The Three-Body Problem
The science fiction novel „The Three-Body Problem“ by Liu Cixin outlines a potential scenario, in which an alien civilization sets up a radio frequency communication channel with earth and disrupts humanity’s scientific progress. Thereby, the imaginative scientific concepts and technologies presented in the book captivate the readers, as evident in the numerous online discussions.
For example, nanomaterials researcher Wang Miao develops a „kind of material that can be made into a line as thin as one-hundredth of a hair, capable of lifting a truck and slicing a passing car.“ (p. 55) This fictional strand like material is presumably inspired by real-world carbon nanotubes discovered in the 1990s. (1) Predicted tensile strengths exceed 100 GPa for defect-free single-walled carbon nanotubes (2), sparked hopes for visionary projects such as the construction of a terrestrial space elevator. However, experimentally measured tensile strength of 16 nanotube species range from 25 to 66 GPa. (3) Structural defects, such as a single misplaced atom, can significantly weaken the carbon nanotubes.
Image 1: Artistic representation of the space elevator on the cover of the American Scientist magazine. Reproduced from (4).
Another fictional technology introduced in the „Three-Body Problem“ is the „Sophon.“ The original Chinese term 智子 translates to „smart particle“. These elementary particles with in-built artificial intelligence are employed by the extraterrestrial civilization to hinder Earth’s scientific advancements. The Sophons are able to manipulate at the quantum level particle physics experiments, thus, preventing insights for further technological progress.
1. Sophons - more real than fiction ?
The Sophon’s unnoticed disruptive impact on experiments reminded me of my PhD research in electrocatalysis. Many of my colleagues experienced days when despite unchanged conditions, previously reliable equipment and materials mysteriously malfunctioned. We jokingly called these as „unlucky days“ and wished each other good luck. Hours of troubleshooting were often needed and in many cases the root cause could not even be pinpointed.
This led me to wonder: Could there be unseen forces that affect nanoscale scientific experiments? While perplexing, this idea remains metaphysical, as current scientific methods cannot provide concrete evidence. If you’ve had similar experience, feel free to share in the comments - and remember when a Sophon strikes your next experiments, patience is part of the journey.
2. Scientists - confusion as inhibitor of progress ?
Another strategy mentioned in The Three-Body Problem to hinder progress s the intentional disruption of scientists’ thought processes:
„But the most effective technique remains disrupting your thoughts. When a scientist dies, another will take his place. But if his thoughts are confused, then science is over. (p. 137)
„It’s far more effective to confuse the researcher’s mind (p. 278)
The mind is a scientist’s most valuable tool. When distracted or overwhelmed by conflicting ideas, their ability to interpret data and gain insights diminishes. Clear thinking is essential for logic analysis and a empty mind the prerequisite for receiving creative solutions.
In this age, the scientific community faces increasing levels of confusion. One of my PhD advisors frequently remarked, „I am confused“. This confusion often was a result of students failing to present their findings in an easily understandable way, but also due to a general state of information overload. The exponential growth of scientific articles and constant exposure to social media contribute to this over-stimulation.
Such confusion can indeed hinder progress.
3. Pseudoscience vs. real science
Confusion exists not only on the personal level but also at a societal level. In recent years, logically structured theories based on apparent evidence have gained significant attention in the mainstream. While some critiques have the potential to constructively challenge established views and thus fueling scientific progress, many fall into the category of conspiracies and lead to widespread confusion.
"Take those frauds who practice pseudoscience - do you know who they’re most afraid of?“
„Scientists, of course.“
„No. Many of the best scientists can be fooled by pseudoscience and sometimes devote their lives to it. But pseudoscience is afraid of one particular type of people who are very hard to fool: stage magicians. In fact, many pseudoscientific hoaxes were exposed by stage magicians. Compared to the bookworms of the scientific world, your experience as a cop makes you far more likely to perceive such a large-scale conspiracy.“ (p. 136)
This conversation excerpt highlights an uncomfortable truth: even trained scientists can sometimes fall prey to pseudoscience.
Science, by its nature, evolves and self-corrects over time. For me, theoretical models serve as dynamic pointers that adapt with new evidence rather than absolute truths. The evolution of the „three-body problem“ game simulation - from version 1 to version 192 and different gravitational models for the interaction of three celestial objects in close proximity, parallels humanity’s scientific journey. As theoretical models become increasingly complex, their simplification for public understanding can lead to misinterpretation or skepticism. While simplifying science is necessary, it creates a space for pseudoscience to flourish, often presenting itself as more accessible than the complex reality of scientific models.
Therefore, scientists are in responsibility to a) present their findings in a more public-relatable approach and b) bringing forth evidence-based challenges of the established views within the scientific community. This balance can help bridge the gap between scientific progress and public trust.