The Faraway Nearby
April 15th 2024, Hoff Theatre, STAMP Student Union
Paula Froehle, Director of "The Faraway Nearby" John Mather, College Park Professor of Physics, Nobel Laureate in Physics (2006) William Phillips, Distinguished University Professor and College Park Professor of Physics, Nobel Laureate in Physics (1997) Peter Shawhan, Professor of Physics
"THE FARAWAY NEARBY: A JOURNEY INTO SPACE, TIME AND THE MYSTERY OF BLACK HOLES”
The movie and panel discussed science as a whole through the lens of UMD Professor Joseph Weber’s story. He discovered a method of identifying gravitational waves which was initially accepted and revered and slowly struck down in a humiliating defeat. Weber refused to renounce his experiment, hoping to prove Einstein’s theory of gravitational waves to be true instead of accepting the flaws in his design. Part of the reason why he so desperately wanted his experiment to succeed was because of the immense consequences of both the confirmation and detection of gravitational waves. He ultimately attempted to test for the presence of these waves without the noise that affected experiments on Earth–like, for example a lightning strike on the West Coast that would read as a wave on his devices in both Chicago and Maryland–by sending his device to the moon, which did not have a chance to succeed either. The panel discussed science as a whole, emphasizing the importance of science being a creative, moving, emotional process that cannot be personal. The panelists–several noted individuals in the field of physics, including two Nobel laureates–spoke of their own mistakes and hoped to inspire the next generation of scientists to see beyond their research and accept defeat and change as it comes.
I found the main points convincing. The main point spoke to the need to accept change–which is a vital function of a developed frontal lobe–and be humble before science, accepting your failures as larger contributions to the field. The documentary discouraged individual obsession and thinking and instead promoted adaptation, accepting flaws, defeats and failures in order to persevere on. This is because throughout the documentary Joseph Weber continued to work on his experiment and defend it despite the mounting evidence. This may have been because of the sunk cost fallacy and hoping he would not need to abandon the work he dedicated his life to. The fallacy states that people may believe it is better to not abandon something because of the sheer amount of time and effort put into it. But, had he changed his design or attempted a new approach, he may have been a part of the team that did in fact find evidence of gravitational fields 50 years later. This is the true tragedy of the documentary–his experiment was vital in later discoveries, but he passed away before they were discovered. This is part of the larger point of the documentary–flexibility and creativity are necessary for scientific discovery. Another piece of information that supports the main point was brought up by a panelist. He told the story of a colleague who tried an experiment and found breaking information, but was told that this was too radical to be correct. So, he tested the experiment blind and did not find the same results. Despite this evidence disproving his theory, he still tried to amend the experiment and find the original results with no success. Perhaps this speaks to the flaws of human nature or the endless need to find validation in public success–and how that itself can be the real downfall. Another logical fallacy that was present in the documentary was a hasty generalization. Ironically, Joseph Weber worked on designing his experiment for over 25 years, but did not spend enough time replicating his results. He made a hasty generalization with his results because he wanted to have proven his theory so badly, but really, there was not enough evidence to confirm it. Additionally, the filmmaker brought up the inclusion of women in physics and science as a whole, arguing that if science became a more creative and emotional field, women may feel more drawn to it. I find this somewhat convincing, because scientists can be prideful and hesitant to admit their wrongs–which may be connected to feelings of superiority, which do prevent women from joining the sciences.