# Writing about plausible science..



## Schrody (Jun 9, 2016)

Okay, so there are Sci-Fi writers who tend to rely on the hard, plausible sciences on this Forum, rather than the Soft one (and I'm not saying soft science is worse than the hard one - I equally love both, and write a mixture of both), and we all know research can be a pain in the... neck :mrgreen: I love to research, but sometimes you're just not in a mood. I found a pretty cool YouTube channel hosted by a physicist (at least I think he is one, he is a scientist nevertheless), explaining about common misconceptions and some plausible, but not yet reachable, science. One video that caught my eye (among the others) is about real possibilities for traveling through space. The one I most fancy is the last one, about creating artificial black holes. I think this channel might be inspiration for some, especially for those who're tired of "inventing" new technologies - it's much easier to use plausible ones. 


...and Science created...

*Space Time*.

Here's one of the many interesting videos

[video=youtube;EzZGPCyrpSU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzZGPCyrpSU[/video]



...and you're welcome


----------



## Winston (Jun 11, 2016)

He referenced The Romulans, in the correct context.   That's worth ten Geek Points.


----------



## escorial (Jun 11, 2016)

The Big Bang Theory employ a Physicist for accuracy....in the storyline and backround material


----------



## Schrody (Jun 11, 2016)

escorial said:


> The Big Bang Theory employ a Physicist for accuracy....in the storyline and backround material



I know


----------



## escorial (Jun 11, 2016)

Schrody said:


> I know



you so belong on that show.....maybe as Barry Kripke's girlfriend...


----------



## Schrody (Jun 12, 2016)

escorial said:


> you so belong on that show.....maybe as Barry Kripke's girlfriend...



Ha! Maybe


----------



## JustRob (Jun 12, 2016)

I think the term "plausible science" is a tricky one to use because the word "plausible" itself is not that well defined. That word has no meaning without a context within which to evaluate the plausibility. Science is probably assessed by scientists to be plausible within the context of other known science, but that says nothing about the general acceptability of it. Isn't the whole problem with quantum mechanics the fact that it doesn't seem plausible to a lay person (or even Einstein for that matter)? What we ought not to do is to equate "plausible" with "real". Equally quantum mechanics is fantastic, but that doesn't make it fantasy unless we accept fantasy as encompassing some possible realities. 

Readers of my novel assume that it contains science fiction, when in fact it is difficult to find anything in it that runs contrary to known science. It is actually about unrepeatable personal experiences, an area that science cannot tackle because the prerequisites for scientific research are control of variables and repeatability. Scientists live in fear of the unknown variable and any suggestion that one might exist gets close scrutiny. In fact in my novel all the reputable scientists have left the project and the main one remaining is fond of saying that all that those left have are faith and trust, key elements of human experience as it happens. Actually most of what we know about science is based on faith and trust in scientists because we don't experience the evidence of much of it personally ourselves. In the past it was faith and trust in religion which dominated for much the same reason. It is also no surprise that the characters in my story undergo regular psychological evaluations as the only acceptable explanation for scientific inconsistencies, at least in the minds of devout scientists, is human delusion.

So far as the fantastic nature of quantum mechanics is concerned, I asked an old friend of mine who used to teach chemistry at Oxford about it and he said that he used it because it worked in explaining things in chemistry regardless of whether it was an accurate representation of reality. I am still waiting for his assessment of the paper published last year by Matthew Fisher on the possibility of Posner molecules providing quantum computing capabilities within the brain. Professor Fisher was himself concerned that his colleagues might consider him to be deluded over his proposition but in fact they considered it to be quite plausible, in a scientific sense. Maybe if it is discovered that human experience is as deeply rooted in the quantum universe as in the thermodynamic one then the focus of science, or perhaps even the focus _on_ science, will change.

The stories that we write are in the main fundamentally about human experiences and science only covers a portion of those. To say that we should only write about such experiences as are consistent with that science is to deny the full nature of the human experience. Equally, even if all the physics of interstellar travel, wormholes through space and teleportation could be made to work, scientists would still be faced with the most important question, whether what arrived at the destination could still be considered to be human and aware that it was. Even our present day astronauts seem aware that the human experience outweighs the scientific one in their more modest travels.

But I know what you mean.


----------



## Schrody (Jun 12, 2016)

Well, I think plausible science is just that - real or yet to be real but we don't have the technology to achieve it. So, loud explosions in space like in the Star Wars? No. Quantum teleportation, interstellar travel, artificial gravity, harnessing the power of the stars? Yes, but not in a century, two, three... If we don't destroy ourselves before.


----------



## JustRob (Jun 12, 2016)

Schrody said:


> So, loud explosions in space like in the Star Wars? No.



That always puzzled me until I discovered gravity waves ... or was it just Smirnoff?

One recurring theme in science fiction from C. S. Lewis's _Out of the Silent Planet _to the film _Avatar _is whether there is anything about humanity that _ought_ to be propagated across the universe or whether it is better confined to a single planet. Will it be our technology or our humanity itself that will justify that journey? Science is about understanding and appreciating what exists but technology is a way of exploiting it. That is probably always the scientific dilemma, exploration or exploitation.


----------



## escorial (Jun 12, 2016)

smirnoff..ha,ha


----------

