Dealing with "Real Science" in your SF

[Steve Jordan]

I'm just curious: Of those of you who write SF, how much effort do you put into making sure the science is accurate, or at least plausible?

Do you do your own research? Work to make realistic extrapolations of existing science and tech? Borrow fleshed out science ideas from existing sources out of whole cloth (like using a Star Trek-type transporter)? "Invent" sience and tech to fit a planned story or plot device?

Or just crop it all up to "the amazing discovery of..." and "I don't know how it works, m'lad, but I'm sure glad it does"?

[Interference]

Strange things, minds. I get a lot of ideas as I'm writing. It's a case of "why won't people still be using such a device? What will replace it? Why don't windscreen wipers have the washers built into them? What's the difference between a computer and a Computer? Why don't people put amplifiers into guitars?"

Other than that, for the Major McGuffin, I usually spend months (years in one case) imagining how and why it works. This has, in one Major Major McGuffin case, entailed satisfying myself about what set off the Big Bang. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to work and let other things work around it.

Then, of course, there are the gimmicks - I've no idea how or why it works, but I'm damned sure if people want it enough, they'll find a way.

The other thing I do is ask my brother what he thinks ...

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by Interference

...I usually spend months (years in one case) imagining how and why it works. This has, in one Major Major McGuffin case, entailed satisfying myself about what set off the Big Bang. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to work and let other things work around it.

I can relate to that: This question was sparked by the fact that, after years of being dissatisfied with the various methods of faster-than-light space travel depicted in books, TV and movies, I just recently worked out a method that is based on existing quantum physics theories and demonstrated properties, and much more plausible, than existing FTL methods. I hope to use it in my next novel, depending on the subject or setting (or maybe directly because of it).

However, I have used tech in the past simply because it was an SF convention, not based on my belief of its plausibility (specifically, 2 novels that included FTL travel based on "time warp" conventions). In both cases, the story did not depend on it, in fact were based on much "softer" SF conventions, but it didn't make me feel any less "cheap" for using it.

Anyone else do that?

[Bruin]

For what it's worth I scribble both near and future sci-fi and when it comes to the technology I'm probably a bit of a coward.

The near future environment is your bulk standard cyber punk type setting whilst your far future arena is somewhere between Babylon 5 and Star Trek (in terms of technology that is). I don't however describe how it works, in part this is because I don't want to slow my story down with too much science but the main reason is that I doubt I'd have anything like the intellect demonstrated by Steve in working out faster than light travel or anything similar (and don't want to make myself look silly trying).

[Nik]

Yeah, I gotta convince myself that weird stuff is possible before I dare use it...

I had to find a plausible explanation and theoretical basis for ESP to write a story called 'The Orloc of Robur'. That reached novelette length, but is currently on hold until I solve a ghastly plot problem about three months further along...

I was so exasperated by Hollywood Vampires that I found a way to explain them without any 'Transmogriflying' tosh. That became 'Bete Noir' (in critique area) and an accidental novel-length prequel...

My first and enduring love is 'Hard SciFi'. I've been working on 'The Convention' for a very long time.

'One Pole, Null g,
Three thrust, five fly,
Earth, Moon and Mars,
Nine go to the stars !'

'Soft Target', now growing in the 'Critique' area, is a persistent 'work in progress'. Versions of parts of it are scattered across a decade and four note-books. This time, I've pulled the intro together. Let Battle Commence...

As an example of The Convention's technology, here's an excerpt from 'Milk Run', one of my 'Autumn Cycle' tales.

The fraught 'Second Expedition' has just hit a low spot. Tony Winters must perform open-heart surgery on sabotaged Scout 'D for Daisy's ravaged anti-grav system. He's a Chartered Field Engineer with a rare knack for innovation. If anyone can do a 'Scotty' with what's left--But they'll hit Autumn's atmosphere in six hours. No pressure, you understand ??
...
...
Tony stripped the last Field Modules, sat to think. Greg brought food and drink in zero-g pots, crouched nearby, "Thoughts?"
"Um. Yes. I've got a couple of intact Tertiary Modulators. They're the 'Phased Arrays of Ambient Super-Conducting Distributed Tunnel Diodes', the actual Poles that set up the Field to do the graviton shielding and space-bending. I just can't find enough support circuitry to activate and control them. All of this modern stuff is so sophisticated, you must have the full set. You can't play mix & match with different stages and brands... Anyway, the first, crude Poles -- the original 'Skyhooks' -- were self-modulating. I'm wondering if I can rig one. And, if it works, if there's any way I can tweak the phasing to control it."

"You don't have a circuit diagram."
"You kidding? A half-remembered glance, plus one pixilated photo of a museum exhibit. I know their theory said those Poles could not work. Hence my Profession's toast of, 'Beyond Theory'. Now we know much better: They should have blown up!"

[Bruin]

Hi Nik,

Even as I was typing my reply I was thinking about some of the great stuff of yours that I've seen in Critiques with HARD science

Best,


Bruin

[mosaix]

As much research as possible for current science. For future stuff, FTL is the only thing I use that I suspect is impossible, the rest I extrapolate.

[Nik]

Sorry, Bruin, my tales may be 'fun', 'neat', perhaps 'nicely written', occasionally 'inspired', but never, ever, 'Great'.

If I'm lucky, I can find fine words and spin a pretty yarn...

[HardScienceFan]

I don't write,but recommend reading "NATURE" or "SCIENCE" regularly.
suspension of disbelief is about creating a believable scientific 'aura' or 'atmosphere'.
Just watch out that you don't have your characters explaining to each other what they ought to know in the universe you yourself created.
Poul Anderson used to be somewhat clumsy with that
and don't ever underestimate your audience
some of them might understand fluid dynamics, astrophysics, physics, chemistry,etc.
or even ecology
science evolves rapidly,keep up to date,but also keep an open mind.

[Steve Jordan]

I hate to see a good scientific explanation just clumsily plugged into a story. If there's no good place to stage the explanation... don't. If you need the explanation, come up with a damned good reason to need it, and a damned good way to stage it.

[Steve Jordan]

Originally Posted by HardScienceFan

I don't write,but recommend reading "NATURE" or "SCIENCE" regularly.

I start with my years-long subscription to Scientific American, and work outward from there.

[HardScienceFan]

yeah but for my money American Scientist is better
SA has gone down the drain a bit ,and then some.
Both publications are good in explaining science in an understandable manner.

[Nik]

D'uh, I have a 'Hard Science' background, but I can rarely get beyond the news sections in 'Science' or 'Nature' !!

'New Scientist' is lighter, may even be on your local supermarket's shelf every Thursday. No original Papers but, IMHO, fair coverage...

I read 'Scientific American' avidly until it went depressingly down-market, dropped the 'Amateur Scientist' column etc etc.

FWIW, all those 'Amateur Scientist' articles are available on double CD-ROM with 'Dr Shawn Science Software Library'. IIRC, cost of #3.0 'Super Science Fair Edition' is about £ 20. It is a must-buy, even if you only read the safety info and gawp at the tech...

[thecommabandit]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I hate to see a good scientific explanation just clumsily plugged into a story. If there's no good place to stage the explanation... don't. If you need the explanation, come up with a damned good reason to need it, and a damned good way to stage it.

I know exactly what you mean. I happen to love teaching people things, explaining things and giving people lectures, so I have had to resist the urge to explain things quite a few times. What I do now is make a word document and explain everything about a concept written in Wikipedian prose, so I can give my computer a good lecture and have a stable and consistent account of how something works without boring the reader with a totally undue explanation, so I can just say "He fired the laser rifle" rather than "A laser cartridge fell from the magazine into the chamber, irises contracted to tighten it in place. The powerpack emmited a charge to pump the cartridge and it emitted a huge blast of violet light which was focused by the silicon carbide lenses."

Back to the main topic at hand: I try to make my stuff relatively believable, no "this is done by charging the forward warp coils with phase-aligned quantum energy" here. I generally try to extrapolate on current knowledge and technology, all the while adding completely fictional elements (like element 117 - Tempium. I'm sorry, it was such a great opportunity for a pun) to make the rest of it seem viable.

[The Ace]

For weapons I used Laser and gauss cannon for the heavy stuff and the davis gun and spigot mortar principles for handheld weapons. These were replaced by an adaption of the electronic flashgun.