Star Trek Science

Discussion in 'Science' started by Moi621, Feb 11, 2019.

  1. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    16,203
    Likes Received:
    5,734
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Star Trek Science.
    Well the communicator morphed into cellphones.
    And patient monitors over the hospital bed today.


    First Up:
    The Transporter.
    Does it transport your personal atoms or
    does it transport the information and
    assemble the atoms scavenged from the landing area?

    And don't you love the black box, Heisenberg Compensator.

    Don't be transported without one.


    Any Science topic of Star Trek
    or what do you think of the transporter.


    Moi :oldman:



    :flagcanada: Needed An :flagus:
    To Isolate Insulin.
     
  2. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,030
    Likes Received:
    1,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That episode where Barclay was afraid of the transporter ("Realm of Fear") revealed that one remains conscious in the matter stream through the entire process. Hence, the transporter doesn't kill you and reassemble a duplicate.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  3. Equality

    Equality Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48

    It'll never happen , impossible !
     
  4. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,303
    Likes Received:
    4,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm waiting for the medical tricorder. I don't see how a transporter can ever work.

    You do know that the transporter was invented by Gene Rodenberry to make the trip back and forth from the planets easier for the special effects folks.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  5. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    16,203
    Likes Received:
    5,734
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I thought it was because they didn't have enough funds for a shuttle at the time
    being a very budget constrained production.
     
  6. Blaster3

    Blaster3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    5,796
    Likes Received:
    4,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it'd prolly matter more to a fly...
     
  7. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,563
    Likes Received:
    8,207
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pad-to-pad transportation disintegrates matter on one end (using an unspecified process), stores it, and replicates a precise copy on the other end using previously stored matter (presumably making use of particle beams or magnetic fields to move the matter from storage to its position within the object being replicated). Which means everyone in the Star Trek universe who has been transported has been disintegrated to death and then replicated as an alive copy an instant later. They're all copies. Commander Riker's 'transporter twin' is proof of this dynamic. It begs the question- when someone dies, why not simply replicate them as the copy last recorded within the transporter buffer? Scotty once kept himself 'alive' as a datafile within a starships transporter buffer for years, which is in no way different from replicating a new copy of the recently deceased.

    Pad-to-site, site-to-pad and site-to-site transport could only work if particle beams are being utilized (since there is no where for the matter to be stored at one end) or if matter can be manipulated at or near the speed of light with magnetic fields, as the particles are literally being moved from the area of disintegration to the area of reintegration instantaneously. How those particle beams or NTL particles are projected through other matter (such as transportation to or from underground) without drastically/explosively damaging or heating said matter is not explained...

    Wormhole style teleportation would have been far less troublesome to try and explain, but as such things as 'transporter buffers' and 'Hysenburg compensators' would not be necessary for true 'wormhole' style teleportation, we can be certain that's not what they're suggesting they use.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  8. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    16,203
    Likes Received:
    5,734
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    How do they transport something into the nothingness of "space"?
    No handy material, atoms around to reassemble what is carried in the information of the beam.
    So they must transport the atoms too and not just the information. Q.E.D.
     
  9. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,563
    Likes Received:
    8,207
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's what I mean when I said they're either using particle beams or NTL speed magnetic fields to instantaneously move the atoms from origin or storage to destination.

    Having thought about it a bit more, it has to be high speed magnetic manipulation, as there would be no other way to stop a projected atom when it gets to its intended location.

    The only other way to move the atoms would be through wormholes, and creating trillions of wormholes for each transported object makes the least amount of sense... why not simply transport the entire object fully assembled through one wormhole?
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  10. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,303
    Likes Received:
    4,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pretty much part of what I said. He invented it because he couldn't afford the special effects for a shuttle.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
    Moi621 likes this.
  11. Blaster3

    Blaster3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    5,796
    Likes Received:
    4,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    even if they managed to get the concept into a working invention, no way i'm using it, our scientist cant even get gps navigation to work properly, you'd end up materialized inside solid rock or molten vulcano or worse yet inside pelosi's arse...

    i'll take the bus, thank you...
     
  12. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    19,739
    Likes Received:
    11,635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In order to produce an exact copy, the original has to be destroyed. I imagine it logically follows that this would apply to transporter buffers.

    You just need to bias the quantum-mechanical state of each particle so that it is ~100% likely to appear at the destination in precisely the right spot. No problem! :D

    Note that it is statistically possible for a particle in our proximity to suddenly appear anywhere in the universe. Hence, Improbability Drive! :D

    We once wasted an entire period in Quantum Mechanics discussing the Heisenberg Compensator. We were exploring the logic of the function of such a device.

    I remember thinking how strange it was to be seriously discussing such a device.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2019
  13. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,563
    Likes Received:
    8,207
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Im not familiar with that. Is that an actual law of physics?

    Arguing from a purely canonical perspective within the Star Trek Universe, how is Riker's 'transporter twin' explained?

    Is this accomplished by reconfoobling the energymotron? 8)

    IIRC the 'Science (or Physics) of Star Trek' is a full semester course at some institutions. Presumably it concerns theoretical physics and their potential application to future technologies. Probably not as much of a waste as the course title would imply. But I havn't taken it...
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2019
  14. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    19,739
    Likes Received:
    11,635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not a law of physics but it is logically derived from the laws of physics. So if you transport, you have to be destroyed and an exact copy created. Theoretically, an exact copy would include everything about you, including your consciousness. But since we don't really understand consciousness, no one can really say if "you" would continue or not.

    They were hit by a pulse of energy during the transport. This provided the energy to create a duplicate. As for real physics, pfffft. Magic? I have no idea how to make a transporter copy machine. I imagine someone with expertise in information theory might be able to consider if such a thing makes any sense at all.

    Precisely!

    Imagine a device that can do things not possible.

    Make it so.
     
    modernpaladin likes this.
  15. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,563
    Likes Received:
    8,207
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sounds to me like this logic is based on the assumption that we have a 'soul' (or w/e you might call it) and there's no way to duplicate such a subjective ...thing. Given that Star Trek is fairly 'atheist' as they claim in an early episode of TNG that the existence of God was 'disproven' (and I say 'fairly' as both 'Q' and the wormhole aliens that the Bajorans worship exhibit particularly god-like abilities) I don't think its prudent to apply this logic to the Star Trek Universe, unless, of course, we're to presume that the proof of god's lack of existence wasn't as provable as they thought, or that such a spiritual dynamic as a soul could have 'evolved' alongside the physical world (both of which I think would be contrary to the 'spirit' floabt of Star Trek).

     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2019
  16. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    19,739
    Likes Received:
    11,635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, we just don't know what constitutes consciousness. So we can't speak to how it might be affected.

    If you want to ASSUME that YOU will still exist after transporting, and not just a copy of you, be my guest. :D

    The funny thing is that as it stands, if we did have a transporter, and the copy was in fact a new consciousness with identical memories and function, but not the original, we would have no way to know. YOU would be dead and no one would even know you're gone.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2019
  17. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    16,203
    Likes Received:
    5,734
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay, what about "warping space"?
    How could it be done?
    Warp Drive.

    Ideas.

    And what happens with more advanced
    Transwarp systems Star Trek Voyager stole from Borg?
    It gave out after getting them 15 years closer to Earth.
     
  18. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,422
    Likes Received:
    590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A warp drive to achieve faster-than-light travel — a concept popularized in television's Star Trek — may not be as unrealistic as once thought, scientists say.
    https://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html
     
  19. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    16,203
    Likes Received:
    5,734
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @Cosmo

    What can anyone imaginably do to warp space?
    Create gravity like a black hole and somehow mold the warm into the desired formation?
    I don't know anything other than gravity that warps space. ? ? ?
     
  20. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,563
    Likes Received:
    8,207
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Negative mass particles.

    They dont actually exist, not that we know of, at least. But if we can discover or create them, we would be able to create a warp field that would enable relative ftl travel very similar to that described in Star Trek.

    "In the classic physics equation for force (F = ma), all three variables are positive. However, if you make mass a negative number, the resulting force is negative as well. Thus, pushing an object with negative mass causes it to accelerate toward you. ... The Alcubierre warp drive makes use of negative mass."

    Wormholes are another possibility. If there exist other dimensions that have different natural laws than our own, transfering to a dimension where distances are shorter or less energy is required to move and then transferring back to our dimension could be a method of very efficient travel.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019
  21. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    16,203
    Likes Received:
    5,734
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    I prefer the manipulation of gravitons.
    Everyone knows there is no such thing as "negative mass". ;)
    Graviton mediated Warp Drive only requires figuring out the gravity wave / particle conundrum.
    Just have to apply it to creating a "field".
    We know gravity warps space. Si?

    What else could warp space?

    I will study up on negative mass theory. :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019
  22. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    19,739
    Likes Received:
    11,635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Electrons moving down a wire have a negative mass.
     
  23. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    16,203
    Likes Received:
    5,734
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019
  24. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    19,739
    Likes Received:
    11,635
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It requires at least a graduate degree in physics to understand any of this. And that would only be a rudimentary understanding. If you want to really know what you're talking about, you'd have to be a post doc. And then you still may not know what you're talking about!

    People often confuse philosophy with physics. If it isn't an equation, it's philosophy. And philosophical explanations are generally too limited to be accurate. Concepts like this exist in the mathematical plane. We then attempt to put them into philosophical terms that we can understand.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019
    Cosmo likes this.
  25. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    16,203
    Likes Received:
    5,734
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Yet Einstein visualized "it" then did the math.
     

Share This Page