RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,946
Posts: 5,479,508
Members: 25,056
Currently online: 613
Newest member: JeremiahJT

TrekToday headlines

USS Enterprise Press-Out And Build Manual
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

New QMx USS Reliant Model
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Star Trek Thirty-Five Years On 35MM: A Retrospective
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Trek Shirt And Hoodie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

A Klingon Christmas Carol’s Last Season
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

Attack Wing Wave 10 Expansion Pack
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 3 2010, 07:09 PM   #1
Mr. Scott
Commander
 
What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

(Had a few drinks at Quarks tonight. It was cool until I tried to lay on a bench, and was chased out by that Jello skinned Shape Shifter. )


I ran into a website several years ago that talked about what is possible in theory scientifically. If there is another website, I would love to see it.

The only thing I clearly remember from the reading that the only thing that is truly impossible, forget it, can't happen, was the transporter. I accept that. But I believe that matter can be sent and rematerialized in a data stream. We in 2o1o have no freaking idea how to do this.

In Star Trek (or Star trek 11) old Spock explains to young Scotty that it is not the ship moving, but the space moving around the ship. This was the view of the scientists on that website.

One complaint that I have with Star Trek is when a ship is blown up and there is a huge "fireball bang effect". A ship which was destroyed would have that kind of pyrotechnics we have seen in all the shows.

Phaser or "deathray" weapons. Yes, in 2o1o there are lasers and they can kill you, but we don't know how to put that power inside of a revolver to kill or stun people with. It is theoretically possible, but we don't know how to do it yet.

By the late 19th Century, sone scientists in the field of radio stated that it is theoretically possible to transmit picture images over the air. Impossible. I would of laughed my ass of this in a bar in 1890. But it happened about 30 years later.

The universe is so vast that travelling at the rate of speed per second is simply not good enough and that space is still too huge to go to the nearest M Class Planet (using reality that in real life we have already found "M" class planets out there but it would, but our technology would never take us there.)

Even in the series, it was because of an alien race (Vulcans) who came to Earth because some alcoholic shot a missle into space that went warp speed. Would have been a better story if humanity could of found the way to warp speed space and have the Vulcans find them somewhere in space.

What's possible in Star trek and what isn't?
Mr. Scott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2010, 07:15 PM   #2
RegFan
Commodore
 
Re: What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

Almost everything is possible in Trek if it serves the plot.
RegFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2010, 08:24 PM   #3
Gary7
Rear Admiral
 
Gary7's Avatar
 
Location: Near Manhattan ··· in an alternate reality
Re: What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

There are books written on this subject. "The Physics of Star Trek" is one. There's another edition that followed it up, called "Beyond Star Trek: Physics From Alien Invasions To The End Of Time". There's also a book called "Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel".

Most of what we see in Star Trek is debunked. The biggest problem comes down to energy. Based on what we know in physics today, the energy required to travel at warp speed (as well as coming to a stop from warp speed) would be enormous. There are all kinds of factors along side this, like running into particles. As it is right now, a pea sized piece of asteroid traveling at 200,000 mph in orbit would cut right through the hull of one of the international space station. So on top of the energy required to go at warp speed, you need some kind of protective field active on the hull of the ship to deflect particles away. I think that might be the intent of the "deflector array" on the ship. Another big energy drain. Warping space around you to create a wormhole gateway would eliminate the deflector problem, but that still takes a huge amount of energy. Perhaps gateway stations near stars that can siphon the star energy might be possible... but then, you'd have to deal with the heat and radiation...

Anyway, one could go on and on. The main issue is energy. And at this fragile state in human existence, we still don't have a clue on highly optimal energy sources. We're still burning fossil fuels.

Transportation is possible in terms of energy, but matter? Perhaps a single element. But to reconstruct an organism? Ah, I think not. How do you "suspend" the creature until it is fully constructed? You're essentially killing and then reanimating the life form.

Imagination is fun... but reality is not.
Gary7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2010, 02:21 AM   #4
sbk1234
Rear Admiral
 
sbk1234's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles
Re: What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

Communicators.
__________________
In all the history of the world, a riot has NEVER broken out at a Sci-Fi convention.

"It's a fucking TV show!" - Gary Lockwood
sbk1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2010, 12:32 PM   #5
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

Here's the thing: we're already living in a science fiction world from the perspective of our parents and grandparents and ancestors. Much of the science and technology today would have been considered sheer fantasy even fifty years ago. It's also a matter of definition and recognition---the things we see in SF are the final polished product. What we don't see is the early development and early forms of the product. Imagine showing someone from the late 19th century a 21st century car and tell them one day their descendants will see and operate these things everywhere...yet the first things they can get their hands on is a Model T Ford. It could be something of a disillusionment. Or compare an F22 Raptor or modern airliner with a Sopwith Camel biplane.

Part of the issue is perspective. Often some developments can't happen or theory fully exploited until other developments happen first. For example many of the things we take for granted today are the direct result of the development of the computer chip. If that hadn't happened then our world could look quite different today.

Communicators - It's a matter of miniaturization of components and power source to transmit/receive over great distances
Replicator - Probably not like it's shown on Trek, but if nanotech can be made to work than some form of materials and objects replication may be possible.
Forcefields - Again perhaps not the way shown onscreen, but there are already such things called plasma windows which are a form of forcefield. If this can be expanded then maybe you've got something.
Medical Scanners - We are developing more and more ways of seeing into the body unintrusively. First there was X-rays then we have CAT scans and MRI's and sonographs. Question is it's again a matter of miniaturization of components into smaller devices, possibly handheld and working in conjunction with larger devices.
Tricorder - We already have all kinds of sensors available to us (temperature, radiation, motion, pressure, etc) and so it's a matter of enhancing their capabilities and combining them into a portable device. Of course we will have to define what "life signs" really means. What exactly is it you're scanning for to detect life? And so some manner of medical and science tricorders can happen.
Interactive Computers - This is already well on the way in development as ever improving software and programming will allows us improving voice recognition and interaction with computers. A.I is, of course, an integral component. Make no mistake, though, that rudimentary A.I. is already all around us as computers become evermore sophisticated. No, we haven't yet reached the Data or M5 or Enterprise computer level yet, but it's likely not impossible. Read Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity is Near and Michio Kaku's The Science Of The Impossible.
Androids - An android is essential an autonomous Robot with highly sophisticated A.I. With true A.I. and the perfection of a humanoid form robotic body then you can have an android. Read Wil McCarthy's Beyond Human.
Nanites - Nanotech is continually being developed and there are already some rudimentary nanotech products on the market if I'm not mistaken. Another excellent book is Wil McCarthy's Hacking Matter.
Flatscreen Viewers - The introduction almost a decade ago of flatscreen LCD and Plasma TVs had me thinking, "Wow, it's the bridge of the Enterprise." We've already got these things and it's simply a matter of refinement.
Disruptors - The idea of using sound waves as a weapon or deterrent isn't new. It's more a matter of what form this could take and how it could be employed.
"Phasers on stun" - A taser is an early form of stun weapon. Yet another form would be a device that can ionize the air in front of the weapon and allow an electrical charge to pass through the ionized tunnel to the target. Presto: wireless taser or stun device. I've heard of this being worked on several years ago, but I don't know if it's ever been developed. Again it's a matter of definition: what exactly happens when you stun someone? The more important issue is how to recreate the result rather than how it's depicted on TV.
Ship's Phasers - Powerful lasers already exist and some can be employed aboard aircraft. With sufficient power you could have some form of energy weapon aboard a spacecraft.

I'm sure there are other examples I'm overlooking at the moment.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?

Last edited by Warped9; September 4 2010 at 12:44 PM.
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2010, 02:40 PM   #6
indolover
Fleet Captain
 
Re: What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

PADDs - I can see this as a possibility. We already have tablet PCs, which in essence are a primitive form of a PADD. All that is required is for ICT technology to reach a level where a high degree of processing power, memory storage, and inputs (via a pen or even via spoken word) could be housed in such a device. Some kind of Star Trek PADD-esque device could be the standard/basic personal computer in the world, away from desktops or laptops, if ever invented.

Photon/Quantum torpedoes - I think this is some way off yet. It would require being able to convert matter to energy, which is beyond current physics thinking.

I also think communicators are a distinct possibility. We already have the telecommunications knowledge to contact anywhere in the world in an instant. As has been said, it's simply a matter of miniaturisation of the components.
indolover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2010, 02:55 PM   #7
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

indolover wrote: View Post
PADDs - I can see this as a possibility. We already have tablet PCs, which in essence are a primitive form of a PADD. All that is required is for ICT technology to reach a level where a high degree of processing power, memory storage, and inputs (via a pen or even via spoken word) could be housed in such a device. Some kind of Star Trek PADD-esque device could be the standard/basic personal computer in the world, away from desktops or laptops, if ever invented.
I'd forgotten about this. I think the Apple iPod Touch and recent Apple iPad is the forerunner of what is to come. It can only get more powerful, more sophisticated and lighter.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2010, 06:13 PM   #8
Cepstrum
Commander
 
Location: State of Oregon, USA
Re: What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

Go to Bernd Schneider's site (ex astra scienta). He has a PhD in electrical engineering and discusses a lot of this, though he likes Trek.

I'm not as accomplished (just an MS in EE), but I'm quite educated in science and technology. I don't think a lot of Trek is more than technobabble (which I actually love). But who knows? I think most of it is plot-driven, for even if you consider everything to be possible in Trek, there are *many* inconsistencies.

I suggest you read Bernd's essay about "realism in science fiction." It is in his "inconsistencies" section.
Cepstrum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2010, 07:05 PM   #9
The Trekster
Lieutenant Commander
 
The Trekster's Avatar
 
Location: Chicago
Re: What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

iPADDs.
__________________
'Like' Stockholm Santa on facebook to receive production updates!
http://www.facebook.com/StockholmSanta
The Trekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2010, 07:36 PM   #10
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

I think women in very short skirts and tall boots are scientifically plausible in the future. The odds of this may actually be quite good...

As for the rest...eh. Some stuff may happen long before or long after the 23rd-Century. Some stuff may never happen at all, even if we think it might be scientifically plausible today.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2010, 07:48 PM   #11
Saga
Rear Admiral
 
Saga's Avatar
 
Location: VA
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Saga Send a message via Yahoo to Saga
Re: What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

everything is impossible. at least until its possible.
Saga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2010, 10:33 PM   #12
The Trekster
Lieutenant Commander
 
The Trekster's Avatar
 
Location: Chicago
Re: What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

Praetor_Shinzon wrote: View Post
everything is impossible. at least until its possible.
Indeed. When it's time to railroad, you railroad.
__________________
'Like' Stockholm Santa on facebook to receive production updates!
http://www.facebook.com/StockholmSanta
The Trekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2010, 04:06 AM   #13
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

VulcanLoveSlave wrote: View Post
Praetor_Shinzon wrote: View Post
everything is impossible. at least until its possible.
Indeed. When it's time to railroad, you railroad.
If Einstein is right, there is no possible FTL railroad.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2010, 04:09 AM   #14
Saga
Rear Admiral
 
Saga's Avatar
 
Location: VA
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Saga Send a message via Yahoo to Saga
Re: What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

YARN wrote: View Post
VulcanLoveSlave wrote: View Post
Praetor_Shinzon wrote: View Post
everything is impossible. at least until its possible.
Indeed. When it's time to railroad, you railroad.
If Einstein is right, there is no possible FTL railroad.
that's unpossible!
Saga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2010, 06:35 AM   #15
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: What is possible in Star Trek scientifically.

Praetor_Shinzon wrote: View Post
YARN wrote: View Post
VulcanLoveSlave wrote: View Post

Indeed. When it's time to railroad, you railroad.
If Einstein is right, there is no possible FTL railroad.
that's unpossible!
Perhaps the biggest "downer" with regard to thinking about sci-fi is the realization of how vast interstellar distances really are and how slim the prospects are for covering those distances.

Realistic sci-fi would really be centered around interplanetary travel in our own solar system and/or a generational trip to Alpha Centauri.

Science fantasy is a lot easier than science fiction.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.