NationStates Jolt Archive

Books or movies or tv series. Havent read many books or watched many series. But for movies, I'd say Star Gate...

"Hard" Speculative Fiction is firmly grounded in reality, with few fantastic flights of fancy not justified by Science™.

"Soft" Sci Fi is more flexible on the rules.

The existence of Faster Than Light Travel generally makes a series "softer"; the more restricted or inconvenient FTL becomes, the "harder" the series feels. Space Is An Ocean automatically pushes a show into "soft" territory, while Space Is Noisy makes it feel that way, even if there's a reason. Real Robots are by definition "harder" than Super Robots, although neither of them qualify as truly Hard Sci-Fi. TV tends to be softer than movies, which tend to be softer than books. Stories set Twenty Minutes Into The Future tend to be harder than stories set in The Future, simply because there's less change from the present-day.

A useful rule of thumb might be derived from Jim Kakalios's rule of "miracle exceptions" in his "Physics of Superheroes" articles -- while many stories require a willing suspension of disbelief, the best ones may require only one leap of faith from an established scientific principle, or just "one big lie"; the more "exceptions" required, the harder it is to accept the story in real terms. A link to the idea can be found here, and when applied to superheroes, it's almost always "how did they get their powers".

Another useful rule of thumb: A character is shown a time machine and asks, "How does it work?" In hard SF the answer will be: "An interesting question. Please have a seat while I bring you up to speed on the latest ideas in quantum theory, after which I will spend a chapter detailing an elaborate, yet plausible-sounding connection between quantum states, the unified field theory, and the means by which the brain stores memory, all tied into theories from both Einstein and Hawking."

In soft SF, the answer to, "How does it work?" will be: "You sit in this seat, set the date you want, and pull that lever."

(Note this is not universally true; you can skip over the details as long as the basic explanation you give doesn't seem to conflict with anything you've established so far.)

The Mundane Manifesto is one attempt to define a set of rules for writing a hard SF story or series, by deliberately forbidding many of the traditional tropes of media Sci-Fi.

"Hardness" is not, however, a simple two-category sorting function, or even a one-dimensional continuum. Many series depart from reality in different ways, and for different reasons. Nevertheless, here's a grossly simplified attempt at a list, from softest to hardest. Don't take it as gospel; just look at the size of the arguments on the discussion page.

This is unlike any other list on the wiki. When adding new items to this page only, ignore the warning on the edit page to put stuff on the bottom. Instead, put it where it fits on the scale.

Note that this list only tracks Sci Fi series, which are meant to take reality and diverge from it. Fantasy series need not apply, even though many of the softest Space Operas have been accused of being just fantasy stories with spaceships and ray guns. Similarly, a series that revolves around a Black Box is hard to classify until you know what the Black Box is.

Finally, remember that being "harder" or "softer" does not equate to "better" science fiction, although many writers still take great pains to make their stories harder and it's usually considered better to go with harder aspects if it could be done either way without affecting much. You'll probably recognize far more of the shows and movies in the top half of this list than the bottom.

The name comes from the Mohs scale of mineral hardness.

Please note: This list is ranked. That means the closer is an item to the top, the softer it is; the closer to the bottom, the harder it is. So, if you know about a really, really hard work of sci-fi, don't place it under "Hardest"; instead, place it right above "Hardest". Softest

* MST3K -- Stuff happens. Don't think too much how. Characters breathe in space on at least two occasions. Artificially intelligent robots built entirely out of random spare parts. A VW Autobus converted into a spaceship.

* The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy is packed full of all kinds of bizarre nonsense (the Infinite Improbability Drive being just one example), but the stories are fully aware of how absurd it is, and the reader IS encouraged to think about it.

* Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann -- run not by the laws of physics, but the Rule Of Cool.

* Neon Genesis Evangelion -- A lot of the Applied Phlebotinum in this series involves branches of biology and engineering that neither exist in real life nor are ever likely to exist. ("Metaphysical biology," for example -- Doctor Kozo Fuyutsuki's specialty -- is kind of like genetics, only it involves human souls instead of genes.)

* The Lensman novels -- A classic pulp SF series, which originated the trope of Space Police armed with incredibly powerful and flexible weapons. Lensmen had intertialess drives, habitable gas giants (with surfaces you could land on)... basically, it was pretty soft even when the first stories were published (in the 1930s), and since then, the march of science has made hash out of most of its assumptions.

* Freelancer. Space Is An Ocean on its top splendor. The space battles look like World War II air battles, only without the limitation of gravity. And on top of that, the in-game scale is warped enough to have entire planets with a 200 meters atmosphere, and no more than 2 km of diameter. These "softnesses" can be considered Acceptable Breaks From Reality, though, because they actually make the game more playable.

* Star Trek Voyager -- Ship went so fast that it was everywhere in the universe at once and then the crew 'evolved' into lizards? Yow! (Specifically the episode "Threshold", recapped here) Then again, that episode never happened anyway...

* Red Dwarf

* Star Wars

* Doctor Who -- As a Long Runner, however, it's been harder and softer at various points.

* Star Trek The Original Series

* Wing Commander

* Star Trek The Next Generation

* Super Robot Wars: Original Generation -- Not counting Cybuster.

* The Honor Harrington book series -- Space Is An Ocean, but in a self-consistent way.

* Starslip Crisis

* Babylon 5

* Starcraft
o The Warhammer 40000 universe that SC is partially cribbed from gets quite softer most of the time, likely due to the fact that it's really just Warhammer Recycled IN SPACE.

* Freefall

* Schlock Mercenary

* Mass Effect -- Much like Uplift, a Space Opera that's harder than usual. It's tricky to tell whether it's Soft Sci-Fi acting Hard or actually Hard Sci-Fi - there's only one Minovsky Particle which causes the mass effect of the title, providing all the "softer" parts (pseudo-psychic powers, FTL travel, artificial gravity, etc).

* Mobile Suit Gundam -- Original series only; the later ones tended to add more fantastic flights of fancy, but the original only had Psychic Powers, Minovsky Particles, and the basic unlikeliness of Humongous Mecha.

* Max Headroom -- Strongly related to its Twenty Minutes Into The Future premise, though still packed with TV commercials that make people's brains explode.

* Firefly - no sound in space (except for inside the ion cloud in The Movie, where the sound has a medium to travel through) and no aliens, and a few other things that seem like the writers actually did do the research (such as how nasty stomach wounds are), but there are some things, such as terraforming, temporary cryonics, and space ships that may or may not be viable 500 years from now -- though all of them seem to have problems. Terraformed worlds all have "quirks" such as unique diseases that crop up, cryonics can cause a bit of a shock if you come out of it too quickly, spaceships break down easily, etc.. The most improbable feature of the world is probably River's apparent telepathy. The ships also move at the speed of plot, with Whedon waffling back and forth as to whether or not they can travel faster than the speed of light. The ships that left Earth took a "generation" at least to get to the system, but that was presumably years before the story takes place.

* Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri: The Tech Tree expands based on our current understanding of science, the quotes from the in-game characters always make sense, nonsensical Technobabble is almost nonexistent, and a lot of in-game scientific and technological advancements have already been predicted by several writers and scientists. It would be among the hardest works of the list if not for the presence of telepathy and psychic powers that look a bit too much like magic.

* Rather than breaking the laws of the universe outright (no Human Aliens here! Er... with one exception), Larry Niven's Known Space stories tend to simply do very unlikely things. An automated colony ship deciding to set up shop on a plateau of habitable land in the upper atmosphere above a Venusian miasma isn't technically impossible, but it is pretty unlikely.

* Ghost In The Shell Stand Alone Complex

* A Miracle Of Science

* The Uplift series, by David Brin -- Hard science mixed with a lot of Imported Alien Phlebotinum to make one of the 'hardest' of the Space Operas, a sub-genre that is usually very 'soft'.

* Cowboy Bebop -- No Space Friction or sound except during dogfights and it's debatable if it actually has Faster Than Light Travel. On the other hand one episode had Lego Genetics and most habitable planets and moons have been terraformed by the 2060's. The ships also seem to be able to make planetary landings and take-offs a bit to easily.

* Strange Days -- A film set Twenty Minutes Into The Future (at the end of 1999, to be specific) with one innovation ("playback" of memories via portable superconducting quantum interference devices) and the consequences thereof. In Real Life, such a device would be extremely hard to make - the human brain consists of many thousand million neurons and even more connections of varying strength, so getting human memories in movie-quality would be close to impossible.

* 2001: A Space Odyssey -- Unusually among films and TV series with spacefaring, the vacuum of space is actually silent. Oddly enough, this is one of the few cases where the book is softer than the movie, due to going further into the details.

* I, Robot -- The book, not the movie.

* Space Island One

* Star Cops

* The Tintin stories Destination Moon and Explorers on the Moon (at least in terms of nuclear energy and space flight).

* The movie also named Destination Moon, with screenplay by Robert Heinlein.

* Gattaca -- The gamete selection technology portrayed in the movie is a reasonable extrapolation from technology that already exists; indeed, the furthest-out thing in the film is a manned expedition to Titan.

* Planetes

* Patlabor -- What giant, humanoid robots would be like in the real world.

* The Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson about the teriforming and colonization of mars. These books definitely fall into the hard description of how to explain a teleporter with every scientific process being intrinsically described. The books do play with the idea of spirits and other mythic beings but much of that is ultimately chocked up to them being just literally tall tails.

* Century City -- The science tried to be hard. The plots, on the other hand...

* The Andromeda Strain by Michael Crichton -- Scientists spend several hundred pages isolating and examining a lethal organism. The film adaptation also does a pretty good job.

* Stephen Baxter's books about the Xeelee. The author is a scientist in Real Life.

* Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson - A contentious example as it is so hard that some don't even consider it science fiction at all, instead it could be called fiction about science.

* Real Life -- Though grounded firmly in reality, many science fiction stories take their inspiration from here.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfSciFiHardness

A Scanner Darkly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scanner_Darkly_%28film%29)
Brave New World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World)
Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_%28novel%29)
Soylent Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green)

Bruce Sterling's Islands in the Net, Heavy Weather, and Distraction
Charles Stross's Accelerando
Nancy Kress' Beggars trilogy
Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy and Three Californias
John Varley's Eight Worlds stories and novels
Michael Swanwick's Vacuum Flowers
Joe Haldeman's The Forever War
Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress
Allen Steele's Coyote and Near Space novels

Blade Runner (Phillip K. Dick - Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep) - not for the technology but because of the socio/cultural structure of L.A. at the time. It seems to be going that way.

Stand on Zanzibar and The Sheep Look Up (John Brunner) again because the social/cultural/ecological trends we're seeing now seem to point that way.

A Canticle for Leibowitz (Frank M. Miller, Jr.) dystopian masterpiece.

Most of Heinlein - because he had a grasp of the potentials of technology (he was an engineer) and the vagaries of human nature. He could write books that felt real because of his understanding of both, even if his projections into the future were a little "off."

The most "realistic" science fiction seems to me to be that which is most firmly grounded in knowledge of human nature, technology is important but not central.

nobodies mentioned Do androids dream of electric sheep? (Blade Runner)

I personally think it is a very plausable version of the future if not replicants then enhanced humans genetically modified for the military

If I wanted realism, why the hell would I look to Sci-Fi for it?

28 days later - probably isn't ("oh look we are soldiers lets rape them") but enough to like it 28 weeks later is a travesty

V for vendetta - maybe it should of just been Valerie's story with V sending a letter? tries to leave you in the dark as much as it can (though we English rising up is silly:p)

etc..

Books or movies or tv series. Havent read many books or watched many series. But for movies, I'd say Star Gate...

Star Gate for TV, the Foundation series for books

books can be almost as diverse as the real universe, media is limited pretty much to the dumbing down required to sell post toasties to joe sixpacks.

i've read a lot, whenever i had the chance, and it's really no contest. tv and movies are for the imaginationless intellectually lazy. other then fun playful visual effects, there's really little gratification in them for anyone with half a brain.

and yes, the fx inside my head are STILL better, and a hell of a lot more realistic. which is not to say absurdism doesn't get published as well. just that writers are allowed to make more sense in print, maybe because fewer arbitrary retards read and demand it be lowered to their level.

=^^=
.../\...

If I wanted realism, why the hell would I look to Sci-Fi for it?

because you damd sure arn't going to find it in the retarded mainstream!

=^^=
.../\...

If I wanted realism, why the hell would I look to Sci-Fi for it?

Ha! I have to agree somewhat. While I appreciate sci-fi stories that are "closer to the truth", in many cases when I look at science fiction, I'm more interested in the "fiction" than the "science".

I like strange futuristic gadgets as much as the next guy, even if they do occasionally make Einstein weep and Newton shit himself.

I quoted too much of it didn't I, nobody read it :(

After so many average days (which I quite like), I have a very good and very bad day at the same time. I'd rather have another average day, considering that that's what I'm used to, that's what I like and it's (for the next 23 minutes at least) my birthday.[/defeated rant]

Anyway... Firefly was a nice change after seeing so much Sci-Fi mucking about in Hyperspace, and it had air-jets and no sound in space either.

EDIT: Ignore most of this, like I said yesterday wasn't so great.

I quoted too much of it didn't I, nobody read it :(

After so many average days (which I quite like), I have a very good and very bad day at the same time. I'd rather have another average day, considering that that's what I'm used to, that's what I like and it's (for the next 23 minutes at least) my birthday.[/defeated rant]

I read it dude, I love TVtropes, and it was a good find.

For purposes of realism I have kind of a quirky perspective... I sort of have a given set of items I'll concede in terms of disbelief, then I go from there.

For example, IMHO Star Wars tends to be more realistic than Star Trek:TNG because Trek made the mistake of trying too hard to go into the details of the technology, thus exposing itself to scrutiny as our own scientific knowledge improves to the point of being able to discount some of it as being impossible or self-contradictory. On the other hand, Star Wars makes no attempt whatsoever to describe how it all works so it's easier to accept the premise that it's some form of engineering we don't know anything about (yet) and all is well.

The only think I have to suspend disbelief for apart from that is the Force. In Star Trek:TNG, I have to suspend it for innumerable imaginary forms of particles, space-time waves, and resonance frequencies of energy to the point where it all just runs together into a pseudo-scientific deus ex machina in virtually every episode.

So to me, 'realistic' = 'believeable.' (as far as my ability to suspend disbelief for a set of given elements. Specifically:

- A variety of alien species (I believe that's a reasonable hypothesis about real life)
- Advanced technology that can do things we haven't learned to believe in yet, like FTL. (There was a time when people swore it was impossible to fly faster than sound.)
- Energy weapons. (We've begun developing those now)

I read it dude, I love TVtropes

I'm only uni holidays at the moment, so I've been letting it ruin my life. Also I now want a T-shirt that dismisses my cynicism as genre savviness.

For purposes of realism I have kind of a quirky perspective... I sort of have a given set of items I'll concede in terms of disbelief, then I go from there.

For example, IMHO Star Wars tends to be more realistic than Star Trek:TNG because Trek made the mistake of trying too hard to go into the details of the technology, thus exposing itself to scrutiny as our own scientific knowledge improves to the point of being able to discount some of it as being impossible or self-contradictory. On the other hand, Star Wars makes no attempt whatsoever to describe how it all works so it's easier to accept the premise that it's some form of engineering we don't know anything about (yet) and all is well.

The only think I have to suspend disbelief for apart from that is the Force. In Star Trek:TNG, I have to suspend it for innumerable imaginary forms of particles, space-time waves, and resonance frequencies of energy to the point where it all just runs together into a pseudo-scientific deus ex machina in virtually every episode.

So to me, 'realistic' = 'believeable.' (as far as my ability to suspend disbelief for a set of given elements. Specifically:

- A variety of alien species (I believe that's a reasonable hypothesis about real life)
- Advanced technology that can do things we haven't learned to believe in yet, like FTL. (There was a time when people swore it was impossible to fly faster than sound.)
- Energy weapons. (We've begun developing those now)

This is a really good way of looking a science fiction. I love Star Trek as much as Star Wars, but I found myself liking it less and less as the series came out. Loved TNG and DS9 for the most part, because they focused on the characters, the situation and the stories more so than anything else. DS9 especially: the technology was there, but it only provided a backdrop for the characters and the politics. It was as natural for them as a TV is for us today. Voyager was mired too much in technobabble, and I didn't even give Enterprise a chance.

Star Wars never did that, and that's why I love it...I kinda fell out of the Star Wars movies as well however, but for different reasons (Medichlorians...GAH!)

BTW: Have you played Mass Effect? That game captured almost everything I love about Sci-Fi: cool technology, various alien races, not TOO much technobabble and a suitably out of this world story. It's also interesting how I see the acronym "FTL" popping up all over the place now. I'd never heard "faster than light" referred to in such a way before that.

BTW: Have you played Mass Effect? That game captured almost everything I love about Sci-Fi: cool technology, various alien races, not TOO much technobabble and a suitably out of this world story. It's also interesting how I see the acronym "FTL" popping up all over the place now. I'd never heard "faster than light" referred to in such a way before that.

No I haven't but it's not for want of desire. I'm still saving up for an XBox 360 to play it on :)

Yeah I notied the FTL thing too. They use it a lot in the new BSG but prior to that I only ever heard it occasionally used in discussions about Sci-fi, but not IN Sci-fi.

- Advanced technology that can do things we haven't learned to believe in yet, like FTL. (There was a time when people swore it was impossible to fly faster than sound.)

Sound didn't have this going on though.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/1/3/413fdb497e3f16374a848fa4e86bf3cf.png
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/images/totalenergy2.gif
As far as we can tell, it's physically impossible. From what I gather holding the speed of sound as impossible was about difficult engineering (relatively light and fragile objects and high air resistance don't mix too well), not breaking the Laws of Physics :p

I would probably say the most realistic sci fi for TV / Movies is FIrefly/Serenity. No Faster than light travel, no magic ray guns of doom, no perfect society. The only thing unrealistic to today is artificial gravity.

I'm only uni holidays at the moment, so I've been letting it ruin my life. Also I now want a T-shirt that dismisses my cynicism as genre savviness.

I'm sorry to hear you had a shitty day. I hope it gets better. No one likes being stuck on the holidays. If it means anything, the people of Bolol wish you a happy birthday.

*gives Dryks Legacy a Bolol Nuclear Cookie*

No I haven't but it's not for want of desire. I'm still saving up for an XBox 360 to play it on :)

Yeah I notied the FTL thing too. They use it a lot in the new BSG but prior to that I only ever heard it occasionally used in discussions about Sci-fi, but not IN Sci-fi.

When you get your 360, I highly recommend you check it out. 'Tis good. The sidequests kinda suck at times but the setting and gameplay is top notch.

The reason why I mentioned it earlier is that not ONCE do you hear a character mention "faster than light". It's always FTL. Since I've played that game, it's all I've been hearing.

It has an interesting concept. The key to faster-than-light travel isn't making a bigger engine, it's making the ship lighter: reducing it's mass to zero. Hence, "Mass Effect". Don't know how realistic it is in real life, not being a physicist myself, but it apparently has foundation in real life.

But then again...the game has sentient flying jellyfish, so I don't know how realistic Mass Effect is really! :p

I think the dates of any particular Sci-fi should be noted, how does anyone here know FTL travel won't exist 300 years from now?

Satalite Guided nuclear tomahawk missiles sure didn't exist in the 1700s

Sound didn't have this going on though.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/1/3/413fdb497e3f16374a848fa4e86bf3cf.png
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/images/totalenergy2.gif
As far as we can tell, it's physically impossible. From what I gather holding the speed of sound as impossible was about difficult engineering (relatively light and fragile objects and high air resistance don't mix too well), not breaking the Laws of Physics :p

I don't really want to debate whether FTL CAN be done since, at this point in time, we don't have knowledge of HOW. Remember that when someone says FTL they don't usually mean a spaceship literally firing its engines to achieve faster than light speed. Typically Sci Fi settings have some kind of approach to get around that "universal speed limit" you're describing. That's why Hyperspace or stargates. In Star Trek the idea is a warp field that exists somewhat outside of space-time such that within the warp field, the ship's velocity is zero. Relative to the space-time continuum, it's some arbitrary speed based upon the properties of the warp field.

At any rate, all that graph does is to eliminate one approach. We haven't yet found any alternate solutions.


When you get your 360, I highly recommend you check it out. 'Tis good. The sidequests kinda suck at times but the setting and gameplay is top notch.

The reason why I mentioned it earlier is that not ONCE do you hear a character mention "faster than light". It's always FTL. Since I've played that game, it's all I've been hearing.

It has an interesting concept. The key to faster-than-light travel isn't making a bigger engine, it's making the ship lighter: reducing it's mass to zero. Hence, "Mass Effect". Don't know how realistic it is in real life, not being a physicist myself, but it apparently has foundation in real life.

But then again...the game has sentient flying jellyfish, so I don't know how realistic Mass Effect is really! :p

Oh one ofthe reasons I want a 360 in the first place is to play Mass Effect. I saw the XPlay special on it and drooled all the way through.

nobodies mentioned Do androids dream of electric sheep? (Blade Runner)

I personally think it is a very plausable version of the future if not replicants then enhanced humans genetically modified for the military

Did you happen to look at my post? Which, incidentally, was right above yours.

If I wanted realism, why the hell would I look to Sci-Fi for it?

Ha! I have to agree somewhat. While I appreciate sci-fi stories that are "closer to the truth", in many cases when I look at science fiction, I'm more interested in the "fiction" than the "science".

I like strange futuristic gadgets as much as the next guy, even if they do occasionally make Einstein weep and Newton shit himself.

Because science fiction - when it is done well - can say things about ourselves and our universe that no other genre, not even SF's closest cousin, Fantasy, can say.

Science Fiction is unique because it attempts to look at the future with rational eyes. Not so much predicting the future as trying possible futures on for size. (In fact, Ray Bradbury was once qouted as saying 'Science fiction does not seek to predict the future; it seeks to prevent it.'). It is defined, not by the tropes that we have come to associate with SF (spaceships, aliens, robots, fantastic tech) but by the fact that a core element of the story is based on a scientific idea, be it real or imaginary science. Take that core element away, and the story collapses.

"Star Wars" is often regarded as the most "sci-fi" of sci-fi. It's got big space battles, lots of weird-looking aliens, robots and huge, honking spaceships, planet-killing weapons and that mysterious thing called the force. But... it is not science fiction. Not even close. It is a fantasy-western, and not all that good of one, that just happens to be set in space.

To understand why, look at the various sci-fi tropes, and swap them out with a more "mundane" item. All of the aliens in Star Wars, for example, could be replaced by human characters and their lines, motivations, and actions, would not change one itoa. Their appearance is the only thing that designates them as 'alien'. Ditto with the robots; replace them with human slaves some who happen to have special skills (like Artoo's way with machines or Threepio's fluency in several languages) and nothing changes.

Spaceships can be replaced by sailing ships or wagons (in fact the big space battles don't even take advantage of the 3D, zero-gravity, Newton-is-King environment).

Even the Force, the most speculative item in Star Wars, can be replaced by mundane actions without changing the script. For example, take the scene in Mos Eisley, when Obi-Wan Kenobi uses the Force to cloud the mind of a stormtrooper. Now imagine him just handing the stormtrooper a roll of Imperial Credits, or even just a few bills at a time as he speaks his lines. Same effect.

How about the climatic scene in the Death Star in Return of the Jedi? The Emperor is zapping Luke with bolts of lightning and cackling like a typical villian. Vadar intervenes, gets a lethal jolt of energy, and dies shortly thereafter. Now imagine the same scene, but replace the bolts of lightning with a revolver. The Emperor now shoots Luke in several non-critical places (we've already seen in the original scene how much the Emperor likes to inflict pain). Vadar intervenes, there is a struggle, and Vadar is mortally shot. Same effect.

The Force, therefore, is superflous to the story.

With nothing to really define Star Wars as science fiction, it shouldn't even be on the list.

Original Series Star Trek would be, I'd say the best example of science fiction seen so far, with TNG making a close second place. The reason being that most of the stories do have a core science idea that drives the story, rather than just being tacked on for effect (not to say that that wasn't always the case. DS9 and Voyager got progressively worse in this regard). It's already been mentioned that technobabble was the big reason why the Star Trek series don't rank more as hard SF, and I won't argue with that - but it could have been solved if the writers had sat down and tried to develop a consistent imaginary technology, rather than spinning off more Particles of the Week than even the most imaginative physicists did.

Firefly, another favorite of fans for "hard sci-fi" actually fails in its core ideas. I do agree that it did have more detail on things like maneuvering in space, but Whedon really should have vetted his ideas with people who actually spent time working on terraforming scenarios. If he had, he would have known that a group of people fleeing "Earth-That-Was" would not have had the capacity to terraform a whole variety of planets within a few decades. To do that requires an advanced and stable civilization backing the efforts, favorable conditions on every world selected for terraforming, and centuries of effort. Whedon makes the same mistake of "space as ocean" as Star Wars does - the planets are just "other places" you can travel to, and while some local flavour was added, it is nowhere near realistic. Colonizing space and other planets is a whole different ball-game than colonization efforts here on Earth.

(In fact, Whedon strikes me as anti-science. The only places we see scientists in his works are when they are with the Forces of Evil; and the only good scientists - or at least the only conscientious ones - are usually the first to die.)

My personal opinion is that the most realistic science ficton relies on the following items:

1. Whether or not the speculative elements are core to the story.

2. Whether or not the consequences of the speculative elements are fully considered.

3. Whether or not the speculative element has been contradicted by real science (a.k.a. the "Negative Impossibility" test - if it is not impossible, it is fair game).

As always, all errors are my own.

--Andrew

Science Fiction is unique because it attempts to look at the future with rational eyes. Not so much predicting the future as trying possible futures on for size. (In fact, Ray Bradbury was once qouted as saying 'Science fiction does not seek to predict the future; it seeks to prevent it.'). It is defined, not by the tropes that we have come to associate with SF (spaceships, aliens, robots, fantastic tech) but by the fact that a core element of the story is based on a scientific idea, be it real or imaginary science. Take that core element away, and the story collapses.

<snip>


Good points. I guess that's one of the things that makes stories like 2001 or I, Robot such good examples... They exist in a setting where things are examined from a perspective that's simply not possible now.

And even the bubblegum sci fi gets it right once in a while. Remember the episode in Star Trek:TNG where the Starfleet scientist wants to take Data back to Earth to experiment on him? The episode explores what Data really is and how to define him as a being, or if one even can... And what does our conclusion say about the rest of us?

(and all without needing any new particles!)

I would probably say the most realistic sci fi for TV / Movies is FIrefly/Serenity. No Faster than light travel, no magic ray guns of doom, no perfect society. The only thing unrealistic to today is artificial gravity.Thats not unrealistic.

It is possible that one day we will be able to travel faster than light.
It is possible that one day we will be use laser based weapons.

One example of -ridiculously- unrealistic is:

http://www.poster.net/signs/signs-mel-gibson-3700329.jpg

I dont mind Night Shyamalan, The Village was a masterpiece but this movie is ridicule.
The alien race looks aggressive and plan to conquest the galaxy, or at least Earth, or even just Mel Gibson farm.. their weapon is.. pissing fingers with the range of 3 feet.. ??? dude, a slingshot is more effective than that.

The alien race has the technology to master faster-than-light intergalactic travel, has huge spaceships, can make them invisible.. yet they are unable to destroy a wood door..

WTF? ... I mean really common..
This movie managed to be even more ridicule than H.G.Wells/Spielberg "War of the Worlds"

Books or movies or tv series. Havent read many books or watched many series. But for movies, I'd say Star Gate...

The most realistic sci-fi thing I have ever seen would be StarCraft. I think it is a good deal more realistic that StarGate, but hey, to each his own.

The most realistic movie I have seen would have to be The Fifth Element , though we may not be so advanced by that time, and reconstructing someone from their DNA certainly was a gargantuan weak-point (realism-wise) in it.

The most realistic book would be H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds, or just about anything by Michael Crichton.

The most realistic book would be H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds, or just about anything by Michael Crichton.

How can you possibly call that realistic?!?

Mars is unpopulated in case you didnt know! :rolleyes:

For books, off the top of my head I'm think of Jules Verne (From the Earth to the Moon and Paris in the 20th Century) or any of Issac Asimov's stories.

The RDM version of Battlestar Galactica, probably.

For books, off the top of my head I'm think of Jules Verne (From the Earth to the Moon and Paris in the 20th Century) or any of Issac Asimov's stories.I agree..

also.. Verne scifi books are so realistic.. that most of the futuristic inventions he imagined.. actually took place.

The books of the Halo universe, and the games (Minus the Covenant) are very good SciFi in terms of Hardness.

They explain how Slipspace works in a way that makes it sounds plausible. The ships use Missiles, Coil Guns, and High Caliber Cannons. The Troops use Firearms and Automobiles. The Pelicans and Hornets use actual VTOL technology (Pelicans akin to Harriers, Hornets akin to Ducted Helos). The Spartan Soldiers are a little pushing it in terms of their abilities, but they have drawbacks to show that it is experimental. The Artificial Intelligence is created by either programming (Dumb AI's) or created by running powerful electric currents through the brain (Smart AI's like Cortana). And the only time you see Artificial Gravity are in combat situations, implying that the aG is very costly to use in terms of energy. Either that or it is used to make it easier to relate to the story.

I highly recommend the books, and the Games now that I think of it.

The most realistic TV show is Firefly. No sound in space, generation ship colonization, beasts of burden used on outer worlds, guns, rockets that turn off in space, etc.

The books of the Halo universe, and the games (Minus the Covenant) are very good SciFi in terms of Hardness.
Ringworld. Halo is a ripoff of Ringworld.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfSciFiHardness

I skimmed it last night. Good stuff.

To boil it down/add a bit:
The hardest hard SF (10 on the scale, so to speak) doesn't have:
FTL travel of communications
Aliens
Time Travel
Teleportation
ESP or other magic/supernatural elements
2D noisy space
Artificial Gravity/Anti-gravity
Super robots
Fast, convenient space travel
Magic "blaster" weapons
Lots of Earthlike planets

At the same time, we should find (as up to date as possible for when it was written):
Realistic computers and robots
Genetic engineering
3D Newtonian space

A bit softer (call it 9-8), we might find one or two of the above rules bent slightly and in an explained and inconsipcuous manner:
Rare, inconvenient, and expensive FTL travel with an explanation that doesn't require bending the the rules overly much and is explained
Truely alien aliens, if any
Realistic weaponry - slug throwers (chemically or EM powered) and rarely DEWs, for example

At the softest edge thatone might want to call Hard SF (call it 7-6), we might find more of the above rules bent slightly and in an explained and inconsipcuous manner or one or two bent more significantly and in a less explained and more consipcuous manner:
FTL travel or communications is moderately common, reasonably achievable, reasonably cheap, or not fully explained (but based on relatively plausable ideas). (No more than two allowed.)
Artificial gravity/anti-gravity might be available with an explanation
Some aliens exist - but are not anthropomorphic

The books I listed above are all good examples of hardness, mostly 9-10.

Hardness 10: Bruce Sterling's Islands in the Net, Heavy Weather, and Distraction; Charles Stross's Accelerando; Nancy Kress' Beggars trilogy; Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy and Three Californias; Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress; and Allen Steele's Coyote and Near Space novels

Hardness 9 (both due to aliens): John Varley's Eight Worlds stories and novels and Michael Swanwick's Vacuum Flowers

Hardness 7.5 (FTL and aliens): Joe Haldeman's The Forever War

If I wanted realism, why the hell would I look to Sci-Fi for it?

Here's an essay for ya on that: http://www.hardsf.org/HSFGIssu.htm

I quoted too much of it didn't I, nobody read it :(

Twas good stuff. :) (And happy belated birthday!)



The term FTL has been around quite some time.

[QUOTE=Trivalvia]My personal opinion is that the most realistic science ficton relies on the following items:

1. Whether or not the speculative elements are core to the story.

2. Whether or not the consequences of the speculative elements are fully considered.

3. Whether or not the speculative element has been contradicted by real science (a.k.a. the "Negative Impossibility" test - if it is not impossible, it is fair game).

As always, all errors are my own.

--Andrew

More good stuff.

And now for a few good Hard SF films (note: I don't think any of these really rate a 10):
2001 (8.5 hardness - aliens)
The Alien films (8 - aliens)
Outland (9)
Runaway (8 - the robots are a bit unrealistic and the super bullets are anachronistic IMHO)
Robocop (8.5)

*snip*

Good this continued explanation is. Do you prefer "hard" to "soft", or does it matter to you?

I actually like some of the more "fantastical" stuff that comes out of what's been described as "soft". Again, science fiction. :p

...and since we're on the subject of sci-fi. I've just learned that Yoda and Darth Vader will be in Soul Calibur IV (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/29550.html)...

Go figure.

Good this continued explanation is. Do you prefer "hard" to "soft", or does it matter to you?

I actually like some of the more "fantastical" stuff that comes out of what's been described as "soft". Again, science fiction. :p

I do like both, ranging all the spectra of spec. fiction, but I tend to favor the hard stuff. But a good story with a realistic understanding of humanity will make up for a lot of things.

* Rather than breaking the laws of the universe outright (no Human Aliens here! Er... with one exception), Larry Niven's Known Space stories tend to simply do very unlikely things. An automated colony ship deciding to set up shop on a plateau of habitable land in the upper atmosphere above a Venusian miasma isn't technically impossible, but it is pretty unlikely.

Actually if you read the book involved "A gift from earth" it explains why the colony ship landed there and indeed why all the human worlds of known space were colonised dispite their various drawbacks

And I'm not going to spoil it here .. so there

That Sci-Fi Moh's Hardness Scale put Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars) near the top, but I would describe that as significantly softer than the pair of Mars books written by Ben Bova (Mars, Return to Mars). In fact, Return to Mars is heavily based on a work of non-fiction called The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin.

realistic sci-fi? lets see...
2001
Alien Nation (both movie and TV Series)
Something is out there
Quark (hey, someone has to clean up the space debris)
Probe (T.V. Series with Parker Stevenson)
Probe and Counter Probe (Book, written by a ROMANCE AUTHOR. A woman who was 'genetically created' by an alien race to explore, record and analyse other planets, ends up on Earth where she has to learn what she is as her Psycologist tries to untangle all the strange visions she sees. Counter Probe, the aliens send another 'probe' down to destroy the first probe to prevent the humans from finding out the information stored in her mind. Throughout both books, you never see the aliens nor is there any indication of any extra-terrestrials... the books are all in the POV of the Psychiatrist and the strange woman.)
Mother of Demons while the concept of intelligent snails is far fetched (as is the concept of intelligent life) it's interesting to see what humans would look like and how they act through the eyes of the Aliens.
and then there's the Dystopian novels like 1984 and one I read a long time ago... where humans live in large towers (reaching miles high) and each tower is it's own society. think Paranoia.

Freedom's series by Anne McCaffery. Freedom's Landing, Freedom's Choice, Freedom's Chance, and Freedom's War.

The most realistic TV show is Firefly. No sound in space, generation ship colonization, beasts of burden used on outer worlds, guns, rockets that turn off in space, etc.


Ringworld. Halo is a ripoff of Ringworld.

Hwo in the world did you come to that conclusion? I was under the impression that Ringworld was the central Planet, whereas the Halos are massive weapons. Not only that, but in the storyline, the Halos play a major role, but that is because the Humans are trying to destroy them. I have seen nothing linking them except that they are both Rings.

Oh, I almost forgot about the Orion's Arm Universe Project (http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html).

This is a very large (even massive?) hard SF collaborative "world-building" project.

Welcome to the Orion's Arm Universe Project!

What is the Orion's Arm Universe Project you might ask? That is an excellent question, and in a nutshell here is your answer:

The Orion's Arm Universe Project (also known as OAUP, OA and Orion's Arm) is:

* The next step in the evolution of science-fiction
* A collective hard science fiction world building endeavor
* A space opera
* A communal background for science fiction stories
* A universe ready to be brought to life through illustration
* A forum for cutting edge science
* A roleplaying setting
* A transhumanist projection of what the future might look like
* A bunch of semi-sane sentients having fun together

Why are we here? The answer to that question can be found in our Statement of Purpose:

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:

Our purpose is to promote and inspire writers, artists and thinkers. To create a vision of the future that is plausible at every level, internally consistent, and abides by the accepted facts and theories in the physical, biological, and social sciences. We embrace speculative ideas like Drexlerian assemblers, mind uploading, posthuman intelligence, magnetic monopoles, wormholes, warp bubbles and the technologies and developments that will make all this possible.

To quote Arthur C. Clarke's Second Law:

The only way to explore the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Our task is to create an ever evolving universe that is interesting, inspiring and provocative - to theorize on a future that may, or may not, come to be.

In order to meet this goal we have established certain ground rules:

· Matter cannot travel faster than light
· Matter and energy are conserved
· No evolved humanoid aliens have been discovered
· Technology will change the nature of social issues
· A logical explanation for even the most fantastic elements within the setting must be provided
· Space is vast; expect the same challenges to have many different solutions. Or, as we say, Diversity! Diversity! Diversity!

Orion's Arm is a work in progress, a space opera setting like no other. It spans the next ten thousand years of galactic history, from the near future of interplanetary colonization to the far future where the galaxy is ruled by vast ascended intelligences. It incorporates hard science, and the "soft" or social sciences, as well as mythological and archetypal themes, as the gods of the collective psyche incarnate in unforeseen new forms.
http://www.orionsarm.com/welcome.html

Hwo in the world did you come to that conclusion? I was under the impression that Ringworld was the central Planet, whereas the Halos are massive weapons. Not only that, but in the storyline, the Halos play a major role, but that is because the Humans are trying to destroy them. I have seen nothing linking them except that they are both Rings.
The Halos are what you get when you throw Ringworld in a blender with the Death Star.

"A report published on IGN tried to explore the literary influences present in the franchise. This report noted that Halo structures were influenced by The Culture and Ringworld, written by Ian M. Banks and Larry Niven respectively."

The level design was poor, the story was ripped from several better stories, same for the enemies, by the time I got to the headcrabs in disguise I was thinking all that's missing is a DS-style superweapon and then "It's a weapon". Jesus Christ on cruches! I cannot understand how this series has become so damn popular. Everything it's done has been done and done better.

Freedom's series by Anne McCaffery. Freedom's Landing, Freedom's Choice, Freedom's Chance, and Freedom's War.

Which feature extremely humanoid aliens, with FTL travel & communications...

Blade Runner

Just watched that again. Still love that movie. Whether or not it's the most realistic, it set the marker for a kind of realism that's influenced everything from the Matrix, to Serenity, to the Star Wars sequels, to Children of Men....

the most realistic Sci fi is STARWARS

i mean come on. who doesn't believe that a deathstar is buildable

Did you happen to look at my post? Which, incidentally, was right above yours.

haha...sorry...just seen it...well at least someones on the same page but not neccesarily me ;)

I would have to go with "Earth girls are easy".

the most realistic Sci fi is STARWARS

i mean come on. who doesn't believe that a deathstar is buildable

Yanno, I once saw a website (apparently m aintained by guys who have WAY too much t ime on their hands) and they did an analysis of the Death Star II, specifically, the impact on ENdor of this massive object exploding in low orbit.

First, using pixel counts from the creen they got an approximate size for DS2 comparing Luke to the shuttle, the shuttle to the docking bay, the docking bay to the equatorial band around the Death Star, then the width of the band to the radius. They then got an approximate mass for the Death Star.

They then calculated the approximiate amount of energy released by the explosion based on the size of the blast, and so on and on and on...

They concluded that

1)Anybody with a direct line of sight to the explosion would have been killed instantly by radiated energy. (So the scene showing the Ewoks cheering as they looked up at the explosion wouldn't have survived.

2)The mass of the object, even if blown to dust, would have filled the atmosphere with high energy particles which would have clouded the atmosphere and resulted in a nuclear winter.

3)They hypothesized (sp?) that the X-!ings show firing off fireworks may have, in fact, been destroying larger chunks of debris that were coming down into the atmosphere

4)They noted that apparently, there's a passage in one of the Rogue Squadron novels that implies the Ewoks may have gone extinct after the Battle of Endor, which would lend some credence to those conclusions.

Too much time on their hands...

The Mote in Gods eye perhaps. Humanity is still flawed and imperfect, organised as an empire ruled by nobility with lots of rebels and complex political alliances. The aliens in turn are actually somewhat alien. Technology and biological constraints actually influence society.

While talking about nice alien aliens, Asimovs "The Gods themselves" deserves being mentioned. Not that realistic though due to the pretty shaky science underlying it.

Three authors whose works I'd particularly recommend if you want interesting (and sometimes plausible) aliens: Poul Anderson, Hal Clement, James White.

Books or movies or tv series. Havent read many books or watched many series. But for movies, I'd say Star Gate...

Star Gate is only realistic if the US military is run by complete idiots. After opening the stargate on a black hole that could have destroyed the whole earth one would expect them to have the common sense to let all expeditions start from previously explored safe other planets.

Earth -> Beta site -> Examine Unknown. Simple. Easy. Much more secure. And only a few minutes extra travel time.

Someone's already mentioned it but Haldeman's Forever War has to be the most hard SF I have seen. It has a war going for generations, and when the troops return, due to time dilation effects, they haven't aged much, but their world has. The culture has changed.

For example, one time they come back, and the culture is pro-homosexuality for population control. Another time they go on a 70 year there, 70 year back mission and return to see the war ended about 50 years previous.

Simon Brown, before he started mass producing trilogies, wrote some good hard SF. Winter is a very good novel.

For TV/Movie, I do like Alien Nation. Good gritty SF. Enemy Mine was a great film. But, as someone said with Star Wars, the SF element is unnecessary. You could have it set in WWII, with a stranded Japanese and Americana and achieve the same movie.

* Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson - A contentious example as it is so hard that some don't even consider it science fiction at all, instead it could be called fiction about science.http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfSciFiHardness

so does his baroque cycle rank higher or lower for being so hard that it takes place a couple hundred years in the past?

Which feature extremely humanoid aliens, with FTL travel & communications...

and the main point. Even with all that tech, they still couldn't beat down a bunch of hairless primates with a primative society. :D

The RDM version of Battlestar Galactica, probably.

If you wanted most realistic Interstellar age Sci-Fi, then I'd have to say Firefly. Although Battlestar Galactica owns! :D

Haw. And I was waiting for someone to say "Gor! John Norman!"

:p

Haw. And I was waiting for someone to say "Gor! John Norman!"

:p

only for the Panther Girls

only for the Panther Girls

Only if you like chasing through the forest...

the most realistic Sci fi is STARWARS

i mean come on. who doesn't believe that a deathstar is buildable
Me. Do you know just how difficult it would be to actually blow up a planet? Burn it to a crisp, that's doable. Kill every living thing down to 60 miles below the surface, even easier. But blow it up so that there is hardly even any debris? You'd need some kind of anti-matter weapon for that, a super-laser just won't do. And if it were a laser then why could we see it in a vacuum? Why did the lasers in SW move slower than bullets? They didn't even do as much damage as a bullet either.

Star Wars is a fantasy series, not Sci-Fi. It's about wizards and knights using magic and swords to rescue a princess from a doom fortress, chase one another around the kingdom, and then blow up the return of the doom fortress. The first one was a stand alone film and the ending, as terrible as it was, reflected that. The Empire Strikes Back was tacked on to cash in on the popularity of the first and had no real beginning or end. The third installment was halfway decent in that it wrapped everything up in a neat little package but left the door open to future films if the creators chose to make yet another sequel but the plot lacked originality.

It isn't hard Sci-Fi or even soft, it's just fantasy in space. And that's fine, nothing wrong with that, but it cannot be compared to Niven's Known Space, Roddenberry's Trek, or Whedon's Firefly because those are Sci-Fi. It's more like Lord of the Rings. I like it, but not in the way that I do true Sci-Fi and especially hard SF.

Only if you like chasing through the forest...

or hanging around Exchange posts with bags of candy

or hanging around Exchange posts with bags of candy

Assuming you have a surplus of arrowheads

One thing that many sci-fi authors, and posters in this topic, wrongly assume is that human-like AI is just around the corner.

If we want to classify sci-fi hardness then human-like AI should be alongside FTL comms and artificial gravity because we have absolutely no idea how to do it with current technology. It's not just a lack of processing power, there are numerous things that the brain does that are impossible to do with any computer of any architecture and cannot even be described mathematically.

The most obvious example is recognising something as being infinite.


As for listing some realistic sci-fi, I can't think of any TV series that has made a serious effort at being realistic. There aren't many films either and most have been mentioned here already. One that hasn't is Aliens. It has an odd mix of very realistic and totally unrealistic ideas.

Realistic
- No FTL travel or comms.
- Suitably non-human aliens (there are several unrealistic things about them but most of that was defined in Alien, not Aliens).
- Very realistic weaponry and other tech.
- Believable human interaction (a major failing in other sci-fi)
- Space is vast.
- Plausible political/economic ideas.

Unrealistic
- Human-like AI.
- AI has to type commands on a keyboard.
- Artificial gravity with no explanation and several inconsistencies.
- The dropship (it wouldn't actually drop when released)
- Opening the airlock scene is all wrong.


Books I would include are:

Dune (the first two in the series only)
Rendezvous with Rama (again, only the first two)
Nationstates!

If we want to classify sci-fi hardness then human-like AI should be alongside FTL comms and artificial gravity because we have absolutely no idea how to do it with current technology. It's not just a lack of processing power, there are numerous things that the brain does that are impossible to do with any computer of any architecture and cannot even be described mathematically.

Hardly; strong AI is a very difficult problem, but it's nothing compared to the challenges of artificial gravity (also plausible, but far, far more difficult). If anything, it's a matter of time more than anything...artificial cognition is already happening with the Blue Brain Project. They're capable of simulating a rat neocortex that functions just like its biological counterpart; once it's been scaled up to human level, barring a major error in the model it will be conscious.

The caveat is that it would take a machine the size of several football fields and $3 billion in electricity with current technology. So, ceteris paribus, to make this model economical for general purposes (at current levels; the higher the resolution, the more processing power needed), it would take 20 doubling periods at the current rate of growth (although it's likely this will shorten in the future).

This gives us a human brain AI for the cost of a desktop in 2048, which is pretty much in line with estimates.

Hardly; strong AI is a very difficult problem, but it's nothing compared to the challenges of artificial gravity (also plausible, but far, far more difficult). If anything, it's a matter of time more than anything...artificial cognition is already happening with the Blue Brain Project. They're capable of simulating a rat neocortex that functions just like its biological counterpart; once it's been scaled up to human level, barring a major error in the model it will be conscious.

The caveat is that it would take a machine the size of several football fields and $3 billion in electricity with current technology. So, ceteris paribus, to make this model economical for general purposes (at current levels; the higher the resolution, the more processing power needed), it would take 20 doubling periods at the current rate of growth (although it's likely this will shorten in the future).

This gives us a human brain AI for the cost of a desktop in 2048, which is pretty much in line with estimates.

It's not just a question of power, the human brain functions in an entirely different way to a computer, and there are certain things that are impossible to do with a computer. The brain isn't actually particularly fast, when you look at how fast neurons can fire.
You can't make estimates based on rat brains because rats are not self-aware. We simply don't know whether minds of a certain complexity just become self-aware or whether some other process is involved.

Also, scientists haven't modelled a rats neocortex, they've modelled a single neocortical column from a rat's brain. There's also the issue of how the columns link together, not to mention all the other areas of the brain.

It's not just a question of power, the human brain functions in an entirely different way to a computer, and there are certain things that are impossible to do with a computer. The brain isn't actually particularly fast, when you look at how fast neurons can fire.

But it is very, very efficient and runs in parallel; what it lacks in speed it makes up for in its ability to utilize its resources to their maximum potential. I don't think it's plausible that AI will function on conventional computing hardware; I do believe the onset of multicore and manycore processing mark the transition towards the kind of parallel processing necessary to mimic the human brain, but our current technology is not suited to this kind of intelligence.

Now, I do wonder whether it would be possible for intelligence to emerge out of a network, given that the raw processing power of the internet is now significantly above the raw processing power of the human brain.

You can't make estimates based on rat brains because rats are not self-aware. We simply don't know whether minds of a certain complexity just become self-aware or whether some other process is involved.

Given that the neocortical column itself is identical in mammals, it is mostly a matter of scale more than anything else. Now, it's plausible that there are other factors in the emergence of consciousness, but given the fact that the neocortex plays a primary role in conscious thought and that its abilities are primarily based on scale, it is not unreasonable to assume scaling up a biologically accurate model will produce consciousness.

So, if you scale up this model to human level, if it is biologically accurate it will produce the same effects as a human neocortex. And, as far as we've seen, the BBP is biologically accurate. It may suffer problems as additional brain regions are added, but further refinement of the model will help to smooth Nonetheless, it remains to be seen what will happen...either way, it will advance our knowledge even if it does not lead to artificial consciousness. However, the basic conclusion here is that AGI and artificial consciousness are neither impossible nor outside of the reach of current technological development trends.

Also, scientists haven't modelled a rats neocortex, they've modelled a single neocortical column from a rat's brain. There's also the issue of how the columns link together, not to mention all the other areas of the brain.

Apologies. They are scaling it up to a neocortex over the next few years, with the proof-of-concept neocortical column recently completed.

For a plausible-seeming AI, has anybody else here read Roger Zelazney's story "Home Is The Hangman"?

Edit: or Randall Garrett's novel 'Unwise Child'?

Unrealistic
- AI has to type commands on a keyboard.Why would that be unrealistic? It's an android meant to appear like a human being. That Weyland-Yutani forgot to add an android-computer interface that circumnavigates the keyboard may be a lapse on their part, but not necessarily unrealistic.

But it is very, very efficient and runs in parallel; what it lacks in speed it makes up for in its ability to utilize its resources to their maximum potential. I don't think it's plausible that AI will function on conventional computing hardware; I do believe the onset of multicore and manycore processing mark the transition towards the kind of parallel processing necessary to mimic the human brain, but our current technology is not suited to this kind of intelligence.

Yes the brain is extremely parallel, but parallelism alone doesn't make up for the slow speed of neurons. If a calculation relies on the output of a previous calculation then you can't run them in parallel. The brain somehow gets around this.

So, if you scale up this model to human level, if it is biologically accurate it will produce the same effects as a human neocortex. And, as far as we've seen, the BBP is biologically accurate. It may suffer problems as additional brain regions are added, but further refinement of the model will help to smooth Nonetheless, it remains to be seen what will happen...either way, it will advance our knowledge even if it does not lead to artificial consciousness. However, the basic conclusion here is that AGI and artificial consciousness are neither impossible nor outside of the reach of current technological development trends.

You're absolutely right that AI is not theoretically impossible, but what I'm saying it that it's still a very long way off. Many near-future sci-fi stories include very advanced human-like AI and that's not realistic.

Why would that be unrealistic? It's an android meant to appear like a human being. That Weyland-Yutani forgot to add an android-computer interface that circumnavigates the keyboard may be a lapse on their part, but not necessarily unrealistic.

LOL!!

If Bishop's primary purpose was to imitate a human then no, it wouldn't be unrealistic. However, his primary purpose is to be a military medical officer. It's just stupid to make him spend minutes or even hours typing something on a keyboard when he could complete the transaction in nanoseconds with a suitable interface.

Yanno, I once saw a website (apparently m aintained by guys who have WAY too much t ime on their hands) and they did an analysis of the Death Star II, specifically, the impact on ENdor of this massive object exploding in low orbit.

First, using pixel counts from the creen they got an approximate size for DS2 comparing Luke to the shuttle, the shuttle to the docking bay, the docking bay to the equatorial band around the Death Star, then the width of the band to the radius. They then got an approximate mass for the Death Star.

They then calculated the approximiate amount of energy released by the explosion based on the size of the blast, and so on and on and on...

They concluded that

1)Anybody with a direct line of sight to the explosion would have been killed instantly by radiated energy. (So the scene showing the Ewoks cheering as they looked up at the explosion wouldn't have survived.

2)The mass of the object, even if blown to dust, would have filled the atmosphere with high energy particles which would have clouded the atmosphere and resulted in a nuclear winter.

3)They hypothesized (sp?) that the X-!ings show firing off fireworks may have, in fact, been destroying larger chunks of debris that were coming down into the atmosphere

4)They noted that apparently, there's a passage in one of the Rogue Squadron novels that implies the Ewoks may have gone extinct after the Battle of Endor, which would lend some credence to those conclusions.

Too much time on their hands...

You are aware that that particular essay was composed by a guy with a PhD in Astrophyics, who frequently wrote Star Wars inspired pieces in his academic career?

Yes the brain is extremely parallel, but parallelism alone doesn't make up for the slow speed of neurons. If a calculation relies on the output of a previous calculation then you can't run them in parallel. The brain somehow gets around this.

Doesn't each neuron have multiple axons and dendrites connecting it to each other neuron? I would think that the brain uses some kind of distribution to break up a given calculation across multiple neurons, allowing complex linear problems to be solved simultaneously, or at least at rates fast enough to approximate simultaneous calculation.

(There's also the possibility that the brain does function as a quantum computer, which would mean strong AIs would necessarily use quantum computers rather than conventional ones.)

You're absolutely right that AI is not theoretically impossible, but what I'm saying it that it's still a very long way off. Many near-future sci-fi stories include very advanced human-like AI and that's not realistic.

I think it depends. I would say fully human AI at any time earlier than the 2020's is impossible, in the 2020's highly unlikely, in the 2030's unlikely, and in the 2040's to 2050's it's likely.

All of these have multiple what-if factors; for example, D-Wave's quantum computer has preempted the expected development date for these devices by a good 30 years, and for all intents and purposes has to be taken in to account. Whether or not this would lead to earlier strong AI, who knows, but it is certain it will advance the technologies necessary to develop it.

Recall that human-level or superhuman AI is the trigger for a technological Singularity, and nobody is predicting that any earlier than the 2040's. That's not to say we won't have strong AI before that, just that its use and abilities will be fairly limited and not enough to do the kinds of work with which it is tasked in science fiction.

Why would that be unrealistic? It's an android meant to appear like a human being. That Weyland-Yutani forgot to add an android-computer interface that circumnavigates the keyboard may be a lapse on their part, but not necessarily unrealistic.

It's unlikely to be an oversight, either. Why does Data use standard controls? Why does C3PO?

Certain 'types' of artificial human are designed to appear human - and that means acting - in many cases - in the same slow, clumsy fashions that humans do.

(Incidentally, in Alien 3, there is evidence that androids can be hooked directly to technology... so we should proabably assume it's mainly a matter of aesthetics and anthropomimicry).

(Incidentally, in Alien 3, there is evidence that androids can be hooked directly to technology... so we should proabably assume it's mainly a matter of aesthetics and anthropomimicry).
After that flick, i ran around with an amp probe, sticking it into every dark spot i could find on people, hoping to engage in some deeper and more efficient communication.

It's unlikely to be an oversight, either. Why does Data use standard controls? Why does C3PO?

Certain 'types' of artificial human are designed to appear human - and that means acting - in many cases - in the same slow, clumsy fashions that humans do.

(Incidentally, in Alien 3, there is evidence that androids can be hooked directly to technology... so we should proabably assume it's mainly a matter of aesthetics and anthropomimicry).

Honestly, it seems less realistic that humans would use keyboards in the future, even the near future; right now, in 2008, the trend is clearly towards getting rid of peripherals and increasing the ease of interaction with computers. Same is true with wires; the market wants portable computers that maximize their usefulness, not merely updates of mechanisms that are fundamentally rooted in the typewriter. In the future, we'd be talking full-scale brain-computer implants, man-machine interface and enhancements, wearable computers, all that stuff.

So, it seems profoundly odd that anachronisms like keyboards would be in common use (it might have use with those operating outside the mainstream, simply to help avoid detection, but not in general use and certainly not in societies that aren't dystopic).

Honestly, it seems less realistic that humans would use keyboards in the future, even the near future; right now, in 2008, the trend is clearly towards getting rid of peripherals and increasing the ease of interaction with computers. Same is true with wires; the market wants portable computers that maximize their usefulness, not merely updates of mechanisms that are fundamentally rooted in the typewriter. In the future, we'd be talking full-scale brain-computer implants, man-machine interface and enhancements, wearable computers, all that stuff.

So, it seems profoundly odd that anachronisms like keyboards would be in common use (it might have use with those operating outside the mainstream, simply to help avoid detection, but not in general use and certainly not in societies that aren't dystopic).

Technology advances apace, this is true - but it does it in terms of paradigm shifts - and technology isn't uprooted until the zeitgeist determines it be so.

I still know people that watch video cassettes, and listen to music on tape. Some even still play vinyl. The 'future' happened, and yet somehow, the past stayed with us.

We're a confused species... half experimental and half conservative, balancing ourselves precariously on a rock till we are sure we can make it to the next.

A friend of mine managed to get a grant for a laptop, due to a learning disability. Her laptop ended up being much like my own, but with some cute speech-recognition software, some state-of-the-art editting software, and some hardware mine didn't have - like a microphone. At that point it occured to me that the keyboard is dead - and yet - that was a decade ago.

The software hasn't devolved... the products get better year on year - so why aren't we all using voice-operated computers? Because... in a lot of ways, the keyboard is so easy... because you might well have to use it anyway to edit your spoken words, and because.. well, keyboards are cheap as dirt, whilst all the speech kit can get a bit pricey.

I'd say the next logical advance is there - the talk operated machines. A little more wrinkle-ironing maybe. But even so - I'm betting we won't lose keyboards completely... especially not where data are collected.

Technology advances apace, this is true - but it does it in terms of paradigm shifts - and technology isn't uprooted until the zeitgeist determines it be so.

Yeah, but the zeitgeist is changing pretty damn fast. Five years ago it was a rarity to have an MP3 player or a wireless connection, ten years ago laptops and broadband were a luxury, the internet was little more than a novelty fifteen years ago, and so on.

I mean, just look at the sheer enthusiasm for the Wii; it allows you to interact directly with the console, something which had never really been done before (unless you count that gun thing for the NES). Same is true with wireless controllers, wireless USB, foldable keyboards; people want powerful, portable computing that can do anything with a minimal amount of clutter, and if something can for a reasonable price reduce the amount of work and time people need to get what they want. as well as make it more customizable and interactive, it's going to take off.

Obviously, there are people who will use older technology (and for example, when compared to CDs, it's actually not hard to argue vinyl LPs have significant quality advantages), and they will remain a segment of the market. Of course, it's also true that they drive innovation; in many cases, this market drives advances in older technologies that end up enhancing newer ones.

A friend of mine managed to get a grant for a laptop, due to a learning disability. Her laptop ended up being much like my own, but with some cute speech-recognition software, some state-of-the-art editting software, and some hardware mine didn't have - like a microphone. At that point it occured to me that the keyboard is dead - and yet - that was a decade ago.

The software hasn't devolved... the products get better year on year - so why aren't we all using voice-operated computers? Because... in a lot of ways, the keyboard is so easy... because you might well have to use it anyway to edit your spoken words, and because.. well, keyboards are cheap as dirt, whilst all the speech kit can get a bit pricey.[

I'd say the next logical advance is there - the talk operated machines. A little more wrinkle-ironing maybe. But even so - I'm betting we won't lose keyboards completely... especially not where data are collected.

Before I begin, this is seriously tl;dr, but if you're interested read on because it highlights my own skepticism of the utility of speech recognition in the wake of BCI:

First and foremost, speech recognition is in fact considerably more difficult than BMI/MMI technology; it seems paradoxical, but recent advances have shown that it's actually easier to translate thoughts in to computer commands or words than it is to translate speech. From a cost perspective, it also makes sense; there's only one major step of translation, as opposed to the multiple levels required for SR.

I mean, it's generally easier to think and write out a complex idea than it is to describe it in words; I think that's really the crux of why speech recognition never took off, not to mention for very long or very complex data it is far more tiring and time-consuming to speak than it is to type. Me speaking out my thoughts and having the computer write them really isn't any improvement over me going to a typist and doing the same thing; not to mention it's almost certain the typist would be able to do so with far fewer errors and an as fast if not faster rate of producing the desired text.

Most importantly, from an accessibility standpoint, it's not very useful; given that a huge component of these new technologies is accessibility, SR doesn't really deliver. A deaf person can type, and a blind person is still heavily challenged in using a computer regardless of an SR system. BCIs, on the other hand, allow anyone with a functioning brain to use them, effectively creating a solid universal accessibility system that extends far beyond current methods. The only real niche use would be in those missing or lacking functionality in their hands or arms; however, given advances in prosthetics (or more accurately proto-bionics), these barriers to keyboard use are slowly eroding in and of themselves.

Really, the total superiority of BCIs strongly suggests that SR technology will have a pretty limited use (it's more likely to be used in non-computing devices than anything) and will be mostly surpassed by other technologies without its own period of use.

litterary science fiction is more believability driven. sure publishers have to make money too. but that is what their audiance demands.

movies and tv are driven entirely by mass appeal to a broader (and dare i say lazier and less tecnologicly well informed?) audiance so there realism takes a back seat to drama and 'entertainment values' (read box office profits and ratings).

its pretty much as simple as that.

=^^=
.../\...

Star War, by far.

Any realistic sci fi has got to be developments we might make to our own society...not discovering another...

The odds on us discovering new lifeforms that we can comprehend in space are billions to 1...therefore advances in our own society...be it a genetic or technological advancement is alot more plausable...

If there was life out there...and it was in a form we could recognise as life...then it would probably take another few million years to communicate with it...look at dolphins...supposedly intelligent and sentient life forms on our own planet and we cant even talk to them...what makes you think we could talk to aliens hahaha

Star War, by far.
yes because using the force is obviously a power any padawan can attain. And what better thing to build in the universe than i death star (but i like the idea), i like the mind tricks personally, could have a good laugh if they really existed.

The Antares novels (Antares Dawn, Antares Passage, Antares Victory) by Michael McCollum crush virtually anything else I have ever read or seen in terms of realism. A few examples:

Oh, and for the record, the Antares series is set in the 26th century.

FTL: Travel between star systems is accomplished via "foldpoints" which are a natural phenomenon. Larger stars attract more foldpoints (which, when you get down to the details, is realistic). Within star systems, all ships are limited to well below the speed of light.

Sublight travel: Ships accelerate and decelerate realistically. Crossing a star system can take up to two weeks, depending on your speed. Most ships do not accelerate beyond a few gravities, since anything more would be harmful to the crew. The reader gets the idea that space is vast. In the first battle scene, the human and alien fleets are approaching at a net velocity of 2.5% of the speed of light, yet the captain still has time to take a nap and shower prior to battle (since it will be several hours before the human and alien fleets come into contact).

Weapons: A variety of space weapons are used, including nukes, lasers, particle beams, and antimatter projectors (the aliens are also fond of antimatter bombs). Beams are normally invisible, and consoles do not explode. Ships do not go up in balls of fire - they are totally obliterated. And even a small piece of debris traveling at high speed can cause massive damage.

Communication: Communication is limited by the speed of light. Two ships on the opposite side of the system will experience big-time communications lag. The only way to get a signal from one system to another in anything resembling reasonable time is to send a courier ship through a foldpoint.

Aliens: The Ryall aliens (the only sentient species apart from humans) are neither totally alien nor anthropomorphic. They aren't humanoid, but resemble semiaquatic reptilian centaurs. A Ryall is roughly the same height as a human. Ryall think a little differently from humans, but they will usually come up with similar solutions to the same problem. Ryall technology is slightly different from human technology, but neither side has a significant edge. The Ryall evolved on a similar planet to Earth, and can survive in Earthlike environments. They are, however, immune to Terran diseases, and we are immune to those of the Ryall.

Alien languages: Exactly how the humans deciphered the Ryall language is not clear, since it happened many years prior to the events in the book. There are translator modules that allow communication between the two. It is also possible for a human to learn Ryall, or for a Ryall to learn English, though vocal differences make this difficult.

Gravity: Artificial gravity is either provided by the ship's thrust, or by rotating the ship when stationary (ships are designed so they can function in either mode).

AI: Not mentioned much. The actual millisecond-to-millesecond running of a ship in combat is done by sophisticated battle AIs. These AIs can fire weapons, take evasive maneuvers, etc., much faster than humans can. Humans can see patterns and direct overall strategy. However, the AIs are not considered sentient by any means. Also, we see a robotic lawnmower in one scene - there are presumably other robots that can accomplish simple tasks like this.

I give the Antares novels an 8.5 on the hardness scale. On the list of things not to include, only FTL travel, lots of Earthlike planets, and aliens are included. FTL travel doesn't bend the laws of physics very much, and while the aliens think like we do, they don't look like we do (but points are still lost for similar tech levels). However, the Antares series gets bonus points for EPIC SPACE BATTLES THAT OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. I don't know of anyone else who has this.

You are aware that that particular essay was composed by a guy with a PhD in Astrophyics, who frequently wrote Star Wars inspired pieces in his academic career?

I was not. Thanks for the tidbit!

However, the Antares series gets bonus points for EPIC SPACE BATTLES THAT OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. I don't know of anyone else who has this.

Although he often gets written off as a 'pulp' writer, Harry Harrison's "To The Stars" trilogy has quite a 'hard' edge, including a fairly 'hard' physics space battle, using such high tech weaponry as sand.

Although he often gets written off as a 'pulp' writer, Harry Harrison's "To The Stars" trilogy has quite a 'hard' edge, including a fairly 'hard' physics space battle, using such high tech weaponry as sand.

I'll look those up sometimes. I've read Harry Harrison's Stars & Stripes trilogy.

The Antares novels (Antares Dawn, Antares Passage, Antares Victory) by Michael McCollum crush virtually anything else I have ever read or seen in terms of realism. A few examples:

Oh, and for the record, the Antares series is set in the 26th century.

FTL: Travel between star systems is accomplished via "foldpoints" which are a natural phenomenon. Larger stars attract more foldpoints (which, when you get down to the details, is realistic). Within star systems, all ships are limited to well below the speed of light.

Sublight travel: Ships accelerate and decelerate realistically. Crossing a star system can take up to two weeks, depending on your speed. Most ships do not accelerate beyond a few gravities, since anything more would be harmful to the crew. The reader gets the idea that space is vast. In the first battle scene, the human and alien fleets are approaching at a net velocity of 2.5% of the speed of light, yet the captain still has time to take a nap and shower prior to battle (since it will be several hours before the human and alien fleets come into contact).

Weapons: A variety of space weapons are used, including nukes, lasers, particle beams, and antimatter projectors (the aliens are also fond of antimatter bombs). Beams are normally invisible, and consoles do not explode. Ships do not go up in balls of fire - they are totally obliterated. And even a small piece of debris traveling at high speed can cause massive damage.

Communication: Communication is limited by the speed of light. Two ships on the opposite side of the system will experience big-time communications lag. The only way to get a signal from one system to another in anything resembling reasonable time is to send a courier ship through a foldpoint.

Aliens: The Ryall aliens (the only sentient species apart from humans) are neither totally alien nor anthropomorphic. They aren't humanoid, but resemble semiaquatic reptilian centaurs. A Ryall is roughly the same height as a human. Ryall think a little differently from humans, but they will usually come up with similar solutions to the same problem. Ryall technology is slightly different from human technology, but neither side has a significant edge. The Ryall evolved on a similar planet to Earth, and can survive in Earthlike environments. They are, however, immune to Terran diseases, and we are immune to those of the Ryall.

Alien languages: Exactly how the humans deciphered the Ryall language is not clear, since it happened many years prior to the events in the book. There are translator modules that allow communication between the two. It is also possible for a human to learn Ryall, or for a Ryall to learn English, though vocal differences make this difficult.

Gravity: Artificial gravity is either provided by the ship's thrust, or by rotating the ship when stationary (ships are designed so they can function in either mode).

AI: Not mentioned much. The actual millisecond-to-millesecond running of a ship in combat is done by sophisticated battle AIs. These AIs can fire weapons, take evasive maneuvers, etc., much faster than humans can. Humans can see patterns and direct overall strategy. However, the AIs are not considered sentient by any means. Also, we see a robotic lawnmower in one scene - there are presumably other robots that can accomplish simple tasks like this.

I give the Antares novels an 8.5 on the hardness scale. On the list of things not to include, only FTL travel, lots of Earthlike planets, and aliens are included. FTL travel doesn't bend the laws of physics very much, and while the aliens think like we do, they don't look like we do (but points are still lost for similar tech levels). However, the Antares series gets bonus points for EPIC SPACE BATTLES THAT OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. I don't know of anyone else who has this.


I'd only read the first two of those books, and didn't know that the third one existed: Thank you for the news.
The opening scenes from the first book reminded me of the opening scenes from Niven & Pournelle's 'The Mote In God's Eye'...

I'd only read the first two of those books, and didn't know that the third one existed: Thank you for the news.
The opening scenes from the first book reminded me of the opening scenes from Niven & Pournelle's 'The Mote In God's Eye'...

FINALLY! Someone else who has read those books.

How can you possibly call that realistic?!?

Mars is unpopulated in case you didnt know! :rolleyes:

Yes, but he made the most convincing (and realistic) portrait of a populated Mars. And it is not exactly like we have a coral reef populated by a spaceship which crash landed hundreds of years ago.

All science fiction is fantasy to some extent. The only "realistic" science fiction, in my opinion, are shows like CSI and other contemporary dramas that use real science in their plot.

In my opinion, The Force is every bit as real as a Dilithium Crystal. Technical details are only icing on the fantasy cake. I don't make the distinction between "hard" and "soft" science fiction, that is the domain of elitists IMO, because at the end of the day, neither hard nor soft science fiction are real.

It really is a philosophical problem; namely, the problem of induction. We can't really be sure what will be discovered tomorrow. In 1904 scientists were still trying to figure out how light particles moved in the interstellar ether. In 1905 Einsten published "On the electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and created relativity.

For all we know, tomorrow a book may be published that knocks the science world on its head and makes all of our "hardest" science fiction as quaint as 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea or Time Machine

So when I think about realism in science fiction, I am not primarily concerned with technological gizmos, I am more concerned wtih human reaction towards said technology. That has always been the point of Science fiction. Consider the classics:
In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the protagonist never describes the process in which he reanimates dead tissue: he just talks about it coming to him and making so much sense. But we remember Frankenstein as a story about man inventing something that becomes a monster.
In Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, does it ever go into the details of how the elixer works? Or do we remember it for being a story of a man whose obsession with himself turns himself into a monster?
Even the "hard" science fiction of the day, like Moby Dick, isn't remembered for its detailed accounts of whaling, it is remembered as a story about a man's lust for vengeance destroying him.

So in this mind frame, my picks for the most "realistic" science fictions are as follows:
The Foundation series - Based on "the decline and fall of the roman empire", which tracks the rise of a new empire, as well as how mind control and psychic powers would affect human populations. Asimov is a perfect example of my point. He talks about Nuclear power being the power source of the future, as well as aliens who use punch-card technology in their computers. These technicals hardly stand up to modern scientific understanding, but he is still revered as a Sci Fi Grandmaster.
Anything by Robert Heinlein - Heinlein has a knack for making his novels technical enough to be be interesting (but not TOO technical), but more memorable are his stories. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is remembered as a story about a lunar rebellion, not a story about people who live on the moon and mine ice and use catapults to launch stuff to Earth. Starship Troopers is remembered as a story about a coming of age military story while exploring the boundaries of societal norms. He also explores not just military technology, but military theory in general, and today almost every sci fi with a military slant owes some debt to Heinlein.
The Dune Series - primarily explores the concepts of human interaction with AI, as well as concepts in human government, and does so on a scale that can only be described as breathtaking.
Star Trek - despite the technobabble, I enjoy this series for its optimism; how humans can build a harmonious society, as well as focusing on the exciting spirit of discovery and exploration.
Star Wars - the Greatest coming of age story in modern literature. Is it even fathomable to catalogue the extent as to how much Star Wars has influenced the sci-fi and fantasy genres?
Warhammer 40k - This is a great story about humanity dealing with stagnation and decline, and how religious superstition can supplant science and technology as having the favor of people's hearts. It also examines how people react to aliens who are just plain better than they: Orks are better at war, tyranids better at efficiency, eldar at being intelligent, chaos at being more religious, and the Tau at being more socially harmonious. The human response is, of course, pure and unadulterated hatred.
Mass Effect - I just finished this excellent game. It is memorable because it explores the concepts of humanity coming of age in an alien world, as well as the nature of government and the steps it is allowed to take in order to produce favorable results for its citizens.

These are the stories whose point spans generations and make them good reads many decades after they were written. Stories that have bland plots and uninspiring characters but are filled with technical doodads are never remembered, and after a short while, become as interesting as yesterday's newspaper.

litterary science fiction is more believability driven. sure publishers have to make money too. but that is what their audiance demands.

movies and tv are driven entirely by mass appeal to a broader (and dare i say lazier and less tecnologicly well informed?) audiance so there realism takes a back seat to drama and 'entertainment values' (read box office profits and ratings).

its pretty much as simple as that.

=^^=
.../\...

Shows like CSI, Law and Order, House, etc, do demonstrate that you can include realism into a show to great effect and still produce a Good Show or Movie. While those are not science fiction, they *do* deal with areas of expertise not normally seen by the "masses". They're doing well, therefore, you should be able to make "realistic" science fiction shows that work well. HINT FOR PRODUCERS: great shows must be great in *all* areas. We want realistic SF *with* believable characters, not soap-operas stitched onto space-operas.

For all we know, tomorrow a book may be published that knocks the science world on its head and makes all of our "hardest" science fiction as quaint as 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea or Time Machine

Close but no banana. New science does *not* invalidate old science, but rather expands the boundaries. Einstien's theory of relativity did not mean that Newton was worthless. Nor did Hawking and Wheeler's works invalidate Einstein. Any new discoveries will likewise build upon existing ones.

This is one reason why Stanley Schmidt, the 30-year running editor for Analog Science Fiction and Fact (the only Hard SF magazine left in North America, perhaps in the world), insisted that SF stories do not contradict known science. You can make up new stuff, but don't mess with the old.

So when I think about realism in science fiction, I am not primarily concerned with technological gizmos, I am more concerned wtih human reaction towards said technology. That has always been the point of Science fiction. Consider the classics:
In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, the protagonist never describes the process in which he reanimates dead tissue: he just talks about it coming to him and making so much sense. But we remember Frankenstein as a story about man inventing something that becomes a monster.
In Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, does it ever go into the details of how the elixer works? Or do we remember it for being a story of a man whose obsession with himself turns himself into a monster?
Even the "hard" science fiction of the day, like Moby Dick, isn't remembered for its detailed accounts of whaling, it is remembered as a story about a man's lust for vengeance destroying him.

Well said!

So in this mind frame, my picks for the most "realistic" science fictions are as follows:
The Foundation series - Based on "the decline and fall of the roman empire", which tracks the rise of a new empire, as well as how mind control and psychic powers would affect human populations.

Ten years ago I might have agreed with you; now I'm not so sure, but that's my opinion.

Anything by Robert Heinlein - Heinlein has a knack for making his novels technical enough to be be interesting (but not TOO technical), but more memorable are his stories. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is remembered as a story about a lunar rebellion, not a story about people who live on the moon and mine ice and use catapults to launch stuff to Earth. Starship Troopers is remembered as a story about a coming of age military story while exploring the boundaries of societal norms. He also explores military theory and future advances, and today almost every sci fi with a military slant owes some debt to Heinlein.

Too much of a debt, I think. And not just military SF, but lots of "near future, good ol'American SF" dips into the Heinlein well far to frequently, I think. The result is I can't read his works anymore; they seem too stale.

Warhammer 40k - This is a great story about humanity dealing with stagnation and decline, and how religious superstition can supplant science and technology as having the favor of people's hearts. It also examines how people react to aliens who are just plain better than they: Orks are better at war, tyranids better at efficiency, eldar at being intelligent, chaos at being more religious, and the Tau at being more socially harmonious. The human response is, of course, pure and unadulterated hatred.

It's also one hell of a disappointing future. We need more optimistic scenarios, like Star Trek (though perhaps in a whole new universe? The ST franchise, has become as stale as Heinlein...)

All that said, you've got some interesting ideas here. It was a pleasure to read them.

Shows like CSI, Law and Order, House, etc, do demonstrate that you can include realism into a show to great effect and still produce a Good Show or Movie. While those are not science fiction, they *do* deal with areas of expertise not normally seen by the "masses". They're doing well, therefore, you should be able to make "realistic" science fiction shows that work well. HINT FOR PRODUCERS: great shows must be great in *all* areas. We want realistic SF *with* believable characters, not soap-operas stitched onto space-operas.

well said! That's the reason I never liked the new BattleStar Galactica. It feels like I am watching 90210 in space.

Close but no banana. New science does *not* invalidate old science, but rather expands the boundaries. Einstien's theory of relativity did not mean that Newton was worthless. Nor did Hawking and Wheeler's works invalidate Einstein. Any new discoveries will likewise build upon existing ones.

This is one reason why Stanley Schmidt, the 30-year running editor for Analog Science Fiction and Fact (the only Hard SF magazine left in North America, perhaps in the world), insisted that SF stories do not contradict known science. You can make up new stuff, but don't mess with the old.

I agree emphatically with what you said. Science is a tapestry, not a gameshow. But I didn't say that the old stuff was invalid, I said it was quaint. Aliens using ultra-advanced punch-card technology to run their computers is not exactly cutting edge anymore, but we still apreciate Asimov's fiction, even if sometimes it feels a bit dated.

Well said!

thanks!

Ten years ago I might have agreed with you; now I'm not so sure, but that's my opinion.

I am curious as to why you think that. I personally prefered the original trilogy to the later novels because the later ones seem to depart too radically from his original themes.

Too much of a debt, I think. And not just military SF, but lots of "near future, good ol'American SF" dips into the Heinlein well far to frequently, I think. The result is I can't read his works anymore; they seem too stale.

I agree that too many wannabees try to cash in on the work Heinlein pioneered (what?! another science fiction involving killer bugs? who'da thunk?!), but that shouldn't detract from the original works. I've seen enough sci fi about rebels overthrowing their oppressive government, but Heinlein did it first, and Heinlein did it best.

I read the Moon is a Harsh Mistress for the first time not too long ago. Even after sifting through tripe like Ultraviolet and Aeon Flux, I found it as refreshing as anything regarding sci fi with a rebellious edge.

I hated the Starship Troopers movie for that reason. It's like Veerhoven wizzed on Heinlein's grave when he decided to name his silly little sci fi after one of the greats in the genre.

It's also one hell of a disappointing future. We need more optimistic scenarios, like Star Trek (though perhaps in a whole new universe? The ST franchise, has become as stale as Heinlein...)

I never said it wasn't :). But humanity has experienced decline like that in its past, so it can be taken as a jagged pill that has to be swallowed. That's how I look at it.

I agree that ST has derided from its original fun a little too far. Enterprise was no where near as interesting as the original series.

I guess Heinlein's ideas are milked to death, but his actual works IMO are woefully underrepresented. The only thing that I can think of was the Starship Troopers movie, that travesty. But most of his best works, Moon is a Harsh Mistress, The Man who Walks through walls, etc, have never seen wider audiences, which is a shame.

All that said, you've got some interesting ideas here. It was a pleasure to read them.

Thanks! I try to look at it from a literary perspective, in terms of prose, motifs, and literary genres, so I like to pretend that gives me a little more oversight into the matter :)

I've always felt that cyberpunk sci-fi has always had the highest level of realism. Granted, some of the science of cyberpunk conventions seemed a little far fetched at first, but within the thirty years since Neuromancer was published, technology has in many cases advanced faster predicted. Many of the staples of cyberpunk are already commonplace in post-industrial societies, and the more fantastic ones are merely right around the corner.

But even more than that, cyberpunk has a gritty level of human realism; so realistic it hurts, in fact. Technology does not necesarily liberate, and it seems there is a growing trend for the use of technology to enslave and control. Cyberpunk perfectly captures this, and grittily portrays the consequences of technology and power centers left unchecked.

The Antares novels (Antares Dawn, Antares Passage, Antares Victory) by Michael McCollum crush virtually anything else I have ever read or seen in terms of realism.

No, I haven't read them. However your description leaves me a bit sceptical as to the hardness.

Oh, and for the record, the Antares series is set in the 26th century.

Generally speaking, the further away timewise, the softer it is.

FTL: Travel between star systems is accomplished via "foldpoints" which are a natural phenomenon. Larger stars attract more foldpoints (which, when you get down to the details, is realistic). Within star systems, all ships are limited to well below the speed of light.

Pretty soft there. Nothing we currently know in physics predicts or explains "foldpoints", making it unreal FTL transport.

Sublight travel: Ships accelerate and decelerate realistically. Crossing a star system can take up to two weeks, depending on your speed. Most ships do not accelerate beyond a few gravities, since anything more would be harmful to the crew. The reader gets the idea that space is vast. In the first battle scene, the human and alien fleets are approaching at a net velocity of 2.5% of the speed of light, yet the captain still has time to take a nap and shower prior to battle (since it will be several hours before the human and alien fleets come into contact).

Sounds good.

Weapons: A variety of space weapons are used, including nukes, lasers, particle beams, and antimatter projectors (the aliens are also fond of antimatter bombs). Beams are normally invisible, and consoles do not explode. Ships do not go up in balls of fire - they are totally obliterated. And even a small piece of debris traveling at high speed can cause massive damage.

OK.

Communication: Communication is limited by the speed of light. Two ships on the opposite side of the system will experience big-time communications lag. The only way to get a signal from one system to another in anything resembling reasonable time is to send a courier ship through a foldpoint.

Well, if they're using "foldpoint" FTL transport for comms, they have FTL comms. And courier ships suggest that FTL transport is further unrealistic in being overly easy/available.

Aliens: The Ryall aliens (the only sentient species apart from humans) are neither totally alien nor anthropomorphic. They aren't humanoid, but resemble semiaquatic reptilian centaurs. A Ryall is roughly the same height as a human. Ryall think a little differently from humans, but they will usually come up with similar solutions to the same problem. Ryall technology is slightly different from human technology, but neither side has a significant edge. The Ryall evolved on a similar planet to Earth, and can survive in Earthlike environments. They are, however, immune to Terran diseases, and we are immune to those of the Ryall.

Bad aliens.

Alien languages: Exactly how the humans deciphered the Ryall language is not clear, since it happened many years prior to the events in the book. There are translator modules that allow communication between the two. It is also possible for a human to learn Ryall, or for a Ryall to learn English, though vocal differences make this difficult.

Very bad aliens.

Gravity: Artificial gravity is either provided by the ship's thrust, or by rotating the ship when stationary (ships are designed so they can function in either mode).

AI: Not mentioned much. The actual millisecond-to-millesecond running of a ship in combat is done by sophisticated battle AIs. These AIs can fire weapons, take evasive maneuvers, etc., much faster than humans can. Humans can see patterns and direct overall strategy. However, the AIs are not considered sentient by any means. Also, we see a robotic lawnmower in one scene - there are presumably other robots that can accomplish simple tasks like this.

These are OK.

I give the Antares novels an 8.5 on the hardness scale. On the list of things not to include, only FTL travel, lots of Earthlike planets, and aliens are included. FTL travel doesn't bend the laws of physics very much, and while the aliens think like we do, they don't look like we do (but points are still lost for similar tech levels). However, the Antares series gets bonus points for EPIC SPACE BATTLES THAT OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. I don't know of anyone else who has this.

On the grounds of easy and unexplained FTL and bad aliens, I'd call it 6. That's MHO, YMMV. :)

All science fiction is fantasy to some extent. The only "realistic" science fiction, in my opinion, are shows like CSI and other contemporary dramas that use real science in their plot.



In my opinion, The Force is every bit as real as a Dilithium Crystal. Technical details are only icing on the fantasy cake. I don't make the distinction between "hard" and "soft" science fiction, that is the domain of elitists IMO, because at the end of the day, neither hard nor soft science fiction are real.

First off, the force or dilitium crystals is a false dilema. Both are fantasy, not science fiction. Compare either with the books I mentioned above.

Secondly, here's an excerpt from an essay I linked earlier, on issues in SF. This should help explain why hardness is important.

Still there are some very timely and pressing issues that could stand examination from several authors' different perspectives. One is climate change. Yes, of course, there's no shortage of environmental disaster stories. But I don't mean stories about the onslaught of climate change with individuals in a desperate struggle for personal or family survival.



SF as an explorative form of fiction can help us understand our dilemmas and propose possible future histories. For instance:



• What makes our societies so resistant to accepting the threat of climate change and acting on it?

• What implications do those factors have in progressing towards facing and correcting the problem?

• How will these considerations effect what forces choose what approaches, and how will that shape the future?

• If the US continues to block international accords on climate change, what options does the rest of the world have?

• If the world moved forward on a crash program to stop using fossil fuels, what reactions would there be from countries

dependent on selling oil and how might the world deal with that?

• If large areas of currently populated areas become significantly less habitable and if parts of Antarctica became more

desirable, what sort of contentions / conflicts will result over the land?

• Currently, Greenland is considered a colony of Denmark. What would happen if areas of it became more habitable?

• If Greenland’s melting ice cover drops large numbers of icebergs into the Atlantic, leading to more shipping problems,

will other nations try to blame Denmark?

• How will more icebergs effect shipping?

• Some business sectors are now pushing nuclear power as a solution.

• Where might this lead to in the developed nations?

• What happens if developing nations try to do so and developed nations decide they don't want some of them to

have access to nuclear resources?

• Imagine the commotion if some nation’s government was elected that outlawed most disposable products, oversized

packaging, most non-recyclable materials, fuel-guzzling vehicles and devices, etc.

• How would the conflict between business and government develop in that country?

• How would nations exporting such products respond?

• Since rising temperatures are most pronounced at higher latitudes, how will this impact Russia, Scandinavia and Canada?

• Will far northern nations end up with more habitable / desirable land and have some benefits?

• Will more glacier melt, permafrost changes or other factors cause them more problems?



________________________________________________



Or consider Vinge's Singularity. There've been some books in which something like a technological singularity happens, but what about how humans will deal with the approach of a Singularity in a world where it has been predicted and therefore conscious action can be taken in anticipation to effect it?



• Who might try to accelerate it?

• Who might try to stop it?

• Who might try to steer it in which kinds of directions?

• How will fear that some competing Country B is developing the foundations of a singularity ahead of Country A make

Country A act?

• How will anticipating the developed world will obtain the foundations of a singularity before developing nations effect

what developing nations do?

• How will the shortening time between generations of technology effect the ability to have well tested technology,

maintaining support for multiple generations of products, the ability to have backwards compatibility, etc.?

• How will this effect economic stability?

• Could more rapid automation of jobs result in an unemployment crisis?

• How will advances towards creating super-intelligences be applied by various countries' military for defense

and offense?

• As advances progress towards making super-intelligences, how will designers try to shape the super-intelligence's

attitude towards humans, ethics, goals and psychology?


I've always felt that cyberpunk sci-fi has always had the highest level of realism. Granted, some of the science of cyberpunk conventions seemed a little far fetched at first, but within the thirty years since Neuromancer was published, technology has in many cases advanced faster predicted. Many of the staples of cyberpunk are already commonplace in post-industrial societies, and the more fantastic ones are merely right around the corner.

But even more than that, cyberpunk has a gritty level of human realism; so realistic it hurts, in fact. Technology does not necesarily liberate, and it seems there is a growing trend for the use of technology to enslave and control. Cyberpunk perfectly captures this, and grittily portrays the consequences of technology and power centers left unchecked.

Heh. I've always considered post-cyberpunk to be more realistic. (About a third of the books I listed earlier were post-CP.)

I guess Heinlein's ideas are milked to death, but his actual works IMO are woefully underrepresented. The only thing that I can think of was the Starship Troopers movie...

"Puppet Masters" was one of his, I seem to recall.

Philip K Dick is perhaps a better example of a repeatedly raided resource... although, with the exception of the cheesy "Total Recall" (which still has genius buried in the bodycount), most of his inspirations have been quite well represented - especially Bladerunner and the recent version of "Scanner Darkly".

Or consider Vinge's Singularity. There've been some books in which something like a technological singularity happens, but what about how humans will deal with the approach of a Singularity in a world where it has been predicted and therefore conscious action can be taken in anticipation to effect it?


I was thinking about this, but then I realized: we're not really going to notice it until hindsight. To a person from 1800, we're in a singularity now; the rate of change would appear to be many orders of magnitude faster than what they experienced, and the same would likely apply to us if we were able to travel to 2050 (or whenever...it could actually happen earlier) and see the society then.

However, since we tend to be acclimated to this change rather than have it thrust upon us, it's a lot harder to notice appreciable acceleration even if it's there. As a result, it's far more likely that we'll look back in 2060 or whatever and say "yeah, that's when it happened" rather than be consciously aware of it as it happens. This is both a blessing and a curse; it makes it harder for someone to disrupt what will likely be a nigh-universally better condition for humanity, but it also makes it far more difficult to offset the risks associated with such a dramatic change.

I should really get around to making an essay out of these ideas, you know that?

Heh. I've always considered post-cyberpunk to be more realistic. (About a third of the books I listed earlier were post-CP.)

I haven't read much post-CP. A lot of it has seemed on the surface to be a little bit too optimistic for my tastes. What can I say? I love a good dystopia. At least it isn't cyberprep. *shudders*

The only one that I am familiar with is Ghost In the Shell, which is excellent, IMHO. I've also found biopunk and cyber/biopunk fusions to be highly interesting as well.

First off, the force or dilitium crystals is a false dilema. Both are fantasy, not science fiction. Compare either with the books I mentioned above.

Secondly, here's an excerpt from an essay I linked earlier, on issues in SF. This should help explain why hardness is important.

I am not sure what makes comparing the force with the dilithium crystal a false dichotomy. I was demonstrating that no amount of technobabble makes dilitium crystals any more realistic than the technically unexplainable Force. I was comparing the two because Trekkies typically brag about ST being more "realistic" and "harder" than Star Wars.

I think our difference is really semantics, not technical. From what I could tell, you think that the speculated advances should factor in as an integral part of the plot. In otherwords, sci fi shouldn't just be drama in a weird setting, to which I would agree. But this applies to all literature, not just SF. Victor Hugo's Les Miserables has memorable characters and an unforgettable plot, and a large aspect of what made the plot great was its coherence with its setting; revolutionary France. On a literary level, we are talking setting, which along with plot, characterization, and theme make up the basic elements of a story. A novel's setting should be enveloping and relevant, but not at the expense of plot. SF is not unique in the role that setting plays in the genre, but it is unique in the degree to which fans of the genre have expectations regarding setting, so SF writers typically need to spend a lot of time putting the polish on their setting in order to make it palpable to audiences.

I feel that focusing too much on the technical side and not enough on the literary side leaves dry, uninspiring novels that read like a newspaper and grow old just as fast. And sometimes (but not always, as we share a common love in Heinlein), "hard" SF fans don't draw the distinction.

And I can, in fact, compare them with the novels you mentioned. Accelerando, for example, centers around the technological singularity. Many scientists, such as Roger Penrose, believe that true AI is impossible, and that the concept of a technological singularity is just utopianism with a technological slant. That makes Accelerando as every bit as fantasy as Star Wars and Star Trek.

If I wanted realism, why the hell would I look to Sci-Fi for it?

Huh? It's like saying that only comedy movies should be funny, while other genres contain no sense of humour whatsoever.

I like sci-fi but sometimes, it's so silly that it sucks the fun out. Signs is a perfect example. Read below.

Star Gate for TV, the Foundation series for books

You have got to be kidding me! The series where people from other planets speak perfect North American English? And the aliens are little snake like thingies. You cant fit a decent brain into those. And the headgear of aliens, they are like a 5 year old's toy. In the movie, it was cool, disappearing into one's head.

This is a really good way of looking a science fiction. I love Star Trek as much as Star Wars, but I found myself liking it less and less as the series came out. Loved TNG and DS9 for the most part, because they focused on the characters, the situation and the stories more so than anything else. DS9 especially: the technology was there, but it only provided a backdrop for the characters and the politics. It was as natural for them as a TV is for us today. Voyager was mired too much in technobabble, and I didn't even give Enterprise a chance.

Star Wars never did that, and that's why I love it...I kinda fell out of the Star Wars movies as well however, but for different reasons (Medichlorians...GAH!)

BTW: Have you played Mass Effect? That game captured almost everything I love about Sci-Fi: cool technology, various alien races, not TOO much technobabble and a suitably out of this world story. It's also interesting how I see the acronym "FTL" popping up all over the place now. I'd never heard "faster than light" referred to in such a way before that.

I used to enjoy TNG but now I think Star Trek is stupid. I cant get over the fact that all aliens are basically humans with silly foreheads. Sometimes they dont even bother to add those.

Thats not unrealistic.

It is possible that one day we will be able to travel faster than light.
It is possible that one day we will be use laser based weapons.

One example of -ridiculously- unrealistic is:

http://www.poster.net/signs/signs-mel-gibson-3700329.jpg

I dont mind Night Shyamalan, The Village was a masterpiece but this movie is ridicule.
The alien race looks aggressive and plan to conquest the galaxy, or at least Earth, or even just Mel Gibson farm.. their weapon is.. pissing fingers with the range of 3 feet.. ??? dude, a slingshot is more effective than that.

The alien race has the technology to master faster-than-light intergalactic travel, has huge spaceships, can make them invisible.. yet they are unable to destroy a wood door..

WTF? ... I mean really common..
This movie managed to be even more ridicule than H.G.Wells/Spielberg "War of the Worlds"

LOL. Totally agree. And they didnt have water resistant suits either. C'mon!

Sound didn't have this going on though.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/1/3/413fdb497e3f16374a848fa4e86bf3cf.png
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/images/totalenergy2.gif
As far as we can tell, it's physically impossible. From what I gather holding the speed of sound as impossible was about difficult engineering (relatively light and fragile objects and high air resistance don't mix too well), not breaking the Laws of Physics :p

In Event Horizon (which was an ok movie), a guy there had a great explanation which went on something like this: He took a paper and marked two points. A and B. And he asked what the shortest distance between those points was. A straight line between two points, right? That's what we would all answer. But it was wrong. He folded the paper so that the points were touching each other. So the shortest distance between two points is 0 when you fold the space. And he pierced the paper in point A and B and passed a pen from point A to B. Then he unfolded the paper.

I think that was called something like hyperspace or something like that in the movie.

And:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/faster_than_c_000719.html

I haven't read much post-CP. A lot of it has seemed on the surface to be a little bit too optimistic for my tastes. What can I say? I love a good dystopia. At least it isn't cyberprep. *shudders*

The only one that I am familiar with is Ghost In the Shell, which is excellent, IMHO. I've also found biopunk and cyber/biopunk fusions to be highly interesting as well.



I am not sure what makes comparing the force with the dilithium crystal a false dichotomy. I was demonstrating that no amount of technobabble makes dilitium crystals any more realistic than the technically unexplainable Force. I was comparing the two because Trekkies typically brag about ST being more "realistic" and "harder" than Star Wars.

It's a false dicotomy because neither are hard SF, but fantasy. If you wanted to demonstrate your suggestion that hard SF is "fantasy", choose a hard SF example.

I think our difference is really semantics, not technical. From what I could tell, you think that the speculated advances should factor in as an integral part of the plot. In otherwords, sci fi shouldn't just be drama in a weird setting, to which I would agree. But this applies to all literature, not just SF. Victor Hugo's Les Miserables has memorable characters and an unforgettable plot, and a large aspect of what made the plot great was its coherence with its setting; revolutionary France. On a literary level, we are talking setting, which along with plot, characterization, and theme make up the basic elements of a story. A novel's setting should be enveloping and relevant, but not at the expense of plot. SF is not unique in the role that setting plays in the genre, but it is unique in the degree to which fans of the genre have expectations regarding setting, so SF writers typically need to spend a lot of time putting the polish on their setting in order to make it palpable to audiences.

What good literary hard SF should be doing is make us think about the unique issues related to technology and science that is predicted by current science. Soft SF cannot do this, as the science is simply not there. Soft SF can be very enjoyable and literary. The worst is alarmist pseudo-science fiction - like the recent film Day After Tomorrow.

I feel that focusing too much on the technical side and not enough on the literary side leaves dry, uninspiring novels that read like a newspaper and grow old just as fast. And sometimes (but not always, as we share a common love in Heinlein), "hard" SF fans don't draw the distinction.

Indeed and agreed. :)

And I can, in fact, compare them with the novels you mentioned. Accelerando, for example, centers around the technological singularity. Many scientists, such as Roger Penrose, believe that true AI is impossible, and that the concept of a technological singularity is just utopianism with a technological slant. That makes Accelerando as every bit as fantasy as Star Wars and Star Trek.

The singularity, like human caused global climate change, is something I'll agree that should be met with scepticism, however, it both are within the realm of the predictable under current science, unlike the force or dilithium crystals.

I quoted too much of it didn't I, nobody read it :(


I'm reading it, I'm gonna google all books that people suggested here and that I havent heard of. I'm still processing the first page.


After so many average days (which I quite like), I have a very good and very bad day at the same time. I'd rather have another average day, considering that that's what I'm used to, that's what I like and it's (for the next 23 minutes at least) my birthday.[/defeated rant]


I know this is kind of late but HAPPY BIRTHDAY! How old are you now?

I really don't count things like CSI and the like as Science Fiction because the majority of it is not Science Fiction.

another question is "realistic". do you want something that the Science is plausable? Possible? or just that the world fits the environment.

Sure, FTL seems impossible now (and I say seems because decades ago, breaking the sound barrier was deemed Impossible, and many Decades before that, Space flight was impossible, manned missions to the Moon, Microwave ovens, cell phones, heck, some scientists probably thought the internal combustion engine was as fantastic to them as FTL is to us.) but who knows what science will bring forth in the comming decades.

that's why many of the things I suggested seem impossible (humanoid aliens, gastropodical Aliens, FTL) but why I suggested they are realistic on many levels...
1) The author isn't trying to "sell" you the technology. one of the things that put me off of Asminov and Clarke is the fact that they try to explain HOW the technology works. Ok, that's fine with some people, but to try to explain how the ship's Artificial Gravity works is just too much for me.

2) the Reactions to first contact between species. not all first contact is smooth and okeydokey. there will be misunderstandings, suspicions and strife.

3) the Technology is part of the environment. nowdays, technology is taken for granted. The average citizen doesn't try to understand how the picture is sent to your magic box, but accept the fact that turning on the T.V. is a normal everyday occurance.

That being said... the most realistic Science Fiction would be in my opinion:
Bionic Woman, Knight Rider, Jake 2.0,

Where the science is fiction yet not so much so that it's conception isn't possible. Where the details are explained once and not everytime... and most importantly, the least amount of disbelif is suspended.

I quoted too much of it didn't I, nobody read it :(
tl;ra :p

I don't understand how Starcraft is so soft. Aside from the entirety of the Protoss race, things are pretty well explained (and plausible).

I know which show is not the most realistic sci-fi: the anime The Glass Fleet. Plz don't laugh, cuz these people are being serious.

Here's a plot summary and review excerpt of it that I found.

Plot summary

In a far off galaxy lies a rich kingdom ruled by an oppressive noble class. The self-proclaimed ruler of this opulent territory is the Holy Emperor, Vetti Lunard Sforza de Roselait. Under his rule, the nobles have enjoyed extreme luxury and excess at the expense of the lower class.

However, a revolution is under way led by the young nobleman, Michel Volban de Cabelle, who leads the People’s Army against Vetti’s rule. Michel and his revolutionaries are too weak to pose any real threat to Vetti, yet for some unknown reason, Vetti desires to capture the nobleman alive.

After a fierce space battle with Vetti’s fleet, Michel’s ship is saved from obliteration by a powerful glass space cruiser. Michel wishes to form an alliance with the captain of this mysterious ship, but learns the ship’s captain, Cleo Aiolos Corbeille de Veil, is little better than a Space Pirate. Cleo claims to be descended from the ruling class, which was rumored to have been killed 20 years prior, and is using his ill gotten gains to reclaim his throne.

Cleo and Michel reluctantly join forces to quash Vetti and his tight grip on the galaxy with the help from the amazing glass fleet.

Review

Imagine crossing the French Revolution with Flash Gordan. Then imagine adding to the mix the high flung flavor of the 1950’s science fiction serials (John Carter of Mars comes first to mind) and add a dash of quasi-steam punk, the barest touch of yaoi and moe fan service. Can’t imagine it? Then watch Glass Fleet because this anime is the ugly love child of all of the above.

Suspension of belief is paramount to most anime viewing. It’s the added necessity that allows us to believe that what we’re seeing isn’t a dumb concept which would never work in reality. Saying that, I positively could not suspend my belief when watching this anime.

First off, the series takes place in the vacuum of space. Why is there wind, fire, and, well, breathable air, in a vacuum? Why doesn’t anybody need a space suit, of whatever kind, to leave a ship? Why isn’t the ship imploding when struck by a cannonball?

That’s the other thing. Glass Fleet used a mish-mosh of technologies that seemed to be a cross of steampunk and some other random, made-up technology. Steampunk only works when it follows some laws of physics or is convincing in its application. I can believe steam powered planes and cloud cruisers, and even steam laser guns, but no way in hell do I believe that steam and manpower can achieve interstellar travel.

http://theanimeblog.com/2007/10/10/anime-review-glass-fleet-volume-one/

Not to mention our hero's ship is frigging made of glass! Not just some of it, all of it! Don't hit a dust particle, or you're frigging screwed! But no need to worry about realistic velocieties and debris, space is a frigging ocean in this one. And ships fight like old 18th century ships of line, casually cruising up next to each other and then letting fly with a volly of cannons and such.

I am not sure what makes comparing the force with the dilithium crystal a false dichotomy. I was demonstrating that no amount of technobabble makes dilitium crystals any more realistic than the technically unexplainable Force.

Not strictly true....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectricity

It's a false dicotomy because neither are hard SF, but fantasy. If you wanted to demonstrate your suggestion that hard SF is "fantasy", choose a hard SF example.

Well this person certainly seems to disagree:

Not strictly true....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectricity

I disagree with him on the fact that if dilithium crystals did have any sort of plausibility to them, there would be scientists trying to create them.

But perhaps I am a bit hazy on my definitions because I have often heard Star Trek called "hard" SF. Where do these Hard SF fans go wrong, in your opinion?

What good literary hard SF should be doing is make us think about the unique issues related to technology and science that is predicted by current science. Soft SF cannot do this, as the science is simply not there. Soft SF can be very enjoyable and literary. The worst is alarmist pseudo-science fiction - like the recent film Day After Tomorrow.

The singularity, like human caused global climate change, is something I'll agree that should be met with scepticism, however, it both are within the realm of the predictable under current science, unlike the force or dilithium crystals.

first, let me agree that Day after Tomorrow was a terrible movie.

I consider myself a philosopher first, a literary enthusiast second. I have no science background, so I do not consider myself a scientist. Perhaps that is why I deemphasize the importance of plausibility, because I don't believe that is what makes for good literature.

For example; the 2007 winner of the pulitzer prize was the post-apocalyptic SF novel "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy. It won one of the most prestigious literary awards in the world without ever uttering a word about the reasons behind the calamity that destroyed civilization. Even on the populist side, Star Wars continues to remain one of the most beloved SFs despite the unfalsifiability of concepts like hyperspace and the Force.

The three grandmasters of science fiction are Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, and Frank Herbert. All three could be considered either hard or soft. Even Asimov is not above it. Psychohistory and psychic powers are thoroughly implausible, and the Foundation and Robot series makes few, if any, detailed insights into technology. Heinlein's early works could be considered Hard, but much of his later works have more in common with the Hitchhicker's guide to the Galaxy than Star Trek. Herbert's novels center around the spice melange, another implausible material. With that in mind, why is the distinction between hard and soft still important?

Not strictly true....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectricity

Err... "Dilithium Crystals", as described in ST, don't work on that principal. See:

Piezoelectricity is the ability of some materials (notably crystals and certain ceramics) to generate an electric potential[1] in response to applied mechanical stress. This may take the form of a separation of electric charge across the crystal lattice. If the material is not short-circuited, the applied charge induces a voltage across the material. The word is derived from the Greek piezein, which means to squeeze or press.

The piezoelectric effect is reversible in that materials exhibiting the direct piezoelectric effect (the production of electricity when stress is applied) also exhibit the converse piezoelectric effect (the production of stress and/or strain when an electric field is applied). For example, lead zirconate titanate crystals will exhibit a maximum shape change of about 0.1% of the original dimension.

The effect finds useful applications such as the production and detection of sound, generation of high voltages, electronic frequency generation, microbalances, and ultra fine focusing of optical assemblies. It is also the basis of a number of scientific instrumental techniques with atomic resolution, the scanning probe microscopies such as STM, AFM, MTA, SNOM etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectricity

dilithium
Episode: TOS 044 - Journey to Babel

Crystalline substance used in warp propulsion systems to regulate the matter/antimatter reactions that provide the energy necessary for faster-than-light speed.

Naturally occurring dilithium is extremely rare and is mined on only a few planets, such as Coridan, Troyius and Rura Penthe.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/technology/article/2743.html

In the Star Trek universe, dilithium is a fictional chemical element, although the name also applies to a real-world molecule.

Dilithium typically occurs as an extremely hard crystalline mineral, which occurs naturally on some planets. When placed in a high frequency electromagnetic field, magnetic eddies are induced in its structure which keep charged particles away from the crystal lattice. This prevents it from reacting with antimatter when so energized, because the antimatter atoms never actually touch it. Therefore, it is used to contain and regulate the annihilation reaction of matter and antimatter in a starship's warp core, which otherwise would explode from the uncontrolled annihilation reaction. Though low-quality artificial crystals can be grown or replicated, they are limited in the power of the reaction they can regulate without fragmenting, and are therefore largely unsuitable for warp drive applications. Due to the need for natural dilithium crystals for interstellar travel, deposits of this material are a highly contested resource, and as such, dilithium crystals have led to more interstellar conflict than all other reasons combined.

The streams of matter and antimatter directed into crystallized dilithium are unbalanced: there is usually much more matter in the stream than antimatter. The energy generated in the annihilation reaction heats up the excess deuterium gas, producing a plasma that is used to power the warp drives that allow starships to travel faster than light. In addition, most starships use this plasma as a power source for the ship's systems; in the series Enterprise, this was referred to as an electro-plasma system. The specific details of this reaction were officially established in the Star Trek: The Next Generation series and technical manual; in earlier works it is not clearly defined.

Dilithium's chemical symbol is Dt, its atomic weight is 87 and it is a member of the hypersonic series of elements, according to an in-joke filled periodic table seen in episodes of The Next Generation[1] and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.[2] The dilithium crystal structure is 2(5)6 dilithium 2(:)l diallosilicate 1:9:1 heptoferranide, according to the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium_(Star_Trek)

Dilithium is an element, a member of the hypersonic series, mostly occurring as crystalline mineral (known also by the longer formula- 2(5)6 dilithlum 2(:)l diallosilicate 1:9:1 heptoferranide). It is used in the warp drive systems of many starships. Dilithium regulates the matter/antimatter reaction in a ship's warp core, controlling the amount of power generated in the reaction chamber as the mutual annihilation creates a stream of electro-plasma.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Dilithium

The main premise is that when dilithium is subjected to a high frequency electromagnetic field, it becomes porous to antimatter, and that it is the only substance known to possess this quality. Since passing through its crystal structure slows down or moderates the flow of the antimatter, dilithium can be used to moderate the reactions in the matter-antimatter reactors. Some scientists consider dilithium so imaginary that it is not worthy to discuss its hypothetical properties (Batchelor, 1993).
http://www.minrec.org/pdfs/STAR%20TREK%20Article.pdf


Well this person certainly seems to disagree:

And he's wrong.

First off, as I showed above, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction, the "dilithium crystals: of ST don't work that way.

Secondly, dilithium actually really exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium Real dilithium is simply two lithium atoms, and has none of the magical properties attributed to it in ST.

Finally, ST's "dilithium" is listed in the "Table of Elements (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Table_of_Elements)" as being part of the "Hypersonic series (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Hypersonic_series)", which was filled with fictional like "Kryptonite", "Stoogeium" (symbol Mo), and "Poi".

I disagree with him on the fact that if dilithium crystals did have any sort of plausibility to them, there would be scientists trying to create them.

But perhaps I am a bit hazy on my definitions because I have often heard Star Trek called "hard" SF. Where do these Hard SF fans go wrong, in your opinion?

Hmmm... I can't think of anyone calling ST "hard" - doesn't mean they haven't.

Remember this list I hacked together earlier:
The hardest hard SF (10 on the scale, so to speak) doesn't have:
FTL travel or communications
Aliens
Time Travel
Teleportation
ESP or other magic/supernatural elements
2D noisy space
Artificial Gravity/Anti-gravity
Super robots
Fast, convenient space travel
Magic "blaster" weapons
Lots of Earthlike planets

ST violates 10 1/2 of those.

first, let me agree that Day after Tomorrow was a terrible movie.



I consider myself a philosopher first, a literary enthusiast second. I have no science background, so I do not consider myself a scientist. Perhaps that is why I deemphasize the importance of plausibility, because I don't believe that is what makes for good literature.

Let's see if a bit of genre reversal works?

Let's pick a good old Victorian gothic romance - say Dickens' A Christmas Carol. One would expect there to be a supernatural element, correct? Now imagine Dickens writing in a scene explaining the "ghosts" as being man-made mechanical apparitions. (Think of Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." ;) Does it make bad literature? that depends. Does it make a bad Victorian gothic romance? I'd say so.

By the same token, ST's violation of science simply make it bad hard SF, not bad story telling. (We can discuss the literary merits of SW and ST later. ;) The original SW movie definately has merit in my books, the later films less so.)

For example; the 2007 winner of the pulitzer prize was the post-apocalyptic SF novel "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy. It won one of the most prestigious literary awards in the world without ever uttering a word about the reasons behind the calamity that destroyed civilization. Even on the populist side, Star Wars continues to remain one of the most beloved SFs despite the unfalsifiability of concepts like hyperspace and the Force.

The three grandmasters of science fiction are Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, and Frank Herbert. All three could be considered either hard or soft. Even Asimov is not above it. Psychohistory and psychic powers are thoroughly implausible, and the Foundation and Robot series makes few, if any, detailed insights into technology. Heinlein's early works could be considered Hard, but much of his later works have more in common with the Hitchhicker's guide to the Galaxy than Star Trek. Herbert's novels center around the spice melange, another implausible material. With that in mind, why is the distinction between hard and soft still important?

Two reasons:

One is covention. It violates expectations and internal consistency for conventions to be broken without cause. This is aesthetic.

Secondly, is what the essay above brought up, issues considered, and the author's moral responsibility in regards to dealing with them realistically. Take climate change for example. On one side we have the alarmist Day After Tomorrow and on the otherside, Kim Stanley Robinson's "Science in the Capital" books, which deal with the issues much more realistically. (See this interview (http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/07/stanley_robinson_qa) for more.) Both have good and bad points. But only one is really considering the issue that both wish to address.

Err... "Dilithium Crystals", as described in ST, don't work on that principal. See:


Kind of irrelevent - the reference to piezoelectricity wasn't made to suggest that ST dilithium is, of necessity, reacting in such a manner - but to show that the ST concept of dilithium is proportionally 'harder' than 'the force'.

If crystals can be used as a power source, there is some precedent, no matter how vague. The specific mechanism doesn't have to be 'real', for the connection to be there.


First off, as I showed above, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction, the "dilithium crystals: of ST don't work that way.


Which is kind of irrelevent. The mechanism is vaguely similar, but the precedent that you can use crystals (of some kind) as a powersource is enough.


Secondly, dilithium actually really exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium Real dilithium is simply two lithium atoms, and has none of the magical properties attributed to it in ST.


And that isn't the dilithium of the ST series, so your point, whilst very nice, is irrelevent. The Kryptonite in Superman isn't the Kryptonite you'd find in the lab either, and - in a more mundane example - diatoms aren't diatoms.


Finally, ST's "dilithium" is listed in the "Table of Elements (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Table_of_Elements)" as being part of the "Hypersonic series (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Hypersonic_series)", which was filled with fictional like "Kryptonite", "Stoogeium" (symbol Mo), and "Poi".


Which means it's not that 'hard' - but the attempt to incorporate it into the established table at all, is a measure of some 'hardness'.



I don't think anyone is claiming that ST regularly weighs in as very 'hard' sci-fi, but compared to some of the competition (Like Star Wars, which amounts to roughly 'god did it'), it's not the 'softest'.

Herbert's novels center around the spice melange, another implausible material. With that in mind, why is the distinction between hard and soft still important?

I think it all depends on what you're trying to do with your SF. For example, Frank Herbert's universe not only allowed him to do away with AI/computers (at least until the later books, when said restrictions disappeared, i.e. the no-ships). allowing him to focus on the political and sociological aspects of his society as opposed to the technological ones. Had he not introduced many soft elements in to his work, it simply would not have been possible for the Dune series to accommodate as many themes as it did.

I think it all depends on what you're trying to do with your SF. For example, Frank Herbert's universe not only allowed him to do away with AI/computers (at least until the later books, when said restrictions disappeared, i.e. the no-ships). allowing him to focus on the political and sociological aspects of his society as opposed to the technological ones. Had he not introduced many soft elements in to his work, it simply would not have been possible for the Dune series to accommodate as many themes as it did.

Right, but the point I am making is that a SF's "hardness" is not the sole indicator of quality. It's a useful tag-line to help distinguish novels that emphasize plausible scientific ideas and novels that de-emphasize them for literary purposes, but I think that it is just banal to equate hard and soft with good and bad.

I think everyone agrees that the term "science fiction" is a pretty inaccurate. Speculative Fiction was a name that I've heard and I liked. But changing the name of the genre would require nothing short of a cultural phenomenon that would dwarf Star Wars, and I don't know if it would be wise to hold our breath for one of those.