Here & There

by Joshua V. Scher

  CUT TO:

  MIRROR LAB - SAME TIME

  SPLIT SCREEN

  RIGHT SIDE, ANGELL LAB - CLOSE-UP: reinforced-acrylic cube over the target pad in Reidier’s home lab on Angell Street.

  LEFT SIDE, MIRROR LAB - CLOSE-UP: full bottle of Coca-Cola (plastic) sits inside reinforced-acrylic sphere over the transmission pad.

  The Quark Resonator emits a SOFT, HIGH-PITCHED DRONE.

  Coke bottle remains perfectly still.

  At 2007-07-25 16:52:01.5862669 a loud POP coincides with the acrylic sphere exploding and a cloud of residue [ranging from Li to In] billowing out.

  NOTE: 2000 picoseconds prior to explosion, on the left side prior to transfer, the liquid content (i.e. soda) tessellates and seemingly blurs beyond the confines of its container (the soda bottle).

  RIGHT SIDE, at 2007-07-25 16:52:01.5862669, the video feed distorts with static waves as the Coke bottle appears . . . the wavy image straightens and the Coke bottle sits on the pad with what appears to be the exact amount of transmitted liquid [confirmed later]. On the outside of the acrylic cube, frost has accumulated.

  CONTROL ROOM - 16:52:07

  IS1 O’Brien stares at the transmission room. Dusty residue still floats in the air.

  ANGELL LAB - 16:53:11

  Dr. Reidier stares at the full bottle of Coke that stands on the target pad. The acrylic cube-halves (now open) hover above and below held by their respective mechanical arms.

  Dr. Reidier uses an infrared thermometer and takes a reading: 17 degrees C.

  Dr. Reidier rubs his thumb and forefinger together, contemplatively. Finally, he sets down the thermometer, reaches out, and picks up the bottle of Coke. He slowly unscrews it.

  Dr. Reidier cautiously removes the cap . . . nothing happens.

  He wafts the air from the open container to his nose. It seems fine to him.

  Finally he shrugs, lifts it to his lips, and takes a swig.

  IS1 O’BRIEN (OS)

  (Alarmed)

  Dr. Reidier!

  Dr. Reidier finishes his sip and tilts his head to the side, contemplating the bottle of soda. He smacks his lips together and clucks his tongue against the roof of his mouth.

  Dr. Reidier turns to face the camera.

  DR. REIDIER

  It’s flat.

  IV

  Science never solves a problem without creating ten more.

  ~George Bernard Shaw

  A man’s character is his fate.

  ~Heraclitus

  Character is like the foundation of a house—it is below the surface.

  ~Anonymous

  Both Eve’s diary and Reidier’s records offer little about their move from Chicago to Providence. In fact, Eve didn’t make a single entry for almost six weeks after the move. As far as the weeks before, apparently the diaries Eve kept while they were in Chicago were lost in the move.

  Some say Hemingway divorced his first wife, Hadley, for leaving a manuscript in the Paris train station. Obviously this isn’t at that scale, and it wasn’t necessarily Reidier who lost her diaries, but I wonder what was the cost. It had to have been a personal tragedy on some level. For a writer, in particular, to not only lose a work—a metaphorical baby—but one that chronicles her first pregnancy and early years of motherhood—a literal baby—the loss cuts twice as deep. It might feel like the loss of memory itself and thereby perhaps even the loss of self itself. The parts of Eve’s consciousness that she poured into those journals were forever lost, but painfully unforgotten. Like a fire that destroys all the photos of a deceased spouse. Depending on whether she had discovered their absence or not before arriving in Rhode Island, this would most certainly have affected her attitude toward their new house. If she was mourning the loss of her words, how could she not project that onto 454 Angell Street?

  Reidier’s work in Chicago likewise seemed to have come to a standstill. In his final few weeks at the Fermi Lab there are only two video logs: one in his office lab, when he performed the demonstration for Director Pierce; the other (and final) video takes place in his home lab. The latter begins at 9:39 p.m. on April 9, 2006.

  Reidier comes down into his basement carrying a stack of cardboard boxes. He proceeds to methodically pack up all of his equipment. It’s a long, dull segment, and even Reidier himself seems not present, like an automaton set in motion. He never smiles, never talks to himself, and pauses only once. From a locked drawer he pulls out the very stack of binders we saw Diderot inspecting in his lab in CSG. I compared it with the CSG footage, and there are in fact four more binders. It might be that Diderot never pulled these out. More likely, however, Reidier has added to his collection. He places them in a box and then stops. He sits and stares down at them. Then, with no visual or aural impulse, he continues to pack up the rest. This is cut short when he shuts down and packs up the computer.

  Unlike the long process of applying, interviewing, and relocating to Chicago, the transfer to Brown University seemed to happen almost overnight. In fact, he left before the close of the autumn quarter. Reidier was teaching two undergraduate classes at the time: one on advanced quantum theory and another, more popular gut course for nonmajors, on the physics of science fiction. He finished out his remaining lectures via iTunes University for both of his classes; the review sessions and final exams were proctored by graduate students.

  According to the Office of the President at Brown, the urgency of the transition was due to an overlooked stipulation in a large grant they had received years earlier. Its second (and more sizable) infusion of capital required that funding be directed toward significant research in quantum entanglement by January 1, 2007. Bureaucratic oversight resulted in this discovery during the Thanksgiving break of 2006. Reidier, a leader in this field, who was already in continued contact with several of the Brown faculty, was quickly courted, hired, and relocated. A significant gift was also bestowed upon the University of Chicago for facilitating the process.

  According to retired DARPA director Anthony Tether, this was a nice PR story worked out by him and Brown’s president, Ruth J. Simmons. The truth is that Reidier, in Chicago, had successfully executed an experiment that set off a seismic paradigm shift. Realizing the immense nature of his discovery, as well as the vulnerability of his position, he directly contacted DARPA with the news and requested fiscal and personnel support to continue his work. The Department indirectly funded the grant.

  The details are somewhat murky to me due to the bipolar and contradictory stance DARPA has taken toward my report. While urging me to work with diligence and alacrity, and offering unconditional support, it continues to withhold and obfuscate crucial information. Despite the impact that The Reidier Test would have on our nation, full access only goes so far with classified material pertaining to national security. I feel as if I’ve been asked to sit in the dark and put together a jigsaw puzzle of an abstract painting that I’ve never seen. Still, the significance of Reidier’s contact with the Department is undeniable.

  Transcript excerpt from the phone log of the Office of the Director of the Strategic Technology, Donald Pierce; 11/17/2006, 10:17 a.m.

  Reidier: . . . yes, Mr. Pierce, this is Kerek Reidier, I am a professor and researcher at the Fermi Lab in—

  Pierce: I’m familiar with your work Mr. Reidier. According to the dossier in front of me, we’re the ones funding your research on supersymmetry.

  Pause.

  Reidier: Yes, of course, I wasn’t aware . . . I thought the Department of Energy . . .

  Pierce: Has a wonderful working relationship with us that allows all sorts of, well, let’s call it discreet cross-pollination. I’m still confused as to why my agenda has been pushed back, and you’ve been bumped up to me?

  Reidier: Yes, well, so my research has taken a turn, and I’ve been delving deeply into quantum entanglement, specifically how lack of locality can be utilized to transmit qubits at a distance instantaneously.

  Pause.

  Reidier: Mr. Pierce?


  Pierce: Yes, I’m here. That sounds rather fantastical, Mr. Reidier.

  Reidier: It does, doesn’t it? I respect your choice of words. I understand how this might come off as a, well, a phone call from a loon. It’s just that, well, the other day in my lab I successfully ████████ several million ████ ██████████████ ████████. As I’m sure you understand, in doing this, it becomes completely possible, with the right technology, I’m talking ████ here, these ██████████ ██████████ ██████ scanned.

  Pause.

  Pierce: Mr. Reidier, if what you’re saying is true—

  Reidier: It is.

  Pierce: If it is, this would mean—

  Reidier: I have data. I have video footage. And I can do it again.39

  Pierce: Mr. Reidier, how many of your colleagues are aware of your experiment?

  Reidier: Almost a dozen know of my work in supersymmetry and my various experiments. However, only a few have a partial grasp on what I’m working with, and none know the entirety of what I’m attempting.

  Pierce: If you wouldn’t mind, Mr. Reidier, I’d ask that you not share this information with anyone until our people can verify your results. In fact, please don’t share any information with anyone outside this office.

  Reidier: Ok. Yes, of course. Uh . . .

  Pierce: Yes, Mr. Reidier?

  Reidier: Just so we’re clear, and complete with our, well, full disclosure and all—my colleagues are essentially limited in scope in understanding my work—

  Pierce: Right, that’s manageable—

  Reidier: My wife, however, has a complete and comprehensive, intimate grasp of my work and progress.

  Pierce: Of course. Not to worry. We’ve had experience with this dynamic before. Completely (cough) understandable. There’s a protocol. It’ll be fine. Just please impress upon her the necessity of . . . discretion. Complete and utter discretion.

  Reidier: I’m sure that won’t be a problem. For her. I guess now that I’m thinking about it, although I can’t imagine this being an issue, but, just so there’s no confusion, and I’m sure you have some sort of protocol for this as well, but we have had, my wife and I, have had discussions about my work in front of our two boys.

  Pierce: Two you say? (Sounds of paper shuffling)

  Reidier: That is how twins work.

  Pierce: (Muttering) Goddamn clerical errors. (To Reidier) How old did you say?

  Reidier: Three, and while they’re quite talkative, neither of them understands the subatomic physics of entanglement.

  Pierce: Yes, of course not. If that were the case I’d have to transfer you to the deputy of another department. (Chortle)

  Reidier: (Laughs) Yes, right? It would be something. Tour them around to the kings of Europe, having them give lectures on the myth of locality and Einstein’s greatest fear.

  Pierce: Yes. In any event, as long as we keep everything on lockdown until the Department can ascertain the situation, we’re fine.

  Reidier: Right. So do you need me to send you data results or—

  Pierce: No. We’ll collect those from you when you run the experiment for us.

  Reidier: That’s fine. Obviously, it’ll have to be in my lab. My equipment . . . How soon could you guys get to Chicago?

  Pierce: How’s 3:30 for you?

  Reidier: What day?

  Pierce: This afternoon.

  Obviously, Pierce was impressed. What exactly Reidier’s demonstration entailed or proved is unclear, but at the very least, its potential was valuable enough to prioritize Reidier, his project, and his needs. By the end of the week, the transfer to Brown University was set up, and the Reidier family was cloistered within the folds of the Department’s heavy cloak.

  Although Pierce prized Reidier’s project, he was by no means particularly fond of him. Instead, he approached the physicist with a distrustful skepticism. He never challenged Reidier with his suspicions. Pierce was much more Machiavellian than that, a scientist of scientists, he took notes from the beginning in an effort to figure out which handles to pull and buttons to push in order to facilitate his, and thereby the Department’s, goals. This is evident early on, as seen in intradepartmental e-mails to his Deputy Director.

  -----Original Message-----

  From: Donald Pierce [mailto:donald.pierce@darpa.mil]

  Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2006 7:56 a.m.

  To: larry.woodbury@darpa.mil

  Subject: Is it Providence?

  Larry,

  Having read up on Reidier’s process, I agree with your assessment of his insistence on working in close proximity to Malle.40 Clearly, Malle’s success with BCIs41 will be a great resource for Reidier in progressing to Stage 4. It’s not hard to imagine somehow adapting Malle’s multielectrode recording arrays and fMRI techniques for our purposes.

  Furthermore, their personal history will preclude any suspicions about time spent together.42 Obviously Reidier’s MO of casually picking his colleagues’ brains as opposed to any direct collaboration serves our classified purposes here. Indeed, his ego and secretive impulses will be quite useful in keeping all of this under wraps. This is best facilitated by proximity. It is much more coincidental to drop in on a lecture or a lab demonstration if you work on the same campus, as opposed to flying in from O’Hare. Perhaps we can facilitate “casual” drop-ins through the wife. Her visiting professorship seems on track. Could we find a plausible reason to locate her office near Malle’s, instead of the Comparative Literature Department? This would also facilitate our monitoring, two for the price of one.

  As far as the wife, I have concerns. Reidier talks elliptically around/about Eve. He’s rather concerned about her placement at Brown. Excessively so. Sometimes brings it up in terms of her work: satisfaction, stimulation, etc. Other times he makes it about her adjustment to new surroundings, what she needs their home to be. What’s consistent is that he always mentions her. Drops her into every conversation. And always with unspoken emphasis on stabilization. There’s something here. Something he’s hiding. While any husband would want his spouse to be happy with a relocation, his emphasis on her seems to insinuate a catastrophic fallout if this doesn’t work out. Personally AND professionally.

  I suspect she might have had or is having some sort of mental episode. If this is so, she is a security liability. One that we cannot contain with traditional solutions. Let’s see if we can get her CSG file. Maybe look into Department-friendly therapists or psychiatrists who could properly address her needs and ours.

  Regardless, Reidier’s relentlessness about his wife suggests that the state of his family has an immeasurable effect on his focus. For the project’s sake, it seems best to keep this volatile nuclear unit stable.

  We’re best served to move him out of the Fermi Lab and Chicago altogether. Too much new activity, new attention, new security, etc. would lead to questions. It’s easier to install him in a new place with our givens already set in place. Furthermore, by moving the family we’ll also be helping to sever any personal ties they developed that might have proved porous. And, of course, it’ll be much easier to install the NBs.43 In fact, with some diligent house hunting, we’ll be able to kill three birds with one stone: give us our access, Reidier his seclusion, and Eve a stable home.

  So, if Reidier’s insistent on moving, let’s do him the “favor” and collect that chit for later.

  -DP

  PS I know our contract with UCLA on BCI research still stands, do any of our rights transfer to personnel that have moved on or aid that they’ve provided to other universities? Can we use this to influence Malle44 at all?

  As insightful as Pierce is, however, he has a glaring blind spot. He initially classifies Reidier as a competitive egoist: one whose ambition is his Achilles’ heel. Later, though, Pierce posits that Reidier is moving for Eve: a selfless act prioritizing her needs above his own. He never acknowledges how incongruous t
his seems. It’s the contradiction that’s Pierce’s blind spot. It’s his lack of scope.

  My intuition tells me that Pierce operates from the philosopher’s view of character. Achilles is angry, Odysseus is cunning, a compassionate person is compassionate. Our traits trickle all the way down. They shape who we are and how we choose what to do. This doesn’t take into account how, as Kwame Anthony Appiah45 describes, the philosopher’s view is being challenged by the psychologist’s perspective. Psychologists, after a hundred years of experiments, are finding that there is no character. Behavior isn’t driven by permanent traits that apply across the board. Rather, someone could be honest at work, but deceptive with his spouse. People don’t have character, but rather a multiplicity of tendencies activated by context. As Paul Bloom of Yale writes, we are a community of competing selves “continually popping in and out of existence.”46

  Pierce wants a set character who responds to specific leverage in a specific way every time. His snap judgments, though insightful and most likely correct, are not integrated into a dynamic whole. Rather they’re filed away as foregone conclusions. Accordingly, the road map to Reidier is set.

  This blind spot of Pierce’s seems to have also led him astray in his assessment of Malle. While Pierce correctly divines Malle’s utility in relation to Reidier’s work, he overlooks Malle’s usefulness on a personal level. Although Malle’s professional success has primarily been in the neurological field, his academic accomplishments (especially his early ones, during his time living with Reidier) were in psychology.47 Pierce, however, captivated by his ambitious character assessment of Reidier, classifies Malle merely as a professional asset. He fails to see how Reidier might have a more personal need for Malle: Eve.

  Both Pierce and Reidier have played their hands close to their vests. Both apparently withheld and calculated. Interestingly, the two ended up working very well together in addressing the practicalities and necessities of the situation in order to make the project move forward. Ironically, it might have been this very dynamic of considered dealings that locked The Reidier Test onto its inevitable course.