Have There Been "gravity engines" in Trek?

[Basill]

^^They did maintain micro singularities in their warp cores, (as opposed to controlled matter/antimatter annihilation) but I think the Romulans simply used that for power generation. They still used subspace manipulation, i.e. warp drive, for actual propulsion.

 

[Ronald Held]

I thought the artifical singularity just provides power for the ship by feeding mass into it.

 

[Timo]

The exact nature of how the miniature black hole powers the ship is not known. The dialogue on it comes from TNG "Face of the Enemy" and "Timescape". The former goes like this:

Romulan informant, Ensign DeSeve: "Romulan ships use a forced quantum singularity as a power source."

Pretty decisive, huh? Also something to be said for brevity.

The latter has this:

Troi:"The Romulans use an artificial quantum singularity as their power source. Once it's activated, it can't be shut down."

That's pretty much it, though. We don't know how the presence of an artificial singularity creates power for the warp drive. Is it something "realistic", like feeding matter into it and having it accelerated into such high speeds and energies that it radiates X-rays and gamma rays that then power the warp drive? Or is it something completely fictional, perhaps directly connecting extreme gravity gradients and subspace fields? No way to tell, really.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Well if you are able to contain a micro quantum singularity and make it rotate it will warp space, srinking it in the front and expanding it in the back making a graviton engine.
I also recall a soliton wave engine of an experimental vehicle that went massively wrong.
The only soliton wave that comes to mind that can be used for propulsion is gravity waves so this could also be a cqandidate for a gravity engine.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

SamuraiBlue said:Well if you are able to contain a micro quantum singularity and make it rotate it will warp space, srinking it in the front and expanding it in the back making a graviton engine.
I also recall a soliton wave engine of an experimental vehicle that went massively wrong.
The only soliton wave that comes to mind that can be used for propulsion is gravity waves so this could also be a cqandidate for a gravity engine.

Uh... you KNOW that rotating a "micro quantum singularity" will warp space? And that this makes a "graviton engine?" Since no one has ever proven the existence of any particle called a "graviton" (it's one of a number of HYPOTHESES on how gravity MIGHT work), I'm having a hard time accepting that.

what I just read struck me more as a recitation of bad science dialog written by the Voyager writing staff than anythign remotely resembling real science.

Am I off-base? Is there actually real-world science supporting what you just said? If so, I'd like to hear about it.

 

[aridas sofia]

This is hardly my area of expertise, but there is an "ergosphere" formed around the event horizon of a spinning black hole, around which spacetime is pulled at c. Inside the ergosphere, space time is dragged at faster than c. This might be what SamuraiBlue is writing about.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Hi Aridas!

I just always feel it's necessary to point out the difference between real scientific fact, theory, hypothesis, and pure fiction.

Whenever I start seeing the term "graviton" tossed around I just cringe... nobody's ever observed a graviton. There is no real math describing a graviton. It's purely hypothetical.

That's my only point. This doesn't say that it might not turn out that what's been stated is actually TRUE... every guess has a chance at turning out to be true, after all.

But as far as any of us know, gravity might be totally unrelated to either "graviton particles" or "warping of space/time." Those are just our best-accepted explanations for the time being.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Since this is a section were we talk about "plausible" science and not "hard fact" science, I do not think your question was needed to be pursued.

I am quite aware gravitons are hypothetical but then warp drive is not hard fact either with many hypothesis that state it MAY be possible.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

SamuraiBlue said:
Since this is a section were we talk about "plausible" science and not "hard fact" science, I do not think your question was needed to be pursued.

I am quite aware gravitons are hypothetical but then warp drive is not hard fact either with many hypothesis that state it MAY be possible.

Well, the whole point of this forum, as I've seen it, is "trying to figure out how Treknology 'really works.' "

So the majority of conversation in this forum focus on exactly what I was gettin' at, in my experience. The fun is trying to make the bogus Treknology actually MAKE SENSE.

It's kinda pointless to say that it works because the writers said it works, and that's that... ya know?

 

[Ronald Held]

Graviataion radiation is indirectly measureable via binary star inspiralling. No one, AFAIR, has directly detected gravitational radiation or gravitons.

 

[Buck Rogers]

May I pipe in here,

First of all gravitons are measurable not by the naked eye,but if an a observed object exhibiting gravitronic properties such as repulsion,bending of spacetime were to be studied in a controlled enviroment like the ISS,Fermilab then would Samuraiblue's hypertheorical conclusion be valid since this post is not in the real world

If this real world discussion were to be moved to Science,and technology the the real science buffs would tear apart your post.
Let's keep this theoretical Ok.

Signed
Buck Rogers

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Buck Rogers said:
May I pipe in here,

First of all gravitons are measurable not by the naked eye,but if an a observed object exhibiting gravitronic properties such as repulsion,bending of spacetime were to be studied in a controlled enviroment like the ISS,Fermilab then would Samuraiblue's hypertheorical conclusion be valid since this post is not in the real world

If this real world discussion were to be moved to Science,and technology the the real science buffs would tear apart your post.
Let's keep this theoretical Ok.

Signed
Buck Rogers

Getting personal are we? Nobody would "tear my post apart." And as for theoretical... your misuse of the term just demonstrates the problem. Theory is a word that has specific meaning, and gravitons are not even "theoretical" at this point.

It's OK to say "Star Trek says this" and leave it at that. But it's NOT Ok to say "gravity is known to be this" when no such thing is the case.

Sorry it bothers you... and you're welcome to disagree... but my point is valid. And the point is... nobody on Earth knows ANYTHING about what gravity really is, or how it really works. We have a mathematical model that, as far as we've been able to measure, accurately represents the BEHAVIOR of gravitation... but nobody has completed any work, either experimental or theoretical, which supports any model for what gravity is. We just don't know... and it does a disservice to the community at large if people go around spreading misinformation... regardless of whether they believe it to be true or not.

Truth is, nobody knows anything about what gravity is, much less how to generate it or manipulate it. We only know how it behaves, and even in this case, only how it behaves in this particular little spot in space/time... it could behave dramatically differently elsewhere... we just don't know.

Pointing that out isn't wrong. Sorry if it offends you.

 

[Buck Rogers]

Ok Cary, I've come arround to your thinking,and totally agree with your statement.
Also it did not offend me,and I was a bit tired so I went totally gung ho,about this topic.

Thanks for pointing out the flaws in my response.

I look forward to more topics of discussion,that we could agree on.

Signed
Buck Rogers