4 ms·

I read a lot (if not all) of his work, I'd like to say just ignore his physics, he's really not good at that. I'm not saying enjoying his story is a bad thing.

• gilbetron 5y ago
  Yeah, the invocation of quantum entanglement in the 3 body problem was ... a problem. The best scifi of any "hardness" is by authors that know the limits of their own understanding of science and physics and beyond that point they don't try to explain things. I can accept a premise that violates physics, I have a tough time accepting an explanation that violates physics, if that makes sense. "Assume that the society actually found tachyons and figured out how to use them to communicate FTL" is fine, but "quantum entanglement really does let you communicate FTL" is hard to get past. Like you said, though, still great books and a great writer :)
  • joombaga 5y ago
    Do you like how Star Trek handles this? Your transporter can't determine a particle's location and trajectory simultaneously? Add a Heisenberg compensator. Fixed. You can't accelerate to warp without soupifying the crew? Inertial dampeners. But never explain how either of these things work.
    • gilbetron 5y ago
      Generally speaking, yep! It works for Star Trek, although sometimes they get to elaborate in their descriptions or start to take the "science" too far. But generally they walk the line of science-y sounding explanation decently well. How about you?