Treknology and the Reality Criterion

[YARN]

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.

Well, there are PROBLEMS (You have advanced brain cancer) and there are problems (Hmmm, analogue gauges on a 22nd century space ship?).

Others have agreed with me that Trek is dated technologically. As time goes, by it will only become more dated. Judge 19th century science fiction by the Reality Criterion and prepare to put Verne and Wells in the dustbin. One person in this forum has even contended that 2001 is now hopelessly out of date.

I am simply suggesting a different way to play the game here. I am not trying to eliminate anything, but am attempting to start a discussion about how else we might proceed. I don't need to establish that there is any horribly pressing problem to be solved, only that it may be advantageous (comparatively) in some circumstances to play the game a different way.

The whole conceit is that we use creativity and conjecture to try and fit Star Trek into our reality.

Must it be "The whole conceit"? Is there no other way to play the game?

Reality Criterion = fitting Trek into our reality. An explanation succeeds if it can be fitted to the world as we know it today.

Here are two different criteria we might use:

Local Science Criterion: An explanation succeeds if it fits the picture of science which predominated at the time of the creation of the artwork.

Local Pop-Cultural Criterion: An explanation succeeds if it fits with the pop-cultural understanding of science which predominated at the time of the creation of the artwork.

In terms of interpretation, the local science criterion is more accurate than the reality criterion -- there is no way that writers in the 1960s would have been thinking of Tachyons or Dark Matter, so it does not make sense to assume that we should read such science (and attendant technologies) into the text.

In terms of evaluation, my criteria are more forgiving. That is, we don't wind up judging TOS or TNG negatively for failing to have anticipated science/technology X.

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

A successful result for me is simply to discuss an idea.

What is a successful result for you when you post a thread?

 

[Pavonis]

Just using your "local science" criterion, we can say that cast rodinium, being a processed material, is in a different category from the naturally-occurring "hardest substances", such as diamond and tritanium. Unprocessed rodinium could be unremarkable in its properties, but after processing becomes remarkably strong.

As for the diamond versus tritanium competition for "hardest substance", your "local science" criterion can be invoked again. Diamond is hard, but brittle; tritanium may be 21.4 times stronger than diamond's fracture strength, without being more resistant to abrasion than diamond.

 

[YARN]

Just using your "local science" criterion, we can say that cast rodinium, being a processed material, is in a different category from the naturally-occurring "hardest substances", such as diamond and tritanium. Unprocessed rodinium could be unremarkable in its properties, but after processing becomes remarkably strong.

As for the diamond versus tritanium competition for "hardest substance", your "local science" criterion can be invoked again. Diamond is hard, but brittle; tritanium may be 21.4 times stronger than diamond's fracture strength, without being more resistant to abrasion than diamond.

There will be circumstances in which alternative criteria will arrive at the same results via (more or less) the same evidence as the reality criterion. In such circumstance, there is no need to complicate the games we play as Treknologists.

Even here, however, we should have a pause. Are diamonds the strongest material? New Scientist reports about diamonds that:

The gemstone lost its title of the "world's hardest material" to man-made nanomaterials some time ago. Now a rare natural substance looks likely to leave them all far behind – at 58% harder than diamond.

Kirk's speculation that diamonds are possible the hardest substance is falsified (under the reality criterion) by the existence of nanomaterials that he, as a future human, should have known about.

Lonsdaleite, a rare natural substance, if it is 58% percent harder than diamond, then it knocks tritanium out of the box (as tritanium is only 21.4% harder than diamond)!

In circumstances where the scientific assumptions of one generation (as evidenced in an old-school episode or movie) is seriously at odds with our latest scientific findings, alternative criteria offer an alternative way of forwarding the game without being forced to pretend that our fictional friends from the 1960s accurately predict 21st century science and tech discoveries/creations.

 

[Pavonis]

Actually, the line is "21.4 times", not 21.4 percent. So the future-fictional material tritanium still wins.

And anyway, I think the central conceit of treknology discussions is the need to flesh out details for ourselves that the characters take for granted. There's no specific need to fit treknology into our reality, just to make what we glean from onscreen self-consistent.

 

[YARN]

Actually, the line is "21.4 times", not 21.4 percent. So the future-fictional material tritanium still wins.

Point taken.

And anyway, I think the central conceit of treknology discussions is the need to flesh out details for ourselves that the characters take for granted. There's no specific need to fit treknology into our reality, just to make what we glean from onscreen self-consistent.

1. Even this is a doomed task. Trek contradicts itself quite a bit. Even the consistency criterion will have to be localized to a series-by-series or even episode-by-episode basis.

2. This isn't a game that all Treknologists are playing. You misrepresent what "we do" when you claim that we're merely attempting to construct internally consistent realities. When Christopher, for example, starts talking about quantum teleportation as an explanation of Trek transporters, we're beyond the realm of internal consistency.

3. Coherence is an important criterion and should take precedence over the reality criterion. More important than agreeing with our reality, a fictional reality should agree with itself. What you bring up is the most important aspect of any Trek discussion.

4. It is, however, not the only aspect. Treknological discussions involve going beyond the text to speculate, engage in apologetics, offer criticism, etc. If we were to strictly limit ourselves to considerations of coherence, our discussions would be over-limited. What I propose is a middle course between demanding absolute fidelity with reality and effectively shutting down the fill-in-the blanks game by restricting dialogue to considerations of internal consistency.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Every story about Martians suffers from this same problem. It's one that's been recognized and dealt with for years.

 

[Pavonis]

What on first glance appears contradictory can often be reconciled by attention to detail and context. For instance, "hardest" can mean different things. Do the characters refer to tensile strength? Resistance to fracture? Resistance to deformation? We assume the characters know what they're referring to in the context of their discussions even when we the viewers do not. But we can infer the details.

 

[YARN]

What on first glance appears contradictory can often be reconciled by attention to detail and context. For instance, "hardest" can mean different things. Do the characters refer to tensile strength? Resistance to fracture? Resistance to deformation? We assume the characters know what they're referring to in the context of their discussions even when we the viewers do not. But we can infer the details.

And when it cannot, there's always the tortured explanations of fans. The problem with these speculations is that they generally go well-beyond the text. You assume that when Spock says "hardest" in one context he does not mean the same thing when he uses the term in another seemingly similar context. One would suppose, on this view, that Kirk has additional background information which we do not, that he knows that in one context Spock is referring to "resistance to fracture" or "resistance to deformation." But this is to introduce hidden evidence as an explanation. At the point that we assume this, however, the text does not really matter, and the consistency principle which you raise is moot. If we are allowed to assume that Spock means something different by hardest each time he uses the word, we might also suppose that he means something different when he says "captain," or mentions a date, or refers to a disease, or technology. Whatever would disambiguate his allegedly variant intended meaning of "hardest" across different contexts is unknown, so the question is resolved by supposing hidden evidence.

I propose that it is much more sane to look for coherence and fidelity locally, than to try to make the carpet fit the entire room (of the series and/or Trek canon).

 

[Pavonis]

Hardness is a general term, and can refer to different properties of a material. That's just a fact of real life, so I'm not invoking "hidden evidence" by assuming Spock the scientist is using the term in a specific context understood by the individual with which he is conversing.

 

[YARN]

Hardness is a general term, and can refer to different properties of a material. That's just a fact of real life, so I'm not invoking "hidden evidence" by assuming Spock the scientist is using the term in a specific context understood by the individual with which he is conversing.

Spock never tells us what he means on any given occasion when he utters the word. He just uses the word hard as if it needs no more specification (and Spock was always one to be punctilious about little details). If there were no apparent contradiction (if Trek only once referred to a hardest known substance), we wouldn't think twice about this. It is only because of the apparent contradiction (i.e., precisely because we aren't told), that fans engage in these imaginative projections.

Instead of accepting the most plausible explanation that the writers simply weren't paying that close of attention and that "hardest" is a good bit "extreme" for a sci-fi story - that is - instead of just accepting that Trek contradicts itself on this account, you assume that Spock must have meant something different on these occasions. And this means going beyond the text. You tell us that Spock meant something different than "hard" in some universal sense, but that there are contextual features that imply that characters were using the term differently on different occasions. But we don't know what these features are, and so you resolve the difficulty via a plausibility argument to hidden evidence.

 

[Pavonis]

Alternatively, we could infer that the Federation was enjoying rapid advancement in their materials science research, with consequently rapid change in their hardest known substance.

See, there's enjoyment in taking the canon dialogue of the episodes and spinning stories about the implied background context. A fully-fleshed fictional universe must have some background, but the characters needn't discuss the background in detail endlessly.

YARN, you're too quick to resort to blaming the writers. Of course, the writers are the problem, but it's too easy to do that.

 

[YARN]

Alternatively, we could infer that the Federation was enjoying rapid advancement in their materials science research, with consequently rapid change in their hardest known substance.

See, there's enjoyment in taking the canon dialogue of the episodes and spinning stories about the implied background context. A fully-fleshed fictional universe must have some background, but the characters needn't discuss the background in detail endlessly.

YARN, you're too quick to resort to blaming the writers. Of course, the writers are the problem, but it's too easy to do that.

I can dig it. And when we can, without too much contortion, play the game in terms of the reality criterion, I don't see why not.

My contention is that there are other ways that we can play the game. We might limit ourselves to one series or one arc of one series or one episode. We might limit ourselves to the reality criterion of the age in which it was written.

I think that there is fun to be had that isn't as stringent as imagining that Trek really is a possible future for us.

 

[Lord Manitou]

I have my own revelations about Treknology. It takes only a little insight to know much of technobable is creating crutches or what might look like a crutch that makes things work like anti-gravity, dampening field, holo-decks, shields, phasor guns and warp-drive. These latter are not technobable items but visions that come through the door from advanced, stout hearted and creative individuals. The technobable are items acrued to help the viewer in their everyday lives and help us to think. If they didn't do that I'm sure science fiction would be a sorry place indeed.
One thing that destroys courage is their is no proof for any of it. This might prove to be a stopping sign for any further communications.
1.) If their was just a working model of anti-gravity which seems ludicrous because their is no working model of gravity.
2.) If someone could idealize a shield that might displace 1/50 gram using a 1 cm square lamina.
3.) If their was a lab that devoted a percentage of its resources to make inertial dampening.
It is these examples that are not outside of our technical viability.
This addage was coined from the book 'The Making of Star Trek'. "There is an old saying that if you stick with something long enough you will eventually make it."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You kinda had something with the "technobabble as a crutch" thing, but then you lost me with the "where's the proof" schtick.

Proof of what? They're science fiction writers, not physicists, in fact if the quality of writing in the latter phases of Star Trek are any indication their understanding of the physics was cursory at best.

The technology was devised purely for the coolness factor and the explanations for how they worked were only as plausible as they needed to be so as not to be mistaken for "a wizard did it." The destruction of courage comes when you push the envelope of plausibility way too far and your device is actually explained as "an inverted tetryonic pulse did it." You begin to wonder if they even know what they're talking about or is the universal translator spitting out random gibberish so the bad guys can't hear what they're really saying.

The technology of Star Trek is meant to be PLAUSIBLE, not necessarily realistic or provable. That extra bit of realism wouldn't benefit nearly as much as simply not pulling nonsensical tech phrase out of thin air to explain every little thing.

 

[Lord Manitou]

Primarily, I disagree. You underestimate the writers. You don't need a degree in physics to conjure some viable excursions into a realm of possibilities.

The destruction of courage comes when you push the envelope of plausibility way too far and your device is actually explained as "an inverted tetryonic pulse did it.
You begin to wonder if they even know what they're talking about.

1.) inverted- a word used to describe; an adjective
2.) tetryonic- an adjective derived from tetryons|| tetryons- a crutch or something immaginary
3.) pulse- energy that fluctuates periodically
Number one and three are used in this technobable and are easy to understand when used in day to day life but number two is immaginary and so are all its derivations and extensions.
What I said that the only things that are real is the list of the latter (anti-gravity, dampening field, holo-decks, shields, phasor guns and warp-drive.) How many are their in Trek beside these things that are real?

 

[YARN]

Primarily, I disagree. You underestimate the writers. You don't need a degree in physics to conjure some viable excursions into a realm of possibilities.

The destruction of courage comes when you push the envelope of plausibility way too far and your device is actually explained as "an inverted tetryonic pulse did it.
You begin to wonder if they even know what they're talking about.

1.) inverted- a word used to describe; an adjective
2.) tetryonic- an adjective derived from tetryons|| tetryons- a crutch or something immaginary
3.) pulse- energy that fluctuates periodically
Number one and three are used in this technobable and are easy to understand when used in day to day life but number two is immaginary and so are all its derivations and extensions.
What I said that the only things that are real is the list of the latter (anti-gravity, dampening field, holo-decks, shields, phasor guns and warp-drive.) How many are their in Trek beside these things that are real?

As much as I would like it if Star Trek were Hard Science Fiction, it is not.

I do like your reminder in your earlier in this thread where you remind us that real world engineers often lack a complete theory explaining their technologies. Writers too often assume that by then we'll know almost everything (except for, perhaps, the idea the writer wants to focus on in HIS/HER story - It's the hardest substance! It's the biggest thing ever! It's the fastest! It's the first! etc. etc.
I liked how, for example, in the early DUNE novels, Frank Herbert said no one in his world really understood how a Holtzmann [Sic?]Field Generator worked. A more easy going ignorance in Treknology (on the part of Trek writers) would eliminate a lot of Treknobabble and (ironically) be more "real world."

As for the rest of what you suggest, however, you seem to be insisting that we (the fans) squint a bit harder and just accept the plausibility of these technologies, because WE are in a state of ignorance about the possibilities of future technologies. But if this is so, we should sit in respectful silence and merely shrug when Trek fails the suspension of disbelief test. But this isn't what drives Treknologists (fans interested in discussing Star Treknology). We want to consider internal contradictions, failures of explanation, successes of Trek's conjectures about the future, ramifications of canonical references (if X exist and Y exist, then is Z possible?) and so on.

We have to be careful in lowering the bar for Treknology. At a certain point, the admonishment that "it's only a show" or "anything could happen in the future" is a nuclear move which shuts down Trek-Tech talk. We have to give ourselves some permission to count some references as stable (i.e., canonical) and to compare some aspects of the Trek world with our own.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Primarily, I disagree. You underestimate the writers. You don't need a degree in physics to conjure some viable excursions into a realm of possibilities.

True as that is, there's no reason why their depictions have to be grounded in provable scientific theories. Just extrapolations from them is usually good enough. Star Trek has never been hard science fiction, and never will be.

The destruction of courage comes when you push the envelope of plausibility way too far and your device is actually explained as "an inverted tetryonic pulse did it.
You begin to wonder if they even know what they're talking about.

1.) inverted- a word used to describe; an adjective
2.) tetryonic- an adjective derived from tetryons|| tetryons- a crutch or something immaginary
3.) pulse- energy that fluctuates periodically
Number one and three are used in this technobable and are easy to understand when used in day to day life but number two is immaginary and so are all its derivations and extensions.

Cool. Now explain to me how that word salad technobabble is preferable to, say, a purpose-built device called a "DC2" that just happens to do exactly what the characters need it to do?

That is to say, which of the following sounds more plausible?
1) "We might be able disable the locking mechanism by generating an inverted tetryon pulse."
2) "We might be able to disable the locking mechanism with a DC2."

Starfleet officers don't need to know how their devices work to use them effectively; more importantly, they don't have to PRETEND to know, and neither do the writers, and we'd probably be better off if they refrained from doing so.

What I said that the only things that are real is the list of the latter (anti-gravity, dampening field, holo-decks, shields, phasor guns and warp-drive.) How many are their in Trek beside these things that are real?

None of it's real. But they are all realistic to various degrees. That has less to do with science and more to do with presentation.

 

[Pavonis]

I think that there is fun to be had that isn't as stringent as imagining that Trek really is a possible future for us.

I'm still not clear on why you think anyone is focused on that aspect of treknology discussions. Do you mean that, in general, we shouldn't consider treknology to be constrained by real-world physics?

 

[YARN]

I think that there is fun to be had that isn't as stringent as imagining that Trek really is a possible future for us.

I'm still not clear on why you think anyone is focused on that aspect of treknology discussions. Do you mean that, in general, we shouldn't consider treknology to be constrained by real-world physics?

I think that people are, because their discussions plainly announce that they are. I don't know why you would think that people are not comparing Star Trek to the real world in our discussions. Fans want to speculate about how warp drive works, so they bring in what they know about physics. People want to know if a holodeck could really exist, even in principle, so they refer to speculative science. People want to know if parts and functions of the ship "make sense," so they make comparisons to real world naval vessels.

At certain point, it does not make sense to compare Trek to the real world.

1. In terms of historical contingency, unless your narrative is set far into the future it will be falsified by actual historical events. We did not experience a third world war in the 1990s. In 2001 we did not find a monolith on the moon.

2. In terms of universal principle, you run out of traction too. There can only be one hardest substance in the universe, even if that universe is fictional. The scientific thinking that informs the design of your spaceship will antiquated in thirty years. So, do you accept that it is "just a story" (ending the game), or do you torture your explanations to try to force to fit old science fiction into modern scientific explanations?

There are, however, other criteria available. We might, for example, try to figure out how the engines of the TOS Enterprise would've (speculatively) worked in terms of 1960s science. We might also ask what the show really did and meant in terms of what the original audience would have taken from the text. Certainly, if we were to evaluate the science and technology of TOS, it would be most unfair to compare it contemporary science and technology. That would be like judging a song to be a failure (even if it were the smash hit of its time), because it does not fit with today's contemporary pop.

 

[Pavonis]

OK, YARN, how do you think the Big-E's engines work, based on 1960s scientific knowledge? I reckon the big tubes sticking out the ventral secondary hull react matter and antimatter and distort spacetime. What do you think?