I have read a number of contemprary SF books lately, that seem to just rework established science themes. Given the complex nature of current scientific theories - quantum entanglement, plus the interest by the US military in Zero-point energy field weapons, is Science Fiction falling behind in the 'idea' race?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Maybe you need to read some other SF. Stephen Baxter, Greg Egan, Robert Reed, Alastair Reynolds. Ken MacLeod is more about the sociology than the science, whereas his old mucker Iain (M) Banks has come up with some quite exotic weaponry in his time. Peter F Hamilton uses pretty conventional stuff but can occasionally surprise, witness the duelling wormhole-generators sequence in Pandora's Star.
Posted by Albertus (Member # 1635) on :
My point was that SF has, for the most part, looked to and speculated upon technologies that were either, not envisioned, or decried by the scientific establishment.
Today, we have verifiable and creditable evidence of transportation of matter without a physical connection and FLT communication (quantum entanglement).
Not long ago, these ideas were considered ludicrious by established science.
It seems (to me) that we are fast reaching a point where SF writers, and perhaps the general populace, are incapable of thinking 'outside the box'.
Can anyone think of a 'new' thought or idea in SF, that has not already been touched on by science? I have to admit, I am struggling to find one.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Because times have changed. SF generally tends to be more intellectual these days, and not just all rocket ships and laser pistols like it was in the pulp era. When Asimov thought up the positronic brain, he just picked the word positronic because it sounded good. He didn't invent the concept of the positron, he just used it. Heinlein didn't come up with the engineering principles behind the waldo, he just had the idea. Likewise Clarke and geosynchronous comms satellites. SF isn't about thinking up new scientific principles, it's about finding new applications for them. And that's what writers like Reed, Baxter, Egan and Reynolds do. If you want scientific discovery, read science. if you want speculative applications of scientific discovery, read science fiction.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Today, we have verifiable and creditable evidence of transportation of matter without a physical connection and FLT communication (quantum entanglement)."
Actually, we don't, because QE alone cannot be used to transmit classical (or any other) information faster than light, and because QT cannot be used to transport matter, only its quantum state.
Posted by Albertus (Member # 1635) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "Today, we have verifiable and creditable evidence of transportation of matter without a physical connection and FLT communication (quantum entanglement)."
Actually, we don't, because QE alone cannot be used to transmit classical (or any other) information faster than light, and because QT cannot be used to transport matter, only its quantum state.
Whilst your objection is contained within the theoretical limitations of quantum theory itself, I make no objection to your statement per se. That said, the very idea of 'teleportation' of anything, was not that long ago considered to be science fantasy. Things change - and so do theories.
Star Trek and Star Wars violate current principles of science on a daily basis, but areas of the technologies in those shows and films, have crept into the 'real world'.
However, my original question was about SF writers falling behind in terms of what can be imagined, not what is known.
Lee suggests that the approach of modern writers has moved onto the landscape of the '"intellectual" and that SF confines itself to 'applying' received wisdom, rather than speculating on new wisdom. If this is so, then SF writers have become followers of thought, rather than the the pioneers of speculative thought that they were, in many cases, in the past.
If that is so, then we live in a sad and 'intellectually' lazy time.
Oh, well, there is always tomorrow.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
1.) Science fiction was never, ever about predicting the future. Ever. Gernsback may have thought it ought to be, but have you (or anyone you know) ever actually read any thing he wrote? Nobody has. (I'm sure now that I've said this the very next post will be someone claiming Ralph 124C41 as their favorite book.)
And anyway there's like a boatload of singularity fiction out there, if you want crazy and usually impossible things happening in the future. Why not read Charles Stross's Accelerando, on the internet, totally for free thanks to its Creative Commons license? How's that for the future? They pave Saturn in it!
(Also: SF fiction? Better than science SF fiction, I guess.)
I don't know what number two was going to be. Uh, most cutting edge sf seems to be written in Britain today (for instance: every single novel on this year's Hugo ballot), on account of the United States no longer having a future we collectively believe in that doesn't involve grinding misery and war stretching off into infinity.
Posted by dbutler1986 (Member # 1689) on :
Teleportation of physical matter IS possible, because quantum entanglement allows you to bypass the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Read the Property P of Particle A, entangle particles B and C, interact B with A, read the Property Q of B, and apply the Properties P and Q to Particle C...and suddenly Particle C is a perfect copy of A. A, of course, is no longer the same because it's been 'bumped' into a different quantum state, so A no longer exists...or actually, C is A. Teleportation. Binnng. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
That's not teleportation of physical matter, it's transmission of the information about its STATE.
quote:But this analogue is prone to miss the point: Only the information about the quantum state is brought there, the particle to take up the state must already be present.
All potentially nifty, though not exactly Star Trek.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
I posted a question on a different DB a long time ago wondering what science fiction would be like in the 24th century.
With all the technologial advances existing in the Star Trek universe, what kinds of science fiction would they write?
Keeping in mind the concept that science fiction was originally speculative fiction and speculated on what life and science and technology would be like in the future...
Not predicting.. but speculating....
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote:"All the ideas in science fiction have been used up!"
How often we've heard this moan from editors, authors and fans, any one of whom should known better.
From "Reverie," by Arthur C. Clarke.
Published in 1939.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Anyone built a stargate yet? Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Sci-Fi themes haven't been used up but book genres have, or so most literature teachers I've talked to seem to agree on. There haven't been any noticeable progress since the early 60's.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "Today, we have verifiable and creditable evidence of transportation of matter without a physical connection and FLT communication (quantum entanglement)."
Actually, we don't, because QE alone cannot be used to transmit classical (or any other) information faster than light, and because QT cannot be used to transport matter, only its quantum state.
Ah, but in Dan Simmon's Ilium (a great read, BTW), there is a way around even that (though it's destructive as hell if used on a large scale).
I think that the era of "Hard Sci-Fi" is into full swing thanks to guys like Baxter and Bear- people with enough scientific knowledge to write plausable sci-fi stories by only slightly expanding on real science's most radical concepts. Occasionally they are proven right too.
The closer science news gets to unbelievable with it's (weekly!) breakthroughs, the more pedistrian the sci-fi seems to become and (unfortunately) the more often concepts (like Nanites) are mis-interperted by hollywood and TV into clumsy, dumbed-down versions of their potential.
For example, if you wre to read Greg Bear's Blood Music, you would find the Borg nanites sadly lacking by comparison with tech we'll likely benifit from in our lifetimes.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
A lot of these advances fall within the field of advanced theoretical physics. And that doesn't make for good. . . what's the word? . . . drama? I chalenge you to read, say, Benford's Cosm and actually remember what it's about. Benford's a good example, generally, of SF I don't find enjoyable. Timescape, those books about scavenger packs of humans living on planets near the Galactic core. . . They all get bogged down in discussions of theoretical wormhole physics at the expense of the human drama that makes books readable.
And as much as I've enjoyed Greg Egan's ability to spin speculative science in a readable manner, occasionally he vanishes up his own ass, like on book that was about post-human societies spent the first quarter talking about how a member of such a cociety is gestated and born - I gave up reading it, and that's something I hardly ever do.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Go with Dan Simmons' Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion. Two of the best books ever written by our species.
EVAR!
I give you Liam's soul if you dont love it, as compensation for lost time.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
And Simmon's sequils Endymion and Rise of Endymion. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Surely they were better when they were called Canterbury Tales and The Series of Disappointing Sequels.
BAM!
I kid. But, like, Hyperion the novel is hardly in need of pimping. Like, who's read this crazy Neuromancer book?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
What is this Neuromancer of which you speak?
And besides, who needs far-out future tech to enjoy SF? I'm just finishing Jon Courtenay Grimwood's Arrabesk trilogy, which takes place in a slightly-alternate future that I've never quite been able to pin down - something about pre-Great War Germany remaining the dominant power in Europe; since most of the action takes place in an alternate Alexandria, just navigating my way through the North African cultural oddities takes up enough of your attention. The fact that there's an alternate timeline is enough to discourage my brother from reading them, and he's even more of a JCG fan than I am. But the point is, there's very little theoretical physics involved. Bit more of that in his new one, Stamping Butterflies, which continues his interest in North Africa but is unconnected to the Arrabesks.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I don't think the problem is so much the writers as the publishers. All they see is the bottom line and much like current TV and movie offerings, they are far more willing to spend a billion dollars on some "tried & true" formulaic expression than they are to give a shot to something that might be considered outre. Of course, in the case of Science Fiction, that means they have no clue who their demographic actually is.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by HerbShrump: And Simmon's sequils Endymion and Rise of Endymion.
I liked those....but he really should have stopped after the first two books- anything else is just....additional.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)