Science and Science Fiction

I’m surprised by how many people watch the Big Bang Theory without showing the slightest interest in science. I can’t help thinking it’s like watching the Muppet Show. Kids enjoy scenes with fuzzy puppets, while adults are treated to a “hidden,” more grown-up humor. Similarly, some viewers, often self-proclaimed geeks, are deeply engaged in shows set in space, like Star Trek, Stargate, Doctor Who, Babylon 5 or Red Dwarf, without the slightest understanding of scientific principles.

I’m not saying “geek” must equal “scientist.” Not at all. No need to rush off to get your Ph.D. Being a geek simply means allowing yourself to enjoy something others would categorize as niche. You may immerse yourself as deeply as you wish within your chosen area(s), without being judged by your fellow geeks. It’s liberating. Involve yourself in cos play, list your favorite episodes of Farscape, live your life by Seven of Nine’s wisdom. Call yourself a geek, a nerd, a fan-girl or a fan-boy, or…Dave. It makes no difference. That isn’t my issue at all.

I’m simply stunned that so many people who follow sci-fi shows are deprived of that extra layer of understanding. Why don’t schools tap into this wonderful pool of early fans?

My love of Star Trek was sparked in childhood, but I did not pursue physics at school. Truthfully, I thought all the Trekkie science was made up, so there was no connect between physics and Star Trek for me. My later studies in the field were never brought to a satisfying conclusion (i.e. after completing more than two thirds of my degree, I crapped out). But if I’d caught the bug earlier… If I’d understood then that many of those TV wonders are rooted in the truth…

Sure, much of physics requires a deep understanding of math, of which calculus is only the beginning. But even the layperson can educate him- or herself. There are many wonderful pop-sci (popular science) books that explain interesting phenomena without numbers and, importantly, without dumbing down.

David Bodanis’s E=MC 2 and The Electric Universe are both excellent reads. Richard Feynman’s Six Easy Pieces is an equally great starting point. If you’re after a lighter, more humorous approach, try Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything. Lawrence M. Krauss wrote a book called The Science of Star Trek, which is pretty self-explanatory, and John Gribbin’s In Search Of Schrodinger’s Cat offers a wonderful insight into quantum physics.

These books are not only informative, but they also entertain. They’re accessible to anyone who wishes to gain a deeper understanding of their surroundings.

Then again, The Big Bang Theory is pretty funny, whatever your background.

Reality As Strange As Fiction – Addendum

Further to my earlier post, where are we on the question of whether magic exists? Does the mere fact that a phenomenon can be explained negate its magical quality? If my character can bend light to make herself invisible – a principle that is very much at the forefront of science – is it magic or Science Fiction?

One of the characteristics that can turn a book into a fantasy book is if someone can open a door with but a wave of the hand. Well, Jean-Luc Picard only needs to walk up to a door and it opens. Star Trek is Science Fiction, not Fantasy. Or are the two categories the same? Is that why book sellers like to bung them together as “Sci-fi/Fantasy”?

Science Fiction: Doctor Who uses a sonic screwdriver. He points it at something and computers spring to life. The world is saved.
Fantasy: Harry Potter uses a wand. He points it at something, and the something springs to life. The world is saved.

So in grossly simplified terms, may we assume Science Fiction is Fantasy with props? The medium in Fantasy books is magic, and magic effected by technology is Science Fiction.

Which still begs the question. Does magic, with or without the aid of machinery, exist?

Once upon a time, the photoelectric effect behaved not as expected. If I connected an instrument to a plate of metal to measure current, and then shine light onto the metal, the instrument shows current is being produced. At one point that alone would have seemed like magic.

What if the instrument’s display behaves erratically, showing high numbers for low-intensity (dim) light but low numbers for high-intensity (bright) light? Is it Science Fiction/magic if we cannot explain it?

By every definition I’ve ever come across to describe the principles of Sci-Fi and Fantasy, that does seem to be the case.

You may refer to strange, unexplainable effects as “magic,” or you may call them “not yet discovered science.” Kind of depends on your attitude.

The only question is, do you want to believe in magic?

Reality As Strange As Fiction

When I write about magic, I try to find roots for how the “supernatural” works in the real world of physics. Invisibility becomes about bending light beams. Spells use words that vibrate oxygen molecules into becoming dense enough to carry the weight of humans as “air cushions.” I may not always address these explanations in my stories, but they exist in my head.

Is all magic make-belief? Well, that depends. If you define magic as things that occur even if you have no earthly explanation for them YET, then magic most definitely exists.

I never did finish my physics degree, which is not to say I’m a total stranger to the wonderful and weird world we live in. Many things are too bizarre for human minds to comprehend at first.

Let’s take the photoelectric effect. (Stick with me, ‘cos this one’s easy. Ish.)

In simple terms, metal emits electrons (which can be measured as a current) when light shines upon it. This is called the photoelectric effect.
So light can produce electricity. Makes sense. After all we refer to light as “electromagnetic radiation.”

You would expect high intensity light, i.e. a lot of light, to produce more current than low intensity light. Once upon a time, this was what scientists believed, too.

That’s not what happens, though. Uh uh. You can shine a lot of red light onto a metal without producing a current, whereas a dim blue light may very well yield electricity.

Magic?

Einstein suggested this photoelectric effect is nothing to do with intensity. It’s all about energy. Red light doesn’t carry a lot of energy, while blue light does.

Even more bizarre, it takes a “minimum” amount of energy to get the electron party started, and specific multiples to amp up the volume. It’s not like the volume on your old car stereo, which goes up and up continuously as you rotate the knob. With the photoelectric effect, there is no “continuously.” Light energy comes in packets – photons – of specific energies, what are known as quanta.

Imagine the metal is a hill. At the top is a house, where two lazy teenage electrons veg in their mother’s basement all day. The mother wants to rouse her sons into action, so she sends her twenty light brothers, all over 70 years of age, to get the teen electrons off their backsides. But the brothers are old and simply don’t have the energy to climb the hill.(Lots of intensity but little energy = no electrons).

So the mother sends her nephews. She only has six Of them, but they are in their 40s and the hill is no big deal for them. They get into the basement and give the kids a good talking to neither of them will ever forget.(Less intensity but more energy = current flows)

The mother has two other sons, just as lazy, who live on a much bigger hill. The nephews ascended the first slope with ease, but their backs and knees give out halfway up the second hill. The desperate mother calls a distant cousin, who sends his two daughters, both in their twenties and full of energy, to deal with the lazy boys. What can two young women do that six older men couldn’t? Well, climb the hill for starters. Heck, they don’t even notice the incline, that’s how fit they are. (Even less intensity but much more energy = more current flows)

Einstein won the Nobel Prize for this. Clearly he didn’t word his theory like I did, but then he was a real scientist, and not an author.

How Authors Are Like Cats

Cat
Author
Cat
Cat

1. Both like to be stroked at their convenience, and not crowded the rest of the time. In cats, this is an adorable trait. In authors, I’ve been assured, not so much.

2. Both constantly observe their surroundings. I suspect cats hate to miss out on food, fun or fellow felines, so they always keep an eye out. Authors require gallons of caffeine to stay awake enough to capture human behavior.

3. Both are easily distracted by squirrels. This one is self-explanatory. Squirrels are distracting.

4. Both are always plotting. Cats use a lot of brain power to mold the world in their favor. Writers do the same, except the world they’re manipulating is made-up.

5. Both like tripping people up. Writers spring surprises on their readers to keep them hooked. Cats do it just to mess with you.

Name of the Wind goodies

What a glorious day. It’s been almost a year since I pledged for my Name of the Wind goodies on Kickstarter — my very first KS pledge — and they’ve arrived. Two posters, five decks of cards, poker chips, a coin, two T- shirts, two bookplates signed by Patrick Rothfuss, a wooden card deck box, two dice and five magnets. And a huge leather dice bag. Plus the two jots I received around Christmas.

What, prey, are you going to do with your loot, I hear you ask.

I admit some of my items lack usefulness. Others would be useful if I decided to actively, well, use them. I could wear the T-shirts, throw the dice, leave notes on the fridge with my magnets, and fill the bag with all sorts. But I’m not. It would devalue the items, both in terms of money and appreciation.

Still, it’s so nice to have them.

Kickstarter has been a real treasure trove of wonderful things. Have you seen the new portable printers? Revolutionary. The wargames tables made of cardboard? Want them.

What about you? What pledges have made you feel all tingly in anticipation?

Doctor Who – Big in the USA

I only recently discovered how huge Doctor Who is in the US. Huuuuuge! And yet most Americans only know Matt Smith as the Doctor.

For my part, I didn’t get into Doctor Who until the series was revived with one Christopher Eccleston. He was so unbelievably good. He and Rose (his companion) had tremendous chemistry. After only one season, he bowed out. Who could possibly tread in his footsteps?

His successor was David Tennant. From episode 1, he blew me away. And he and Rose had even more chemistry. He worked equally well with Martha and Donna. And let’s not forget Captain Jack. Well, perhaps not equally well, but it was a pretty fun ride anyway.

I’m just so sad that many Americans and Doctor Who fans never got to see David Tennant’s performance.

Finally, we come to Matt Smith. Yeah, he’s pretty good, too. He won me over, even if the early Amelia Pond didn’t. She was too much the “it’s dark and there’s a killer around, so let me go into the basement by myself” type. She had to work hard to gain my respect. Clara is much more my cup of tea.

Anyway, I’m not used to seeing Americans go nuts about something as low tech and British as Doctor Who. In the UK, people smile warmly when the show is mentioned. It’s a national institution. We don’t go all fangirl (or fanboy). But then, Brits aren’t exactly known for their exuberance.

What’s particularly weird is that it hasn’t been remade for US television. UK shows usually get Americanized, from “Life on Mars” to “Being Human.” You get new actors, a new budget, while keeping pretty much a similar script. Don’t you feel cheated when that happens? Don’t you want to watch the original, the thing that caused the show to be picked up for the US market in the first place?

I suspect the appeal of Doctor Who is that is hasn’t been remade. Someone at the BBC thought Americans were clever enough to understand the accent, to get the slightly zany humor, and the fun factor in Doctor Who. No need to patronize.

What a novel attitude. Long may it continue.

Microgames

A second post so soon after the first? Wha-at?

I just wanted to share a random observation with you. About microgames. Until a few months ago, I’d never heard of microgames, even though I’ve been active on Kickstarter for a while. But recently, there have been a boatload of them. All backed by yours truly.

Basically, microgames are what they promise to be. Complete games, usually instructions and cards and possibly chits (although frequently you have to provide meeples and dice yourself). Supplied in a tuckbox usually reserved for decks of cards.

Some provide novel gameplay, some manage to compress hours of fun into twenty minutes, and loads of game pieces into a few.

I know The Gamecrafter (a self-publishing games website/service/community) had a microgame contest or something, but still I’m a little perplexed as to where they come from. Or have they always been around?

Anyway, my point: check them out. They’re an inexpensive way to try out different games, to take boxed fun with you on vacation, or even to try out small versions of bigger games before buying.

First blog entry

My first entry on my spanking new website. Welcome.

Let me get this show on the road by dedicating this post to my fellow geeks out there, notably to Wil Wheaton, Felicia Day and the entire Tabletop team. They’re on Indiegogo raising funds to produce a third season of their excellent tabletop game program. Within their grasp is also an RPG-only program.

So why not head over to Indiegogo and show them some love?