Subscribe to RSS feed
Dave Bacon is a theoretical ski bum who is also a pseudo 
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.")
Physical Science
Comments
Gee, has nothing has changed Dave? Still cracking jokes while we work hard and try not to get distracted... :)
Posted by: tim | June 1, 2009 3:18 PM
Heh, yeah same old distracting Dave. My grad students make jokes like "gee we made it twenty minutes without getting sidetracked by something."
Posted by: Dave Bacon | June 1, 2009 3:25 PM
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.
Posted by: Matthew Putman | June 1, 2009 5:25 PM
Probably just trying to raise their impact factor, as usual...
Posted by: Jorge Pullin | June 1, 2009 6:16 PM
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.
Posted by: Jon | June 1, 2009 6:33 PM
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.
Posted by: Belizean | June 2, 2009 5:59 PM
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...
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | June 4, 2009 2:52 AM