Darwin Xavier well there is a pocket spectrum analyzer that somehow can read out what a material is like a tricorder. It's Goin out in the market soon I guess.
I've seen the software that turns your cel phone into an EKG monitor..and sends the monitoring data to your physician or store it..anywhere....We're getting there.
I've seen the software that turns your cel phone into an EKG monitor..and sends the monitoring data to your physician or store it..anywhere....We're getting there.
Those weren't deflector shields they were just regular shields. Deflectors are to protect the ship from physical impacts at warp speed, rather than shields which protect against incoming energy. Just saying...
shields and d eflectors do pretty much the same job because the deflector shields prevent high speed particles from punching a hole in the ships hull.the other shields are for the bigger thing not just energy discharges as seen in star trek tng stopping the engineering section of a ship from hitting the enterprise
And shields are actually made of metal or wood to stop swords and arrows. Point is, know the difference between full names and the shortened names: deflector shields & navigational deflectors -> shields & deflectors. memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Deflector_shield memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Deflector
Excellent. My thought on 'transporter'..instead of 'scrambling every freakin atom...how about..transforming the 'pad' space into a quantum level that can be moved through space and then re-transformed on a receiving pad? ( Ahh.. I missed a Cub Scout meeting to watch the first episode on STO...way back when..)
I think the terrifying aspect of the transporter, is that the process would essentially kill you and replace you with a living duplicate of you that is entirely unaware that its original has died, and believes with absolute conviction that it is the original.
InfinitaSalo if your body is disassembled, your consciousness will stop. there is no reason for your consciousness to "pause" and then resume somewhere else just because the parts were put together again. in essence, it would be a new string of consciousness.
jamalcolmson Your consciousness is directly tied to the matter and energy in your brain and therefore would be the same if it was replicated. The replicated mind would have the same structure, memories, etc.
InfinitaSalo but it would not be the same string of consciousness. it's like sound. just because you play two identical sounds does not mean that they are one sound. a consciousness is a process, a system, an effect, a behavior of sorts. if it stops, it's over.
"How do we take from a living thing a digital image of it and recreate it as a living thing. That's, um, that's an interesting problem." I get the feeling this is the understatement of the century
"Everything they do has a basis in physics" That was until JJ abrams got a hold of it and now shit works off pixy dust just because "insert coincidence in a mystery box"
pretty decent video. However the deflector dish is not the same as shields as she describes... the deflector dish repels matter away. This is why the ships can travel so fast and not worry about hating anything small in front of them. If a ship travels at warp1 and hits a pebble... its toast.
I really don't like the transporters. I'm with Bones on this one, but for different reasons. His concern was being scatterd across space and never reassembled (or at least, never reassembled correctly) while mine is that we will not actually transport the material across space, we will destroy the person on one end and then rebuild the person with new material on the other end, which would not be the same person, and even if we did send the material across space there's a problem with memories where if the connections in your brain regarding your memories are ever destroyed, even if you rebuild them they won't contain your memories. We don't really have any way of making that part work, so it still wouldn't be you.
I don't know, neither do any kings or high priests. But that's the prevailing theory these days. Unless something like a soul or life force can be demonstrated to exist, it is presumed that it doesn't (a-wooism). A simulation would make copying even easier as it's just pure data at that point. In that case, you are your data. There is no _real_ you (in a physical, non-simulation sense), there is just sim you. However, if you consider yourself real, then you are real. That includes every copy, clone, backup, etc. of you that feels that it's real as well. You think therefore you are.
It doesn't kill you and put a clone at your destination. On the show, people are depicted as being conscious and aware while they're in a transporter matter stream.
@@PongoXBongo You didn't understand his point. He's correct. Your will would be gone. Your control would be gone. So even if there's another you somewhere else. You aren't in charge.
@@pizzaparkerhotdogmaguire3225 I never implied that you would be in control of the other yous. They would all be you to start, like a snaphot, but quickly diverge as they experience their separate existences. . My main point was that all copies would be just as real as you are. That implies a _lack_ of control on your part.
I wish videos like these actually had experts on Star Trek’s fictional science and tech on hand. Trek is surprisingly hard scifi, especially when you include supplemental materials like the technical manuals. Basically every aspect of the technology is explained in-universe, and it would be much more interesting to hear these real-world experts reacting to the minutia of Trek’s technology. Give Mike and Denise Okuda a call!! Or any hardcore trekkie. At the very least get someone there that knows the difference between deflectors and shields lmao. The magnetic shielding NASA uses sounds a little bit more like the 22nd century “polarized hull plating” tech than deflectors or shields.
I read a while that some researchers have been able to transport or "beam" a light particle/proton from one end of the lab to another. If we were to do this for organic material, I suggest something small like skin cells first. You can probably measure if it's the same cell by its rate of decomposition.
Just recently a Chinese team was able to "quantum teleport" a packet of information from Tibet to an orbiting satellite. And in theory, if you can send data, you can send anything. ;)
Once they go through the transporter, they are essentially immortal. If they die at any point after they were copied, they can be simply assembled again indifinetly. It's like respawning in a video game. Their original version is destroyed anyway, so it shouldn't matter.
I find it odd that scientists say that it would be easier to create a bubble around the ship to allow the warping of space and time when multiple times in most if not all of the star trek series they refer to it as "the warp field bubble" and that the the ship uses said bubble to travel faster than light. The warp engines use the explosive power of matter and antimatter to form the warp field bubble in which the ship sits and manipulates for different warp factors. Oh and lets not forget the full name of warp drive Time Warp drive
Two major problems with Beaming were not addressed: 1. Digitising every atom/… of one' body results in WAY too much data. 2. We can't even do that, because of the Uncertainty Principle.
One issue is the transporters. They stated it makes a copy of the pattern and re-created elsewhere. That's not what the transporters are doing, because YOU wouldn't be transported anywhere, you'd just make a copy of yourself elsewhere, never having traveled.
Never thought about it before but hat Muirhead said made me realize that everytime the characters use a transporter they are killed. Then a facsimile is reconstructed in their image. So they become copies of the original.
Having the nacelles so sticking out, unarmored and exposed, is a blaring defect that never would be implemented.... in a shooting battle it would be so easy to knock them out, once the shields are down....
"The theory behind warp drive is matter/anti-matter" That is literately just the fuel for the engine, encased in a warp core, sending highly charged plasma through conduits to power the actual engines in the nacelles..
The matter transporter (and food/material replicators, protein re-sequencers, particle synthesizers..... by extension), should be THE piece of Star Trek technology that should be highly prioritized. Why? It opens the doors to pretty much all the other technologies seen on the show. A matter transporter could possibly allow an A.I.-equipped deep-space probe to be able to essentially take care of itself, particularly when it starts running low on power......... it can beam aboard additional radioactive material for fuel, while beaming out spent material (either directly outside of the probe, or preferably into some sort of matter reclamation chamber). Imagine using a transporter in such a way that you could re-arrange and manipulate the very quantum strings comprising each atom to form other types of matter.............. perhaps hydrogen gas at a specific pressure........ for thruster propulsion.
People always ask what's the scariest episode of star Trek, but the better question what's the scariest part of trek, well the transporters are because it just kills you, clones you, then transported you to another location
The Battlestars in BSG could be anywhere from 500m-4km long.. I'd qualify that as "bigger" then any of the Enterprises. And in the reboot they're quite a bit more realistic than most sci-fi shows.
actually we do have deflector shields, it is a magnetic shield that contains a certain type of plasma that absorbs kinetic energy detonating explosives before reaching the target (like reactive armor). flip phones came first (the first props for the communicators were upside down flip phones).
What..lol. The first flip phone was designed in 1982. Star Trek aired in 1966. Hell the first cellphone was used in 1972, that's 6 years between star trek and the first cellphone much less a flip phone.
yep, looked it up. took one of the articles about behind the scenes stuff at face value. shows what happens when you listen to proper news. thanks for correcting me.
The problem with the teleporting thing is that having your body deconstructed on a molecular level has this little problem of you DYING in the process. That's the tricky thing we need to figure out how to keep from happening.
It is not so bad to die, as long as you are resuscitated in a timely fashion. For example, people are often deliberately killed during heart surgery and resuscitated later.
Dying is dying, it doesn't matter what form it takes. As long are you're brought back in a timely fashions it's as if it never happened. This is physics, not philosophy. ;)
No you electromagneticly speed up subatomic particles in a human body and modulate and transmit it to another place. Then demodulate the signal and slow down the bodies subatomic particles.
This is interesting but in the first movie TMP in 78 Enterprise at full max impulse speed just under the speed of light got out of our solar system in about 4 minutes
I hate to say it, but the technology to take us to the stars is something we may not have in 5,000 years never mind 500. Relativity throws up some serious road blocks to interstellar travel. In 500 years we may be living and working on the worlds of our own solar system, but what's seen in Star Trek is something we're nowhere near achieving. Truthfully if we do travel to the stars and we don't find a way to get around the relativistic effects(which there may not be a way around Relativity) it will very likely be a process of one way trips, of saying good by forever to what, to who you're leaving hind. As in those who leave never come back and those of us who stay behind don't live long enough to find out if they ever made it to where they were going. So those who leave would be in effect severing all ties to the world they left.
I thought the concept of the warp drive and instant communication across vast distances was based on the idea of subspace, not warping actual time and space.
The Mastermage Gravitons are theoretical particles that carry gravitational force, like photons carry the electromagnetic force. If gravitons exist, there may be a way to excite particles to emit gravitons. Sort of like how a laser emits photons in a controlled way.
Whenever they said "we don't have that" what they didn't say is that we don't think that's possible. Deflector shields and especially warp drives aren't possible in the science we know.
"In the science we know" is definitely the appropriate phrasing. We do know, for example, that tachyons can travel faster than light (theoretically). And we know that space-time can be "warped" by objects such as black holes. It's certainly possible, if we can warp space around an object, that object could then travel at speeds unattainable in normal space-time.
By the same logic, we also "know" that vampires are killed by silver bullets and wooden stakes. Tachyons aren't real. For space to warp in a way that would allow travel, we would need something with *negative energy*, something that also doesn't exist.
The problem with a plasma window is that you need something to hold the plasma there. Whatever is holding the plasma would be destroyed by whatever its trying to protect against, releasing the plasma and causing it to be ineffectual. To make an actual plasma shield, you would need some way to create a magnetic trap at a distance, which isn't possible. If you were able to create artificial electric fields like we can with magnetism, that would work, but that isn't possible. You could always throw matter at something in order to block it, which is essentially what Boeing's "plasma shield" does. But you lose the matter in the process. The only way I can think of making a real plasma shield possible is if could find any two forces that can be artificially generated, once of which attracts, and one of which repels, you could create a real plasma shield. So I suppose that might be possible. I know that there's something known as gravitational magnetism, but the amounts of mass or angular momentum needed for anything significant are absurdly high, even for a type 3 civilization. And then all you have left are the nuclear forces. But I can't think of a physical reason this isn't possible like I can for warp drives.
"That's very clearly not what Star Trek's shields are doing." Which is why I dismissed it.. "Warp Drive exists in this series, making that a nonissue." Sorry, I thought we were talking about real physics, not star trek universe technology..
Radio, video, flight, and the instantaneous transmission of information from one side of the planet to the other were all impossible with the "science they knew" 500 years ago. Things change and we learn to understand what was not possible often is.
The biggest problem with putting humans in space is humans are taileroed for surviving on earth. For spacetravel we need to reimagine humanity and engineer them to be tailerod for space travel. With advances in 3d printing, ai and other technologies that will be possible. One key feature is shrinking the spaceship to nanoscale or possible further. We just need to send many seeds just like mushrooms that will grow and redo the process.
I think realistically in the long term the idea of a star-ship like the enterprise is not very likely. What's more likely to me is the evolution of our own awareness and consciousness as human beings. Changing the very concept of what it means to go from point A to point B. Everything that exists in the Universe is essentially different variations of light and frequency. Like music it's all a matter of understanding and playing the right notes. Virtual Reality (The Holo-deck) will eventually be so good that one won't be able to tell the difference. IT may seem even more real to us than reality itself. As such I believe some form of tele-presence is far more likely. The experience will be the same as if you were actually there, so essentially you are there and there is no difference. Perhaps things are a lot closer than what we think they are. Perhaps we will become like the "Q" "Exploring the possibilities of existence"
how would one know what a place looks smells and feels like or rather how would one know how the program should be if the place in question was never seen to begin with?
Yep that also makes me think, in that case, you would have to be isolated and protected from the real world to live that nearly perfect/imagined world. But the thing is whatever happened in the real world would affect you in some way you wanted it or not. So supposing you are pertmanentlly inside that virtual representation. You may be thinking you are in the other side of the milky way.. but real and random events could not be replicated and anticipated in that virtual world. It's a bit like the machines/robots technology that uses the human energy in Matrix. They could have made a virtual reality making all the people sleeping believe that they were in a distant future or in another planet/world. But if some cataclism occurs to your real enviroment where your physical body is, that virtual reality enviroment would be destroyed along with you. Also Q being a demigod it has no necessity to travel to discover new worlds as it seems they know them all, in all times, he lives in another plane from our reality, so yeah it would be like playing virtual reality for him..
I think having ships like enterprise is very likely, probably not for another how ever many hundreds of years, but there is someone out there right now dreaming of making them.
that too, since space is made from "something" their is no problem manipulating it if we ever figure it out, so many possibilities... but advanced science gets harder to understand the more deeply u go into it
Since the Enterprise is able to land on a planet and take-off again under its own steam there's no real requirement for it to have been built in space.
The transporter is a replicator with a fancy disintegration function. You don't need metaphysical terms like a soul to describe you consciousness, but you still have a point of view (POV) in your own free roaming self contained biological system. Many duplicates of you would have their own POV, all divergent experiences after replication regardless of being exact copies atom by atom. Your POV will end in an instant during transportation and a new POV will emerge on the other side not knowing any better being an exact duplicate.
Has the franchise ever addressed the idea of cloning individuals deliberately via the transporters? I know it's happened a few times by accident, but why not, for example, store Data's pattern and print out 100 copies of him?
Transporters and replicators utilize the same technology. Replicators create matter from energy using a stored pattern. Transporters transform matter to energy, record the pattern of the matter, transfer the energy to another place, and recreate the matter using the same pattern. Individuals have been duplicated by accident (e.g. Kirk, Ryker) because the process looped and repeated itself, creating the same matter twice from the same pattern. So, it's obviously possible. I'm just wondering if it's ever been done by design.
finao o it wasn't successful, but they did try it with Moriarty from the holodeck in an episode of TNG - it wasn't exactly the same but it was about trying to reproduce someone in living matter. The only other example I can think of that is even close to those accidents was the voyager episode "Tuvix", where Tuvok and Neelix were accidentally combined, and Janeway deliberately had to separate them and create two individuals again. that's the closest example I could think of.
Ok, the physics of a molecular transporter is one thing, but what about the ethics of it? What would happen if you simply reconstructed someone, but never deconstructed the person they were scanned from? Would they be the same person? Would they share the same consciousness? If they're unique, then what would this mean if we were to have deconstructed the person we scanned? Would they die? When we watch Kirk transported into The Enterprise, are we also witnessing his murder? So many questions...
The molecules are "de-bonded" from one another. They're not annihilated. If they were, you'd have the energy of a thousand atomic bombs released. The debonded molecules are transported, then recompiled back into the original form. Of course, you could debate about simply scanning someone and recompiling OTHER matter to make a digital copy... That's raise some ethical questions. Me, I'd keep an 18 year old pattern of myself handy for new transplant fodder.
the transporters though; I have Always argued that the system in the show is not actually a "transporter" but is a "copier." I believe that if this technology existed, the person that comes out of the beam is not really the same person that went into it, but would be a copy of the original. The copy would have no idea that they were a copy and probably wouldn't question their reality, but the original person that stepped into the system would then be dead and replaced. How would you know if you were actually still the original you or a brand new copy (possibly a perfect copy of a perfect copy of another perfect copy)?
They talk here and there of the "matter stream", meaning your molecular components are broken down, transmitted, then reassembled. If you were converted to energy, there'd be a huge E=MC² explosion.
that same amount of energy has to be used to reassemble a person as well, though it doesn't exactly have to be an explosion, but a massive release of energy. if you capture the energy and channel it through the transporter then you don't have to produce the energy needed to reassemble the person, though you do need to redirect it. by capturing all of the energy there wouldn't be any sort of external effect (kinetic wave, heat, light, etc.).
Ummmm.... no. Physics doesn't work that way. Converting matter to energy results in a massive explosion. This is how nuclear bombs work. Any nuke mushroom cloud explosion you've watched on video? That's with a) a SMALL amount of fissionable material (The Nagasaki bomb only had 2.2 pounds of plutonium) and b) relatively low efficiency. Now, if a transporter totally converted a person to energy, it'd be at 100% efficiency. You'd completely annihilate the ship and a good chunk of the planet below. Converting matter to it's base molecules does not release that kind of energy. Hook wires to a chunk of copper and a chunk of steel, set them in an electrolyte solution, connect the wires to a battery, and you release molecules. It does not explode, it simply breaks down molecular structures and allows them to move. Star Trek records a pattern of what's being transported, breaks it down to its molecular level, sends the MATTER stream somewhere, and reassembles it according to the pattern.
basically she just repeated how to build a huge star ship exactly as star trek tng enterprise was built at utopia planitia it was brought up in sections from the planet it was never meant to take off from a planet if i remember correctly
matter and antimatter engine and nacelles. First we need fuel, deuterium isotope ( heavy water) and how to reverse polarity to create anti deuterium. tricoders are not padd or ipads, if anyone here is a real trekkie. the tricoder is a diagnostic tool, thats why star trek universe have scientific tricoder and medical tricoders. Deflector shields are to protect the ship for any damage. when ship is at warp, the deflector dish is the one active. The titanium shielding of nasa is good but, is better to polarize the hull plating of any ship. How to polarize is the mystery. We are very far away but, time and determination is our friend.
I love those things. It would be possible for George Washington to have kissed a baby, who as an old man (without going into triple digits) kissed a baby, who later on in his nineties kicked back for a night of "The X-Files," "Boy Meets World," and "The Nanny." OK, so he has weird tastes in TV.
Yeah well, that's why I also say we should try to get a space laboratory and construction facility up, if we ever want to get serious about FTL research and development. But, nobody cares about that. Everyone just cares about profit-making on Earth.
Jorx Molina That scenario is only entertained by the audiences of entertainment. It a nightmare fiscally, logistically, safety, and energetically. -You'd need the biggest thickest, flattest slab of concrete ever created. It would surely could not not be a permanent structure, even with seams, it would crack and rupture with weather and sifting soil. -Geology and weather are a whole other can of worms. -Building antimatter cores on Earth surfaces would be like working with many times the US nuclear arsena and if anything goes wrong it would be a Yellow Stone Eruption level event. -The crane structures and infrastructures would be humongous and would themselves be a feat of engineering. That includes the support structure for the ship since none of them are designed to be balanced on a planetary surface but Intrepid and Voyager. -Such sights would be the most hazardous occupational areas of the world. The likely hood of falls at every turn simple could not justify such and effort. -The lost of power could destroy the entire project because what ever magic fields keeping all this up would allow gravity to bring it all down in a unrecoverable heap of metal. Sorry not everything dreamed is possible.
The concept of a maritime drydock seems absurd as well. Why build a ship on land when you have to launch it into the water anyway? But as it turns out, building it *in* the water would be the actual fiscal, logistical, energetical and safety nightmare.
Most of the atoms in your body are replaced in a span of a few years. You could argue that a transporter would do the same just "faster", so human conciseness is just the right atoms in the right place to make the right neuron pattern. You could say that conciseness is just the "collective voice" of billions of neurons talking to each other. Plot twist, we are the borg...
It's funny that when I was a little kid, I watched ST and wanted a communicator and the rest of the stuff that the away crews always had... Now I have a cell phone that is capable much of Mr Spock's tricorder could do, with a cell tower that is! LLAP!
Two people from NASA, both whom are presumably very smart people with advanced degrees in one or more fields of science or engineering, and probably a better or at least equal command of the english language than most other people make the same mind boggling stupid error I would expect of a child. Yes. People who at NASA--people who should actually know better because they work _actual spacecraft_--still call it the _"Star Trek Enterprise."_
Indignant? No. You missed the point entirely. These people work on spacecraft. They're supposed to be familiar with the terminology, yet they say "Star Trek" as though it were synonymous with "space ship." It would be like saying "Star Trek Millenium Falcon" or "Star Trek Apollo 12." Truthfully I can forgive this idiotic gaffe most of the time because _most people are too stupid or lack the education to know any better._ The people at NASA shouldn't be.
Seriously? Somewhere between all the physics, calculus, and engineering training, you think they should have been taught the nomenclature of a TV show? SERIOUSLY??? And, you've never heard someone say "The Star Wars death star"? Saying "The Star Trek Enterprise" most likely is to differentiate it from THE NASA ENTERPRISE. Yeah, that was a thing. It happened. Stay angry, my little trekkie friend.
Nope. Never heard anyone ever say "The Star Wars Death Star." Have you? Though I _have_ heard a lot of "the Death Star" or "the Death Star _from Star Wars."_ And I'm quite sure no one has ever said "the Star Wars Millennium Falcon" or "the Star Wars Star Destroyer" and not immediately been laughed at for such stupidity. I'm also a hundred percent certain no one has ever said "the Battlestar Galactica Pegasus," or "the Babylon 5 Babylon 5" for the same reason no one ever said "the Knight Rider Kitt." This phenomenon is fairly unique to the ship named Enterprise from Star Trek. It's not surprising, either: a lot of people don't know what the word "trek" means, and most of them mispronounce it as "track," like a child, which only further obfuscates the meaning. Ordinary people have every right to say "the Star Trek Enterprise," because they lack the education and intelligence to understand the words they are speaking. I let that slide because it's norm _for normal people._ But people at NASA? Bonafide _rocket scientists?_ Yes, I expect people who are smart enough to send other people to the moon and robots to Mars to have a better than remedial comprehension of the english language. I also expect them to be familiar with the term _"space ship"_ and prefer it over the obviously nonsensical non term "star track." Nomenclature has nothing to do with anything. Knowing better because they are _experts in the field of space travel_ and should have the vocabulary and intelligence to spot that gaffe is the important bit. I'm not sure why you think I'm angry. You're the one typing in all caps and using an abundance of punctuation. I rather thought my tone was clearly that of _ridicule_ rather than outrage. _You_ seem to be getting a bit riled, though. Even tempered people generally don't reply to 5 month old comments. Maybe you should sit down with a cup of Earl Grey and take a breather?
Wow, that's a huge tl;dr. Just because you little trekkies center your life around a TV show from the 60s doesn't mean the folk at NASA do. And, again- common sense would tell you that a NASA scientist deals with THEIR "Enterprise" far more than one from an ancient TV show. So, sure, it's almost expected that they'd say "The STAR TREK Enterprise". You trekkies would know this if you ventured out into the real world, aside from your silly conventions. Also, men drink coffee for caffeine, not tea.
Why do these so-called scientists always get the concept of the transporter wrong. You're not making a copy of a person every time you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy image becomes worse and worse. If the transporter was a copy machine forget about the moral implications of murdering the original and all of his copies but every time you make the copy that person becomes less and less the person that he or she was and it will eventually shorten that person's lifespan or even cause premature death. The transporter is not making a copy is taking the original person breaking that person down to his original elements as molecules and sending those molecules the same molecules in me that that person reassembling it someplace else. Thus you are not making a copy you are essentially taking apart a jigsaw puzzle moving it to a new destination and reassembling that jigsaw puzzle. Now everyone knows every time you take a jigsaw puzzle apart you take the chance of damaging the pieces that's where the Heisenberg compensator comes in. It ensures that all the molecules go back to its proper place so that any damage to that person can be properly healed through medicine.
