Science can be found all over the place in fiction. From crime drama to the obvious science fiction, it pops up everywhere; but, does it matter if fiction is scientifically accurate? Validity and accuracy are funny things to apply to fiction as, well, it's not real. However, how does scientific accuracy effect story telling and what does it tell an audience?
The most obvious place to look at science in fiction is by looking at science fiction itself. Sci-fi is awash with amazing ideas of what might happen in the future, but it's also home to some things that are just draw droppingly bad too and can make you want to bang your head against a desk when you notice them.
One of the best examples of scientific accuracy in a story I can think of is Doctor Who's Weeping Angels. Why? The quantum lock. The thing that makes the Angels so terrifying (apart from the fact that they could be anywhere) is that they only move when you don't look at them. In the episode Blink the Angels are described as being quantum locked because there are many things in quantum physics that don't do certain things when you observe them. Those two words are a perfect descriptor for the Angels and is filled with science. For a general audience it sounds cool and opens the door for people to maybe explore what quantum is all about, which maybe, just maybe might encourage someone to pursue physics. However, for people who know what quantum theory is, that description is a stroke of genius. For me, it perfectly encapsulates the Angels in real quantum theory. Like electrons, when not being measured or watched they have a probability of being anywhere and everywhere, but once seen they suddenly become fixed in the most probable place. Its beautiful writing, complete with respect for science and I think its just wonderful.
There's unsurprisingly a lot of science jargon thrown around in Star Trek, and sometimes it gets a little bit muddled. In the original series, the writers originally to use lithium as the Enterprise's power source, but their scientific advisor highlighted that as lithium is a known element with known properties (which didn't include powering warp drives), they should switch to using dilithium crystals, which don't exist. However, in a strange twist, Lithium-6 crystals are being tested as a possible fusion fuel source, which might just be used to power space ships in the future! So we move from a real phenomena to a made up one. Using Lithium to power a starship is bad science, and people will notice it. However, when you make up a new molecule, there's no science base for it. Therefore, this helps to encourage the audience to suspend their disbelief and go, "OK if you have dilithium, this is possible." Another great example of a made up science fudge in Star Trek is the transporter and it's most important component the Heisenberg Compensator. From what I can find the Heisenberg compensator is introduced in Next Generation because physics tells us that you can't know both the position and momentum matter with absolute accuracy, which is known as the Heisenberg Principle. Therefore, how could you transport people without seriously messing them up? Well all you need is a Heisenberg Compensator to remove this problem! How does it work? In the words of Trek Scientific advisor Michael Okuda "Very well thank you". So once again you go from certain sections of the audience going "Transporters? Hmm. How do you fix the Heisenberg uncertainty for that to work?", to "Oh, ok, they have a box which does a thing.", once again creating a suspension of disbelief. The key thing as to why these fixes an fudges work is research, particularly with the Heisenberg Compensator. The writers found ways to understand the world and what governs it, then were able to find reasons why the story breaks fundamental rules.
Now when is science portrayed really inaccurately in fiction? The most prominent example is the age old "I'll just increase the resolution for you" which appears all over fiction when the suspect has been caught on CCTV. It's just so stupid! You can't get information from nothing. What even more frustrating is an easy fix. CCTV cameras collect lots of information, so what if the investigators get a low resolution version of the video which can be sent to them really quickly? Then if they see something interesting they can just ask for a high resolution frame to be sent over! Ta daaaa! You get the number plate without conjuring it up from thin air. There's only one time when this kind of reality abuse just might be acceptable that I can think of, and then it's only just acceptable by a hair. The TV show was Alias (and awesome by the way), and it took them THREE DAYS to increase the resolution. Yep. 3 days, not seconds or minuteness, which in my mind is just about acceptable considering they were using CIA supercomputing and databases to reconstruct the image.
So does scientific correctness matter? Yes and no. When science in fiction is done right, its beautiful. When it's not it's awful. If what you want breaks the rules, make something up! It's simple and effective. There are very few situations when people won't accept it even in contemporary setting. It's really rewarding for a reader when you can can reference and adapt real science to suit something a plot point in a story. When that's not possible, making up a reason why you can break the rules can be just as good. Especially, if you can hint to the real science blocking your way. Either way, if science or technology has a large baring on a story and it doesn't work, it can kill it; especially when all it would have taken was the few moments to read that Wikipedia page in a bit more detail.
One of the best examples of scientific accuracy in a story I can think of is Doctor Who's Weeping Angels. Why? The quantum lock. The thing that makes the Angels so terrifying (apart from the fact that they could be anywhere) is that they only move when you don't look at them. In the episode Blink the Angels are described as being quantum locked because there are many things in quantum physics that don't do certain things when you observe them. Those two words are a perfect descriptor for the Angels and is filled with science. For a general audience it sounds cool and opens the door for people to maybe explore what quantum is all about, which maybe, just maybe might encourage someone to pursue physics. However, for people who know what quantum theory is, that description is a stroke of genius. For me, it perfectly encapsulates the Angels in real quantum theory. Like electrons, when not being measured or watched they have a probability of being anywhere and everywhere, but once seen they suddenly become fixed in the most probable place. Its beautiful writing, complete with respect for science and I think its just wonderful.
There's unsurprisingly a lot of science jargon thrown around in Star Trek, and sometimes it gets a little bit muddled. In the original series, the writers originally to use lithium as the Enterprise's power source, but their scientific advisor highlighted that as lithium is a known element with known properties (which didn't include powering warp drives), they should switch to using dilithium crystals, which don't exist. However, in a strange twist, Lithium-6 crystals are being tested as a possible fusion fuel source, which might just be used to power space ships in the future! So we move from a real phenomena to a made up one. Using Lithium to power a starship is bad science, and people will notice it. However, when you make up a new molecule, there's no science base for it. Therefore, this helps to encourage the audience to suspend their disbelief and go, "OK if you have dilithium, this is possible." Another great example of a made up science fudge in Star Trek is the transporter and it's most important component the Heisenberg Compensator. From what I can find the Heisenberg compensator is introduced in Next Generation because physics tells us that you can't know both the position and momentum matter with absolute accuracy, which is known as the Heisenberg Principle. Therefore, how could you transport people without seriously messing them up? Well all you need is a Heisenberg Compensator to remove this problem! How does it work? In the words of Trek Scientific advisor Michael Okuda "Very well thank you". So once again you go from certain sections of the audience going "Transporters? Hmm. How do you fix the Heisenberg uncertainty for that to work?", to "Oh, ok, they have a box which does a thing.", once again creating a suspension of disbelief. The key thing as to why these fixes an fudges work is research, particularly with the Heisenberg Compensator. The writers found ways to understand the world and what governs it, then were able to find reasons why the story breaks fundamental rules.
Now when is science portrayed really inaccurately in fiction? The most prominent example is the age old "I'll just increase the resolution for you" which appears all over fiction when the suspect has been caught on CCTV. It's just so stupid! You can't get information from nothing. What even more frustrating is an easy fix. CCTV cameras collect lots of information, so what if the investigators get a low resolution version of the video which can be sent to them really quickly? Then if they see something interesting they can just ask for a high resolution frame to be sent over! Ta daaaa! You get the number plate without conjuring it up from thin air. There's only one time when this kind of reality abuse just might be acceptable that I can think of, and then it's only just acceptable by a hair. The TV show was Alias (and awesome by the way), and it took them THREE DAYS to increase the resolution. Yep. 3 days, not seconds or minuteness, which in my mind is just about acceptable considering they were using CIA supercomputing and databases to reconstruct the image.
So does scientific correctness matter? Yes and no. When science in fiction is done right, its beautiful. When it's not it's awful. If what you want breaks the rules, make something up! It's simple and effective. There are very few situations when people won't accept it even in contemporary setting. It's really rewarding for a reader when you can can reference and adapt real science to suit something a plot point in a story. When that's not possible, making up a reason why you can break the rules can be just as good. Especially, if you can hint to the real science blocking your way. Either way, if science or technology has a large baring on a story and it doesn't work, it can kill it; especially when all it would have taken was the few moments to read that Wikipedia page in a bit more detail.
No comments:
Post a Comment