These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Science fact vs. Science Fiction
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#1 - 2012-02-20 21:16:10 UTC
I found the recent post by Tsadkiel about particle physics very entertaining to read. As an individual who will never be able to do much more than observe and wonder at the incredible things that particle physicists do, threads like that are a enjoyable way to stretch the limits of my mind as I try to grasp the concepts.

That being said, the Eve forums, when you take the trolls out, are one of the most dynamic places on the internet when it comes to subjects such as science fact and science fiction. I've been told that Eve is "the geeks MMO". When you look at the wealth of data and opinions, it would seem that may be true.

The question I have for all the "geeks" here who know a lot more than I do about things like particles, is this:

When science finally proves or disproves the existence of the Higgs Boson, and if it really is the most basic of "building blocks" for matter, how would this potentially effect the science fiction genre of entertainment?

To elaborate, take "The Mountains of Madness" by HP Lovecraft as an example of how science fact trumped science fiction.
If I understand it correctly, the story was written in a time before Antarctica had been fully explored and mapped out. Before satellites could view the earth from space. The story was written using that lack of knowledge as its focus. Creating a realm of powerful alien creatures, etc.
Along came exploration and technology, and the story is relegated to history as a great read, but factually wrong.
In fact, if the story had never been written, and if an author introduced it today, it would likely flop completely, as science fiction readers are easily put off by fabrications which are commonly known to be impossible due to known science.

Stories today can include depictions of devices that have special functionality that is described, fictionally, as being based on the manipulation of certain particles. Computers with incredible amounts of power and capacity, and so on.
But what happens when science shows that they have cataloged every type of particle that could possibly exist in our universe?

Are readers and authors simply going to have to "break the rules" in order to enjoy the art of science fiction? Will certain genres of science fiction completely die out due to no longer being valid theory?

Profit favors the prepared
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2 - 2012-02-20 21:35:39 UTC
It will have zero impact. 2012 ran against just about everything we know about geology.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#3 - 2012-02-20 22:21:39 UTC
My favorite part of 2012 was the mutant neutrinos, or "three-eyes neutrinos" as I immediately took to calling them.

The public is so ignorant of science that they'll never know the difference. Even scifi fans can be remarkably forgiving so long as they're given a good Mary Sue to get them through it. Personally, I'm not terribly concerned with exacting scientific accuracy so long as the universe is consistent; in fact, one can try too hard with the fake science (Star Trek, for example). I prefer science fiction that accepts the science and technology as a part of the world the way we accept relativity and microprocessors as part of daily life; it's how the characters interact with those things that make a compelling story.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#4 - 2012-02-20 22:34:06 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
My favorite part of 2012 was the mutant neutrinos, or "three-eyes neutrinos" as I immediately took to calling them.

The public is so ignorant of science that they'll never know the difference. Even scifi fans can be remarkably forgiving so long as they're given a good Mary Sue to get them through it. Personally, I'm not terribly concerned with exacting scientific accuracy so long as the universe is consistent; in fact, one can try too hard with the fake science (Star Trek, for example). I prefer science fiction that accepts the science and technology as a part of the world the way we accept relativity and microprocessors as part of daily life; it's how the characters interact with those things that make a compelling story.


I liked the 7.0 earthquake that produced a deep ocean wave twice the hight of a cruise shipShocked
Caleidascope
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2012-02-21 01:18:43 UTC
Higgs Boson physics in science fiction form (the whole book is free, read it, enjoy!): http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/16-ClawsThatCatchCD/ClawsThatCatchCD/Into%20the%20Looking%20Glass/Into_the_Looking_Glass.htm

Life is short and dinner time is chancy

Eat dessert first!
W1rlW1nd
WirlWind
#6 - 2012-02-21 02:51:10 UTC  |  Edited by: W1rlW1nd
Evei Shard wrote:
...take "The Mountains of Madness" by HP Lovecraft ...Creating a realm of powerful alien creatures, etc.
...story is ...factually wrong....if an author introduced it today, it would likely flop completely, as science fiction readers are easily put off by fabrications which are commonly known to be impossible due to known science....


As stated already, it will have zero effect.

As a counterpoint, lets look at a recently written book, which also creates a realm of powerful alien creatures, etc. To get there all you need to do is go through a fireplace or a magic door. The Potter series is fantasy, but it illustrates how popular a story can be as it diverges completely from known reality --> to become the most popular books and movies in the known universe. Science fiction is still a form of fantasy. Neither is real, but both will incorporate elements of reality to ground the reader to suit the story.

Look at a current movie, Journey 2 the lost island. Every island on 'Earth' has already been identified, claimed and is available for observation on Google maps with your home computer or smart phone. A lost island supporting a dinosaur population is completely impossible on 'this Earth' but people don't care, it wiil still be popular.
[EDIT: I'm assuming that J2TLI takes place on a regular island, not at the bottom of the ocean or something, I haven't seen the movie:)]

Science fiction is --> fiction.


Evei Shard wrote:

Are readers and authors simply going to have to "break the rules" in order to enjoy the art of science fiction? Will certain genres of science fiction completely die out due to no longer being valid theory?




I took a science fiction course in University [believe it or not it can exist haha, loved it:)]
The most important thing I took away from it I think from both a writer's and reader's perspective is:

Any science fiction can choose to depict things happening on Earth. . . but that doesn't mean it is YOUR Earth.

Laws of physics could be different on this other Earth, history could be different, it could be a parallel world, a different timeline. With theories about multiverses, there is nothing in any science fiction which can guarantee that the Earth they are talking about is the one the reader is living on now.

There is no 'breaking rules' once you realize this.

The most important thing about science fiction, is to represent fantastic ideas, and expand the imagination hopefully in an exciting and engaging manner. It doesn't need to be anything other than fiction to be acceptable in that light. A good story is still a good story, regardless of factual content.

Heck I still watch Godzilla and Gamera movies [the modern ones, 90's and up], and there are space ships flying around shooting lasers and freeze rays in those and Tokyo gets burned to the ground in practically every movie, doesn't detract from the enjoymet a bit. The nonesense makes it better in fact, then leaves you with the universal message of peace and love "there's a little Godzilla/Gamera in all of us. . ." , reverent looks to the horizon, fade to black, aaaand scene!

ok bad example for scifi but. . . the thread was about popularity of non-scientific scifi:)
Selinate
#7 - 2012-02-21 02:51:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Selinate
I've studied physics as a student in my major (which is not physics, but uses physics extensively) a great deal, and I should tell you something about it.

I know that things in physics have somewhat of a wondrous aura to them, but in reality, most of physics breaks down into a few simple steps in discovering a new possible theory.

A) Physicist makes assumption.

B) Physicist manipulates equations based on assumption

C) Physicist creates experiment (if possible) to see if the assumption accurately predicts a phenomenon

D) Physicist gets published (and gets one of the few ways that someone who majored physics can make an income)

Nearly every new physical theory comes from this process. The assumption often isn't some grand dream as it's made out to be, it's usually something based off the accepted equations at the time to see how the equations then pan out from there. Even Einstein followed this process with relativity. His first assumption was simply to assume speed of light in a vacuum was constant. To be honest, I forgot the other 1 or 2 assumptions he made, but he simply went from there.

My 2 cents, hope I didn't rain on anyone's parade too hard.
W1rlW1nd
WirlWind
#8 - 2012-02-21 03:02:17 UTC
Selinate wrote:
I've studied physics as a student in my major (which is not physics, but uses physics extensively) a great deal, and I should tell you something about it.

I know that things in physics have somewhat of a wondrous aura to them, but in reality, most of physics breaks down into a few simple steps in discovering a new possible theory.

A) Physicist makes assumption.

B) Physicist manipulates equations based on assumption

C) Physicist creates experiment (if possible) to see if the assumption accurately predicts a phenomenon

D) Physicist gets published (and gets one of the few ways that someone who majored physics can make an income)

Nearly every new physical theory comes from this process. The assumption often isn't some grand dream as it's made out to be, it's usually something based off the accepted equations at the time to see how the equations then pan out from there. Even Einstein followed this process with relativity. His first assumption was simply to assume speed of light in a vacuum was constant. To be honest, I forgot the other 1 or 2 assumptions he made, but he simply went from there.

My 2 cents, hope I didn't rain on anyone's parade too hard.




E) Get famous and have your theories accepted by all your peers.

F) After a number of years, hold an international conference to announce your even greater mathematical proof, that proves that your first theory was incorrect.

G) Profit?