• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

How much legit does the science have to be in your sci-fi TV/movies?

For me, it is the point where technology breaks established rules within the established fictional universe--or when real world knowledge/tech is broken when it should be assumed within the context of what I am watching or reading. A recent example is The Watchers, when the group finds an old computer filled with video files explaining their situation. The computer and, presumably, its software is too old to contain the video files presented on screen. Drew me right out of the movie.
 
Enough to be believable to a non-science person like me, but not so much as to wreck the fun.

Some examples of "bad science" that's obvious even to a non-science person, and thus distracting:
  • A human exposed to the vacuumed of space only freezes and/or suffocates, without body horror.
  • Aliens resembling humans to excessive degrees, physically and/or culturally
  • Thinking that Evolution is some pre-determined process that's already encoded into our genes (NO)
  • Living humans can be frozen and thawed, just like chicken drumsticks. Thing about the chicken drumsticks is, they're dead. And humans die when frozen. It's called hypothermia.
  • Humanoids who "age in reverse" (????)
  • A species that can only reproduce once in a lifetime, without having enormous litters.
On the other hand, I like faster-than-light travel, and don't like eggheads telling me it's impossible just because our current limited knowledge of the universe says so. Same goes for thinking all life must be Earth-like. IMHO these aren't common-sense issues like the cryo-freezing or the exposed-to-the-vacuum-of-space thing. These are just a lack of imagination.
 
Some examples of "bad science" that's obvious even to a non-science person, and thus distracting:
  • A human exposed to the vacuumed of space only freezes and/or suffocates, without body horror.

Except most of the "body horror" you see in such scenes in fiction is exaggerated, to a ridiculous degree in something like Total Recall or Outland. There'd be some swelling, rapid desiccation of exposed tissues, maybe a little bleeding from the eyes, but it would probably be subtler than what something like Event Horizon showed (though that handled it better than a lot of other things).

Also, showing a person quick-freezing on exposure to vacuum is getting it backwards. Vacuum is an insulator! With no material to conduct or convect heat away, the only mechanism for heat loss is radiation, the least efficient one. Just as you lose heat more quickly in water than in air, because it's a denser medium, it should be obvious that you'd lose heat more slowly in vacuum, but for some reason, nobody thinks this through. In reality, spacesuits need cooling systems to keep astronauts from overheating. (Also, surface moisture would boil away as vapor due to the pressure loss before it could freeze into ice.)


  • Aliens resembling humans to excessive degrees, physically and/or culturally

Necessary poetic license if you want to tell stories about aliens using human actors. There's a difference between getting something wrong out of ignorance and making a deliberate break from reality for the sake of the story.

There was a vogue for a while to set TV shows in humans-only universes or nearly so, e.g. Firefly, the Galactica reboot, Killjoys, and Dark Matter, but that can be limiting.


  • Living humans can be frozen and thawed, just like chicken drumsticks. Thing about the chicken drumsticks is, they're dead. And humans die when frozen. It's called hypothermia.

Unless you're talking about stories where it happens accidentally (e.g. Captain America), the assumption is that future medical science has found ways to keep people alive in cryogenic suspension. There has been active research in the field for decades, and there has been some progress made -- for instance, I've read recently about promising research into animal torpor/hibernation and the possibility that it might point to ways that induced hypothermic torpor could be used to keep severely injured or ill patients alive long enough to be treated, or allow astronauts to hibernate long enough to reach Mars.

In my Arachne trilogy, the crew of the title ship is kept in hibernation during an interstellar journey, but they're not completely frozen. From what I've read, the best medical science is likely to be capable of is to slow life processes by a factor of 10-12, so that a hibernating person might age roughly a month per year. The hibernation system in the trilogy also keeps the subjects' brains stimulated so that they experience an ongoing dream state, since I'm skeptical that you could shut a brain down completely for a long time and then start it up again.


On the other hand, I like faster-than-light travel, and don't like eggheads telling me it's impossible just because our current limited knowledge of the universe says so.

The current "egghead" consensus is that it's theoretically possible but likely to be prohibitively impractical due to the enormous energies involved, and might be restricted in certain ways in order to preserve causality. But theoretical advances over the past few decades have made it marginally less prohibitive, so there's always the chance that there could be more breakthroughs in the future.


Same goes for thinking all life must be Earth-like. IMHO these aren't common-sense issues like the cryo-freezing or the exposed-to-the-vacuum-of-space thing. These are just a lack of imagination.

Which is easier to avoid in prose, or maybe animation if the designers are creative enough, than it is in film or TV. The conceit in the original Star Trek was that there were plenty of non-Earthlike worlds in the galaxy, but the ship's mission parameters would lead it to travel mainly to the more Earthlike ones that could be depicted on a 1960s TV budget.
 
Take what we know as scientific fact and stretch it a bit.

Physicist : "You can't travel faster than light"
SF Writer: "OK, we will invent warp drive to get past this"

Physicist: "Radio still travels at the speed of light. Your message will take years to be heard"
SF Writer: "OK, we will invent Subspace communications to get around this"

Having someone ride their bicycle from Iowa to Hawaii in an afternoon my be perfectly fine for many people... if those people know nothing about geography. The same with having microscopic critters crawl on shroom roots to transport about the universe. don't like stuff aimed at the clueless
 
Take what we know as scientific fact and stretch it a bit.

Physicist : "You can't travel faster than light"
SF Writer: "OK, we will invent warp drive to get past this"

Physicist: "Radio still travels at the speed of light. Your message will take years to be heard"
SF Writer: "OK, we will invent Subspace communications to get around this"

Having someone ride their bicycle from Iowa to Hawaii in an afternoon my be perfectly fine for many people... if those people know nothing about geography. The same with having microscopic critters crawl on shroom roots to transport about the universe. don't like stuff aimed at the clueless
Magic shrooms. Magic crystals. What's the difference? Dilithium crystals are just as fictional as Prototaxites stellaviatori. They're the element that gets a ship from point A to B.
 
Magic shrooms. Magic crystals. What's the difference? Dilithium crystals are just as fictional as Prototaxites stellaviatori. They're the element that gets a ship from point A to B.

The mushroom drive was the one element that captured my imagination, unfortunately the show didn’t use it to its potential.
 
Take what we know as scientific fact and stretch it a bit.

Physicist : "You can't travel faster than light"
SF Writer: "OK, we will invent warp drive to get past this"

Actually Albert Einstein invented warp drive, more or less. It's called "warp" because it's derived from General Relativity's definition of gravitation as an alteration or warp in the topology of spacetime, and its insight that if spacetime itself can have its topology altered, then the Special Relativity prohibition on travel faster than light is only a local phenomenon. Relativity itself establishes that there's no theoretical limit on how fast the fabric of spacetime can distort relative to itself, and that is the principle on which warp drive is based. (Einstein and Rosen proposed it in the context of what were later called wormholes, but it's the same physics behind warp drive.)

Magic shrooms. Magic crystals. What's the difference? Dilithium crystals are just as fictional as Prototaxites stellaviatori. They're the element that gets a ship from point A to B.

The difference is one of degree. Dilithium crystals are just a material that's effective at channeling the immense power required to warp spacetime; the actual power source itself, matter/antimatter annihilation, is grounded in real physics, as is the principle of warping spacetime. So the crystals are just a detail, more a matter of engineering than physics. Spore drive is complete fantasy. Or rather, it's based on the more extravagant conjectures of the controversial, self-taught mycologist-entrepreneur Paul Stamets (after whom Anthony Rapp's character was named), who's considered a legitimate authority in some aspects of mycology but has a tendency to promote pseudoscientific speculations with no basis in fact. It always seemed to me that the makers of Discovery weren't knowledgeable enough to understand the difference between Stamets's crazier speculations and proven science, so they introduced the looniest idea in the history of Star Trek in the belief that it actually had some factual basis.
 
Take what we know as scientific fact and stretch it a bit.

Physicist : "You can't travel faster than light"
SF Writer: "OK, we will invent warp drive to get past this"

Physicist: "Radio still travels at the speed of light. Your message will take years to be heard"
SF Writer: "OK, we will invent Subspace communications to get around this"

That's not "stretching it a bit."

That's knowing what the science is and then ignoring it with some magic words for the sake of the story you want to tell.

No difference between "warp drive" and "abracadra."*

You have to get over the hump of accepting that the "science" is bad in all media science fiction and most prose.

It's a matter of massaging the popular science and technology that works for a story and dancing around or ignoring the basic physics, biology, etc. that would kill just about every story you've ever loved.

Then just consume the stories that appeal to you.

*There's not. Sorry, Alcubierre fans.
 
Actually Albert Einstein invented warp drive, more or less. It's called "warp" because it's derived from General Relativity's definition of gravitation as an alteration or warp in the topology of spacetime, and its insight that if spacetime itself can have its topology altered, then the Special Relativity prohibition on travel faster than light is only a local phenomenon. Relativity itself establishes that there's no theoretical limit on how fast the fabric of spacetime can distort relative to itself, and that is the principle on which warp drive is based. (Einstein and Rosen proposed it in the context of what were later called wormholes, but it's the same physics behind warp drive.)
.
How much of that is retrofitting?
 
Magic shrooms. Magic crystals. What's the difference? Dilithium crystals are just as fictional as Prototaxites stellaviatori. They're the element that gets a ship from point A to B.
The difference is that the crystals don't pull me out of the story.
 
How much of that is retrofitting?

What does that mean? The point is, it's a common misconception that warp drive violates relativity, because it's derived from relativity. The absolute ban on moving faster than light comes from the Special Theory of Relativity, which applies only to the specific case of unaccelerated motion -- something laypeople tend to overlook. The broader General Theory, which includes acceleration, allows for the possibility of altering (i.e. warping) spacetime topology to achieve effective superluminal travel. This was first theorized by Einstein and other physicists in the 1920s-30s; the Einstein-Rosen paper describing what's now called a wormhole was published in 1935. The term "warp" was first applied to a fictional starship drive around 1930, and the phrase "warp drive" or variations thereon was in common fictional use by the 1940s.
 
When was the science applied to the fiction?

As I said, the fiction got it from the science to begin with. The whole reason SF authors in the '30s-'40s used the term "warp" for their FTL drives is because they were basing them on the idea of a space warp suggested by General Relativity. Most science fiction ideas come from scientific theory first. That's why it's called that.
 
As I said, the fiction got it from the science to begin with. The whole reason SF authors in the '30s-'40s used the term "warp" for their FTL drives is because they were basing them on the idea of a space warp suggested by General Relativity. Most science fiction ideas come from scientific theory first. That's why it's called that.
Star Trek, not SF in general.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top