It's a common way of getting around the considerable difficulties in faster-than-light travel to tuck into science fiction a mention of how some new model physics superceded Einsteinian relativity, maybe also adding something better than quantum mechanics (or at least stirring some quantum magic into things), so that the pose of hard science fiction can be met while still sending folks off to other star systems within reasonble story times.
But there aren't many observed or theoretical niches into which such a new model could be fit, at least at present. Supersymmetry theories have, according to the popular press, been getting pretty well smashed up by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider, too:
Are there important science fiction works in which it's part of the background that, at least for fundamental physics, we've got the basics pretty well figured out and there just isn't big new stuff? This could be from a lack of post-relativity theory opening up faster-than-
light travel, or non-gravitational energy-producing-fusion being given up as a bad job, or, heck, let's open it up to things like brain uploads never working out.
> Are there important science fiction works in which it's part of
> the background that, at least for fundamental physics, we've got the
> basics pretty well figured out and there just isn't big new stuff?
The Golden Age. Although it does pretend that we do interstellar travel despite that.
> Are there important science fiction works in which it's part of
> the background that, at least for fundamental physics, we've got the
> basics pretty well figured out and there just isn't big new stuff? This
> could be from a lack of post-relativity theory opening up faster-than-
> light travel, or non-gravitational energy-producing-fusion being given
> up as a bad job, or, heck, let's open it up to things like brain
> uploads never working out.
I'm not sure what you're seeking. Are you including or excluding things like
"Between the Strokes of Night" by Charles Sheffield
> Are there important science fiction works in which it's part of > the background that, at least for fundamental physics, we've got the > basics pretty well figured out and there just isn't big new stuff? This > could be from a lack of post-relativity theory opening up faster-than-
> light travel, or non-gravitational energy-producing-fusion being given > up as a bad job, or, heck, let's open it up to things like brain > uploads never working out.
Greg Egan, Alistair Reynolds, and Karl Schroder have all done major
non-FTL-universe books. (I believe Egan has never written any books
*with* FTL, is that right?) There may be other bits of SFnal magic-
subatomic-physics, however, depending on the novel.
--Z
-- "And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
:: Joseph Nebus
:: Are there important science fiction works in which it's part of the
:: background that, at least for fundamental physics, we've got the
:: basics pretty well figured out and there just isn't big new stuff? :: This could be from a lack of post-relativity theory opening up
:: faster-than- light travel, or non-gravitational
:: energy-producing-fusion being given up as a bad job, or, heck, let's
:: open it up to things like brain uploads never working out.
: lal_truckee <lal_truc...@yahoo.com>
: I'm not sure what you're seeking. Are you including or excluding
: things like "Between the Strokes of Night" by Charles Sheffield
Or, here's a peculiar case: A Deepness in the Sky.
Sure the Zones of Thought have FTL and uploads and everything
under the sun, but none of that appears in aDitS (possibly excluding
the cavorite (or whatever they called it)).
And then you have Learning the World, where such things possibly exist
(though maybe not FTL... not sure) in areas of "Fast Burn", but those
places are offstage, and don't persist.
>> Are there important science fiction works in which it's part of >> the background that, at least for fundamental physics, we've got the >> basics pretty well figured out and there just isn't big new stuff? This >> could be from a lack of post-relativity theory opening up faster-than-
>> light travel, or non-gravitational energy-producing-fusion being given >> up as a bad job, or, heck, let's open it up to things like brain >> uploads never working out.
>Greg Egan, Alistair Reynolds, and Karl Schroder have all done major
>non-FTL-universe books. (I believe Egan has never written any books
>*with* FTL, is that right?) There may be other bits of SFnal magic-
>subatomic-physics, however, depending on the novel.
Niven did a whole series in an STL universe: the rammer/the-state stories.
DeCamp, of course, in the classic era.
-- ------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Joseph Nebus wrote:
> It's a common way of getting around the considerable
> difficulties in faster-than-light travel to tuck into science fiction
> a mention of how some new model physics superceded Einsteinian
> relativity, maybe also adding something better than quantum mechanics
> (or at least stirring some quantum magic into things), so that the
> pose of hard science fiction can be met while still sending folks off
> to other star systems within reasonble story times.
> But there aren't many observed or theoretical niches into which
> such a new model could be fit, at least at present. Supersymmetry
> theories have, according to the popular press, been getting pretty
> well smashed up by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider, too:
> Are there important science fiction works in which it's part of
> the background that, at least for fundamental physics, we've got the
> basics pretty well figured out and there just isn't big new stuff?
> This could be from a lack of post-relativity theory opening up
> faster-than- light travel, or non-gravitational
> energy-producing-fusion being given up as a bad job, or, heck, let's
> open it up to things like brain uploads never working out.
Ursula K LeGuin's Hainish novels do not have FTL travel, though they seem to have "nearly as fast as light" travel (NAFAL) and a form of instant FTL communication (the ansible). For those who complain that SF is poorly written (or *not literature*), her work is a clear counter-example.
In article <k6adnVy4kd6KPjnNnZ2dnUVZ8uKdn...@bt.com>,
Mike Dworetsky <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>Ursula K LeGuin's Hainish novels do not have FTL travel, though they seem to >have "nearly as fast as light" travel (NAFAL) and a form of instant FTL >communication (the ansible). For those who complain that SF is poorly >written (or *not literature*), her work is a clear counter-example.
Actually, two forms of FTL exist. One kills living things transported
that way and the other (churten?) causes travellers to experience confusing,
allegorical stories.
> Are there important science fiction works in which it's part of >the background that, at least for fundamental physics, we've got the >basics pretty well figured out and there just isn't big new stuff?
Well, not important but it's an important detail in one of Stableford's novels, GATES OF EDEN, that just after one gets to the FTL level of tech,
all the easy discoveries run out and things plateau. One of the discoveries
that isn't in the easy to work out set is how to navigate in hyperspace: either one tries blind jumps or one sends hyperspacial beacons out STL
(or an alien race turns on a HSB, which is why it is important tech stalls
at slightly more advanced than we are).
> It's a common way of getting around the considerable >difficulties in faster-than-light travel to tuck into science fiction >a mention of how some new model physics superceded Einsteinian >relativity, maybe also adding something better than quantum mechanics >(or at least stirring some quantum magic into things), so that the >pose of hard science fiction can be met while still sending folks off >to other star systems within reasonble story times.
> But there aren't many observed or theoretical niches into which >such a new model could be fit, at least at present. Supersymmetry >theories have, according to the popular press, been getting pretty well >smashed up by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider, too:
> Are there important science fiction works in which it's part of >the background that, at least for fundamental physics, we've got the >basics pretty well figured out and there just isn't big new stuff? This >could be from a lack of post-relativity theory opening up faster-than-
>light travel, or non-gravitational energy-producing-fusion being given >up as a bad job, or, heck, let's open it up to things like brain >uploads never working out.
Sure, there were the universe/generation ship stories from the 1950s
or so, that have ships centuries in transit between stars. Even that
pushes credulity a bit, but perhaps minimally.
It's mostly credible that we manage to populate much of the solar
system, comets, asteroids, moons, Mars, canister cities, with nothing
but current science, though it might take 1,000 years or more.
> Actually, two forms of FTL exist. One kills living things transported
> that way and the other (churten?) causes travellers to experience confusing,
> allegorical stories.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:04:34 +0000 (UTC), jdnic...@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:
>Well, not important but it's an important detail in one of Stableford's >novels, GATES OF EDEN, that just after one gets to the FTL level of tech,
>all the easy discoveries run out and things plateau. One of the discoveries
>that isn't in the easy to work out set is how to navigate in hyperspace: >either one tries blind jumps or one sends hyperspacial beacons out STL
>(or an alien race turns on a HSB, which is why it is important tech stalls
>at slightly more advanced than we are).
At first glance, that makes sense - but at second glance, I wonder -
how does that stall out biological tech? Or nano technology? Or
information technology? Or chemistry?
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
On Nov 15, 10:25 am, JRStern <JRSt...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:35:47 +0000 (UTC), nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph
> Nebus) wrote:
> > Are there important science fiction works in which it's part of
> >the background that, at least for fundamental physics, we've got the
> >basics pretty well figured out and there just isn't big new stuff? This
> >could be from a lack of post-relativity theory opening up faster-than-
> >light travel, or non-gravitational energy-producing-fusion being given
> >up as a bad job, or, heck, let's open it up to things like brain
> >uploads never working out.
> Sure, there were the universe/generation ship stories from the 1950s
> or so, that have ships centuries in transit between stars. Even that
> pushes credulity a bit, but perhaps minimally.
For that matter, there must be hundreds of "important science fiction
works" which do not involve any kind of space travel. What about
_Flowers for Algernon_, _1984_, _Davy_, _Odd John_, _Frankenstein_,
_R.U.R._, _War with the Newts_, are they not important works of
science fiction? Perhaps Mr. Nebus is thinking of space fiction, a
subgenre of science fiction? Or perhaps the subsubgenre "stories of a
future interstellar civilization" such as Hamilton's "Interstellar
Patrol" series or the "Star Wars" movies?
On Nov 15, 10:25 am, JRStern <JRSt...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
> Sure, there were the universe/generation ship stories from the 1950s
> or so, that have ships centuries in transit between stars. Even that
> pushes credulity a bit, but perhaps minimally.
Actually those stories date back to the 1940s:
Don Wilcox, "The Voyage that Lasted 600 Years", Nov. 1940.
Robert A. Heinlein, "Universe", May 1941.
Is there any stf in a "SETI-type" setting, i.e., an interstellar
community linked only by light-speed communications?
Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>JRStern <JRSt...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>> Sure, there were the universe/generation ship stories from the 1950s
>> or so, that have ships centuries in transit between stars. Even that
>> pushes credulity a bit, but perhaps minimally.
>Actually those stories date back to the 1940s:
>Don Wilcox, "The Voyage that Lasted 600 Years", Nov. 1940.
>Robert A. Heinlein, "Universe", May 1941.
>Is there any stf in a "SETI-type" setting, i.e., an interstellar
>community linked only by light-speed communications?
Brace yourself: John C. Wright, his Golden Oecumene series.
kollin & kollin's The Unincorporated planetary-opera setting doesn't have it
(yet), it seems, but ends with (SPOILER) one of the sides going off to
colonize the stars in their asteroids, aided by reliable methods of freezing
and later reviving people. And presumably their comms will be lightspeed-at-
best.
Dave
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
In <k81754$bd...@dont-email.me> lal_truckee <lal_truc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>On 11/14/12 2:35 PM, Joseph Nebus wrote:
>> Are there important science fiction works in which it's part of
>> the background that, at least for fundamental physics, we've got the
>> basics pretty well figured out and there just isn't big new stuff? This
>> could be from a lack of post-relativity theory opening up faster-than-
>> light travel, or non-gravitational energy-producing-fusion being given
>> up as a bad job, or, heck, let's open it up to things like brain
>> uploads never working out.
>I'm not sure what you're seeking. Are you including or excluding things like
>"Between the Strokes of Night" by Charles Sheffield
You know, you're right. I'm not sure precisely myself, since the category of ``stories in which (fundamental) physics is already finished'' seems to blend into ``(theoretically) hard science fiction'' almost seamlessly, and I feel like there's something a little different between the two.
I *think* that what's on my mind is that there's been an assumption through most of science fiction that any given school of scientific thought may be overturned by new experimental and new theoretical developments --- else the idea that one gets to play with the consequences of new science is weakened at least --- and that any long-established assumption makes it interesting to look for cases that take the opposite.
But I'm not sure how to distinguish a universe in which, oh, all the attempts to beat Einstein (or Heisenberg, or whatever you like) have failed from those in which the author just respects the science as it is known, or where no particular (obvious) new fundamental science is involved.
On Nov 15, 3:55 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
> Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Is there any stf in a "SETI-type" setting, i.e., an interstellar
> >community linked only by light-speed communications?
> Brace yourself: John C. Wright, his Golden Oecumene series.
Not familiar with that, but Wikipedia tells me it's in a solar system
setting, not interstellar. I was wondering about the idea of a society
with very long delays in communication. How would it feel to spend a
decade of your life working out a proof of Fermat's last theorem, and
then hear the news that it was solved 900 years ago on Rigel XVII?
Of course radio communication with other planets of the solar system
was a common theme in classic stf. In "A Baby on Neptune" by Clare
Winger Harris and Miles J. Breuer, M.D., the story is about the first
interplanetary voyages, but the background is 2-3 centuries of "fluent
communication with Mars, Venus, four of Jupiter's moons and one of
Saturn's" by radio. In "The Miracle of the Lily" also by Clare Winger
Harris (once again refuting the lie that there were no women in old-
time science fiction), there's a surprise at the end when [SPOILER]
the first television pictures arrive from Venus, after a period of
friendly communication by radio, and we finally find out what they
look like, and what their agricultural pests look like that we've been
advising them on how to eradicate.
> On Nov 15, 3:55 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is there any stf in a "SETI-type" setting, i.e., an interstellar
>>> community linked only by light-speed communications?
>> Brace yourself: John C. Wright, his Golden Oecumene series.
> Not familiar with that, but Wikipedia tells me it's in a solar system
> setting, not interstellar.
While the action never leaves the solar system, there is interstellar travel of the "let's detonate a hundred thousand tons of antimatter" variety. So obviously it doesn't happen often.
Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 15, 3:55 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Is there any stf in a "SETI-type" setting, i.e., an interstellar
>> >community linked only by light-speed communications?
>> Brace yourself: John C. Wright, his Golden Oecumene series.
>Not familiar with that, but Wikipedia tells me it's in a solar system
>setting, not interstellar.
Wikipedia be wrong then. To start with the main population IS in the solar
system... but there's been at least one interstellar expedition already,
that planted a colony. (Which apparently died out. Cue investigation by
protagonist on the run, and repeated wacky reveals.) There was communication
back from it before it died. Near the end of the trilogy, exactly what you're
looking for springs up, though I won't say why, and we get one viewpoint at
the end from the far future.
>Of course radio communication with other planets of the solar system
>was a common theme in classic stf. In "A Baby on Neptune" by Clare
>Winger Harris and Miles J. Breuer, M.D., the story is about the first
>interplanetary voyages, but the background is 2-3 centuries of "fluent
>communication with Mars, Venus, four of Jupiter's moons and one of
>Saturn's" by radio. In "The Miracle of the Lily" also by Clare Winger
>Harris (once again refuting the lie that there were no women in old-
>time science fiction), there's a surprise at the end when [SPOILER]
>the first television pictures arrive from Venus, after a period of
>friendly communication by radio, and we finally find out what they
>look like, and what their agricultural pests look like that we've been
>advising them on how to eradicate.
And Venus Equilateral (George O. Smith) was all about a planetary relay
station and misadventures connected with it... and then there's Asimov's
short about the researchers trying to maintain communication with Pluto,
solved by one of their mothers.
Dave
-- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
> It's a common way of getting around the considerable
> difficulties in faster-than-light travel to tuck into science fiction
> a mention of how some new model physics superceded Einsteinian
> relativity, maybe also adding something better than quantum mechanics
> (or at least stirring some quantum magic into things), so that the
> pose of hard science fiction can be met while still sending folks off
> to other star systems within reasonble story times.
> But there aren't many observed or theoretical niches into which
> such a new model could be fit, at least at present. Supersymmetry
> theories have, according to the popular press, been getting pretty well
> smashed up by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider, too:
> Are there important science fiction works in which it's part of
> the background that, at least for fundamental physics, we've got the
> basics pretty well figured out and there just isn't big new stuff? This
> could be from a lack of post-relativity theory opening up faster-than-
> light travel, or non-gravitational energy-producing-fusion being given
> up as a bad job, or, heck, let's open it up to things like brain
> uploads never working out.
C. S. Lewis reputedly called interstellar distances
God's quarantine system.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:39:19 -0800 (PST), Larry Headlund <l...@world.std.com> wrote:
| On Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:32:50 PM UTC-5, Butch Malahide wrote:
|> On Nov 15, 10:25 am, JRStern <JRSt...@foobar.invalid> wrote:
|> |> >
|> |> > Sure, there were the universe/generation ship stories from the 1950s
|> |> > or so, that have ships centuries in transit between stars. Even that
|> |> > pushes credulity a bit, but perhaps minimally.
|> |> |> |> Actually those stories date back to the 1940s:
|> |> |> |> Don Wilcox, "The Voyage that Lasted 600 Years", Nov. 1940.
|> |> Robert A. Heinlein, "Universe", May 1941.
|> |> |> |> Is there any stf in a "SETI-type" setting, i.e., an interstellar
|> |> community linked only by light-speed communications?
|
| Hoyle's "A is for Andromeda" perhaps. Depending on how you define community.
Or his "The Black Cloud" for a non-human community.
On Nov 15, 1:05 pm, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps Mr. Nebus is thinking of space fiction, a
> subgenre of science fiction?
Of course a story in which space travel does not play an important
role avoids the issue of whether or not FTL travel is possible.
It is an entirely valid and natural thing to note that since most
science-fiction stories that involve interstellar space travel assume
FTL, are there stories that either show how interstellar space travel
is achieved without FTL or how a very advanced technological
civilization manages without interstellar space travel.
And, indeed, without uploads, there were generation ship stories at
least.
>>Well, not important but it's an important detail in one of Stableford's >>novels, GATES OF EDEN, that just after one gets to the FTL level of tech,
>>all the easy discoveries run out and things plateau. One of the discoveries
>>that isn't in the easy to work out set is how to navigate in hyperspace: >>either one tries blind jumps or one sends hyperspacial beacons out STL
>>(or an alien race turns on a HSB, which is why it is important tech stalls
>>at slightly more advanced than we are).
>At first glance, that makes sense - but at second glance, I wonder -
>how does that stall out biological tech? Or nano technology? Or
>information technology? Or chemistry?
Because. Also, Stableford had a huge blind spot, in no way unique to him,
where information technology and anything it can facilitate is concerned.
I'm trying to remember if _Accelerando_ eventually features FTL.
I think there's an episode where software copies of important cast members are FTL-communicated to another star system.
Meanwhile their meat originals live and die off-stage, presumably
to say something about their loss of significance in the story by this point, it being, eventually, the sort of story where
that's liable to happen.
_Schild's Ladder_ has speed of light limit in our physics, but presents a means to create a universe with /different/ physics.
And, yeah, generation ships and coldsleep ships. And also stories
where FTL is discovered and there are missions to rescue the people who are stuck on generation ships or in space iceboxes.
Consulting Neil R. Jones's _The Jameson Satellite_, at
<http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26906/26906-h/26906-h.htm>
I see that the immortal machine-men go on voyages of hundreds of years (presumably our years) but are from "millions of light years distant", so they are using FTL after all, "at an inconceivable speed". Well... inconceivable is the /opposite/
of imaginary, which you were asking about... imaginary is what you can think about, but not do; inconceivable is what you can't
think about. So, all of the other stories where authors brush aside the speed of light limit or don't mention it at all, and aren't thinking about it, must be using inconceivable drive, no
imaginary drive.
