On Creating Imaginary Worlds: Science Fiction

[Venusian Broon]

Hey Moonbat,

Theoretically (and therefore justified in your universe!) there might be a gentle, spiralling path down that could possibly conserve your initial ice for a long time and perhaps a long liquid phase somewhere. Although mixing with atmosphere would turn it into a moist wind or a river of rain, I'd imagine. Friction is your enemy as it would heat up the ice and break down its structure quite quickly, then boil the water. In fact it'd probably look like an accretion disc - as that's what you really doing!

There have been actual reports of 'ice meteorites' here on Earth, lumps of ice that have appeared out of blue skies and survived hitting the ground (and not a sign of any airliners!), but its really difficult to say if they actually come from outer space.

---

As for black hole planet. When our sun goes red giant, we think Earth possibly could remain intact afterwards, but we'd be as burnt, dry and desiccated as Mercury, and life needs water - at least ours. A Supernova - the likely preceeding event that creates a black hole is gigantically, stupendously energetic (hell, we see supernova's in other galaxies, never mind the ones in ours!) Earth would be probably completely vapourised.

But this does give me an idea. Planets on the outskirts of solar systems, say Uranus/Neptune size might lose 99% of their mass in the Supernova, but there might be a remnant left over - and it could be an interesting composition, instead of an iron core - as iron wouldn't be at the edge of the solar system, it could be a crystal core of carbon (sorry, coming back to diamonds again - but carbon is reasonably abundant and makes a good solid! The pressure of the supernova blast might pressurise the cores of the outer plants to small points) - so a moons-size husk of pure carbon/diamond with your baddies on it? If your antagonists need specific conditions to survive, hence are constantly converting habitats to their own needs, then I'd buy that they could tailor a biosphere to whatever demands are required. Aboriginal life? I'd be a bit more sceptical, but hey, you're the writer - you sell it to me

 

[Flugel Meister]

In what form would hydrogen exist in deep space?

 

[Abernovo]

According to Wikipedia, referencing Barry Dainton's Time and Space (McGill-Queen's University Press), hydrogen is in plasma, similar to a gaseous form.

Interstellar space has a density of around 10^6 particles per cm^3, with 70% of that lone hydrogen atoms.

In intergalactic space, the hydrogen content can be as low as a few atoms per cubic metre.

 

[Flugel Meister]

So is that liquid or gas?

 

[Abernovo]

Plasma is similar to a gaseous state, but for the most part, as I understand it, we're talking about free floating atoms and molecules. Think of it as a very thin gas, but so thin that it would not register as gas, if that makes sense.

 

[Ursa major]

I thought the difference between a gas and a plasma is ionisation. So if a ship was encountering hydrogen atoms, they would form a gas; if they were encountering hydrogen nuclei (the majority of them just a single proton) and electrons, for example, that would be a plasma. However, given the tiny number of atoms or ions in a cubic meter of space, this is probably moot (unless one's means of collecting or deflecting the particles relies on then being ions).

 

[Venusian Broon]

This was the fruits of my research on what's in interstellar space for my novel - I collated it from various sources. Hope it helps!

Interstellar medium. There are two main components to interstellar medium: matter – dust, gas and plasma; and energy – in the form of electromagnetic radiation.

Components:

'Normal' Matter. Extremely dilute mixture of ions, atoms, molecules, larger dust grains and cosmic rays. It is approximately 99% gas to 1% dust. Densities range from 1000s to a few hundred million particles per cubic metre. The average for the galaxy seems to be ~1 million atoms per cubic metre, or one atom per cubic centimetre. (for example, out here in the sticks our sun is travelling in a gas field ten times less dense at ~0.1 atoms/cc). Mixture of gas is ~89% H, 9% He and 2% with elements higher in the periodic table.

Cosmic rays are mainly protons (~90%, the other 10% are He nuclei and slightly under 1% heavier elements and electrons) travelling at extremely high speeds and at very high energies. Generally speaking, because of interference between the Sun, Earth and the Interstellar medium it is impossible to unscramble ‘where’ these rays originate. Some of these particles are so energetic that we have no idea what physical process could have produced them. ‘Unprotected’ these rays are strong enough to give radiation poisoning to humans...

EM fields. Visible light, IR background radiation etc… Some small areas of space will be ionized and very hot – i.e. Interstellar medium that has been excited by a nearby supernova, as well. I would assume that there would be elements of magnetic fields, particularly if theories on cosmic magnetic fields and galaxy formation are correct. There will also be a smattering of high energy fields, UV, X- and gamma rays, generally caused by the birth and death of stars...

Interplanetary medium. This has a similar composition to the interstellar medium but is different in a number of counts. Firstly it is denser, at least closer to the star and also has a much higher density of plasma. For example at the orbit of earth interplanetary medium is ~5 atoms per/cc. Because of surges in the stars output (i.e. Coronal mass ejections), there can be surges to 100s of particles per/cc. Dust generally has been generated by the planetary system itself and it has come from collisions that the asteroids, comets and the planets themselves of the system cause - very little has come from the interstellar medium. High energy cosmic rays described above are at liberty to enter the solar system, only being stopped by large lumps of matter – like the Earth. A secondary feature that is not seen in interstellar space is the presence of strong magnetic fields – i.e. from the interactions between the sun’s coronal plasma and planets with liquid metallic cores. These then generate magnetic fields that produce strong barriers that help to channel cosmic rays and the coronal plasma away from the surfaces.

 

[Flugel Meister]

My brain appears to have exploded.

 

[Piousflea]

I noticed someone asked if a planet could orbit a black hole, obviously far enough away to not fall into it, although I think I'm right that all orbits degrade over time, but I'm not sure if this was ever answered. If it is possible, and I don't see why not, would the planet get any kind of heat in the form of Hawking (or other) radiation?

It seems like an accretion disc should be able to radiate heat just like any other body in the universe. The only problem is that accretion discs are incredibly hot, so they would radiate a lot of X-rays in addition to the useful light. Unlike the solar wind of a normal star (which are charged particles and can be deflected by a planet's magnetic field), X-rays cannot be deflected by magnetic fields. Like any high energy radiation they can boil away planetary atmospheres over time. Not exactly great conditions for life.

have seen mocked up pictures of large orbiting bodies as seen from a planet, and I wondered how large a body could look before it is too large. Io would have a very large Jupiter in the sky, but it would be too large as Io is so close that it is affected by the gravity to such an extent that it would be nigh on inhabitable. I understand that a planet could be big but not dense, so I'm guessing the answer will also depend on the mass of the planet, but how realistic are large Suns and planets when viewed from the surface of another planet?

The only limit to how closely two objects can orbit each other is the Roche limit. If a comet or asteroid approaches a gravitationally massive object (like Jupiter) too closely, it will be torn to pieces by the tidal forces. The Roche limit is much smaller for dense, rocky bodies than for low-density icy objects. So an Earthlike planet could orbit Jupiter quite closely without breaking up.

About tidal heating and Io: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Io is super hot because it gets tidal forces from all of the other large moons around Jupiter. Merely being very close to Jupiter isn't enough to cause catastrophic heating. You have to have conflicting tidal forces from multiple other bodies. (Ganymede, Europa, Callisto, etc)

If you had a single super-close moon and no other large moons, you could concievably have one of those very pretty habitable worlds where the gas giant is super huge in the sky.

I thought the difference between a gas and a plasma is ionisation. So if a ship was encountering hydrogen atoms, they would form a gas; if they were encountering hydrogen nuclei (the majority of them just a single proton) and electrons, for example, that would be a plasma. However, given the tiny number of atoms or ions in a cubic meter of space, this is probably moot (unless one's means of collecting or deflecting the particles relies on then being ions).

This is correct. In any non-plasma form of matter, the nuclei and electrons are closely associated and will always have the same temperature and pressure. In a plasma, the nuclei and electrons can have different temperature and pressure. This matters a lot for electrical and magnetic properties. Also, because plasma is completely ionized, even a small amount of plasma can really modify chemical reactions a lot. This is the basis behind some of the medical/dental plasmas that are not dense enough to burn but can still kill microorganisms.

 

[Grinnel]

Just a warning-try not to quote science in absolutes.

Science is far from perfect and our understanding of the universe barely scratches the surface. Every 5 to 10 years we discover what idiots we were 5-10 years ago for believing the science of the time (in the early 1900's it was believed that there was heat energy and cold energy.) That means that it will take 5-10 years to prove much of what we believe today is wrong.

Modern physics is in a massive tailspin trying to prove itself right and failing. We have accepted the Big Bang Theory as fact when as yet there is no mathematical or practial proof that it is correct. That's why it's still the Big Bang Theory.

The theory of relativity has it's detractors-including Albert Einstien.

Remember that Science Fiction is Fiction.

Write what you want and let the scientists prove you wrong! if they make a big stink, you'll just sell more!

Most readers of science fiction don't care how you got to the other planet, and many pilots won't know. Most computer programmers and builders have no idea why a computer works, they just know it does.

In short, if you are a scientist, like Heinlen, then quote science (that may well be wrong) in your work. If not, make it up. Most likely, no one will prove you wrong in your lifetime. Write your theory in Wikki, two of us will back it up and, voila, it will be fact!

 

[Abernovo]

Grinnel, with the utmost of respect, I have to take issue. Reading Heinlein, Clarke and Asimov was part of what inspired me and several of my colleagues to go train as scientists.

I agree that scientific theory changes over time. A lot of those changes, though, actually build on the theories that precede them. Newton's theories of gravity were flawed, but provided a valid explanation for the time. Einstein, in many ways, refined them, showing the flaws to prove his own workings. I once used Aristotle's examination of a fish to show how biological knowledge had changed, but was still based on the investigative method that he used.

If you want science fantasy (and I quite like a lot of it) then that's fine, but to say the science doesn't matter to the readers isn't really true. I'm a reader, my friends are readers and if our faith in the writing isn't held, a lot of us will put the book down. I suppose it's a matter of consistency - you can put the science in, you can keep it vague, or you can use handwavium. But to have a strong physics content and then add in handwavium to get over a plot bump would kill a story for many people.

I know your last line was in jest, but it scared me. Gossip, made fact because enough people say it's so, is something to avoid. Bad enough when so-called news pundits engage in it.

 

[Grinnel]

I stand corrected. My fingers ranted while I wasn't paying attention.

Could we agree that the problem is too many people are trying to explain too much that they don't understand. I have no real problem with scientists explaining the science (as long as it is entertaining).

Non-scientists, however, trying to explain theory behind FTL flight by gleaning tidbits from the consensual reality of Wikki are liable to rocket themselves into a corner.

If you have no scientific background, don't try to say why it is, simply say it is. There is enough backgound out there that people accept FTL drive. People accept blasters and 'ray' guns and full gravity in small space craft without you having to explain how it works.

If you are not a scientist, and you want to devlop something completely unheard of just do it. Did HG Wells explain how his time machine worked?

No, really, did he? I don't remember...

 

[Abernovo]

Could we agree that the problem is too many people are trying to explain too much that they don't understand.

Absolutely. I agree with that unreservedly. Write an entertaining story, first and foremost.

People accept blasters and 'ray' guns and full gravity in small space craft without you having to explain how it works.

Not only that, but ray guns are fun!!!

If you are not a scientist, and you want to develop something completely unheard of just do it.

Not only just do it, but please do it. The mind is the starting point for invention. From the supposedly 'impossible' and the fanciful come some of our best ideas. Look at Leonardo's sketches that were outside the limits of the technology of the time.

As to HG Wells, I don't think he did explain much about his time machine, except for a few cod science throwaways. Cod science! We're back to fish! Sorry.

 

[chrispenycate]

People who do understand the science and try to explain it to you are, if anything worse. (Oh, yes, guilty as charged). But I get very miffed by the use of handwavium which ignores the laws of physics and/or biology as we know them (frequently with some spiritual assumption of mind over matter/energy) without throwing me some sop to appease the growling incredulity in the back of my brain, then call the result 'science fiction'.

I certainly don't think the science should be explained away, like a new form of popularisation, (occasional Asimov, Hal Clement and oh, so many of the early greats in the genre), but I think the author should understand it himself, even if he resists the temptation to lecture, or he is short-changing his readership.

 

[Bowler1]

Not only that, but ray guns are fun!!!

Did someone mention RAY GUNS?

I'm here to take the middle line on technology in science fiction. I drive cars but I don't fix them, someone else does that for me. So if I have a character in space, he may not understand the technology, but he can use it. Granted, I don't stray too far from the current norm for accepted technology and I keep it based on characters.

I also think a lot of tech will be common to/for the character. I have a nano-tech idea going on, and it's like mobile phones but inside us and my characters use it all the time. To them, it's normal. Some explaining has to be done for the reader, but I don't kill myself with detail. I assume the most SciFi fans will know what I'm on about.

I tried giving one of my WIP's to the wee woman who never reads SciFi and it was a flop, she did not understand all the terms.

I'm drifting a bit here so my points are...
1 - SciFi fans have a base understanding that is assumed, warp drives/RAY GUNS and so on, which may never be invented but we're accepting of the concepts.
2 - No matter how weird the technology, if you're characters help you pull of the tech use and it's good storytelling, we'll love you for it and suspend belief while reading.

Now, who wants to join me in target practice with these RAY GUNS?

 

[Stephen4444]

I was doing research for a new book idea about life underground. Maybe a planet with a harsh above ground environment, asteroid, or a moon. While perusing the internet, looking for plants that grow underground, I found an article that blew my mind and sparked my imagination. You may think I am wacked… but here it is.

At the Creighton Mine in Sudbury, Ontario, They have been growing seedlings from seed underground. They found that you can grow the equivalent of a two-year seedling in a few short months in which time you have a two-year old seedling... from the planting of the seeds to being transplanted to surface sites is less than 4 months... so this is a bit more than a 400% increase in the normal growth rate.

They give many goofy explanations , such as a lack of weather underground in the form of wind, snow, rain etc. a lack of insect infestations and so on.

They also say that carrots and cucumbers don't do well underground.

My question is. Would an underground forest sound too farfetched? Second question is What plants do you think (other than fungus or mushrooms) be grown in an underground environment. If there were an equivalent forest, what would it look like? Pine trees/firs/oaks?

In addition, what would be a more likely setting for underground existence? A moon?

 

[Dante DiBenedetto]

Well, considering that you're the one creating this world, I don't see why you can't have plants or other organisms able to thrive in a sunless environment.

HP Lovecraft did a story about an entire underground civilization. I don't see why a forest would be too out of the picture

 

[Grinnel]

At the Creighton Mine in Sudbury, Ontario, They have been growing seedlings from seed underground.

My question is. Would an underground forest sound too farfetched? Second question is What plants do you think (other than fungus or mushrooms) be grown in an underground environment. If there were an equivalent forest, what would it look like? Pine trees/firs/oaks?

In addition, what would be a more likely setting for underground existence? A moon?

Assumedly, they are using a UV light source to grow the plants.

As mentinoed above, you can do anything you want on your world. We understand how life works on our world, but certainly we aren't arrogant enough to think that is the only way life warks anywhere, are we?

On a colonized/civilized world, underground forests could be man (alien) made hydroponics with aritficial lights, or could even take advantage of a naturally occurring undergroud light/radiation source.

What about an underground forest of giant mushrooms and fungi? Go to a farmer's market some time and just look at the selection of bizarre mushrooms. "Mushroom shaped" objects take on a whole new dimention. Now take mushroom shapes and multlply them by a thousand and you have a really big, really odd-looking 'forest'.

 

[Abernovo]

The thing to consider about trees is that they're affected by their environment. For instance, in Orkney and Shetland (the Northern Isles of the UK), trees tend to be stunted, a combination of high winds, cooler weather, and poor and shallow soil. In an internal world, you might have limited space or shallow soils. With lower 'cave ceilings', the trees might reach over and mix their branches, forming an unintentional (or intentional, if deliberately planted) arched bower.

If you have a light source, which is generally needed for Earth-type plants, the plants will tend to grow or angle towards the light. So you would need to think about where you place the light.

The thing I would caution you on, though, is that there is a difference between seedlings and full-grown plants. For adult plants, you would need more energy to help with photosynthesis. Without reading the article, it sounds similar to hothousing seedlings, utilising their own stored seed energy to bring on very young plants prior to bringing them out.

That said, there is nothing to stop you having an internal 'world' with plants. Ideas such as mining asteroids and using the hollow shells as habitats has been discussed for years.

 

[Bowler1]

You have plants but you also need to think about what type of light you have.

On earth, plants are green because of the light wave lenghts from our sun. Different suns/light and the plants will be a different colour, not green but brown and even black. This has been discussed before and Chrispy had great links, let me see if I can still find the thread.

No, no joy this time. Fish around Stephen4444, plants, affects of light on plants and even different gravity has been covered before. There is some serious and wierd information on this site, be careful you don't pop too many light blubs!

I have a WIP of my own based in tunnels and I have the brown/red plant life, and sap the colour of blood. Great for explosions!