Explanation: Hard SF

[Jim]

The trouble is, a lot of 'Hard' SF has to disregard physics when it brings in the Faster than Light drive, so it might be said that the only Hard SF does take place on Earth :-)
What I'm driving at is that we have to be careful about using current scientific knowledge and theory to categorise SF

[Chas]

I know the original question was about hard SF and it's definition but I've always found such attempts at classification uncomfortable. For me all SF and Fantasy must have a believable social, technological or magical infrastructure. The author's skill is to maintain the structure at the right level to allow the reader to excersise the imagination and fill in the blanks.

But that should be the background and not the essence; character development, interpersonal conflict, emotion and good storytelling are where it's at in my opinion.

One of my favourite SF novels is Schismatrix by Bruce Sterling where the background technology and social structures were the perfect setting for a good novel.

Whereas Below Mercury by Mark Anson had the Mining technology covered believably but the interpersonal elements were poor and ruined a good idea.

[Massimo]

Interesting discussion. Nice thread. Our science today would look like magic and 'impossible' to humans 100 years ago, and yet, everything we have is a direct consequence of the evolution of the technology and scientific knowledge of our ancestors.

The same for hard science-fiction. Whatever is presented has to be possible to be ascribed to what we know today and what the technology and scientific evolution might be able to bring to us one day.

For example, think of the Einstein-Rosen Bridge, if you base your interstellar travel on that, you are writing hard sci-fi. If instead interstellar travel comes out of psycho-sentient beings able to bend the space-time and jump across with the help of Jedi type of force then your are not writing hard sci-fi.

[Massimo]

Jim wrote: "The trouble is, a lot of 'Hard' SF has to disregard physics when it brings in the Faster than Light drive, so it might be said that the only Hard SF does take place on Earth :-)
What I'm driving at..."

Not exactly. Faster than light is not hard sf. Einstein-Rosen Bridge to travel between two points light-years away but complete the journey "faster than light" is hard sci-fi. ;)

[Paul]

Chas wrote: "I know the original question was about hard SF and it's definition but I've always found such attempts at classification uncomfortable. For me all SF and Fantasy must have a believable social, tech..."
Chas, you have cut to the essence of it; the science (or magic, or whatever) should always be the backdrop against which the characters reaffirm or re-define their humanity.

[Charles]

Paul wrote: "I think Bruner is a lot like Asimov - except, as you rightly say, Bruner's science fiction takes place only on Earth. But both are are "soft" science fiction - in the sense that sociology is a soft not a hard science. "

Although at least in his Foundation books, Asimov suggested that sociology may become a hard science. :-)

[Paul]

True!

By the way, did you know that Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman was inspired by Hari Seldon?

[Jim]

Paul wrote: "True!

By the way, did you know that Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman was inspired by Hari Seldon?"

Indeed it could be argued that Asimov has had a similar effect on sociologists as he and Arthur C Clarke have had on other sciences

[Paul]

Jim wrote: "Paul wrote: "True!

By the way, did you know that Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman was inspired by Hari Seldon?"

Indeed it could be argued that Asimov has had a similar effect on sociologists..."

In which case, any SF which subsequently influences the direction of travel / path of discovery of real-world scientists, surely has to count as hard SF?

[Paul]

Paul wrote: "In which case, any SF which subsequently influences the direction of travel / path of discovery of real-world scientists, surely has to count as hard SF?"

That's an interesting proposition - because, what usually counts as hard science fiction is science fiction imbued with real, palpable science at the time of the writing.

[Kenny]

True. :)

[Jim]

Kenny wrote: "True. :)"

It is true, but even more exciting than definitions of genre is the fact that literature can feed back into the society that created it. This is perhaps something SF has been able to do

[Paul]

Jim wrote: "even more exciting than definitions of genre is the fact that literature can feed back into the society that created it. This is perhaps something SF has been able to do."

More than perhaps - Marvin Minsky at MIT said his work in AI was inspired by Asimov's robot stories, we've already noted Krugman and Foundation, and pioneers in rocket science such as Werner von Braun said science fiction about space travel was their inspiration.

[Paul]

A common theme in SF is humanity learning from aliens that a thing (eg. FTL travel) is possible, and then inventing it - "Once we knew it could be done, it was only a matter of time..."

It would seem that the job of SF is to let the real world know what is possible, and then wait for it to catch up.

Does anyone else, when stuck in traffic, curse the fact that it's taking them so long to invent the matter transporter?

[Paul]

Paul wrote: "A common theme in SF is humanity learning from aliens that a thing (eg. FTL travel) is possible, and then inventing it - "Once we knew it could be done, it was only a matter of time..."

It would s..."
I've never liked the idea of a matter transporter. I can't help feeling that what would arrive at the other end would be a facsimile of me and not the real me.

[Paul]

Paul, it's true that the you that stepped out of the other end would be made up of different atoms to the you that stepped in at this end, but are you made up now of the same atoms you were 20 years ago?

[Charles]

Paul wrote: "...I've never liked the idea of a matter transporter. I can't help feeling that what would arrive at the other end would be a facsimile of me and not the real me."

Although you then need to answer the question: does that matter (no pun intended)? At least, an existentialist might say that if to your perceptions there is no difference (including your perceptions of other people's perceptions about you), then there is no meaningful difference. :-)

However, if you believe your physical body is merely a vessel for some real "you" that, as of now, can only be defined in spiritual/mystical terms, then neither I nor anyone else can really help you with this decision -- it's all on you. ;-)

[Charles]

PS: I will not be getting in line to be among the first people to try such a thing. :-)

[Paul]

Charles wrote: "you then need to answer the question: does that matter (no pun intended)? At least, an existentialist might say that if to your perceptions there is no difference (including your perceptions of other people's perceptions about you), then there is no meaningful difference. :-)."

And to put yet another perspective on this: a systems-theory approach (with which I would agree) would say it is not the individual atoms, but their relationships to one another, that most significantly constitute matter and living matter and intelligently living matter.

[Charles]

Assuming Heisenberg is right (and there's really no reason I know of to doubt him so far), then you can never precisely determine both the position and momentum of any particle at a given moment, suggesting to me that any such transportation could never be more than an approximation within the limits of his uncertainty principle. I guess the question then becomes, how close is close enough? (I think I'll want something closer than the proverbial "horse shoes, hand grenades, and government work" before I'll let you transmit me.)

[Paul]

Would it not also be true to say, then, that merely walking down the street would put a strain on Heisenbergs principle? (come to that, standing still whilst the earth rotates around the sun, etc.) If our physical existence, which we see as continuous, is the constant recalculation of the average probable location of our constituent particles, then the difference between walking and instantaneous transport is merely one of degree / speed - 'close enough is good enough' seems to work for most of the physical universe most of the time.

I suppose you could say that volunteering to be matter transported would be a leap of faith....

[Jack]

My suspicion is that a workable matter transmitter is very much like a fax machine. (See "Think Like a Dinosaur") If the scan is gentle and precise, you don't die, and now there are two of you. Hilarity ensues.

Note that this is not a problem for a Star Trek transporter which seems to send a "matter stream" and can make you materialize in some place where there is no receiver. Same for Poul Anderson's "We Have Fed Our Sea" where the scanning is extraordinarily violent.

[Jack]

WRT the question of required precision, atomic location and velocity is probably not a problem (theoretically). If you need *precise* electron orbital phase information to recreate active chemical bonds, that's likely a problem. From a merely practical point: Jesus, Mary & Elvis, that's a lot of electron orbitals!

It would be a shame to have your painstakingly scanned human body wind up at the far end as carefully- and expensively-reproduced, stinking, rapidly-decaying meat.

[Paul]

Jack wrote: "My suspicion is that a workable matter transmitter is very much like a fax machine. (See "Think Like a Dinosaur") If the scan is gentle and precise, you don't die, and now there are two of you. Hil..."

See also 'Lost in Transmission' by Wil McCarthy.

[Charles]

Paul wrote: "Would it not also be true to say, then, that merely walking down the street would put a strain on Heisenbergs principle? (come to that, standing still whilst the earth rotates around the sun, etc.)..."

The universe does not need to "know" the exact position and momentum of every particle at every moment: it's happy to keep on ticking merrily along with its statistical probabilities (those dice that Einstein abhorred); but then the universe never tries to break down a human body into a set of data that can be transmitted somewhere else where it then gets reconstructed into the same human being to some arbitrary level of precision.

But then, even though the quantum theory (of which the Uncertainty Principle is a part) is one of the most successfully tested physical theories of all time, no one really understands why it works. So there certainly seems to be another level of something to be discovered, and perhaps when we discover that (if we ever do), maybe that will reveal the quantum theory as being an explanation of the symptoms, not the causes, and then we'll see a way clear to precise transmission of humans across space-time.

[Jim]

I must admit I liked the phrase "quantum theory as being an explanation of the symptoms, not the causes"

There's an awful lot to 'unpack' in that when you start thinking about it

[Kenny]

Yes we must treat the disease, not the symptoms. :)
I think it's the answer and follow on from the Information Paradox that will ultimately resolve it.

[Massimo]

When we get to microscopic levels, things are no more interpreted as when at macroscopic realm. Quantum objects do not really have properties such as ‘location’ or ‘momentum’ while they are not observed. In fact, the question of what matter is doing while not observed is meaningless. Only when we observe (experiment, probe, etc. or when one ‘collapses the wave function’) a quantum object, we force it into a particular one of all its possible states as dictated by it wave equation. The solution on the equation cannot give at same time momentum and position, or energy and time, all paired variables in the Heisemberg relation, so the representation match with what the experiments show. Heisemberg principle is the indeterminacy of matter while in an unobserved state.

[Paul]

True, but presumably to transport matter, we would need to observe it like it had never been observed before?

[Kenny]

I don't know, we were able to record and reproduce sound without knowing that much about it...

[Massimo]

We would need to first compute the wave function of the person or object to transport, collapse it at deconstruction (a sort of "flash") and then be able to reproduce it as it was at the time of particles deconstruction. So far our knowledge has troubles with understanding, i.e. describing exhaustively, many-body states, where many-body problem for us, with our knowledge, already starts at 3.

Can theoretically be possible? Yes, practical? not currently. When technology and theory will allow us, I would suggest to start first with non animated objects. The reconstructed one might even be unstable in the reconstruction platform.

[Jim]

But thinking about it, if you compute the wave function of a person or object (just to borrow a nice phrase), why do you only send it to one destination. Once you have broken down the object into information, the information can be transported anywhere, any number of times.
The other thing is that you're merely transporting information, therefore the destination has supply the matter which will be formed into whatever the information says.
So if you want a new kitchen table and chairs, the shop will send you the information, and you ladle the contents of the compost bin, the septic tank and the waste paper pins and the machine turns the information into the table and chairs :-)

[Massimo]

Jim wrote: "But thinking about it, if you compute the wave function of a person or object (just to borrow a nice phrase), why do you only send it to one destination. Once you have broken down the object into i..."

One quick answer: Quantum entanglement.

[Jim]

That will transfer information faster than the speed of light but if you transport 1 ton of lead from one side of the galaxy to another, either one ton of lead atoms have to be collected by the receiver, or an equivalent amount of matter has to be transmuted to lead. Actually thinking through some of the potential, I'll stop now and go back to writing fantasy :-)

[Kenny]

Jim wrote: "That will transfer information faster than the speed of light but if you transport 1 ton of lead from one side of the galaxy to another, either one ton of lead atoms have to be collected by the rec..."
Good plan! :)

[Charles]

Iain Banks's use of "displacement" removes the need to tear you down, transmit the resulting information, and then build you up again. Of course, to do this, it requires the manipulation of "hyper-space", which is sort of like invoking the middle portion of the South Park underpants gnomes' plan:



:-)

[Kenny]

Ha! Love it!

[Chad]

Clay wrote: "For instance...a space battle. I have seen some theories on what actual space battles might be like. These would not look good on the screen. People want to see fighters swooshing and swooping...not just jinking back and forth and side to side and up and down. Boring. (double boring if you actually take the time to explain WHY it has to be that way) "

I remember loving the way Babylon 5's fighters used thrusters and vectors and realistic physics, then they brought in White Star ships that swooped...

[Massimo]

Chad wrote: "Clay wrote: "For instance...a space battle. I have seen some theories on what actual space battles might be like. These would not look good on the screen. People want to see fighters swooshing and ..."

And nobody can hear you scream in space. A silent dance with flashes of explosions. Nothing more.

[Paul]

Charles wrote: "Assuming Heisenberg is right (and there's really no reason I know of to doubt him so far), then you can never precisely determine both the position and momentum of any particle at a given moment..."

Just a note to say that Tesla took issue even with Einstein - Tesla didn't agree that matter caused space to curve - and claimed to have a different theory to explain all the findings in physics (including, presumably, QM) - but whatever he may have written about this (would be in the 1930s in the last decade of his life) - has never been found.