Quantum Torpedoes or Nuclear Warheads?

[James Bond]

I was checking out the Quantum Torpedo article on Wikipedia and Memory Alpha. Apparently, Quantum torpedoes utilize Zero-Point energy. That certainly sounds pretty damn destructive, so I started to wonder: Which is more powerful, a quantum torpedo or the average nuclear warhead of today?

 

[kv1at3485]

Note that the whole zero-point thing is only from the DS9:TM (or: the Starfleet wartime propaganda publication that is filled with inaccuracies and misinformation.)

 

[James Bond]

kv1at3485 said:
Note that the whole zero-point thing is only from the DS9:TM (or: the Starfleet wartime propaganda publication that is filled with inaccuracies and misinformation.)

Fair enough. Also from the Memory Alpha article.

According to the videogame manual for Star Trek: Starfleet Command III, the quantum torpedo, "Utilizes an eleven-dimensional spacetime membrane suspended in an ultra-clean vacuum within the projectile. The membrane is then twisted into a string and isolated from the background vacuum, resulting in the creation of a new particle, which is accompanied by the release of a tremendous amount of energy." However, this is a videogame, and possibly inaccurate.

Still though, it's an interesting question.

 

[kv1at3485]

If you want to stick with the straight and narrow: I'll take the fission or fusion warhead. ZPE yields such piddly amounts of energy that unless you're talking about femto-machiens, it's a laughable source of power.

If you want to go by the ST context, quantum torpedoes have been shown to be any more effective than your butt standard photon torpedo on screen. take that for what you will.

 

[Grandpa]

QTorps are more powerful than photon torps which are matter/anti-matter warheads. This would make QTorps far more powerful than fusion bombs.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The total amount of energy released in a fission reaction is significantly less than that released in a fusion reaction. In fact, fission devices are used as DETONATORS for fusion bombs today... the only way that you can get the outrageous heat and pressure required to initiate fusion.

The total amount of energy released from a matter/antimatter reaction is far greater than that of a reaction from a similar fuel mass of deuterium or tritium (both isotopes of hydrogen, remember, just with extra neutrons). Where less than a percent of the mass is annihilated in a fusion reaction (according to E=mc^2), in a matter/antimatter reaction you get nearly 100% annihilation, so the resultant energy output should proportionally higher.

As for "zero point"... since we have NO IDEA how this would work, or even if it WOULD work...or even if the hypothesis behind the idea is remotely sound... well, it's all guesswork, unlike with the prior three which are all pretty well-understood.

HOWEVER, if there really is a "zero point energy field" which basically makes up the "foundation of the entire universe" (which is what the hypothesis basically says), then the amount of energy available if one were to somehow tap into that would be, effectively, completely LIMITLESS. Which brings up all sorts of "doomsday scenario" ideas... great for fiction, but scary as hell if someone did 'em in reality.

 

[Thomas E. Johnson]

I thought a Zero Point Energy discharge is what the "Big Bang" is theorized to have been?

 

[Sec31Mike]

Zed.P.M. said:

kv1at3485 said:
Note that the whole zero-point thing is only from the DS9:TM (or: the Starfleet wartime propaganda publication that is filled with inaccuracies and misinformation.)

Fair enough. Also from the Memory Alpha article.

According to the videogame manual for Star Trek: Starfleet Command III, the quantum torpedo, "Utilizes an eleven-dimensional spacetime membrane suspended in an ultra-clean vacuum within the projectile. The membrane is then twisted into a string and isolated from the background vacuum, resulting in the creation of a new particle, which is accompanied by the release of a tremendous amount of energy." However, this is a videogame, and possibly inaccurate.

Still though, it's an interesting question.

The current cosmological M theory recognizes 11 dimensions to the universe that are needed to form the membrane, or fabric of the universe. The SFCIII theory is consistent with this. They probably consulted recent cosmological works.

A concurrent current theory is that our universe was created when the membranes of two other universes came into contact, if that can put the energy production into perspective.

The amout of energy released when messing with the fabric of the universe itself would be enourmous.

 

[Anthony]

Zero Point Energy is theoretically defined by cosmologists as existing only in an Eleventh Dimensional Manifold, plus one temporal dimension, or time, aka "Creation Energy."

Sheesh.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Anthony said:Zero Point Energy is theoretically defined by cosmologists as existing only in an Eleventh Dimensional Manifold, plus one temporal dimension, or time, aka "Creation Energy."

Sheesh.

Why "Sheesh?"

Zero point energy isn't even REALLY theoretical at this point. We have literally ZERO actual supporting experimental or observational data associated with this. It's HYPOTHETICAL, nothing more.

Granted, the hypothetical basis for this is pretty cool... and if it turns out to be supportable, could totally rewrite the book on, well, just about everything. But so far it really is entirely unsupported.

The problem here is that we're associated mathematical "thought models" with reality. Our "thought models" could turn out to be true... or they could turn out to be 100% bogus. Doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with working them out, but realize that everyone involved... unless they're totally corrupt and not really engaged in science... is actively trying to DISPROVE these hypotheses. The fact that they haven't been disproven so far is promising, but far from conclusive!

 

[Vulcanian]

Quantum torpedoes

It's sci-fi what do you expect?

 

[BragaKiller32586]

Yeah, they were probably called quantum torpedoes because it sounded deadly on paper, lol.

 

[Timo]

QTorps are more powerful than photon torps which are matter/anti-matter warheads. This would make QTorps far more powerful than fusion bombs.

That would depend on whether we're talking about big or small f-bombs, am-bombs, q-bombs...

Antimatter bombs are eminently scaleable by their very nature, at least when you throw in some treknology like forcefields. You could blow up the privates of a housefly or the homeworld of your annoying creature-in-law. Nothing wrong with either a 4.7 microgram or a 4.7 exagram bomb.

Hydrogen bombs, less so, because you need to induce the fusion reaction basically everywhere in your volume of hydrogen at once. With really big bombs, you'd need multiple perfectly synchronized detonators. With really small ones, you couldn't rig a good detonator at all.

As for q-torps, we don't know what sort of a bang they create. Nobody says out loud on screen that they'd give a bigger bang than competition. Indeed, when first used in "Defiant", they seem to do less damage than the usual p-torp volley. And in ST:FC, volleys of them are fired against targets that would warrant one p-torp at best, and might perhaps even be accomplished with a low-yield fusion bomb. But perhaps they are even more scaleable than p-torps, and thus favored in the sort of close-in fighting that the Defiant is designed for?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vulcanian]

The Earth-Romulan Wars were fought with primitive quantum weapons

 

[USS KG5]

Timo said:
As for q-torps, we don't know what sort of a bang they create. Nobody says out loud on screen that they'd give a bigger bang than competition. Indeed, when first used in "Defiant", they seem to do less damage than the usual p-torp volley. And in ST:FC, volleys of them are fired against targets that would warrant one p-torp at best, and might perhaps even be accomplished with a low-yield fusion bomb. But perhaps they are even more scaleable than p-torps, and thus favored in the sort of close-in fighting that the Defiant is designed for?

Timo Saloniemi

I'm not sure I'd agree with you there Timo.

First off, the quantum torpedoes seem to have a big effect on the Borg Cube when they hit it in FC, although you could argue that the whole combined power of the fleet was hitting that spot at that point so it is hard to judge.

Three Quantum Torps completely destroys a Borg sphere which in Enterprise is later said to be 600m in diameter, certainly we have rarely seen a ship that large go down so easily, certianly not a Borg ship.

The Defiant cripples a Cardassian Destroyer with one phaser volley and a salvo of quantum torpedoes, in "Parallels" in TNG the Ent-D does enough damage to escape to a similar ship with numerous phaser volleys and a larger torpedo spread.

The Lakota in "Paradise Lost" has just been upgraded with Quantum Torpedoes and they are considered the edge which can defeat the Defiant not provided by her upgraded phasers or presumably her photons (we see the Defiant fire a torpedo so its hard to belive Lakota didn't, but both seemed to be holding back with the Quantums.

The only other bit of evidence for their superiority I can think of off the top of my head is Quark in "Little Green Men", again implying that quantums are superior.

 

[C.E. Evans]

To me, photon and quantum torpedoes are very much alike--nobody knew what the hell they were originally, but they sounded like cool "futuristicly" weapons.

IMO, photorps were just warp-capable weapons that had a longer range and perhaps more of a punch than shipboard phasers. Quantum torpedoes are presumably an improvement of the design. But otherwise, I think that nuclear missiles would probably have been the weapon of choice on primitive space vessels that do their combat at very close range--something I kind of wish had happened on ENT, but that's water under the bridge now...