The Physics of Star Trek

[Trurl]

I think “Space” should have its own thread here at SFN. I want to do a lot of reading on space.

 

Such topics as:

·         Space Simulators

·         Space Dynamics

·         Terraforming

·         Mining Space

·         Space Station Design

·         Moon Bases

·         The Apollo Computer

·         Space Navigation

·         A Video Game of Space similar to Mine Craft

 

But I have a question that relates to space. And is more serious than it sounds:

When the Enterprise goes warp speed how does it avoid objects in space, such as comets, dust, and planets?

 

Also, the Enterprise shots photon torpedoes without a reaction force sending the ship with an opposite force. I don’t understand photon torpedoes, but wouldn’t it be simpler to send a torpedo at warp speed, that instead of causing a small part of the ship to be damaged, would totally obliterate the enemy ship. This torpedo would act as F = ma and the resulting energy release would destroy everything.

Also, the shields can’t stop such a torpedo. There are “shield harmonics” (like in sound) that block the energy of phasors. Stopping a solid object would be more difficult. So, lasers and phasors are blocked, but traditional projectiles such as missiles are not.

Finally, when a space ship is hit by a projectile, I would like to see it spin end over end out of control in space, before the propulsion engines could make the necessary adjustments.

I know there is a book called “The Physics of Star Trek.” It may have these answers. All that I have read so far is the inertia dampers prevent the force of coming out of warp speed from acting on the passengers. Has anyone here read the entire book? I don’t know if my questions are answered there. I shouldn’t question the physics of the ship, since Scotty and Spock make it work. It is shows like these why we are interested in science in the first place.

[Mordred]

Well there is a ton about Star Trek that has very little to do with science. Some of the list above for instance. Attempting to apply physics to their shields etc is pretty much impossible. Too many inconsistencies to even try

[Janus]

17 minutes ago, Trurl said:

 

 

 

But I have a question that relates to space. And is more serious than it sounds:
 

 

When the Enterprise goes warp speed how does it avoid objects in space, such as comets, dust, and planets?

 

 

 

Also, the Enterprise shots photon torpedoes without a reaction force sending the ship with an opposite force. I don’t understand photon torpedoes, but wouldn’t it be simpler to send a torpedo at warp speed, that instead of causing a small part of the ship to be damaged, would totally obliterate the enemy ship. This torpedo would act as F = ma and the resulting energy release would destroy everything.

 

Also, the shields can’t stop such a torpedo. There are “shield harmonics” (like in sound) that block the energy of phasors. Stopping a solid object would be more difficult. So, lasers and phasors are blocked, but traditional projectiles such as missiles are not.

 

Finally, when a space ship is hit by a projectile, I would like to see it spin end over end out of control in space, before the propulsion engines could make the necessary adjustments.

 

I know there is a book called “The Physics of Star Trek.” It may have these answers. All that I have read so far is the inertia dampers prevent the force of coming out of warp speed from acting on the passengers. Has anyone here read the entire book? I don’t know if my questions are answered there. I shouldn’t question the physics of the ship, since Scotty and Spock make it work. It is shows like these why we are interested in science in the first place.

 

As already noted, it is a bit difficult to answer questions about a fictitious TV show with real physics . (particularly when what these systems are and are not capable off can change from episode to episode, depending on the plot. (Did you ever wonder why, in the episode where the transporter splits Kirk in two, they didn't just send a shuttle down to get the crew stranded on the surface? . The answer is that, at this point of the series, they didn't have a shuttle. (the network wouldn't budget them the money needed to build a model or mock up)  It wasn't until later that they got their shuttle.

But that isn't to say that they at least didn't make an effort to answer some questions.  How did the Enterprise avoid objects?  First off, that big disk on the front was the part of the main deflector, which had the job of deflecting the small stuff.  Really large objects like planets are pretty well spaced out and in known positions.  They also had long range sensors( based Sub-space radio technology?) that would give them enough warning to steer around anything too big for the deflector to handle.

Photon torpedos, were antimatter contained in a magnetic bottle and propelled by a small warp engine.  The original concept was that they were meant to be used while in warp flight where the Phasers, being energy weapons, would have been useless.   This rule ended up falling to the wayside.

I have a copy of "The Physics of Star Trek".  It isn't about trying to explain things in Star Trek, but more in the lines of talking about what things in Star Trek do or do not make sense using real physics.

 

[Trurl]

Excellent reply.

I just was thinking that instead of anti-matter, anti-gravity would more efficiently propel ships. Instead of breaking up energy and using that massive amount of power released to power a warp engine, using the gravity that already exists in matter, would make more sense. We already sling-shot satellites off planets orbits to speed them up. If gravity was controlled there would be more versatile and realistic solutions.

Also, if artificial gravity did exist, wouldn't it just cause forces that would terminate the inhabitants of the ship. When a rocket leaves for space the G-forces exerted on the astronauts are significant. So artificial gravity on the ship would mean that a warp drive would increase its forces. But again, if there were artificial gravity, it would be a better alternative to navigate the ship through space by using gravity.

Of course, as you guys mentioned fictitious physics can't be proven. I'm just making this stuff up. But has anyone here ever thought to use their science knowledge to write fiction? I know it's been done before. But what about in college when you had to take English classes? I wrote a short story for class years ago. It didn't get its message across. I had a lot of symbolism in it, but unless you knew why I wrote it the way I did, the point was lost. I'm going to read it again and see if it is worth anything.

[Trurl]

Here is my attempt at science fiction. It is a short story I wrote for a creative writing course over 7 years ago.

 

I reread it. I didn't remember the story. It was like reading it for the first time. But be honest and let me know if it makes you think. You can be honest because I won't be offended. I am not a writer by trade.

story013_final_webcopy.docx

[Janus]

5 hours ago, Trurl said:

Excellent reply.

I just was thinking that instead of anti-matter, anti-gravity would more efficiently propel ships. Instead of breaking up energy and using that massive amount of power released to power a warp engine, using the gravity that already exists in matter, would make more sense. We already sling-shot satellites off planets orbits to speed them up. If gravity was controlled there would be more versatile and realistic solutions.

 

Also, if artificial gravity did exist, wouldn't it just cause forces that would terminate the inhabitants of the ship. When a rocket leaves for space the G-forces exerted on the astronauts are significant. So artificial gravity on the ship would mean that a warp drive would increase its forces. But again, if there were artificial gravity, it would be a better alternative to navigate the ship through space by using gravity.

 

Of course, as you guys mentioned fictitious physics can't be proven. I'm just making this stuff up. But has anyone here ever thought to use their science knowledge to write fiction? I know it's been done before. But what about in college when you had to take English classes? I wrote a short story for class years ago. It didn't get its message across. I had a lot of symbolism in it, but unless you knew why I wrote it the way I did, the point was lost. I'm going to read it again and see if it is worth anything.

Gravity is actually a really weak force. You need a huge mass to produce any significant amount.  As for the "gravity" slingshot.  Gravity is not being tapped to speed the probes up.  Instead, gravity is just used as a means to transfer momentum from the planet to the probe.  We are robbing the planet of some of its orbital velocity and giving it to the probe (this can also be used to transfer momentum the other way and decrease the speed of the probe.)

Artificial gravity is likely a pipe dream.  The only theoretical known way to do this is with mass or energy, and you need a lot of it to produce much.

That being said, in a way, this is how the warp drive in  Star Trek is supposed to work.  Gravity is the curvature of space-time.  The warp drive allows faster than light speeds by compressing space in front of the ship while expanding it behind the ship. It just takes a huge amount of energy to do this, which is why it needs matter-antimatter conversion to generate it.  

Now there are some theories that allows for such warping of space. However, they rely on the existence of "exotic" types of matter(matter which has characteristics unlike normal matter) and we have no real reason to expect that these types of exotic matter can even exist in our universe.  

[Area54]

52 minutes ago, Janus said:

 As for the "gravity" slingshot.  Gravity is not being tapped to speed the probes up.  Instead, gravity is just used as a means to transfer momentum from the planet to the probe.  We are robbing the planet of some of its orbital velocity and giving it to the probe (this can also be used to transfer momentum the other way and decrease the speed of the probe.)

Is it entirely the orbital velocity that is changed? I wondered if a portion of the rotational energy of the planet could be "tapped"?

[Janus]

10 hours ago, Area54 said:

Is it entirely the orbital velocity that is changed? I wondered if a portion of the rotational energy of the planet could be "tapped"?

It's just orbital velocity.  The only way to transfer rotational energy is through tidal interaction, but this is slow and inefficient. 

Consider our own Moon. It gains only 4cm per year in orbital height. That's a gain of 1.33e-6 joules per kg per year gained by the Moon.  This amount of energy gain in terms of equivalent velocity gain is 0.163 cm/sec per year.

And a probe using a planet as a slingshot spends only a relatively short period of time close enough to the planet for this interaction to take place.

It is inefficient in that the majority of the rotational energy lost by the planet is given up through waste heat and not transferred to the orbiting body.

To explain a gravity slingshot, first imagine the probe some distance to the left of a planet. It is approaching it at 2 km/sec on a trajectory that will follow a parabolic path around the planet, so that some time in the future it will again be the same distance to the left of the planet, but now moving away from the planet to the left at 2 km/sec.

Now imagine that this whole arrangement was moving right to left like the planet is orbiting the Sun. the planet's orbital velocity is 4 km/s. So from the sun fixed view, the probe is moving at 2km/ per sec to the left (the relative velocity between probe and planet is still 2km/sec.) the probe whips around the planet as before, and ends up once again moving at 2 km/sec to the right relative to the planet.  But now it is moving at 4km/sec + 2km/sec = 6km/sec relative to the Sun. It started out moving at 2 km/sec to the left and ends up moving 6 km/sec to the left.

Of course, it doesn't quite gain a total of 4km/sec.   Because in the above, we ignored how the planet behaves during all this.  It reacts to the gravitational pull between it and probe also, In the first scenario, it would pick up some speed moving to the left as the probe came in from the left, and then start moving to the right as the probe moved away.  But since its mass is so large compared to that of the probe, its resultant velocity to the right will be infinitesimal, and in the second scenario, we will see it as an equally small decrease in its right to left orbital speed relative to the Sun. 

[Area54]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Until reading your earlier post I had always assumed it was rotational energy that was being tapped, but I had not thought the process through. Your post makes everything clear. Thank you again.

[bellesbarbara]

What do you mean by the Star Trek?

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, bellesbarbara said:

What do you mean by the Star Trek?

Fiction.

[Moontanman]

3 hours ago, bellesbarbara said:

What do you mean by the Star Trek?

May I inquire as to where you live and have never heard of Star Trek? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek

Edited October 7, 2017 by Moontanman