It's a little hard to distinguish plain bad science from science which the author made up for the purpose of the story. There are a couple of clear cases: Then there are things that conflict with very well-established theories, e.g. Keplerian orbital dynamics: Common misunderstandings of theories that the authors would probably say they accept: Some more that look pretty ridiculous to many of us: Admittedly we have no observations to confirm or deny these. Other occasional absurdities:

Footnote 1

Geoffrey Landis says: "[t]he Wiedemann-Franz law states that for metals, the ratio of thermal conductivity to electrical conductivity is a constant proportional to the temperature [Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, 5th edition, 1976, page 178]. It happens that this law does not hold for superconductors, but that's not obvious." (As I understand it, superconductors use a different mechanism for conducting electricity than normal conductors, and that mechanism doesn't work for conducting heat.)

Footnote 2

Chris Neufeld says: "the relationship is quite strong in the reverse direction; it is a fairly common trick in low temperature physics to use superconducting materials as heat switches, with the superconducting state being used as a thermal insulator, then an applied magnetic field destroying the superconductivity and driving it normal, increasing the thermal conductivity by a factor of about three-hundred. This gives a heat switch with no moving parts, something quite important when working at low temperatures where frictional heating is a concern."