I've seen a few interviews with sci-fi authors recently and many of them seem particularly obsessed with being as scientifically precise as possible. It's almost as if they're directing their work towards an audience of scientists when I believe a decent portion of sci-fi fans aren't actually heavily into science as such. And since science fiction is technically "fiction", wouldn't it be just as plausible that the laws of physics, conservation of momentum, particle motion, and so forth, could be entirely re-engineered by the author, perhaps with just a single sentence, to fully support the fictional universe? I suppose it boils down to the sub-genre of sci-fi - whether it's real-world based or entirely imaginary. Just wondering if there are more readers who find it appealing if a story incorporates substantial technical details to support the plausibility of the scenario, from a real-world perspective, or if that technical jargon just detracts from the real meat and potatoes of the story (whether the meat and potatoes is from a Star Trek food replicator or not)?