PDA

View Full Version : Star Trek Versus Reality



Weaselbunny
2004-Jan-26, 12:09 AM
I'm not a physicist or scientist of any kind, but I do watch a lot of science fiction.

An unreliable source once informed me that many of things in the Star Trek programmes are theoretically possible, physics wise (like neutrinos being related to time travel, warp drive, stable wormholes connecting points in space etc.).

I was hoping that someone out there might a bit wiser than me and either confirm the myth, or dispell it.

Tinaa
2004-Jan-26, 01:14 AM
I am a Trekkie and discussed some of the Star Trek stuff with my physics professor. He recommended two excellent books by Lawrence Krauss: The Physics of Star Trek and Beyond Star Trek. I really enjoyed both of them.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-26, 07:49 AM
I am also a fellow trekkie, are their any websites similar to the references that you posted?

Guest_Faulkner
2004-Jan-26, 10:12 AM
Antimatter engines couldn't propel a spaceship to warp speeds! Some trekkie "science" might have some tiny basis in real science, but let's face it, there's a lot of poetic license there. I think the "holodeck" is a silly one. Gimme the original series anyday!!!

damienpaul
2004-Jan-26, 10:29 AM
That has always been something that I have wondered - what is theory behind the antimatter engines and why would i not feel safe with anything of that kind?

Josh
2004-Jan-26, 10:49 AM
Actually Faulkner, quite a bit of the science of star trek is based in theoretical possibilities. A lot of the holodeck science in Star Trek is theoretically possible. The Antimatter warp core is only a part of the idea of a warp engine (so it's not an antimatter engine - that just makes up the core of it). The idea is a very small and controlled matter - antimatter explosion which generates a warp field. Antimatter doesn't propel the ship. Like Tinaa suggested, read The Physics of Star Trek. Excellent book that outlines what is possible and what's not, and what's probable and what's not (and where I got the info that i just gave you).

Guest_Faulkner
2004-Jan-26, 12:07 PM
Fair enough, Josh. I guess all I know is the original "retro" series...love it!...can't say I'm big on the later stuff! (Sheesh, just alienated myself from all of you yet again! :P )

I know they're making leaps & bounds today with regard to teleportation, quantum entanglement, etc. Will be VERY interesting to see where this research leads??

"BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY!"

MissV
2004-Feb-23, 01:21 AM
I'm a Star Trek Voyager fan, and I have to reply to the man that said that holodeck technology is rediculous. Just to give you a small amount of information, the government has been working on holodeck technology for many years, and it is predicting that it will be in use for military purposes within a mere five years. All you're talking about is expanding on the knowledge of making holograms, which I did myself in college over 10 years ago with lasers.

Science Fiction is a most magnificent way of making our minds grow, so that we don't stifle ourselves into nothingness. We can see new possibilities for the future. That's what makes life worthwhile.

devilmech
2004-Feb-23, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by Guest_Faulkner@Jan 26 2004, 12:07 PM
Fair enough, Josh. I guess all I know is the original "retro" series...love it!...can't say I'm big on the later stuff! (Sheesh, just alienated myself from all of you yet again! :P )

I know they're making leaps & bounds today with regard to teleportation, quantum entanglement, etc. Will be VERY interesting to see where this research leads??

"BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY!"
Didn't alienate me man :P

I may not have been around for the original series, but I can safely say that it's the least soap opera-like of any of them. And consequently, the best. The original movies with Captain Kirk in em fueled a lot of my initial wonderment with space and new frontiers, so I have a sort of nostalgic connection to them

Algenon the mouse
2004-Feb-23, 02:08 AM
I know that a lot of Star Trek was based on current theories, (good old Roddenberry)but many were embelished for televison.

For example: Loud photon torpedo sounds in outerspace? Do not think so..

Skywise
2004-Feb-23, 03:04 AM
Oh, okay, I'll stick my nose in on this one.

The matter/anti-matter warp core of a Star Trek warp engine is what provides the energy for the ship. The warp nacels (Long cylindrical objects out the back end of the ships) are what take that energy and create a warp field, which is then utilzed to propel the ship (I believe by means of applying certain conditions to change the shape of the warp field, thus applying varying forces to provide propulsion). Whew, what a mouthful.

There are a few other things about Star Trek that I need to point out. Transporters, that is instant matter transmission. Remember Einstein, people? E=mc^2, right? One day we'll have the capability of producing the kinds of energy that will make such devices possible. And the meterials we'll need to be able to utilize such amounts of energy.

Okay, now... for those fans of the original series, I wonder how many know the following tidbit.

The original series, aired in the late 1960s, right? Take it as a given that personal home computers were *COMPLETELY* unknown at that time. Okay... picture in your mind, if you will... the bridge of the Enterprise, Kick swivels in his chair to ask Spock for some meaningful piece of information... Spock promptly picks up a little yellow square and sticks it into his console and asks the computer for the information...

Stop. Freeze program. Rewind and still-frame, focusing on that little yellow object.

Does that square thing remind you of anything? Something commonplace around computers after something around 15 years after that series aired?

Just something to think about.

- Skywise

Faulkner
2004-Feb-23, 05:58 AM
MISS V
I'm a Star Trek Voyager fan, and I have to reply to the man that said that holodeck technology is rediculous. Just to give you a small amount of information, the government has been working on holodeck technology for many years, and it is predicting that it will be in use for military purposes within a mere five years. All you're talking about is expanding on the knowledge of making holograms, which I did myself in college over 10 years ago with lasers.

Holographs are one thing; holodecks another. One of the few "Voyager" or "whatever" episodes I HAVE watched had Colonel Pickhard going into the holodeck, buying a drink from the holographic bartender, and drinking it. I'm sticking with my guns here: the idea's RIDICULOUS! (Maybe if they were wearing full-body "VR" suits...?)

DEVILMECH
The original movies with Captain Kirk in em fueled a lot of my initial wonderment with space and new frontiers, so I have a sort of nostalgic connection to them

Same here. The original series certainly brainwashed me into space! Everything that came after it just wasn't the same. Watching "Trouble With Tribbles" at 11:30 at night when you're 8 or so years old certainly has its impact on a little impressionable kid! Ha. (Either I had cool parents, or I ignored 'em, I can't remember which!?) :P

MissV
2004-Feb-24, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by Algenon the mouse@Feb 22 2004, 09:08 PM
I know that a lot of Star Trek was based on current theories, (good old Roddenberry)but many were embelished for televison.

For example: Loud photon torpedo sounds in outerspace? Do not think so..
Now there's a concept I hadn't thought of before. You think there is no sound in space? If not, then what would dampen it, dark matter?

devilmech
2004-Feb-24, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by MissV@Feb 24 2004, 01:49 AM
Now there's a concept I hadn't thought of before. You think there is no sound in space? If not, then what would dampen it, dark matter?
Sound doesn't travel through a vacuum. Sound travels by vibrations. Imagine a bunch of people doing "the wave" at a hockey game. That's how sound travels. The more dense something is, the better sound travels through it.

Since space is a vacuum, there's nothing for sound to travel through.

Josh
2004-Feb-24, 02:40 AM
No, the fact that space is a vacuum means that sound can't propogate in space.

Guest_Weaselbunny
2004-Feb-24, 12:12 PM
I've always been fond of the saying (cue dramatic music) 'In space, no-one can hear you scream!' :o

But can you imagine watching a massive war in space like a silent movie, wouldn&#39;t be so gripping. <_<

Kootenaistar
2004-Feb-25, 01:01 AM
:) I doubt that all of the "uninvented yet" things on Star Trek will ever become reality. I&#39;m just an amature stargazer who has been amazed with the advances in my own lifetime. However, many of the things of the better of the sci-fi writers are based on the study of known science and the advances seen with the artistic mind. Computers run by voice control are either in development or are already here. I read of them not long ago. They were to be, for one thing, for seriously physically handicapped people. Many other uses too. Many years ago, Orwell&#39;s rocket to the moon story was the laughing stock of the day for many people. But...&#33; We shall see what we shall see. :rolleyes:

Faulkner
2004-Feb-25, 01:15 AM
Many years ago, Orwell&#39;s rocket to the moon story was the laughing stock of the day for many people.

I think you&#39;re referring to Jules Verne&#39;s "From The Earth To The Moon"...interestingly (amazingly, even&#33;) he got a lot of things right 100 years before the real thing&#33; - eg launch from Florida, 3-man crew, splash-down in the Pacific...not to mention escape velocities, distances, orbits, etc etc...You can find a nice little NASA page dedicated to this here (http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/vernorig.html)&#33;&#33;&#33;

If you&#39;re referring to Orwell&#39;s "1984" (written in 1948) then, sadly, yes it&#39;s all come true...

Weaselbunny
2004-Feb-25, 05:25 PM
So when I watch TV Tony Blair is watching me back&#33; :o

I always thought I was too paranoid, maybe I&#39;m not paranoid enough&#33; :unsure:

Faulkner
2004-Feb-26, 03:11 AM
Don&#39;t underestimate those Illuminati control-freaks, ha...

damienpaul
2004-Feb-26, 12:23 PM
I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if we were indeed living in a 1984-like world....

Josh
2004-Feb-26, 01:25 PM
and now people ... back to the topic.

Weaselbunny
2004-Feb-26, 01:38 PM
One thing about Star Trek that sometimes bugs me, most all of the aliens are humanoid, and all of the major characters. Ok I know it&#39;d be tricky to have loads of none humanoids because the actors are... wel, humanoid. But at least Bab 5 had a go at different shapes, atmosphere tolerances and none carbon based life forms with some frequency.

I would have thought that if there is life out there, it would be a fluke if it was humanoid.

Plus, each series has a more advanced character trying to be more human... Data, Odo, 7 of 9... hmm. <_<

Josh
2004-Feb-26, 11:17 PM
While there are life forms in star trek that aren&#39;t humanoid and carbon based (Odo and Data for eg), most of the species are humanoid because they are all descended from a common ancestor as described in the Star trek: TNG episode, "The Chase (http://stng.36el.com/st-tng/episodes/246.html)".

damienpaul
2004-Feb-27, 08:00 AM
One has to wonder if there was an element of truth behind that story Josh, that perhaps we were seeded, in fact most of life was perhaps seeded on this planet...just a thought.

Duane
2004-Feb-27, 03:18 PM
Another thought--maybe WE are the seed&#33; What if we are the first "consciousness" of the universe? After all, that is what that show was about, a civilization that came into being and seeing nothing else around them, "seeded" oceans on other worlds with DNA.

So imagine humans as the first&#33; :P

Weaselbunny
2004-Feb-27, 05:06 PM
Doh&#33;

I remember that episode now... bit of a dime bar moment :huh: (that may not make sense if you&#39;re not british, sorry).

I&#39;m quite fond of the notion that we were seeded. But I once read a book &#39;The Seahorse in the Sky&#39;, can&#39;t remember much about it, but in it, we are the result of alien defecation in the primordial soup or something. Now if it&#39;s that type of seeding then it&#39;s not such a romantic notion. <_<

I liked the idea of the Vorlons in Bab 5, an energy based life-form that looked out for us B) (ok, that went a bit bandy in the end, but while it lasted it was a nice thought).

I may or may not be making sense&#33; :blink:

Skywise
2004-Feb-27, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by damienpaul@Feb 27 2004, 08:00 AM
One has to wonder if there was an element of truth behind that story Josh, that perhaps we were seeded, in fact most of life was perhaps seeded on this planet...just a thought.
Is everyone aware the the DNA that exists on this planet is all a minimum of 70% similar to all the other DNA that exists on this planet?

The variences in DNA between mammals is less than 10% (that is, over 90% identical).

Makes you look at plants differently to think that any given plant, tree, blade of grass is made up of at least 70% the same thing as you.

Faulkner
2004-Feb-28, 12:06 AM
That would explain all the cabbage-brained humans&#33;

damienpaul
2004-Feb-28, 12:31 AM
:lol: Faulkner

Now that is ?established? that the genetic makeup of this planet seems to have a lot of commonality, would it not be awesome to be able to find life elsewhere and test for similarity,

By the way, before I get too carried away, is the commonality on Earth for the same or similar genomes?

MissV
2004-Mar-08, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Duane@Feb 27 2004, 10:18 AM
Another thought--maybe WE are the seed&#33; What if we are the first "consciousness" of the universe? After all, that is what that show was about, a civilization that came into being and seeing nothing else around them, "seeded" oceans on other worlds with DNA.

So imagine humans as the first&#33; :P
I don&#39;t know, that kind of reminds me of the old Star Trek joke;
To go forth where no man has gone before..............then when we get there, there&#39;s already other people ahead of us.