PDA

View Full Version : Warp Theory in Star Trek is B-B-B-B-B-B-Bad To The Bone



Pi Man
2002-Jul-06, 09:03 PM
Who else here has heard of the second speed limit in Star Trek of Warp 10(which Voyager broke several times, and the Borg broke routinely with their Trans-Warp coils and hubs)? Is there any scientific basis for this? Any at all?
_________________
*****∞
π=∑(4/(4n+1)-4/(4n+3))
****n=0 (Yes folks, it really works)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pi Man on 2002-11-01 21:32 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pi Man on 2002-11-01 21:33 ]</font>

Donnie B.
2002-Jul-06, 10:42 PM
Well, since warp drive is itself pure fiction, there's no particular reason you can't give it whatever characteristics (and limits) you choose.

Chuck
2002-Jul-07, 12:26 AM
On one Star Trek, Voyager episode it wasn't really a limit. Warp 10 was infinite speed.

g99
2002-Jul-07, 12:58 AM
I am not an avid trekkie (treky?) I just watch the shows, But i have a question, what are the warp numbers? Are they arbitrary numbers, or are they numbers like warp 2 is two times the speed of light? Also there should be no top number. There is very little friction in space, so theoretically you should be able to accelerate forever (as long as you have fuel) So there should be no limits. and if you controll gravity on the ship, then you can go at any speed becuase you will not be affected phisically and unless your ship hits something, it won't either.

Silas
2002-Jul-07, 01:29 AM
In Old Original Star Trek, the Warp Numbers were expressions of the "cube of the speed of light." Warp 1 was the speed of light. Warp 2 was eight times the speed of light. Warp 3 was 27 times the speed of light. Warp 4 was 64 times the speed of light. And so on...

This was in the original series "Bible," the set of background instructions given to the writers, and came straight from the "Great Bird of the Galaxy," Gene Roddenberry.

This was intended to limit the Star Trek universe to a "bubble" of limited extent. Star Trek wasn't intended to explore the entire galaxy, let alone other galaxies. We were simply supposed to explore our limited neighborhood.

As far as I can tell, this definition of Warp numbers has long since been thrown out the window...

Silas

edited to add: there is no friction in *ordinary* space, but in Star Trek, in "Warp Space," there is a kind of friction. If you're going Warp 6, and your engines fail, you will gradually lose speed, until you fall below the speed of light. This actually makes sense, since it is supposed to take a vast amount of energy to "warp" space around you. If the energy is cut off, the "warp field" must collapse. It was the intent of the writers that the field collapses gradually, rather than cataclsymically.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Silas on 2002-07-06 21:32 ]</font>

thkaufm
2002-Jul-07, 02:14 AM
What about impulse speed. Sometimes it seems like it must be pretty fast and others it's really slow.

Tom

jaydeehess
2002-Jul-07, 04:28 AM
Since impulse speed is used to travel between planets in a solar system and travel time is only hours then yes impulse must be pretty fast as well.

thkaufm
2002-Jul-07, 05:20 AM
I also seem to recall episodes that have them pulling out of space dock and they use something like a quarter or one half impulse and they're just barely moving.

Tom

beskeptical
2002-Jul-07, 09:16 AM
Silas has this in better detail, and I'm sure most of you space cases know all about it, but I was enlightened to 'warp speed' in a pretty good book, Hyperspace, by Michio Kaku; Oxford Press; 1994.

I was surprised to read there was some science to warp speed. "Instead of taking the long, direct route to other galaxies, rockets merely zip along in hyperspace by warping the space around them."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-07-07 05:17 ]</font>

xriso
2002-Jul-08, 02:17 AM
On 2002-07-06 20:26, Chuck wrote:
On one Star Trek, Voyager episode it wasn't really a limit. Warp 10 was infinite speed.


This suggests an asymptotic scale. Elsewhere I've heard it's an exponential (logarithmic) scale. And as Silas notes, it started out as a geometric scale. I wonder if the writers actually think about what they're doing with warp numbers. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

On the topic of friction in space, you've got average about 0.5 atoms per cubic meter in the interstellar medium. How do you deal with these things? Does a warped ship move along space or skip over it?

Let's say our ship has a cross-sectional area of 60000 meters squared (a wild guess). Going at 250 times light speed, that means you're dredging through 60000*3e8*250*0.5 = 2.25e15 atoms every second. It's mostly hydrogen, so that's about 380 picograms. If you're imparting a relativistic velocity on these particles when you hit them, it could be a big problem. Or maybe I'm wrong.

mallen
2002-Jul-08, 02:45 AM
On the topic of friction in space, you've got average about 0.5 atoms per cubic meter in the interstellar medium. How do you deal with these things? Does a warped ship move along space or skip over it?


They actually cover this in an episode of Enterprise. The chief engineer (Tripp?) says that without shields, a particle of dust would rip a hole the size of your fist through the ship while it is travelling at warp. I don't know about the science behind the size of the hole, but they do think about the problem of encountering particles in space while travelling that fast.

- Mike

Alan
2002-Jul-08, 03:35 PM
They aren't very consistent. In TOS there was the episode where Kirk battles the cloud monster that he encountered as an ensign. They travel to the planet "on the other side of the Federation" 1000 light years away to kill it before it spawns - and give a time limit - they have to rendevous with another starship to delivery medical supplies in less than 2 days. So they travel on the order of 2000 light years in less than 2 days or a minimum of 365.25 x 1000 times the speed of light - Warp 71.5 using the cubed formula. Voyager is thrown 70,000 light years away but needs decades to return to known space - 25 years at Warp 14 using the cube formula but less than 2 1/2 months the the old Enterprise. In TOS with the anti-matter man, Starfleet command tells Kirk they are evacuating everyone in a 1000 light year radius around them. That is a major disruption of a large area considering at warp 10 (1000 times the speed of light) it will take 1 year to get the closest to Kirk inhabitants out of the area and 1 year to get them back.

I don't think you can count on a consistent, well thought out technical background in most sci-fi series. The writers will pull whatever stunts needed to make the story for that week regardless of any bible they might have. I get the impression from some of the episodes that the writers haven't even seen the previous week's episode let alone the preceeding series it was derived from. Enterprise works great as a prequel to The Next Generation or Voyager, but appears to have nothing to do with the Original Series. The writers of TNG missed a great opportunity to link with TOS by having Q be Trelane from the Squire of Gothos and still get the magical being who could snap his fingers to put the crew of the Enterprise in situations where Picard gets to prattle on about the greatness of humanity.

Hale_Bopp
2002-Jul-08, 06:11 PM
Let's say you wanted to get to half the speed of light...1.5*10^8 m/s (a reasonable speed since they zip around the solar system pretty quick...actually, this is slower than they zip around the solar system!) At an acceleration of 2g, it would take 7.65*10^6 seconds just to get up to speed! That's 88.57 days for those of you keeping track /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Anyway, the point is that the technology is not realistic. They supposedly have "inertial dampers" so you can surivive large accelerations, but I don't know how these are supposed to work at all.

Just wanted to throw a sobering number into the discussion /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Rob

Pi Man
2002-Jul-09, 05:29 PM
Hmmmmmmmm... Infinite speed. If something is going at infinite speed, and then stops, where will it end up? An infinite distance away. This is not so hard to imagine in a universe that is infinite in extent, but what about in a spherical(or hyper-spherical) universe? Where would one end up? It sounds to me like the answer would be non sensical. Thus, the velocity of infinity would also be non sensical. I'll ponder this some more later. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

_________________
****infinity
Pi=Epsilon (4/(4n+1)-4/(4n+3))
*****n=0

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pi Man on 2002-07-11 12:20 ]</font>

Russ
2002-Jul-09, 05:39 PM
The way warp drive is supposed to work (per the Star Trek Technical Manual) is:
The warp engines create a subspace field around the ship. In subspace the ship has no mass WRT normal space so the ship is allowed to go faster than light in normal space. Once the warp field is established around the ship another is built and projected just a little offset from the first, in the direction of flight. The ship then centers itself in the new field and the original field is allowed to collapse. This process of building warp fields continues at faster and faster rates until the ship is traveling faster than light.

The big parabolic dish on the front of the engineering section is how they avoid being destroyed by atomic dust. It projects a deflector field out infront of the ship so that all the atoms, rocks, etc. follow the field lines around the ship instead of hitting head on.

Impulse power is supposed to be just traditional rocketry. The squirt a plazma stream out the back and that pushes the ship forward in an equal and opicite reaction. Impulse power takes you from zero to 90% C.

(mimicing the voice of Ed McMahon on the old Jonny Carson Show) EVERYTHING you'd EVER want to know about that subject is hermeticly sealed in "The Star Trek Technical Manual" at a book store near you. (back to regular voice) There is one of these books for each of the shows, TOS, TNG, DS9 and v.

Pi Man
2002-Jul-09, 10:04 PM
On 2002-07-09 13:39, Russ wrote:
There is one of these books for each of the shows, TOS, TNG, DS9 and v.

Yeah- but is there one for Star Trek Enterprise?

Donnie B.
2002-Jul-10, 12:05 AM
IIRC, the CD-ROM version of the tecknical manual for ST-TNG stated that the impulse drive also used warp technology, but did so in some less-sophisticated way that could not produce superluminal speeds. This meant that the Enterprise could accelerate far more effectively than it could if the impulse engines were just a reaction drive.

However, in ST-TOS, I believe the impulse engines were direct reaction, though with matter/antimatter as fuel, you'd get mighty good efficiency.

Chip
2002-Jul-10, 12:56 AM
On 2002-07-06 17:03, Pi Man wrote:
Who else here has heard of the second speed limit in Star Trek of Warp 10...Is there any scientific basis for this? Any at all?
Some of this was discussed here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=41&forum=1) and here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=581&forum=1).

James
2002-Jul-10, 02:11 AM
On 2002-07-09 18:04, Pi Man wrote:


On 2002-07-09 13:39, Russ wrote:
There is one of these books for each of the shows, TOS, TNG, DS9 and v.

Yeah- but is there one for Star Trek Enterprise?



First of all, there is no Star Trek, it's just Enterpise. Secondly, I doubt they will have book like that out until at least the 4th or 5th season. Hey, the show just started.

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jul-10, 02:13 PM
On 2002-07-06 20:58, g99 wrote:
I am not an avid trekkie (treky?) I just watch the shows, But i have a question, what are the warp numbers? Are they arbitrary numbers, or are they numbers like warp 2 is two times the speed of light? Also there should be no top number. There is very little friction in space, so theoretically you should be able to accelerate forever (as long as you have fuel) So there should be no limits. and if you controll gravity on the ship, then you can go at any speed becuase you will not be affected phisically and unless your ship hits something, it won't either.



Here goes

http://www.ditl.org/scitech/hedwarpscales.htm

kucharek
2002-Jul-10, 02:54 PM
On 2002-07-09 22:11, James wrote:
First of all, there is no Star Trek, it's just Enterpise.

In Germany, TOS ran/runs under the title "Raumschiff Enterprise" (Spaceship Enterprise), so when they come to air "Enterprise", they'll have some trouble as the German TOS title would be now the best fit for "Enterprise".
(If Star Trek would have not been in the Sixties, but now, I'm pretty sure it would run under the title "Star Trek". German film distributors have a pretty bad reputation for translating or inventing new titles of movies, but today, keeping the English is cool.
We watch "Ice Age" or "Spiderman" (dubbed). In the Sixties, this would have been surely translated, maybe in these cases correctly.
One of the bad examples I remember best was some, er, R-rated movie - I never saw it!:D - with the original title was "The Stud". Now, the German word for "stud" is "Hengst" and for "mare" is "Stute". Guess what happened. The movie ran under the title "Die Stute"...

SpacedOut
2002-Jul-10, 04:27 PM
quote]
On 2002-07-10 10:13, Valiant Dancer wrote:
http://www.ditl.org/scitech/hedwarpscales.htm
[/quote]

Interesting Site - Nice way to cover the writers goof up regarding warp speed - Reminds me of the Kessel Run fix up job in the Jedi Academy series explaining away Lucas's bad use of parsec in Star Wars Episode 4

EckJerome
2002-Jul-10, 04:59 PM
On 2002-07-09 13:29, Pi Man wrote:
Hmmmmmmmm... Infinite speed. If something is going at infinite speed, and then stops, where will it end up? And infinite distance away. This is not so hard to imagine in a universe that is infinite in extent, but what about in a spherical(or hyper-spherical) universe? Where would one end up? It sounds to me like the answer would be non sensical.


It may indeed sound nonsensical...as explained in the Voyager episode ("Threshold" I believe): When one is traveling at an infinite speed, one occupies every point in the universe at the same time. This would seem to be based on Big Bang Theory which supports a finite universe. One assumes the answer to your question is that you could stop wherever you wanted to...or that you would have no way of knowing where you would stop...but that you would, indeed, be somewhere in the universe when you did stop.

Eric


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: EckJerome on 2002-07-10 13:04 ]</font>

David Hall
2002-Jul-10, 05:27 PM
On 2002-07-10 12:59, EckJerome wrote:

It may indeed sound nonsensical...as explained in the Voyager episode ("Threshold" I believe): When one is traveling at an infinite speed, one occupies every point in the universe at the same time. This would seem to be based on Big Bang Theory which supports a finite universe. One assumes the answer to your question is that you could stop wherever you wanted to...or that you would have no way of knowing where you would stop...but that you would, indeed, be somewhere in the universe when you did stop.


Sounds more like the infinite improbablity drive to me. But I suppose it's a bit safer. You don't have people turning into penguins on the way. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jul-10, 08:12 PM
On 2002-07-10 13:27, David Hall wrote:


On 2002-07-10 12:59, EckJerome wrote:

It may indeed sound nonsensical...as explained in the Voyager episode ("Threshold" I believe): When one is traveling at an infinite speed, one occupies every point in the universe at the same time. This would seem to be based on Big Bang Theory which supports a finite universe. One assumes the answer to your question is that you could stop wherever you wanted to...or that you would have no way of knowing where you would stop...but that you would, indeed, be somewhere in the universe when you did stop.


Sounds more like the infinite improbablity drive to me. But I suppose it's a bit safer. You don't have people turning into penguins on the way. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



Not to mention all those pesky monkeys with scripts to Hamlet.

Now where did I put that towel?

g99
2002-Jul-10, 08:21 PM
Moving on to the warp engine showed in the shows. What does those crytals they keep on talking about do? Are they fuel that the anti-mater reacts with, or are they the antimatter itself? If it is not the antimatter, why can' they use anything to power the ship, like human waist. Hmmm...A ship that runs on crap...Sounds Pretty smelly to me. (Somonme please stop me...Bad pun. Uhhggg...Stop the stupidity!)
Plus what to the moving lights have to do with the engine. Finally if it is an antimatter reaction, what keeps the antimatter from reacting with the rest of the ship?

g99
2002-Jul-10, 08:23 PM
Please disreguard the spelling errors in the above message, my brain has shut down for the day after my exam this morning.

Firefox
2002-Jul-10, 09:43 PM
What does those crytals they keep on talking about do? Are they fuel that the anti-mater reacts with, or are they the antimatter itself?

From what I remember of my days of being an avid Trekkie, the "crystals," or dilithium crystals, were the controlling element in the matter/antimatter reaction, the same way carbon is used in a nuclear fission reactor.


Finally if it is an antimatter reaction, what keeps the antimatter from reacting with the rest of the ship?

Very strong magnetic fields (the moving lights on the reactor.)


Adam

g99
2002-Jul-10, 09:59 PM
thanks, i am a geek enouth to know they were dilithium crystals, but i had no clue how to spell it.

beskeptical
2002-Jul-11, 11:10 AM
On 2002-07-08 11:35, Alan wrote:
They aren't very consistent.


Try 'Nitpicker's Guide for Trekkies'. My favorite is the Enterprise's elevators change on a regular basis. I can understand having to change the explanations for things but you'd think they had one set with the same elevators. And the writers keep forgetting whether they can hear their communicators without pushing the talk button. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

SeanF
2002-Jul-11, 01:40 PM
On 2002-07-11 07:10, beskeptical wrote:
Try 'Nitpicker's Guide for Trekkies'. My favorite is the Enterprise's elevators change on a regular basis. I can understand having to change the explanations for things but you'd think they had one set with the same elevators. And the writers keep forgetting whether they can hear their communicators without pushing the talk button. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif


The Nitpicker's Guide books (I think there's been four total - one each for TOS and DS9 and two for TNG) are really a fun read - I highly recommend them! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

As to the comment about the buttons, I remember reading a story about James "Scotty" Doohan getting into an argument with the director while filming an episode of the original series. It seems the director wanted him to push the transporter levers up for a particular shot. Doohan said "But I'm beaming them down to the planet. I have to pull the levers down to do that!" /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Whether or not they hit the communicators to speak is the responsibility of the actors, the director, and/or the continuity person, but not really the writers . . .

Pi Man
2002-Jul-11, 04:29 PM
On 2002-07-10 12:59, EckJerome wrote:
It may indeed sound nonsensical...as explained in the Voyager episode ("Threshold" I believe): When one is traveling at an infinite speed, one occupies every point in the universe at the same time. This would seem to be based on Big Bang Theory which supports a finite universe. One assumes the answer to your question is that you could stop wherever you wanted to...or that you would have no way of knowing where you would stop...but that you would, indeed, be somewhere in the universe when you did stop.


Double Hmmmmmm... Sounds like quantum tunnelling. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

Kaptain K
2002-Jul-12, 08:28 PM
I remember reading a story about James "Scotty" Doohan getting into an argument with the director while filming an episode of the original series. It seems the director wanted him to push the transporter levers up for a particular shot. Doohan said "But I'm beaming them down to the planet. I have to pull the levers down to do that!"
I remember a story about George "Sulu" Takai getting into it with a director. Seems the director was explaining how he wanted the scene to go and at one point said "push that button". George replied: "I can't push that button, that would blow up the Enterprise! The actors, who lived with the series, cared about the integrity of the show. The directors, who were often hired on a "per episode" basis, for the most part had the "who cares, it's 'science fiction' attitude, didn't understand this (or really care).

Pi Man
2002-Jul-12, 10:31 PM
On 2002-07-12 16:28, Kaptain K wrote:
I remember a story about George "Sulu" Takai getting into it with a director. Seems the director was explaining how he wanted the scene to go and at one point said "push that button". George replied: "I can't push that button, that would blow up the Enterprise! The actors, who lived with the series, cared about the integrity of the show. The directors, who were often hired on a "per episode" basis, for the most part had the "who cares, it's 'science fiction' attitude, didn't understand this (or really care).


I can just imagine, if the director got his way, every major trekkie watching the show and cringing only to find out that the red button did not blow up the ship after all(even though it was supposed to.)

beskeptical
2002-Jul-20, 03:37 AM
On 2002-07-11 09:40, SeanF wrote:
Whether or not they hit the communicators to speak is the responsibility of the actors, the director, and/or the continuity person, but not really the writers . . .


Not to Nitpick /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif but it had to be the writers. It wasn't that they forgot to push talk, it was some episode where they could hear the scene unfolding from some other location through the communicators that the other guys had.

I don't watch Star Trek. I got the Nitpickers Guide on 'books on tape'. I thought it might be funny.

jaydeehess
2002-Jul-20, 03:49 AM
Pi Man wrote:Double Hmmmmmm... Sounds like quantum tunnelling.
Concerning infinite speed.
Actually it sounds like the "Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Universe" that had something like a quantum certainty drive. Since there was a small but finite chance that you could be anywhere in the Universe the drive just adjusted the odds that you were where you wanted to be. Or some such, it's been a while.

David Hall
2002-Jul-20, 07:36 AM
On 2002-07-19 23:49, jaydeehess wrote:

Actually it sounds like the "Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Universe" that had something like a quantum certainty drive. Since there was a small but finite chance that you could be anywhere in the Universe the drive just adjusted the odds that you were where you wanted to be. Or some such, it's been a while.


Sorry Jaydeehess. I was way ahead of you there:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1692&forum=4&start=23

SeanF
2002-Jul-22, 03:21 PM
On 2002-07-19 23:37, beskeptical wrote:

Not to Nitpick /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif but it had to be the writers. It wasn't that they forgot to push talk, it was some episode where they could hear the scene unfolding from some other location through the communicators that the other guys had.



Hmm, I don't remember that off-hand. I don't suppose you can reference the specific episode, can you? Or at least let me know if it was the Original Series, or the Next Generation, or what?

Pi Man
2002-Jul-22, 11:05 PM
Even at a sub-light speed, an object would have more energy than it have before. This would amplify it's quantum wave function, thus increasing the chance of quantum tunnelling. But, it sounds like the chance, at &infin; speed would simply be 100%. That said, would one end up in one piece, or would each particle one was made up of be randomly placed somewhere, anywhere, in the universe? Is there any law of physics that would keep you in one piece?

Silas
2002-Jul-23, 12:28 AM
On 2002-07-19 23:37, beskeptical wrote:


On 2002-07-11 09:40, SeanF wrote:
Whether or not they hit the communicators to speak is the responsibility of the actors, the director, and/or the continuity person, but not really the writers . . .


Not to Nitpick /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif but it had to be the writers. . . .

The writer usually doesn't go into that level of detail. The fault is the continuity person.

There are two levels of continuity: scene to scene -- for instance, should the coffee cup be half full or full, given the fact that scenes are often filmed out of sequence -- and series continuity -- for instance, do communicators auto-answer or not?

Take original Star Trek: do you have to grab the handle in the turbo-lift, or do you merely need to declare your destination? it changed! The continuity is broken.

Do you need to pound the wall-communicator button, or do you just start talking? Broken.

But, dude, don't blame the writers! They're working with old copies of the "series bible," which has been violated six ways from Sunday by previous episodes. Not all writers are fanboys (although, with original Star Trek, many actually were!)

I'm reminded of the joke about the Hollywood starlet who was so stupid, she slept with the writer....

Silas

The SollyLama
2002-Jul-26, 05:20 PM
I shoplifted one of the technical manuals for the original series when I was a kid. I'm pretty sure they explain warp as a cube of lightspeed too.
The one thing I'm fuzzy on is how the turbolift works. Since it can transport you to practically anywhere on the ship, it must move laterally (in reference to the directional design of the ship). Does it move laterally upright (sideways) or does it follow a tube so that the 'top' and 'bottom' of the lift are the only directions of travel? If that's the case, how can they stand if the lift is on it's side (again, relative to the rest of the ship) while waiting for your floor?
Simply accelerating the lift so you remain stuck to the floor would be uncomfortable, and dangerous if the lift stopped (which it does alot in TNG). You would fall towards the wall of the lift! Also, the turbolift could only ever move 'up' then, since going down produces negative G's and you'd get mashed into the ceiling (apparently a turbolift moves pretty fast) if it went 'down'.
Having only one direction of travel would make the turbolift system a royal pain in the keister. You would have to travel an entire circuit of the tubes just to go back to the place you just came from.
Another question I hope someone has wasted their time on figuring out;
Why is there a need for a transporter room, complete with a transport platform and attending crew? You can beam from wherever you are to darn near anyplace. Why bother with a turbolift ride to the transporter room for away missions? Just beam everyone right from where they are.
For that matter, why have a turbolift at all? Why doesn't Geordi just beam from the conn to engineering? Why do medical personnel come running from elsewhere when called? Wouldn't simply beaming them quickly to the area be quicker?

The SollyLama
2002-Jul-26, 05:28 PM
And what of the Sirtis Factor?
You know, where the usefullness of the ship's counciler is directly proportional to the amount of exposed cleavage.
Why does only Troi wear skimpy (yet still obviously Federation issue) clothing? Only Worf is out of uniform by wearing that Klingon bandolier and Troi by dressing for lap dances. What gives?
Notice that later on in TNG, Troi starts wearing much more modest outfits as her character becomes more to the plot than eye-candy.

David Hall
2002-Jul-26, 05:51 PM
On 2002-07-26 13:20, The SollyLama wrote:

The one thing I'm fuzzy on is how the turbolift works. Since it can transport you to practically anywhere on the ship, it must move laterally (in reference to the directional design of the ship). Does it move laterally upright (sideways) or does it follow a tube so that the 'top' and 'bottom' of the lift are the only directions of travel?

I believe the turbolifts were designed to travel laterally as well. If you watch the original series, you'd occasionally see the flashing movement indicator lights alternate between moving sideways and vertically. So the no doubt were designed to maintain one orientation. Besides, all the doors would be in that orientation, so it makes sense the elevator would too.



If that's the case, how can they stand if the lift is on it's side (again, relative to the rest of the ship) while waiting for your floor?
Simply accelerating the lift so you remain stuck to the floor would be uncomfortable, and dangerous if the lift stopped (which it does alot in TNG). You would fall towards the wall of the lift! Also, the turbolift could only ever move 'up' then, since going down produces negative G's and you'd get mashed into the ceiling (apparently a turbolift moves pretty fast) if it went 'down'.

Since the Trek universe has artificial gravity generators, acceleration and orientation would be a moot point. You just set up the turbolifts to cancel out any gee-forces generated by it's movement. And the orientation would be solved the same way, except as I said before it wouldn't be needed.



Having only one direction of travel would make the turbolift system a royal pain in the keister. You would have to travel an entire circuit of the tubes just to go back to the place you just came from.


The turbolift system would be a series of tubes snaking throughout the ship. But each turbolift moves independently to each other one. They would all be controlled by one master computer that would design the routes not to interfere with each other. It would be possible to detour a car or even side-track one temporarally, so each tube would be two-way, making conflicts minimal.



Another question I hope someone has wasted their time on figuring out;
Why is there a need for a transporter room, complete with a transport platform and attending crew? You can beam from wherever you are to darn near anyplace. Why bother with a turbolift ride to the transporter room for away missions? Just beam everyone right from where they are.
For that matter, why have a turbolift at all? Why doesn't Geordi just beam from the conn to engineering? Why do medical personnel come running from elsewhere when called? Wouldn't simply beaming them quickly to the area be quicker?


Why don't you use a helicopter to go grocery shopping? It's expensive, wasteful, and risky, that's why. It's unnecessary overkill. For the same reason, transporters are too complex, power-consuming, and risky to use for such short-distance transportation. Transporters either needed a sending/receiving platform, or else highly specialized equipment to allow distance transportation. By the time of TNG transporter technology had advanced to the point where it could be used for point to point transport, albeit still with difficulty, but in the original series especially, transporters were unable to be used like that.

Besides, McCoy was reluctant enough to allow himself to be transported down to a planet, imagine the fuss he'd make about being transported to the bathroom!

David Hall
2002-Jul-26, 06:04 PM
On 2002-07-26 13:28, The SollyLama wrote:

Notice that later on in TNG, Troi starts wearing much more modest outfits as her character becomes more to the plot than eye-candy.


I never considered Troi eye-candy. They could have found someone much better for that. Give me Beverly Crusher any day. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Pi Man
2002-Jul-26, 07:00 PM
One of the Star Trek movies with the cast of Next Generation(either First Contact or Insurrection, most likely the former) actually shows a map of where they're going on the wall of the turbolift. It shows the turbolift moving laterally.

Rodina
2002-Jul-27, 06:37 PM
On 2002-07-10 10:54, kucharek wrote:
We watch "Ice Age" or "Spiderman" (dubbed). In the Sixties, this would have been surely translated, maybe in these cases correctly.
One of the bad examples I remember best was some, er, R-rated movie - I never saw it!:D - with the original title was "The Stud". Now, the German word for "stud" is "Hengst" and for "mare" is "Stute". Guess what happened. The movie ran under the title "Die Stute"...


I trust they called it "Batman" and not "Das Fleidermausmensch"?

Silas
2002-Jul-27, 10:03 PM
On 2002-07-26 13:20, The SollyLama wrote:
Why is there a need for a transporter room, complete with a transport platform and attending crew?

Think of one-way transporting as either a parachute drop (beaming down) or a helicopter lift (beaming up.) It gets you there, or back, but it's rough. Meanwhile, transporting from station to station is nice and smooth; the two machines coordinate the transmission.

Another analogy might be that one-way transportation is like a bullhorn, while transportation from station to station is like a telephone. Do you wanna be broadcast, or direct dialed?

Silas

Donnie B.
2002-Jul-28, 02:11 AM
Ah, but the question was about point-to-point transporting, where neither end point is a transporter platform.

I speculate that this is done using a two-step process, in which the transportee is first moved from point A to the tranporter room, then on to point B. In the more advanced versions, the transportee would not even be reconstituted in the transporter in between, just held in the "pattern buffer" en route. Or, perhaps, even just "streamed" to the destination in one go.

Isn't it amazing how a simple plot device invented for ST-TOS has matured into a fully-rationalized future technology? In fact, ST has transporters because it would have taken too long, and been too expensive (in special effects budget), to keep landing the Enterprise (or even a shuttlecraft) on alien worlds. But with the transporter, you can move the plot right along.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-07-27 22:16 ]</font>

g99
2002-Jul-28, 04:43 AM
When you are transported, technically it is not you. Technically it is a clone of you traveling there. So you yourself are killed and a clone is made of you. So when transporting is invented, leave me out please. I like my body and i think that anyone who knows me, that the chance of having more than one of me is more than the world can take /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif. Plus once you are destroyed, how do they transfer your memeories? You would come out the other end as a blank slate. Your brain will forget how to make your heart, lungs, ect. work and you will instantly die....Ooops... Also, if they can transport throught hundreds of feet of rock, how come they cant transport trought shields?

Silas
2002-Jul-28, 04:44 AM
On 2002-07-27 22:11, Donnie B. wrote:
Ah, but the question was about point-to-point transporting, where neither end point is a transporter platform.

I speculate that this is done using a two-step process, in which the transportee is first moved from point A to the tranporter room, then on to point B. In the more advanced versions, the transportee would not even be reconstituted in the transporter in between, just held in the "pattern buffer" en route. Or, perhaps, even just "streamed" to the destination in one go.


A transporter room is, quite clearly necessary... Nothing I have seen in any tv series permits a "stream" from point A to point B; they always have to pull from point A, to a TR, to point B...

My thoughts were based on, among other things, "The Trouble With Tribbles," where people from the Enterprise beamed to the small (two platform) Transporter station on station K-7. Again, it seems perfectly reasonable: if you have a receiving station, beaming to it will be more accurate than just beaming to a place without one (desert, ice surface, jungle, etc. etc.)

But, yes, I wholly agree: a simple "special effect" became one of the most intriguing elements of speculative fiction. It was (so to speak) a Quantum Leap in science fiction, and one that has vastly enriched our collective imagination.

Silas

g99
2002-Jul-28, 04:16 PM
Is transportation feasible in the future for living beings? I remmeber reading a story in popular science about some physicist transporting a single atom a few miles instantly. I definitely think we will be able to transport non living things throught transporters, but never living things, see my statement above for why.

Maybe in a couple of decades we will order a car and a second later the car appears in our personal transporter pad. How much information does it take to staor all of the facts of a single atom? Not imagine the trillions of trillions of trillions of atoms in a human being, that will take alot of computing power to store all of that, not to mention seperation the person from their clothes and other artifacts with them.

nebularain
2002-Jul-28, 04:48 PM
On 2002-07-28 12:16, g99 wrote:
How much information does it take to staor all of the facts of a single atom? Not imagine the trillions of trillions of trillions of atoms in a human being, that will take alot of computing power to store all of that, not to mention seperation the person from their clothes and other artifacts with them.

Hmmm...ever see the movieThe Fly?
'Nuff said.

Donnie B.
2002-Jul-28, 05:23 PM
On 2002-07-28 00:44, Silas wrote:
A transporter room is, quite clearly necessary... Nothing I have seen in any tv series permits a "stream" from point A to point B; they always have to pull from point A, to a TR, to point B...

No. There are examples of "direct beaming" between two points, neither of which is a transporter room. Consider the following line, and how many times you heard it in various shows from different series:

"Beam us directly to Sick Bay!"

I envision a progression of transporter capabilities:

1. Pad to pad only.
2. Pad to nonpad.
3. Nonpad to pad.
4. Nonpad to nonpad, i.e. direct beaming.

The chronology could be different; 2 and 3 could be reversed or simultaneous. No big deal.

Number 4 is the situation I was speculating about. Clearly, if you have 2 and 3, you can do 4 in two steps -- just complete step 3, then step 2. But for speed, you might be able to skip the materialization part of step 3 and the dematerialization part of step 2, and just keep the data in a buffer in the interim. Or, by using a sort of "full-duplex" transporter, you could receive the beamup in one channel and stream it out another as it's received.

I would argue that there is virtually no probability of this technology ever coming into being in reality, primarily due to the problem of quantum uncertainty. There would be no way to guarantee that the reconstituted object was truly identical to the original. Consider: how much fidelity would you demand before you took your first ride in a transporter? 99%? 99.99%? How many nines?

And I don't even want to think about the legal issues. Who would manufacture a device which disintegrates the user? How much would their liability insurance run? If I do the dematerialization step, then unplug the transporter before materialization, did I commit murder? Or did the manufacturer market an unsafe product? (And what do those sliders do, anyhow? Does a successful transport require a skilled operator? What happens if she has a bad day?)

Larry Niven has written a terrific article on "The Theory and Practise of Teleportation", available in various collections of his short works. Recommended reading... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Donnie B.
2002-Jul-28, 05:31 PM
On 2002-07-28 12:16, g99 wrote:
Is transportation feasible in the future for living beings? I remmeber reading a story in popular science about some physicist transporting a single atom a few miles instantly. I definitely think we will be able to transport non living things throught transporters, but never living things, see my statement above for why.

This is as much a philosophical question as it is one of Physics or Biology. If you think (as I do) that human beings, dogs and cats, or sea turtles are material things, and if your transporter can make copies of any material thing, then it should work just as well for people as for rocks.

But if you believe that a human has an immaterial soul, which cannot be detected, influenced, created or destroyed by mechanical processes, then a transporter wouldn't work (at least for people). Just what would appear at the other end would be debatable... a dead body? a soulless zombie? a demon? an empty vessel awaiting possession by the first disembodied spirit to happen along?

And what about other living, but nonhuman, things? Would you let your beloved Fido be beamed up?

But as I've said elsewhere, I don't believe that any technology like the ST transporter can ever exist - at least, not with acceptable fidelity.

g99
2002-Jul-28, 07:59 PM
What i ment was that your memories are basically a series of elecrical and chemical pulses in your brain. How can a transporter replace your memories and the electrical pulses going trought your head letting you remember that jeopardy comes on at 7:30 p.m.?
You would come out as whole, but with no memorie of ever living. Personally i don't belive in a soul, but if there was one, how would they transport that too?


Hmm.. I won't send Fido throught, but i wouldn't mind my sister going throught../phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif j/k

_________________
"The chickens is coming!!!"
"Watch out for falling coconuts!!"
"If you are on a train going the speed of light and you fall forward flat on your face, was your nose travelling faster than the speed of light?"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-07-28 16:01 ]</font>

Rodina
2002-Jul-28, 09:40 PM
A great moral exploration of this topic was done by James Patrick Kelly in his short story "Think Like A Dinosaur" - where your memories would be beamed so you would occupy some sort of artifically created person (a clone, but not necessarily of you) on a different planet - but your corporal existance here on Earth would continue and would have to be killed. You could, when you are done, be beamed back to a clone of yourself.

g99
2002-Jul-29, 12:28 AM
but what is the point, it will not be you, it will be a clone of you. You will be dead and gone, while your identicle twin (your clone) will take over your life. Imagine letting your brother or sister to take over your whole life while you kill yourself. That is basically what happens. Plus, how do you materialize in a point to point transmission with no recieving pad to reassimble atoms? Or does the ship send down nanomachines to physically rebuild you, who then get destroyed in the process of making you. That is why they can't go throught shields, because the nanomachines can;t go throught it. plausible?

Silas
2002-Jul-29, 12:31 AM
On 2002-07-28 13:23, Donnie B. wrote:
Consider the following line, and how many times you heard it in various shows from different series:

"Beam us directly to Sick Bay!"


Oops! Excellent point! I've heard that a number of times on TNG. You're right.

I *could* claim that what they do is beam the people to the transporter room, and then, without a pause, re-transport them to the Sick Bay... In my mind, that's always been what was going on... But, yeah, it sure sounds as if they're doing a point-to-point transport.

Perhaps I could argue that point-to-point is an emergency procedure, which has the least overall accuracy, whereas station-to-station is preferred, since it makes maximum use of both stations' computing power?

Side-Note: there was a fairly nifty Star Trek knock-off comic from Antarctic Press -- their very first publication, in fact -- which involved "Scotty" (or someone very much like him) beamed into a bulkhead, and dying slowly in great agony...

Still, from what we've seen on tv, the odds are not much worse than my odds every day on the freeway... (I saw a NASTY accident today on San Diego's I-8 westbound through Mission Valley: traffic was backed up for eight miles...)

Make sure to keep a "Driving Ace" card in your wallet at all times...

Silas

FP
2002-Jul-29, 03:54 AM
Watching ST:TOS I have to wonder why anyone in their right mind would get in a transporter. How many incidents like "Good Kirk, Bad Kirk" have to happen to make one swear the things off forever? In an episode of ST:TNG the gang finds good old Scotty on a derilict ship. He has locked himself in the transporter in "atomized" form for 75 years. Unfortunately the other guy with him had "degraded" and could not be materialized.

Still, I can see great uses for the contraption that I've never seen on any ST. Why labor to have babies - just transport the little darling out of there!

According to the Star Trek Reference Manual for TNG, the transporter stores the entire scan of a person when transporting him or her. So why worry if some one dies? Have the transporter gin up another copy! (Something like this does happen to Riker in one episode.)

Forgive me for prattling. I obviously have no life.

Senor Molinero
2002-Jul-29, 05:43 AM
Why go to all the trouble of disassembling someone's molecular structure and reassembling it at the destination? What if the required proportions of elements are not available at the other end? What a ridiculous amount of computing power needed. I prefer the method of swapping a sphere of space from the origin to the destination. While it wasn't stated as such, the Terminator movies apparently used this method to move Arnie et al through the dimensions. When Arnie appears in the parking lot next to a semi-trailer, there is a section of a sphere carved from the rear of the trailer. This is the only time that I've seen this used in a movie. I like the concept more than transmitting atomic code. Any takers?

David Hall
2002-Jul-29, 05:44 AM
On 2002-07-28 20:31, Silas wrote:

I *could* claim that what they do is beam the people to the transporter room, and then, without a pause, re-transport them to the Sick Bay... In my mind, that's always been what was going on... But, yeah, it sure sounds as if they're doing a point-to-point transport.


I would say that's exactly what they're doing. How could they transport anything without the information passing through the machine doing the work? No, they are simply relaying the body through the machine and then rematerializing them in another location. If I remember correctly, the very first time they used this in TNG, they explained it in just this way through the dialog.

The phrases used afterwards such as "beam me directly to..." are simply shorthand commands. No need to go through the full "beam me up, but bypass the transporter room, redirect the signal to sick bay and rematerialize me there" when everyone know what you really mean.



Side-Note: there was a fairly nifty Star Trek knock-off comic from Antarctic Press -- their very first publication, in fact -- which involved "Scotty" (or someone very much like him) beamed into a bulkhead, and dying slowly in great agony...

Hey an AP fan. Cool. I happen to know Ben Dunn pretty well and have stayed at his place in San Antonio several times. The Star Trek comic you are thinking of (if I'm thinking of the same one) is actually a Japanese fanzine that they translated into English. But I have to correct you, it wasn't their first publication. That was several years earlier. IIRC, Ben started the company by publishing his Ninja High School miniseries, and then expanding from there.



Still, from what we've seen on tv, the odds are not much worse than my odds every day on the freeway...

Agreed there. It's like all the people who are afraid of flying. The truth is statistically it's much safer than driving. But the problem is, when there's an accident when flying, it's nearly always fatal, and in a horrific way too. Whereas when driving, there's a good chance that you'll be able to walk away from most accidents, so it seems less risky. I'm sure the same thing would happen with transporters, usually everything works just fine, but when it's not, it can get really nasty.

As for g99's idea that it would blank the memories of people transported, I don't think so. The transporter takes a complete snapshot of the object when the process starts. This would include the complete chemical make-up and electrical potential of each and every synapse in the brain at the time of transport. So the reconstituted body would have exactly the same electrical impulses as the destroyed one, and thus all memories and thought processes would transfer uninterupted, though perhaps there would be small discontinuity if it were unable to read or copy the information of synapses that were actively firing at the time of transport.



Donnie B wrote:

Larry Niven has written a terrific article on "The Theory and Practise of Teleportation", available in various collections of his short works. Recommended reading...

I don't have that essay and haven't had a chance to read it, but recently I read his teleportation booth short stories. They have a different mechanism from the Star Trek style transporters. You don't physically disintegrate objects and rematerialize them elsewhere. Instead the entire object is converted into what he calls a "super-neutrino"; a subatomic particle which holds all the information of the object inside it's (very) complex wave-form. This particle is then sent out at the speed of light towards a receiving booth, which captures it and recollapses the wave-form back into the original object. This would overcome a lot of the problems associated with other forms of transfer, as there's no destruction or duplication involved. In one story they even used it over interstellar distances. But it always needs a receiving booth, as there's no other way to force the super-neutrino to collapse.

Donnie B.
2002-Jul-29, 01:07 PM
Yes, Niven's "transfer booth" concept was used in a lot of his stories, including the "known space" series (in which they only worked at relatively short range, to get around a planet, but not across interstellar distances).

In the article I mentioned, he covers a lot of different teleportation concepts, including psi (!), and various possible limitations of the technology and how those limitations affect the resulting society. It's well worth hunting for.

IIRC, he is pretty dubious about the "Star Trek" variety of transporter; he mentions all the ethical/legal issues I touched on above, and probably a few more I forgot.

SeanF
2002-Jul-29, 02:40 PM
On 2002-07-28 13:23, Donnie B. wrote:

I would argue that there is virtually no probability of this technology ever coming into being in reality, primarily due to the problem of quantum uncertainty.


In Star Trek: The Next Generation, there have been references to a component of the transporter called the "Heisenberg Compensator," which was just a little inside joke to those who pointed out that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle would make transporters highly unlikely. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



On 2002-07-29 01:44, David Hall wrote:

It's like all the people who are afraid of flying. The truth is statistically it's much safer than driving. But the problem is, when there's an accident when flying, it's nearly always fatal, and in a horrific way too. Whereas when driving, there's a good chance that you'll be able to walk away from most accidents, so it seems less risky.


Besides that, there's also the fact that you are in control of your car, so there are some things you can do to prevent an accident or minimize your danger in one. In the plane, it's entirely out of your hands . . .

Pi Man
2002-Jul-30, 05:06 PM
On 2002-07-28 13:31, Donnie B. wrote:
Just what would appear at the other end would be debatable... a dead body? a soulless zombie? a demon? an empty vessel awaiting possession by the first disembodied spirit to happen along?


WOW! Good plot for a science fiction book!

That said, if there is such a thing as a soul, I don't think that it would occupy or be bound by space(or time). I don't think that the location of the physical being would be an issue if the body was still sufficiently complete to "house" the soul.

_________________
*****∞
π=∑(4/(4n+1)-4/(4n+3))
****n=0 (Yes folks, it really works)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pi Man on 2002-07-30 13:26 ]</font>

Pi Man
2002-Jul-30, 05:19 PM
On 2002-07-28 12:16, g99 wrote:
I remmeber reading a story in popular science about some physicist transporting a single atom a few miles instantly




On 2002-07-28 00:43, g99 wrote:
When you are transported, technically it is not you. Technically it is a clone of you traveling there. So you yourself are killed and a clone is made of you. So when transporting is invented, leave me out please. I like my body and i think that anyone who knows me, that the chance of having more than one of me is more than the world can take /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif. Plus once you are destroyed, how do they transfer your memeories? You would come out the other end as a blank slate. Your brain will forget how to make your heart, lungs, ect. work and you will instantly die....Ooops... Also, if they can transport throught hundreds of feet of rock, how come they cant transport trought shields?


The way in which the scientist transported the atom several miles, in non quantum physicist talk, is that he emparted the quantum state(which is charge, spin, mass, etc.) of the atom to another atom, and in the process, disrupting the quantum state of the first atom. Since any particle(in this case, an atom) is defined by it's quantum state, there is no valid way of saying that the second atom is not the same as the first atom.

Think of it this way. I, right now, am typing a block of text for everybody that wants to to read. The information I am typing will soon be transported through a telophone wire to the phone company, then through another wire to a computer which will then route it to a mainframe somewhere. When you view it, you request that the information be sent through the same process backwards to your home computer. The question is, is the information that I am typing the same information that you are recieving? The fact that it is stored in your computer's memory instead of mine does not make it a seperate information from what I am typing now.

In the same way, the pre-transport atom and the post-transport atom cannot be called different atoms; And the pre-transport people and post-transport people cannot be called different people. This is of course assuming that there is no such thing as a soul.

_________________
*****∞
π=∑(4/(4n+1)-4/(4n+3))
****n=0 (Yes folks, it really works)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pi Man on 2002-07-30 13:23 ]</font>

g99
2002-Jul-30, 05:49 PM
Great example, Thanks!!!

Silas
2002-Jul-30, 06:42 PM
On 2002-07-29 01:44, David Hall wrote:
Hey an AP fan. Cool. I happen to know Ben Dunn pretty well and have stayed at his place in San Antonio several times. The Star Trek comic you are thinking of (if I'm thinking of the same one) is actually a Japanese fanzine that they translated into English. But I have to correct you, it wasn't their first publication. That was several years earlier. IIRC, Ben started the company by publishing his Ninja High School miniseries, and then expanding from there.


My memory has been transported around the galaxy too many times! But, yeah, I'm a raving AP (and Radio) fan! (I'm still sad that Battle Girlz was only a limited series...) Cheers to Ben Dunn, one heck of an artist, and a durn fine writer too!

(And they do a lot of science fiction comics, which makes this almost on topic!)

Silas

Pi Man
2002-Aug-01, 07:28 PM
Another quick question on the warp speed scale. First, if one would want to convert a distance to and equivelent time, they would use c as the conversion factor(in other words, c= 186,282 mi/1 sec; thus, 186,282 miles of space is equal to 1 second of time, if the time dimention was one of space and vice-versa.) So c is actually equal to one(like 12 inches over one foot is equal to one). A unitless unity(Heh, heh, heh /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif). So why don't they just say, "Ahead at speed one. Engage" for the speed of light and "speed two." for twice that?

_________________
*****∞
π=∑(4/(4n+1)-4/(4n+3))
****n=0 (Yes folks, it really works)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pi Man on 2002-08-01 15:29 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Aug-01, 07:47 PM
Is it a speed?

David Hall
2002-Aug-02, 12:27 PM
I remember in the original pilot episode, they made a big deal of explaining the warp system by saying that they had "broken the time barrier". I guess they were trying to say that going faster than light is like moving backwards in time, as it violates Einstein's theories that time stands still at the speed of light. This is not like the later time-travel episodes where they actually do go back in time, which used a completely different method and effect.

_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size="-1">(I hit the submit button too early.)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-08-02 08:38 ]</font>

Pi Man
2002-Aug-05, 05:04 PM
<Hr>
GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Is it a speed?
<Hr>

[Imitating Spock]Gaaaaaawwwwwwley! Whut th' heck ya' dad gum gabbin' 'bout? Whut ya' aksin'?

[Devilish grin!] /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pi Man on 2002-08-05 13:11 ]</font>

n810
2002-Aug-23, 03:43 AM
On the subject of transporters, what exactly is the range of these things, people are always beaming down from what appears to at least a lunar type orbit, yet they can't seem to beam to a starhip some 100Km off the bow?

I understand there must be a range, if you fire a laser off into "deep space" eventually it will spead to the point where the photons are no longer coherent light. Radio isn't directional like a laser, but it too spreads. So I assume that the method of transmission of the data must be some sort of laser/radio/broadband sorta thing,(talk about a huge volume of data, at 56k you could probaby walk accross the country before your atom structure could be transported) so your max distance from the target is defined by the spread of the beam and things like atmospheric variables that could cause beam scatter and such. From the experience I've had with lasers, I don't think I'd let myself be beamed across more than about 2 feet of completely sterile vacum, otherwise I'd be afraid that the beam would try and go through some bird or insect and I'd rematerialize minus a foot some body part i'm even more attached too. So, until somebody debunks me and makes me feel safe about it, I'll be taking the shuttle back and forth to the surface of Planet X (which incidentally still hasn't wiped out earth, even in the 24th century, but there is a great casino there now)

Donnie B.
2002-Aug-23, 02:19 PM
Well, as discussed in other threads, the transporter is probably the least-likely component of ST technology. It was invented for ST-TOS as a narrative device, to keep the story rolling without long and expensive "land the Enterprise" special effects.

But since it's there...

One must assume that the transporter uses some sort of quantum effect. It's pretty much impossible to imagine a "receiverless" transporter unless you actually cause particles to jump across the distance in a sort of "tunnel diode" effect. This is a real, well-known phenomenon at the subnuclear scale. (It also eliminates the problem of one transmitter and multiple receivers, making several identical "yous". The particles that make up your body are actually moved from hither to thither.)

Assuming we eventually learn how to do it macroscopically, it's still quite likely to have a distance limit that increases with technological improvements -- "Professor! We've succeeded in transporting an object over six millimeters!"

As to the loss of data problem, this too can be rationalized with a sort of holographic approach -- lots of redundancy in the information transfer. Lose some data and you get lower resolution, not missing parts. Small errors are self-correcting (you heal... but maybe you forget your dog's name). Obviously, quality control would be of, ahem, major concern.

Pi Man
2002-Aug-23, 04:50 PM
As to the loss of data problem, this too can be rationalized with a sort of holographic approach -- lots of redundancy in the information transfer. Lose some data and you get lower resolution, not missing parts. Small errors are self-correcting (you heal... but maybe you forget your dog's name). Obviously, quality control would be of, ahem, major concern.


That's why the crew of Enterprise(the newest series) distrusts them new fangled gadgets so much!

ToSeek
2002-Aug-27, 10:11 PM
On 2002-07-28 23:54, FP wrote:
Still, I can see great uses for the contraption that I've never seen on any ST. Why labor to have babies - just transport the little darling out of there!


That's actually done in a Voyager (I think) episode, though not till the birth is having complications after many hours of labor. My wife's comment was "What took you so #$%^ long!"

Chuck
2002-Aug-28, 12:37 AM
Why bother with toilets? Just beam the stuff out of people.

Pi Man
2002-Aug-29, 02:35 AM
<hr>
On 2002-08-27 20:37, Chuck wrote:
Why bother with toilets? Just beam the stuff out of people.
<hr>

Well, because it would gunk up the transport buffers, of course; And, who would want to have to clean that out? [If I had a disgusted smily, i'd use it here!]

_________________
*****∞
π=∑(4/(4n+1)-4/(4n+3))
****n=0 (Yes folks, it really works)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pi Man on 2002-08-28 22:36 ]</font>

Senor Molinero
2002-Aug-29, 03:26 AM
Klingons (cling-ons) used to beam about all the time.
And don't forget Captain's Log.

nebularain
2002-Aug-29, 03:41 AM
Oh thanks, Senor Molinero - I bet that's gonna pop into my head now everytime I watch the show. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_mad.gif

Senor Molinero
2002-Aug-29, 04:03 AM
And let's not forget the classic:
Kirk to Bones:
"You were so worried about his vulcan eyes, you forgot about his vulcan ears."

Cryogenic
2002-Sep-18, 03:10 AM
WARP DRIVE

As has been said, warp drive is a "Faster Than Light" propulsion system whose operation is dependent on the existence of an extra-dimensional realm known, in the Star Trek universe, as subspace. Whenever a ship goes to warp, its engines generate a warp bubble or field around it, allowing the vessel to traverse two points in space without directly violating Einstein's theory of General Relativity. The warp engines are capable of generating this warp field using a series of coils which receive their power from a controlled matter-antimatter reaction that occurs inside a ship's warp core. The reaction itself is regulated by the presence of dilithium crsytals, though just how they perform this function remains unclear.

In classic Star Trek, often now referred to as "The Original Series" or TOS, the warp speed scale was different to that employed in every subsequent incarnation of Star Trek (though one assumes that the writers of Enterprise, since it is a prequel series, have re-adopted it -- I'm not sure). For an explanation of this, I'm turning to the official Star Trek Enyclopedia, available from Pocket Books:

"The original Star Trek series occasionally had ships and other objects travelling at warp 10 or faster. At the beginning of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Gene Roddenberry siad he wanted to change the warp-speed scale to put warp 10 at the absolute top of the scale [a terrible episode of Star Trek: Voyager aside, Warp 10 requires infinite energy and is therefore unattainable]. We therefore assume that the warp speed scale has been recalibrated so that all the speeds shown in the original show are "actually" less than warp 10 [the new scale appears to be logarithmic]. Interestingly, the original Star Trek series never established actual speeds for warp factors in any episode or movie, although the old warp factor cube formula has come to be generally accepted."

Now, warp speed is all well and good as a plot device, but there are any number of issues it raises as a proper technology in "real life". Aside from the incredible energy requirements (far, far more than the energy output of any warp core in Star Trek, sadly), Lawrence Krauss has pointed out that any signal transmitted to warp the fabric of space itself could only propagate at lightspeed (meaning that someone had better build the waiting room to end all waiting rooms!).

Impulse drive, on the other hand, is sub-luminal only, and as such, is specifically designed for travel within star systems. It quite happily operates in a Newtonian universe by thrusting a ship forward with energy released in nuclear fusion reactions. Now, since the ship is being accelerated relative to space and not the other way around, "inertial dampeners" are used to combat the potentially lethal reactionary force a ship's inhabitants would otherwise be subjected to. Although this sounds suspciously like a case I will be discussing below of writers blatantly violating a fundamental physical law and patching it up with a specious name, it may actually be possible to project an "artificially made" force with a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics and its more elusive member, gravity.

TRANSPORTATION



On 2002-07-29 10:40, SeanF wrote:


On 2002-07-28 13:23, Donnie B. wrote:

I would argue that there is virtually no probability of this technology ever coming into being in reality, primarily due to the problem of quantum uncertainty.


In Star Trek: The Next Generation, there have been references to a component of the transporter called the "Heisenberg Compensator," which was just a little inside joke to those who pointed out that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle would make transporters highly unlikely. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

A terribly lame joke, I might add. Essentially, doing things that way, the writers could break any and every law in physics just by creating and employing a multitude of <physicist's name after which law is based> compensators. If transportation were ever to be possible in real life, current thinking suggests that the mechanism for accomplishing it would likely be based upon quantum entanglement. I'll leave someone else to explain that phenomenon to you, else my own brain molecules may just decide to teleport themselves to a point in the space-time continuum where they won't be overworked. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif



On 2002-07-29 01:44, David Hall wrote:

It's like all the people who are afraid of flying. The truth is statistically it's much safer than driving. But the problem is, when there's an accident when flying, it's nearly always fatal, and in a horrific way too. Whereas when driving, there's a good chance that you'll be able to walk away from most accidents, so it seems less risky.



Besides that, there's also the fact that you are in control of your car, so there are some things you can do to prevent an accident or minimize your danger in one. In the plane, it's entirely out of your hands . . .

You never know, going into a meditative state before transport and lowering your "neural energy" as well as your metabolic rate might increase your chances of survival. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif However, assuming transportation were really possible and that each and every atom in your body were duplicated successfully along with their proper quantum states (a big assumption, I know), would you be in any position to smile? Yes, I'm talking about hydrostatic equilibrium: If divers must be careful not to surface too quickly due to the negative physiological issues of rapid pressure change, just what state would you find yourself in having been transported from regions of even mildly differing pressure considering the fact that the transition (as far as you, the subject is concerned) would be instantaneous?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Cryogenic on 2002-09-17 23:12 ]</font>

Pi Man
2002-Sep-18, 07:25 PM
<hr>
Quote:
Whenever a ship goes to warp, its engines generate a warp bubble or field around it, allowing the vessel to traverse two points in space without directly violating Einstein's theory of General Relativity.
</hr>

"without **directly** violating... Relativity?" Does that mean that it **indirectly** violates Relativity making it, in reality, and impossible means of WARP travel?

<hr>
Quoting Cryogenic who quoted the official Star Trek Encyclopedia (Would somebody like to quote me quoting Cryogenic who quoted the official Star Trek Encyclopedia:P):

"...Warp 10 requires infinite energy and is therefore unattainable."
</hr>

Well... Doesn't speed c technically require infinite energy? You push, and the mass increases, until you eventually have to push with infinite force(which of course is impossible.) So, one must find a *loophole* in Relativity. Could not some person find a *loophole* in Gene Roddenberry's second law of warp travel?

SeanF
2002-Sep-18, 08:24 PM
The Encyclopedia is not entirely accurate in that statement. The Warp scale, as used in TNG-DS9-VOY, is asymptotic -- actual velocity approaches infinity as the Warp scale approaches 10.

If you arrive at your destination after you leave your starting point, you're traveling at less than Warp 10 . . .

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Pi Man
2002-Sep-24, 08:00 PM
On 2002-09-18 16:24, SeanF wrote:
The Encyclopedia is not entirely accurate in that statement. The Warp scale, as used in TNG-DS9-VOY, is asymptotic -- actual velocity approaches infinity as the Warp scale approaches 10.

If you arrive at your destination after you leave your starting point, you're traveling at less than Warp 10 . . .

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Except... Time dilation goes like this...

t/((1-v^2/c^2)^1/2)

If v>c then v^2/c^2>1 (Sorry for the programmers short hand /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif.) and if v^2/c^2>1 then 1-v^2/c^2<0. And so... t/({Real numbers<0}^(1/2)) is an imagionary number! So, really, your time would not be going foreward or backward relative to us if you were going past light speed. It would be going sort of *perpendicular* to our time(whatever that means... sounds good for sci-fi writers).

_________________
*****∞
π=∑(4/(4n+1)-4/(4n+3))
****n=0 (Yes folks, it really works)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pi Man on 2002-09-24 16:02 ]</font>

SeanF
2002-Sep-24, 08:16 PM
Except . . . I wasn't talking about relativistic time dilation (which, apparently, Star Trek's warp drive somehow compensates for), but simply the conversion from Warp units to conventional velocity units.

Warp 1 = c
Warp 10 = infinite velocity.

So there! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif