Star Trek Forums

NBC (ended 1969)

"Star Trek" technologies

  • Avatar of TelFan7

    TelFan7

    [1]Sep 25, 2006
    • member since: 08/01/06
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 1,015

    Among these three "Star Trek" technologies in which order do you think they will happen (if at all)?

    1. Phasers.

    2. Teleportation.  And...

    3. Warp Drive.

    I think phasers would be the easiest to do (I'm talking dematerialization here not just stun) since once you have the matter to energy conversion it just dissipates (no being beamed to a new location and reassembled).

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of lobomensch

    lobomensch

    [2]Sep 28, 2006
    • member since: 08/08/05
    • level: 51
    • rank: I Broke TV.com (Shatterdaymorn)
    • posts: 2,064
    Phasers. There have been both military and civilian appplications of lasers for years now, can see something like this developed if a government/person wants to invest in it.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Martiangrl

    Martiangrl

    [3]Sep 29, 2006
    • member since: 08/20/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 1,037
    I say phasers first. Warp drive and teleportation have equal chance of coming second, in my opinion.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Oderry

    Oderry

    [4]Oct 2, 2006
    • member since: 07/12/06
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 1,211
    1. Communicators2. Nano Probes3. PhasersAll three of which are pretty much here.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of supperkat

    supperkat

    [5]Jan 30, 2007
    • member since: 11/21/06
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 397
    Warp speed was first,then phaser, torpedo,transporters
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of alex20020712

    alex20020712

    [6]Jan 30, 2007
    • member since: 06/11/05
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 1,742
    Transporters are as "impossible" as you can get, because they do violate the laws of physics. By the way, saying that we will discover or develop new laws of physics that will make the transporter possible is like saying we will discover a new law of gravity that will make fallen apples go back up on the tree.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of BroadwayPhil

    BroadwayPhil

    [7]Jan 30, 2007
    • member since: 01/21/07
    • level: 5
    • rank: Caveman Lawyer
    • posts: 90
    I'm with alex, and say 'phasers.'  Also, some sort of new physics will be needed to get around the absolute speed limit that is the speed of light, and that does not seem to be forthcoming, either.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of 123home123

    123home123

    [8]Feb 3, 2007
    • member since: 05/24/02
    • level: 55
    • rank: Bounty Dog
    • posts: 11,760
    A form of phaser is already in development. The military has laser weapons though they aren't widely deployed yet.

    A show you might find interesting is the History Channel's documentary "How William Shatner Changed the World." Although it should have been called "How Star Trek Changed the World," it still provided a good look at how influential Star Trek was among scientists and inventors. The two-hour special looked at real-life inventions and products that were influenced by Star Trek. William Shatner narrated.

    Among the real-life devices and technologies covered were cell phones, medical lasers that don't cut through the skin, military and industrial lasers, ion propulsion for NASA's Deep Space One probe and voice-controlled computers. The 2nd half of the show got a little goofy and there was a strange interview with a Russian researcher who was talking about time travel or beaming technology. He didn't sound very convincing, but the other products they showed were very real.

    Many of the real-life scientists and inventors were interviewed. The head of NASA's deep space missions revealed himself to be a major-league Trekkie. He said Star Trek inspired him to work for NASA.
    Edited on 02/03/2007 7:10am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of alex20020712

    alex20020712

    [9]Feb 3, 2007
    • member since: 06/11/05
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 1,742
    123home123 wrote:
    A show you might find interesting is the History Channel's documentary "How William Shatner Changed the World." Although it should have been called "How Star Trek Changed the World,"


    No, that was the joke. This was Bill Shatner's show. He did not only narrate, but this show is a companion to his book, "I'm Working on that: A Trek From Science Fiction to Science Fact."
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Tronman100

    Tronman100

    [10]Feb 4, 2007
    • member since: 12/14/05
    • level: 11
    • rank: Red Shirted Lt.
    • posts: 374
    What about UT's? They may not be "universal" (i.e. can translate without the language being preprogrammed) but I'm pretty sure IBM is working on real time voice translation technology.
    Edited on 02/04/2007 9:01am
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of 123home123

    123home123

    [11]Feb 9, 2007
    • member since: 05/24/02
    • level: 55
    • rank: Bounty Dog
    • posts: 11,760
    If online translators provide any insight on the effectiveness of a real-time vocal translator, I think there's a long way to go before we see anything like the UT on Star Trek.

    If translators have difficulty with written language, they would have much more difficulty with oral language. Those speech-to-text programs usually require a lot of training to learn the vocal patterns of a particular user. Even after that, they are far from perfect. I tried out IBM's Via Voice a few years ago and I'd say that it was about 70-80% effective. A translator would have problems with other speakers and background noise will also present obstacles.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of 123home123

    123home123

    [12]Feb 9, 2007
    • member since: 05/24/02
    • level: 55
    • rank: Bounty Dog
    • posts: 11,760
    alex20020712 wrote:
    123home123 wrote:
    A show you might find interesting is the History Channel's documentary "How William Shatner Changed the World." Although it should have been called "How Star Trek Changed the World,"


    No, that was the joke. This was Bill Shatner's show. He did not only narrate, but this show is a companion to his book, "I'm Working on that: A Trek From Science Fiction to Science Fact."

    I'd say it wasn't that good a joke. I still don't see why it couldn't have been titled "How Star Trek Changed the World," unless there was a copyright issue involved.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of alex20020712

    alex20020712

    [13]Feb 12, 2007
    • member since: 06/11/05
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 1,742
    123home123 wrote:
    I'd say it wasn't that good a joke. I still don't see why it couldn't have been titled "How Star Trek Changed the World," unless there was a copyright issue involved.


    It was a joke as an exaggeration of Bill's ego, particularly after the rivalry with other cast members. In the title, he is literally taking credit for changing the world, all by himself.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of 123home123

    123home123

    [14]Feb 13, 2007
    • member since: 05/24/02
    • level: 55
    • rank: Bounty Dog
    • posts: 11,760
    Yeah, I see that, but I still think putting that joke in the title puts too much of the focus on him individually. It's not really a joke if the title takes away from the real point of the show.

    Now that I think about it, it may have been a copyright problem. I noticed that the musical interlude before new scenes used a theme that was designed to invoke the Star Trek theme while trying to avoid being a direct copy. I think The History Channel wanted to avoid any payments to Paramount.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of TelFan7

    TelFan7

    [15]Feb 21, 2007
    • member since: 08/01/06
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 1,015

    Folks this isn't about all of the Star Trek technologies just the three main ones. Which are:

    1. Phasers.

    2. Teleportation. And...

    3. Warp-Drive. Thank you.

    My personal opinion is phasers first (as mentioned in the opening) they shouldn't be to hard ((dematerialization is just like being incinerated by a nuclear bomb, but only one object is affected (because it's a focused beam) instead of whatevers in the radius of the explosion)), than warp-drive, but you'll have to find a way to get past that little nasty rule of nothing can supersede light. In fact it's dangerous to go more than 80% lightspeed that's when you start to shrink, at 90% your half your size, and at lightspeed your a singularity (just like a black-hole would do to you,as well). Tachyons if they do exist (don't know if they've actually been discovered or not) alway go faster-than-light but how would you be able to capture them for use? And we all know the dangers of matter and anti-matter the show uses.

    I'd be deathly afraid of doing teleportation the Star Trek method which is taking apart your atoms energizing them and beaming them through space. Some scientists say you may not be able to beam energized matter and instead would have to make a copy (clone if living being) out of atoms in the surrounding open space. So in other words you'll be DEAD and at the destination would be your near instantly developed clone!! In other words teleportation is just like faxing and at the other end is a copy, not the original. And even if you could beam the original matter would the mind (soul for those who believe), consious, what makes you you be able to be beamed?? See how scary that is to think about?

    But there is a safer alternative and that is what I (and maybe other, I don't know) call Worming ((or Instant Teleportation (much faster than Star Trek's since you've eliminated travel), or Momentary Teleportation (a moment is the shortest measurement of time, since no time at all has passed, a moment is time standing still or stopped)) which is basically doing teleportation as if you're going through an artificial version of a worm-hole. If your not that advanced it can be done with machines, but if more advanced psionically. You would just bend space and bring two places together, probably just like what Hiro, Jeannie, Q, and others do, and as that classic chidrens sci-fi book "A Wrinkle In Time" does!!!

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of alex20020712

    alex20020712

    [16]Feb 21, 2007
    • member since: 06/11/05
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 1,742
    TelFan7 wrote:
    but you'll have to find a way to get past that little nasty rule of nothing can supersede light.


    As I understand the issue, there is nothing in the Theory of Relativity that says you cannot go faster than light. It says you need infinite energy to accelerate any mass to the speed of light. There are some theoretical ways to do this [go faster than light], without actually going *at* the speed of light at any time.

    TelFan7 wrote:
    In fact it's dangerous to go more than 80% lightspeed that's when you start to shrink, at 90% your half your size, and at lightspeed your a singularity (just like a black-hole would do to you,as well).


    Well, not exactly. Assuming you have the energy to get to that speed, and somehow you have "deflector shields" for all the stuff out there, you would not perceive any changes to yourself--your size, time, or anything. Another observer, on the other hand, would "see" those effects as you pass by.

    TelFan7 wrote:
    Some scientists say you may not be able to beam energized matter and instead would have to make a copy (clone if living being) out of atoms in the surrounding open space. So in other words you'll be DEAD and at the destination would be your near instantly developed clone!! In other words teleportation is just like faxing and at the other end is a copy, not the original.


    Indeed. Further, what if you rematerialized twice? Which one would be the "real" you?
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of TelFan7

    TelFan7

    [17]Feb 21, 2007
    • member since: 08/01/06
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 1,015

    TelFan7 wrote:
    but you'll have to find a way to get past that little nasty rule of nothing can supersede light.

    alex20020712 wrote:
    As I understand the issue, there is nothing in the Theory of Relativity that says you cannot go faster than light. It says you need infinite energy to accelerate any mass to the speed of light. There are some theoretical ways to do this [go faster than light], without actually going *at* the speed of light at any time.

    That's just a polite way of saying it's impossible since it's impossible to be infinite. Those saying this obviously mean you will NEVER be able to accomplish this since it's an impossibility to have infinite energy (since "infinite" you'll need MORE energy than contained in the entire Universe or an infinite number of universes, see the dilemma there?). What about those tachyons I mentioned? Do you think they can do the trick without having to be totally "infinate" so it won't be an impossibility? I really hate having to use the same words over and over in a sentenance or paragraph, but that's all I can think of.

    TelFan7 wrote:
    Some scientists say you may not be able to beam energized matter and instead would have to make a copy (clone if living being) out of atoms in the surrounding open space. So in other words you'll be DEAD and at the destination would be your near instantly developed clone!! In other words teleportation is just like faxing and at the other end is a copy, not the original.

    alex20020712 wrote:
    Indeed. Further, what if you rematerialized twice? Which one would be the "real" you?

    Neither. Only you before you ever teleport (for the first time) with this method is the "real" you. Once done you're gone, and after each successive teleportation that one is gone also. That's why you should only use the "Worming" method of teleportation, and not the "Star Trek" method!! The so-called "String-Theory" of the Universe and beyond (if accurate and real) may offer a similar method of teleporting as my "Worming" a non-lethal way. I'm calling it "String Instant (or Momentary) Teleportation" this will definately be the BEST WAY to teleport (if possible)!!!

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of alex20020712

    alex20020712

    [18]Feb 21, 2007
    • member since: 06/11/05
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 1,742
    TelFan7 wrote:
    That's just a polite way of saying it's impossible since it's impossible to be infinite. Those saying this obviously mean you will NEVER be able to accomplish this since it's an impossibility to have infinite energy (since "infinite" you'll need MORE energy than contained in the entire Universe or an infinite number of universes, see the dilemma there?).


    I doubt politeness has much to do with it. This is just what the cold equations say :-)

    TelFan7 wrote:
    What about those tachyons I mentioned? Do you think they can do the trick without having to be totally "infinate" so it won't be an impossibility? I really hate having to use the same words over and over in a sentenance or paragraph, but that's all I can think of.


    Tachyons are theoretical particles, and even if they did exist, I have no idea how they could be "used." I guess one way of traveling "faster than light" would be to bend space. e.g., take a shortcut from point A to point C, without ever having to go through point B. You would not need to violate the Theory of Relativity--in fact, you could travel very slowly, outside this universe, and them come out in a different and very distant part of it. But bending space does not seem like a trivial thing to do.

    TelFan7 wrote:
    Neither. Only you before you ever teleport (for the first time) with this method is the "real" you. Once done you're gone, and after each successive teleportation that one is gone also.


    How about this: If the copy is *exactly* like the original in every possible way, down to the last subatomic particle, every thought, every memory, every feeling, how can one be more "real" than the other? How would you tell the difference?

    If this were possible, our concept of individuality would be obsolete.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of TelFan7

    TelFan7

    [19]Feb 21, 2007
    • member since: 08/01/06
    • level: 6
    • rank: Small Wonder
    • posts: 1,015

    TelFan7 wrote:
    That's just a polite way of saying it's impossible since it's impossible to be infinite. Those saying this obviously mean you will NEVER be able to accomplish this since it's an impossibility to have infinite energy (since "infinite" you'll need MORE energy than contained in the entire Universe or an infinite number of universes, see the dilemma there?).

    alex20020712 wrote:
    I doubt politeness has much to do with it. This is just what the cold equations say :-)

    TelFan7 wrote:
    What about those tachyons I mentioned? Do you think they can do the trick without having to be totally "infinate" so it won't be an impossibility? I really hate having to use the same words over and over in a sentenance or paragraph, but that's all I can think of.

    alex20020712 wrote:
    Tachyons are theoretical particles, and even if they did exist, I have no idea how they could be "used." I guess one way of traveling "faster than light" would be to bend space. e.g., take a shortcut from point A to point C, without ever having to go through point B. You would not need to violate the Theory of Relativity--in fact, you could travel very slowly, outside this universe, and them come out in a different and very distant part of it. But bending space does not seem like a trivial thing to do.

    That's basically what "Worming" aka "Space Warping" is. But my method totally eliminates travel and it makes you feel like there's only ever A, that you never even change locations even though you do (the only way you know you're in C is by your surroundings) no B. You can stand-still and it's like instead of you passing through an open-door, an open-door passes through you. This is also like "Instant-Teleportation", aka "Momentary-Teleportation", and aka "String-Teleporatation"!!

    TelFan7 wrote:
    Neither. Only you before you ever teleport (for the first time) with this method is the "real" you. Once done you're gone, and after each successive teleportation that one is gone also.

    alex20020712 wrote:
    How about this: If the copy is *exactly* like the original in every possible way, down to the last subatomic particle, every thought, every memory, every feeling, how can one be more "real" than the other? How would you tell the difference? If this were possible, our concept of individuality would be obsolete.

    Good one. I have no answer to that because there's probably no answer. That's even beyond what I've been talking about. It just goes to prove that the human condition is just about the most complex thing there is. Maybe even more so than the workings of the Universe and beyond (if there's a beyond).

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of alex20020712

    alex20020712

    [20]Feb 22, 2007
    • member since: 06/11/05
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 1,742
    TelFan7 wrote:
    That's basically what "Worming" aka "Space Warping" is. But my method totally eliminates travel and it makes you feel like there's only ever A, that you never even change locations even though you do (the only way you know you're in C is by your surroundings) no B. You can stand-still and it's like instead of you passing through an open-door, an open-door passes through you. This is also like "Instant-Teleportation", aka "Momentary-Teleportation", and aka "String-Teleporatation"!!


    Something like Sliders or Stargate?
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.