Re: Hard Sci-fi?

On May 3, 4:36 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Niels wrote:
> > On Saturday 03 May 2008 20:51, Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> >> : Ben Crowell <crowel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> : I guess it depends on what you mean by "possible." My definition of
> >> : hard SF would be that it has to be possible in the sense that it
> >> : doesn't violate those laws of physics that have already been
thoroughly
> >> : verified within their realm of applicability. The FTL in Contact is
> >> : "possible" in this sense.
>
> >> Hm.  Don't think so.  The widget used to create a wormhole endpoint
> >> (or at least... that's' what I remember it doing) is nowhere near
> >> massive or energetic enough.   It seems squarely within the realm
> >> of applicability of newtonian/maxwellian physics, but it went and
> >> produced a wormhole anyways.  Unless it really *was* a fake.

  I don't recall any ultradense handwavium in the book, just nested
hollow filigreed spherical shells (not rings) of exotic semiconductor
alloys spinning orthogonally (I remember wondering about how the
bearings for the inner shells penetrated the outer one[s]). Now if
high-temp superconductors exhibiting weird quantum effects (per
Wayne's later post) is Newtonian/Maxwellian, then fine. But I also
vaguely recall that such enhanced quantum effects were the point of
having to use such exotic materials.

  And no, I can't remember if it was supposed to actually generate an
endpoint or just a beacon, though if it were an endpoint there should
have been a more explicit description of how it was supposed to hook
into the Wormhole Network.

  Worse, I can't find the copy I know damn well I own.

> > We don't know how the machine is supposed to work, and neither do the
people
> > who build it. So they, correctly, conclude that it wont work.
>
> Not sure what you're getting at here.  It's been a while since I read
> the book, but as I recall the suggestion that the Machine didn't work
> was part of a political coverup.  There was really no question that the
> trip actually took place.

  Or that it would work before it was built- it was certain enough
that international disputes were basically put aside for the duration
of the project, yes?

  Didn't the "coverup" jazz come afterward?

> The screenplay of the movie is really completely different, and chose to
> emphasize the trip (or not) as a personal journey and emphasize the
> notion that the trip may not have taken place by people with purely
> political motives.  The rationale given for how the trip could have been
> faked wouldn't work, and at the end of the movie there is a strong
> indication that Ellie is at least partially vindicated (by the digital
> recorder).

  Yes, and that jarred strongly with the sensawunda I remembered from
after reading the book.


  Mark L. Fergerson