Observing the behaviour of turbolasers and blasters

[His Divine Shadow]

Yes, I think so. It accounts for why the Falcon isn't receiving significant momentum from the TL beam until the impact of the visible bolt in the ESB scene.

Hmm, but how would that actually work?
Is it like an actual physical location somewhere in the beam where the energies are higher?(but wouldn't that also imply STL propagation)
Or is it like mad says? A low-powered beam followed by a quick high power pulse?

[ClaysGhost]

Yes, I think so. It accounts for why the Falcon isn't receiving significant momentum from the TL beam until the impact of the visible bolt in the ESB scene.

Hmm, but how would that actually work?
Is it like an actual physical location somewhere in the beam where the energies are higher?(but wouldn't that also imply STL propagation)
Or is it like mad says? A low-powered beam followed by a quick high power pulse?

This is where it gets awkward, as far as I can see. I suppose in the absence of a (dispersive) medium, the signal should propagate at the same speed (group) as the carrier (phase), so if the beam is composed of massless particles the bolt and the energy arriving at the target together would have to be a (regularly occurring!) coincidence (since the bolt would travel sub-c and the pulse would travel at c), or for some reason intentional.

[His Divine Shadow]

Well, there are references to quotes of blasters being light and particles both, what if the particle part is the dispersive medium?

[ClaysGhost]

Well, there are references to quotes of blasters being light and particles both, what if the particle part is the dispersive medium?

Then we come back to the issue of the medium having to be projected ahead of the beam, so the beam has to wait.

[Mad]

To clarify my theory a little... (and to also clarify the concept of the decay ripple... I didn't come up with the idea of the decay ripple, but have used it in my theory.)

Take a decently long string or cable, with one end anchored to something. Take the loose end and "whip" it up and down once (don't pull the string too tight). What you should get is a single ripple that travels down the string.

The decay theorized for the turbolaser beam is pretty much the same thing. Actually, the "ripple" isn't moving away from the starship so much as it is moving away from the tip of the beam at a very high velocity. (Imagine your string and its anchor moving away from some object very quickly, or it being pulled off a reel. The ripple is moving away from you, but not as quickly as the string is being pulled away, so the ripple still appears to move away from the other end.) It's trying to head towards the turbolaser cannon, but the turbolaser particles are flying away at c, and so the ripple is carried along with it.

The decay is a ripple where the particles decay into photons and exit the beam. Perhaps the decay is caused by whatever process starts the beam, and is carried along be some process as part of the decay. (Umm, in other words, it moves down the beam.)

Since the ripple is carried by the beam, the ripple will naturally stick to the beam even if it moves around (as shown in HDS' clips). But this doesn't always occur. That may just mean that the weapons emplacement redirects the beam so that it keeps the same vector as the ship moves.

However, this means that the decay ripple cannot exist without the beam to sustain it. Hence, hand blasters operate differently despite similar appearance. Probably because the same particles are used, but they are fired differently, such as in a helix as HDS suggested. Unfortunately, nothing seems to explain why normal levels of gravity doesn't seem to affect hand blaster bolts. (And yet dovin basals do affect them.) Maybe whatever causes the helix can also apply a small thrust, and that thrust is automatically determined by the blaster so as to negate gravity.

(EDIT: I've heard that Tibanna gas has anti-gravity properties. Perhaps Tibanna gas, or whatever is in it that gives it anti-gravity properties, is included in the bolt. We know that blasters that use Tibanna gas for ammo are better than other gasses, so either we typically see Tibanna-powered blasters in the movies, or something in Tibanna gas is also used in blaster bolts.)

So turbolasers are fired but need to warm up for a fraction of a second before they can accumulate enough particles to fire the main discharge. It may not be possible to fire the main pulse any sooner than this. That would mean there is always a consistent delay between pulling the trigger and the actual discharge. To aid in accuracy, the small amount leaked out of the starter beam is is done in such a way so as to give the decay ripple an apparent velocity such that the ripple reaches the target just as the main discharge is supposed to hit. (As an aside, the delay explains why turbolasers are less effective at extremely short ranges... the cannon would have a harder time staying on target of fast targets moving at such close range during the entire charging period.)

Of course, while computers on starships can try to hold the beam pretty still despite recoil and ship movements, so that the beam is on the target when the main discharge is ready, it makes for a very inconvenient problem for hand blasters. The person firing the gun would have to hold his gun on target for a fraction of a second after he fires to make sure he actually hits! So, instead, some other method of discharging the same particles would have to be used, where the visible pulse and the damaging component travel at the same velocity (perhaps in that helix pattern, since the particles are massless). I haven't figured out a reason for the blaster bolts fired in the helix pattern to be able to fire more quickly.

If a method for firing blasts more quickly has been developed, then why not use it for capital ships? Because the turbolaser beams can be re-aimed after the trigger has been pulled and still hit the target. Or possibly aborted before the main discharge is fired if the target has evaded so that the weapon cannot reaquire a lock.

Fighter-class weapons may be able to switch between modes, since TIEs have been observed firing in patterns consistent with my turbolaser theory (HDS' clips), and in a method that suggests STL bolts (or multiple beams being fired). If so, the configuration could be chosen depending on combat circumstances. Bolt-mode would require less computer assistance and would be more effective in heavy jamming or intense dogfights at close range (no delay in firing). On the other hand, beam-mode would be deadly in head-to-head strafing runs.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I think it is somesort of c propogating blast in a stasis field projected into the shot. Relative to the stasis field, the beam is moving a c, and it also effects space-time curvature and lower gravity's influence, thus TLs do not have parabolic paths. Short stasis field bursts travel slower than long ones, but small weapons can only fire stasis field shots of a certain length and spin. The greater the elongation, the more the field weakens, and some of the c TL decays out as photons, thus showing a longer bolt. The decaying parts of the beam trail slightly behind the actual head, thus the field/bolt can impact and cause damage before the visual decay catches up with it. By spinning elongated bolts, less energy is lost over long distances without decreasing the speed/length/power (which are all inter-related). Over extreme distances, the field acutely elongates and increases in speed. In massive bolts such as the Death Star's main beam, the stability propogation of the stasis field all but collapses; the bolt remains coherent but serious radiation is lost and the beam travels at precisely c.

Why they would bother with this, I don't know, but to me it appears to explain all the nature of TLs. Perhaps the true damaging luxons composing the TL are inherently unstable, and the projected field "pulse" maintains the coherence of the weapon, at the cost of making it visible due to slight inefficiencies and depending on the size/power of the weapon, making it quite slow.

[Marc Xavier]

Starting from the top.

Observed "fact" #1, in reference to Observation #1:

The bolts change direction as the guns of the TIE changes direction, the bolts must be a pulse or something travelling in an unknown medium and are not independant entities(like say how a bullet would act after being fired from a weapon).

Do not mix observations and conclusions. "The bolts change direction as the guns of the TIE changes direction" is an observation, "the bolts must be a pulse or something travelling in an unknown medium and are not independant entities" is a conclusion.


You observed that the bolts change direction as the guns of the TIE fighter change direction. This, however, is not always the case:

http://www.furryconflict.com/hosted/debate/001.avi

As can be seen here, there are bolts coming off of a TIE fighter, traveling through space simultaneously along different vectors. Unless, these are straight lines:



Bolts seem to be able to travel either with the changing orientation of the object they are released from (as you observed) or move independently. Another example comes from Han Solo shooting his blaster at some storm troopers:



The TOT (see thread titled "Turbolaser Operational Theory") easily explains this.

HDS, how does your theory (a "disturbance" along a constant lightspeed beam) explain this?


Additional:

Theory:
They are massless but propagate forward at a subluminal speed, it might be so that the medium, i.e. the invisible beam, makes the destructive energies of the bolt travel in a tight helix, so the particles could still travel at C, like massless particles should, while having a subluminal forward propagation.

1. If this is true, then why doesn't the bolt above that Han Solo is shooting immediately accelerate to lightspeed?

2. All I ask is how? As I understand it (and I may be wrong) in order for a particle to change speed or direction a force must be exerted on it. How does your invisible beam cause these massless particles to spiral? Now, in every sense that I can see, you seem to be saying that turbolaser bolts are (pretty much) lasers, just that some strange force causes the photon-like particles (what differentiates them from photons now? What reason is there to draw a distinction?) to spiral around a central axis.

I know of at least one force in real science that alters the direction of photons: gravity. So then, would an intense gravity field be causing these "like-photons" to be propagating forward slowly? What would be the point of that? Why just not let the "like-photon" particles travel at their natural speed (c)? They would be harder for fighters to dodge.

What force is causing these particles to spiral? Is it Gravity? Electromagnetism? The Weak Nuclear Force? The Strong Nuclear Force? Or will you propose another fundamental force to explain this part of your theory?

Another theory on massed observations of weapons fire shows a consistant delay in fired shots, they always take 2-4(sometimes 6) frames to travel to their targets

Consistent? "2-4(sometimes 6)" represents a variation of as much as 300 percent.

this would seem to me that if there is a helix at which the energies travel across the tightness of the helix is dependant on the lenght of the invisible beam and that it seems to stretch out with longer ranges, explaining how bolts fired at targets further away travel faster.

Observed fact #2, in reference to Observation #1:

- From the clip showing the Tantive-IV being chased we see the bolts are not affected by gravity.

Tibanna gas: a gas found in the atmosphere of many gas giants, it is useful because it can produce large amounts of energy when light passes through it. Thus, it can be used in large blasters to multiply the weapon's output. It also has certain anti-gravitional properties, and has exceptional properties as a hyperdrive coolant. The best tibanna gas is compressed and spin-sealed, since this kind of tibanna is four times as powerful as regular tibanna. Spin-sealing requires a great deal of energy to do artificially. Fortunately for many weapons manufacturers, the tibanna found in the atmosphere of Bespin is naturally spin-sealed. Much of Bespin's tibanna gas is produced as a waste product by the beldons that inhabit the gas giant's Life Zone. (The Empire Strikes Back, The Art of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, Galaxy Guide 2: Yavin and Bespin, The Illustrated Star Wars Universe).

Theory: There might be an invisible beam that acts as a medium that the destrucive energies travel across.

Reprecussions:
These scenes invalidate ideas that bolts are independant entities or anything along those lines, they're part of a mechanism that we can only see a part of.

Unfortunately this is false. His Divine Shadow stated that the bolts are not affected by gravity, I produced official-source material that easily explains why this may be without invalidating "ideas that bolts are independant entities or anything along those lines"

Observed "fact" #1, in reference to Observation #2:

We clearly see that there are bolt shield interactions without the presence of a visual bolt in this clip, this means that the bolt is not the destructive part, but merely something that closely correlates with the destructive part.

Again, you mix observation with conclusion. Yes, there are explosions here that do not appear to be caused by visible bolts of the turbolasers. It would have been a stronger case if you had presented a situation where it was plain to see both the source and the destination of the turbolaser weapons in the same shot. These explosions may have been caused by the turbolasers, they may not have. Assuming they are in the "observed fact" subheading is a demonstration of you muddling your observations and conclusions together.

But, since you made this claim, allow me to put some questions to you:

1. If these turbolasers are made of massless particles, how can they explode in open space? All of the explosions in real life science that I am aware of require mass of some sort (chemical, nuclear, etc). If these turbolasers are made of massless particles, how do they produce an explosion?

2. You claim that these are caused by "bolt shield interactions." Ignoring the meshing of observation and conclusion for the moment, in this frame:



You claim that the explosion is caused by an interaction between an invisible turbolaser bolt and the shields of the ship. Now,

the shield is a field effect, not a definite hull hugging one, it's the strongest just above the hull and then quickly drops off as the distance increases, this is why bolts can "explode" when they pass too close to a ship since the bolt passing through the shield creates a sort of cascade that causes the bolt, or part of the bolt, to degrade.

Your words, not mine.

So, then, if this is an explosion of an invisible turbolaser against invisible shields in open space, this should demonstrate a distance from which the ray shields of this particular ship should be able to cause your massless particles to explode.

Why, then, in this frame,



are the bolts apparently so much closer to the ship, yet still intact? From what you said, it seems the massless particles should have touched the shield effect and exploded by now.

Theory:
It might be a trail, an analogy would be that of a rocket and it's exhaust

Reprecussions:
This disproves theories like plasma bolts and such because in those, the visible bolt has to be the damaging factor, but it's clearly not, it's just a commonly correlated independant phenomenon that has no bearing on the bolt's destructiveness.

The cause of the mystery explosions can not be seen in this clip. You assume they are caused by invisible turbolasers, and then state the repercussions taking that assumption as fact.

Moreover, you place an artificial requirement on the TOT "the visible bolt has to be the damaging factor" when, in actuality, a damaging portion of the turbolaser can sometimes exist outside the bolt. (See: Turbolaser Operational Theory) You then treat the apparent disproval of that point as disproval of plasma-based theories altogether. It isn't.

The TOT nicely explains visible turbolaser bolts exploding in open space, one big reason is because something that has mass and energy actually can explode according to our current understanding of physics.

The explosions in this clip that apparently have no relation to visible turbolasers need not be explained by the TOT (although I can forward suggestions, such as "shadow bombs" mentioned in Star by Star) because it is not conclusively shown that these explosions are caused by turbolasers. It is assumed to begin with, hence the folly.

Observed "fact" #1, in reference to Observation #3:

Blaster bolts are sometimes translucent, this would not be possible if they where consisting of hot pressurized matter, nor do they arc the slightest.
They must consist of massless particles of some kind.

You've tacked on your interpretation "they must consist of massless particles of some kind" to the observed facts. Please refrain from this.

Yes, blaster bolts are sometimes translucent, however the statement "this would not be possible if they where consisting of hot pressurized matter" is untrue. Take a glass of water, put it in a microwave-safe transparent tube, seal it, and toss it in the microwave for 10 seconds. Take it back out, you can still see through it.

Actually, the very fact that turbolasers are not entirely transparent along a parallel or non parallel trajectory in space (read: not invisible from the side and from various angles) seems to sit more comfortably with them having mass instead of not having mass.

Here's why: (taken from physlink.com)
Question: Why don't photons collide with each other when traveling towards each other?
Asked by: James Tanquary

Answer: Photons in free space act almost exclusively as waves. Therefore, when they cross paths they merely set up an interference pattern for the very brief time of their interaction. No energy is exchanged and the quantum state of each photon is unchanged after they pass each other.

How then, do these photon-like particles give off light in lateral directions, perpendicular to their axis of travel? Are your particles fermions or bosons?

Particles with mass have no trouble at all with this. See the TOT for explanation of why turbolaser bolts are (sometimes) semi-transparent.

Reprecussions:
Blaster bolts cannot consist of plasma or any type of matter.

Observed "fact" #3 - Bolts are green, this means they do not consist of matter at high temperatures, since there is no temperature at which a surface glows green.

Again, mixing observation and conclusion. Please refrain. (See below for rebuttal).

Reprecussions:
Clearly they cannot be plasma weapons due to this since plasma weapons glow white, and the nature of plasma will cause energy to be released from it in the form of white hot light at such rates that the bolt would look like a miniature sun, this is assuming ofcourse that there is some magic contaniment field that would hold it together even when it's left the barrel, in reality without pressure it would expand in size many many times and it would just look like a white hot explosion at the muzzle.

Yes, this is not a thermal color, but the color of a turbolaser/laser/blaster in the TOT is not determined entirely by temperature. As for calling the containment field "magic," please refer to the TOT and it's example of such a containment field expliclty seen in A New Hope.

His Divine Shadow, you invented your panacea particle. An example of the containment beam, however, can be seen explicitly in the movie itself.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Flaking is impossible merely because the bursts never exceed a few tons of TNT in yield.

We're talking kiloton, megaton, or even gigaton range weapons here.

It cannot violate CoE, so flaking is out.

Not to mention the unworkability of 600 gigaton plasma blasts.

[His Divine Shadow]

I ain't going to read all that marc, I've seen that you propose plasma, flakbursting as viable concepts, these concepts utterly piss me off because they are concepts born from ignorance of physics, so for the well being of all involved I will not read it or I will become pissed, I already am pissed, knowing that this silly notion is not yet extinct.

The movies also contradict them, so your theory is bunk from the get-go really.
You also seem to be under the misconception that when the bolts move independantly that this violates the other theory and supports yours.

They don't, I can just as well say that it's becase the beam is terminated and a new one fired, problem fixed, the bolts always dissapear shortly after such an event too, this is consistant proof that they require the invisible beam.

You must understand that every single time a visual of a bolt is shown, it contradicts the plasma theory.

I don't think you'll find anyone here with the proper merits to agree with your theory, because while our theory uses unknowns, your theory uses things we know won't work.

I am going to quote Dr. Saxton in a mail he sent to me, because I really like the way he puts it:
For example.... Were you online when this "plasma" nonsense started, in
the newsgroups of the mid-1990s? Originally it was a debating tactic
intended to confound Trekkies who claimed that all lasers can be reflected
by an Enterprise "navigational shield," regardless of the energy of the
shot. But the whole idea went too far and grew a life of its own. Now
"plamoid theory" is a set of mantras used blindly by many people who don't
know what a real-world plasma is, apart from the vague notion of something
hot and glowy in sci-fi.

I would also note that any and all official information you have that violates the one in the ICS are voided, the ICS is higher up on the scale of canonicity than any other official source that's been quoted so far, said quotes you've used have all become null & void, well as long as you interprept them incorrectly.

[His Divine Shadow]

Also note that all your references to tibanna gas now also are obsolete, in the newer and higher ranking ICS, a laser cannon actually has a "beam splitter" and Tibanna gas is now a form of coolant.

[Marc Xavier]

This only deserves a short reply.

I ain't going to read all that marc

Easy way to avoid having to defend the deficiencies of your vague theory; put in earplugs.

I clicked on this thread expecting a well-thought out rebuttal to what I had to say. Instead you refuse to read it? The best thing you responded with was a blatant "appeal to Saxtonism" instead of bothering to try and show how this specific theory is inferior to your hastily gathered conglomerate of vague suppositions and "particles that do what I say because I said so." You ignore valid questions to your theory because you can not answer them.

Leaning on the words of Saxton (which anyone can do if they are clever enough) is no excuse for shirking the burden of making a viable theory and showing that theory superior to another. I am a patient person, but I do not like suffering unnecessary insult from an opponent who holds a double standard of debating, allowing his theory to float in the clouds of vagueness while tossing flames at mine on the ground.

I've said it twice now in my thread, I'll say it again in yours:

Until you form up your theory, I have no reason to continue trying to fend off your nitpicks [you don’t even bother to try to nitpick as Illuminatus did], because your theory is too vague to be addressed in return in any detail (it maintains some form of accuracy only because it absolutely refuses to be precise). Stop attacking my theory until you form a viable one yourself.

I ask you to explain your theory, you claim false dilemma. It's pretty plain to see that you have no idea how your theory works, and if you tried to rationalize it scientifically you'd violate more laws than magical levitation. So, you leave your theory vaguely floating in the clouds and try to throw lightning bolts down on mine.

You can’t form a more concrete theory (like mine), so perhaps this line of discussion is simply an irrelevant iteration of an infinite cycle. There's no reason for me to sit here and suffer your insults and endlessly condescending attitude. Your "theory" has only survived so far because it either hasn’t been questioned in depth (those who dare to ask it's details are accused of false dilemma) or been seriously challenged by another theory. I challenge it, and all you do is insult, complain, or refuse to read what I have to say.

Covering your ears and ignoring valid questions (which you have done almost since the first post you launched as an attack on my Imperial Deflector Shield Operational Theory) is no way to debate. And again, as I said before, since there is no gain of this (because you insist on being counter-productive) there is no point in debating with you because you insist on being obtuse.

Good day.

[His Divine Shadow]

As usual you are under many misconceptions with regards to logic and debating methods, and add to that a lack of scientific knowledge on the phenomenons you are working with.

Your theory is unscientific and contradicted by canon and official material, most of the material does not indicate plasma technology and the ones that do are contradicted by the higher standing canon and newer higher ranking official material.

There is not a leg for you to stand on, the notion that I would need to come up with a theory for that to be wrong is very silly indeed.

And you know, it is far far better to be vauge and just say it uses some unknown process and then conclude what it is not, than it is to use a clearly unworkable theory that makes no sense whatsoever.

Another similar analogy, you say planes achieve lift by burning garden gnomes in a magical boiler on the moon(just as workable as a plasma canon really), I say this is clearly wrong and point to how there are no boilers on planes or on the moon for that matter since noone has visited there for decades.

You say I have to construct a comprehensive theory in order to be right, it does not work with me pointing out the obvious logical, scientific and physical flaws of your theory.

This does not make sense.

[Marc Xavier]

The strange thing is, you continue, without end, to characterize negative points about my theory. You make sweeping generalizations and claims, that when I ask you to support them (or show that they are clearly wrong) you avoid the issue. If you want to be vague, ignore valid questions to your theory, and continue to try to characterize my theory in a negative light instead of forming a coherent theory of your own, then like I said, no profit comes from this.

You can sit there and dislike my theory all you want, but any questions I ask about yours are either ignored:

I ain't going to read all that marc

or called "false premise." Your theory (or lack of theory, it should be called) uses these two things as a shield, to prevent inquiry and close analysis. We can't even discuss your lack-of-theory in any detail because putting it under the microscope immediately would force it to be revealed for what it is: empty. You have no standing to nitpick at my theory until you form your own. All of this that you're throwing my direction is simply Hot Air.

Formulate a coherent theory and let's have a proper deliberation, or concede that you cannot and stop with the guerilla warfare.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I think it is easier to simply go with the ICS verbatim "visible carrier pulse on lightspeed beam."

That is the official and highest-level of continuity theory. You cannot contradict that, Marc.

The most damaging part of the beam might propogate subliminally only partially faster than the visible trail, but still not with the front of the lightspeed beam. As yield goes up, so does the visible trail and destructive area of the beam increase in length and speed, topping off when the visible trail, destructive length of beam, and lightspeed beam are all the same (ref: DS I superlaser).

[nightmare]

Observed fact 1:

Turbolasers propagate in (at least partially) visible bolts.

Observed fact 2:

The bolts vary in speed.

Observed fact 3:

Bolts appear to propagate faster when they are fired at a target at longer distance than they propagate when they are fired at a target at short range.

Observed fact 4:

The bolts vary in lenght.

Observed fact 5:

The bolts vary in widht.

Observed fact 5:

Propagation speed, lenght of bolt, and width of bolt appears to be corrolated phenomenon. That is to say, larger bolts propagate faster and strikes targets and longer distance.

Observed fact 6:

Sometimes damage is observed to start before the bolt visibly hits the target.

Observed fact 7:

Often, damage is observed to start as the bolt visibly hits the target.

Known fact 8:

Tubolasers can be set for short distances.
Conclusion: turbolaser can be set for varying distances.

Theory:

A. Turbolaser bolts set for short distance is not accelerated as much as those set for longer distances. Thus, propagation speed and distance to target is related at the mechanism behind the bolt. This means that the bolt has to be made up of particles with a mass. This also means that turbolaser bolts can reach close to lightspeed, but not actually reach it.

The reason why they fire short-range bolts at lower speed is unknown, but I will assume that this is because there is a set time before the turbolaser bolt disperses, (either violently or peacefully).

I assume here that there is some benefit to hit the target at a given time after the bolt is fired. There is no other reason why it should. This beenfit may be because 1) that the bolt disperses violently ("explodes") after this set time, and 2) this violent dispersal gives better energy transfer to the target then before this set time. This matches obeserved data.

Comment: Think bullet compared to shotgun for simple but unprecise analogy. If the bolt strikes before its set time, it would have great penetration, but transfer little energy to the target. If it hits at the same time it "explodes", it would give off all or nearly all its energy to its target. (Yes, this would account for the so-called shield interactions and "flak bursts" too.). This would also mean that you can fire turbolasers set for pentration rather than maximum damage, which conincidently matches the "needle beam" setting from some novel, forgot which one.

Comment: It is possible that the energy of the bolt (size) is also related to propagation speed and set distance, but the theory does not make a special case for this since it is not necessary.

B. The turbolaser bolt is assumed to be invisible.

C. There is a visible glow, which I will assume to be simply EM radiation without further evidence. This radiation is in turn assumed to be a waste or byproduct of the bolt (none of this has any relevance to the theory).

D. The visible glow is delayed relative to the actual turbolaser bolt (which matches point C.) Thus, at longer ranges, damage will appear to begin first, then the visible glow catches up as the remainder of the bolt strikes. This matches observed data.

Weakness of point D: The Death Star superlaser is related to turbolaser, but there was no visible damage before the visible glow hit the target, even though it was fired at a relative long range compared to the turbolaser bolts we have seen to date. This is a fairly weak objection which may be explained away with the fact that the superlaser, although related, is not a turbolaser. For example, the energy of the superlaser beam is much higher than your average turbolaser bolt.

Comment: SPHA-T turbolaser beams hit the target practically instantly, with no notable pre-visible beam damage. (At least to me, who haven't examined it frame-by-frame). This already fits the theory, particularly considering that the distance to the target was extremely close compared with other known turbolaser bolts.

I will not include TIE Fighter "bending" bolts nor blaster bolts in this theory for the simple reason that they are not turbolaser bolts. They may be related, but they are not the same. I also leave out the whole "flak-shield interaction" debate since it's not relevant anyway.

To sum it up - TL bolts are particles with mass firedt from a particle accelerator. When they want to fire at close range, they fire it at lower speed, to match the time it will explode with the target. Visible part is an entire negligble byprodcut which doubles as a targeting aid when jamming makes it necessary to aim based on visual data.

Feel free to poke holes in my theory, but don't expect me to have the time to answer you. I give this more as a debating tool than anything else. I will check by and see what you have to say of course, but I probably won't have time to answer quickly, or at all..

With this theory, I simply want to construct a working model. I have no intention whatsoever to poke holes in someone elses pet theory, I just want to find the most relevant theory, which mine may not at all be. Also feel free to take any part or idea of it into any theory of your own while trying to find the best working model. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot I haven't thought of or didn't know. I only do this as a hobby in my very limited spare time. Some of you guys seem to live and breathe the stuff.

Thank you for your time. I hope I didn't make it too boring.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Visible pulse along lightspeed beam. ICS overrides.

[His Divine Shadow]

Visible pulse along lightspeed beam. ICS overrides.

It seems quite complex too, so far Mad's delayed reaction firing seems the best for capital weapons.

Also, I propose in addition to that, that when the beam ends, the visible energies of the bolt dissapear, but not immediatly, they "linger" for a second or so, they could remain destructive for this period too, this might be how blasters work.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Proposal/theory/comments recap:

My current work in progress hypothesis is an extention to the "ripple" theory. Under the ripple idea, an invisible lightspeed beam is fired and the visible bolt is a ripple in the beam. But that alone doesn't explain the delay between firing and damage in most instances.

So my hypothesis to fix that is that the beam is fired and the bolt appears at the start and "ripples" down the beam at sublight, but that initial beam is only a relatively weak warm-up beam as the weapon prepares to fire. After a couple frames (typically 2-4 according to HDS), there is a power spike where the main portion of the damage is released.

The speed of the bolt may be controllable, perhaps by the strength of the warm-up beam. This means that the bolt typically hits the target when the power spike hits. This may be intentional so as to assist in keeping the beam on target for when the weapon is ready to fire.

This helps explain both the delay between firing and damage, the reason for mismatched timing in some cases, and the visible bolts changing their vector in mid-flight in HDS' clips.

However, bolts don't always change their direction in mid-flight. Take, for example, the TIE fighter during the Battle of Yavin that fires at an X-wing, misses, and hits the Death Star surface. The bolts there all have different vectors, even though multiple bolts are in-flight. (This would mean multiple warm-up bolts being fired at once, each in a different direction, by my hypothesis.) Another TIE chasing an X-wing also had multiple visible bolts flying in different directions at once, as did the Falcon while escaping from the Death Star.

On the other hand, some weapons, like blaster bolts, can't have a carrier-beam to sustain them. This means they shouldn't alter their direction in mid-flight without hitting something. Such as when Han fires a blaster in the trash compactor, it bounces around but he moves his blaster while trying to evade the bolt (which is still dangerous, as seen in lightsaber bolt deflection). It would appear that a different operational theory is required for hand blasters than from ship-mounted lasers.

By the way, photons are affected by gravity just like any other known particle. Otherwise black holes wouldn't be theorized. It's just that light travels so fast that it's out of our visual range in most circumstances before gravity has a chance to visibly alter its course (at 300,000 km/s, it takes a lot of gravity to do anything before the photon is effectively out of range of the gravity well). That blaster bolts are apparently not affected by gravity does not imply that they are massless particles. In the case of turbolasers, it does imply the the bolt is a kind of ripple or something traveling along an invisible beam. But, as the trash compactor scene demonstrates (as well as Jedi deflecting bolts with their lightsabers), hand blasters don't have that invisible carrier beam.

I think turbolasers are somesort of projected rotating field surface, similar to Bob Brown's theory on lightsabres, that propogates at c, but generates an inherent stasis effect that slows the practical movement of the beam to below c and proportionally degrades gravitational affects.

I believe the speed of the bolt is a function dependent on its yield that also influences bolt length. Small handweapons generate beams that are more unstable and generate proportionally greater stasis effects. Large scale capital weapons have smaller stasis affects with higher yield.

The laterally-emitting section of the beam is merely an inherent decay affect that follows a "tail" portion of the overall pulse. Eventually the speed tops off at C as stasis effects cease with very high yield.

The most damaging part of the beam might propogate subliminally only partially faster than the visible trail, but still not with the front of the lightspeed beam. As yield goes up, so does the visible trail and destructive area of the beam increase in length and speed, topping off when the visible trail, destructive length of beam, and lightspeed beam are all the same (ref: DS I superlaser).

My theory (posted in the turbolaser thread you already linked to in this thread) explains the delays between firing and damage (as a low-powered warm-up beam with a power spike once the weapon is charged enough), and why it tends to occur upon the visible bolt's impact (and why it could be intentional).

I also don't see where your theory accounts for the changing direction in mid-flight HDS' clips demonstrated.

Now, weaker weaponry doesn't always appear to be lightspeed (especially blasters; I think fighter-level weapons can switch modes). I'm still working on explaining that, trying out the helix theory. The same particles have to be used, as visual effects are the same and the weapons are said to all operate on the same basic principles.

EDIT:

But, as the trash compactor scene demonstrates (as well as Jedi deflectig bolts with their lightsabers), hand blasters don't have that invisible carrier beam.

There's a problem with this: Luke Skywalker deflect AT-AT blasts with his lightsabre.

[Mad]

I think turbolasers are somesort of projected rotating field surface, similar to Bob Brown's theory on lightsabres, that propogates at c, but generates an inherent stasis effect that slows the practical movement of the beam to below c and proportionally degrades gravitational affects.

I believe the speed of the bolt is a function dependent on its yield that also influences bolt length. Small handweapons generate beams that are more unstable and generate proportionally greater stasis effects. Large scale capital weapons have smaller stasis affects with higher yield.

The laterally-emitting section of the beam is merely an inherent decay affect that follows a "tail" portion of the overall pulse. Eventually the speed tops off at C as stasis effects cease with very high yield.

That sounds backwards to me. I'd think a stasis field would require power to maintain, so a hand weapon would be dedicating a lot more of its overall energy content to a powerful stasis field while a large turbolaser would barely have any stasis effects. Basically, if there's an inherent stasis field, I'd expected larger weapons to have a more powerful field.

And having a powerful stasis field for hand weapons doesn't make sense. It's a waste of energy that could be used for more shots or more powerful blasts.

On the other hand, if the inherent stasis properties are somehow "squeezed" out when the bolt is fired, then hand weapons wouldn't have the power to squeeze or cancel out the stasis field as larger weapons would. (I think this is what you mean by "unstable" beams.)

However, when it comes to capship-level weapons, I dont' see how it allows for the ICS2 description:

"Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible 'bolt' is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed."

The visible portion is less than lightspeed, and it is heavily implied that the invisible, damaging portion hits its target at true lightspeed. The description would likely be worded differently if the invisible portion effectively traveled at sublight velocities due to a stasis field and was very close to a slightly lagging visible bolt.

The most damaging part of the beam might propogate subliminally only partially faster than the visible trail, but still not with the front of the lightspeed beam. As yield goes up, so does the visible trail and destructive area of the beam increase in length and speed, topping off when the visible trail, destructive length of beam, and lightspeed beam are all the same (ref: DS I superlaser).

ICS says the bolt "travels along the beam at less than lightspeed." That's quite different from being a trail. Such a trail would not be able to lag behind the beam. Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

There's also the fact that sometimes the bolts can change direction in mid-flight (meaning the beam has changed direction), and other times they don't. So far, no theory has properly addressed that. I don't think "visible bolt traveling along invisible beam" can work for hand blasters. Or very easily, at least.

My main concern is that I don't understand how your theory addresses the bolt traveling along the beam at sublight. That would require that the visible pulse starts at the back of the beam, and travels forward along it (though that'd be FTL, not sublight, inside the stasis field). Or that it starts at the front and moves backwards relative to the bolt (since it's sublight, the effect would be that it would appear to move away from the barrel). The visible pulse can't sit still relative to the beam (otherwise it'd be lightspeed inside the stasis field). And in order for it to travel along the beam and to be considered "waste glow," it probably shouldn't be able to exist independently of the beam (Sorry, HDS... I simply don't see how a bolt detatched from the beam can mesh with the ICS description.).

There's a problem with this: Luke Skywalker deflect AT-AT blasts with his lightsabre.

Hmm. Then that would be like some of the bolts fired by TIEs that don't change directions. Perhaps TIEs and AT-ATs can both choose different modes depending on the circumstances. Then again, I don't recall Luke doing that in the movies, so it was from a book... so we don't know how it looked. It could be that the bolt hit Luke's saber and then there was an instant explosion whereever he deflected it, and the bolt disappearing. If the description doesn't allow for that, then it must have been in "blaster" mode. (By my theory, anyway.)

[ClaysGhost]

However, when it comes to capship-level weapons, I dont' see how it allows for the ICS2 description:

"Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible 'bolt' is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed."

The visible portion is less than lightspeed, and it is heavily implied that the invisible, damaging portion hits its target at true lightspeed. The description would likely be worded differently if the invisible portion effectively traveled at sublight velocities due to a stasis field and was very close to a slightly lagging visible bolt.

What of the Rebel fleet ma... I mean, what of the TL impact that sets the MFspinning in ESB? The spin starts with the impact of the visible bolt. If the bolt is a product of the beam, the beam must obviously be ahead of the bolt in this shot (you can't have the bolt launched before the beam). Now, if the beam is the important component, the Falcon should exhibit a reaction before the arrival of the bolt, shouldn't it?

I can see some ways out of this;

* The beam carries far more energy than the bolt, but the bolt has mass and carries most of the momentum of a shot. The bolt does not drop in a gravitational field because it's generated by massless particle decay. The massless particles decay into massive particles (c.f. photon -> electron/positron decay) and a photon, or a photon is emitted by further decays of the original decay products.

* The beam initially is in a "low power" mode, sufficient to trace the bolt but insufficient to do much damage to most targets. The weapon ramps up the beam power at some arbitrary point, forming a new pulse that does not emit but does carry most of the weapon energy. It often arrives with the visible bolt, but sometimes is released early. The bolt is magic.

The first option: you should see an exponential decay pattern. The amount of light emitted at a point along the beam should have an exponential profile so that most of the light is emitted near the weapon, and the profile and then drops off rapidly along the beam. Furthermore, this pattern shouldn't move relative to the muzzle (if the beam is cut off, you would get a pulse propagating but it would move at c and it would also fade exponentially with distance travelled). The exception is if the decay probability is not fixed for these particles, but depends on some variable factor.

Second option: what is the bolt? This model doesn't say anything helpful about the bolt. The "dual mode" is interesting (targetting phase/attack phase?) but the bolt is still a problem.

[Darth Wong]

There's also the fact that sometimes the bolts can change direction in mid-flight (meaning the beam has changed direction), and other times they don't. So far, no theory has properly addressed that. I don't think "visible bolt traveling along invisible beam" can work for hand blasters. Or very easily, at least.

Hand blasters are a problem. Personally, I'm actually a bit fond of the idea that there's a tiny projectile in there with a level flight system and a forcefield of some kind around it. But the ICS2 explanation is official, and we should make some effort to rationalize it.

My main concern is that I don't understand how your theory addresses the bolt traveling along the beam at sublight. That would require that the visible pulse starts at the back of the beam, and travels forward along it (though that'd be FTL, not sublight, inside the stasis field).

Some kind of interference pattern, or the exotic massless particles in the beam decay at varying rates. Delay before damage could be explained by a non-square power waveform, which would explain why the delay seems to be similar regardless of distance (ie- why the bolts seem to move faster when the range is greater).

Hmm. Then that would be like some of the bolts fired by TIEs that don't change directions. Perhaps TIEs and AT-ATs can both choose different modes depending on the circumstances. Then again, I don't recall Luke doing that in the movies, so it was from a book... so we don't know how it looked. It could be that the bolt hit Luke's saber and then there was an instant explosion whereever he deflected it, and the bolt disappearing. If the description doesn't allow for that, then it must have been in "blaster" mode. (By my theory, anyway.)

Having multiple modes is an unwieldy explanation, and should be considered a last resort.

[Mad]

What of the Rebel fleet ma... I mean, what of the TL impact that sets the MFspinning in ESB? The spin starts with the impact of the visible bolt. If the bolt is a product of the beam, the beam must obviously be ahead of the bolt in this shot (you can't have the bolt launched before the beam). Now, if the beam is the important component, the Falcon should exhibit a reaction before the arrival of the bolt, shouldn't it?

This is handled by my theory, which I have explained in my first two posts to this thread. (The first post quoted by Illuminatus Primus.) I was responding to IP's ideas in the post you're responding to, so I didn't have much need to reference my thoery.

Basically, I'm thinking we're seeing a warm-up beam to sustain the visible pulse for a couple frames, then the main pulse being fired. The speed of the pulse is deliberate so that it can be a tracer and coincides with the arrival of the main damage.

I can see some ways out of this;

* The beam carries far more energy than the bolt, but the bolt has mass and carries most of the momentum of a shot. The bolt does not drop in a gravitational field because it's generated by massless particle decay. The massless particles decay into massive particles (c.f. photon -> electron/positron decay) and a photon, or a photon is emitted by further decays of the original decay products.

That kind of decay is pretty much mandatory.

Shadows of the Empire, page 326:
A hard green beam of light flashed between the two ships. The sighting ray of a big ship's cannon--you couldn't see the laser itself in vacuum, of course, but it followed the ionized marker you could see precisely.
---

I'll reference this later, but the marker is "ionized" and is considered to be in front of the main attack.

* The beam initially is in a "low power" mode, sufficient to trace the bolt but insufficient to do much damage to most targets. The weapon ramps up the beam power at some arbitrary point, forming a new pulse that does not emit but does carry most of the weapon energy. It often arrives with the visible bolt, but sometimes is released early. The bolt is magic.

Actually, take the decay idea you put in your first proposal, except have the decay move along the beam. When the beam is first fired, the decay starts (perhaps the process of letting the beam out starts the decay). I think the reason the decay moves along the beam is because the decay starts a chain reaction down the beam.

To quote myself earlier in this thread, regarding the decay pulse:

Take a decently long string or cable, with one end anchored to something. Take the loose end and "whip" it up and down once (don't pull the string too tight). What you should get is a single ripple that travels down the string.

The decay theorized for the turbolaser beam is pretty much the same thing. Actually, the "ripple" isn't moving away from the starship so much as it is moving away from the tip of the beam at a very high velocity. (Imagine your string and its anchor moving away from some object very quickly, or it being pulled off a reel. The ripple is moving away from you, but not as quickly as the string is being pulled away, so the ripple still appears to move away from the other end.) It's trying to head towards the turbolaser cannon, but the turbolaser particles are flying away at c, and so the ripple is carried along with it.

The decay is a ripple where the particles decay into photons and exit the beam. Perhaps the decay is caused by whatever process starts the beam, and is carried along be some process as part of the decay. (Umm, in other words, it moves down the beam.)

The first option: you should see an exponential decay pattern. The amount of light emitted at a point along the beam should have an exponential profile so that most of the light is emitted near the weapon, and the profile and then drops off rapidly along the beam. Furthermore, this pattern shouldn't move relative to the muzzle (if the beam is cut off, you would get a pulse propagating but it would move at c and it would also fade exponentially with distance travelled). The exception is if the decay probability is not fixed for these particles, but depends on some variable factor.

If the decay is part of a chain reaction that is initiated when the beam is fired, then it should run down the beam at a more consistent appearance.

Second option: what is the bolt? This model doesn't say anything helpful about the bolt. The "dual mode" is interesting (targetting phase/attack phase?) but the bolt is still a problem.

Mesh it with the first model, and have the decay be part of a chain reaction moving down the beam. Have the low-power mode end with a final power spike timed so that the lightspeed particles hit the target just as the visible pulse does (mistiming would cause damage before impact, or late damage.)

An interesting side-effect of my theory is that it works very well with the Shadows of the Empire quote. I wasn't too sure of it before, since I didn't know if massless particles could decay into massive once, but since you suggested it, I'm a bit more confident in it. It says "[the laser] followed the ionized marker you could see." My theory has the high-powered beam (the low-powered beam isn't enough to do damage, and is being emitted as the weapon charges up for the main strike) being fired after the pulse is visible. If the massless particles can decay into massive particles, then the pulse could be considered "ionized" as well (though the ions wouldn't stay with the beam).

No other theory I've seen accounts for that pecularity of the SotE quote that requires the marker somehow come first.

[Mad]

Hand blasters are a problem. Personally, I'm actually a bit fond of the idea that there's a tiny projectile in there with a level flight system and a forcefield of some kind around it. But the ICS2 explanation is official, and we should make some effort to rationalize it.

Agreed. But as I look at it, I can't think of any way for hand blasters to work as a visible pulse riding along a carrier beam, because the beam would move as the person moved his weapon. The trash compactor scene and bolt deflection from lightsabers both suggest that the visible bolt is pretty self-contained, not using the carrier beam that turbolasers have. Blasters seem to require a different theory for their method of transit, though the damage mechanism and exotic particles must be the same since turbolasers are considered scaled-up blasters.

Some kind of interference pattern, or the exotic massless particles in the beam decay at varying rates. Delay before damage could be explained by a non-square power waveform, which would explain why the delay seems to be similar regardless of distance (ie- why the bolts seem to move faster when the range is greater).

I was referencing IP's theory. My own pet theory follows pretty closely to what you suggested. While you suggested a exponential power ramp-up over time that peaks when we see the damage occur that you've suggested (I think that's what you mean by "non-square power waveform"), I was thinking more along the lines of a weak warm-up beam followed by the main attack (already mentioned earlier in this thread). The two are basically the same as far as effects go: the beam isn't powerful enough to do damage until after a couple frames of footage have elapsed.

Having multiple modes is an unwieldy explanation, and should be considered a last resort.

I know, but I can't think of any other way to rationalize TIE fighters being able to fire both bolts that can change their vector in mid-flight (the actual beam is changing position, and the bolt has to ride the beam) and bolts that do not change direction in mid-flight (having multiple visible bolts visible from the same cannon on different trajectories).

[Darth Wong]

Agreed. But as I look at it, I can't think of any way for hand blasters to work as a visible pulse riding along a carrier beam, because the beam would move as the person moved his weapon.

Suggestion: the particles decay into other kinds of particles, which are much slower-moving. These other particles then emit light after a time delay (this presumes several stages of decay). The result is the the beam leaves a trail of slowly decaying particles behind it, hence the bolt even when the gun is pointed in another direction. Mind you, that presents problems of its own. In some ways, the heretical "tiny projectile" idea (which is listed on my webpage but considered a bit of a last resort since one must first prove the other theories can't possibly work) works better.

[Lord Poe]

Suggestion: the particles decay into other kinds of particles, which are much slower-moving. These other particles then emit light after a time delay (this presumes several stages of decay). The result is the the beam leaves a trail of slowly decaying particles behind it, hence the bolt even when the gun is pointed in another direction. Mind you, that presents problems of its own. In some ways, the heretical "tiny projectile" idea (which is listed on my webpage but considered a bit of a last resort since one must first prove the other theories can't possibly work) works better.

Isn't this what the official materials say Chewbacca's bowcaster shoots? They look just like blaster bolts.