What's new

Our tax dollars now tell us that Star Trek's "transporters" are not possible. (2 Viewers)

Seth--L

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 22, 2003
Messages
1,344


That's a bargain. The Pentagon will spend billions (that's with a *B*) to develop some new tank, plane, missile, etc. only to scrap the project because they suddenly realize it won't be cost effective or finally admit it doesn't work.
 

Kenneth

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 31, 1997
Messages
757
I think it's time to form my own corporation "Golden Ticket Inc" so I can study whether we can use Wonkavision to beam people across the world.

I agree the amazing part is this ONLY cost $25,000. Usually they would pony up the 7 mil a year for such a complex project :cool:

Kenneth
 

Ron-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
6,300
Real Name
Ron

Imagine, I could transport crap from uranus to the bowl without even getting up outta my chair.

So our government wastes money, tell me something I don't already know.
 

Dan Mc

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
111
So why is this a bad thing? Like has been mentioned, this is an extremly small amount of money for the DOD. This was only a commisioned paper study to gague feasibility, it's not like they spent millions trying to build something. I hope they are investing in many other future technologies as well.
 

Joe Szott

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
1,962
Real Name
Joe S.
$25K is a joke.

Basically, they paid a Ph.D in Physics for 3 months of time to watch Star Trek, attend geek conventions, and then spend 2 weeks phoning in an essay about a 100 reasons why this crap is obviously impossible. The guy is out there laughing in his Tron suit even as we type our responses, more power to him I say.

I'm afraid to ask how much money the govt has spent looking into "phasers", I'm sure it's a damn sight beyond $25K.
 

Kenneth

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 31, 1997
Messages
757

If one were to lump "phasers" in with energy weapons then it is probably more valid research since various energy weapons are within our technological grasp currently.

Conversion of matter (transporters), faster than light travel, and anti-matter power are more of a stretch since they would rely on technologies and laws of physics we don't currently have access to (assuming they would ever be more than Sci Fi fantasies).

I find it fascinating that they gave a contract to a company with "Warp Drive" in the name. That would already seem to be a dead give away. Maybe "Federation Technologies" or "Romulan Inc" were already working on the Phaser project :)

Incidently, I am surprised it took them 47 pages to explain why it wasn't possible (talk about padding). Since the laws of physics standing in their way are fundamental laws you could explain it in a page ;)

Kenneth
 

ChristopherDAC

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
3,729
Real Name
AE5VI
One of the more obscure branches of mathematics, Transfinite Number Theory, suggests that it should be possible to instantaneously transpose objects from one point to another without requiring them to pass through the intervening distace, but the techniques are as-yet unimaginable and the energy cost is supposed to be quite high.
 

Brad Porter

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 8, 1999
Messages
1,757

I probably shouldn't acknowledge your statement at all, but can you clarify which dollars you consider "wasted" and which you consider well spent - or is it your claim that all NASA funding is a waste. In a thread started by Jack, this is the sort of thing that truly needs clarification.

Brad
 

Dennis Nicholls

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 5, 1998
Messages
11,395
Location
Boise, ID
Real Name
Dennis
It's probably an SBIR project - small business innovative research. You apply for the grant money and they give it to you pretty easily. I did one for the Air Force back in the 1980s. In fact I had to turn up at Wright-Patterson myself to report on my findings.

See www.sba.gov/sbir/ for how to get started on your own project. Jack could try one on cat hair injection in old British bikes.
 

Brian Harnish

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 15, 2000
Messages
1,216
Well, I'll be -- talk about something that's a part of basic physics and can be found in just about any basic theoretical physics book!! All they had to do was spend $24.95 and buy a book that can tell you that. I don't claim to be a Physics Grandmaster, but I've read several different books by Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Michio Kaku, Richard Feynman, Kip Thorne, et. al. And even *I* know that!! :rolleyes

What next? We'll be "...spending $30,000 on a hammer, and $100,000 on a toilet seat..."?! Cripes!

^obligatory film quote entered. :D
 

Kevin M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2000
Messages
5,172
Real Name
Kevin Ray
....so they discovered that if a fly get's in the transporter with you.........you get to bang Geena Davis.....
 

Steeve Bergeron

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 3, 1999
Messages
2,541
Real Name
Steeve Bergeron
I agree.

I think some of you should not be so sarcastic and ironic. There are a lot of things that were considered ridiculous, if not impossible in the past (you don't have to go back very far), that are very possible now. Who can really say without any doubt whatsoever if this or that is impossible in a near or not so near future? Nobody can. Our current science is not that evolved yet.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675

Me. It does not logically follow that because X proved possible, that no one can say that anything else is impossible. NO one will be building perpetual motion machines, for example.

Not in the near OR the far future.
 

Kenneth

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jul 31, 1997
Messages
757

Except the rules here are very fundamental. To break this down, here are the key elements that I can see. We'll just cover the problems with sending a tank, since sending biological things raises even more questions:

1. Law of Conservation of Energy - Basically since you cannot create matter or energy you will have to use energy to convert matter to energy and energy to convert the energy back into matter. Our current understanding of this is that Energy and matter are related using Mister Einstein's basic equation E=mc2. This would be a large of amount of energy conceivably.

2. Heisenberg Uncertainty principle - Before you can transport matter you would need the capability to replicate matter. This would require you understand the makeup of an object at the molecular level. According to Mister Heisenberg you change things through the act of observing them (you can measure an atomic particle's velocity or position, but not both). This would make it difficult to map an object of matter in sufficient detail so that you could recreate it at the molecular level.

3. Entropy - I am pretty sure this is going to come into play in the question of transporting the energy. Keeping your signal free from errors would be critical. Even a single molecule restored incorrectly could create problems. You would have to reconstruct trillions and trillions (at least).

I think these laws are basic enough that it doesn't take a rocket scientist (pun intended) to determine that where matter transportation is concerned we are way out of our league. As an aside, note that in Babylon 5 (which had some good science advisors) even the Vorlons and Shadows didn't have technologies involving matter trasportation. I think although appealing from a sci fi perspective, this particular technology is more fiction and less science.

Cheers,

Kenneth
 

Vincent Matis

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 1, 1999
Messages
491
Location
Belgium
Real Name
Vincent Matis

This is not what Heisenberg said. He said that product of the imprecision on the position and the imprecision on the velocity is a constant... You can't have a PRECISE measure on the velocity and the position at the same time...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,551
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top