What If? 2: Additional Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions

“I like ridiculous questions because nobody is expected to know the answer, which means it’s okay to be confused.

I studied physics in college, so there’s a lot of stuff I feel like I should know—like the mass of an electron or why your hair sticks up when you rub a balloon against it. If you ask me how much an electron weighs, I feel a little rush of anxiety, like it’s a pop quiz and I’m going to be in trouble if I don’t know the answer without looking it up.”

In the book’s introduction, Munroe discusses his own experience in higher education, thereby establishing his position as a scientific authority while also contrasting the pressure of scientific study with the relief of dabbling in the “ridiculous.” He discusses his reasons for writing in the popular science genre, as well as his motivations for producing this book in particular, presenting himself as a sympathetic and relatable figure.

“The same kind of science is used to answer serious questions and silly ones. […] Trying to answer silly questions can take you through some serious science.”

This quote provides a concise summary of the book’s content and the theme of Absurdity In Imaginary Situations and Real-World Phenomena by introducing Munroe’s approach of using absurd questions as a springboard to explain real scientific principles and theories entertainingly. He uses chiasmus, a literary technique and type of parallelism where two juxtaposed phrases—here the antonyms “serious” and “silly”—create a sense of linguistic balance. Munroe juxtaposes seriousness and silliness but shows how science and its universal application creates a connection between the two extremes, justifying his book’s use of absurdities as a means to elucidate science.

“In 1988, oceanographer John Martin famously claimed—in his best supervillain voice—’Give me half a tanker of iron, and I will give you an ice age.’”

Munroe quotes a relevant, well-known scientific authority to support his argument that vaporized iron may aid the environment. He does this in a comedic manner by pointing out the absurd elements of Martin’s statement, implying that it would be appropriate dialogue for a fictional “supervillain.” The reference blends science fact and fiction, making Munroe’s prose more engaging and lively.

“The craft wouldn’t just be more dangerous than an elevator, it would also be a lot harder to pick your destination. You might plan to go to the top of the Q1, but once you take off…

[…]

…you’ll be completely under the control of anyone with a bag of seeds.”

This quote illustrates a commonly used technique throughout What If? 2, wherein short comics accompany prose explanations, illustrating the topic at hand in a comedic manner. In this quote, the two paragraphs are divided by a short comic strip showing the ascent of a person in a bird-propelled chair being arrested by another figure holding a bag of birdfeed. The comic illustrates the scenario the text describes. The text emphasizes the relevance of the illustration by using ellipses (…) on either side of it to signify that it interrupts the flow of the sentence. The break in the text also shows the rupture between the “plan” and the probable outcome.

“This plan has some flaws. It destroys the Earth, yes, but it’s also unnecessarily inefficient.”

This quote is humorous for understating the infeasibility of the proposition as having “some flaws,” when it would have demonstrably catastrophic results. Munroe uses short sentences, simple clauses, and basic language to reinforce this understatement. He both acknowledges and dismisses Earth’s destruction in favor of focusing on the method’s inefficiency, a comedic reversal of usual priorities. The dismissive interjection “yes” dividing the two “flaws” in the plan signals the humorous shift in focus.

“‘Are there more grains of sand than stars in the sky?’ is a popular question that has been tackled by many people. The short answer to that question is that there are probably more stars in the visible universe than grains of sand on all of Earth’s beaches.

When people try to answer the question of whether there are more stars than sand grains, they often dig up some good data on the number of stars, then do some hand-waving about sand grain size to come up with the equivalent number for sand. Arguably, this is because geology and soil science are more complicated than astrophysics.”

This quote acknowledges and critiques prior attempts to tackle a particular question, both establishing What If? 2 within its genre context and implying that Munroe’s own answer avoids the same pitfalls. Munroe’s proposal that astrophysics is less complex than geology subverts expectations and biases about the prestige and relative difficulty of science subjects.

“I like how this question starts off sounding very cool and futuristic, and ends with boulders and strings.”

Munroe opens his answer with an approving meta-commentary on the humorous characteristics of the question. He acknowledges the absurd juxtaposition between “cool and futuristic” elements, and more down-to-earth, basic applications of scientific principles using “boulders and string.” This draws attention to the other instances throughout the book addressing absurd, sci-fi-esque concepts by applying basic, fundamental laws and simple methods.

“‘What, in today’s world and yesterday’s world, does it mean to be human, in all social and biological factors?’—Seth Carrol

I think you meant to submit this to Why If?

Why if? Deeply ungrammatical answers to unanswerable philosophical questions.”

Munroe responds to this question with a parody of his own book’s title and cover, playing on the distinction between the two question-words “why” and “what.” He gently pokes fun at the question, which is vague and pretentious, by pointing out that it is a philosophical rather than scientific inquiry. In this way, he reinforces the boundary of his book’s scope and makes an implied point about the need for scientific questions to be specific, well-defined, and testable.

“‘Soil liquefaction’ is a boring-sounding phrase for a terrifying thing. Under certain conditions, such as earthquakes, soil can flow like a liquid, which is extremely alarming for anyone who lives on the ground. The material in the impactor would undergo the same transformation, flowing outward across the surface in an omnidirectional landslide of supersonic soil liquefaction.*

[…]

*I searched several research paper archives for ‘supersonic soil liquefaction’ and was disappointed to find no results. Maybe someone out there is working on a grant proposal.”

Munroe frequently uses footnotes to include humorous asides and interesting tangents that don’t directly relate to the topic at hand. In this quote, he notes that the ideas the question introduces have not yet been the subject of serious scientific research. His optimism regarding the possibility of future study is a reminder of ongoing and fast-moving scientific advancement and an oblique encouragement for readers to continue engaging meaningfully with serious scientific publications, thus illustrating the theme of Encouraging Engagement and Curiosity in Science.

“The mega-mega-MEGA-skyscraper would be so tall that the top would just barely brush against the moon.

But it would only be 100,000,000 floors! To get to 1,000,000,000 floors, we have to stack 10 mega-mega-MEGA-skyscrapers on top of one another, to make one Keira-skyscraper.”

Munroe uses a simple device of progressively increasing the scale of the building, with accompanying illustrations, to accurately but intuitively contextualize the true size of the proposed tower. With simple, direct language and frequent repetition, this method is particularly designed to be comprehensible for young children, such as the asker’s four-year-old daughter. This quote shows how Munroe alters the tone, vocabulary, and register of his language to communicate effectively with different audiences.

“But some engineers have an idea sort of like your tower—it’s called a space elevator. It’s not quite as tall as yours (the space elevator would only reach partway to the Moon), but it’s close!

Some people think we can build a space elevator. Other people think it’s a ridiculous idea. We can’t build one yet because there are some problems we don’t know how to solve, like how to make the tower strong enough and how to send power up to run the elevators. If you really want to build a gigantic tower, you can find out more about some of the problems they’re working on, and eventually become one of the people coming up with ideas to solve them. Maybe, someday, you could build a giant tower to space.”

In this quote, Munroe directly addresses the young child who prompted the question, encouraging her not to give up on her ambitions despite his having shown them to be unrealistic. This illustrates the theme of encouraging engagement and curiosity in science. He speaks in the second person, using “you,” to create a meaningful and direct connection with the child, and through her the wider audience, diminishing the perceived divide between layperson and scientific institutions.

“But fossil fuels bear fingerprints of their origins. The various characteristics of coal, oil, and natural gas depend on the organisms that went into them and what happened to their tissues over time. It depends on where they lived, how they died, where their remains ended up, and what kinds of temperature and pressure they experienced.”

Munroe uses the evocative, figurative imagery of “fingerprint” as a metaphor to represent how one might discern the unique origins of fossil fuels from the remaining products. He thereby uses the effective didactic technique of making a broad, memorable statement and then following it up with elaboration and explanation. This structure helps readers understand and remember the information.

“Before the identical ancestors point, your family tree resembles a braided stream. Only in the final millennium or so does it shrink to resemble a tree.”

Munroe uses vivid and evocative imagery to represent the difference between the expected form of a family tree and its actual shape. The comparison concisely and memorably summarizes the prior information and creates a juxtaposition between the short-term and long-term shape of the “tree.”

“To defeat friction, we could levitate the capsule with magnetic fields and make it progressively smaller and lighter to accelerate and steer it more easily. Oops—we’ve accidentally built a particle accelerator.

And while it doesn’t exactly fit the criteria in Hunter’s question, a particle accelerator makes for a neat comparison.”

Munroe introduces the idea that a particle accelerator is the fastest system to propel an unmanned object around a circuit through the humorous device of describing the characteristics of a particle accelerator and then feigning belated realization of the similarity between his proposed system and the preexisting model. His use of the interjection “oops,” and the assertion that we’ve “accidentally” created the accelerator adds to the humor of the device and leads neatly into the next topic of discussion, while illustrating the theme of Humor as a Tool to Facilitate Communication and Education.

“‘If people’s teeth kept growing, but when they were fully grown they come off and are swallowed, how long would it take before it causes any problems?’—Valen M.

[comic caption] This question has already caused me a problem.”

In the spirit of the Weird & Worrying chapters, Munroe doesn’t analyze the implications of this question as much as point out how much it disturbed him. However, by claiming that it caused him a problem (the aghast pose of the comic stick figure implying that the problem is feelings of horror and disgust), according to the wording of the question, he ironically does provide a literal answer the question.

“Stopping rain with a laser is one of those ideas that sounds totally reasonable, but if you—

[comic caption] No, it doesn’t.

While the idea of a laser umbrella might be appealing, it—

[comic caption] It isn’t.

Okay. The idea of stopping rain with a laser is a thing we’re currently talking about.

[comic caption] Fine.”

This chapter opens by presenting a humorous dialogue between the voice of Munroe as narrator and a cartoon figure. The cartoon contradicts Munroe’s statements, revealing the author’s awareness that his own interest in a laser umbrella is not necessarily universal through a cartoon figure ostensibly opposed to the danger inherent in such a device. After each interjection, Munroe tempers the enthusiasm of his opening line until it becomes an undisputable statement rather than an expression of opinion, satisfying the comic character. This conflict between realism and enthusiasm echoes the careful balance that What If? 2 strikes between imagination and real-world science.

“If someone had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.40, and you drank all 14 glasses of their blood in a short amount of time, you would throw up.

[comic caption] I don’t want to draw someone throwing up a gallon of blood […] so here’s a squirrel instead.

You wouldn’t throw up because of the alcohol; you’d just throw up because you’re drinking blood.”

Munroe humorously subverts the expected prose-plus-comic format by refusing to draw a comic to illustrate the written information. This squeamishness draws attention to the absurdity and disgustingness of the proposed situation and provides a comedic interlude to the gory details.

“So, no, you can’t inhale a person, but you can inhale a larger fraction of a person than I think anyone is really comfortable with.

Also, I don’t think I want to answer any more questions about skin.”

Munroe’s visceral disgust, indicated by his discomfort with further skin-related questions, and his assumption that no one else is comfortable with his answer either, adds to the humor of his response.

“In other words, Noah’s question takes us pretty far outside normal physics, into the highly theoretical realm of things like quantum gravity and string theory.

So I contacted Dr. Cindy Keeler, a string theorist with the Niels Bohr Institute, and asked her about Noah’s scenario. […]

Dr. Keeler agreed that we shouldn’t rely on any calculations that involve putting that much energy into each electron since it’s so far beyond what we’re able to test in our accelerators. ‘I don’t trust anything with energy per particle over the Planck scale,’ she said. ‘The most energy we’ve really observed is in cosmic rays; more than LHC by circa 10⁶, I think, but still not close to the Planck energy. Being a string theorist, I’m tempted to say something stringy would happen—but the truth is, we just don’t know.’”

Munroe frequently refers questions that are outside of his own area of expertise to external authorities on the subject. In this case, he includes direct quotes from a string-theorist, whose word lends authority to Munroe’s responses. Her explanation includes technical jargon and theories usually absent or at least clarified in Munroe’s own prose—showing the extent to which he mediates between his audience and his scientific sources and illustrating the characteristics of popular science media.

“First, here’s a general rule of thumb: You can’t use lenses and mirrors to make something hotter than the surface of the light source itself. In other words, you can’t use sunlight to make something hotter than the surface of the Sun.”

Munroe provides the pertinent information in a concise and easily memorable rule of thumb. He then rephrases the rule to clarify it within the context of the question. He uses this strategy frequently when introducing new or potentially complex information, since this makes it easier for readers to follow his arguments and explanations.

“Do we really need all these laws?

Laws give people power. If a law is complicated, it empowers people who can afford lawyers to interpret it. […]

But making laws simpler and vaguer doesn’t necessarily move that power from the state to the people. […]

In a sense, the law is infinite in length, because it includes not just the words themselves but society’s understanding of what those words mean.”

Munroe analyzes not only the facts of the law but also the philosophies and logic governing the creation of laws—and the futility of attempts to make an airtight, equal, and just legal system. He subdivides this chapter under headings formatted like questions, which echoes the book’s general structure and allows him to examine the legal system in more depth than would be relevant to answer the initial question.

“People use ‘snowballed’ to mean ‘grew faster and faster,’ but in a sense the truth is the reverse. […]

Mount Everest is very tall,^{[citation needed]} so even with a slowing growth rate, there’s still a lot of room for a snowball to pick up snow.”

Munroe’s explanation of the term “snowballed” shows how often reality conflicts with conventional wisdom or widespread assumptions. In addition, Munroe includes a note stating “citation needed” alongside self-evident or obvious claims, as he does multiple times throughout the book. This parodies the abundant use of sources in serious scientific papers, as well as Munroe’s own use of footnotes and source references through the book.

“As you reached the current site of Thorndale, Texas, after a full day of walking, large animals would proliferate around you. If you stopped walking for a moment, you might catch sight of a camel, a mastodon, a dire wolf, or a saber-toothed cat. A little past Thorndale, humans would disappear from the landscape entirely. We’re not certain why all these big, cool animals vanished right around the time that humans arrived on the scene, but a lot of people suspect it might not be a coincidence.”

The extinction of megafauna in the Americas has long been associated with the arrival of humans. Most experts conclude that the animals were likely hunted to extinction. Munroe presents this theory through humorous implication—using the “journey back in time” gimmick to illustrate the impact of humans on the ecosystem.