What is the least likely StarTrek technologies to be developed?

[Turbinator]

I`d say most unlikely to be developed are those Star trek technologies that require new physics to function like shields, force fields, FTL, transporters, artificial gravity.

Shields, and Force Fields in real life:
A University of Washington in Seattle group has been experimenting with using a bubble of charged plasma to surround a spacecraft, contained by a fine mesh of superconducting wire.[1] This would protect the spacecraft from interstellar radiation and some particles without needing physical shielding.
Likewise, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory is attempting to design an actual test satellite, which should orbit Earth with a charged plasma field around it.

Workers at a 3M factory in South Carolina have encountered electrostatically-charged air that impeded movement, with the problem fixed by properly grounding the equipment causing the stray charges.
Plasma windows have some similarities to force fields, being difficult for matter to pass through.

Transporters:
We already have the very basic, elementary step towards simple matter duplication. Called quantum entanglement, also called the quantum non-local connection, is a property of a quantum mechanical state of a system of two or more objects in which the quantum states of the constituting objects are linked together so that one object can no longer be adequately described without full mention of its counterpart—even if the individual objects are spatially separated in a spacelike manner. Scientists have already conducted an experiment where they duplicated a single atom from one side of the room to the other.

Artificial Gravity "plating":
We already have theory on the existence of Gravitons, if we observe them in nature, and further develop the mathematics surrounding them in a few thousand years wight make them usable to create our own gravity "plating". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton





.

 

[Artlav]

Transporter as described - pulling matter apart and re-assembling require bandwidth only matter can provide, highly unlikely. Might be made based on some other principle, from wormholes to chaos theory.

Gravity plating - fails all consistency you can think of. Gravity generators might be possible, but fall-down plating is just too inconsistent.

Shields as described - lets the lasers thru, but not stopping lights? I don't buy it, too universal and story-selective, lacking consistency. Might appear in some shape or other - a potential barrier, or something.

Most of meaningless technobabble - graviton beams, deflector dish stuff, etc. Just means nothing.

Universal translator: A human can do it, with some time-to-learn restrictions, so it can be made, but likely nowhere near hear-translate-at-once model.

 

[Calsir]

Oups, I read what is the MOST likely... This is why I went for the phaser...

The least likely? Transporter and Warp...

Merry Xmas / Happy holidays

 

[RisingFury]

First off, the warp drive and other methods of FTL are backed up by math as possible.

No, wrong.

There are speculative mathematical models based on many unproven assumptions, with many problems in them. Saying that FTL is definitelly possible is just crap.

 

[Artlav]

There are speculative mathematical models based on many unproven assumptions, with many problems in them. Saying that FTL is definitelly possible is just crap.

It's got to be possible one way or another. Our science might look solid now, but in a hundred years we're likely will be laughing at how ignorant our predecessors were at the start of this century.

 

[Urwumpe]

It's got to be possible one way or another. Our science might look solid now, but in a hundred years we're likely will be laughing at how ignorant our predecessors were at the start of this century.

I don't think. Or do I see you laugh about Galileo today?

If we are making serious and solid science work today, it will last. Even if better measurements require new theories to replace our own.

And as long as we have no observation of FTL travel, it is pretty doubtful to exist.

 

[T.Neo]

And as long as we have no observation of FTL travel, it is pretty doubtful to exist.

That's about as funny as a person from the middle ages denying the possiblity of a car because only oxen and horses exist.

But, yeah. IMO the possibility of FTL being utter nonsense is around equal to the possibility of it being a legitimate means of transport. Science today might not be as solid as we would like to think.

 

[Linguofreak]

For starters: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3v.html

So many people can't seem to let go of the idea of a warp drive, but it can't happen.

If we ever do find a way around the speed of light, it won't look like Star Trek.

I tend to agree with you, but Trek certainly doesn't violate the "FTL, Relativity, Causality, pick any two" rule. They've obliterated causality enough times...

"All of the above".

I do, however, see certain technologies being developed that resemble their fictional counterparts, such as the tricorder and the cellphone.

Alcubierre drives and wormholes are (AFAIK) mathamatically possible, but they run into little problems such as requiring masses more then that of the entire universe to power them. They are not "FTL" in the strictest sense, but they allow far faster travel through space then would be allowed otherwise.

Alcubierre runs into problems with requirements for extreme amounts of negative energy. Wormholes require negative energy, but I think the amounts involved are "relatively" minor (as in measured in masses on planetary or stellar scales for wormholes that are actually human traversable, rather than on universal scales).

Mathematically possible is not the same as physically possible. AFAIR, the Albuquierre paper assumed the existence of a material that has a negative distortion of space-time, roughly equivalent to negative mass.

Physically, this is unobtainium and a violation of thermodynamics in many places (basically you gain negative entropy by it).

No, negative energy doesn't violate thermodynamics. Its physical implications would almost be less scary if it did. It has the potential to obey thermodynamics as far as the numbers are concerned while creating a lot of effects that *look* like they violate thermodynamics.

As far as I know, physicists don't quite know yet whether negative energy is or is not possible, but it makes them uncomfortable (as in "if it is possible, certain types of very weird things could happen, and we wonder why we aren't seeing those things"). There are some observed effects that do suggest it, though.

It's got to be possible one way or another. Our science might look solid now, but in a hundred years we're likely will be laughing at how ignorant our predecessors were at the start of this century.

It doesn't have to be possible.

Our science isn't entirely solid now, but we do have a fairly good idea of where it is and isn't solid, and what new theories could or could not say to be consistent with the observations that led to the current theories. It's at least as likely that in a hundred years they'll be laughing at us for thinking that wormholes *were* possible as that they *weren't*.

And even if FTL is possible, the methods that are most consistent with current theories would require some fairly massive engineering projects, involving gathering and doing strange things to amounts of matter at least on the asteroidal, if not on the planetary or stellar scale. Then it would require moving a large portion of that mass a few light years at sublight speeds. At the end you'd end up with either a wormhole or something like a Krasnikov tube.

The wormhole allows FTL travel between the mouths once they've been manufactured (probably in the same general area of space) and then the mouths have been transported to the places they're supposed to connect.

The Krasnikov tube allows FTL travel along its length, but AFAIK has to be constructed by STL means, and can't be cheap to build.

In the case of the wormhole, you have to be careful what you do with the mouths, or with multiple wormholes, lest you create a time machine, which, if wormholes are possible, will lead in the best case to some sort of event (likely the destruction of one or more of the involved wormholes) which unmakes the time machine before you get to use it, and in the worst case will lead to the creation of a time machine that you actually get to use (along with all the horrors *that* would cause).

With a Krasnikov tube you'd have the same problem with multiple tubes, though I don't think you could get it with just one.

 

[Urwumpe]

Physics and psychology do not mix... Appear like it does not violate thermodynamics works maybe for a jury, but not for physics - if you get more energy out of something, as you put into it, you are on the bad side. And if you get this energy out more, but assuming you can multiply the energy losses of another system, you are pretty deep beyond what is know to be working.

 

[Artlav]

Our science isn't entirely solid now, but we do have a fairly good idea of where it is and isn't solid, and what new theories could or could not say to be consistent with the observations

We only barely started going beyond our planet, who knows what kind of new observations can be attained out there? Maybe there will be a yet-unknown factor at high speeds or out of the bulk of the Sun's gravity well, we can not know about now.

Or, maybe lightspeed is indeed the fundamental speed at which things can MOVE, like in the Life cell game - the interactions only go that fast. In that case, no one prohibits the FTL travel happening without moving.

It might take a planetary scale engineering, but then again, 2000 years ago no human efforts under contemporary knowledge could build a ship capable of reaching the Moon. We can now.

In the case of the wormhole, you have to be careful what you do with the mouths, or with multiple wormholes, lest you create a time machine, which, if wormholes are possible, will lead in the best case to some sort of event (likely the destruction of one or more of the involved wormholes) which unmakes the time machine before you get to use it, and in the worst case will lead to the creation of a time machine that you actually get to use (along with all the horrors *that* would cause).

The notions of causality and time travel is the most alien to me, of all the depictions and explanations not one makes sense. How can you travel in time?
If it's relativity-FTL-causality, then the latter is the most likely one to be the crack.

Why i think the FTL should be possible, one way or another? The universe is so vast, moving only at lightspeed it makes little sense, equally as imagining what a billion years of civilization's evolution looks like. Let's live and see.

 

[Linguofreak]

Physics and psychology do not mix... Appear like it does not violate thermodynamics works maybe for a jury, but not for physics - if you get more energy out of something, as you put into it, you are on the bad side.

Exactly. There are several ways in which it *appears* at first glance that negative mass/energy *does* violate thermodynamics, but when you actually do the math, it in fact *does not*.

Of course, that only says that our current knowledge of physics doesn't rule it out, not that it actually does or can exist. In 100 or 1000 years we might know that it is a possibility, or, probably more likely, we'll have found out that it's utter hogwash.

And if you get this energy out more, but assuming you can multiply the energy losses of another system, you are pretty deep beyond what is know to be working.

Ich verstehe nicht. Auf Deutsch?

 

[Urwumpe]

Ich verstehe nicht. Auf Deutsch?

Negative Energie ist nie bewiesen wurden, sondern einfach als Grundvorausetzung angesehen, es wurde nie gezeigt das negative Energie:

a) existiert.
b) existieren kann.
c) sich so verhält wie in der Veröffentlichung vorausgesetzt.

Das ist eine Menge Glauben. Man kann da genauso gut zeigen, das Moses das rote Meer teilen konnte, wenn er laut Annahmen:

a) Moses heißt.
b) Moses ist
c) Sich wie der Moses aus der Bibel verhält.

 

[Linguofreak]

Negative Energie ist nie bewiesen wurden, sondern einfach als Grundvorausetzung angesehen, es wurde nie gezeigt das negative Energie:

a) existiert.
b) existieren kann.
c) sich so verhält wie in der Veröffentlichung vorausgesetzt.

Das ist eine Menge Glauben. Man kann da genauso gut zeigen, das Moses das rote Meer teilen konnte, wenn er laut Annahmen:

a) Moses heißt.
b) Moses ist
c) Sich wie der Moses aus der Bibel verhält.

Definitely. Whether negative energy exists or can exist has so far not been proven or disproven. And I think that, in the end, it's far more likely to be disproven than proven.

 

[Kyle]

What about Red Matter? You forgot about Red Matter.

 

[Andy44]

You also forgot about those of us who don't speak German.

(I was going to say "unEnglish", but that's what Americans write in youtube comments.)

 

[adamb193]

Negative Energie ist nie bewiesen wurden, sondern einfach als Grundvorausetzung angesehen, es wurde nie gezeigt das negative Energie:

a) existiert.
b) existieren kann.
c) sich so verhält wie in der Veröffentlichung vorausgesetzt.

Das ist eine Menge Glauben. Man kann da genauso gut zeigen, das Moses das rote Meer teilen konnte, wenn er laut Annahmen:

a) Moses heißt.
b) Moses ist
c) Sich wie der Moses aus der Bibel verhält.

Negative energy is not proven, just simply seen as a prerequisite, it was never seen, negative energy.
a). It Exists
b). It Can exists
c). It handles as described in publication
That is a lot to believe, this is like showing how moses parted the Red Sea using the below reasons.
a). Called Moses
b). Is Moses
c). Is Moses of the bible
I apologize for any errors in translation, haven't read, wrote, nor spoken German for 6 months.

 

[Urwumpe]

Negative energy is not proven, but was simply seen as basic assumption (for the math to work), it was never proven that negative energy:
a). Exists
b). can exist
c). behaves as assumed in the publication

That is a lot of believe, it is like showing that Moses parted the Red Sea because he:
a). is called Moses
b). is Moses
c). has the abilities that the Bible attributes to him.

Small corrections in red. But it was pretty well done.

 

[Linguofreak]

Negative energy has never been proven, only considered on principles. It has not been shown that negative energy:

a) exists.
b) can exist.
c) has the properties postulated in scientific literature.

That is a set of beliefs. One can just as easily show that Moses could part the Red Sea if one assumes that he:

a) is called Moses.
b) is Moses
c) has the properties of the Moses of the Bible.

"publication" and "a lot of believe" need a bit of clarification (in red).

 

[Torgo]

My physics professor was a huuuuuge Trek fan, and we derailed a lot of classes talking about 'Star Trek' physics.

His take on it was that while most of the tech wasn't feasible today or in the near future, once you have resolved the issue of infinite energy (the ST Dilithium chamber / warp core), all bets as to what is possible are off.

His biggest bugaboo wasn't mentioned in the list, though, and was a favorite class discussion. When I accelerate in my car from 0 - 70, I am pressed into the back of the seat. Why then, when accelerating from 0 - Warp 9 or full impulse power are the crew not turned into little jelly smears on the back wall? Even if you account for the FTL travel being performed by warping space around the ship, impulse power is portrayed as standard physical acceleration, and when they kick the ship into gear, no one is affected.

So, in honor of my favorite teacher ever, I vote Inertial Dampener.

 

[Linguofreak]

Inertial Dampeners are already covered by Artificial Gravity.

If you can do Artificial Gravity, you can do Inertial Dampening.