I’m trying (ha ha) to write a science-fantasy story, and am seeking advice on how “real” the science needs to be. How much can I get away with bogus/spurious/“magic” science.
Without being too specific, say there’s a genie who has a “neutron ray” he projects from his beard. A 1920’s Death Ray! All I really want it to do is burn people to death and put holes in doors.
A “real” neutron ray would also leave the target zone dangerously radioactive for the next 500 years (wouldn’t it?) Can I still call it a “neutron ray” and then pretend the problems with lingering radiation is much less than it really would be. I want there to be some persistent radiation, just not as much as there should be in reality.
Is that too blatantly contradictory to reality, and I can’t call it a “neutron” ray at all? Can I pretend it’s a “magical neutron ray?” Or is that just too obviously phony?
It seems cool to me. Sadly if it’s not dead-on scientifically accurate it will probably get picked apart to some degree. This seems to be a growing trend, rather than simply enjoying the story, finding every small fault in it. I hope it works out for you, good luck.
If it’s that important to you, begin with the idea that the “ray” is a particle beam. Figure out how long you want the affected area to remain radioactive, divide by five, then look up whatever isotope has that half-life. There’s the particles you want shooting out of the genie’s beard.
A made up term would certainly be better than a term that’s mis-used. I’m one of those people who will come after you about things like that.
There’s another option, which is to explain to the reader why the name might not be scientifically accurate. For a long time, I was writing stories in a space opera setting, and the space ship drives had a particular name, but that name really made no sense from a scientific standpoint. Of course, my brain was already stuck on that name. So I just explained in the book that the guys in the marketing department came up with the name. It’s like a MacBook computer isn’t actually a book - it’s just a name. Now the problem was solved - I could use the name I liked and not annoy anyone who knew what they were talking about.
It depends entirely on the tone of the story. Are you trying to reconcile actual physics with the ability to alter reality in a way we’d call “magic”? Or is it more like comic-book pseudo-science meets magic, like a Dr. Strange/ Reed Richards team up? If the idea is that the genie can conjure up anything but it has to be a real thing, then you might want to research what might actually give the physical effect you’re going for. If you just want results, go with the comic book approach and use whatever phlebotinum works for the story.
Sounds like you may be mixing science and supernatural. The Ghostbusters had proton packs that threw proton beams, and everyone loved them for it. You could take that as prior art.
Neutron beam better. Don’t dance around like little girl.
Thank you, all! Some very thoughtful and good and helpful answers here. I guess the upshot is that I can “get away with murder,” but at least some readers will say, “Hmph: that was murder, even if he got away with it.”
I kind of like Little Nemo’s suggestion. I could call them “decay-point neutrons” which doesn’t mean anything, or “bottom/top neutrons” which does mean something, but which don’t occur in nature and so their effects can be hand-waved.
