Trek mass/energy ratios...

[Robert Walper]

A question...

If a Star Trek episode were to establish a mass/energy ratio of anti-matter that was vastly greater than a real calculation of the mass/energy ratio of anti-matter, do we use this ratio, or ignore it and stick to ratios established in our universe?

I propose this question because I've read some other Trekkies calculated a anti-matter mass/energy ratio(based on evidence) for Trek that is far greater than an identical calculation based in our universe. Something about several grams blowing off an atmosphere or similar incident.

I'm not going to argue the point not having the evidence myself, I'm merely curious if the concept itself would be accepted.

[Mr Bean]

Something about several grams blowing off an atmosphere or similar incident.

I'm not going to argue the point not having the evidence myself, I'm merely curious if the concept itself would be accepted.

No more that SW takes that a single Gram of Anti-Matter was enough to blow up a moon


Generaly its best to stick with RL unless specfic cirumstances demand otherwise


Or one could slap it under *suspension of disbelief and be done with it

[Robert Walper]

No more that SW takes that a single Gram of Anti-Matter was enough to blow up a moon

If the evidence is not contradicted throughout the SW universe, you still wouldn't except the ratio? Why not?

Generaly its best to stick with RL unless specfic cirumstances demand otherwise

Or one could slap it under *suspension of disbelief and be done with it

My perspective is that if a ratio is established and not contradicted, it could very well be the appropiate one to use in any arguement.

[Mr Bean]

If the evidence is not contradicted throughout the SW universe, you still wouldn't except the ratio? Why not?<rest sniped>

Because it IS contradicted, just as those several Grams are condradict hundreds of times in ST

Like some other device we simply don't know enough about the paritcular sitatuon to jump to any conculsions without further evidace for it besides a single case

[greenmm]

Something about several grams blowing off an atmosphere or similar incident.

I'm not going to argue the point not having the evidence myself, I'm merely curious if the concept itself would be accepted.

No more that SW takes that a single Gram of Anti-Matter was enough to blow up a moon


Generaly its best to stick with RL unless specfic cirumstances demand otherwise


Or one could slap it under *suspension of disbelief and be done with it

Having just recently participated in that moon discussion, I think the ending theory was that the moon was either hollow, unstable, or the carving of the seal had created a fatal flaw in the moon; and that while 1 g of antimatter would not have had the power to do more than put a big crater in it, said antimatter in the right spot was akin to the missing scale in Smaug's belly.

Having said that...one should be careful with matter/antimatter reaction calculations. After all, are we talking about calculations where we have the exact mass of matter/antimatter used, or calculations where we only know how many molecules interacted and have to guess at how much mass each molecule has?

Take, for example, 1 g of anti-hydrogen in gas form (very inefficient storage method, but I needed a quick density). With a gas density of 8.99E-05 g per cubic cm, that works out to 11.12347 L of hydrogen gas (about 2.939 gallons). However, helium has a density nearly twice that of hydrogen (1.785E-04 g per cubic cm); therefore, an equivelent volume of anti-helium would have a mass of 1.98554 g, nearly doubling the amount of energy released from the reaction.

The lesson, then, is to make sure that all terms and assumptions involving antimatter reactions follow the same standard, or the numbers won't compare correctly. Also, it shows that, since antimatter yields are dependent on mass rather than volume, if mass isn't a problem for you, then you want a form of antimatter that's either a) extremely easy to synthesize, or b) dense enough that you can pack a lot of it into your storage tanks.

[greenmm]

A question...

If a Star Trek episode were to establish a mass/energy ratio of anti-matter that was vastly greater than a real calculation of the mass/energy ratio of anti-matter, do we use this ratio, or ignore it and stick to ratios established in our universe?

I propose this question because I've read some other Trekkies calculated a anti-matter mass/energy ratio(based on evidence) for Trek that is far greater than an identical calculation based in our universe. Something about several grams blowing off an atmosphere or similar incident.

I'm not going to argue the point not having the evidence myself, I'm merely curious if the concept itself would be accepted.

There are only 2 reasons for the sci-fi ratio to contradict the real-life ratio:

1) Poor writing/bad information on the writers' parts. If they make other glaring physics errors, this becomes very likely. In this case, go with the real-life value.

2) Fundamental difference in the physical laws of that sci-fi setting. There was an ST novel where the E-nil was stuck in another universe where, IIRC, Planck's constant was slightly different than in the real universe. It caused color shades to change slightly, as well as affecting how their matter/antimatter reactions performed (as the speed of light was different as well). I don't know enough about Planck's constant to verify how viable that theory would be. However.... if so, then the consequence is this:

Should any object cross over from that universe to another universe (including the real-life universe), then unless it had some sort of technology allowing it to use its own universe's laws of physics in the new setting, it would find itself subject to the laws of physics in its new location.

Or, to use an example:

Car A is from Universe A, where a different Planck constant not only allows for more energy to be released from M/AM reactions (4 times, in this case), but also translates to gasoline being able to produce 4 times the usual energy. Car A is translated from Universe A to Universe B, where Planck's constant is identical to the real-life universe. Unless Car A has special shielding around its engine block, gas tank, and fuel line -- something extremely unlikely -- it will find that its gasoline now produces 1/4 the usual energy when ignited. In fact, there's a good chance that the engine may not even be able to function in Universe B, or function extremely poorly, since it can't produce enough energy anymore.

Scale that up to a ship depending on M/AM reactions for its power, and imagine how going to a universe with a lower energy ratio per reaction could cripple said ship without it having to be fired on at all... or in reverse, a ship from a lower-energy universe finds its systems super-charged when going to another, higher-energy universe.

[Isolder74]

If we use the real life values then we are safe cause we can do the math to confirm our findings. BTW I'm writing my own sci-fi story and the use of real calulations is what i use to base my stats on for the background information i have come up with. The use of real units for comparisons between my storie's different races cause then both me and the reader would know what's going on

[Patrick Degan]

For SF to be believable, the writers must, at the very least, not include anything which can be immediately contradicted by anybody scientifically knowledgeable in the real world. But if they make the mistake of writing in anything which can be shown up to be impossible or just plain goofy, plausibility collapses and you know the writer is just pulling things out of his ass.

You want to to with matter/antimatter as your ship's power source? Fine —just never have it doing things it cannot do in any real world. A lot of this can be avoided simply by not trying to explain everything to the Nth degree and trying to quantify their numbers except in the most vaguely general sense. It's when they try to provide numbers and explanations that most SF writers get in trouble.

[Master of Ossus]

We should use the energy ratios established with real life, assuming an incredibly high efficiency. It is simply not possible for some of the ratios to take place in science fiction, and if we understand their energy source, then we should be able to conclude that some of their claims are impossible. For unknown energy sources, I am usually more lenient due to suspension of disbelief, but ordinarily very high mass/energy ratios can be explained away as either character mistakes or by using the inherent subjectivity of dialogue.