwinism is not challenged by an alternate scientific theory that provide a rigorous alternate explanation to the facts available.

I quote from the FAQ of What Evolution Is by Prof. Ernst Mayr

1. Is Evolution a fact?

Evolution is not merely an idea, a theory, or a concept, but is the name of a process in nature, the occurrence of which can be documented by mountains of evidence that nobody has been able to refute (book cites 3 chapters of evidence). It is now actually misleading to refer to evolution as a theory, considering the massive evidence that has been discovered over the last 140 years documenting its existence. Evolution is no longer a theory, it is simply a fact.

3. What is Darwinian Theory?

This is the wrong question. In On the Origin of Species and in his later publications, Darwin advanced numerous theories, among which five are most important (see chapter 4). Two of them, evolution as such and the theory of common descent, were accepted by biologists within a few years of the publication of the Origin in 1859 (see Box 5.1). This was the first Darwinian revolution. The other three theories, gradualism, speciation, and natural selection, were widely accepted only much later, during the time of the evolutionary synthesis in the 1940s. This was the second Darwinism revolution.

We shall leave it at that for now and go to the third sentence

Sentence 3: I have used chaos theory to explain the disorganized world we live in.

Science: The statement above, if true, should reap prizes more noble than the Nobel. Because it explains a random process (disorganization of the World we live in) using chaos theory, which investigates inherently deterministic systems.

Sometime back, I wrote about this gaffe in my Tamil review of Dasavatharam. Thence, I thought it is a minor gaffe that Kamal Sir [*] committed. From what I read above, I think Kamal Sir[*] seriously believes he understands what Chaos Theory is and he has provided an interpretation for it in terms of human events.

Chaos Theory attempts to understand qualitatively the behavior of  seemingly simple dynamical systems that even when governed by deterministic laws, evolve or behave unpredictably under certain situations. Minor change in initial conditions leading eventually to extremely different trajectories (succession of states) is one signature of chaotic dynamical systems. But the inherent process through which they evolve is deterministic. How else one can predict their next state in future? An initial value problem is well defined in this sense. A sensitive dependence on initial condition requires the initial condition to take a million possible values, so to speak, and all of them close enough to each other such that the concerned variable in a process can assume any of it with equal probability. By assuming one value instead of the other, the variable could result in the evolution of an otherwise deterministic system, into a trajectory (usually, in phase space) that is distinct from its original possible course. Importantly, the successive states of such a dynamical system is completely predictable by deterministic laws. Only its eventual evolution is very different for slight change in initial conditions. Human events are not this way.

For argument’s sake if we say ‘happening of human event A’ is an initial state for a chain of subsequent human events, then to result in different consequences the chain of subsequent human events should start at an initial condition that is ‘not happening of human event A’. Such a binary yes or no type of initial condition is not what is done for dynamical systems investigated in Chaos Theory. In every step (in time), human events are organized (or disorganized) by infinite possibilities of binary decisions by all those could make such decisions and affect that chain-of-human-event process (people, living things, non-living things that affect humans etc.). The very different evolution of course of human events, even when tracked for one person (like because I sneezed in third standard, I got through JEE and settled in the US with my laptop called Angelina Jolie instead of doing this) need not be because of one small (binary) change in one event at a suitable start. The course of events will always be affected by all such possibilities throughout its evolution. in short, it is a random process. One that is not explained or even attempted to be explained by Chaos Theory.

The Butterfly Effect is a much abused concept in popular culture. The Butterfly Effect film that Kamal Sir[*] mentions is one such instance. Read the Wikipedia page that collects such instances. Here is an excerpt from an article by Peter Dizikes on such abuse:

[...] Such borrowings of Lorenz’s idea (of the Butterfly Effect) might seem authoritative to unsuspecting viewers, but they share one major problem: They get his insight precisely backwards. The larger meaning of the butterfly effect is not that we can readily track such connections, but that we can’t. To claim a butterfly’s wings can cause a storm, after all, is to raise the question: How can we definitively say what caused any storm, if it could be something as slight as a butterfly? Lorenz’s work gives us a fresh way to think about cause and effect, but does not offer easy answers.

Pop culture references to the butterfly effect may be bad physics, but they’re a good barometer of how the public thinks about science. They expose the growing chasm between what the public expects from scientific research – that is, a series of ever more precise answers about the world we live in – and the realms of uncertainty into which modern science is taking us.

Here is a link to what is Chaos Theory in simple terms. For knowing more about the real Butterfly Effect, read directly from its originator Edward Lorenz. He has written an excellent popular science book The Essence of Chaos Theory. Does God play Dice by Ian Stewart and Deterministic Chaos by N. Kumar (University Press, India) are two other excellent introductions on this topic that I am aware of.

Here is the real Butterfly Effect in phase space that Lorenz discovered (observe the different locations of the cones in their ‘end states’ beginning from initial points that are separated by 10 ^-5 units. Click on the image to read more).

Taking artistic freedom about a scientific concept is fine with me as long as the resulting entertainment justifies it. Dasavatharam did that for me. Giving the illusion of explaining or interpreting Chaos Theory – while you don’t – for that movie’s sake is fine. Staying within Tamil filmdom, I am also fine with the multiple personality disorder excess of Anniyan or even all of the physics defying stunts that the actors perform in every other movie. Heck, Tom and Jerry do it.  But to give an interview talking serious about politics and acting with enough wit and sense but touting nonsense as Science (on three instances, to even warrant a benefit of doubt) doesn’t go well with my morning coffee.

In the usual style of replies to prominent persons that appear from time to time in Tamil magazines, here is my appeal:

Kamal Sir [*]; I am writing this not to dissuade you from Science. I won’t say, “Stay with acting and leave Science”. By all means, please do preach Science and its methods and effects. You are in a better position to do it than us, mere academics. For your acting talent, you will deservedly be interviewed in The Hindu, while this rant of mine won’t even make it to the dog’s ear of the Letters to the Editor page. But before voicing opinions about Science, kindly consult with someone who has a modicum of understanding about such topics.

It is all right to take artistic freedom with Science concepts for providing entertainment. But talking wrong Science in public comes with a responsibility. The masses that treat you as Kamal Sir [*], won’t bother to consult with an academic about the veracity of your Science. Like you, they would actually believe it.

Notes

[*] ‘Kamal Sir’ in Tamil speaking World implicitly mean ‘Herr Doktor Intellectual Kamal Hasan, the Extremely Handsome Prince of Love, Our Universal Hero of Mass Distraction’