Some Scientific Problems with Popular Science-Fiction ===================================================== Version 1.0 by Blaine Gordon Manyluk (blaine@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca), August 4, 1997. Popular SF ("pop-SF") refers to the body of SF movies, television series, and written literature geared to the average audience with little knowledge in science. Here is a list of some pop-SF works and their abbreviations: B5 - _Babylon Five_ JMS - J. Michael Straczynski, its creator BG - _Battlestar Galactica_ DW - _Doctor Who_ ST - _Star Trek_ TOS - The Original Series (1966-69) TAS - The Animated Series TNG - _The Next Generation_ DS9 - _Deep Space Nine_ VOY - _Voyager_ Movies indicated by number (ST1 through ST8). SW - _Star Wars_ (by default original movie, _A New Hope_) ESB - _The Empire Strikes Back_ ROJ - _Return of the Jedi_ 1) Introduction - Making the unbelievable believable First of all, pop-SF has little science in it. SF can be "soft", "hard", or anywhere in between. Pop-SF is mostly soft SF and fantasy. Q: Isn't there some hard movie/TV SF? A: ST:TOS and B5 tried, as did _2001_ and _Silent Running_. _Dune_ was based on hard SF novels. But even these cannot seriously compare to the literary works of hard SF masters such as Asimov, Bear, Brin, Heinlein, Niven, and Pournelle (to name a few). Q: What are some common scientific errors? A: Contradiction of known theories and facts. Faster-than-light space travel is a special case, prohibited by Special Relativity, but allowed by General Relativity in certain cases. Writers invoke various mech- anisms, of varying plausibility, to get around FTL-related problems. Q: Why must pop-SF be so soft? A: Producing a successful SF movie or TV series is difficult. The four key elements are popular appeal, fan appeal, dramatic quality, and scientific accuracy. Ideally, all are strongly present. For the producer (network, sponsor), some elements are more important - in the order stated above. 2) Sounds in space Q: What would be your first choice for bad science, and why? A: Sound in space! Sound cannot travel in space. Yet sound is a dramatic necessity, to convey the speed and power of spacecraft, the weirdness of alien devices, or the excitement of space battles complete with massive explosions. Q: How can this conflict be resolved? A: By compromise. _2001_ was accurate but its lack of sound strangely eerie. In B5, spaceships and their weapons have distinctive sounds for the benefit of the audience. These sounds are stylized electronic ones rather than swooshes. 3) The Fighter Plane Syndrome Q: This has to do with pop-SF ships being like fighter planes, right? A: Yes. Spacecraft are not aircraft, and behave very differently. Aircraft depend on speed for lift, thrust to counteract air friction, and air friction to turn. None of these apply in space. Also there is no gravity, or "up" and "down" in space. Space is a vast three-dimensional arena for combat, not a cramped planetary atmosphere. Writers have a problem visualizing three-dimensional space. They depict ships all moving in the same two-dimensional plane. Contributing to the problem is the belief that solar systems and spiral galaxies are almost flat. But "almost" is never good enough, especially on a scale of light years. Q: What are the worst offenders? A: ST and SW. ST:TOS had the excuse of a limited budget, but TNG did not. In SW, combat is not only two-dimensional, but is little more than World War II aerial combat. Spielberg supposedly did this on purpose because it is a form of warfare easily understood by the audience. Q: Why are space fighter-planes so unrealistic? A: First we assume that an empire or alliance has the resources to build thousands of small, fast fighters - rather than a few large, heavily armed battleships. Even so, these would behave quite differently than aircraft. They would need thrust only to accelerate. Turning around would also be different. Fire control must be handled by computer (or the Force), for what pilot would have such speed and accuracy? At speeds near that of light, there are also relativistic effects. To my knowledge, pop-SF has never even attempted to depict them properly. 4) Space explosions and other effects Q: How does an explosion in space differ from that on Earth? A: It would appear as a point or globe of light, with no huge clouds of smoke or vapor. Any such gases would diffuse very quickly. There would also be no blast (pressure wave). That means a near miss by a torpedo would cause no damage other than from radiation. Q: No nuclear mushroom cloud? A: Not in space. Fallout, irradiated dust resulting from matter vaporized by the explosion, would also be absent. Nukes are less deadly in space, with no atmospheric effects. Most space habitations would also have protection from radiation, an expected hazard of space. Q: What about laser beams? A: They are invisible in space, with no air to scatter light. The same with charged particles, which cause the air molecules they collide with to release photons. Some heavy ion beams may be visible in space because the ions themselves emit photons. Q: Do unprotected Humans really explode in space? A: See the section in the rec.arts.sf.science FAQ. 5) Unrealistic energy weapons Q: What do you mean by energy weapons? A: Ones that cause damage through projected radiant energy such as light, heat, microwaves, and nuclear radiation. Sound also qualifies in an atmosphere (see also #2 above). Q: It boils down to lasers, particle beams, and blasters? A: Pretty much. Blasters fire "slugs" of superheated plasma. Q: What are their advantages and disadvantages? A: Advantages: Speed, quietness, no recoil, and no need for ammunition or reaction mass. Disadvantages: Very high power consumption, beam spreading, and (in an atmosphere) absorption. Q: What are some oustanding technical problems? A: Lasers are at best 10% efficient, the high-powered ones even less so. Efficiency requires new technology (such as semiconductor lasers currently under research). In an atmosphere, a charged particle beam will bend and twist (like in _Ghostbusters_, but difficult to aim) unless a laser previously ionizes a straight channel through the air. Q: And once these are fixed, we can blast away like Buck Rogers? A: Even an efficient energy weapon guzzles energy. For a nuclear-powered moonbase defense, it is no problem. For a laser pistol, it is. Such a handgun would need batteries, and to deal damage on par with a conven- tional handgun, they would need to have the energy density of chemical explosives - an unsolved engineering problem. Q: Will energy weapons make projectile weapons obsolete? A: Unlikely. The _Alien_ movies have only projectiles, as do some future/ alien worlds in DW. Even if rayguns are economical, projectiles may well be cheaper, have longer range, and be sufficient in firepower. As anti-personnel weapons, lasers have a long way to go. Their best usage would be for anti-missile defense (because of their speed), and perhaps fast armor penetration. 6) Zap! Disintegrators and stunners These fictional energy weapons are the most implausible. Q: What exactly is disintegration? A: For this discussion, it means the destruction of an object so that nothing solid remains, except possibly ash or rubble - with no other effects save a flash of light. To call a disintegrator a "blaster" would be false, as its effect produces no blast. If a solid object were suddenly vaporized, there would be a considerable blast. If it were "converted to energy", the energy released for even a dime would equal that of a multi-megaton nuclear bomb. Disintegration would have to be a bizarre sub-atomic reaction where the object first collapses, then its mass radiates away in a burst of harmless particles such as neutrinos. Q: What exactly is stunning? A: Rendering a living being unconscious, paralyzed, or without volition for a short time, with no lasting damage. What is needed is some form of energy that targets the nervous system of a living being, reliably causing the effect at a distance, without excessive damage. Stun-guns might as well use some form of undiscovered psionic energy, or teleport a strong sedative inside the target. (Maybe an ST phaser is a small transporter, using the same stuff Dr. McCoy has in his medikit?) Q: What about a taser? A: It uses a needle with two wires to deliver an electric shock. This short-range device is not always reliable, and is a far cry from the beam-based stun weapons of pop-SF. 7) Overuse of humanoids Q: You mean all those aliens that look human, with minor changes? Isn't it because all the actors happen to be Human? A: Yes, on both counts. That still makes "Humano-centrism" an irritating problem in a genre based on science. Q: What does science have to say about alien life? A: Very little, only educated guesses. Life evolves to fit environments, and the Universe has an incredibly diverse selection. On the other hand, nobody knows the limits of just what is biologically possible. Q: Let's be conservative and assume only Earth-like conditions. A: Many scientists feel that "life as we know it" - carbon-based, water- based, oxygen-breathing - is the only possible kind. Even so, and if evolution from arboreal primates is the main route to technological intelligence, that would still imply non-humanoid possibilities. Exotic alien life - amoeboid blobs, sentient plants or microbes, silicon- based rock monsters, methane-breathing Martians, space gods of pure thought energy - may or may not be possible. The more outlandish ones, however, are less convincing, and can be rejected on those grounds. All life-forms require: [a] An evolutionary origin and ecological niche. [b] A source of energy. For plants, light; for animals, combustion of organic food. Aliens could be more exotic, and use nuclear or other energy processes. [c] An individual life cycle, from birth to death. Immortality and eternal life make little sense in the natural scheme of things. Intelligent life ones must also arise from an environment that promotes its development. Ditto for other abilities, dealt with in point #9. The real issue is that, due to Human actors and limited budgets, pop-SF producers favor humanoids with little divergence. They also rarely ask the right questions when designing alien species and societies. ST:TAS, despite its low quality, did excel when it came to non-humanoids. So did big-budget SW. 8) Dimensions of a problem Q: Are other dimensions/universes such a problem? A: A dimension is simply a direction perpendicular to another. The best term is "space", as in "other spaces". The Universe is literally all there is; to speak of others is wrong. Thus, the Universe in most forms of pop-SF consists of various spaces, including hyperspace. Q: So what is the nature of these spaces that is such a problem? A: They are too full. The space that we live in is mostly empty, with matter clustered into stars, and planets. Many fictional spaces have high matter density, and resemble thunderclouds or the ocean depths. For one thing, such spaces would be difficult to navigate, with high collision risk if used by spacecraft. Q: If they have different physical laws, then why not? A: For Humans to exist in these spaces, the laws would have to be similar to those in this space. If these spaces were the size of a solar sys- tem or larger, and filled with water or air, they would collapse into black holes. Q: What are some other objections? A: So many pop-SF spaces have breathable atmospheres. Where does the oxygen come from, and what replenishes it, if there are no plants or light to power them? Even more incredibly, some (such as DC Comics' Phantom Zone) seem to have a "universal life support field" allowing all species to breathe the same atmosphere (or vacuum). 9) Super-powered aliens and mutants Q: What's wrong with that? Aren't these species simply older and more evolved than Humans, or the next step in evolution? A: The problem is they rarely have any corresponding weaknesses, or a good evolutionary background for these abilities. ST is notorious for "value-added" humanoids (see #7 above), typically with corrugated foreheads and a superhuman abilities. Eugenically-enhanced Humans include Khan, an ST villain with superior strength and intellect. Q: If the fittest survive, then shouldn't evolution produce super-beings? A: Special abilities have their price, and result from need for survival, not convenience. Evolution is not goal-directed either, so the explan- ation that superior species (such as godlike energy beings) are eons older than Humanity will not work. Q: What about assisted evolution? A: Dog breeders have tried for centuries to produce all-around super- dogs, to no avail. They ended up with specialist breeds such as Chihuahuas and Great Danes, but no "canine Khans". The only exception to these rules would be the usage of cybernetics and nanotechnology, combined with true genetic engineering. The result would be believable super-races such as the Borg (ST) or Cybermen (DW). What's appropriate for superhero fiction is not always appropriate for more serious SF. In ST, technology and tactics rather than brute strength win the battles - as shown by Khan's defeats. 10) Structural and other materials Q: These are elements such as ST's dilithium, right? A: Many SF materials, armors, fuels, drugs, etc. have an "ium" suffix which makes them sound like undiscovered elements. They may just be commercial names. After all, is Valium an element? The heavier elements are all unstable, and some could make good fission fuels if found in quantity. Future elements will not only be a radiation hazard, but due to short half-life will quickly decay into other, less useful elements. Q: Could exotic matter (made of particles other than protons, neutrons, and electrons, in some sort of stable formation) be any help? A: Immensely, for the bolder SF writers. The science here is extremely speculative, especially in predicting large-scale interactions with normal matter. Q: And normal matter? A: An author that describes structures that combine known particles, forces, and elements is more creative than one who invents new ones. Real-life examples are Kevlar, Nitinol, buckyballs, and metalloid plastics - made from existing, naturally-occuring elements. BIBLIOGRAPHY The author recommends _The Science in Science Fiction_, by Peter Nicholls, with contributors David Langford and Brian Stableford (published by Alfred A. Knopf). This 1982 non-fiction book goes over the topics covered here, in far more detail, from a solid and conservative scientific background.