Sci-fi and Scientists

[ParanoiA]

Just watched 2001 A Space Odyssey last night. I've never seen this movie and after watching it, I really have no idea how this one stayed off of my radar - I loved it. I loved the emptiness, cold, sterile, realism. Why isn't more science fiction done this way? Particularly since it's touted as the best sci-fi film ever.

 

Anyway, I got to wondering how you scientists view science fiction. The themes in "2001" were cool - to me, a non-scientist. The dawn of man scene was really neat - again, to me, a non-scientist. These concepts seem interesting to us, the non-scientist public, but do they seem the least bit interesting to you scientists?

 

I wrote a short story many, many years ago exploring the idea that man's physiology does not contain the capacity to understand the universe, or why we're here and so forth. That the deepest questions we ask are as meaningless and trivial as the deepest question a dog could come up with...IE "where's the beef?". That man asks questions that only a "man" would ask and is no more in a position to understand all of "this" than the dog.

 

Are these kinds of science fiction concepts interesting to scientists as well? Or is this just elementary exercise? Have most scientists already pondered the ideas expressed in books and flim (from schooling and so forth) and moved on? Or do you all enjoy this stuff as much as the rest of us?

[YT2095]

I View it from a retrospective point, if it wasn`t for things like Dr Who, Star trek, staw wars, Quatermass and the likes while growing up as a kid, I think it`s unlikely that I`de be into Science in the way that I am now.

 

and AS I am now, sure I can pick holes galor in many of these films, but if you just chill and accept it at face value, then it`s still quite a Buzz

[Reaper]

Yeah, I would have to agree with the above post. I would imagine that most people going into science have shown some interest in Science Fiction at some point in their lives.

 

I loved it. I loved the emptiness' date=' cold, sterile, realism. Why isn't more science fiction done this way? Particularly since it's touted as the best sci-fi film ever.

[/quote']

 

I would have to say that the reason Hollywood uses bad physics in its films nowadays is more to make it look attractive to the largest possible audience. Given that we are now much more into looking for ways to make quick money, they will do anything they can to sensationalize stuff rather than giving an accurate portrayal. It is the same phenomenon observed with major news channels as well.

 

Overall, I'm pretty sure that scientists enjoy sci-fi. Steven Hawking, and a bunch of other scientists, admitted to enjoying Star Trek. Carl Sagan has written science fiction himself (e.g. First Contact). Freeman Dyson based his Dyson Sphere off of a science fiction book. Currently, the US Military is researching ways to create protective plasma shielding for their aircraft. I've seen Discovery Channel episodes in which scientists from MIT were exploring re-creating some of the technology seen in Star Wars. And there are many more examples.

 

Personally, I'm majoring in a science-related field and I'm always excited about science fiction.

[Phi for All]

I would have to say that the reason Hollywood uses bad physics in its films nowadays is more to make it look attractive to the largest possible audience. Given that we are now much more into looking for ways to make quick money, they will do anything they can to sensationalize stuff rather than giving an accurate portrayal. It is the same phenomenon observed with major news channels as well.

So true, yet I would love to see the "largest possible audience" reaction to a space scene from Firefly, where the ship's engine makes no noise and even weapons fired are silent. It's eerie, almost spellbinding, and even the least sciency people I know watch those scenes and say, "Oh, because noise doesn't travel in space! I get it! Cool!"

 

Sometimes I think the guy who invented focus groups should be shot with a high-powered rifle. I wouldn't even mind it if the sound of the shot and the bullet arrived at the same time.

[geoguy]

 

 

I wrote a short story many, many years ago exploring the idea that man's physiology does not contain the capacity to understand the universe, or why we're here and so forth. That the deepest questions we ask are as meaningless and trivial as the deepest question a dog could come up with...IE "where's the beef?". That man asks questions that only a "man" would ask and is no more in a position to understand all of "this" than the dog.

 

 

That's a great observation. More or less similar to presentations by Richard Dawkins. We're physical entities and products of evolution. Our senses are designed to cope with a three dimensional world that is at a macro level best suited to our survival.

 

Often our questions are couched in what seems more expansive terms but they are really just numbers or non-experienced theories. I was at a talk once and the presenter wrote a number on the board representing the number of stars in the universe. At the end of the talk he changed the 10 to the nth power to the next level...making the number of stars and the size of the universe (existence) ten times larger. No one had noticed the purposeful error during the talk even though the room was full of scientists of various disciplines. The point the speaker was making was similar to yours: we can't relate to things outside of our experience and therefore have no basis to ask questions outside of our experiences. What does it matter to our perceptions if the universe is ten times larger or ten times smaller...we can't relate to any answers so how do we know the questions are the important ones?

 

2001 was a great movie to stimulate the brain cells. It's one of the few movies I preferred over the book. I first saw it at a drive-in theater in Nova Scotia...a moose and her 2 calves kept standing under the screen and the manager would have to shoo them off until they returned.

[ParanoiA]

That's a great observation. More or less similar to presentations by Richard Dawkins. We're physical entities and products of evolution. Our senses are designed to cope with a three dimensional world that is at a macro level best suited to our survival.

 

That reminds of that Dawkins speech that was posted here for such a long time, I really enjoyed it. Makes total sense, to me anyway.

 

2001 was a great movie to stimulate the brain cells. It's one of the few movies I preferred over the book. I first saw it at a drive-in theater in Nova Scotia...a moose and her 2 calves kept standing under the screen and the manager would have to shoo them off until they returned.

 

Ha, that's awesome. To see a moose and 2 calves during a space movie is just...cool. Funny thing is, I think I enjoyed the implications of the Dawn of Man scene more than anything else in the movie. So well executed without any dialoge. Gosh I sure wish there were more movies like this out there...

[Elessarina]

So true, yet I would love to see the "largest possible audience" reaction to a space scene from Firefly, where the ship's engine makes no noise and even weapons fired are silent. It's eerie, almost spellbinding, and even the least sciency people I know watch those scenes and say, "Oh, because noise doesn't travel in space! I get it! Cool!"

 

I think most people who like sci-fi know that stuff but we are just used to our earthly prison and so things have to have that familiarity to them and the impact.. I

 

t's like the Earth; we always see Earth with Europe at the top.. I'm sure if someone showed it the other way round someone would say it was upside-down

[Phi for All]

It's like the Earth; we always see Earth with Europe at the top.. I'm sure if someone showed it the other way round someone would say it was upside-down

Don't be silly; *we* always see Earth with North America on top.

 

Another common element is where ships that meet in space are always aligned with each other. You never see one of them come in at a different angle to the other. It's hard to cancel gravity from our perceptions.