3 ms·
> Yet no "hard" takes on artificial gravity come to mind. Yeah, I’m just suggesting maybe there just haven’t been any hypothetical speculative physics concepts
by Apocryphon 1y ago
> Yet no "hard" takes on artificial gravity come to mind.
Yeah, I’m just suggesting maybe there just haven’t been any hypothetical speculative physics concepts that could explain artificial gravity. At least with FTL we’ve got wormholes, the Alcubierre drive, zero-point energy, etc.
> any explanation would be difficult to work into an interesting narrative
With sci-fi people seem to like explanations of FTL well enough, both the soft fantastical kind and the hard speculative physics kind. I think artificial gravity just needs its own visual/conceptual equivalent to the going into hyperspace effect, or warping space, or stargate relays, etc.
But artificial gravity itself is indeed conceptually and perhaps literally “low” because it’s much more mundane than other aspects. You might as well explain it away by everyone wearing magnetized boots. Tractor beams / interdictors with gravity well projectors are neat, though.
- fc417fc802 1y ago> it’s much more mundane than other aspects Is it though? It brings to mind the humorous essay that attempted to extrapolate in a hard sci-fi manner the consequences of the existence of phasers and teleporters in star trek. It seems likely to be a mundane usage which is merely the tip of the iceberg for an absurdly powerful technology. > the hard speculative physics kind Apologies if I'm off the mark but just to be clear you don't need speculative real world physics for a "hard" take. All you need is an author dedicated enough to invent his own set of rules and then faithfully "simulate" it. It's just that most authors are lazy and go with speculative real world physics as the base. At some point I started seeing people conflate hard sci-fi with real world physics and I'm not sure where that came from.