The science of "Star Trek"

[jayrath]

There were some interesting new scientific discoveries made in the new film:

***** (SPOILERS) ****



***** (SPOILERS) ****



***** (SPOILERS) ****


1) A single star going nova -- a somewhat rare event which actual astronomers have witnessed several times -- is able to threaten the existence of an entire galaxy.
2) You can drill a hole deep into the mantle of a planet, even into San Francisco Bay, and the only problem is if somebody lobs a bomb down there or something. There will be no visible release of magma nor earthquakes that devastate the entire planet, let alone the Golden Gate Bridge.
3) You can witness the creation of a black hole which destroys a planet so close to you that it is plainly visible in the sky; and yet the planet on which you are standing will not be immediately drawn into the black hole.
4) Nor is the orbit or rotation of the planet on which you are standing -- apparently a moon of the demolished planet, given its proximity -- disturbed in the least. You can stay there for at least some time, and the only shelter you need will be an ice cave. A torch may be helpful.
5) Immensely destructive ray guns should not be fired from the safety of orbit, but are best fired from beneath long, dangling structures which sway in the atmosphere.
6) Despite this, be assured that the ray strikes with the necessary, remarkable precision.
7) Given that a black hole may be created by "igniting" a rare red substance, the substance is only effective when ignited inside a planet. Doing so in atmosphere or even anywhere in the planet's vicinity is ineffective.
8) This is because the black hole is a special black hole, unlike any other black hole ever even theorized: it destroys only that with which it is in immediate physical contact. (See No. 3, ditto.)
9) Given the discovery and practical application of artificial gravity, the most advanced spaceships work best when spinning like pinwheels.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm still trying to absorb the above astounding discoveries.

 

[Jessop]

A blackhole has the same mass as the matter it consumes, so anything that was in orbit of whatever it consumed would remain in stable orbit of it. Black holes are not giant space vacumns.

 

[Lt Cmdr Tyler]

Are we also forgetiing that a certain Capt Montgomery Scott, who would have undoubtedly died on the planet he was heading to in TNG ep (sorry cant remember name of ep or planet(might've been Risa))
APPARENTLY... created a way to transport from planet to planet and starships at warp speed anywhwere. But this technology somehow just didn't make it into TNG DS9 or VOY.

And yet it was trialled and successful in new Trek movie.

Hmmm seems highly illogical.

 

[TrekGuide.com]

1) A single star going nova -- a somewhat rare event which actual astronomers have witnessed several times -- is able to threaten the existence of an entire galaxy.

Maybe Spock meant "politically" -- i.e., the destruction of the Romulan Star Empire could create a power vacuum among the Klingons, Cardassians, Gorn, Federation, et al., leading the whole Galaxy into another war.

2) You can drill a hole deep into the mantle of a planet, even into San Francisco Bay, and the only problem is if somebody lobs a bomb down there or something. There will be no visible release of magma nor earthquakes that devastate the entire planet, let alone the Golden Gate Bridge.

Obviously the beam had an annular containment field to stabilize the shaft as it was drilling.

3) You can witness the creation of a black hole which destroys a planet so close to you that it is plainly visible in the sky; and yet the planet on which you are standing will not be immediately drawn into the black hole.
4) Nor is the orbit or rotation of the planet on which you are standing -- apparently a moon of the demolished planet, given its proximity -- disturbed in the least. You can stay there for at least some time, and the only shelter you need will be an ice cave. A torch may be helpful.

Technically, black holes do not increase in mass; they only increase in density as their mass becomes more compacted.

Therefore, the mass of Vulcan did not increase; the planet merely decreased in volume as its core was pulled into the event horizon of the black hole.

Therefore, the orbits of nearby planets would be affected to only a small degree, since Vulcan's gravity would not increase. In fact, as it becomes smaller, it would actually be farther away from other planets and its gravity would have less effect on them over time.

5) Immensely destructive ray guns should not be fired from the safety of orbit, but are best fired from beneath long, dangling structures which sway in the atmosphere.

Van Allen radiation belts have been the constant bane of evil alien overlords.

6) Despite this, be assured that the ray strikes with the necessary, remarkable precision.

Inertial dampeners. Duh.

7) Given that a black hole may be created by "igniting" a rare red substance, the substance is only effective when ignited inside a planet. Doing so in atmosphere or even anywhere in the planet's vicinity is ineffective.

The "red matter" singularity itself has very little, if any, gravity. It is only effective when it interacts with existing matter.

Dropping it into the atmosphere would cause it to absorb nearby air molecules, but it could take weeks to gain enough mass to suck in the whole planet that way. Starting in the core is much faster.

8) This is because the black hole is a special black hole, unlike any other black hole ever even theorized: it destroys only that with which it is in immediate physical contact. (See No. 3, ditto.)

That's what I just said. "Red matter" is special that way.

9) Given the discovery and practical application of artificial gravity, the most advanced spaceships work best when spinning like pinwheels.

They also look cooler.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm still trying to absorb the above astounding discoveries.

Keep 'em coming. I've got a whole cargo bay full of fanboy rationalizations and pseudo-science explanations.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

"The Science of Star Trek"

There was a 48 minute program titled "The Science of Star Trek" produced by PBS, and broadcast as part of their The New Explorers strand on 18 January 1995
also aired on BBC2 on 26 August 1996. It was a part of Horizon a current and long-running BBC popular science and philosophy documentary program.
Season 33, Episode 14

info here:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2892189&postcount=5


It would be really cool if CBS Home video licensed that show as a special feature on a future Trek Blu-ray release .


About the new 2009 film there was a review of the science here:
Scientific Review of "Star Trek"
long article by Phillip Plait
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/08/ba-review-star-trek/

 

[scottydog]

Re: "The Science of Star Trek"

Since these events take place a couple hundred years in the future, I have no problem suspending my disbelief at phenomena and explanations that appear to contradict what I know. Our scientific understanding has increased immensely in the past 200 years, and I'm in no position to even guess what we'll know 200 years from now about black holes or energy beams or red matter or whatever. I just go with the flow and enjoy the movie for what it is.

 

[Deckerd]

Re: "The Science of Star Trek"

Since these events take place a couple hundred years in the future, I have no problem suspending my disbelief at phenomena and explanations that appear to contradict what I know.

Except these 'events' were filmed last year in a film studio and on computer graphics programs.

 

[Islander]

Keep 'em coming. I've got a whole cargo bay full of fanboy rationalizations and pseudo-science explanations.

Ok then explain how they go on about their lives without any toilet?

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Yeah, yeah but um, it...
um...

like... but... dude.

It was so kewl!

 

[scottydog]

Re: "The Science of Star Trek"

Since these events take place a couple hundred years in the future, I have no problem suspending my disbelief at phenomena and explanations that appear to contradict what I know.

Except these 'events' were filmed last year in a film studio and on computer graphics programs.

Well, of course! But if I were somehow flung 200 years into the future, and someone there began techno-babbling me about black holes in a way that contradicted what I knew (or what I thought I knew), I would freely accept it. That's all I'm saying.

 

[aeriolewinters]

let me give you a hint: IT'S JUST A MOVIE....


besides, Trek uses Pseudoscience.

 

[Franklin]

As long as they are consistent in the science they "create," and don't get too far afield from what should at least make sense, I can go along with it. Even if it varies a bit from story to story. I mean, if I could buy the Genesis Device in TWOK without a problem, I'm not a hard sell.

To that end, Kirk and Scotty beaming to the at-warp Enterprise was the one thing I just had to relax and let myself accept. I mean just how far would the Enterprise have been from Delta Vega at that point? Light years away?

 

[cmdrbolly]

There were some interesting new scientific discoveries made in the new film:

***** (SPOILERS) ****



***** (SPOILERS) ****



***** (SPOILERS) ****


1) A single star going nova -- a somewhat rare event which actual astronomers have witnessed several times -- is able to threaten the existence of an entire galaxy.
2) You can drill a hole deep into the mantle of a planet, even into San Francisco Bay, and the only problem is if somebody lobs a bomb down there or something. There will be no visible release of magma nor earthquakes that devastate the entire planet, let alone the Golden Gate Bridge.
3) You can witness the creation of a black hole which destroys a planet so close to you that it is plainly visible in the sky; and yet the planet on which you are standing will not be immediately drawn into the black hole.
4) Nor is the orbit or rotation of the planet on which you are standing -- apparently a moon of the demolished planet, given its proximity -- disturbed in the least. You can stay there for at least some time, and the only shelter you need will be an ice cave. A torch may be helpful.
5) Immensely destructive ray guns should not be fired from the safety of orbit, but are best fired from beneath long, dangling structures which sway in the atmosphere.
6) Despite this, be assured that the ray strikes with the necessary, remarkable precision.
7) Given that a black hole may be created by "igniting" a rare red substance, the substance is only effective when ignited inside a planet. Doing so in atmosphere or even anywhere in the planet's vicinity is ineffective.
8) This is because the black hole is a special black hole, unlike any other black hole ever even theorized: it destroys only that with which it is in immediate physical contact. (See No. 3, ditto.)
9) Given the discovery and practical application of artificial gravity, the most advanced spaceships work best when spinning like pinwheels.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm still trying to absorb the above astounding discoveries.

Here's one more discovery, although it's more of a sociological one : even LESS people give a shit about this than previously imagined.

 

[ParticleMan]

I justified #1 (supernova destroying the galaxy) in my own little head by assuming that this supernova was merely the real space reflection of a much bigger upheaval at the subspace level...one that would potentially destroy the fabric of spacetime and manifest itself with the destruction of the entire galaxy if left unchecked.

And, yes, I do have quite a bit of time on my hands...

 

[Odo's_Bucket]

I justified #1 (supernova destroying the galaxy) in my own little head by assuming that this supernova was merely the real space reflection of a much bigger upheaval at the subspace level...one that would potentially destroy the fabric of spacetime and manifest itself with the destruction of the entire galaxy if left unchecked.

And, yes, I do have quite a bit of time on my hands...

Except stars go supernova all the time and we're still here.

 

[ParticleMan]

I justified #1 (supernova destroying the galaxy) in my own little head by assuming that this supernova was merely the real space reflection of a much bigger upheaval at the subspace level...one that would potentially destroy the fabric of spacetime and manifest itself with the destruction of the entire galaxy if left unchecked.

And, yes, I do have quite a bit of time on my hands...

Except stars go supernova all the time and we're still here.

But this is an extra special super awesome movie supernova...not your run of the mill supernova.

 

[Peter the Younger]

1) A single star going nova -- a somewhat rare event which actual astronomers have witnessed several times -- is able to threaten the existence of an entire galaxy.

It was a supernova, not a nova.

Now that we have that out of the way, the science was a mixed bag on this one. Sufficiently energetic supernovae can effectively sterilize anything within 80-100 light years, so it is a credible threat to an interstellar civilization. The entire galaxy, not so much. But, since this supernova also surprised Spock (and the Romulans!) when it destroyed Romulus, it probably wasn't a normal event. There are all sorts of Trekkian phenomena that might explain this - some sort of subspace tear in the path of the shockwave that accelerated it, for instance.

2) You can drill a hole deep into the mantle of a planet, even into San Francisco Bay, and the only problem is if somebody lobs a bomb down there or something. There will be no visible release of magma nor earthquakes that devastate the entire planet, let alone the Golden Gate Bridge.

Devastating the entire planet is quite a stretch - the magma released probably would be the same as Mauna Loa on a bad day, but yeah, there would be magma released.

3) You can witness the creation of a black hole which destroys a planet so close to you that it is plainly visible in the sky; and yet the planet on which you are standing will not be immediately drawn into the black hole.


4) Nor is the orbit or rotation of the planet on which you are standing -- apparently a moon of the demolished planet, given its proximity -- disturbed in the least. You can stay there for at least some time, and the only shelter you need will be an ice cave. A torch may be helpful.

Black holes do not magically gain mass when they collapse. It wouldn't change a thing.

5) Immensely destructive ray guns should not be fired from the safety of orbit, but are best fired from beneath long, dangling structures which sway in the atmosphere.
6) Despite this, be assured that the ray strikes with the necessary, remarkable precision.

Skyhooks and space elevators, similar structures, do not sway if the other end is in a stable geosynchronous orbit.

As for why they had to lower it, who knows? It's not impossible to imagine a reason. Maybe it needs atmo to ionize the beam, like a charged particle beam works.

7) Given that a black hole may be created by "igniting" a rare red substance, the substance is only effective when ignited inside a planet. Doing so in atmosphere or even anywhere in the planet's vicinity is ineffective.
8) This is because the black hole is a special black hole, unlike any other black hole ever even theorized: it destroys only that with which it is in immediate physical contact. (See No. 3, ditto.)
9) Given the discovery and practical application of artificial gravity, the most advanced spaceships work best when spinning like pinwheels.

Once again, you're complaining about imaginary technology. Suffice it to say that we are discovering things all the time (metamaterials, for instance) that would have seemed utterly unphysical a few years ago.

 

[Holodoc]

5) Immensely destructive ray guns should not be fired from the safety of orbit, but are best fired from beneath long, dangling structures which sway in the atmosphere.

Van Allen radiation belts have been the constant bane of evil alien overlords.

Brilliance!

 

[TrekGuide.com]

Ok then explain how they go on about their lives without any toilet?

Two words: Colostomy transporters. (They're the 23rd Century analogue to astronaut diapers.)

 

[LeandroTLZ]

Are we also forgetiing that a certain Capt Montgomery Scott, who would have undoubtedly died on the planet he was heading to in TNG ep (sorry cant remember name of ep or planet(might've been Risa))
APPARENTLY... created a way to transport from planet to planet and starships at warp speed anywhwere. But this technology somehow just didn't make it into TNG DS9 or VOY.

And yet it was trialled and successful in new Trek movie.

Hmmm seems highly illogical.

He invented it in the time between Nemesis and the destruction of Romulus, and so it wasn't seen on screen. But yeah, Spock giving Scott technology from 150 years in the future was a little weird. I guess he figured this timeline was screwed already, may as well finish the job.