Treknology and the Reality Criterion

[YARN]

Treknologists are concerned with describing, interpreting, and evaluating technologies present in Trek narratives. Basically, what is it?, how does it work?, and is it worthy of suspension of disbelief?

These concerns are complicated by the fact that Trek has been around for 40+ years. Science fiction tends to have a short shelf life in terms of its technological conceits.

Evaluation suffers first, and most severely. Analogue gauges made sense in 1969, for example, but are now something of an embarrassment. Interpretation along the lines of "How does this (allegedly) work?" suffers too. Anachronism creeps into the picture. In TOS, the writers had absolutely no concern about Heisenberg Compensators, because they never really scrutinized the necessary physics of teleportation. TNG rewrites Trek's history a bit to make fantasy elements more believable. And when was it and where was it that it was decided that those nacelle caps were "Bussard Collectors?" Even description of Treknology, given enough time, might become confusing (think of reading Shakespeare's works).

The default assumption of technology in science fiction is that we are talking of how things function in relation to our epistemic vantage point, to the "NOW," to what we presently think is the "the real." In our most rigorous (ridiculous?) discussions of science fiction we hold up a mirror to present day knowledge and assumptions. This makes sense for works "hot off the press." A film, book, show, etc. designed for a present day audience should invite suspension of disbelief in terms relevant to that audience.

TOS had a different audience than TNG and nuTrek. TOS was designed to work for audiences in 1969 and it worked well. Were we, however, to invoke "the reality criterion" as an evaluative standard of TOS or TNG, we would be inclined that these artworks are not well-designed. This results in an unfair judgment of the original. These embarrassing judgements sometimes lead to apologetic speculative interpretations of Treknology. EX: "Well, we now know that neutrinos travel faster than light, so we can assume that Treknology X makes use of neutrinos which explains why it operates at FTL speeds..." Such charitable interpretation, however, could have never been an aspect of the original artwork. No scientists, let alone Hollywood writers, could have guessed the CERN experiments would come up with results suggesting that neutrinos travel faster than light.

Trek is now old enough that the default invocation of the reality criterion no longer makes sense. We should, in some instances, describe, interpret, and evaluate Treknology in terms of the time for which it was written.

At the very least, we should ask the question, when discussing Treknology - "OK, are we talking about how it functioned then or how it functions now?" If we were, for example, talking about the The Nautilus, it would not be appropriate to assume that it was equipped with WiFi
hotspots, but yet we think nothing of assuming that The Enterprise of 1982 should be assumed to have plausible magic technology on grounds of justifications of the latest speculations in physics. This is a mistake - it assumes that we are only properly concerned with the question "How does it work for us now." We can't even answer that question honestly, because how it works now (for us) is informed by cultural memories and expectations that have formed over years of viewing (e.g., nostalgia and accepted conventions).

 

[sojourner]

And this is the genius of Roddenberry not having the characters explain how things work.

 

[Anji]

C'mon? He had two weeks max to get a script up and running and you expect the guy to figure out how something like a quantum flux regulator really works?

Also, would you like have the whole episode about how it works? I'd imagine that's how long it would take to explain one.

 

[YARN]

C'mon? He had two weeks max to get a script up and running and you expect the guy to figure out how something like a quantum flux regulator really works?

Of course not. My argument, in fact, is that we should cut the show a break. As Trek ages, we should consider it on its own terms, not new terms we've learned like "dark energy" and "quantum teleportation.'

Also, would you like have the whole episode about how it works? I'd imagine that's how long it would take to explain one.

I wouldn't, but this subforum is dedicated to considering Trek Tech. I am suggesting that we should reconsider how our discussions proceed here, not how technology should be dealt with on the show.

 

[C.E. Evans]

This is just round two of your closed "Star Trek Is Already Steampunk" thread, isn't it?
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=153163

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And this is the genius of Roddenberry not having the characters explain how things work.

Right. By not delving into the details, the tech remains timeless, at least until actual FTL/transporters/etc. are invented. We likely won't have to worry about any of that in our lifetime.

Note: the FTL status of neutrinos has been disputed [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/20/us-science-neutrinos-idUSTRE7AJ0ZX20111120]. Of course, further experiments and analysis should settle that issue eventually.

Besides, even if neutrinos were shown to travel faster than light, how is it any sort of issue that neutrinos aren't mentioned in TOS (IIRC)? Ex: Birds fly but they aren't components of airplanes. How do we know any FTL properties of neutrinos could be harnessed to make a working FTL engine?

 

[YARN]

And this is the genius of Roddenberry not having the characters explain how things work.

Right. By not delving into the details, the tech remains timeless, at least until actual FTL/transporters/etc. are invented. We likely won't have to worry about any of that in our lifetime.

There is truth to this.

Nevertheless, you have to explain just enough for the audience to suspend disbelief and/or to understand what is happening. Think of the projected image of the death star in Star Wars at the rebel briefing session - they weren't explaining it to the rebels, they we explaining the third act to us, the audience. We needed to know that there was an exhaust port for some reactor, that the big guns couldn't aim low at pesky little ships, and so on to understand how Luke could destroy a moon sized space station with a space fighter plane.

This made sense to us because it rings true with other stories we've heard - we've heard of big ships having a hard time hitting small target in times of war, we know (or think we know) that reactors are sensitive targets, we know how hard it is to swat a fly with a baseball bat, etc. It makes just enough sense to us in terms of our real world knowledge that we not only agree to suspend disbelief, but it also allows us to follow the action - Ahh, so that's how David could possibly take Goliath - they never stopped to think that a small fighter group could be a threat.

Also, there are moments when science fiction educates us about discoveries in physics and uses a physics-based idea as a plot device. This is perfectly fine, but it does require a bit exposition - you have to explain it.

Now I agree with the notion that "less is more." You don't want to over explain - just do as much as is needed.

Also, don't forget that I am not talking about what should appear in the show, but that which should regulate OUR discussions of the show, as we speculate and argue in the Tech subforum.

Note: the FTL status of neutrinos has been disputed [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/20/us-science-neutrinos-idUSTRE7AJ0ZX20111120]. Of course, further experiments and analysis should settle that issue eventually.

The last I heard, the confirming experiments have been conducted and the findings have been replicated.

The point, however, is not that this particular finding is relevant, but that findings do occur which adjust our understanding.

Besides, even if neutrinos were shown to travel faster than light, how is it any sort of issue that neutrinos aren't mentioned in TOS (IIRC)? Ex: Birds fly but they aren't components of airplanes. How do we know any FTL properties of neutrinos could be harnessed to make a working FTL engine?

The point is NOT that neutrinos have been mentioned, but that findings like this can and have been used by fans to speculate and evaluate Treknology.

Quantum teleportation, for example, is not mentioned in Star Trek, but that didn't stop Christopher from speculating that this is how Star Trek teleporters do work.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Note: the FTL status of neutrinos has been disputed [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/20/us-science-neutrinos-idUSTRE7AJ0ZX20111120]. Of course, further experiments and analysis should settle that issue eventually.

The last I heard, the confirming experiments have been conducted and the findings have been replicated.

Just to make sure our facts are all straight, the article you linked to cites results (at http://www.nature.com/news/neutrino-experiment-replicates-faster-than-light-finding-1.9393, dated Friday, November 18, 2011) already covered in the article I linked to. Your article has nothing new - the jury is still out, like I said, and likely will be for at least this year, if not for years to come. Despite claims of replication, this would be a major scientific finding, so therefore would require the highest standard of demonstration, and other groups have come forward disputing these results. We'll just have to wait and see what the final word will be.

 

[YARN]

Note: the FTL status of neutrinos has been disputed [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/20/us-science-neutrinos-idUSTRE7AJ0ZX20111120]. Of course, further experiments and analysis should settle that issue eventually.

The last I heard, the confirming experiments have been conducted and the findings have been replicated.

Just to make sure our facts are all straight, the article you linked to cites results (at http://www.nature.com/news/neutrino-experiment-replicates-faster-than-light-finding-1.9393, dated Friday, November 18, 2011) already covered in the article I linked to. Your article has nothing new - the jury is still out, like I said, and likely will be for at least this year, if not for years to come. Despite claims of replication, this would be a major scientific finding, so therefore would require the highest standard of demonstration, and other groups have come forward disputing these results. We'll just have to wait and see what the final word will be.

Thanks for the update.

Note: There never is a "final word" for any theory. As the article I linked to states: "a basic to scientific investigation is that you can never completely prove a theory. A theory is tested experimentally and you can never run an exhaustive series of tests. And all it takes is one negative proof to require, at least, a change in the theory. What exciting new discoveries might be brought to light?" Relativity theory is one of the most heavily tested theories in the history of science. Even relativity theory, however, may someday be placed in the dustbin of history. These neutrino findings, for example, are a threat to the relativistic status quo. Of course, this is not to say that there is not any (more or less) stable consensus we can point to at any given time. And I agree that it is to early to claim that there is any consensus about the neutrino findings. Nevertheless, the history of science is chock full of surprising findings and theories which have been overturned. Mentioning neutrinos is just a means of illustrating a point: "No scientists, let alone Hollywood writers, could have guessed the CERN experiments would come up with results suggesting that neutrinos travel faster than light." The general point, which still stands, is that it is anachronistic and potentially unfair to use the "reality criterion" (as I have defined it) to describe, interpret, and evaluate Treknology.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

TNG and Voyager namedropped physics concepts that were new at the time. Is this invalid, because those concepts weren't in TOS? Because Voyager mentioned stuff that wasn't known to the writers (or anyone else) at the time TNG was made? Is this an unreasonable projection of the present day on poor old anachronistic Star Trek?

Nope.

 

[YARN]

TNG and Voyager namedropped physics concepts that were new at the time. Is this invalid, because those concepts weren't in TOS? Because Voyager mentioned stuff that wasn't known to the writers (or anyone else) at the time TNG was made? Is this an unreasonable projection of the present day on poor old anachronistic Star Trek?

Nope.

This is an aspect that deserves consideration. Some anachronisms are retconned others are purely speculative.
Timo commented in another thread, for example, that he feels that phasers are miniature transporters. This speculation is not part of the show, but Timo (as Timo does) could provide a pretty good justification for how it fits facts of the case.

With regard to the retroactive continuity, there are limits to how much we can assume one reality overlaps with another even on an episode-by-episode basis in the same series.
How many "hardest substances known to man" have we seen? Whether or not neutronium is the hardest substance depends on the episode you are watching. That is a detail that is meant to be forgotten, not remembered.

Now, when we speak of details shared in later series, should we be forced to assume that everything which is true for TNG is true for TOS? No. They are in slightly different universes. We pretend these worlds intersect, because we enjoy imagining that Trek is one big consistent universe. But it isn't. So is it invalid to claim that what is true for Voyager is not true for TOS? Possibly.

 

[diankra]

You're pointing out a very good point about the original series: given some of the people involved, I suspect they could have come up with something that now seems more credible than the slightly dated 1960s stuff that youngsters tend to see/dismiss.
But that wouldn't have been acceptable to 1960s audiences. It had to be a compromise, and now we can retcon it (as an out of series example, the early Doctor Who story The Edge of Destruction centres on a spring getting stuck. But nowadays, the retcon is that, as the TARDIS interior exists solely as a creation of the TARDIS computer, this is just a physical analogue for the real logic loop problem in the computer that's creating the physical reality).
To quote another Who-related comment: "It's not that you can see the strings. It's that you're still looking for them, 40 years later'. The original lot pitched it right between wonder and seeming everyday (for the characters).

 

[T'Girl]

How many "hardest substances known to man" have we seen? Whether or not neutronium is the hardest substance depends on the episode you are watching.

Neutronium isn't supposed to be unusually hard, it's unusually dense. Both gold and lead are quite dense, neither is considered particularly hard, or strong.

 

[YARN]

How many "hardest substances known to man" have we seen? Whether or not neutronium is the hardest substance depends on the episode you are watching.

Neutronium isn't supposed to be unusually hard, it's unusually dense. Both gold and lead are quite dense, neither is considered particularly hard, or strong.

SPOCK: From the outpost's protective shield. Cast rodinium. This is the hardest substance known to our science. -- Balance of Terror


It is assumed, though unclear, that neutronium is a harder substance than rodinium since neutronium seems to be impervious to weapons fire while rodinium can be destroyed by Romulan plasma torpedoes. However, according to Spock, rodinium was the hardest substance known to Federation science as of 2266. (TOS: "Balance of Terror") Neutronium was mentioned in 2267 during the confrontation with the Doomsday Machine. So, it is possible that neutronium was first discovered by the Federation sometime between those two incidents. -- Memory Alpha

(TOS: "The Doomsday Machine"). If this is the same neutronium as in neutron stars in the sense of ultradense matter, it could not exist without the enormous pressure inside the star and would therefore explode. Anyway, it would be heavier and harder than any substance that can normally be found in space--Memory Alpha


KIRK: A large deposit of diamonds on the surface. Perhaps the hardest substance known in the universe. -- Arena


SPOCK: Our scanner survey was correct, Captain. There it is. Pure tritanium.
KIRK: Fantastic. 20 times as hard as diamond.
SPOCK: Twenty one point four times as hard, to be exact. - Obsession


KIRK: Composition of walls?
SPOCK: They're an alloy or substance completely unknown to me. Much stronger and harder than anything I've measured before. -- Return to Tomorrow

Less embarrassing than inconsistencies on Star Trek (it was, after all, only a show) are the various apologies offered to straighten them out.

It's make-believe. We are asked to pretend that these things, these people, and these events exist. When Voyager refers to TOS we are NOT being asked to assume that these shows exist in the same world in all the particular details that have ever been mentioned in passing by characters in Trek shows. The fictional world of Trek is burdened with too many contradictions to exist as a coherent fictional world. But the point of literature is not 100% coherence of a possible world, but just enough coherence (and other tricks of plausibility) to allow us, invite us, and even seduce us into playing along so that the story can be enjoyed.

The standard, therefore, has to forgiving. And that is what I am proposing here.

 

[Tomalak]

This is just round two of your closed "Star Trek Is Already Steampunk" thread, isn't it?
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=153163

That thread is epic. I'm just enjoying my biohumanity while I still can, by pouring myself a large glass of whisky.

 

[Tomalak]

The standard, therefore, has to forgiving. And that is what I am proposing here.

I'm at a loss. You seem to be assuming that anyone discussing Star Trek thinks that every utterance on the various series and films must be taken as literal truth.

This is not the case. There are so many disparate and contradictory references throughout the last half century, and everyone knows reconciling them is impossible.

The central conceit of all "Treknological" discussions is that in some cases the characters were mistaken or misreported, and sometimes we have to fill in the gaps and imagine what they "really meant" in order to fit it all together in a plausible narrative.

We all know it's just a fiction, and any discussion of Trek Tech is simply an extension of that fiction. The technology as depicted in Star Trek may seem anachronistic to us; the fun is to postulate why some of these seemingly antiquated technologies are plausible in the fictional future as depicted in Star Trek.

 

[YARN]

I'm at a loss. You seem to be assuming that anyone discussing Star Trek thinks that every utterance on the various series and films must be taken as literal truth.

At it's most ambitious, the fill-in-the blanks game (played by Treknologists and Canonistas) is one of establishing that Trek is compatible with our world, that it represents our possible future, and that it is internally consistent. In terms of shared chronology, this is impossible (no Eugenics Wars, for example), but this does not stop Treknologists from arguing about the plausibility of warp drives and transporters, complete with citations from Wikipedia, Discover Magazine, and speculations from Michio Kaku.

To play this game one has to invoke the reality criterion (establishing that Trek's world meshes with our own world). This criterion is increasingly difficult to satisfy when fictional technology from the 1960's faces the realities of the 21st century.

I am not proposing that we give up the game, but rather that we consider not invoking the reality criterion in describing, interpreting, and evaluating Treknology.

This is not the case. There are so many disparate and contradictory references throughout the last half century, and everyone knows reconciling them is impossible.

Right, Trek is not an internally consistent reality. It is not consistent. One series contradicts another. Often one series contradicts itself.

That was my point about "hardest substances." Even if we can explain away all the hardest substances with tortured apologetics and by squinting hard enough, how many contradictions remain?

The central conceit of all "Treknological" discussions is that in some cases the characters were mistaken or misreported, and sometimes we have to fill in the gaps and imagine what they "really meant" in order to fit it all together in a plausible narrative.

Right, you're playing the fill-in-the blanks game. Ultimately, this requires treating Trek like a buffet and disregarding facts reported on screen (assuming that a character was mistaken). At the point, that you are picking and choosing which facts to believe, however, the game of tying it all together has failed. It makes more sense, in my opinion, to forgo our grand ambitions of knitting one reality, and limiting discussions by series, and in some cases, even by episode.

We all know it's just a fiction,

Strawman much?

and any discussion of Trek Tech is simply an extension of that fiction. The technology as depicted in Star Trek may seem anachronistic to us; the fun is to postulate why some of these seemingly antiquated technologies are plausible in the fictional future as depicted in Star Trek.

My proposal is not to end the fun, but how to sustain it.

There are other criteria we can use than the simple reality criterion.

 

[sojourner]

So, I am not sure what the point here is? Are we going to have a referendum and put this to a vote? Pass a law? Contact the U.N.? Are people suddenly going to stop trying to explain things away now that you've enlightened a couple people that read your thread?

 

[YARN]

So, I am not sure what the point here is? Are we going to have a referendum and put this to a vote? Pass a law? Contact the U.N.? Are people suddenly going to stop trying to explain things away now that you've enlightened a couple people that read your thread?

It's an idea. People can do with it what they please.

Are we not supposed to discuss our ideas here unless we have some realistic expectation of changing the world? If so, we'd better lock all the threads...

 

[Tomalak]

My proposal is not to end the fun, but how to sustain it.

There are other criteria we can use than the simple reality criterion.

But you are the only one who seems to think there is a problem. Everyone else is perfectly happy talking about Star Trek as we always have done, but you have created a problem (which is a minor issue) and then offered... I don't know what.

The whole conceit is that we use creativity and conjecture to try and fit Star Trek into our reality. That is impossible, because Trek is a fiction we've created. We all know this, but it's a fun way to extend our enjoyment of the show. Some people make fan films, others write stories, others make costumes and go to conventions.

I really don't understand what a successful outcome would be for you.