Hard SF discussion
The Three-Body Problem
>
comments on the science *Spoilers Allowed*
date
newest »
newest »
One thing I like to do with Hard SF is to find exactly where the real science ends, and the speculation begins. Jupiter as a radiation source is real. The recycling of radiation to transport energy outward, within the radiative zone of the Sun is real. In this case though, I think the speculation begins with the “gain reflectivity” that amplifies Jupiter’s and Red Coast’s signals. Any astrophysicists out there who could comment?
Oh, and I thoroughly enjoyed the unpredictable Stable and Chaotic Eras of the Trisolaris home world, the human formation computer, and playing around with the unfolding of protons - even though this was all a lot less realistic than the opening of the novel.
There were a lot of brilliant ideas in The Three-Body Problem, but also a few scientific missteps. Overall, Liu weaves an interesting story moving smoothly from radio telescopy to the search for extraterrestrial life to worship of advanced aliens (and their superior science) to suppression of human scientific advancement. The characters are well-developed in spite of their numbers; I particularly liked Detective Shi. I did, however, have some problems with some of the basic science in the book [ long science spoiler rant alert].
First, it's almost as if Liu has forgotten that planets revolve around their suns and that day and night is brought on by rotation of the planet. He has Trisolaris changing from Chaotic to Stable eras in less than a day. The only way a sun could partly rise and then immediately set is if planetary rotation changed. In a real system, the changes in eras would take place over weeks or months, not hours.
I did like his imaginative use of the 11 dimensions of string theory and how unfolding a proton might work. I thought the idea of writing a massive processor on the surface of the unfolded proton was clever, even if the speculative science likely wouldn't work that way (e.g. how would atoms of semiconductor bind to a proton? Why would an unfolded proton reflect light when protons don't interact with EM photons at all?).
The human computer implementation of Boolean gates was inspired! The use of massive numbers of (essentially) slaves instead of tubes or transistors was such a typically Chinese solution.
As a molecular biologist, I didn't appreciate the early dig at genetically modified foods. I thought that unnecessary but authors are entitled to their opinions. However, the juxtaposition between an early discussion of how the scientist, Pan Han, views technology as a cancer and how the Trisolarans inhibit further human scientific development to suppress their ability to compete in the galaxy was clever. It was my favorite thing about the book.
The whole Trisolaris dehydration of life to avoid dying under severe heat and drought was only partly explained. It would have helped if Liu had said Trisolarans had no bones or other such structural elements. As world-building goes, it was a little more to the fantasy side rather than the scientific. You can let it go (suspend disbelief) but it wouldn't have taken much to shore up the description of Trisolaris life.
I understand the problem of an unstable three-star system, but I have to wonder how any kind of intelligent species could arise with such chaotic periods of intense heat and freezing. Let alone, one that is scientifically superior to humans. I can't remember the author or book right now, but another novel developed an entire ecology on the surface of a neutron star. Because all their "biochemistry" was based on nuclear forces, life moved much faster for them. Hence they developed technology faster than humans.
There's more problems like that with the world-building but, at least, Liu tried. Most sci-fi authors these days seem not to even bother, driving sci-fi ever closer to fantasy.
[end science spoiler rant]
As a "China fan", I enjoyed the insight into how the Cultural Revolution affected the intellectual and academic class of the time. In the afterword, the translator Ken Liu speaks about preserving the voice of the original writing, that expressions may seem strange to the English-speaker, but they provide a more accurate portrayal of the speaker.
It was an interesting and fun read.
Am I the only one who's unconvinced by the first chapter's scientific martyr?The Cophenhagen interpretation is an odd idea to take a stand on, he defends it with a misrepresentation and his argument about epistemology is shallow. Some of the arguments made by the wannabe revolutionaries aren't all that bad in comparison. And since the CMB's cause was still debated in 1967, I'm tempted to conclude the writer didn't intend his martyr to sound so foolish.
But I have only started the book so for all I know he's later revealed to have been misguided in some way.
By the way... from the perspective of Chinese culture, why would he doubt God exists because he's being persecuted?
A general warning - Spoilers are allowed here. You really should not be reading this thread unless you have finished the book.