Skip to main content

Science Friction

There's something of a debate going on over at the Nature Network as to whether or not the science in science fiction has to accurately reflect reality.

Extremes range from 'obviously not - the F word tells you it's made up' to 'yes, it should, otherwise the public are being led astray.'

Somewhat predictably I prefer the middle ground. I think it's important not to go against the basic tenets of science as we now hold them. I recently watched a Star Trek movie where two ships had collided and one was embedded in the other. The Enterprise went into reverse, and with much creaking and groaning, pulled itself out of the other ship. This is simple violation of basic physics - all that would have happened is both ships moved backwards - and is a no-no.

However, as long as what's written about (or shown) doesn't run counter to everything we know, I see no reason to worry about it. So I have no problem with non-existent nanotechnology, faster than light travel (perfectly feasible, but first catch your wormhole) and time travel, as legitimate scientists have speculated about how all of these could be achieved. I even have no problem with using a 'thrust matrix inverter' and never explaining what this is, as long as the way it's used doesn't involve something that could never even hypothetically be possible.

Anyone insisting on more purity misses the point. Science fiction is speculative. It's pushing the boundaries. It should stretch the mind. And to suggest that science in science fiction should be like science in a real lab misses the point of a novel. I would no more expect that, than expect a crime novel to be like real police work - mostly extremely repetitive and boring.

Fiction isn't a mirror for reality, that's what non-fiction books and documentaries are for. Fiction is more than reality.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope