How hard is hard science fiction? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message


WhoreMods -> How hard is hard science fiction? (8/31/2016 5:14:00 PM)

Hard science fiction is described as science fiction written by people who understand science and so try to make the science in their fiction work properly. People who are, apparently, following the leads set by Wells and Verne in trying to make their engineering workable by the standards of the day it was written. This term is generally used to describe American writers more or less exclusively, and also, given the nature of some of the hard sf writers who are taken to be definitive, seems misconceived.

Larry Niven, to pick an obvious example, is generally cited as one of the big names in hard SF. Despite being lumped in with the New Wave movement of the '60s (not terribly scientifically minded, it's alleged, though I'd have said Ian Watson and JG Ballard in particular have a pretty good claim on sticking to real-ish science most of the time), he's seen as a man who puts a lot of work into his engineering, alien ecologies and physics. I won't argue with that, but I do feel that it doesn't matter how plausible somebody makes their aliens if their characters have to exceed the speed of light to meet the little buggers. He's also written about the social and engineering problems that would be caused by impossible technologies (matter transmission and time travel in particular), like these are serious attempts at extrapolation, rather than a numbered list of angels dancing on the head of a pin. If you're defining hard sf as sf where the science works, then Niven has written precisely one hard sf story in his entire career: Inconstant Moon. Most of his best known work reads more like old fashioned space opera with a few attempts to fudge around the impossibilities that drive the plot.

Which is possibly a better description of hard sf than the business about real science. It always puzzles me that a few nifty aliens are considered adequete to make Ringworld be deemed acceptable by physicists, while Clarke's anally and scrupulously worked out 2001 and rendezvous With Rama are disqualified over a magic monolith and a big dumb object violating a few laws of physics on the last page.

Can anybody think of any bona fide hard SF where the engineering actually works and the plot isn't dependent on ignoring one or more law of physics? Bear, Brin and Benford seem to fall down on this just as much as Niven does.




DesFIP -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (8/31/2016 5:53:31 PM)

Asimov.




jlf1961 -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (8/31/2016 5:58:56 PM)

FTL travel aside, Niven actually followed Freeman Dyson's theories when it came to ring world, but avoided the sphere construction completely.

Now, as far as FTL travel goes, there have been many theories used by sci fi authors over the years, ranging from actually exceeding the speed of light by sheer brute energy, which if the theories concerning both dark energy and or zero point energy hold up, might actually be possible, sort of.

Then there was the warp drives, which put the ship in a bubble of real space while warping the space/time continuim directly in front of the craft by contracting it, while at the same time expanding space time behind the vessel. Miguel Alcubierre actually did the math that shows this to be possible, vindicating the authors that used it.

So, what was soft is now actually theoretically possible.

Now, lets look at some of the other ideas.

Of course this is exactly what Herbert was talking about when discussing Guild Navigators 'folding' space.

Wormholes, possible, but there are some problems.

1) A singularity massive enough to create one would probably destroy the ship by the gravitational tides. Solve that problem and you are only half way there, since the other problem is that you have no control over where you are going.

Now, a few authors addressed this by having some group of explorers (the pilgrims from wing commander for example) having gone ahead and mapped these jump points.

2) Ships with the so called jump drives which somehow creates the singularity artificially and enters the point and goes where ever.

A physicist decided to play the devil's advocate and do the calculations needed to create a worm hole that will take you to a specific point in space time.

He finally concluded that the ship would have to have a computer the size of the moon (in 1990 tech) just to do the calculations. Basically a few hundred trillion calculations per second for the duration of the wormhole jump.

Then we have those people who have approached star travel as some sort of bastard cross of alchemy, sorcery and physics.

Of course, there is the odd duck that figures that if we could accelerate a ship to 99.9999% of lightspeed, the relativistic mass would generate the wormhole and the end point is determined by the direction and time you had the ship accelerating.

Now the only problem with the last idea is that the mass would only be apparent to an outside observer, for those on the ship, everything would be normal, thus creating the debate is the change in mass real, or just an artificial illusion created by the relativistic effects of the ship's motion itself.

The reason for that question is found in an example using a bullet fired from a gun. The real mass of the projectile never actually changes, but the mass due to velocity does. Thus the impact force is greater than the mass of the bullet (not that it makes much difference to the target.)

So, in answer to your question, soft science fiction is basically soft only because the math has not been down to prove or disprove the science.

I would continue in greater depth, but to be honest, last night I was waking up about every 30 minutes to double check to see if I had been dreaming and my great nephew was indeed home.

He was, is and is presently playing candyland with his grandmother.

I on the other hand have once more learned that at 55, I cannot go without sleep as long as I could when I was 25.

In other words, the brick wall has been hit and it fell on me, then stood back up and repeated the process twice more.




WhoreMods -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/1/2016 4:17:31 AM)

I've never been convinced by the fudges for FTL travel involving folding space or magic doors or whatever, myself. From the viewpoint of the people who are taking a short cut, there's no violation of relativity there, but from every other viewpoint in existence (most importantly that of somebody at their destination) there is, because they've moved between two points faster than a photon would, and whether they travelled through the intervening space physically or not doesn't alter that.

I thought soft sf was more stuff that was based on the soft sciences (psychology and anthropology in particularly) rather than stuff where the physics and biology were arguable but unprovable? Ballard's '70s novels, the Jack Vance stuff based on batshit mad social systems, Chad Oliver and the like. There's definitely plenty of stuff the other definition can be applied to, but I thought it was argued that was hard sf as well.




Hillwilliam -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/1/2016 4:26:47 PM)

John Scalzi was good hard SF.




WhoreMods -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/1/2016 4:37:51 PM)

Not read (or even heard of) him. Where should I start looking at his stuff?




jlf1961 -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/1/2016 6:13:55 PM)

I have been thinking of the question, and I would have to say, all things considered, I guess it would have to do with the amount of nudity, graphic sex, and if both males and females are shown full frontal nude.


How is that for something to evoke a major face palm?[8D]




DesFIP -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/1/2016 9:37:03 PM)

Most books I read don't have pictures or illustrations. Makes me wonder about the books you read.




jlf1961 -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/1/2016 9:51:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Most books I read don't have pictures or illustrations. Makes me wonder about the books you read.



I thought we were taking sci fi, which could also be movies




WhoreMods -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/2/2016 5:00:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I have been thinking of the question, and I would have to say, all things considered, I guess it would have to do with the amount of nudity, graphic sex, and if both males and females are shown full frontal nude.


How is that for something to evoke a major face palm?[8D]

Ah.
So Barbarella is hard SF, but Gattaca isn't? I like that idea...




MrRodgers -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/4/2016 2:15:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I have been thinking of the question, and I would have to say, all things considered, I guess it would have to do with the amount of nudity, graphic sex, and if both males and females are shown full frontal nude.


How is that for something to evoke a major face palm?[8D]

Ah.
So Barbarella is hard SF, but Gattaca isn't? I like that idea...

Barbarella gave me 'hard science' and it...wasn't fiction.




WhoreMods -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/4/2016 3:49:46 AM)

Okay, if you don't like Jane Fonda's striptease at the start of that one, how about Lifeforce or The Fifth Element?




ResidentSadist -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/4/2016 9:26:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

Asimov.

Now that is some quality fiction!!! Buy 1973, I had read everything he had written, including his academic books and books about the theory of relativity. Awesome writer. He is to the to tech side of Sci Fi what Heinlein was to the human side of it.




WhoreMods -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/5/2016 4:40:16 AM)

Excellent pop science writer as well. It always puzzles me that Asimov doesn't get more praise for that.

(I'd question that Heinlein's strengths are the human side of things, rather than inventing technology and writing stories around engineering problems, though. Stuff like He Built A Crooked House, All You Zombies and Blowups Happen seem to be the main sources that Niven and his peers were mining looking for templates for what became hard SF in the '70s. You could make a pretty good case that the way the term's generally used "hard SF" = "Heinlein impersonation"...)




thompsonx -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/19/2016 7:08:03 AM)

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods



Can anybody think of any bona fide hard SF where the engineering actually works and the plot isn't dependent on ignoring one or more law of physics? Bear, Brin and Benford seem to fall down on this just as much as Niven does.

My vote here is going to bob hienlien.
Graduate of the usna who understood physics and math.




WhoreMods -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/19/2016 7:47:20 AM)

Right. So you feel that By His Bootstraps and All You Zombies are hard SF, then?
[:D]
(Even a lot of the earlier stuff in the future history tends to ignore, or fudge, the bits of physics that get in the way of the story.)




Alecta -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/19/2016 9:23:52 AM)

Michael Crichton comes to mind.

I'm curious if you would consider Gene Roddenberry, since many of his sci-fi inventions have come to be reality, even though it did not necessarily seem rooted in the science of the time when he devised them.




WhoreMods -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/19/2016 10:24:22 AM)

I wouldn't consider Gene Roddenberyy because he used matter transmission as a staple plot device because the budget wouldn't stretch to filming sequences with a landing craft.

Crichton's a very good call, though. You could make a good case for Robin Cook as well, as far as near future paranoia thrillers go. I don't believe the nerd massive are having either as "proper" SF writers, unfortunately.




Alecta -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/19/2016 10:39:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I wouldn't consider Gene Roddenberyy because he used matter transmission as a staple plot device because the budget wouldn't stretch to filming sequences with a landing craft.


He did come up with automatic doors and tablets and cellphones tho




WickedsDesire -> RE: How hard is hard science fiction? (9/19/2016 10:54:57 AM)

I miss B5, TOS and probably the remake of BSG

Science fiction books i've probably read less than a dozen in my life. But then there is part of me that views ever sciency book, I have read many, as fiction.

Science there are no absolutes - so you can pretty much argue against everything if the mood takes you

I think our understanding of “science” is non existent so minds that are not constrained by those feeble limits are required – to be brief




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625