The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).

Science vs. Science-Fiction

Illuminating the Science Inconsistencies of Science-Fiction

This article is to elucidate the reason why the Science in Science-Fiction is often not possible.

1. Introduction
2. Fundamental Properties of the Universe
3. Energy
   1. Energy Storage and Generation
   2. Energy for Propulsion
   3. Energy for Shields
   4. Energy for Weapons
   5. Energy for Spacecraft Operations
   6. Energy for Transporter
   7. Energy for Replicators
4. The Immensity of Space and Time
   1. Navigation
   2. Rendezvous
   3. Travel Time
   4. Relativity
5. That Which is Seen, and That Which is Unseen
   1. Impossibilities
   2. Implausibilities
   3. Logistics
   4. Economics
6. Miscellaneous Science-Fiction Issues
   1. Contact with Aliens
   2. Language
   3. Time Travel
7. Good Science in Science-Fiction
8. Final Thoughts
9. Further Readings
10. Disclaimer

Introduction

I will concede to no one my love of Science-Fiction. Since I was a young boy I have read and enjoyed Science-Fiction stories, as well as viewed many Science-Fiction movies and television. I have loved most of them in my lifetime. Starting as a young boy I have been awed by the action and adventure of Science-Fiction, as well as the technology and alien races presented in Science-Fiction. As I became older my response to Science-Fiction became more mature and I realized that the storylines were the most important thing about Science-Fiction. The human drama, the relationships between people and the science and technology, as well as the interrelationships between humans and aliens became more important. My love of Science-Fiction led me to a love of Science, and I became much more knowledgeable about Science. Both loves led me to examine the Science of Science-Fiction. I began to apply my science knowledge to the Science-Fiction I was reading and watching as an intellectual challenge that stimulated me. Today, when I read or watch Science-Fiction, I enjoy all of this. I first read or watch Science-Fiction for the entertainment it provides. I then think about the storyline to ascertain its meaning. After that, I apply my science knowledge to critique the Science in the Science-Fiction. All these activities are enjoyable for me.

This article is not for the purpose of analyzing the entertainment or message of Science-Fiction, but rather to point out the science inconsistencies of Science-Fiction. I felt it was necessary to do this as many people who do not understand science often wonder why science is not attempting to replicate the science or technology of Science-Fiction. Hopefully, this article will illuminate the reason why this is often not possible, as the science in Science-Fiction is mostly fiction.

When dealing with the predictive nature of Science-Fiction you must also consider Arthur C. Clarke's (one of the great Science-Fiction writers) three laws of prediction. They are:

• First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
• Second Law: The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
• Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Therefore, you must be very careful when someone (myself included) say that something is impossible, because they may be wrong. I have tried to not be wrong based on our current scientific knowledge. It may be possible that a scientific discovery may significantly alter or overturn our current scientific knowledge. There is a belief amongst many scientists that the fundamental properties of the universe, as we know them, are correct and will not be overturned, but that alteration to the details of the fundamental properties of the universe will occur. But it is not possible to speculate on these alterations until they are discovered. I have, therefore, limited my observations on the Science in Science-Fiction to our current understanding of the fundamental properties of the universe.

I should point out that I am NOT a scientist or engineer, nor have I received any education or training in science or engineering. This paper is the result of my readings on this subject in the past decades. Many academics, scientists, and engineers would critique what I have written here as not accurate nor through. I freely acknowledge that these critiques are correct. It was not my intentions to be accurate or through, as I am not qualified to give an accurate nor through description. My intention was to be understandable to a layperson so that they can grasp the concepts. Academics, scientists and engineers’ entire education and training is based on accuracy and thoroughness, and as such, they strive for this accuracy and thoroughness. When writing for the general public this accuracy and thoroughness can often lead to less understandability. I believe it is essential for all laypersons to grasp the concepts of this paper, so they make more informed decisions on those areas of human endeavors that deal with this subject. As such, I did not strive for accuracy and thoroughness, only understandability.

Fundamental Properties of the Universe

“I cannot violate the laws of physics” is a famous saying of Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott in “Star Trek”. And so, it is, – you cannot violate the laws of physics, you cannot compensate for the laws of physics, and you cannot ignore the laws of physics. You must always cognizant of the Laws of Physics and obey them. And of course, Science-Fiction regularly violates, compensates, and ignores the Laws of Physics. They must do so to advance the storytelling.  If you are familiar with General and Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Thermodynamics then you can recognize these problems in Science-Fiction. Rather than discuss these laws (except in the Appendices) I will be pointing out some of the common problems in Science-Fiction that violate the Fundamental Properties of the Universe in the most popular Science-Fiction of today – “Star Trek” and “Star Wars”, but they apply to practically all of Science-Fiction.

The Fundamental Properties of the Universe

The above are the fundamental properties of the universe and their main components. If you want Science from Science-Fiction it must not violate the fundamental properties of the universe and their components.

For more information on this subject, I would direct you to another article I have written “The Fundamental Properties of the Universe”.

Energy

In the movie “Apollo 13” shortly after the explosion on the spacecraft, the engineers on the ground are discussing the problems they are having. One of the engineers’ pipes in that none of these problems are as nearly as significant as the loss of power (energy). Without solving the power problem, the astronauts would die. And so, it is with Science-Fiction – energy is all, without the proper amount of energy, or the proper utilization of energy, nothing can happen. Most Science-Fiction ignores this problem as the reality is that it may be unsolvable. To do anything on a spacecraft requires energy – propulsion, spacecraft operations, shields, and weapon systems all are consumers of energy. In all forms of energy usage within Science-Fiction, you need to be cognizant of energy utilization. Science-Fiction tends to ignore energy issues as in the following.

Energy Storage and Generation

The question for Science-Fiction is where this energy comes from, how is it generated and utilized, and most important is how you contain (store) this energy until you need it. If you generate the energy from a source (chemical, nuclear, or antimatter) you must have sufficient storage and containment for the source.  In the case of a chemical or nuclear source, this would require very large storage tanks. In the case of antimatter, you would need a containment field to stop the antimatter from interacting with matter. The energy for this antimatter containment field must be greater than the antimatter energy, otherwise, it could not contain the antimatter. Where does this containment energy come from?

Thermodynamic also tells us that when you convert energy from one form to another (i.e. nuclear power to electricity) the conversion process cannot be 100% efficient and heat energy will be created as a result. Current technology has a low-efficiency percentage and generates large quantities of heat. Even with vastly improved technology, the efficiency rates cannot begin to approach 100% (mostly due to Quantum Mechanics), and heat generation will still be large (again mostly due to Quantum Mechanics). This increases the storage and containment requirements for the source material, and leads to the question of how do you dissipate the heat generated so that it does not damage the spacecraft or its crew members?

Energy for Propulsion

Traveling at high speeds by conventional action-reaction propulsion, or via “Warp Space” or “Hyperspace’ or any other means of Science-Fiction propulsion, would take a tremendous amount of energy to create the propulsion. Conventional spacecraft travel takes a tremendous amount of energy to overcome the inertial mass of the spacecraft to accelerate to high speeds, not to mention the increased force needed to accelerate because of the “Mass Increase of Objects” of Special Relativity, as I discussed in my science article “What’s So Special about Special Relativity”. Warping space, or entering hyperspace, or any other types of space distortions would take massive amounts of matter or energy to achieve. Therefore, it would take a massive energy supply and generation capability for a spacecraft to utilize these science-fiction propulsion methods. This leads back to the question of energy storage and generation. It also begs the question about smaller spacecraft traveling at high speeds. A shuttle spacecraft or fighter spacecraft could not possibly travel at high speeds, as they would not have the fuel storage or energy generation capability to achieve this capability. So how do they do this in Science-Fiction?

The other problem of propulsion is that of deceleration at the end of the spacecraft travel. As the spacecraft is traveling with great acceleration, you must have a great deceleration to overcome the inertial mass of the spacecraft for the spacecraft to come to a stop. A great force that cannot be applied quickly as the would shatter the molecular and atomic bonds of the spacecraft resulting in the utter destruction of the spacecraft. If applied slowly, it would take a tremendous amount of energy to decelerate, along with a great amount of time to decelerate. To accelerate and decelerate via “Warp Space” or “Hyperspace’ or any other means of Science-Fiction propulsion is never examined, as there is no science that can be examined behind these fictional terms.

Energy for Shields

When traveling through interstellar space the spacecraft will collide with loose matter in interstellar space (mostly hydrogen, but traces of other matter, and occasionally larger chunks of matter). Traveling at high speeds in interstellar space require that you protect the spacecraft and the crew members and passengers from collisions with interstellar matter. This can be seen in the movie “Passengers” in which the spacecraft has an energy shield that deflects interstellar matter around the spacecraft. This protection would have to in a complete envelope around the spacecraft because the external matter in movement can come from any direction. But shields such as this require immense energy to operate and they need to operate for the duration of the voyage, and they can never fail for the duration of the voyage. Colliding with the interstellar matter at high speeds generates a miniature nuclear reaction that generates a large amount of energy (E=mc2). This energy would pulverize the spacecraft if it were unprotected. Even if it were protected from the explosion the radiation produced would be enough to kill all the crew members and passengers of the spacecraft. Therefore, you need to protect the spacecraft from the explosions, and the crew and passengers from the radiation of the explosion. Again, it takes a large amount of energy to protect the spacecraft and crew members and passengers from the nuclear reactions of collisions.

Energy for Weapons

Rayguns, lasers, phasers, or any other energy weapon would require a large amount of energy to be effective. Loosening, or destroying, the molecular or atomic bonds of the target is very difficult to accomplish. It often takes a sustained high energy source to be effective, and it is usually only effective in a small area. Larger areas require a larger amount of energy over a longer time to be effective. The other question in Science-Fiction is the energy requirements for hand-held energy weapons. I highly doubt any portable storage of energy would be sufficient to power a hand-held energy weapon.

This leads us to the “Death Star” in Star Wars. The Death Star is a small spacecraft in comparison to the planet it is about to destroy. It fires an energy beam which causes the planet to explode. This would require that the energy beam disrupt the gravitational cohesion and the molecular and atomic bonds which hold the planet together. The energy force required to accomplish this would have to be several times the energy of the star around which the planet orbits. In the real universe when a star goes nova or supernova it does not destroy the planets that orbit it but instead burns them to a cinder.  Close by planets may be obliviated but further out planets would be a hulk of their former self but still exist. To achieve the result of a planet exploding would require all the energy of a nova or supernova focused on the planet to, potentially, cause an explosion. Where does the Death Star get, store, and control the energy large enough to create a planetary explosion? It doesn’t, as it is not possible. Therefore, the Death Star destroying a planet is an impossibility.

Energy for Spacecraft Operations

The electrical and mechanical systems aboard a spacecraft need energy to operate. The more electrical and mechanical systems aboard the spacecraft the more energy is required. And as the spacecraft operates over the long-time frame you need to sustain this energy for the entire time frame of operations. This would take a large amount of energy storage and generation to accomplish. As most Science-Fiction spacecraft tend to be sleek or compact the question is where are the fuel storage tanks and the generators needed to create this energy?

Energy for Transporter

The Transporter in Star Trek is a wonderful device to advance the storyline. However, in the real world, it is impossible as it violates most of the Fundamental Properties of the Universe. In Star Trek, they have often mentioned the Heisenberg Compensators to contravene this fundamental property, but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental property of the universe and therefore cannot be compensated for. There is also no mention of how to compensate for the other fundamental properties of the universe that the transporter violates (too numerous and complex to go into within this article). This is not to mention the energy requirements to destroy the molecular and atomic bonds of the item to be transported, and the energy required to reassemble the item to be transported. It also begs the question of how the item to be transported is reassembled without an energy powered technological device at the receiving end to perform this reassembly. The Transporter is simply not possible in a real Universe.

Energy for Replicators

Replicators in Star Trek are based on the Transporter, and they have the inherent problems of the Transporter as previously mentioned. They also have the problem (as do the Transporters) as to how to create matter from energy. Modern physics knows of only one way to create matter from energy. This is done with the presence of a Higgs Boson interacting with energy, in which the Higgs Boson in destroyed and the energy is converted to matter. Higgs Bosons are very rare in the Universe as most of them, if not all, were consumed in the creation of the Universe. Therefore, Replicators that create matter from energy are impossible in a real Universe.

As can be seen from the above issues the question of Energy is a real killer in Science-Fiction.

The Immensity of Space and Time

Outer space is vast, extremely vast. So vast it is difficult to imagine. And this vastness is in all directions. The proper distance—the distance as would be measured at a specific time, including the present—between Earth and the edge of the observable universe is 46 billion light-years, making the diameter of the observable universe about 91 billion light-years (9.1×1010 ly) or 5.5×1023 miles. This is more thoroughly and understandably explained in the Space.com article “How Big is the Universe?”. Time in the universe is just as vast. The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799 ± 0.021 billion (109) years, or approximately 137,990,000 (~138 million) centuries old. This is more thoroughly and understandably explained in the Space.com article “How Old is the Universe?”. This vastness can be visualized as follows:

This vastness also poses several problems for which Science-Fiction does not address as follows.

Navigation

The sheer vastness of space makes it extremely difficult for a spacecraft to navigate between stars. As any propulsion system is not 100% efficient or uniform the variations in the propulsion systems operating parameters would alter your travel path, which will lead the spacecraft astray from its intended target. Very small variations in the propulsion system in long travel distances and times pile up and become significant. Constant corrections to your travel path will be needed to get you to where you want to go. To make these corrections you need to know exactly where you are. Knowing exactly where you are in the vastness of space is very difficult if not impossible. It would require the precision of dozens, if not hundreds (perhaps thousands), of numbers to the right of the decimal point of your position in outer space to navigate properly. The question also arises as to how you can determine your position to this precision in the vastness of outer space. There is no Global Position System in outer space, so you would need to know the exact positions of several stars, exactly measure their position relative to your spacecraft, and use triangulation computations to determine your exact position. You must also account for General and Special Relativity effects in determining your position. The technology required to determine your exact position to the precision required may not be possible. Even a very small error in your position, or your propulsion systems operating parameters, will make you miss your target by a large percentage of the intended destination. The Voyager I and II spacecraft are the furthest man-made objects in outer space. Even NASA does not know the exact positions nor the exact trajectories of these spacecraft. Therefore, you could indeed get “Lost in Space” with no means to get you where you want to go.

Rendezvous

How often have we seen in Science-Fiction two spacecraft rendezvous in deep space? Or one spacecraft searching and finding another spacecraft? Given the vastness of space, and the extremely small size and energy signature of a spacecraft, the possibility of this happening are minute. Even an agreed upon rendezvous point could be impossible, as you cannot specify with enough accuracy a small point in the vastness of space. You would also have a worse problem of Navigation (due to the spacecraft's small size) to rendezvous with another spacecraft. It would be many, many, magnitudes more difficult than a drunken sailor trying to find the car key he dropped between the bar and their car parked a few blocks away (and it is not possible to sober-up).

Travel Time

Travel times at high speeds via "Warp Space" or "Hyperspace' or any other means of Science-Fiction propulsion, other than known current technology, is a total unknown — as it is unknown as to how these means of travel function. Imagining it would be very quick is a leap of faith not based on any science, but I suspect it would not be instantaneous but perhaps be much quicker that relativistic travel times, if it is even possible. There is also the question of if it is possible for humans to survive while traveling this way? It is possible that the forces needed to initiate or conduct this form of travel may destroy living tissue and perhaps even inorganic matter. Relativistic travel times, however, are a known quantity. Given the vastness of space, it would take several decades to travel to the nearest stars at high relativistic speeds (greater than 67% the speed of light). At lower relativistic speeds (33% to 67% of the speed of light) it may take a century or more to travel to the nearest stars. At lower relativistic speeds (up to 33% of the speed of light) it may take millennia to travel to the nearest stars. Sufficient air, water, food, and fuel would be needed for the duration of these trips or a means of suspended animation. This issue is examined in the section “Logistics’ in this article.

Relativity

General and Special Relativity must be accounted for within a Science-Fiction story for it to be scientific.  For any object traveling at high (relativistic) speeds you must account for the effects and consequences of Special Relativity. Special Relativity is too complex to outline in this paper (except a brief recap in the Appendix of this paper).  For more information on Special Relativity, I have outlined these effects and consequences in another paper “What’s So Special about Special Relativity”.  Suffice it to say that most Science-Fiction does not account for Special Relativity as it would destroy the storyline. General Relativity needs to be accounted for when traveling through space, and again most Science-Fiction does not account for General Relativity. Again, General Relativity is too complex to outline in this paper (except a brief recap in the Appendix of this paper). For more information on General Relativity, I would direct you to my paper on “Gravitational Physics”.

 That Which is Seen, and That Which is Unseen

When you consider what must occur behind the scenes for some of the science and technology in Science-Fiction to be possible you encounter other scientific issues that are extremely difficult to believe would be possible. Therefore, you need to not only analyze what is occurring (that which is seen) but also what needs to happen for it to occur (that which is not seen). Some of these issues are as follows.

Impossibilities

To transport a human being the computational power required to analyze, store and transmit all the information of the item to be transported, plus the computational power to reassemble the transported item would be immense. For a typical human of 155 lbs. (70 kg), there are almost 7*1027 atoms (that's a 7 followed by 27 zeros)! Another way of saying this is "seven billion billion billion." Of this, almost 2/3 is hydrogen, 1/4 is oxygen, and about 1/10 is carbon. These three atoms add up to 99% of the total atoms in a human body. The body consists of about 2 x 1025 molecules, and more than 99 % of them are water! Scientists recently made the most precise estimate so far of the number of cells in the human body — a whopping 3.72×1013 cells! To transport a human being, you would need to analyze, store, and transmit the location and movements (scientifically speaking the positions and curved vectors) of all these atoms, molecules, and cells in a human boy to reassemble the person without killing them. You would also have to do this instantly as these atoms, molecules, and cells are in constant movement. I highly doubt that any computational system would have the processing power or data storage capability to accomplish this feat. You would then have to transmit all this information to the reassembly point for the human being to be reassembled, which would take a considerable amount of time to accomplish (perhaps hundreds or thousands of years given the quantity of data and the speed of transmission).  I, therefore, believe that transporting a human being (or any living creature) is impossible.

Implausibilities

In the movie “Gravity” there is a scene where the two astronauts get caught in a debris field from a wrecked spacecraft, and one of them survives and the others spacesuit is damaged, and he dies. In the Star Trek Movie “Star Trek: Into Darkness” Captain Kirk and Khan fly through a debris field to reach the attacking spacecraft, and in many other movies you can see a spacecraft passing through a debris field. Sometimes they suffer minor damage to their spacesuits or spacecraft, but most often they survive. In reality, it is very unlikely that they would survive to pass through a debris field. This is because most of a debris field contains material too small to be seen by the naked eye. This small debris would shred any spacesuit it would encounter causing the astronaut to die. For a spacecraft, a pebble size debris would cause a large puncture through the spacecraft hull (due to the kinetic energy of the impact) and it would severely damage the spacecraft causing major systems failures, which most likely would disable or destroy the spacecraft and potentially kill the crew members of the spacecraft.

In many scenes in Star Trek, Star Wars, and other Science-Fiction movies there is a firefight in which the combatants are seen ducking energy weapons fired at them. Since energy and light are electromagnetic radiation they both travel at the same speed (approximately 186,000 miles per second), when you see someone fire an energy weapon at you, you are also simultaneously being hit by the energy weapon. Therefore, there can be no ducking an energy weapon!

One of the consequences of Special Relativity is known as the Loss of Simultaneity as I have explained in another paper “What’s So Special about Special Relativity”. When objects are traveling in high (relativistic) speeds the positions of both your spacecraft and the other spacecraft, relative to each other, are difficult to determine. You must take this and other Special Relativistic effects into account to determine the position of both spacecraft. So, when you fire an energy weapon at a relativistic speeding object unless both spacecraft are moving linearly and at a constant speed your targeting will be off. By the time you figure out where to fire again, you have the same problem to overcome. If the spacecraft is moving in a 3-dimensional zig-zag, and changing velocity, then you may not be able to predict where it is going, and you may never be able to target the spacecraft. Therefore, high-speed battles are not possible, as everyone would be missing each other. It would be necessary for the spacecraft to decelerate to low speeds (less than 10% of light speed) for any battle to occur, and then there are still technological problems with targeting weapons (especially the 3-dimensional zig-zag and changing velocity problem) excepting at very low speeds.

Logistics

In the nuclear aircraft and submarine service, there is a saying that the mission duration is limited to the food and water supplies onboard. With a spacecraft, it is not only food and water, but air, waste disposal, and fuel replenishment. Air, water, food, and fuel need to be replenishment on a spacecraft as there are no natural resources on a spacecraft to replenish them. There is also the problem of waste disposal – not only garbage but also human urine and fecal waste. You can’t just dump it outside as gravity and its inertia would keep it near the spacecraft, so you need to jettison in a way that moves it away from the spacecraft (easier said than done). You would, therefore, have a cloud of waste surrounding the spacecraft unless you solved this problem. On a spacecraft with hundreds or thousands of crew members, this resupply and disposal is a very big problem. The more crew members that breath, drink, eat and produce waste the larger the resupply and waste disposal problem it has. Recycling of air, water, and waste can help alleviate but not eliminate this problem. And food cannot be recycled – you must store sufficient food for the duration of the mission or have a resupply capability during the mission.

There is a military axiom that your armed forces are only as good as your logistics. If your logistics fail than your armed forces fail. This resupply problem is a problem in logistics. You need to have your logistics in place and operating properly before you can think of doing anything with a spacecraft. Yet Science-Fiction rarely or never shows the logistics to support a spacecraft or a fleet of spacecraft.

There is also the problem of Repair and Maintenance of equipment. All equipment fails or wears down. You need to have the ability to repair or replace equipment with spare parts. Spare parts must be inventoried and stored on a spacecraft, and this takes cargo space to accomplish. It also means that the spacecraft must be large enough to store spare parts, and have the extra energy needed for propulsion due to the increased mass of the spare parts. If not, you need a capability to obtain spare parts during a mission, which is a logistics problem. The larger the spacecraft the larger the problem of repair and maintenance.

You would have to build, maintain, and operate spacecraft construction and repair yards, a fleet of supply ships, and resupply spaceports for logistics support for the spacecraft(s). What this means is that for the spacecraft you see in Star Trek and Star Wars, as well as other Science-Fiction, it would require a very large logistics capability necessary for the air, water, food, waste disposal, and fuel replenishment, as well as for repair and spare parts. Again, this is a logistics problem that needs to be resolved and is largely ignored in Science-Fiction. This logistical infrastructure would have to be very extensive, and very costly to implement and maintain, which leads to the problem of economics.

Economics

The cost to build and maintain a large spacecraft, and the logistics infrastructure to support the spacecraft, is exorbitant. One study computed this cost to build the Star Wars Death Star and figured out that it would take the economic resources of an entire planet to accomplish building the Death Star. Another study computed the cost to operate the Star Wars Death Star and it is even more exorbitant. Even spacecraft of a more modest size would be very expensive. If you have a fleet of spacecraft, as in Star Wars (even minus the Death Star) and Star Trek, you are talking very serious money to build and maintain a fleet. The question then is are the costs to do this worth the benefits to be gained? 

Miscellaneous Science-Fiction Issues

A few other scientific issues plague Science-Fiction as follows.

Contact with Aliens

Alpha Centauri is the nearest star system to our sun at 4.3 light-years away (light, which travels at 186,282 miles per second would take 4.3 years to reach Alpha Centauri). That’s about 25 trillion miles away from Earth – nearly 300,000 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun. The Milky Way Galaxy is at a minimum about 100,000 light-years across and about 1,000 light-years thick (it could actually be twice this size). Numbers so large that scientists must utilize Scientific Notation (see the Scientific Notation Appendix for more on this) to express these distances in miles (5.87863 x1017 miles wide by 5.879 x 1015 miles thick).  The Milky Way is just one galaxy located in a vast cluster of galaxies known as the Local Group. This group contains more than 50 galaxies (mostly dwarf galaxies). The total size of the Local Group is 10 million light-years across, and it’s estimated to have 50 billion stars. The Local Group is just one collection of galaxies in the even bigger Virgo Supercluster. The Andromeda galaxy (also known as NGC 224 and M31) is the nearest galaxy to the Earth apart from smaller companion galaxies such as the Magellanic Clouds. The Andromeda galaxy is at a distance of about 2.5 million light years.

Astronomers have known that the Milky Way is among the oldest of galaxies. The new observations suggest it was indeed one of the first to form in the Universe. Recent studies put its age at 13.6 billion years, give or take 800 million years. Considering that human civilization is only about 10,000 years old, human civilization is an extremely small slice of time in our Milky Way Galaxy. Time in the Universe is a vast as space is in the Universe.

As many as 512 or more stars of spectral type "G" (Sun Type) are currently believed to be located within 100 light-years of Sol -- including Sol itself. Only around 64 are located within 50 light-years, while some 448 are estimated to lie between 50 and 100 light-years. What are the chances that any one of these 512 stars has an intelligent life at our level of science and technology? Close to zero, if not zero (for more on this see my article on “Intelligent Life and Pseudoscience”). Therefore, if we wish to meet and interact with intelligent life in our Galaxy we would have to travel tens of thousands of light years to perhaps encounter a few other intelligent life forms, which may, but probably aren’t, at our level of science and technology. Therefore, the chances of us meeting other intelligent life forms at our level of science and technology are about zero. So much for aliens interacting with humans.

Language

Translating from one human language to another is fraught with problems, as anyone who has learned to read, write, and speak a second language is aware. Even when the languages are similar there is a multitude of problems. When learning dissimilar languages, i.e. English and Mandarin, the problems are of a greater magnitude. It is possible to do this, as we are all human, and have many commonalities that assist us in this translation. Now imagine trying to learn an alien language in which there are few commonalities. The following dialog from a Star Trek episode is illuminating:

• Counselor Deanna Troi: We are stranded on a planet. We have no language in common, but I want to teach you mine [she holds up her tea glass].
• Counselor Deanna Troi: S'smarith. What did I just say?
• Captain Jean-Luc Picard:Cup... Glass.
• Counselor Deanna Troi: Are you sure? I may have meant liquid. Clear. Brown. Hot. We conceptualize the universe in relatively the same way.
• Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Point taken.

If we don’t conceptualize the universe in relatively the same way, which we may not with an alien race, the problem of learning their language may be unsolvable. Even with the use of very fast and very smart computers to assist in this translation, it may take a very long time to learn an alien language. And the possibilities of mistranslating and misunderstanding what is said would be very great. So much for talking with aliens. However, I am not concerned with this as I believe it is unlikely that we would meet an alien race due to the vastness of space and time, as I have previously explained.

The other problem that Science-Fiction has with language is the inappropriate usage of scientific terms. If you know what the scientific term means than this can be hilarious. However, this situation has gotten much better in recent years as the producers have hired scientists to correct this situation. The Big Bang Theory television series (not Science-Fiction but good Science) is an excellent example of correct utilization of scientific terms, as they have a scientist to assist in the creation and the review of the script to assure that the scientific terminology is correct.

Time Travel

Time travel — moving between different points in time — has been a popular topic for science fiction for decades. Franchises ranging from "Doctor Who" to "Star Trek" to "Back to the Future" have seen humans get in a vehicle of some sort and arrive in the past or future, ready to take on new adventures.

The reality, however, is more muddled. Not all scientists believe that time travel is possible. Some even say that an attempt would be fatal to any human who chooses to undertake it. The Space.com article “Time Travel: Theories, Paradoxes & Possibilities” has a good and understandable article on this subject.

As for my own perspective on this subject, I do not believe that time travel is possible. I have explained my reasoning in another article “The Arrow of Time”, and it is too lengthy to incorporate into this article.

Good Science in Science-Fiction

So, is there any good science in Science-Fiction? Of course, there is! Most of the good science in Science-Fiction revolves around individual pieces of technology. Communicators, sensors, and medical technology from Science-Fiction are making its way into today’s science and technology. Other Science-Fictions technologies are being studied and/or are in development. The Wikipedia article “Science in Science-Fiction” has a good synopsis of this subject. Many of our current scientists and technologists have been inspired by Science-Fiction and went into their fields of science and technology due to this inspiration. This has had a very positive effect on today’s society.

As for movies and television that are grounded in good science there are a few good examples. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and 2010 (1984), when not dealing with the alien star gate (2001) or Jupiter collapsing into a star (2010), are very grounded in science and technology. Marooned: The Saga of Ironman One (1969) is excellent in its science and technology (release around the Apollo 13 real-life disaster the movie drew little interest). The Martian (2015) also had excellent science throughout the movie. Other movies and television have had periods of good science and technology within them. But most Science-Fiction movies and television have to short circuit real science and technology to advance the storyline and be good entertainment. You must remember, however, that movies and television are primarily entertainment driven by a storyline, so they, therefore, need to sacrifice good science in to obtain this goal. So be it.

Final Thoughts

I have no wish to dampen anyone’s love or enthusiasm for Science-Fiction. Enjoy it for what it is - action and adventure, special effects, human drama, the relationships between people and the science and technology, as well as the interrelationships between humans and aliens, even the stirring musical score. But always remember:

Science-Fiction is Fiction – Not Science!

Further Readings

Some interesting website with general scientific topics are:

• Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist
• Ask the Physicist!
• Physics and Astronomy Ask the Experts
• The Skeptic's Dictionary
• Understanding Science – how science really works
• Science Fact or Fiction? The Plausibility of 10 Sci-Fi Concepts
• Wikipedia - Science in Science-Fiction

Disclaimer

Please Note - many academics, scientist and engineers would critique what I have written here as not accurate nor through. I freely acknowledge that these critiques are correct. It was not my intentions to be accurate or through, as I am not qualified to give an accurate nor through description. My intention was to be understandable to a layperson so that they can grasp the concepts. Academics, scientists, and engineers’ entire education and training are based on accuracy and thoroughness, and as such, they strive for this accuracy and thoroughness. I believe it is essential for all laypersons to grasp the concepts of this paper, so they make more informed decisions on those areas of human endeavors that deal with this subject. As such, I did not strive for accuracy and thoroughness, only understandability.

Most academics, scientist, and engineers when speaking or writing for the general public (and many science writers as well) strive to be understandable to the general public. However, they often fall short on the understandability because of their commitment to accuracy and thoroughness, as well as some audience awareness factors. Their two biggest problems are accuracy and the audience knowledge of the topic.

Accuracy is a problem because academics, scientist, engineers and science writers are loath to be inaccurate. This is because they want the audience to obtain the correct information, and the possible negative repercussions amongst their colleagues and the scientific community at large if they are inaccurate. However, because modern science is complex this accuracy can, and often, leads to confusion amongst the audience.

The audience knowledge of the topic is important as most modern science is complex, with its own words, terminology, and basic concepts the audience is unfamiliar with, or they misinterpret. The audience becomes confused (even while smiling and lauding the academics, scientists, engineers or science writer), and the audience does not achieve understandability. Many times, the academics, scientists, engineers or science writer utilizes the scientific disciplines own words, terminology, and basic concepts without realizing the audience misinterpretations, or has no comprehension of these items.

It is for this reason that I place understandability as the highest priority in my writing, and I am willing to sacrifice accuracy and thoroughness to achieve understandability. There are many books, websites, and videos available that are more accurate and through. The subchapter on “Further Readings” also contains books on various subjects that can provide more accurate and thorough information. I leave it to the reader to decide if they want more accurate or through information and to seek out these books, websites, and videos for this information.