The Quantum Pontiff

Film Reviews in Nature Physics?

What in the world is a review for Star Trek doing in Nature Physics? (Thank to reader W for pointing this out.) I mean, at least the review of Angels and Demons has references to physics, but the review of Star Trek, is, well, just a review of Star Trek with no reference physics or science or, well, anything that I could see the audience of Nature Physics relating to.

I’m not saying I don’t appreciate the review, or the book/art section of Nature Physics, but doesn’t this seem a bit out of place. It is too bad, indeed, because the movie does contain time travel, and as Cosmic Sean demonstrated their is ample fodder for a review of Star Trek that at least pulls in some fun physics.

In a related note, Nature physics now requires a statement of author’s contributions. (“Dave Bacon’s contribution was to sit around and crack jokes all day while we worked hard and tried not to get distracted.”)


  1. #1 tim
    June 1, 2009

    Gee, has nothing has changed Dave? Still cracking jokes while we work hard and try not to get distracted… 🙂

  2. #2 Dave Bacon
    June 1, 2009

    Heh, yeah same old distracting Dave. My grad students make jokes like “gee we made it twenty minutes without getting sidetracked by something.”

  3. #3 Matthew Putman
    June 1, 2009

    I like the idea of science journals reviews sci-fi, especially when there are real scientific ideas expressed. unfortunately the recent star trek movie had very little science in it.

  4. #4 Jorge Pullin
    June 1, 2009

    Probably just trying to raise their impact factor, as usual…

  5. #5 Jon
    June 1, 2009

    like Science last week (or two weeks ago, damn university mail gets me Science >1 week late) covering bioethics through cinema. really? Gataca was a morality play? C’mon.

    There really isn’t anything new or valuable to report? At least Nature Physics covered a recent movie.

  6. #6 Belizean
    June 2, 2009

    I thought that ST did have some (bad) science in it. For example, the movie leads one to believe that it’s necessary to first drill a deep hole in a planet to get a black hole to descend to the planet’s core.

  7. #7 Jonathan Vos Post
    June 4, 2009

    I was working on my Star Trek review from Transactions of the American Mathematical Society. Where DID Scotty’s equation come from? A closed timelike curve…

New comments have been disabled.