Seven science lessons from Doctor Who

Doctor Who’s fictional world isn’t girdled with the basic scientific principles that govern our world. But that doesn’t mean that Doctor Who’s science is total fiction – in fact, most of the extreme science in the show is based on very real, and often very cool, scientific precepts. Here are just a few of them.

2. Wormholes exist...theoretically

Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
Visitors to the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. last summer pass between the East and West Buildings via Multiverse, a complex light sculpture that resembles popular representations of wormholes.

But what about wormholes? Doctor Who makes ample use of wormholes to jump between times and worlds. Are these convenient highways in space-time real?

Possibly. Einstein’s theory of general relativity proposes that huge objects with extreme gravity can cause distortions in space-time. In 1935, he and the physicist Nathan Rosen proposed a possible product of that kind of distortion: the Einstein-Rosen bridge, a “path” both backward and forward in space-time.

Physicists have often explained the path, now known as a wormhole, like this: Imagine space as a two-dimensional surface. Then, fold “space” in half. A path between what are now the top and bottom sheets provides a route between otherwise extremely distance points in the universe, or even points between universes. That's the wormhole. 

Of course, folding space might not be as easy as the thought experiment. Plus, as far as we know, it’s not possible to actually travel along that hypothetical route, as Doctor Who and his companions do. The first problem is finding a wormhole. Wormholes are derived implications of broader theories, which means that they, too, are theoretical. While these convenient tunnels might exist, none has ever been spotted. Plus, time travel through theoretical wormholes faces lots of hypothetical problems. While some physicists have used quantum mechanics to propose that exotic matter could stabilize the holes long enough to make them traversable, these super-routes through space-time are generally thought to exist for only an instant.

2 of 7

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.