Thread: Science in fiction

Does a writer have any obligation to get the science in fiction correct, or will anything go to support the story ?
I suppose the same goes for history.
Can anyone supply instances of bad science ? Or bad history.
I will leave reporting my own examples till after a few others have placed theirs.

Hello,

I think it really depends on your story and what you want to do. At the moment, I am working on a science fiction story that has futuristic technology. I spent over a year researching and all the technologies in my story are based on physics and scientific theories. Then after I did all that, I find when I am writing it is just easier and better for my style to leave the details out. For instance, I might say that the space ship is traveling to s far away planet using a worm hole but I do not mention how they open the worm hole or control where it goes....

So basically what I am saying is, I don't really think it matters. Look at Star Wars. There is so much wrong with the science in Star Wars yet it is still a great story with a huge following. I think best thing for you do to is just tell your story the way you want to and not worry about science, don't even explain how things work unless it is necessary for your story.
Just my two cents.

If the story isn't plausible the reader will put it down when you lose them and they won't pick it back up. If you make up all your science it should all fit together logically even if it doesn't have much to do with real-life science. Star Wars isn't very scientific but it is consistent with itself.

I think it depends on the tone you're setting. A few examples of unrealistic being okay:

Star Wars-"The Force" I never questioned lightsabers, or people who were more than 50% machine. Neither of these things are possible, neither mattered because it's a spiritual story centred around warrior-monks with crazy kung-fu powers.
The Matrix-"all of it" If somebody actually reasons it out, the Matrix would fall apart as unreasonable. But many features of it are very plausible, and once I bought into the actual existence of the matrix, the idea of somebody being able to "hack" the system with nothing more than thought was okay. Then every playful addition of "programs" with their own agendas, and Smith as a "virus program" didn't need to be justified.
Frankenstein-I've never even considered looking for justification, either in the story or out of it, that Dr. Frankenstein could create life.
Hitchhiker's Guide-all of it. I think one would be pretty hard pressed to find anything in this trilogy that's plausible, and it's all great!!

But, handled badly? George Lucas nearly ruined the entire franchise for me when he started talking crap about "metaclorians." Seriously, wtf? That's desecration.

I think the biggest guideline for making science realistic is - don't betray the tone you set for your work. If this is light-hearted and you want floating platforms with atmosphere providing bubbles to be planetary explorer vehicles, go for it. If you have a bad-ass team of high-school friends who fight super-villains by night, and one of them has a pair of sneakers that can pull her like gravity onto any surface, wall etc., that she steps on, cool. But, if you have a mad scientist who is experimenting in genetics to save his wife from cancer, you should make sure you at least get the basics right, or skip over the hard-science where possible.

edit: I'll also add the old "write what you know" adage. If you write about things that you are naturally interested in, you'll probably want to represent those things very well. If science isn't what you're interested in, but you like sci-fi settings, then just like in the examples above you can find ways of skirting the science that doesn't interest you.

I agree with foxee here that even if the science is not true it has to make sense when we think about it logically. for example i create a gun which fires bullets magnetically, in real life the magnets simply cannot acclerate the bullet fast enough in the time given and dont have the power but if you talk about it only logically then it can actually exist. As long as the readeers can make sense of it logically they will keep understanding it.

I never questioned lightsabers, or people who were more than 50% machine. Neither of these things are possible,

Artificial limbs, pacemakers, replacement joints, hearing aids, contact lenses--one could argue that these are technically "machine parts" already in use in many people.

Originally Posted by Custard

for example i create a gun which fires bullets magnetically, in real life the magnets simply cannot acclerate the bullet fast enough in the time given and dont have the power

I'm going to assume you're talking about a railgun, yes? The U.S. Navy recently test-fired one with a muzzle velocity of roughly 2,500 meters/second.

As to the OP--It all depends on who you're writing for.

If your audience consists of science fiction readers and you don't get the science right (or even close enough) when you describe it, they will put your story down.

That's not to say you should pack pages of exposition in your story. A careful balance is required.

Originally Posted by AceTachyon

The U.S. Navy recently test-fired one with a muzzle velocity of roughly 2,500 meters/second.

And it's enormous; I do have hypersonic man-portable gauss-guns in my stories which are probably technologically infeasible but so long as I don't try to explain how they work no-one is likely to care. Similarly, I have gas-core fission engines on spacecraft which are based on real-world designs, but probably incapable of the efficiency required to make the story work if someone looked hard at the numbers.

Ultimately I'd say that so long as you can make the science believable, whether it's correct to the last decimal point is far less important. And one of the best ways to make it unbelievable is to try to explain it and get it wrong when there was no need to explain it in the first place.

As for bad science, I still have fond memories of the book I read years ago about a chicken farmer trying to survive after the Moon crashed into the Earth, but I can't remember the title.

If you wrote about something that's scientifically implausible there's no real way to make it scientifically correct in the first place. But if you think that something may come around in the future, or if your research leads you to believe that there's a slim chance it might exist in the future, there's no problem. If it isn't perfectly plausible, just 'edit' the Laws or rules that dictate this implausible universe so that they are plausible. Sure, the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy (and all the books in that series) were purely impossible (as far as I can see), but that's alright, because the author 'edited' the Universe/Dimension so something such as Reverse Engineering (which is...semi logical) and dimensional travel and what not could happen. Or that's my view on it. Perhaps I'm insane?

This has been one of those questions I have been kicking around since before my birth.
To generate a story that holds the readers attention, drawing a world or universe that feels real, cutting you out from the real reality.
Star wars does this very well, despite the awful dialogue, wooden acting, and almost cartoon level characterization.
SPOILER ALERT ( If you have read and enjoyed Dan Browns Lost Symbol, or intend on doing so, you will want to avoid this next bit )
This is an example of where I ran into bad science, and lost the total immersion I look for in a story.
In a totally dark environment, the light from a mobile phone would illuminate a large enough area to see it was not being held by someone.
Hydrogen gas is lighter than air, so it would not pool and become a handy explosive. ( Also without compression you would only get a flash fire ).
This is basic high school physics.
With science fiction I can accept worm holes and light sabers, telepathy and anti gravity, in cartoons I can accept unbelievable violence without consequence, but in a thriller, set in contemporary times, bad science causes me to rant at the writer, this is not good in public.
This is a personal view on this subject, I just thought it would be worth sharing, thinking about what I am writing usually takes ten times longer than the act of writing, and what ever I read or write has to pass through my personal prejudice filter.

You should have some sort of scientific explanation for your technology, but keep it in your pocket at first. There is no need to explain the science behind your technology until it comes up in the story. If that does happen, you best be ready to talk logistics. If not, then don't worry about it

Originally Posted by bazz cargo

Star wars does this very well, despite the awful dialogue, wooden acting, and almost cartoon level characterization.

Actually, Star Wars is an interesting example: 'The Force' was believable until they tried to explain it, then people went 'WTF?'

'The Force' was believable until they tried to explain it, then people went 'WTF?'

George Lucas used a lot of his childhood influences and brought them into a future time. For example, if you watch the final attack on the space station, then watch the old movie, "The Dam Busters" it follows almost line for line. It was an old world war two movie about bombers that had to skim the surface of the water, facing incredible incoming fire, then drop their bombs to bust the dam. The bombs had to skip across the top of the water. The dialogue follows almost to the letter, "Red Six, I'm going in." and so forth.

He also didn't hatch the idea of the force. If you read Carlos Castaneda's "A separate Reality" it too was his inspiration of the force. Carlos goes to Mexico to study the old Yaqui religion of the Shamans who use psychotropic plants to hallucinate and learn to become men of knowledge. They too described a "force" that existed between all living things and by using these plants were able to manipulate foreign objects.

Star Trek is a great example of using the imagination to see what science might come up with someday, teleportation, replicators, the holodeck and so forth, but kept it believable. Science fiction is a lot more forgiving than historical fiction, still your readers have to be able to believe the science that you are putting forth.

What we're talking about here is the difference between 'Hard' SF and 'Soft' SF. 'Hard' science fiction is comitted to plausibility and accuracy regarding the science. Arthur C. Clarke, Issac Asimov, and Larry Niven are good examples of writers whose work focused on projecting technology into the future with an eye to keeping it plauseable. 'Soft' science fiction is more concerned with character development, and social evolution. Ray Bradbury, Harlan Ellison, and Phillip K. Dick were masters. In 'Soft' SF it's not important what the tech is, or how it works, what is important is how it effects the people.

You have to decide what is important for your story.

Star Wars, in my opinion, isn't really science fiction. It is a space fantasy, or, what use to be called, "space opera".

Originally Posted by Ditch

He also didn't hatch the idea of the force. If you read Carlos Castaneda's "A separate Reality" it too was his inspiration of the force. Carlos goes to Mexico to study the old Yaqui religion of the Shamans who use psychotropic plants to hallucinate and learn to become men of knowledge. They too described a "force" that existed between all living things and by using these plants were able to manipulate foreign objects.

Well, I was talking about the 'midichlorians'; I had no problem with the concept of 'The Force'... it's magic that has certain rules and is required for the purpose of the story. The problem was when Lucas tried to make up a 'scientific' explanation for it which degrades the concept and makes no sense.

Slightly off topic, how the heck do you find anything round here ?
I remember a post about how to approach an agent, or publisher. It was a concise masterpiece of advice and wisdom, but I'm blowed if I can remember who wrote it or where it is.
May the force be with you.