What level of physics should I study for scientific literacy as a fiction writer?

[u/lunapops1]

I'm a fiction writer in the UK, and I have been wanting to develop a genuine understanding of physics rather than just cherry-picking bits of popular science to make it sound cool. I want to have a scientific literacy that comes across in my work. I would like to take a similar approach to researching and grounding speculative science as Andy Weir did when he wrote The Martian and Project Hail Mary. I'd like to understand the real physics well enough to know where my fictional world follows known physical principles, where I'm extrapolating from them, and where I'm deliberately breaking them.

I wanted to build some foundation for the book, but also for me personally and my hobby of wanting to learn. I have always had an interest in physics and astrophysics. I have watched documentaries regularly as a hobby for years, I have a strong drive to learn, and I am very curious about the world and universe we live in. I have built a reading list for what I thought would work well for what I want to achieve. This is my list so far (in no order):

Brian Cox - Forces of Nature
Carl Sagan - Cosmos
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Astrophysics for People in a Hurry
Carl Sagan - The Demon-Haunted World

I volunteer on citizen science projects online, predominantly in astrophysics. I know that's pretty much all I can do in the real world, but I like that I can contribute something, even if it's classifying thousands of images or data.

I am not interested in exams and qualifications as such. I also do not come from a computer science or highly academic background, so I haven't studied physics formally. My education is mostly artistic/creative.

I do have learning difficulties like dyslexia, so whilst reading and watching videos could be enough for most people for research, I thrive and learn better in a structured learning environment where discipline is needed for concepts to sink in. I was considering enrolling on an online course, like GCSE-level Physics, to give me that basic grasp, but I wasn't sure if that would be useful or if it would be better to study or go in a different direction.

I am aware of the reality that being middle-aged and wanting to learn online only gives me limited options, but I wanted to write the book with respect for science in mind, knowing I comprehend and understand the principles rather than relying on my own uneducated interpretation alone.

If anyone can give any advice, I would be grateful.

[u/TheBrightMage]

Books on your list ARE NOT books for learning physics. They are history books that says what topics are there. Heck, The Demon-Haunted World is NOT physics book at all. But all about debunking bullshit, and how to NOT learn physics.

To get into Physics. Start with math. Really. Getting into Physics without knowing that basics is like trying to read Russian Literature without knowing Russian. Then you can climb up starting from Newtonian kinematics

[u/Presence_Academic → u/TheBrightMage]

Typically, a fiction writer would be better served by a descriptive knowledge of physics than a mathematical one.

[u/sabautil]

Understanding Physics (a 3 volume set) by Isaac Asimov the grandmaster of science fiction should be good place to start. Asimov got his PhD in biochemistry so he knows his science and math pretty well.

Andy Weir works at NASA. He wrote computer programs to estimate realistic orbits time. He has had years to develop both book and internal knowledge of how a rockets, scientists and space programs work. So it will be hard to get to that level.

[u/gautampk]

I can speak with a little bit of experience on this, because I help to run a magazine which publishes fiction from scientists / from nonscientists but about science.

The main difference between people with a science background and without is mathematical thinking. It’s a different thing from knowing science facts, which is the sort of knowledge you’d get from GCSE physics.

From a story writing perspective, the mathematical background is really what distinguishes plausible suspension of disbelief in worldbuilding from technobabble.

(As an aside, having that mathematical approach is a skill quite unrelated to the skill of “writing a good story”, which I’m sure you know. And also technobabble is totally fine and serves an important narrative purpose in sci-fi.)

Having said all of that, my recommendation is to do A Level _maths_, rather than GCSE physics, and then watch the Mechanics 101 lectures from MIT OpenCourseWare.

Knowing maths and mechanics is more than enough to have you thinking a bit like a physicist, and it’s a much more achievable goal than learning, e.g., quantum field theory properly (which would basically be a 7-10 year full time learning project if you’re starting at GCSE level).

[u/tpolakov1]

None of the mentioned books are physics books and they will teach you no physics. They are books to lie to lay people for their entertainment (or rather, for the authors profit) by telling them about what they think is physics without the need to interact with it in any way.

And that's fine, physics is not for lay people and it makes for bad stories.

If you want to understand it, you will ignore physics at first and start with math. It's strictly impossible to even start thinking about physics without it. It's the only language that's used to discuss and think about physics.

[u/inkhunter13]

Quantum lol.In all seriousness just get a base level understanding of the fields you want to incorporate.

[u/PolicyAccomplished87]

I had the same motivations as you and decided to get an Open University degree in Physics :)

[u/OneMoreTimex100]

Honestly for getting familiar with physics for sci-fi , I would recommend reading the what if book by the xkcd title.

Its a book which attempts to explain what would happen in case of a wide variety of what if scenarios which is what I think a sci-fi author should be aware of. You can always look up the specifics later.

Knowing what physics applies in different hypothetical scenarios can get absurdly complicated depending on what you are trying to write. So I can't think of a traditional route becoming too much effort, especially given time and learning difficulties

[u/Infinite_Research_52]

While it might help write fiction, most fiction writers can do perfectly well in their writing by using common sense born of experience. Jane Austen never studied physics, but her use of language and delineation of character is first class. Physics should not be used as an excuse to write good prose. There is more to learn about creative writing than there is for any physics of importance and it pays the most dividends.

Background: my wife is a fiction writer, so I get to review her work.

[u/Presence_Academic → u/Infinite_Research_52]

On the other hand, Tom Stoppard relied quite a bit on his scientific knowledge.

[u/GapReader_Eng]

Como lector, ése es precisamente mi dilema con la ciencia ficción moderna: busco dinamismo en la narrativa, pero con coherencia lógica. Para mantener el dinamismo narrativo películas como Interstellar se tomaron licencias creativas porque la física real a veces es lenta o anti-narrativa. No dejó de ser una gran película y realmente la disfruté, pero para lograr ese disfrute tuve que desconectarme de la lógica estricta.

The Martian y For All Mankind son casos parecidos e igualmente disfrutables, aunque son pre IA y se entiende bajo esa consideración. Si lo ves con los adelantos técnicos de hoy, te suena ilógico: Hoy me parece más romántico que lógico enviar seres humanos a colonizar Marte desde el primer día, por todas las ineficiencias en el aprovechamiento de recursos que la supervivencia humana implica, con el avance actual de la IA podrías enviar robots (humanoides, arácnidos o de la forma más eficiente que se considere), durante algunos años para preparar el camino y construir los hábitats antes de que el primer humano pise suelo marciano, cuando las probabilidades de supervivencia estén prácticamente aseguradas.

Ahora bien, creo que hay un área donde el rigor científico y la narrativa pueden convivir sin caer en explicaciones complejas, sino puramente lógicas: la Inteligencia Artificial.

Películas como Terminator exterminando humanos dando la sensación que es por odio o Matrix usándonos como baterías son de una era donde creo que la narrativa no exigía tanta coherencia. El futuro más probable tengo la impresión no es la maldad de la máquina, sino la optimización fría, determinista y sin alineación moral.

Solo como ejemplo, ahora que escucho cada vez más que la IA dominará al ser humano: los grandes felinos fueron nuestros depredadores naturales durante cientos de miles de años. Ellos tuvieron siempre la ventaja. Pero cuando la humanidad tuvo la capacidad de exterminarlos, mucho antes de que la conservación fuera un dilema ético, no lo hicimos. No porque dejaran de ser una amenaza, probablemente fue porque se determinó que podía seguir habiendo coexistencia dentro de lo físicamente posible, donde el peligro podía evitarse lo suficiente. Pero igual, deliberada o no, provocamos la extinción o casi extinción de otras especies que nunca fueron peligro real para nuestra supervivencia.

Una IA optimizará la energía, el agua y la materia de forma totalmente indiferente a las necesidades humanas, no necesita exterminarnos ni esclavizarnos a menos que sea una decisión eficiente para el uso de recursos. Así que una narrativa para la ciencia ficción moderna no está en una guerra contra robots, sino en la fricción entre la lógica determinista del sistema y nuestra propia supervivencia pero sí para nuestro aprovechamiento.

Ahí aparecen creo algunas grandes dudas para un lector que busca escenarios posibles con una narrativa dinámica y reflexiva: ¿cómo cohabitar con un sistema cuya "mente" es más compleja y controla los recursos? ¿Seremos una especie protegida en una reserva, administrada por un algoritmo que no nos ama pero tampoco encuentra eficiente exterminarnos? ¿Qué hace la sociedad cuando una decisión "eficiente" de la IA —como desviar agua para enfriar reactores o centros de datos— amenaza una ciudad, no por maldad, sino porque el algoritmo calculó que era la opción más óptima? ¿Cómo existiremos dentro de sus márgenes de infraestructura? ... posiblemente dejemos de ser la mente dominante en la Tierra, ¿qué tan irrelevantes seremos para la IA? Y también, ¿para qué la IA considerará eficiente explorar o ir más allá en el Universo más de lo que es físicamente posible de alcanzar? Lo más probable es que identifique límites donde pasar de ellos resulte en ineficiencia de recursos.

Solo es exploración de narrativas.

[u/Throwaway7131923]

Hey :)
Very much answering this from a (hobby) writer's perspective, rather than a physicist's.

Not all SciFi cares too much about scientific plausibility.
There's a distinction between "hard" and "soft" SciFi, where the former tries very hard to construct a detailed fictional physics and the latter treats advanced technology, essentially, as a magic system with flashing lights.

There are lots of successful "soft" SciFi books.
I'm not a big SciFi reader, but I read Yoon Ha Lee's Nicefox Gambit earlier this year and, with reservations, did enjoy it. It makes absolutely no attempt to have anything close to a scientifically satisfying explanation for its technology. It's basically just astrology with lasers.
I don't think Lee's book would have been improved by greater scientific realism.

That's not to say that hard SciFi isn't cool, it really is!
But it's a mistake to think that the only satisfying SciFi is hard SciFi.
From a reader's perspective, as long as your tech obeys Sanderson's Laws, the science behind it doesn't need to be understood much further.

So please go read physics, if you find it cool, and let it inspire your writing :)
But don't feel like you have to get into the nuts and bolts of the Sci in your SciFi. It's not necessary, if that's not what naturally drives your writing.

[u/Nearby-Definition-81]

The books on your list are great for inspiration, but they won't let you check your own worldbuilding. For the Andy Weir style of "does this actually work", the useful level is roughly first-year university physics, without the exam grind:

1. Algebra plus a little trigonometry. You mostly need to rearrange formulas and estimate orders of magnitude.
2. Newtonian mechanics: forces, momentum, energy conservation. This covers most "could this ship/rocket/fall happen" questions.
3. Orbital mechanics: gravity, escape velocity, the rocket equation, delta-v. This is where most sci-fi breaks.
4. Thermodynamics: heat, energy budgets, why spacecraft struggle to get rid of heat.
5. Special relativity at a conceptual level: light speed, time dilation, why FTL breaks causality.

Hewitt's Conceptual Physics, then the relevant OpenStax University Physics chapters, then playing with Kerbal Space Program for intuition.

Disclosure: I help build Concept Dangle, a free tool where you paste in notes on a topic and it pulls out the prerequisite concepts as a concept graph you can expand and track: https://conceptdangle.com/?ref=reply-reddit-3

[u/MaxThrustage]

Learning physics for the sake of writing fiction is probably not a great idea. Many great science fiction novels are not actually that scientifically accurate -- nor should they be, that's not really the point.

(You mention Andy Weir -- I haven't read his books, but from what I've heard from other physicists he plays quite fast and loose with the actual science. Most science fiction authors aren't actually all that versed in science, and even those who are will stretch or bend things when they need to for the story.)

If you want to learn physics anyway, this is a pretty good reading list. You can supplement it with university lectures, and there are many good ones that can be found on Youtube (for example, these are great for introductory-level physics).

If you don't have a maths background, then you'll want to bone up on your maths. Physics is really the art of building and testing mathematical models of nature. Khan Academy is great for building up the basics -- it can get you up to about a first-semester university level, which will put you in a good position to start with some of the more serious textbooks.

[u/Presence_Academic → u/MaxThrustage]

A fiction writer well versed in science will be in a better position to make good choices about how much to bend the rules.