Sci-fi actually needs science

[Mirannan]

A comment about the ridiculous manoeuvres depicted:

This is one of the many things that could be explained away by looking at the situation differently. One possible get-out would be that the transphotic speeds described are actually some sort of "pseudospeed" which works by currently unknown physics. (Currently unknown physics is common in most SF!)

One might be E.E. Smith's Bergenholm drive, which temporarily switches off inertia so that spaceships move at a speed dictated by drive thrust and the drag of the medium they are flying in. (Even interstellar space isn't completely empty.) In that setting, turning off the drive leaves one at whatever velocity was attained when the drive was turned on - leading to some interesting situations when arriving at another star with a significant velocity relative to the place one started from.

Another might be the stutterwarp drive from the somewhat obscure pen-and-paper RPG Traveller 2300. The stutterwarp works by microjumping - through some sort of space fold, I assume. The setting assumes that some sort of hyperspace travel is possible, but only works for a tiny fraction of a second. The drive gets around this by cycling itself at several megahertz, thus producing something that looks like a velocity but isn't. Similar "intrinsic velocity" remarks apply.

 

[Cathbad]

Another might be the stutterwarp drive from the somewhat obscure pen-and-paper RPG Traveller 2300.

Obscure???

~mumbles something 'bout young whippersnappers~

 

[Mirannan]

Obscure???

~mumbles something 'bout young whippersnappers~

Oh, I agree. BTW, I'm 57. But it never got as popular as the original Traveller. Incidentally, for anyone else who doesn't know - the two games might have similar names and both be SF-based, but they have little else in common. Different (wildly different) tech levels, no magitech apart from the stardrive in Traveller, completely different hyperdrive systems leading to different strategy and tactics...

 

[Cathbad]

The original Traveller was awesome. I didn't even mind it taking a whole session to create characters, lol. Never cared for the 2300. but it old decently in the store I managed.

 

[StilLearning]

I occasionaly do a bit of research work for friends of mine who are authours (my background is ohysics, engineering, and space terchnology), and one of them asked me for some information on what it would be like to fly through a major nebula using something very much like a stutter warp engine. The hazrd with it, we decided, is that the ship esssentially appears and occupies a volume of space for a fraction iof a second - in a nebula especially, there are both gas and dust particles occupying that space, and they need to be moved out of the way to give the ship a clear 'landing zone'. Doing so puts an upper limit on vehicle psuedo-velocity (due to the time needed to clear each landing zone) which is akin to drag in that the effective speed limit is lower the denser the gas and dust gets. The drive itself works by unknown physics, but I thought it was great 'one miracle proposition' fopr examining problems of starflight and the nature of nebula.

 

[Vertigo]

I've always thought that's one of the problems with any of these "Beam me up Scotty" type "matter transmitters"; it seems to me that even a single atom occupying the space you are about to occupy could be very unfortunate. Though it is true that there is a lot more space between atoms than space occupied by actual matter. So maybe not that big a problem... My impression of a "stutter" type warp drive is that is not what is happening as the vessel is always in normal space and therefore will push any matter out of the way. However at very high speeds and with such a drive I'm not quite sure how that would work; I don't really see how you could effect anything at the other end - clearing the space - before you actually get there.

 

[Parson]

herefore will push any matter out of the way. However at very high speeds and with such a drive I'm not quite sure how that would work; I don't really see how you could effect anything at the other end - clearing the space - before you actually get there.

Isn't this dealt with by the so-called tearing a hole in space time for the "jumping" space ship to enter? It would seem to be the same problem whether you are dealing with micro jumps or vast jumps. Something has to clear the "space" that you are going to enter.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

My impression of a "stutter" type warp drive is that is not what is happening as the vessel is always in normal space and therefore will push any matter out of the way.

a) It's imaginary
b) Perhaps a travelling wormhole generator as in Peter Hamilton's "Pandora's Star" and "Judas Unchained"?
c) Every FTL method is either totally speculative or requires energy beyond what's reasonable and usually exotic materials that are not known to exist, anyway.

So it's up to the author to wave hands. It's best explained as little as possible, ideally not at all. Don't look behind the curtain. Concentrate on everything else
I agree that the daftest of all, has to be Star Trek's Transporter beam, with their inconsistent Warp speeds and eventually "Transwarp" coming second. All the best SF just have some internally consistent but basically unexplained way to get from A to B. Ursula Le Guin's Hanish stuff sounds almost "relativistic" apart from the mysterious "Ansible", which has low bandwidth and easily broken to avoid it being too much a "Get out of jail free" card.

Planet bound "gateways" or "stargates" stretch my ability to suspend disbelief more than something in deep space. Perhaps that's just a personal thing.

 

[StilLearning]

As Ray said, I think the best thing is not to explain too much! My friend needed some upper limits on his drive for plot reasons, although he wanted a reasonable-at-quick-glance explanation - and for the details of the nebula itslef to be reasonably accurate. i'm not totally sure but I think my friend was imagining his drive acted more like a teleporter than a wormhole.

 

[J Riff]

Energy beyond what's reasonable. The whole place would be that way, the entire dimension. Building up enough energy to exist there for long enough to go somewhere is beyond reasonable but not necessarily beyond possible. Just be sure you don't run into a solid object or hungry paramecium while you are there.

 

[Dan Jones]

IMHO space opera is more akin to fantasy than to science fiction; real, ripping yarns, buccaneers-in-space type stuff. If people want to stretch and break the laws of physics on their books, so what?

And one more thing: the genre is called science fiction. Surely the operative word isn't "science" but "fiction". If you want Science Fact then you go and read a textbook on mechanical load transfer or something... the "science" in Science Fiction is a very, very broad tag, and doesn't necessarily mean that a book contains any science in it at all. Perhaps a misnomer, then, but it shows how the language in this instance has evolved to mean something new.

If something's fictional as far as I'm concerned you can break as many laws of physics as you want. If you write a cracking story with good characters, then it's all good and jiggy, baby.

 

[Droflet]

The two rules I've read from an author go like this:

1) Always write science that can be proved.

2) Write whatever you want, as long as no one can prove you wrong.

I subscribe to # 2.

 

[DrMclony]

My one time I wrote a space opera, I tried really hard to keep the physics accurate or at least believable. I guess I duffed that one! oh well. I agree with Jo, it would depend on the tone, not the content, if you gave feedback.

 

[Cathbad]

When a reader decides to pick up a book of fiction, he has tacitly agreed to a Suspension of Belief. But to say it doesn't matter what laws of nature you break, may vey well make it a tough assignment to suspend belief. There has to be breaking point. We can infer in a Sci-Fi novel that a method has been created to move a ship at greater-than-light speed, even without explaining the science behind it.

We'd be pressing against that suspension barrier to say that duck spit is the answer to GTL speeds.

(Cat whiskers maybe, but duck spit???)

 

[DrMclony]

We'd be pressing against that suspension barrier to say that duck spit is the answer to GTL speeds.

(Cat whiskers maybe, but duck spit???)

*not serious mode*
No, that's totally wrong. Duck spit is the catalyst required to create nuclear fusion in silicon-bi-carbonate. But it's not a good reaction. Just enough to create mood lighting in your forward viewing deck. It would never drive an FTL engine.

For that, it's got to be crocodile tears and monkey sweat, fused with nickel in a thorium chamber.

*/not serious mode*

 

[Cathbad]

For that, it's got to be crocodile tears and monkey sweat, fused with nickel in a thorium chamber

~slaps forehead~ Of course!

 

[J D Foster]

I have a friend who hates every film he watches because the science isn't believable... The thought of that depresses me so much. I couldn't care less if science fiction or just plain fiction fiction isn't realistic. For me it's either entertaining or it's not. I have a big fat zero on scientific accuracy in my stories, possibly even a minus figure. But each to his own. I'm reading a non fiction work at the moment where the author is describing the science behind the history of refrigeration and honestly I don't get most of it. I suspect this is high school level science, but it's beyond me. I'd be baffled if I read hard SCi-fi.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I couldn't care less if science fiction or just plain fiction fiction isn't realistic.

It's OK for fairy stories. But even fantasy needs any science to be believable and internally consistent / logical unless magic / psychic powers are being used.
Beyond a certain level of scientific / mathematical / engineering education, having POINTLESS violations of logic, science, maths etc is just plain very annoying. It most times is on the level of having Elizabeth I before Henry VIII, or a US city in wrong State, a plain lack of research.

Fine if the plot needs some subtle science violated, either wave hands or add magic / psychic powers or passing explanation that in 2134 we found it was a mistake. People do research for Historical Fiction, Thrillers with travel, police procedures for Detective series etc, why not get basic science right in SF? Probably 99.9% of the time you don't need to explain anything, but simply leave out stupid descriptions and explanations, I'm looking at you Paramount with stupid needless technobabble in ST-TNG, Voyager and DS9. Or later Star Wars films.

I'd be baffled if I read hard SCi-fi.

No, proper Hard SF is NOT a science lecture! It simply doesn't violate any basic science. If hard SF reads like a science text book, then it's rubbish.

 

[MWagner]

So when does technology become so powerful and alien than we can't recognize the science at all? And what if the characters in this far-future setting don't recognize or understand the science either?

I'm thinking of a lot of Jack Vance's work, where there's no effort made to explicitly identify technology that is so advanced it's simply taken for granted. A wizard learns formulas to create a simulacrum out of a vat. Science or sorcery? Humans travel between the stars by the means of conveyances they give no thought to, and which the author does not explain either. Is this still science fiction? Or how about Cordwainer Smith? Without a doubt he was concerned with science, with genetic manipulation and creating new life forms. Does he need to explain the science for his stories of man-beasts and beast-men to qualify as science fiction?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Does he need to explain the science for his stories of man-beasts and beast-men to qualify as science fiction?

No.
You don't ever need to explain things, unless the story/plot needs it.
Anything "explicit" ought not to jar with known facts unless there is some need in the story (not arbitrary to make it "cool") and then there has to be some some "excuse" (not a technical document).

Humans travel between the stars by the means of conveyances they give no thought to, and which the author does not explain either.

Best not explained as we don't know how to do it. Though we can have "less obvious" violations of Light Speed and Relativity than E E "Doc" Smith or Star Trek (sloppy inconsistent "warp speeds" etc).

This is purely my opinion:
The "best" interstellar SF from 1940s to now usually has star ships that can only do interstellar travel some distance from planets/stars. They have understandable "reaction" type drives for "in system use". They seem to fall into three main groups:
1) Near Light Speed. Little time passes for passengers/crew, 10s, 100s or 1000s of years pass outside ship. (Hanish? Ursula LeGuin?)
2) Ships with some sort of Warp drive, hyperspace, stargates etc, that "travel" in different "medium" to ordinary space (Very many versions of this, Babylon 5, Star Trek, Dune, very many books)
3) Ships that somehow fold space or generate their own wormholes (very many books, Peter Hamilton, some Larry Nivin), one variation is that it can't work near any significant mass. Thus months to get in/out of deep space and then instantly anywhere. "Jump Drive"

All these options can make interstellar travel a little like sailing ship era Intercontinental travel. Which actually having a constraint of months between stars can be a good thing to build tension and the story. IMO Planet bound stargates just make it all as if it's one planet (Is Wessex a place in England or a Planet? Oh it's a Planet, is that deliberately confusing or a mistake Mr Hamilton?)

The other option are "Generation ships". Not much fun for "Interstellar adventure" even it they are plausible to build today. Items 1 to 3 are Science Fiction and CAN work in Hard SF, if used properly, it's Science Fantasy as soon as you draw attention to it and especially if you explain it. Don't explain items 1 to 3, but have the practicalities of it consistent and logical. Don't add time travel!