Topic: star trek question thanks
Anonymous A started this discussion 12 years ago #33,824
is there any kind of theoretical plausibility of utilizing neutrinos or 'tachyon beams' and all that babble in the ways that they discuss using them in the shows or is it just totally not. thanks
not when they are like 'oh man elevated readings here' but when they are like 'fire a concentrated blast in order to…'
not when they are like 'oh man elevated readings here' but when they are like 'fire a concentrated blast in order to…'
t-t-t-t-t-thanks
Syntax joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later[^] [v] #467,396
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 39 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #467,397
tachyons are hypothetical and neutrinos are very weakly interacting particles and are indirectly detectable but can be used to look at things like stellar cores and galactic centers. also i think they can use neutrinos to communicate through the planet or something.
so yeah, kinda, but tachyons are just sci-fi
so yeah, kinda, but tachyons are just sci-fi
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #467,398
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
To be fair about this hypothetical...The idea/theory of tachyon as a particle, was proposed by a very bright theoretical physicist, with one hell of a inventive track record. He was cheated out of a Nobel, but has one hell of a lot of respect among other scientists. Richard Feynman as just one example. So perhaps in this ONE case Sudarshan got it wrong and only tyme will tell.
To be fair about this hypothetical...The idea/theory of tachyon as a particle, was proposed by a very bright theoretical physicist, with one hell of a inventive track record. He was cheated out of a Nobel, but has one hell of a lot of respect among other scientists. Richard Feynman as just one example. So perhaps in this ONE case Sudarshan got it wrong and only tyme will tell.
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #467,399
@previous (Syntax)
oh yeah, i'm a layman in all this but i love reading about particle physics and junk.
I've read a couple of feynman's reader's digest style books on the subject and consider myself "aware" of many things in the field
at least not an expert.
i love that so many of the questions in physics from 20 years ago have been solved, but each answer came with more questions.
just looking at the wiki on tachyons in modern theoretical physics the term is used to describe a type of instability in a field with imaginary mass, apparently, like the higgs field. So i guess particle physicists will find a way to use the word tachyon for something, even if it's just subluminal spontaneous particle generation due to instability in the higgs field.
or whatever.
love this shit
oh yeah, i'm a layman in all this but i love reading about particle physics and junk.
I've read a couple of feynman's reader's digest style books on the subject and consider myself "aware" of many things in the field
at least not an expert.
i love that so many of the questions in physics from 20 years ago have been solved, but each answer came with more questions.
just looking at the wiki on tachyons in modern theoretical physics the term is used to describe a type of instability in a field with imaginary mass, apparently, like the higgs field. So i guess particle physicists will find a way to use the word tachyon for something, even if it's just subluminal spontaneous particle generation due to instability in the higgs field.
or whatever.
love this shit
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #467,405
@OP
Most Star Trek weapons are made of hand waving and treknobabble. Phasers rely on pretend particles and disruptors are never really adequately explained. However, matter and anti-matter do produce quite a reaction, so weapons that rely on matter/anti-matter reactions (photon torpedoes, anti-matter mines, anti-matter charges, etc.) could actually work... although creating a big explosion in the vacuum of space isn't nearly as damaging as doing it in an atmosphere where a pressure wave will do most of your destructive work for you. The crazy spike of all kinds of EM radiation will probably be pretty deadly to most lifeforms and electronics, even if it doesn't push a ship more than a few centimeters back. Graviton weapons, assuming gravitons exist, could actually push a ship back and also do some damage; so the graviton beam, gravimetric torpedo, or graviton mines could seriously fuck up an enemy ship if they work as described and gravitons (again, assuming they exist) could be released like that.
So, no. You're not going to conquer the galaxy with neutrinos (which barely interact with matter and are only generated by really heavy shit like stars and galactic centers. Seriously... there are like billions of neutrinos moving through you right now because of your proximity to our sun and many of those have passed through the entire planet!) and tachyons (which are something of a pipe dream). So, no. Sorry. :(
Also, reversing the polarity is usually a bad idea.
EDIT: Unless you're Nick posting on AT
Most Star Trek weapons are made of hand waving and treknobabble. Phasers rely on pretend particles and disruptors are never really adequately explained. However, matter and anti-matter do produce quite a reaction, so weapons that rely on matter/anti-matter reactions (photon torpedoes, anti-matter mines, anti-matter charges, etc.) could actually work... although creating a big explosion in the vacuum of space isn't nearly as damaging as doing it in an atmosphere where a pressure wave will do most of your destructive work for you. The crazy spike of all kinds of EM radiation will probably be pretty deadly to most lifeforms and electronics, even if it doesn't push a ship more than a few centimeters back. Graviton weapons, assuming gravitons exist, could actually push a ship back and also do some damage; so the graviton beam, gravimetric torpedo, or graviton mines could seriously fuck up an enemy ship if they work as described and gravitons (again, assuming they exist) could be released like that.
So, no. You're not going to conquer the galaxy with neutrinos (which barely interact with matter and are only generated by really heavy shit like stars and galactic centers. Seriously... there are like billions of neutrinos moving through you right now because of your proximity to our sun and many of those have passed through the entire planet!) and tachyons (which are something of a pipe dream). So, no. Sorry. :(
Also, reversing the polarity is usually a bad idea.
EDIT: Unless you're Nick posting on AT
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,406
@previous (D)
that's pretty much what i've been thinking because i understand basically what they're saying in real life terms while failing to understand the application
but not necessarily weapons! just practical use, you know?
it just gets confusing when they use real words!!!
i love it
@467,399 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
love this shit
tachyons – not just sci-fi!
that's pretty much what i've been thinking because i understand basically what they're saying in real life terms while failing to understand the application
but not necessarily weapons! just practical use, you know?
it just gets confusing when they use real words!!!
i love it
@467,399 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
love this shit
tachyons – not just sci-fi!
Anonymous D replied with this 12 years ago, 38 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,409
@previous (A)
Yeah, you aren't wrong: "treknobabble" is a thing. They try to use real stuff, but often fail horribly. (like Voyager going into a dark matter nebula or thinking that reversing the polarity will solve anything) It's still fun to watch, but you really have to be more willing to suspend disbelief because you like the series and the thought of humans traveling around the galaxy more than you object to some particular mcguffin that some writer who thinks of "science" as a literary device has decided to cram in at that particular moment.
Yeah, you aren't wrong: "treknobabble" is a thing. They try to use real stuff, but often fail horribly. (like Voyager going into a dark matter nebula or thinking that reversing the polarity will solve anything) It's still fun to watch, but you really have to be more willing to suspend disbelief because you like the series and the thought of humans traveling around the galaxy more than you object to some particular mcguffin that some writer who thinks of "science" as a literary device has decided to cram in at that particular moment.
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,410
Anonymous D replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,412
Anonymous E replied with this 12 years ago, 49 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,414
Anonymous D replied with this 12 years ago, 34 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,418
!WesleyJXXE replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,419
Anonymous D replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,423
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,441
"treknobabble"
I had to look this up for an accurate reply
I grew up believing that all of the Star Treks had some solid science foundation behind them. At least an attempt at probability and not just fiction.
Andre Bormanis (MS in Physics) is an American television producer, screenwriter and author of the book Star Trek: Science Logs. Bormanis is most notable for his involvement in the long-running Star Trek franchise, and was the science consultant on Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise. He also wrote several episodes of the Voyager and Enterprise series, as well as acting as science/technical advisor on the Next Generation films.
In his role he acted as an advisor for the screenwriters,
in order to ensure that the correct scientific principles are included in the episodes
There were a number of paid science advisers and this one makes a good read
http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/The-Science-of-Star-Trek-Fictional-technology-3238354.php
Viewing the first Motorola Flip Phone vs the one almost EXACTLY the same in TREK - Flat screen computers albeit with a much thicker backing in Trek vs what we all have -
There is one hell of a huge long list of Si Fi that predicted the real future including Arthur C. Clarke's prediction 4a geostationary satellite published in Wireless World magazine in 1945.
Clarke was a Scientist who also wrote some terrific Si Fi 2001: A Space Odyssey, fer instance.
He did the math back in 1945 and currently there are over 600 GEO's in orbit although several are parked awaiting tyme to crash in2 Ocean a Blue OR in Ur backyard.
I had to look this up for an accurate reply
I grew up believing that all of the Star Treks had some solid science foundation behind them. At least an attempt at probability and not just fiction.
Andre Bormanis (MS in Physics) is an American television producer, screenwriter and author of the book Star Trek: Science Logs. Bormanis is most notable for his involvement in the long-running Star Trek franchise, and was the science consultant on Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Enterprise. He also wrote several episodes of the Voyager and Enterprise series, as well as acting as science/technical advisor on the Next Generation films.
In his role he acted as an advisor for the screenwriters,
in order to ensure that the correct scientific principles are included in the episodes
There were a number of paid science advisers and this one makes a good read
http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/The-Science-of-Star-Trek-Fictional-technology-3238354.php
Viewing the first Motorola Flip Phone vs the one almost EXACTLY the same in TREK - Flat screen computers albeit with a much thicker backing in Trek vs what we all have -
There is one hell of a huge long list of Si Fi that predicted the real future including Arthur C. Clarke's prediction 4a geostationary satellite published in Wireless World magazine in 1945.
Clarke was a Scientist who also wrote some terrific Si Fi 2001: A Space Odyssey, fer instance.
He did the math back in 1945 and currently there are over 600 GEO's in orbit although several are parked awaiting tyme to crash in2 Ocean a Blue OR in Ur backyard.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,455
dw !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,458
nerds
Syntax replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,462
@467,455 (F)
That Wiki proves that NOT ALL WIKI sites are equal
"Beta-tachyons could be used to increase the strength of Federation starship shields by a factor of ten. The ship must remodulate its shields to emit a beta-tachyon pulse, and then project a series of antiproton beams into the shield bubble. (VOY: "The Q and the Grey") "
That Wiki proves that NOT ALL WIKI sites are equal
"Beta-tachyons could be used to increase the strength of Federation starship shields by a factor of ten. The ship must remodulate its shields to emit a beta-tachyon pulse, and then project a series of antiproton beams into the shield bubble. (VOY: "The Q and the Grey") "
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,471
@467,441 (Syntax)
your replies are worthless i know they have science consultants i've seen the credits thanks for the sfgate article
@previous (Syntax)
what
your replies are worthless i know they have science consultants i've seen the credits thanks for the sfgate article
@previous (Syntax)
what
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #467,472
but yeah reverse the polarity i've only ever heard of this used a few times and a 'reversed polarity' is often a result of some other thing, it is either a solution or a problem, and it most often has to do with fields or shields