12-02-2008, 03:40 PM | #91 |
Guru
Posts: 776
Karma: 2475053
Join Date: May 2007
Device: Galaxy Tab A (2019) - iPhone 11 - KA1 - Onyx Boox Nova Pro
|
I should have kept quiet
|
12-02-2008, 04:28 PM | #92 | |||
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 8,478
Karma: 5171130
Join Date: Jan 2006
Device: none
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If, by "non-mainstream solutions to mainstream theories," you are talking about circumventing a physical law... say, using a tesseract to jump from point to point without traversing physical space... I'm willing to entertain such ideas. But only to the extent that there is some reasonable expectation that such a possibility even exists, and that it is conceivable that it could be deliberately utilized. It's the difference between knowing about the existence of a black hole, and standing on one. Gibbo... you're probably right. |
|||
12-02-2008, 04:57 PM | #93 | |||
Wizard
Posts: 1,451
Karma: 1550000
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Device: Nook Simple Touch, HPC Evo 4G LTE
|
Quote:
The basic issue is that space itself is expanding. Relativity limits the speeds that objects with positive rest mass can accelerate to. It does not limit the rate that objects can move apart nor the rate they can approach each other. Quote:
Quote:
Granted, I am not saying that time travel or FTL is likely. But I think the ideas are ingrained enough in real physics to be fair game for Hard SF writers to play around with. -- Bill |
|||
12-02-2008, 11:16 PM | #94 | |
Guru
Posts: 618
Karma: 493394
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Device: iRex iLiad, Onyx Boox 60
|
Quote:
|
|
12-03-2008, 09:06 AM | #95 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 8,478
Karma: 5171130
Join Date: Jan 2006
Device: none
|
Quote:
There are many theories that are ingrained in real physics... however, it is the solutions devised to take advantage of those theories that are often lacking. For example, study of the Alcubierre Warp theory also indicates that it is impossible to create an Alcubierre Warp without already having an Alcubierre Warp... a paradox. Another example: An object larger than a particle traveling through a wormhole... ingrained in real physics. Surviving intact at the other end... not so much (in fact, specifically forbidden by real physics). So I tend to draw the Hard SF line where theory runs headlong into the wall of reasonable practicality and shatters like an Fabergé egg... whereas in Soft SF you just assume the egg impossibly survived anyway, for the purpose of moving the story along. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, it is a staple of all kinds of fiction, not just SF... and if the reader is willing to accept that the egg survived, in order to enjoy the story, that's great. |
|
12-03-2008, 12:11 PM | #96 | |
Books and more books
Posts: 917
Karma: 69499
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Plains, NY, USA
Device: Nook Color, Itouch, Nokia770, Sony 650, Sony 700(dead), Ebk(given)
|
Quote:
This definition of hard sf is more like mundane sf with emphasis on hard science maybe, rather than let us be "relevant to larger societal issues" that the mundanists proclaim when they tank in the market, and spells boring with capital B most of of the time. Restricting hard sf to "reasonable practicality" dooms it to irrelevance and a sell by date reached quite soon. Near-future thrillers are at least more exciting, while popular science books are more educative... To me hard sf is more about a way of writing, a philosophy if you want, that says that there are physical laws in the universe that *are* there and we cannot go around with acts of will, power of love, positive thinking or whatnot, deus-ex-machinas and such, but we may engineer solutions to them. |
|
12-03-2008, 12:20 PM | #97 |
Beepbeep n beebeep, yeah!
Posts: 11,726
Karma: 8255450
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: La Crosse, Wisconsin, aka America's IceBox
Device: iThingie, KmkII, I miss Zelda!
|
Great definition, Liviu! I like that one a lot!
|
12-03-2008, 01:49 PM | #98 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 8,478
Karma: 5171130
Join Date: Jan 2006
Device: none
|
Quote:
Relevance exists completely independent of Hard or Soft SF... in fact, I'd argue that most of the most "relevant" SF has been soft, not hard, taking advantage of the reality-bending properties of Soft SF to make its point clearer through increased familiarity. Technology only defines a story's possibility... not its value. |
|
12-03-2008, 02:08 PM | #99 | |
Wizard
Posts: 3,671
Karma: 12205348
Join Date: Mar 2008
Device: Galaxy S, Nook w/CM7
|
Quote:
What you call a speed limit is really more of an asymptote, where objects with mass cannot cross the speed of light, however they can exist below and above the speed. =X= |
|
12-04-2008, 12:54 AM | #100 |
Enthusiast
Posts: 31
Karma: 376
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pacific NorthWest
Device: Kobo H20, Nook Glowlight 3
|
Any my point was, once you push you 'science' to the point where it is indistinguishable from 'magic', you have walked away from the 'hard sf' corner and into the 'fantasy' corner.
This was why I mentioned Von Neuman's War. The base assumption is that self replicating machines have invaded the solar system. I'm cool with that. They range in size from nano to macro. I not so cool with that. Macro machines are cool but building them from nano machines raises questions about where the plans are stored and nano machines stop being nano when you ask them to cart around the data to build and program large machines. However, the biggest problem is the energy budget. Where do you get the energy to power/motivate these machines? Entropy asserts that whenever you do something, there is energy lost. The busier your machine is, the more energy is lost. So, the story requires that I believe that a cloud of nano machines, floating over the landscape, can disassemble a missile, in flight, with no energy release. Somehow, the writing community got the idea that nano machines will be able to manipulate matter one atom at a time to build any desired molecule or material. Obviously, if you can put it together, you can take it apart. To the best of my knowledge, molecules are generally hard to take apart. Diamond is, perhaps a little extreme. On the other hand, some molecules come apart all to easily (the various fulminates for example). Anyway, hopefully you get the idea. If the reader has a background that tells him a particular premise isn't going to work, the story cannot, for him, be hard sf. When I was in high school, I felt good about the range of science that I was learning about through hard sf. Now, many years later, that means I have a huge knowledge base and that means that lots of stories are built on premises that I don't believe will work. I would like to read more hard sf but, what I feel to be, flaws keep getting in the way of the story and so I read lots of outright fantasy instead. Outright fantasy has whole different set of problems but I'll save them for a more appropriate discussion. |
12-04-2008, 08:46 AM | #101 | |
Books and more books
Posts: 917
Karma: 69499
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Plains, NY, USA
Device: Nook Color, Itouch, Nokia770, Sony 650, Sony 700(dead), Ebk(given)
|
Quote:
I still believe that the essential difference between fantasy and sf is not the accuracy of science, technology, society... but "philosophy". SF is mostly "materialistic", philosophically speaking - there are physical laws out there independent of our will - and hard sf focuses a lot on those laws, their consequences and how we engineer our way around, while less hard sf assumes they are there and goes on with the story, but still assumes they are there. In fantasy, the power of will, love, thoughts, unity with the general magical field however defined affect reality in essential ways. So most fantasy presumes "consciousness" or "will" or "thought" as an intrinsic feature of the Universe/Multiverse, while most sf follows modern science in accepting only matter/energy as intrinsic and consciousness, life and such as emergent artifacts. Of course there are many wrinkles to this general definition above and lots of exceptions, but generally I think it's essentially accurate. Last edited by Liviu_5; 12-04-2008 at 08:51 AM. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Historical Fiction Suggestions | jenieliser | Reading Recommendations | 75 | 05-11-2018 10:33 AM |
Hard Science Fiction Recommendations | tmclough | Reading Recommendations | 237 | 11-24-2013 11:46 PM |
Historical Fiction to Science Fiction/Fantasy | Georgiegirl2012 | Reading Recommendations | 12 | 11-13-2010 07:22 PM |
Seriously thoughtful When science fiction meets science fact | pilotbob | Lounge | 51 | 04-25-2009 03:30 PM |
Soft on the Science - Science Fiction | Domokos | Reading Recommendations | 0 | 01-29-2006 09:18 PM |