…and this is a 
Physics of the Sandman
Category: Entertainment • Science
Posted on: May 11, 2007 12:23 PM, by PZ Myers
James Kakalios gets to use the latest Spider-Man movie as an excuse to explain the physics of granular materials in the New York Times. Good thing they didn't ask a biologist about Sandman … all I could think about was that there was no way a loose aggregate of coarse sand would be able to mimic the function of the human brain, which is built upon the sub-micron-scale specific organization of diverse molecules. I would be such a wet blanket.
No, wait, I did think of another thing: could you incapacitate Sandman by dumping your cat's litterbox on him? I'd think he'd go running off to do some emergency particle segregation right away.
I will say that the Sandman special effects were the best part of the movie. The rest — plot, acting, dialogue — eh, not so much.
Comments
Admit it. You're just upset that Dr. Octopus died in the last movie.
Posted by: Brian W. | May 11, 2007 12:31 PM
If it's literally sand, then I agree. On the other hand, a computational network of comparable complexity to the brain could in principle be fit into a grain of sand. It would be well beyond today's technology (I won't get into whether it would be the functional equivalent of a brain; just that it could have the same network complexity.)
For that matter, you could have a distributed network of sand grains that were each less powerful than a whole brain but connected by virtual networks. Instead of neurons, each would have a symbolic address (like an IP address). Grains could communicate directly with close neighbors (e.g. by RF) and these could route signals to the right destination, adaptively optimizing the routes over time. Neighboring sand grains could even swap states until the physical layout of the aggregate was adjusted to match the network embedding as close as possible.
I say this not because I think Sandman is remotely plausible, but because I just don't get PZ's blithe dismissal. The complexity of the brain exceeds that of any kind of network we have ever been able to build, but it does not obviously exceed the complexity of any that could be built. Anyone who thinks that it represents some kind of optimal physical realization of intelligence is the one with the burden of proof.
Posted by: PaulC | May 11, 2007 12:51 PM
And here I thought I'd be treated to a post describing the physics of Dream of the Endless.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 11, 2007 12:53 PM
You know, I'd never really thought of it before, but this is the perfect topic for Dr. Kakalios, given his areas of expertise (i.e., superheroes and granular silicates).
Next we need a movie where a giant octopus attacks Creationists.
Posted by: Tom Foss | May 11, 2007 12:54 PM
As a visual effects artist focusing on particle effects, I can tell you the guys at Sony had their work cut out for them with Sandman. Particles in 3D land have no volume and are infinitely small, therefore it's impossible to pile them on top of each other or have them interact much. Fluid simulation tools, particularly particle based methods like Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics, have helped the process by allowing particles to interact more realistically. The challenge is that creating the motion is one difficult issue, but figuring out a way to render it is a whole other beast entirely.
Posted by: Brando | May 11, 2007 12:54 PM
The plot was TERRIBLE. It had the biggest deus ex machina, in the form of Harry's Butler, that I've seen in a long time.
Posted by: Ric | May 11, 2007 12:55 PM
You know, I'd never really thought of it before, but this is the perfect topic for Dr. Kakalios, given his areas of expertise (i.e., superheroes and granular silicates).
Next we need a movie where a giant octopus attacks Creationists.
Posted by: Tom Foss | May 11, 2007 12:56 PM
I deplore the lack of suitable Metallica songs in this movie.
Posted by: MartinC | May 11, 2007 12:56 PM
As a visual effects artist focusing on particle effects, I can tell you the guys at Sony had their work cut out for them with Sandman. Particles in 3D land have no volume and are infinitely small, therefore it's impossible to pile them on top of each other or have them interact much. Fluid simulation tools, particularly particle based methods like Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics, have helped the process by allowing particles to interact more realistically. The challenge is that creating the motion is one difficult issue, but figuring out a way to render it is a whole other beast entirely.
Posted by: Brando | May 11, 2007 12:56 PM
The plot was TERRIBLE. It had the biggest deus ex machina, in the form of Harry's Butler, that I've seen in a long time.
Posted by: Ric | May 11, 2007 12:58 PM
The plot was TERRIBLE. It had the biggest deus ex machina, in the form of Harry's Butler, that I've seen in a long time.
Posted by: Ric | May 11, 2007 1:00 PM
You know, I'd never really thought of it before, but this is the perfect topic for Dr. Kakalios, given his areas of expertise (i.e., superheroes and granular silicates).
Next we need a movie where a giant octopus attacks Creationists.
Posted by: Tom Foss | May 11, 2007 1:00 PM
As a visual effects artist focusing on particle effects, I can tell you the guys at Sony had their work cut out for them with Sandman. Particles in 3D land have no volume and are infinitely small, therefore it's impossible to pile them on top of each other or have them interact much. Fluid simulation tools, particularly particle based methods like Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics, have helped the process by allowing particles to interact more realistically. The challenge is that creating the motion is one difficult issue, but figuring out a way to render it is a whole other beast entirely.
Posted by: Brando | May 11, 2007 1:00 PM
RE, the Sandman's brain.
It's a silicon-chip, dummy!
Posted by: Christian Burnham | May 11, 2007 1:08 PM
As a visual effects artist focusing on particle effects, I can tell you the guys at Sony had their work cut out for them with Sandman. Particles in 3D land have no volume and are infinitely small, therefore it's impossible to pile them on top of each other or have them interact much. Fluid simulation tools, particularly particle based methods like Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics, have helped the process by allowing particles to interact more realistically. The challenge is that creating the motion is one difficult issue, but figuring out a way to render it is a whole other beast entirely.
Posted by: Brando | May 11, 2007 1:09 PM
Not only did I think the Sandman special effects were the best effects, Sandman was also the only character in the whole movie I liked (well, besides MJ).
PZ may have gotten hung up on the brain, but my biggest problem was the sight. I guess it would be possible to make a pinhole camera out of sand, but the close-ups of the eyes showed no such structure.
Posted by: Fatboy | May 11, 2007 1:13 PM
As a visual effects artist focusing on particle effects, I can tell you the guys at Sony had their work cut out for them with Sandman. Particles in 3D land have no volume and are infinitely small, therefore it's impossible to pile them on top of each other or have them interact much. Fluid simulation tools, particularly particle based methods like Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics, have helped the process by allowing particles to interact more realistically. The challenge is that creating the motion is one difficult issue, but figuring out a way to render it is a whole other beast entirely.
Posted by: Brando | May 11, 2007 1:14 PM
I think all the scienceblogs need a HUGE red warning banner telling commenters about ignoring error messages when posting.
Posted by: SteveM | May 11, 2007 1:21 PM
As a visual effects artist focusing on particle effects, I can tell you the guys at Sony had their work cut out for them with Sandman. Particles in 3D land have no volume and are infinitely small, therefore it's impossible to pile them on top of each other or have them interact much. Fluid simulation tools, particularly particle based methods like Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics, have helped the process by allowing particles to interact more realistically. The challenge is that creating the motion is one difficult issue, but figuring out a way to render it is a whole other beast entirely.
Posted by: Brando | May 11, 2007 1:21 PM
"Admit it. You're just upset that Dr. Octopus died in the last movie."
Doc Oc is dead, is he? Well, then where's his body, smart guy? SHOW ME THE BODY!!
:D
Posted by: Scott Simmons | May 11, 2007 1:28 PM
Who says the eyes function by focusing a single image on a retina? Maybe each grain of sand is a light receptor, and the final image is constructed the way astronomical images are integrated out of results from a very large array of radio telescopes.
I don't mean to sound like a meganerd (it just comes naturally) and I doubt I will even see this movie. I just think people are being overliteral in mapping the outward form of this Sandman to the corresponding biological parts.
Posted by: PaulC | May 11, 2007 1:28 PM
Let it go folks. It's Spiderman fer gossakes. I mean, do we even need to talk about his superpowers? I didn't think so. Either it's a good tale or it's not. The relative believability of Sandman versus, well, anything is way beside the point.
Now, with that said, what's up with those light sabers in Star Wars?
Posted by: ice weasel | May 11, 2007 1:30 PM
Does anybody here know a visual effects artist focusing on particle effects?
I'd love to hear their opinions on the movie.
Posted by: MartinC | May 11, 2007 1:30 PM
What struck me was that it was not one movie but two. There was a romance involving a struggling actress singing in a jazz club. And there was a superhero movie, in which everyone's relative powers and strengths were determined by plot convenience on a shot-by-shot basis. They were filmed at the same time, and had the same casts. But there was no actual connection between them.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 11, 2007 1:41 PM
As a visual effects artist focusing on particle effects, I can tell you the guys at Sony had their work cut out for them with Sandman. Particles in 3D land have no volume and are infinitely small, therefore it's impossible to pile them on top of each other or have them interact much. Fluid simulation tools, particularly particle based methods like Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics, have helped the process by allowing particles to interact more realistically. The challenge is that creating the motion is one difficult issue, but figuring out a way to render it is a whole other beast entirely.
Posted by: Brando | May 11, 2007 1:59 PM
PaulC - as soon as I hit "Post," I figured somebody would come back saying maybe they were compound eyes. It didn't take very long.
And yes, I enjoyed the movie for what it was (but not as much as the first one), and no, the eye thing didn't really bother me all that much. I'm just having fun being a nerd about it.
Posted by: Fatboy | May 11, 2007 2:04 PM
Posted by: Ric:
"The plot was TERRIBLE. It had the biggest deus ex machina, in the form of Harry's Butler, that I've seen in a long time."
Somebody had suggested having the butler being a sort of Evil Alfred, 'advising' Harry into greater evil. That'd have been cool.
Posted by: barry | May 11, 2007 2:14 PM
ice weasel said: "Now, with that said, what's up with those light sabers in Star Wars?"
Not worth discussing. As a wise man once said: "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a blaster by your side!"
Posted by: Jim Kakalios | May 11, 2007 2:28 PM
I also thought it was going to be about Neil Gaiman's 'Sandman' love his graphic novels and one day they will make a great movie out of them.
I'm not being sold on Superman 3, but'28 Weeks Later' looks full of zmobie goodness.
Posted by: coz | May 11, 2007 2:28 PM
Ugh...sorry for the myriad multitude of dup posts :(
Posted by: Brando | May 11, 2007 2:32 PM
Posted by Barry: "Somebody had suggested having the butler being a sort of Evil Alfred, 'advising' Harry into greater evil. That'd have been cool."
That sure as hell would have been a lot better than what they did.
Posted by: Ric | May 11, 2007 2:37 PM
Metin Tolan, physics professor in Dortmund, showed that James Bond's physics aren't better.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2264591,00.html
Posted by: sparc | May 11, 2007 2:47 PM
I wish someone would comment on the coolness of the special effects.
=)
That aside, I think the TV series Heroes is superior to the current installment of Spidey. But then again, Heroes rocks, especially in the episode in which they had Stan Lee as a bus driver.
Posted by: daenku32 | May 11, 2007 2:57 PM
Or even a phonetician. I just couldn't figure out how the hell the guy could keep screaming when his larynx and half his head were gone. One more reason why we need better physical models for artificial sound synthesis!
Posted by: archgoon | May 11, 2007 4:52 PM
As long as we're nitpicking, how did the particle accelerator annihilate all the matter in Flint Marko's body and clothing, yet leave his daughter's locket intact?
Posted by: Grumpy | May 11, 2007 5:29 PM
"As long as we're nitpicking, how did the particle accelerator annihilate all the matter in Flint Marko's body and clothing, yet leave his daughter's locket intact?"
Maybe the locked was forged in Mount Doom by the Dark Lord Sauron, and can only be destroyed by tossing it into the hot liquid mag-ma in the center of the volcano.
Posted by: daenku32 | May 11, 2007 5:51 PM
Maybe it's made out of the same material as the Hulk's pants.
Posted by: PaulC | May 11, 2007 5:56 PM
Criminy! the only thing I love more than cheesy Hammer films is anything by Neil Gaiman!
Anyone out there read Good Omens? Written by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. more here
Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch (1990) is a fantasy novel written in collaboration between Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman.
The book is a comedy and a quasi-parody of the 1976 film The Omen (as well as other books and films of the genre), concerning the birth of the son of Satan, the coming of the End Times and the attempts of the angel Aziraphale and the demon Crowley to avert them, having become accustomed to their comfortable situations in the human world. A subplot features the gathering of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse--War, Famine, Pollution (Pestilence having retired in 1936 following the invention of penicillin), and Death--the last of whom is characterised in a manner reminiscent of the personification of Death in Pratchett's Discworld novels and calls himself Azrael before his final exit.
also, from Wiki:
Film version
A film, directed by Terry Gilliam, was planned, but as of 2006 seems to have come to nothing. Funding was slow to appear and Gilliam moved on to other projects. The film has been removed from IMDB. There was a rumour that Johnny Depp was originally cast as Crowley and Robin Williams as Aziraphale. However Neil Gaiman has said on his website, "Well, Robin's worked with Terry Gilliam before as well, of course, most famously in The Fisher King. But I have no idea about Good Omens casting (except for Shadwell. Terry told me who he wanted to play Shadwell. I immediately forgot the man's name, although I can assure you that it wasn't Robin Williams)[3]." According to an interview in May 2006 at the Guardian Hay Festival, Gilliam is apparently still hoping to go ahead with the film.
Posted by: Cathy in Seattle | May 11, 2007 6:22 PM
Neil Gaiman's demon Crowley's 2006 New Year's resolutions, numbers 7 and 8.
Resolution #7: On the orders of Head Office I will encourage the belief in Intelligent Design, because it upsets everyone.
Resolution #8: Stop Googling myself.
Posted by: Cathy in Seattle, off on a tangent, again. | May 11, 2007 6:26 PM
uh oh - can't resist... must post the angel Aziraphale's 10th and 11th resolutions...
Resolution #10: On the orders of Head Office I will encourage the belief in Intelligent Design - despite the fact that the human airway crosses the digestive tract. Who thought that was intelligent?
Resolution #11: Feed the ducks.
Posted by: Cathy in Seattle, wearing out her welcome | May 11, 2007 6:35 PM
Uh, I'm dirt poor right now and don't want to waste money on a movie ticket for a movie I'm only half intrested in, so could somebody please spoil me about what's up with Harry's Butler?
Posted by: C. Park | May 11, 2007 6:49 PM
The eyes bugged me too but I also thought that it was fortunate that New York City has weaker gravity than the rest of the planet. He wouldn't have been able to do most of those moves in normal gravity and that ring would have hit the ground in about half the time. Lucky guy living there.
Posted by: Mena | May 11, 2007 7:11 PM
C. Park, here's the Deus Ex Machina:
Harry hates Spidey because he thinks Spidey killed his father the Green Goblin, though the Goblin really died by his own hand.
So for quite some time, Harry and Spidey fight, and Harry even gets half his face blown off. Then Sandman and Venom come on the scene, and they are too much for Spidey to face alone, so he asks Harry, the Hobgoblin, for help. Naturally, Harry says no.
Then, out of the blue, Harry's Butler comes over and says, "Sir, I've seen many things around this house. I saw the wounds on your father and they were caused by his own weapons." Of course the Butler has been there the whole time, but decided not to tell Harry for the past two years, preferring to watch him get his face blown off, etc. Just in the nick of time he has a change of heart, apparently, and decides to tell him. So Harry says, "Oh, cool," and goes to help Spidey just when he needs it most.
Lame.
Posted by: Ric | May 11, 2007 7:39 PM
Did the butler exist in the first two movies?
Posted by: archgoon | May 11, 2007 8:21 PM
No, he didn't.
Also, did anyone else notice that Spidey seemed to completely lack spider-sense?
Posted by: Ric | May 11, 2007 8:41 PM
Come on, Sandman is pretty much what every Creationist thinks they are - A mind that is seperate from the body.
I think in Marvel terms he would be a being on the phsycic plane that can affect objects in the physical plane, with no real physical body at all.
I'd say he would be pretty much immortal unless he was mindwiped my Xavier or Grey.
Posted by: Goffr | May 11, 2007 8:59 PM
Actually, I was watching part sof spider-Man 2 on TV the other day, and was surprised to see Harry's butler there, played by the same actor as in Spider-Man 3. So, at least he was in the second and third films, not sure about the first.
And a shorter list would be those New Yorkers who DON'T know that Peter Parker is Spider-Man.
Posted by: Jim Kakalios | May 11, 2007 9:35 PM
Because the movie operates on narrative principles, not everyday physics. Marko's body and clothing were irrelevant, but the locket was his heart, and so survived.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 11, 2007 10:23 PM
If this 'butler' is the guy credited as 'Houseman' in the credits, and played by John Paxton, then his character was in all three films.
Posted by: Anony-Moshe | May 12, 2007 1:21 AM
And a shorter list would be those New Yorkers who DON'T know that Peter Parker is Spider-Man.
That to me has always been the most unbelievable plot point about any superhero. Flying, incredible powers, whatever, but put some tights and a little mask on, or just remove your glasses, and suddenly nobody knows who you are? Right.
Posted by: Carlie | May 12, 2007 7:21 AM
At least The Tick always has the sense to look like The Tick. No pretend alternate identity for him!
Posted by: Carlie | May 12, 2007 7:23 AM
Stephen Wells: Agreed, they were cramming at least two different movies into the frame -- possibly three if you look from PP/Spidey's viewpoint. Traditionally, Spidey has three basic battles going on: 1) his own self-doubt and insecurity, 2) against the villian of the week, and 3) keeping his civilian life out of the dumpster. In this movie, they tried to promote all three themes to the foreground, and it's just too crowded. Not to mention three A-list villians!
Ric: Yeah, they completely blew off the spider-sense, Spidey gets nailed by surprise way too many times.
Regarding eyes, brains, and Sandman's origin: Superpowers for humans in Marvel-land come from the triggering of the "Celestial Seed", a sort of Easter Egg left in human DNA by prehistoric gods. "Mutants" are triggered by ordinary development, others, by trauma, radiation, serums, etc. So when Sandman gets zapped, his body isn't being destroyed, it's being "activated", and transforming for the first time. The locket isn't biological, so it's not affected.
Sandman is an early example of an "elemental mutate"; Marvel never actually uses the words "morphogenetic field", but the pattern is that such a power represents direct control of matter, by the person's mind/spirit/whatever. Note that several characters in the Marvelverse have been deprived of bodies altogether, and eventually recovered -- telepaths seem particularly vulnerable to this, but a couple of elementals have been affected as well.
Elementals in the Marvelverse are usually quite powerful, an upper rung on a "ladder" of mutation levels leading toward successively more protean and flexible powers. (They've also been among Spidey's toughest enemies, since he's short on energy and area attacks.) It's worth noting that the logic works a lot better if you forget what "mutation" means to us now, and go back to the root meaning of something which has been changed in unspecified fashion.
Posted by: David Harmon | May 12, 2007 7:48 AM
Yet more: IIRC, the "book" Sandman was not a flyer; I assume the S/FX artists wanted to show off.
Carlie: They actually had a bit of fun with that in Avengers, when Thor lost his ability to transform into a nebbish. Cap and a couple of others took him out to see "these guys we know" and get set up with a civilian "look". They even had a shout-out to Clark Kent!
Posted by: David Harmon | May 12, 2007 8:02 AM
David:
What an excellent analysis of how super powers work
in the Marvel universe. Was the Celestial seed only from the Earth X series, or is that 616 universe canon? (And the message board went SERIOUSLY into geeky territory!)
And I can't swear to every single appearance of Flint Marko in the comics, but I'm almost positive that he never "dried up and blew away" as he does in the movie. In fact, one way to harm Marko is to disperse his sand too far. He went insane a few years ago when (I think it was Venom) took a bite of his sand, preventing him from reassembling all of his components. Not that this makes any sense vis a vis his other uses of his powers - I'm just saying.
There was a story, back in Marvel Two-in-One where the Thing and Sandman have a beer and Sandman reflects on the choices that led him to the life he had. It ended with Sandman renouncing his villainous ways. It seems that the film was trying to go for a similar backstory - they just crammed too much into one movie. I could have done without Venom, personally. But then I'm an old fart.
Posted by: Jim Kakalios | May 12, 2007 10:34 AM
Venom is apparently one of the few good things about spiderman in the past 20 years.
The powered armor Iron Man builds for Spidey is probably the other one. Schweet.
The movie was uneven and full to the brim, but so weren't numbers 1 and 2. It's a Movie about Peter Parker who is also Spider-man. Spider-man has always been about Peter balancing his emo angst and fighting supervillains.
I would have liked more Eddie Brock and Venom (because Topher was great), but I'm not quite in favor of a Spidey 4.
Posted by: Stogoe | May 12, 2007 5:28 PM