Can the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) Dephase?

[new6ton]

I need to get listing of movies with the following features.

1. The ship can accelerate and stop instantly (or at least do something close to this). Can the Star Trek USS Enterprise do this? It can move at warp speed. So also the ship in Star Wars that instantly accelerated cutting the enemy ship into two (I forgot the title). How do the occupants protect themselves from the Gs?

2. Related or independent of the above. I want to see movies where dephasing of matter can occur. A spaceship can only accelerate and stop instantly without harm to the occupants if it dephases first. Dephasing being anything that dematerialize (or de higgs) the object. The movie The Fly would be a good start.

If the ship can cancel the higgs coupling, can inertia be canceled (at least in principle)? How else can inertia be canceled, or how do the sci-fi world explain it? If Inertia is cancelled, then no Gs would be produced? You can also mention sci-fi novels if it is not yet on the big screen. Thank you.

 

[DavidSnider]

I need to get listing of movies with the following features.

1. The ship can accelerate and stop instantly (or at least do something close to this). Can the Star Trek USS Enterprise do this? It can move at warp speed. So also the ship in Star Wars that instantly accelerated cutting the enemy ship into two (I forgot the title). How do the occupants protect themselves from the Gs?

2. Related or independent of the above. I want to see movies where dephasing of matter can occur. A spaceship can only accelerate and stop instantly without harm to the occupants if it dephases first. Dephasing being anything that dematerialize (or de higgs) the object. The movie The Fly would be a good start.

If the ship can cancel the higgs coupling, can inertia be canceled (at least in principle)? How else can inertia be canceled, or how do the sci-fi world explain it? If Inertia is cancelled, then no Gs would be produced? You can also mention sci-fi novels if it is not yet on the big screen. Thank you.

ST:TNG and later series mention"Inertial Dampeners" but nobody bothers to explain how they work.

They also have a few episodes where the ship dephases. (and one where it re-materializes inside an asteroid and kills the crew). Again, no explanation.

Personally I find it kind of dull when science fiction authors get too caught up in the mechanical details of how their tech could potentially work in the real world. It's better to just leave it handwavey and focus on how the ability the tech gives you affects the world\characters.

 

[new6ton]

ST:TNG and later series mention"Inertial Dampeners" but nobody bothers to explain how they work.

They also have a few episodes where the ship dephases. (and one where it re-materializes inside an asteroid and kills the crew). Again, no explanation.

Personally I find it kind of dull when science fiction authors get too caught up in the mechanical details of how their tech could potentially work in the real world. It's better to just leave it handwavey and focus on how the ability the tech gives you affects the world\characters.

First time for me to hear about Inertial dampers. Cool terms. At least rough ideas would be enough.

And it can make one learn some basic.

Is it not inertia is related to mass. So if the ship can uncouple higgs field. Is inertia entirely gone or could the mass derived some energy of the quarks and particles contribute to Inertia and how much?

I just learn Doom:Annihilation 2019 is due for release soon. Doom part 1 is about Mars and opening portals to hell. This seems related to Event Horizon which is opening portal to hell in space. I like these concepts. Any others like them? And as long as multiverse is not yet falsified. This remains very interesting concepts.

Some like science fiction for the stories. Some like it for the possibilities out there and imagination. I'm more of the latter.

 

[OCR]

How else can inertia be canceled, or how do the sci-fi world explain it?

Heisenberg compensators . . . 🎛

.

 

[Ibix]

Heisenberg compensators . . . 🎛

Patrick Stewart told a story that he once asked one of the behind-the-scenes guys (Mike Okuda, I think) how the Heisenberg compensators worked. Okuda replied "very well, thank you", which I think is the best possible response.

 

[DrClaude]

ST:TNG and later series mention"Inertial Dampeners" but nobody bothers to explain how they work.

IIRC, it is related to the artificial gravity generation. I'll have to have a look at the ST:TNG technical manual.

They should not be necessary for warp travel, since the spaceship itself should not be accelerating in that case.

 

[OCR]

Patrick Stewart told a story that he once asked one of the behind-the-scenes guys (Mike Okuda, I think) how the Heisenberg compensators worked. Okuda replied "very well, thank you", which I think is the best possible response.

I think it was somebody from Time magazine that asked that, although Stewart might

have as well. . . ℹ

.

 

[Janus]

You are going to have an extremely difficult time trying to even get a coherent picture of how fictional ships like the Enterprise work or even what their actual capabilities are. While a somewhat basic idea is usually adhered to, many of the finer details change from episode depending of the needs of the particular story being told.
In the original series of Star trek, they many times used real stars ( Rigel, Gamma Hydra, Pollux) in their stories. But the distance between these stars are such are such that at the general rule for equivalent speeds for warp factors, the Enterprise would have had to have spent the entirety of its 5 yr mission just traveling between them.

There are also inconsistencies in episodes of how long it would take to travel distances. Sometimes saying it would take so long to travel one distance in an episode, and then giving a shorter time for longer distance in another. Trying to piece together all these little bits of info into a consistent model for warp travel would be a nightmare*

You can't even really blame the show runners either. How were they to expect that decades later people would be discussing this show and trying to figure out how things on it "worked"

* Though that has not stopped some fans. I once read a reprint of an article in Trek magazine that tried to address this issue by suggesting that, in addition to warp drive, they made use of "worm holes" that would reduce travel time in cases. The inconsistancy in trip times had to do with where the wormholes were located. Sometimes the destination was closer than the nearest wormhole and you just used warp drive, other times it was quicker to use a wormhole.
Some even go as far as to come up with reasons as to why some different characters from different episodes look alike ( they were played the by the same actor). For example, Number 1 from "The Menagerie " looks so much like Nurse Chapel because they are sisters. (Explaining why Trelane and a Klingon officer look alike takes a bit more convoluted reasoning)

 

[new6ton]

Heisenberg compensators . . . 🎛

About the passage: "A study by Eric Davis for the US Air Force Research Laboratory of speculative teleportation technologies showed that to dematerialize a human body by heating it up to a million times the temperature of the core of the sun so that the quarks lose their binding energy and become massless and can be beamed at the speed of light in the closest physics equivalent to the Star Trek teleportation scenario would require the equivalent of 330 megatons of energy. To meet the information storage and transmission requirements would require current computing capabilities to continue improve by a factor of 10 to 100 times per decade for 200 to 300 years".

Is the purpose of this very high temperature to induce quark-gluon soup which is the same as the quark losing their binding energy?

But then the exact QCD vacuum has not been worked out rigorously. Confinement in QCD really might be due to strings of flux plus a kind of condensation that forces the charges at the end of the string together, but for now there's no proof.

This means that if the device could initiate symmetry formation of some kind, this can induce quark deconfinement without requiring very high temperature. This is very likely because in this elegant universe where fine tuning of all kinds occurs to make life possible (such as making possible Ipads to make your smile). It would be boring or illogical if you can't beam up someone or something (Ipad, etc.) instantly.

 

[member 656954]

It would be boring or illogical if you can't beam up someone or something (Ipad, etc.) instantly.

Not sure why that would be boring, but 'instantly' is not a likely outcome, even if all the gobbledygook about quark binding energy were sensible. Light speed is probably the best you're going to get for the transmission component at least. And I can't readily parse why it would be illogical.

But, I say gobbledygook deliberately, because if you read Davis' study, you will see it is laden with "out of the box" concepts that are more nutty than mainstream. Plus, think about what would happen to anything - human body especially - if you heated it up to a million times the temperature of the Sun's core. You'll "dematerialize" it for sure, but I'd bet $5 nobody will want to be on the receiving end of that transporter beam. "Crisp me up, Scotty", indeed!