Alternate Histories: Why Now?
James Nicoll
raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
James Nicoll
--
My Pledge: No more than 2 OT posts to rasfw a day. No replying
to trolls and idiots. Start five good on topic threads a day to drown
out the crap. Drink more coffee.
Nancy Lebovitz
James Nicoll <jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
>raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
>genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
>
> So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
>I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
>Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
>
(Succeeded?) Dream--finding a new, popular sub-genre.
History has always been popular--probably more popular than science
fiction. It's only recently that authors have found that there's
a market for combining the two of them, or at least figured out
that sf fans are a good market for alternate history.
Alternatively, it's a side effect of gaming.
Or maybe what it took was Harry Turtledove (and some others? I'm not
sure of the chronology) being enthusiastic, prolific writers of
alternate history to create the market.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Dan Swartzendruber
> History has always been popular--probably more popular than science
> fiction. It's only recently that authors have found that there's
> a market for combining the two of them, or at least figured out
> that sf fans are a good market for alternate history.
>
> Alternatively, it's a side effect of gaming.
>
> Or maybe what it took was Harry Turtledove (and some others? I'm not
> sure of the chronology) being enthusiastic, prolific writers of
> alternate history to create the market.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I've always loved history almost
as much as SF. My tastes haven't changed, so I don't know why the genre
is suddenly so popular.
Hound of Cullen
jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca says...
: Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
: raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
: genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
:
: So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
: I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
: Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
: James Nicoll
:
Well, don't sweat it. In some alternate history, the genre never took
off...
Hound
--
Not a demographic -- Do not measure
Captain Button
> Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
> raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
> genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
> So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
> I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
> Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
Because the Goddess PsychoHistory has fallen, and she can't get up.
More precisely, Eris has tripped her, and jumped up and down on
her with spiked shoes, scattering tiny little bits to the five winds.
In the Golden Age of SF, it was often postulated, if not assumed
that psychology and sociology and suchlike would soon undergo
fundamental breakthroughs and lead to strong techonologies,
just as had happened chemistry and physics.
As the Golden Age faded, and eventually the New Wave, people
began to realize that breaking through in these social sciences
might be harder than anticipated, and that even after the process
of history was understood, there might not be anything feasible to be done.
But through it all, there was the underlying idea that history
was fundamentally deterministic, that people behave they way they
do for reasons, and that at least in principle, the clockwork
universe could be totally envisioned from its initial state.
While there was wide disagreement as to how the future would
develop, it was agreed that whatever the course *was* pretty
much inevitable. The blind men argued about what the elephant
was like, but they were sure it was a mammal.
In the 1980s, some cracks began showing, as the energy crisis
abated instead of spiraling down into a Mad Max scenario. And
the Third World dominos fail to fall as per schedule, and some
even stood back up.
Middle Eastern terrorists neglect to build atomic bombs, despite
the resonably-priced do-it-yourself kits available at any Radio
Shack.
The ecology neglects to suddenly nose-dive into oblivion.
Then in the 1990s everything went crazy.
The Soviet Union collapsed with little bloodshed. When
*everybody* knew that the Kremlin would _definitely_ start WWIII
to distract the populace from their lack of decent VCRs. Or at
the very least have a civil war with nuclear weapons.
Damnit, can't these people _read the script_?!
Then the US lead coalition trounces Iraq soundly, having neglected
to remember that the US wasn't allowed to win wars after Vietnam.
In the 1980s I took it as given that there were three hopeless
situations in the world where no solution was possible and massive
bloodbaths were inevitable. South Africa, Northern Ireland, and
Israel/Palestine.
All three places spent the 90s making me look like a fool, which
pleased me greatly [2].
The inevitable March of the Morons was cancelled when not enough
morons showed up.
The unstoppable population bomb fizzled because ... well it did,
but I'm not sure why.
The lunar colonies with cheap fusion power failed to show up, as
did the air cars and rocketpacks.
But everybody has a computer, which churlishly refuses to become
sentient and try and take over the world.
To sum up, for the past twenty years the world has been vigorously
rubbing our noses in the fact that history is an unpredictable
chaotic process.
So if history is one long series of crap shoots, what would
have happened if William the Bastard hadn't rolled that natural
crit back in 1066?
Dreams don't Fail. Dreams don't Succeed. Sh*t just happens.
That's my theory, anyway.
[1] I should tie this in with time travel stories, but I don't
have the classic ones organized in my mind. If you chart date of
publication vs. how difficult time is to change, what does the curve
look like?
[2] Of course, very recent events make it look like I may have been
1/3 right after all. Bugger.
--
"You may have trouble getting permission to aero or lithobrake
asteroids on Earth." - James Nicoll
Captain Button - [ but...@io.com ]
dat...@bway.net
> Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
> raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
> genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
>
> So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
> I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
> Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
>
Well, although the alternative history novel might have proliferated in
the 90s it's not as if there's been a dearth of them before then.
offhand I can think of Spinrad's The Iron Dream, Keith Roberts' Pavane,
Philip K. Dick's THe Man in the High Castle, Len Deighton's SS-GB, I
know there were a lot more that I just don't have at the tip of my
brain. The difference seems to be that a few writers have made the
alternate history novel, now a sub-genre of sf,their complete oevre.
Of course, Howard Waldrop has been writing alternate (and secret)
history stories since the late 70s and early 80s.
Ellen Datlow
Fiction Editor
SCIFI.COM
http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark Atwood
>
> Dreams don't Fail. Dreams don't Succeed. Sh*t just happens.
I was just reading "The Ungoverned" last night, and there is a very
powerful line in it, that illustrates an often-overlooked theme in
Vinge's work, which, at first glance, is at odds with the better known
theme that bears his name.
(from memory)
"There is no 'inevitable course of history', only the efforts and
actions of individuals."
--
Mark Atwood | The summit of Mount Everest is marine limestone.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Michael Hargreave Mawson
<but...@io.com> writes
>In the 1980s I took it as given that there were three hopeless
>situations in the world where no solution was possible and massive
>bloodbaths were inevitable. South Africa, Northern Ireland, and
>Israel/Palestine.
>
>All three places spent the 90s making me look like a fool, which
>pleased me greatly [2].
>[2] Of course, very recent events make it look like I may have been
>1/3 right after all. Bugger.
Make that 2/3 and counting. :-(
ATB
--
Mike
"His wish was to become a historian - not to dig out facts and store
them in himself... but to understand them, call the dead back to life
and let them speak through him to their descendants. She sometimes
wondered who would pay for it and who would heed."
- from "Harvest of Stars" by Poul Anderson.
rsn...@swbellnospam.net
dat...@bway.net wrote:
<snip>
> Of course, Howard Waldrop has been writing alternate (and secret)
> history stories since the late 70s and early 80s.
However, those AH stories of his which I have read seem to have little use
for history other than to provide backdrop and names for characters who
dance to whatever tune Waldrop feels like calling. There isn't necessarily
anything wrong with that, but it I have a harder time suspending disbelief
than when reading more fact-based AH stories.
--
Nathan Raye
'Bagpipes in the small hours, Colonel, can be a frightening thing.'
- from 'The Mercenary' by Jerry Pournelle.
Stevie Gamble
> Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
>raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
>genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
>
> So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
>I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
>Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
Indeed so; I would plump for the millennial effect, as cause, possibly linked
to an increasing awareness of just how many histories-real histories, that is-
there are. Not so long ago it was possible for a bright historian to be told
not to bother specialising in the Tudor period, since all the important work on
its history had been done. That assessment was risibly wrong, and I find it
impossible to envisage similar advice being given today, in any period or
location. And that is a deeply pleasing thought:-)
--
Stevie Gamble
The right to be heard does not automatically include
the right to be taken seriously.
Hubert Humphrey, 1965
Jason Bontrager
>
> Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
> raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
> genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
>
> So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
> I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
> Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
>
The main reason, I think, is that science fiction has been
getting solidly trounced by science fact of late (see the "Living
in the Future" thread, which *you* started btw:-). Trying to
speculate what things might be like 111 years or more down the
line is just too damn *hard* nowadays, since we can't reasonably
speculate as to what things will be like 5 years from now, and
all the classic tropes are looking sillier and sillier all the
time (FTL, rebellious robots, lustful aliens, ho-hum).
Using history as a setting also helps one avoid the annoying
little science blunders associated with world building. After
all, the world is already *there*, you just make up events
that happen in it.
Jason B.
--
"What sort of rites?" I enquired.
"*Unspeakable* ones," he said reproachfully.
ala Joe Slater
David Burns
Captain Button <but...@io.com> wrote in message
news:eh%I5.80702$bI6.2...@news1.giganews.com...
> But everybody has a computer, which churlishly refuses to become
> sentient and try and take over the world.
>
While it may not be the world, my computer sure has taken over my life. Hey,
that's it! The sentient, hidden computer has calculated that the best way to
take over the world is one person at a time.
Jeffrey C. Dege
> Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
>raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
>genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
>
> So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
>I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
>Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
We've lived past the end of history, don'cha know. From here on out,
it's going to be liberal democracy, capitalism, and global trade.
I read it in a magazine once.
--
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house.
-- Robert Heinlein
James Nicoll
Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
>On 23 Oct 2000 15:59:24 GMT, James Nicoll <jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
>>raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
>>genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
>>
>> So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
>>I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
>>Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
>
>We've lived past the end of history, don'cha know. From here on out,
>it's going to be liberal democracy, capitalism, and global trade.
>I read it in a magazine once.
>
Mark Atwood
>
> Maybe a sign of a civilization's peak? Nothing left to aspire to so
> people ponder what might have been.
Then those people are suffering from a failure of imagination, and at
the worst possible time too, as we now have a fair number of dizzing
and yet perfectly possible things to aspire to.
Pardoz
<jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
>raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
>genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
>
> So why now and not twenty years ago?
I'd say Harry Turtledove has a fair bit to do with it, for two
reasons. Reason my first: Author comes along. Author starts to sell a lot
of [foo] genre books. Publishers note [foo] sells and start pushing it.
"Epic" fantasy, cyberpuke, AH, whatever the current trend is. [foo] begins
to take over the shelves.
Reason my second: the guy's production rate is starting to make him
look like the reincarnation of Isaac Asimov. Take a squint at the number of
AHs sitting on the shelves. Subtract all those written by Turtledove. Count
remaining books without having to remove shoes or undo zipper.
--
UNIVERSALIST, n. One who forgoes the advantage of a Hell for persons
of another faith. (A. Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_)
James Gassaway
: Wild-eyed conspiracy theorists insist that on 23 Oct 2000 15:59:24 GMT,
: James Nicoll <jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
: > So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
: > Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
: Because the Goddess PsychoHistory has fallen, and she can't get up.
:
LOL. Thanks, I needed that.
--
Duty, Honor, Service.
If you can't respect the men, at least respect their sacrifice.
JoatSimeon
surprising events.
-- S.M. Stirling
Barry Gaudet
: Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
: raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
: genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
: So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
Fad and fashion?
: I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
: Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
Maybe a sign of a civilization's peak? Nothing left to aspire to so
people ponder what might have been.
--
'Sergeant, we have crossed some strange boundary here.'
'The world has taken a turn for the surreal.' -Captain Miller
'Clearly, but the question still stands.' -Sergeant Horvath
Richard Garfinkle
> Barry Gaudet <bga...@uoguelph.ca> writes:
> >
> > Maybe a sign of a civilization's peak? Nothing left to aspire to so
> > people ponder what might have been.
>
> Then those people are suffering from a failure of imagination, and at
> the worst possible time too, as we now have a fair number of dizzing
> and yet perfectly possible things to aspire to.
>
> --
> Mark Atwood | The summit of Mount Everest is marine limestone.
> m...@pobox.com |
> http://www.pobox.com/~mra
It may be a matter of passion. Most SF-fams enjoy the genre and like
thinking about science and the variations possible in future technology.
But in my experience AH fans are really passionate about the subject.
They love to take apart the past and tinker with it, and they love to
read and hear other people doing the tinkering. In some respects there
has been a brief golden age of AH writing that had the same fire to it
that the golden age of SF had to it.
Richard Garfinkle
Glenn McDavid
> Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
> raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
> genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
>
> So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
> I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
> Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
There is another factor which I have not yet seen mentioned in this
thread: The increased scientific respectability of the "Many Worlds"
interpretation of quantum mechanics and the multiverse speculations
of cosmology. While these ideas are still very controversial, they
have some respected supporters and are beyond the stage of complete
crackpottery. This make alternate history look more like SF, rather
than complete fantasy.
Glenn McDavid
mailto:gmcd...@winternet.com
mailto:Glenn....@alumni.carleton.edu
http://www.winternet.com/~gmcdavid
Joe Morris
>> Of course, Howard Waldrop has been writing alternate (and secret)
>> history stories since the late 70s and early 80s.
> However, those AH stories of his which I have read seem to have little use
> for history other than to provide backdrop and names for characters who
Wow, neither "Them Bones" nor "Ugly Chickens" suffer from this at all.
I suppose "Flatfeet" does but it's just plain funny.
> dance to whatever tune Waldrop feels like calling. There isn't necessarily
> anything wrong with that, but it I have a harder time suspending disbelief
> than when reading more fact-based AH stories.
Most other AH writers do succumb to this however funny/effective it might be:
"Alienist" and "Two Georges" come to mind. My favorite place to explore
AH without Nixon walk-ons is soc.history.what-if -- that group definitely
goes thru flame-phases but there's almost always something of value
floating around.
--
Joe Morris, SysAdmin and Not Insane
Atlanta stories: http://www.olagrande.net/users/jolomo/atlanta.html
Eric D. Berge
>Well, although the alternative history novel might have proliferated in
>the 90s it's not as if there's been a dearth of them before then.
>offhand I can think of Spinrad's The Iron Dream, Keith Roberts' Pavane,
>Philip K. Dick's THe Man in the High Castle, Len Deighton's SS-GB, I
>know there were a lot more that I just don't have at the tip of my
>brain. The difference seems to be that a few writers have made the
>alternate history novel, now a sub-genre of sf,their complete oevre.
>
>Of course, Howard Waldrop has been writing alternate (and secret)
>history stories since the late 70s and early 80s.
And Joan Aiken had an entire series of (very good) althist books
before that...
--
Eric D. Berge
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clay lies still, but blood's a rover
Breath's a ware that will not keep
Up, lad! When the journey's over
There'll be time enough to sleep.
- A.E.Housman, "Reveille"
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Nicoll
Jason Bontrager <jas...@gslis.utexas.edu> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>>
>> Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
>> raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
>> genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
>>
>> So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
>> I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
>> Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
>>
>getting solidly trounced by science fact of late (see the "Living
>in the Future" thread, which *you* started btw:-). Trying to
>speculate what things might be like 111 years or more down the
>line is just too damn *hard* nowadays, since we can't reasonably
>speculate as to what things will be like 5 years from now, and
>all the classic tropes are looking sillier and sillier all the
>time (FTL, rebellious robots, lustful aliens, ho-hum).
But that was true 50 years ago: check out Heinlein's essay
on the topic and in a vaguely related field, Herman Kahn's comments
on the problems of prediction.
Gary E. Ansok
James Nicoll <jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
>raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
>genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
It's not just limited to the alternate history genre -- wander over
to the mystery section and check out how many historical mysteries
are being published nowadays.
> So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
>I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
>Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
I think some of it might have to do with the Turn of the Millennium
we just went/are going through. Even a couple of years ago, there
were more "looking back" articles that got at least a few more people
interested in history.
I don't think that's enough to account entirely for their current
popularity, though (the main impact was mostly in 1999, for one
thing). Maybe it's just the usual way book (and other) theme fads
run -- a book in a sub-genre is published and sells pretty well, so
publishers are willing to take more chances on books in that sub-genre
(until the market is swamped and the books don't sell).
I don't know what book(s) might have gotten the alternate history
genre into high gear. For historical mysteries, I have the impression
it was the Brother Cadfael series.
Gary Ansok
--
3M suggests that to obtain the best results, one should make the bond
"while the adhesive is wet, aggressively tacky." I did not know what
"aggressively tacky" meant until I saw a recent notice in the Bboard.
-- Mario Barbacci
Steve Miller
> Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
> raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
> genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
>
> So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
> I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
> Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
>
> James Nicoll
Good question.
I think part of the reason is that many readers are still looking for
adventure
stories and they aren't happy with the adventure they are getting in
"mainstream" SF
as it seeks literary respectability. As editors go for big books -- and as
agents try to move
writers into writing "important" books -- the sense of wonder can go
astray.
Too, I suspect the increased gaming background of contemporary readers
makes it
easier for them to enjoy the alternate history -- this is just "what if"
writ large.
Steve
--
Pilots Choice -- coming February 2001 from Meisha Merlin
see Changeling by Lee and Miller in Absolute Magnitude #14
http://www.korval.com/liad.htm
Keith Morrison
> > > Maybe a sign of a civilization's peak? Nothing left to aspire to so
> > > people ponder what might have been.
> >
> > Then those people are suffering from a failure of imagination, and at
> > the worst possible time too, as we now have a fair number of dizzing
> > and yet perfectly possible things to aspire to.
>
> It may be a matter of passion. Most SF-fams enjoy the genre and like
> thinking about science and the variations possible in future technology.
> But in my experience AH fans are really passionate about the subject.
> They love to take apart the past and tinker with it, and they love to
> read and hear other people doing the tinkering. In some respects there
> has been a brief golden age of AH writing that had the same fire to it
> that the golden age of SF had to it.
AH gives you a playground that SF doesn't. AH is like a big honking
Lego set. What you can do with the same pieces as everyone else has
is practically infinite and you can make something as good-looking
as what the guy next to you did with the same pices in a different
configuration.
SF is more like a model set where, if you change a few parts, what
you get isn't usually as good looking as what was intended.
--
Keith
Mark Atwood
> On 23 Oct 2000 23:47:18 -0700, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >Barry Gaudet <bga...@uoguelph.ca> writes:
> >> people ponder what might have been.
> >the worst possible time too, as we now have a fair number of dizzing
> >and yet perfectly possible things to aspire to.
> >
If the politically correct elect to remain version 1.0 non-augumented
pure meat humans, I would consider that to be a Good Thing.
Phil Fraering
> Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
> raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
> genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
>
> So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
> I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
> Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
If you exclude the two authors S. M. Stirling and Harry Turtledove,
are there really all that many alternate history books out there?
--
Phil Fraering "What are we going to do tonight, Miles?"
p...@globalreach.net "Same thing we do every night, Ivan,
/Will work for tape/ try to take over the Imperium!"
Swyck
>Barry Gaudet <bga...@uoguelph.ca> writes:
>>
>> Maybe a sign of a civilization's peak? Nothing left to aspire to so
>> people ponder what might have been.
>
Prestorjon
"Alienist" and "Two Georges" come to mind.>>
Do you mean Caleb Carrs "The Alienist"? Thats not AH by any measure I'd use.
-----------------
He had been our Destroyer, the doer of things
We dreamed of doing but could not bring ourselves to do,
The fears of years, like a biting whip,
Had cut deep bloody grooves
Across our backs.
-Etheridge Knight
jab...@my-deja.com
jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <slrn8v9gfv...@jdege.visi.com>,
> Jeffrey C. Dege <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote:
> >> Ten years ago, an alternate history novel was a pleasing
> >>raritys, an occasional treat. Now it seems to have become a viable
> >>genre on its own, almost worth a separate section in the bookstores.
> >>
> >> So why now and not twenty years ago? I'm a bit stumped:
> >>I might guess that some people think we live in the Era of Failed
> >>Dreams but really for a lot of dreams, that's always been true.
> >
> >it's going to be liberal democracy, capitalism, and global trade.
> >I read it in a magazine once.
> >
> I was promised horse barbarians and all I got was the RCMP.
---------No, _Disney_ got the RCMP. Damn that Francis Fukuyama anyway.
>
> James Nicoll
> --
> My Pledge: No more than 2 OT posts to rasfw a day. No replying
> to trolls and idiots. Start five good on topic threads a day to drown
> out the crap. Drink more coffee.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>If you exclude the two authors S. M. Stirling and Harry Turtledove,
>are there really all that many alternate history books out there?
vlatko
--
vlatko.ju...@zg.tel.hr
Keith Morrison
> > >We've lived past the end of history, don'cha know. From here on out,
> > >it's going to be liberal democracy, capitalism, and global trade.
> > >I read it in a magazine once.
> > >
> > I was promised horse barbarians and all I got was the RCMP.
>
> ---------No, _Disney_ got the RCMP. Damn that Francis Fukuyama anyway.
Not anymore. Disney lost the rights when the RCMP chose not to renew
the contract.
--
Keith
Michael S. Schiffer
>On 24 Oct 2000 22:07:52 -0500, Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net>
>wrote:
>>If you exclude the two authors S. M. Stirling and Harry Turtledove,
>>are there really all that many alternate history books out there?
I think that URL is obsolete. The Uchronia list is now at
<http://www.uchronia.net>. Though I wasn't able to find a way to make
it display in chronological order, so you'd have to eyeball the
alphabetical list to get a sense of when the AHs were published.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS If reading in an archive, please do
ms...@mediaone.net not click on words highlighted as links
msch...@condor.depaul.edu by Deja or other archives. They violate
the author's copyright and his wishes.
Jordan S. Bassior
>AH gives you a playground that SF doesn't. AH is like a big honking
>Lego set. What you can do with the same pieces as everyone else has
>is practically infinite and you can make something as good-looking
>as what the guy next to you did with the same pices in a different
>configuration.
>
>SF is more like a model set where, if you change a few parts, what
>you get isn't usually as good looking as what was intended.
Very well put, Keith. There's a playful competitiveness to AH which isn't as
present in other sf. Plus, two of the best new sf writers (Stirling and
Turtledove) are doing a lot of work in this field, and a third older one
(Harrison) has jumped in in a big way.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"Not believing in force is the same as not believing in gravitation" (Trotsky)
--
Captain Button
> In article <oqbdvsg1ikdi5p7su...@news.tel.hr>, Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.tel.hr> wrote:
>>On 24 Oct 2000 22:07:52 -0500, Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net>
>>wrote:
>>>If you exclude the two authors S. M. Stirling and Harry Turtledove,
>>>are there really all that many alternate history books out there?
>>http://www.skatecity.com/ah/
> I think that URL is obsolete. The Uchronia list is now at
> <http://www.uchronia.net>. Though I wasn't able to find a way to make
> it display in chronological order, so you'd have to eyeball the
> alphabetical list to get a sense of when the AHs were published.
<gripe>
You mean "alphabetical list_s_" since the present site only lets
you look at one of 26 different list by the author's surname initial.
</gripe>
I was going to get the list and bash it around in MS Access a bit.
It would have hopefully produced some year by year figures to go
with Mr. Nicoll's question, both with and without Mr. Fraering's
ammendment.
[ I basically do this sort of thing for a living at the moment,
so my reflexes were tripped. ]
But the list has been repackaged such that you can only get little
chunks of parts of it. And I'm not up to writing a webcrawler
to compile the list from the site as currently set up.
If there is an easy way to get the whole list at once, it isn't
obvious to me.
I've looked at Deja News but can't find an old copy, and
the only old copy on the web I found is a bit too old, 1994:
http://www.steampunk.com/sfch/bibliographies/alternate-histories/
Does anyone know where I can find a not-too-old version of the whole list?
I do appreciate that a lot of thankless work has gone into creating
the list, and I thank Mr. Schmunk and all others who have contributed
to it.
--
"You may have trouble getting permission to aero or lithobrake
asteroids on Earth." - James Nicoll
Captain Button - [ but...@io.com ]
robert...@hotmail.com
dsw...@druber.com wrote:
> Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I've always loved history
almost
> as much as SF. My tastes haven't changed, so I don't know why the
genre
> is suddenly so popular.
>
Could it be that thinking folks want a better world than the one they
have?
Bob Kolker
Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster
> In article <MPG.145e403d9...@news.supernews.net>,
> dsw...@druber.com wrote:
> > Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I've always loved history
> almost
> > as much as SF. My tastes haven't changed, so I don't know why the
> genre
> > is suddenly so popular.
> Could it be that thinking folks want a better world than the one they
> have?
Sure, but I somehow doubt that's driving sales of AH stories any more
than readers' wanting to learn about science drives SF sales.
--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfo...@ricochet.net> Got Thetans? <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
Jordan S. Bassior
>
>I think part of the reason is that many readers are still looking for
>adventure
>stories and they aren't happy with the adventure they are getting in
>"mainstream" SF
>as it seeks literary respectability. As editors go for big books -- and as
>agents try to move
>writers into writing "important" books -- the sense of wonder can go
>astray.
Let's hope that this dies the same death the New Wave did.
>Too, I suspect the increased gaming background of contemporary readers
>makes it
>easier for them to enjoy the alternate history -- this is just "what if"
>writ large.
Yep.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Mark Atwood said:
>
>>Then those people are suffering from a failure of imagination, and at
>>the worst possible time too, as we now have a fair number of dizzing
>>and yet perfectly possible things to aspire to.
>>
>But few of them are politically correct.
Which is why "political correctness" is going to go down the tubes.
Prestorjon
> have?
Sure, but I somehow doubt that's driving sales of AH stories any more
than readers' wanting to learn about science drives SF sales.>>
If anything I'd say it was the opposite. people want reassurance that our
world is better than the alternative. Most ATLs are worse than the world we
live in: the CSA wins, the Nazis win, Cuban Missile Crisis escalates.
Mark Atwood
>
> If anything I'd say it was the opposite. people want reassurance that our
> world is better than the alternative. Most ATLs are worse than the world we
> live in: the CSA wins, the Nazis win, Cuban Missile Crisis escalates.
_The Two Georges_ presents itself as a better present.
(I disagree, but then, I'm like that...)
David Librik
>dat...@bway.net wrote:
>> Of course, Howard Waldrop has been writing alternate (and secret)
>> history stories since the late 70s and early 80s.
>However, those AH stories of his which I have read seem to have little use
>for history other than to provide backdrop and names for characters who
>dance to whatever tune Waldrop feels like calling.
I think you've just put your finger on why I like Waldrop's Alternate
History stories better than the mainstream of the genre. I don't care
about justifying the details of history, tracking the battles and the
personalities, any more than I care for that particular brand of hard
SF that wants to do physics and engineering problems. Howard Waldrop
thinks certain historical periods or movements were bee-zarre and wants
to show them off. Sometimes he just writes fantasies set in those
times ("Flatfeet" or "...the world, as we know't"), sometimes he writes
secret histories ("Ugly Chickens"), and sometimes he writes outright
alternate history (_Them Bones_).
There's a nonfiction book that came out about a year ago full of
"What If" scenarios written by historians. (You can't ask for a
better example of the success of AH as a fictional genre nowadays
than the existence of a market for such a book.) When I first saw
it I immediately flipped to the section entitled "What If The Aztecs
Had Defeated Cortez?" I was hoping for a rigorous imagination of a
non-European modern America with the existing Native nations, but
instead it was all about sixteenth-century battles and politics, and
concluded that the Spanish conquest could only have been delayed.
No hope for the imaginative play and cool setting of _Them Bones_.
- David Librik
Swyck
>If the politically correct elect to remain version 1.0 non-augumented
>pure meat humans, I would consider that to be a Good Thing.
>
>--
>Mark Atwood | The summit of Mount Everest is marine limestone.
>m...@pobox.com |
>http://www.pobox.com/~mra
I dunno, a few upgrades might be in order. I'd be careful with those
Beta versions though.
Besides, we all know that the x.1 or x.2 versions are the best. x.0's
never get it right.
Mark Atwood
> >
> >If the politically correct elect to remain version 1.0 non-augumented
> >pure meat humans, I would consider that to be a Good Thing.
> I dunno, a few upgrades might be in order. I'd be careful with those
> Beta versions though.
> Besides, we all know that the x.1 or x.2 versions are the best. x.0's
> never get it right.
No kidding. I'm getting really sick of being stuck here at 0.99ß. (The
vendor may *call* it 1.0, but there are obviously prerelease bugs
still in the system...)
Jeffrey C. Dege
><<> Could it be that thinking folks want a better world than the one they
>> have?
>
>Sure, but I somehow doubt that's driving sales of AH stories any more
>than readers' wanting to learn about science drives SF sales.>>
>
>If anything I'd say it was the opposite. people want reassurance that our
>world is better than the alternative. Most ATLs are worse than the world we
>live in: the CSA wins, the Nazis win, Cuban Missile Crisis escalates.
Well, there's always L. Niel Smith - we shoot Washington, repeal the
constitution, and establish a truly free society.
--
The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5
Prestorjon
(I disagree, but then, I'm like that...)>>
Yeah and For Want Of A Nail is mostly better too.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> spake:
>pure meat humans, I would consider that to be a Good Thing.
Gee, and here I was looking forward, for the first time ever, to the PC
receiving a Microsoft quality brain "upgrade".
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
Disclaimer: I do not have an orbital mind control laser; you are free to post
your own opinion, but be prepared to back it up, because I *will* call you on
it if I think it's bullshit. That's how the Internet, and life, works.
Mark Atwood
> <<_The Two Georges_ presents itself as a better present.
>
> (I disagree, but then, I'm like that...)>>
>
> Yeah and For Want Of A Nail is mostly better too.
I thought that was a /Superman/ Elseworld...
Jay Shorten
Prestorjon <prest...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001026171239...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
> If anything I'd say it was the opposite. people want reassurance that our
> world is better than the alternative. Most ATLs are worse than the world
we
> live in: the CSA wins, the Nazis win, Cuban Missile Crisis escalates.
The problem is that novels showing that alternate worlds are uniformly
better or uniformly worse are not as believable, unless it's about something
obvious such as the Cuban Missile Crisis leading to nuclear war. With any
alternative, some people would have done better than in reality, and some
people would have done worse, and for some people it wouldn't have made a
difference. That's more realistic.
Take Turtledove's Great War.
Up to the war:
Canada has done better,
the white Southerners have done better,
the Mormons have done worse,
the black Southerners have done somewhat worse, but only because they were
enslaved for longer yet it seems to me that their conditions in Great War
aren't much different than from in our own South at the time,
for the common Northerners it hasn't seem to have made much difference.
After the war (compared to our own):
the losers of the war have of course done worse,
but the black Southerners have done *better*,
and from what you can tell about the news outside North America the Irish
may have done better and it could be that the Central and Eastern Europeans
may do better (not just the Germans). Whether it be so remains to be seen.
I liked "The Two Georges", but it really didn't seem as realistic. I think
things would have been better, but they seemed *too* much better.
Jay Shorten
Jay Shorten
> <<_The Two Georges_ presents itself as a better present.
>
> (I disagree, but then, I'm like that...)>>
>
> Yeah and For Want Of A Nail is mostly better too.
Do you think so? A world where the two major opposing nuclear powers also
share a long land border seems to me much more dangerous than our own.
Confederation politics didn't seem very realistic to me either.
Jay Shorten
Christopher J. Henrich
>. Not so long ago it was possible for a bright historian to be told
> not to bother specialising in the Tudor period, since all the important work on
> its history had been done. That assessment was risibly wrong, and I find it
> impossible to envisage similar advice being given today, in any period or
> location. And that is a deeply pleasing thought:-)
Interesting.
About 1900, it seemed (at least to some pundits) that physics was a
finished science. Future generations would measure the fundamental
constants to more decimal places, but nothing radically new was to be
expected. In just a few years, both quantum theory and relativity
started messing around with this view.
Apparently the same delusion afflicts other branches of learning.
--
Chris Henrich
Michael S. Schiffer
>prest...@aol.com (Prestorjon) writes:
>> <<_The Two Georges_ presents itself as a better present.
>> (I disagree, but then, I'm like that...)>>
>> Yeah and For Want Of A Nail is mostly better too.
>I thought that was a /Superman/ Elseworld...
I think you're thinking of JLA: The Nail. _For Want of a Nail_
by Robert Sobel purports to be the scholarly history, complete with
footnotes referencing other historical writing from the same timeline,
of a world in which Burgoyne won at Saratoga and the American Revolution
failed.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
Jordan S. Bassior
>About 1900, it seemed (at least to some pundits) that physics was a
>finished science. Future generations would measure the fundamental
>constants to more decimal places, but nothing radically new was to be
>expected. In just a few years, both quantum theory and relativity
>started messing around with this view.
>
>Apparently the same delusion afflicts other branches of learning.
What's amusing is that the same delusion is afflicting some scientists now. I
read a book (forget the title or author) which argued that we'd discovered or
soon would discover all the science that would matter to human beings in their
ordinary lives, and that the rest of it would all be irrelevant to human needs.
I think he confused reality with a game of _Civilization_ ;-)
Prestorjon
better or uniformly worse are not as believable, unless it's about something
obvious such as the Cuban Missile Crisis leading to nuclear war. >>
I think that thats only true in that some stories focus on one particular set
of characters who things might be better or worse for. Taken in whole most
ATLs are worse ones.
>Canada has done better,
Debateable. They gained a sliver of territory from Canada but had to institute
conscription to protect from the US. Overall I'd say thats negative.
>the black Southerners have done somewhat worse, but only because they were
>enslaved for longer yet it seems to me that their conditions in Great War
>aren't much different than from in our own South at the time,
Black southerners have done much worse suffering another generation of slavery,
and then economic peonage worse than they saw in OTL. Its premature to say how
black Americans will fit into the post GW south, although its important to note
that IOTL there was a substantial amount of black flight to the norht that
didn't occur in this TL.
>for the common Northerners it hasn't seem to have made much difference.
Nope, its worse. Conscription, increased beauracracy, the humiliating defeat
in two wars.
Prestorjon
JLA: The Nail is a Justice League Elseworld which focuses on a world where the
Kents don't find baby Kal-El.
"For Want Of A Nail: If Burgoyne Had Won At Saratoga" is a book written by an
economist/historian about a world where the British win at Saratoga and thence
the whole Revolutionary War. Its written in a non-fiction format essentially
as a history text of this ATL where British North America becomes a prosperous
dominion and the American rebels flee to Mexico where they establish a
republican government. Its pretty good even though it suffers from some flaws,
notably the IMO over-optimistic view of how the world would be if Britain
retain the American colonies.
Prestorjon
share a long land border seems to me much more dangerous than our own.
Confederation politics didn't seem very realistic to me either.>>
IIRC the United States of Mexico is not a nuclear power at the point the book
ended (although they very well could be by now). Also its been a long time
since I've read the book but I thought that the USM and the CNA hadn't fought
since the Rocky Mountain war of the 1870s.
Overall though Sobel seems to paint a rosy picture:slavery abolished twenty
eyars earlier in North America (although lasting into the twentieth century in
Mexico), only one world war IIRC.
And I agree that there are some problems with Sobels TL. I'm not sure if I
believe in Kramer Associates rise to power.
John Andrew Fairhurst
> _The Two Georges_ presents itself as a better present.
>
I'm not sure about this one. At one level, it's certainly true that the
book's very positively presented but there are sections where the
situation can't be described as anything but grim. Even where things are
presented as being the best possible, I get the feeling that some one's
taking the rise out of some one else.
--
John Fairhurst
In Association with Amazon worldwide:
http://www.johnsbooks.co.uk
Chad R. Orzel
wrote:
>Chris Henrich said:
>
>>About 1900, it seemed (at least to some pundits) that physics was a
>>finished science. Future generations would measure the fundamental
>>constants to more decimal places, but nothing radically new was to be
>>expected. In just a few years, both quantum theory and relativity
>>started messing around with this view.
>>
>>Apparently the same delusion afflicts other branches of learning.
>
>What's amusing is that the same delusion is afflicting some scientists now. I
>read a book (forget the title or author) which argued that we'd discovered or
>soon would discover all the science that would matter to human beings in their
>ordinary lives, and that the rest of it would all be irrelevant to human needs.
John Horgan's _The End of Science,_ perhaps?
I haven't read the book, though he stopped by the national research
lab I was working in at the time, and gave a talk about the book. He
was (relatively) savagely attacked by the assembled scientists, but I
think that they, like you, were subtley misinterpreting his point.
His claim was not, as many think, that all "worthwhile" science is
finished. His claim was that there isn't another great revolution
along the lines of Quantum Mechanics coming down the line- the sort of
thing that requires a fundamental re-thinking of all science from the
ground up. There's still plenty of worthwhile stuff left to be done,
and fascinating problems within quantum theory remain to be
investigated, so science is not about to shrivel and die in the
dustbin of history.
Within certain bounds, he's got a point. The theories we have, at
least in physics, are astonishingly good. While there are gaps yet to
be filled- the biggest being finding a way to make Quantum Mechanics
and General Relativity play nice, filling those gaps is unlikely to
shake physics to its core, the way QM did. It's even less likely to
lead to practical device applications on the level of the laser and
the transitor which would change the face of future socities (much as
we'd all like to get a working hyperdrive out of all that pointless
mathematical noodling they do at Princeton).
The big flaw in his argument is that he slights a few of the other
sciences unjustly. He conveniently asserted that the problems of
defining and describing consciousness are unsolvable, and made a few
other assertions about biological sciences that I'm not knowledgeable
enough to check. There's certainly progress to be made in those areas,
and perhaps revolutionary progress.
The biggest opening for revolutionary progress in the physical
sciences is probabaly in the area of quantum measurement. But that's
almost as much a philosophical problem as a physical one.
Again, I'm not sure if this is the book you're talking about, and
these comments are based on my recollection of his talk, and not the
book itself. He may well make goofier claims in the book than he will
in person. YMMV, and all that.
OBSF: Vinge's _A Deepness in the Sky_ contains a strong element of
this sort of thing, with references to the "failed dreams" of real AI
and nanotech. Of course, he's artificially applied the Zones to
account for this situation.
Later,
OilCan
Michael R N Dolbear
Prestorjon <prest...@aol.com> wrote in article
<20001028005214...@ng-fn1.aol.com>...
[...]
>
> Overall though Sobel seems to paint a rosy picture:slavery abolished
twenty
century in
> Mexico), only one world war IIRC.
Why was the Slavery surprising ? Same in _The Two Georges_ which had
zero world wars.
--
Mike D
Prestorjon
zero world wars.>>
I don't think I said it was surprising.
Chad R. Orzel
>On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 13:56:16 GMT,
>Chad R. Orzel <orz...@earthlink.net> scripsit:
>>The big flaw in his argument is that he slights a few of the other
>>sciences unjustly. He conveniently asserted that the problems of
>>defining and describing consciousness are unsolvable, and made a few
>>other assertions about biological sciences that I'm not knowledgeable
>>enough to check. There's certainly progress to be made in those areas,
>>and perhaps revolutionary progress.
>
>If someone figures out how to _describe_ the stable states of a
>discrete biological organism or an ecology with predictive force, it's
>going to be plenty revolutionary.
As usual, you're going to have to unpack that a bit.
As I said above, my background in biology really isn't strong enough
to be able to make reasonable judgements as to where the potential
revolutions might fall, and it certainly doesn't enable me to guess
with any confidence just what you're talking about.
The phrase "stable states" does conjure images of force diagrams
involving elephants on tightropes, used to show that the stable
equilibrium position for such a discrete biological organism is at the
bottom of an elephant-shaped impact crater some distance below the
rope. Which isn't helpful, though it is mildly amusing.
Later,
OilCan
Jordan S. Bassior
recently discovered that things can emerge from singularities into view, I
would think that the claim that there are no great breakthroughs left is a bit
premature. Until we understand what happens beyond the event horizon and why
quantum probabilities have the values they do, we cannot really say that we
know everything important that is to be known about our universe.
William December Starr
Eric D. Berge <eric_...@hotmail.com> said:
> And Joan Aiken had an entire series of (very good) althist books
> before that...
Y'know, putting a prefix that ends with a 't' in front of something
that begins with an 'h' is one of those tricks that just doesn't work
very well in the English language. "Alt-hist," perhaps?
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
John Andrew Fairhurst
says...
For Turteldove's Great War:
> for the common Northerners it hasn't seem to have made much difference.
>
From the war of 188x the common (White) Northerner, has been forced to
accept a greater regimentation than I would expect to see them accepting.
A lot of that is because they see this as the way of getting back at
those who showed them up in the 80s, though.
Chad R. Orzel
>On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 16:59:01 GMT,
>Chad R. Orzel <orz...@earthlink.net> scripsit:
>>On 28 Oct 2000 14:52:17 GMT, gra...@dsl.ca (Graydon Saunders) wrote:
>>>If someone figures out how to _describe_ the stable states of a
>>>discrete biological organism or an ecology with predictive force, it's
>>>going to be plenty revolutionary.
>>
>>As usual, you're going to have to unpack that a bit.
>>As I said above, my background in biology really isn't strong enough
>>to be able to make reasonable judgements as to where the potential
>>revolutions might fall, and it certainly doesn't enable me to guess
>>with any confidence just what you're talking about.
>
>Shall try.
>
>Something alive is a dynamic system; it's got some stable states, and
>it shifts between them. (eg, growing and mature; massive
>oversimplication, but that's the idea.)
Not quite what I thought you meant, but ok.
>Problem is, in practice, the states are so ferociously complex, it's
>not possible with current art to _describe_ the states in any kind of
>predictive way. If we get that, it'll become possible to predict in
>advance what, say, an increase in the concentration of lead from 10
>ppm to 20 ppm will do to the local frog population.
At the risk of sounding like the Jeff Goldblum character in _Jurassic
Park,_ I think this will run afould of chaos, at least in the
"sensitive dependence upon initial conditions" sense. Two
lead-resistant tree frogs could spark a population boom in spite of an
increase in lead levels, but not if they both get run over by a bus.
On the statistical level, I agree that the predictive power of biology
can be greatly improved, but there's enough of a random element in the
process that I doubt you're ever going to really nail things down.
Later,
OilCan
Chad R. Orzel
wrote:
>Given that our physics actually breaks down in a singularity, and that we've
>recently discovered that things can emerge from singularities into view, I
>would think that the claim that there are no great breakthroughs left is a bit
>premature.
I'm not entirely sure what's emerged from a singularity recently, so I
can't comment in much detail.
However, it's important to remember that the claim in the Horgan book
(or at least his book-tour talk on said book) is not that there will
be no breakthroughs, but that there won't be the kind of gigantic
breakthroughs that require a complete rethinking of all of physics
(for example) from the ground up.
Quantum Mechanics works extremely well. Quantum Electro-Dynamics has
had its predictions tested to some outlandish number of decimal
places. These theories work, and work well enough that it's unlikely
that anything happening on the fringes of a singularity is going to
require any major re-working of the foundations of modern physics.
Personally, I think Horgan does cast the argument into terms which are
slightly more absolute than is really justified, but I do think
there's a decent case to be made that we're not likely to see another
worldview-shattering breakthrough like QM, and particularly not one
which would influence everyday life in the myriad indirect ways QM
has.
Again, I would stress that this is not a statement that there will be
no breakthroughs at all in the future. There are a number of obvious
areas in which dramatic progress might still be made. Room-temperature
superconductors would be a breakthrough, and would re-shape society as
much as anything else to come out of quantum theory. But
room-temperature superconductors are not likely to require the
demolition and reconstruction of the vast edifice of quantum theory-
they're much more likely to be a consequence of QM, and occupying an
odd corner of parameter space.
Likewise, some unification of QM and General Relativity would be a
breakthrough, and a fairly fundamental one, but it's unlikely that
such a theory will re-shape our understanding of physics in readily
accessible energy ranges, let alone lead to useful applications.
Indeed, such a theory is moderately likely to come out of some subset
of the arcane and elegant theories now bandied about in the upper
stratosphere of the physics community.
Until we understand what happens beyond the event horizon and why
>quantum probabilities have the values they do,
Again, the phrasing here is odd enough that I can't quite figure out
what you mean. The real problem is not so much what the values of
various probabilities are, but how the process of measurement chooses
among them to generate only one observable world.
This is as much a problem of philosophy as physics, though. I'm not at
all sure how one would even go about "proving" a meta-theory like the
many-worlds model, and even if you could, we're not likely to end up
in the world of Greg Egan's _Quarrantine_
we cannot really say that we
>know everything important that is to be known about our universe.
Nobody's claiming that.
Later,
OilCan
Jordan S. Bassior
>I'm not entirely sure what's emerged from a singularity recently
"Energy", according to Hawking. Singularities evaporate, and current physics
cannot predict the form or intensity of what they radiate. In fact, it can't
even predict the distribution -- the radiation is not merely random, but
chaotic in the ultimate sense.
Since the Universe as a whole emerged from a singularity, this implies that
there is something _big_ we are failing to grasp about Nature.
>However, it's important to remember that the claim in the Horgan book
>(or at least his book-tour talk on said book) is not that there will
>be no breakthroughs, but that there won't be the kind of gigantic
>breakthroughs that require a complete rethinking of all of physics
>(for example) from the ground up.
>
>Quantum Mechanics works extremely well. Quantum Electro-Dynamics has
>had its predictions tested to some outlandish number of decimal
>places. These theories work, and work well enough that it's unlikely
>that anything happening on the fringes of a singularity is going to
>require any major re-working of the foundations of modern physics.
You're missing the point. Our current physics is incapable of explaining what
happens _within the singularity itself_. This is a gigantic omission -- not so
much directly in terms of everyday life (*), but in terms of what it implies we
are failing to grasp about the Universe as a whole.
(*) But when we really understand singularities, we may be able to generate and
control them, with _major_ implications for everyday life, once our engineering
and wealth reach a certain point. Some singularity forms seem to allow FTL and
others (some forms of) time travel.
>Likewise, some unification of QM and General Relativity would be a
>breakthrough, and a fairly fundamental one, but it's unlikely that
>such a theory will re-shape our understanding of physics in readily
>accessible energy ranges, let alone lead to useful applications.
Today's "inaccessible" energy range is tomorrow's "semi-accessible" and the day
after tomorrow's "readily accessible" energy range. Compare the energies we
routinely manipulate today with those we manipulated 50, 100, or 200 years ago.
>Again, the phrasing here is odd enough that I can't quite figure out
>what you mean. The real problem is not so much what the values of
>various probabilities are, but how the process of measurement chooses
>among them to generate only one observable world.
These are the same problem. We don't understand what lies "beneath" quantum
mechanics, and how this connects to what lies "beneath" relativity -- and to
connect the two theories, as we must (they are both true, after all, and in the
same Universe) we will have to understand this. And it seems unlikely that in
the process we will learn nothing else of interest about the Universe.
Aaron Bergman
> Chad R. Orzel said:
>
> >I'm not entirely sure what's emerged from a singularity
> >recently
>
> "Energy", according to Hawking.
That's hardly recent. Besides, the radiation comes from the event
horizon, not the singularity.
> Singularities evaporate, and
> current physics cannot predict the form or intensity of what
> they radiate.
Actually, current physics does just that. It's pretty much a nice
thermal spectrum in just about everything.
> In fact, it can't even predict the distribution
> -- the radiation is not merely random, but chaotic in the
> ultimate sense.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> Since the Universe as a whole emerged from a singularity, this
> implies that there is something _big_ we are failing to grasp
> about Nature.
In fact, a quantum theory of gravity is expected to resolve the
singularities endemic to GR. There are even some wacky string
theorists trying to make sense of pre-big bang cosmology.
Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>
Jordan S. Bassior
>Jordan S. Bassior said:
>
>> In fact, it can't even predict the distribution
>> -- the radiation is not merely random, but chaotic in the
>> ultimate sense.
>
>I have no idea what you're talking about.
Instead of being "random" in the sense that there is a distribution curve of
emissions, the radiation is "random" in the sense that it is not theoretically
possible (*) even to state as a set of probabilities what sort of radiation
will emerge. Hawking said something to the effect of "Cthulhu could come out of
one." I kid you not.
(*) given the limits of our current theories. Presumably, there _is_ some
factor which determines the emission spectra, but we don't understand what that
factor is, yet.
Aaron Bergman
> Aaron Bergman said:
>
> >Jordan S. Bassior said:
> >
> >> In fact, it can't even predict the distribution -- the
> >> radiation is not merely random, but chaotic in the ultimate
> >> sense.
> >
> >I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> Instead of being "random" in the sense that there is a
> distribution curve of emissions, the radiation is "random" in
> the sense that it is not theoretically possible (*) even to
> state as a set of probabilities what sort of radiation will
> emerge.
I wouldn't say this. We know statistically what Hawking radiation
looks like.
Niall McAuley
[Hawking radiation]
>Instead of being "random" in the sense that there is a distribution curve of
>emissions, the radiation is "random" in the sense that it is not theoretically
>possible (*) even to state as a set of probabilities what sort of radiation
>will emerge. Hawking said something to the effect of "Cthulhu could come out of
>one." I kid you not.
You are misremembering a report of a Hawking talk as reported
by Niven or Pournelle. Hawking was talking about a theoretical
*naked* singularity that time, not a black hole with an event
horizon.
Hawking radiation from an actual black hole is not at all eldritch.
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]
Chad R. Orzel
wrote:
>Chad R. Orzel said:
>
>>I'm not entirely sure what's emerged from a singularity recently
>
>"Energy", according to Hawking.
That's a fairly historical value of "recent."
Singularities evaporate, and current physics
>cannot predict the form or intensity of what they radiate. In fact, it can't
>even predict the distribution -- the radiation is not merely random, but
>chaotic in the ultimate sense.
And I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here (which, I
suspect, puts us in the same metaphorical boat). As far as I know,
it's been shown that Hawking radiation follows a thermal black-body
spectrum, at least for a "normal" black hole. Statistically speaking,
we know the form of the distribution, and the intensity.
(Of course, we don't really "know" this in a meaningful sense, having
never actually had the chance to directly observe a black hole. We're
not likely to get a good look at one in the forseeable future,
either...)
There are nastier theoretical objects out there, but again, the
current state of the theory of most of these objects is better than
you seem to think, and some of the nastier problems are eliminated
entirely by many of the candidate Theories of Everything.
>Since the Universe as a whole emerged from a singularity, this implies that
>there is something _big_ we are failing to grasp about Nature.
Enh.
The biggest gap (other than the lack of really good observational or
experimental tests) is probably in the area of "why." Which is
metaphysics in the most literal sense of the term.
And I think you're greatly overesitmating the prevalence of
singularities, and their importance to physics in general. Let alone
the likelihood of ever being able to do useful experiments with them.
>>Again, the phrasing here is odd enough that I can't quite figure out
>>what you mean. The real problem is not so much what the values of
>>various probabilities are, but how the process of measurement chooses
>>among them to generate only one observable world.
>These are the same problem. We don't understand what lies "beneath" quantum
>mechanics, and how this connects to what lies "beneath" relativity -- and to
>connect the two theories, as we must (they are both true, after all, and in the
>same Universe) we will have to understand this. And it seems unlikely that in
>the process we will learn nothing else of interest about the Universe.
Again, you're distorting the claim that's being made. Which is par for
the course, but really does get pretty annoying.
Nobody's saying we won't learn more than we know, or that there aren't
big discoveries to be made.
What is being said is that those discoveries, when they come, will not
be the same sort of revolutionary changes that came in with Relativity
and Quantum Mechanics. What's "beneath" QM is as much a question of
philosophy as physics, and not likely to produce concrete results.
Later,
OilCan
Trent Goulding
>On 01 Nov 2000 02:53:01 GMT, jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior)
>wrote:
>>These are the same problem. We don't understand what lies "beneath" quantum
>>mechanics, and how this connects to what lies "beneath" relativity -- and to
>>connect the two theories, as we must (they are both true, after all, and in the
>>same Universe) we will have to understand this. And it seems unlikely that in
>>the process we will learn nothing else of interest about the Universe.
>
>Again, you're distorting the claim that's being made. Which is par for
>the course, but really does get pretty annoying.
Can I just mention how amusing it's been to watch Jordan lecture to
honest-to-god physicists about quantum mechanics and so forth?
--
Trent Goulding goul...@2001.law.ucla.edu
Matthew Austern
> There are nastier theoretical objects out there, but again, the
> current state of the theory of most of these objects is better than
> you seem to think, and some of the nastier problems are eliminated
> entirely by many of the candidate Theories of Everything.
Has there been any recent progress on the black hole information
paradox? The last time I checked (which was a couple years ago),
there didn't seem to be any generally accepted resolution.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Can I just mention how amusing it's been to watch Jordan lecture to
>honest-to-god physicists about quantum mechanics and so forth?
Does this mean that I'm wrong in my _main_ point, and we now _do_ know what
happens beyond the event horizon?
Peter Bruells
> Trent Goulding said:
>
> >Can I just mention how amusing it's been to watch Jordan lecture to
> >honest-to-god physicists about quantum mechanics and so forth?
>
> Does this mean that I'm wrong in my _main_ point, and we now _do_ know what
> happens beyond the event horizon?
No, just that a lot of very bright people agree, that some things are
nor explainable (the "why"-question, for example) and some things have
not been explained, but that they have very ood reasons to belief that
these explanations will work within the frameworkd of current theorie,
instead of shattering them.
Trent Goulding
>
>>Can I just mention how amusing it's been to watch Jordan lecture to
>>honest-to-god physicists about quantum mechanics and so forth?
>
>Does this mean that I'm wrong in my _main_ point, and we now _do_ know what
>happens beyond the event horizon?
No, it _means_ that to this _layman_, you appear to be _consistently
misinterpreting_ what Chad and Aaron, et al. are _saying_ to you,
and it's _amusing_ to see you declaiming in _declarative sentences_
to people that I have _reason_ to believe have the training and
background to _understand_ what they're talking about, at least far
more than _you_ do. Unless you have _graduate-level_ work in a
_physics-related field_ under your belt that you aren't telling us
about?
Nevertheless, far be it from me to stifle interesting conversation;
I shall retire from the field to nurse my amusement in private.
Carry on.
--
Trent Goulding goul...@2001.law.ucla.edu
Michael Steeves
} jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) wrote:
} >Trent Goulding said:
} >>Can I just mention how amusing it's been to watch Jordan lecture to
} >>honest-to-god physicists about quantum mechanics and so forth?
} >Does this mean that I'm wrong in my _main_ point, and we now _do_ know what
} >happens beyond the event horizon?
}
} No, it _means_ that to this _layman_, you appear to be _consistently
} misinterpreting_ what Chad and Aaron, et al. are _saying_ to you,
} and it's _amusing_ to see you declaiming in _declarative sentences_
} to people that I have _reason_ to believe have the training and
} background to _understand_ what they're talking about, at least far
} more than _you_ do. Unless you have _graduate-level_ work in a
} _physics-related field_ under your belt that you aren't telling us
} about?
But perhaps more importantly, UN-altered REPRODUCTION and
DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY
to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS.
HTH.
-Mike
--
"That is the Law of Nature: Life is a brainless struggle, and 'the
Meek' will jabber and die like brain-damaged rats in a maze, long
before they will ever have time to even think about inheriting the
goddamn Earth..." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Jordan S. Bassior
don't know what goes on within a singularity, and hence that our physics is
seriously incomplete, other than to go "Hee hee, silly Jordan" ... ?
Peter Bruells
> So, neither of you actually have any reply to my point that
> physicists still don't know what goes on within a singularity, and
> hence that our physics is seriously incomplete, other than to go
> "Hee hee, silly Jordan" ... ?
That wasn't the contested point. The contested point was, that what's
missing will most likely not invalidate the stuff we already know,
once the gaps have been filled, unliked quantum mechanics and
relativity, which made short work of earlier physics.
Daniel Silevitch
Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> wrote:
> So, neither of you actually have any reply to my point that physicists still
> don't know what goes on within a singularity, and hence that our physics is
> seriously incomplete, other than to go "Hee hee, silly Jordan" ... ?
No, the points were that
a) We currently have a rough idea of what is going on "inside" a
singularity.
b) Progress is being made in fields like quantum gravity that will lead
to more complete understanding of the singularities.
c) This progress, while filling in a gap in our current understanding,
is not expected to lead to a phase transition in physics (of the sort
that quantum mechanics itself represented in the early part of the
century). Our understanding of quantum gravity, etc. will extend and
improve our current theories of the world, rather than junk them and
start fresh.
-dms
Chad R. Orzel
wrote:
>Trent Goulding said:
>>Can I just mention how amusing it's been to watch Jordan lecture to
>>honest-to-god physicists about quantum mechanics and so forth?
>Does this mean that I'm wrong in my _main_ point, and we now _do_ know what
>happens beyond the event horizon?
Yes.
We'd tell you about it, but then we'd have to kill you.
Later,
OilCan
Aaron Bergman
> Trent Goulding said:
>
> >Can I just mention how amusing it's been to watch Jordan
> >lecture to honest-to-god physicists about quantum mechanics
> >and so forth?
>
> Does this mean that I'm wrong in my _main_ point, and we now
> _do_ know what happens beyond the event horizon?
Yes.
HTH!
§
Less facetious: The event horizon is not a locally
distinguishable area. We are pretty sure that we've got a good
idea what happens until the curvature scale approaches the Planck
scale which is a region quite close to the singularity.
Jordan S. Bassior
>That wasn't the contested point. The contested point was, that what's
>missing will most likely not invalidate the stuff we already know,
>once the gaps have been filled, unliked quantum mechanics and
>relativity, which made short work of earlier physics.
That was _your_ point, and a valid one. The two posters I was replying to
really _had_ no point.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Our understanding of quantum gravity, etc. will extend and
>improve our current theories of the world, rather than junk them and
>start fresh.
I know of _no_ paradigm shift as extensive, in real history, as the one which
you are (wrongly) implying that I believe will happen. Einsteinian physics did
not "junk" Newtonian physics, for instance.
Peter Bruells
> Daniel Silevitch said:
>
> >Our understanding of quantum gravity, etc. will extend and
> >improve our current theories of the world, rather than junk them and
> >start fresh.
>
> I know of _no_ paradigm shift as extensive, in real history, as the one which
> you are (wrongly) implying that I believe will happen. Einsteinian physics did
> not "junk" Newtonian physics, for instance.
Yes, they did. The models based on Newtonian physics sill work to an
astonishing degree, enough to use their simpler formulas in most
everyday applications. The theory behing it is wrong, though.
Daniel Silevitch
Bassior <jsba...@aol.com> wrote:
> Daniel Silevitch said:
>
> >Our understanding of quantum gravity, etc. will extend and
> >improve our current theories of the world, rather than junk them and
> >start fresh.
>
> I know of _no_ paradigm shift as extensive, in real history, as the one which
> you are (wrongly) implying that I believe will happen. Einsteinian physics did
> not "junk" Newtonian physics, for instance.
Yes it did, and so did quantum mechanics. I'm not referring to the
predictions made by Newtonian mechanics, which of course work just fine
in their realm of applicability. What I'm talking about is the way of
thinking about what is really going on. Moving from a worldview of
discrete objects moving on well-defined trajectories to one of
probability distributions and statistics was a fundamental shift in the
basic underpinnings of physics as we knew it.
This was similar in magnitude to the revolution that started with
Gallileo and ended with Newton, overturning and thoroughly killing
Aristotilean physics.
-dms
Chad R. Orzel
wrote:
>Peter Bruells said:
>
>>That wasn't the contested point. The contested point was, that what's
>>missing will most likely not invalidate the stuff we already know,
>>once the gaps have been filled, unliked quantum mechanics and
>>relativity, which made short work of earlier physics.
>
>That was _your_ point, and a valid one. The two posters I was replying to
>really _had_ no point.
You know, every now and then, you manage to string together a handful
of posts that make it look like you're not quite an utter waste of
electrons, and that you might deserve the benefit of the doubt, and a
few good-faith responses to what appear to be honest questions or
misunderstandings.
This is not one of them.
Especially coming as it does on the heels of three posts where I was
making _exactly_ the same point as Peter, over and over, albeit with
more caveats and qualifiers. Apparently, I used too many words, or
something, as you chose to ignore what I actually wrote in favor of
responding to your personal idea of what I ought to have said in order
to better set up your oh-so-devastaing counterarguments.
Later,
OilCan
William December Starr
Aaron Bergman <aber...@princeton.edu> said:
> Less facetious: The event horizon is not a locally
> distinguishable area. We are pretty sure that we've got a good
> idea what happens until the curvature scale approaches the Planck
> scale which is a region quite close to the singularity.
Empirical testing of these theories, however, still lies slightly
out of our reach. :-)
(Hmm. If you could build an OnOff black hole, you could...)
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>