As a scientist/researcher (origin: astrophysics [see website]), it seems odd
that arguments, pertaining to, the relevance of physics, still argues between
the Newton Universe and the Einsteinan Universe (or Quantum). In film, the
change, particularly, in science fiction, pivots around 1945, due to the atomic
bomb, and the confirmation of the Einsteinan Universe. The concepts of what was
possible abruptly changed, for instance, "If the atomic bomb was possible, then
so was travel in space." (Most rocket programs, became more serious, after
1945). This preliminary work from 1945 to 1960 set the stage for NASA. The same
was true for the Russians (Soviets). Agian, the science fictions films, of this
period, reflected these ideas. However, most ideas, were still, for the most
part, classical. The "Quantum Universe", and the full treatment of the
Einsteinan Universe, would not occur until, Star Trek: The Next Generation.
This version, of the show, used physicists in conjunction with the script
writers, as a result, the show, was highly theoretical; which may have proved
too much for the popular viewer. This was shown, in the succeeding sequel, Star
Trek: Voyageurs. Star Trek: Voyageurs, is fairly devoid of much of the physics
of TNG, and compares more to the classic (version). So why the rejection of
modern physics, and it complexities? It complexities! In the Quantum Universe,
everything exists only as a probability, and objectivity reigns, with no other
authority; which is not popular. Take the arguement of scientists, and, in
particular, physicists;

"Rage against science! Science wars! The postmodern know-nothings Alan Sokal
satirized are being taken seriously when they say that science is "a social
construction." [new paragraph] Prominent scientists, notably the physicist
Steven Weinberg, have spoken out against the social construction fad. We are
told we can't treat inexorable laws of nature like that. Scientific results are
th deepest truths we know, and they hold regardless of society and it
constructions."

Reference => ['What It's All About' ; Barry Allen; Journal 'Science', Vol 285,
9 July 1999, Page 205, Books Et Al, Books: Philosophy of Science, 'The Social
Construction of What?', by Ian Hacking, Harvard University Press, ISBN
0-674-81200-x]

Ray Monk wrote:

> Robin,
>
> Your very thoughtful response to my questions gives the kind of reply I was
> hoping for, but it convinces me more than ever that Deleuze's use of
> mathematics and physics is an obfuscating irrelevance to whatever he has to
> say about movies. My hunch is stronger still that, if he has anything of
> interest to say about film it is because he is an attentive lover of movies
> rather than because he has a new, interesting & adequate theory of time.
>
> [snip]
>
> Let me just make two entirely general points:
>
> 1. You say that Deleuze's analysis of the history of cinema from the
> `movement image' to the `time image' parallels the `rediscovery of time' in
> physics, characterised by a recognition of the inadequacy of Newtonian
> physics. But doesn't it strike you as strange that Newtonian conceptions of
> time were adequate for making movies up to 1945 & ceased to be so
> thereafter? Let me put it another way: in order for the differences between
> Newtonian and Einsteinan conceptions of space and time to be discernible,
> one would have to be dealing with HUGE chunks of time and space. If you
> were to chart a rocket to Jupiter, for example, it would make no practical
> difference whether your calculations were based on Newtonian or Einsteinian
> assumptions. Images of Newtonian time & images of Einsteinian time would
> look identical for anything other than very special cases, such as the
> contemplation of vast portions of the universe or of objects moving
> incredibly fast relative to each other. Does it seem plausible that these
> differences are going to lie at the heart of a comparison between a movie
> made in, say, 1930, and one made in 1945?
>
> 2. You say that Deleuze's concern is to analyse time by focusing on its
> differentiability rather than its continuity, and, again, you seem to see
> some parallels here in developments in mathematics and physics. But, I
> would suggest that these parallels are an illusion, and, in a the case of
> mathematics, rest on a fundamental misunderstanding. In mathematics, the
> exact opposite `prioritisation' has taken place: continuity is a *more*
> fundamental notion in modern mathematics than differentiability and has
> received far more attention. It used to be assumed that all continuous
> functions were differentiable, but since the work of Dedekind and
> Weierstrass in the 19th century, it has been accepted that differentiable
> functions are a special case of continuous functions. This change has come
> about because of new notions of continuity. In other words, it is the
> notion of continuity, not that of the differential, that has driven changes
> in pure mathematics.
>
> Movies are richly fascinating and so, to some (not, I fear, to most of the
> subscribers to this list), is the differential calculus, but the attempt to
> understand one in terms of the other strikes me as misguided as would be
> the attempt to understand Beethoven's symphonies in terms of theoretical
> acoustics.
>
> Ray Monk

--
Thank You
Dr. Daniel Carras
Delta R&D, Inc. (http://members.home.net/deltard)
"Philosophy Incorporated: Our Product Is Thought"

--------------------------------------------------
Dr.Dan Iam with Green Eggs and Ham [Ref Dr. Suess]





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%