From: FWEAVER@BIGVAX.ALFRED.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Beyond the Fall of Night
Date: 31 Jul 92 01:54:17 GMT

Chris Miller asked for reactions to the Clarke/Benford After the Fall of
Night.

The responses suggest that the Benford sequel to Clarke's Against the
Fall of Night was not well received.  This agrees with my reaction when
I read the book a year or so ago.  The original Clarke novel has been a 
favorite of mine for 30+ years.  It is somewhat dated but still filled
with vivid imagery.  Like most of Clarke's work, the conflicts are 
intellectual battles between rational beings and the more terrible
aspects of life are off-stage, long ago or far away.  I found Benford's 
gritty  style grating by contrast.  (Since I began volunteering as an 
EMT with our local fire/ambulance company, I find that I don't need much
blood and guts in my entertainment.) I was particularly annoyed to find
that the main purpose of the "sequel" was to attack the premises of the
Clarke work.  As I mentioned in an earlier post on this topic, I am well
aware of the gaps in the science but am quite happy to allow Clarke to 
write his novel within the assumptions commonly used in the 1940's.

Ironically, I have just noticed a scientific lapse in Benford's story,
Matter's End.  The story involves a proton decay experiment.  It is
stated that a detector surrounding a 5000 ton water sample in a 
house-sized chamber observes 65 proton decays leading to a proton 
half-life of 10**34 years.
 
When I first read this, I wondered about the large number of events.  
Calculations show that the numbers are unreasonable.  A 5000 ton sample
of water is roughly house sized (it would be a cube 54 feet on a side) 
and would contain roughly 3x10**32 protons as hydrogen nuclei.  If the
half-life of the proton is 10**34 years, a sample of this size should 
produce 0.02 decays/year.  Thus, it would take 3300 years to observe 
65 decays, not the few years implied in the story. (This assumes that 
the detector is 100% efficient.  Real detectors will miss some events 
and need more time to get the same data.)  If the protons and neutrons 
in the oxygen nuclei are assumed to decay like single protons, the time 
needed is reduced to only 370 years. Thus either the proton half-life 
quoted is too large, or the experiment needed a lot more water, or the 
experiment only detected 1 or 2 decays.

The problem noted above really has nothing to do with the point of
Matter's End and I would not mention it if Benford had not done the same
at length to Clarke.  Clarke was well aware that AtFoN failed to include 
several future developments and examined some of the possibilities in 
The City and the Stars. Benford spends his sequel pointing out some other 
missed factors, but ends up destroying the charm of the original.

The sad thing about all of this is that I now find myself approaching
Benford's work with an excessively critical attitude which detracts from 
my enjoyment of him.  Unfortunately, since there has been a recent trend 
towards rewriting perfectly satisfactory works (e.g. Nightfall) or fixing 
up the science (AftertFoN;  All the Weyrs of Pern).  However, I will save
those gripes for later.

Scott
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written