Ships have blue phasers???

[Christopher]

To me, the main evidence the characters can see phaser beams as visible light is the general way they act around hand weapons...

Hand weapons operate in atmosphere. It's plausible that an intense particle beam could excite or ionize the air it passes through sufficiently to make it glow, the same way a lightning bolt does. I'm talking about energy beams in vacuum, which is a very different physical scenario.

The only way a beam can be visible from the side is if light is being emitted toward the sides. Since a beam, by definition, consists of energy or particles moving in a single direction, beams by themselves are normally invisible from the side. The only plausible ways to make a beam visible are a) to pass it through a medium dense enough to scatter its light to the side, as when filmmakers use smoke or mist to make lasers and flashlight beams visible, or b) to pass it through a medium whose particles are excited or heated to the point of luminescence. This is why visible beams in vacuum specifically are so implausible.

(Although excited or ionized air in the path of a particle beam wouldn't look anything like the energy beams of TV and movies. The glowing air would be a heated fluid, expanding and rising, so if the beam were sustained for any length of time, the visible effect would have a liquid, flamelike quality to it, like a sustained electric arc. That's something I would personally love to see depicted realistically, because it would be a thousand times cooler than the cliched energy beams created by FX animators.)

 

[JarodRussell]

Why would a particle beam be invisible? Photons, yes, but charged particles?

(Although excited or ionized air in the path of a particle beam wouldn't look anything like the energy beams of TV and movies. The glowing air would be a heated fluid, expanding and rising, so if the beam were sustained for any length of time, the visible effect would have a liquid, flamelike quality to it, like a sustained electric arc. That's something I would personally love to see depicted realistically, because it would be a thousand times cooler than the cliched energy beams created by FX animators.)

They did this in Babylon 5 a lot. Every time a weapon was fired in an atmosphere, you could see the heat turbulences.

 

[Christopher]

Why would a particle beam be invisible? Photons, yes, but charged particles?

Particle beams and particle radiation are invisible, except when they interact with something that fluoresces in response to the stimulation. A lightning bolt is basically an electron beam, but it isn't the electrons that are giving off light, it's the superheated air they're passing through. The alpha and beta particles (helium nuclei and electrons) given off by radium are invisible, but if they pass through certain other materials they can generate Cerenkov radiation, a faint blue glow.

Space is full of charged particles flying around -- the solar wind, the Van Allen Belts, the intense radiation belts of Jupiter, etc. If particle streams by themselves were visible, you'd see the Van Allen Belts glowing in the night sky and you couldn't even see Jupiter through the intense sleet of radiation that surrounds it. But obviously that doesn't happen. Particle streams are not visible by themselves. The only time you see light is when those invisible particle streams pass through and excite something else, like when they pass through the atmosphere and create auroras.

 

[DimesDan]

Personally, I just put it down to some form of tracer being used.

 

[Christopher]

But as I said, why would it be desirable to make the beam visible? All that does is tell your enemy exactly where you're shooting from and make you easier to target.

It's just a conceit for the viewer, like sound in space. I don't see any need to rationalize it further.

 

[DimesDan]

But as I said, why would it be desirable to make the beam visible? All that does is tell your enemy exactly where you're shooting from and make you easier to target.

It's just a conceit for the viewer, like sound in space. I don't see any need to rationalize it further.

Then don't continue then! Yes I know lasers should be invisible in space, along with sound can't be heard. But you know what, I don't care, in my mind, they can be seen because they have tracer beams (just like machine guns do at night) which allows people to see them, no more, no less.

 

[Christopher]

But again, why would they have tracers? If you're going to justify it at all, rather than just treating it as pure fantasy, then that justification needs to be, well, justified. Why, in-universe, would they put themselves at risk by giving their enemies bright red (or blue) beams pointing the way right to them? What advantage is offered by tracers that offsets that drawback?

 

[snakespeare]

one shift
two shift
red shift
blue shift

Maybe they are pointing the other way!

 

[DimesDan]

But again, why would they have tracers? If you're going to justify it at all, rather than just treating it as pure fantasy, then that justification needs to be, well, justified. Why, in-universe, would they put themselves at risk by giving their enemies bright red (or blue) beams pointing the way right to them? What advantage is offered by tracers that offsets that drawback?

I need to justify why I think that a fictional piece of technology in a fictional universe is used in a certain way. Okay then. Here it is.

So that the beams can be seen.

And before you go on and on about "being able to see the beam is a tactical mistake" or some such argument. Just take a deep breath and remember that there is a real world out there and the events that occur with in Star Trek are fictional.

 

[RapidNadion]

I find it humorous that we're evaluating technology from 300 years in the future based upon our current understanding of physics, and determining that the visible beams must be a production conceit for our benefit. Think about the phaser beams in whatever way you like, Christopher. But I reserve the right to believe they're visible as a byproduct of their composition, and that this visibility is unavoidable.

 

[Christopher]

I find it humorous that we're evaluating technology from 300 years in the future based upon our current understanding of physics, and determining that the visible beams must be a production conceit for our benefit.

Oh, come on. The way that light behaves in a vacuum is not going to change in 300 years.

And why is it so hard to accept? Do you believe that there's actually sound in space? Do you believe there are actually credits hovering in the middle of the room? Why this fierce resistance to the idea of conceits for the benefit of the viewer, when it is and always has been a basic part of filmic storytelling?

 

[captcalhoun]

it's not light. it's a phaser beam. phasers aren't lasers. phasers glow as they pass through space through some weird physics thing we don't undersand. end of.

 

[Christopher]

^And I've explained why that doesn't make sense. Phasers are particle beams, essentially particle radiation, and there's even less likelihood of that being visible than a beam of light. And there's no reason to invoke magic fairy-dust cartoon "physics" for something that can simply and harmlessly be chalked up to poetic license.

I ask again, do you feel it necessary to concoct a reason why there's "actually" sound in space, or do you just write off the sound in space as a dramatic embellishment? And if so, why are you willing to treat sound effects as an embellishment but not light effects? Why the double standard?

 

[DimesDan]

^And I've explained why that doesn't make sense. Phasers are particle beams, essentially particle radiation, and there's even less likelihood of that being visible than a beam of light. And there's no reason to invoke magic fairy-dust cartoon "physics" for something that can simply and harmlessly be chalked up to poetic license.

I ask again, do you feel it necessary to concoct a reason why there's "actually" sound in space, or do you just write off the sound in space as a dramatic embellishment? And if so, why are you willing to treat sound effects as an embellishment but not light effects? Why the double standard?

Seriously, get over it, yes in your over patronising manner you have explained it, but you know what, I and I'm guessing a few others don't give a flying monkeys.

Yes there is no sound in space, but does it matter? Nope, not one bit, it's television, an entertainment programme no less, so these things happen. As for being able to see light from some form of energy weapon, it's a fictional technology in a fictional universe.

 

[Christopher]

I just don't understand this aggressive resistance to the idea that this can make sense. I'm not the one being patronizing here. All I did was offer a simple, plausible interpretation, and bizarrely, it was met with ridicule and scorn, as if there were something wrong with acknowledging reality and common sense. I've simply been trying to understand why that idea is being met with such hostility. And I'm genuinely confused by the double standard about sound effects vs. light effects. If nobody has a problem with the idea of sound in space being imaginary, why am I being met with such negativity for suggesting that visible beams might simply be the same thing? But when I ask people to explain the double standard, nobody bothers to explain their thinking, but instead they just get snide and dismissive. I'm bewildered by the negativity I'm getting here. I'm not being aggressive -- I'm defending myself against others' attitude that I'm somehow in the wrong for proposing a logical interpretation.

 

[Daddy Todd]

I just don't understand this aggressive resistance to the idea that this can make sense.

I hope this doesn't sound patronizing, but have you ever MET a Trekkie? I mean, isn't stubborn adherence to our interpretation of the universe something like a Prime Directive? (and just in case anyone is unsure, my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek... except that it's not really, because I think what I just said was true...)

I don't have a problem with the notion that it's a conceit of the producers for the benefit of the viewers, and that "in-universe," the phaser beam is really invisible. However, if other fans want to imagine there's a technobabble explanation why the beams emit visible light in-universe, then more power to them. There's plenty of wonky science in Trek. This hardly seems like the worst offense.

 

[Christopher]

Well, sure, I can understand them wanting to see things their own way. What I don't understand is them telling me I'm being ridiculous for having a realistic interpretation.

 

[snakespeare]

Christopher, I think the confusion is due to our different roles. We readers tend to suspend disbelief so much that we accept the sound of explosions in space and the light of a particle beam as normal. You would think all those consoles on the bridge would have fuses by now, but they don't. Yet we accept this. As you say, these are conceits for television in order to communicate ideas by action rather than dialog (show don't tell).

You, on the other hand, being a writer, have to do the "sub-creation" that Tolkien talks about in On Fairy-Stories (p 88). You have to create a world that has internal consistency to help us suspend our disbelief. And you have to do this in a text-only medium utilizing a world given to you by audio-visual writers. So, you habitually (and most of us are thankful for it) seek realistic interpretations. It's your job.

Are you the one who explained the exploding consoles? I think it might have been you. It was in a Titan book a few years back. That was a good one.

Anyway, I think the misunderstanding is inevitable. All you have to do is have Laforge and Leischman talk about it over dinner and we'll believe you...

 

[Myasishchev]

Well, sure, I can understand them wanting to see things their own way. What I don't understand is them telling me I'm being ridiculous for having a realistic interpretation.

Your wicked science makes Eugene Roddenberry cry.

Are you the one who explained the exploding consoles? I think it might have been you. It was in a Titan book a few years back. That was a good one.

Ha, someone actually did that? They explained it instead of just getting rid of it and ignoring it? Gorgeous.

 

[Christopher]

Well, there is scientific justification for the idea of a sufficiently intense energy discharge being able to jump over any circuit breakers and blow out equipment. A strong enough lightning strike can do so. Circuit breakers aren't guaranteed protection against power surges, since they have limits. They interrupt the circuit with a gap and use the intervening air as an insulator, but a high enough voltage can jump the gap.

So while the explosions of consoles do tend to be exaggerated for effect, the basic idea of weapons fire overloading consoles isn't quite as implausible as people tend to assume. So this is a conceit that can be explained by using actual science, rather than denying it.