How do phasers differ from lasers?

[KhanSolo]

I grew up a Star Wars fan, so lasers and proton torpedoes were my thing for nearly a decade, then I came across star trek and heard of phasers. So my main question is whats the difference? Also, in wattage, how do they differ? Could primary turbo lasers on a star destroyer be deflected by a federation cruiser? Likewise, would phaser banks penetrate deflector shields on a star destroyer?

 

[Christopher]

In the first Trek pilot, Roddenberry called the weapons lasers, but he changed it in the second pilot because he realized that lasers couldn't do what phasers do. For one thing, they don't have a stun setting -- let alone a disintegration setting. For another, they don't whistle. And their beams travel at the speed of light (since, you know, they are light), so you can't dodge them.

So, since phasers were an imaginary weapon with imaginary capabilities, Roddenberry gave them an imaginary name. Because he was more conscientious about credibility than most other sci-fi filmmakers who just co-opt the term "laser" for things that don't act in a laserlike way at all. (I mean, seriously, "turbo lasers?" Those are two words that make no sense together. What possible role could a turbine-driven forced induction component of an internal combustion engine play in the operation of a laser?)

As for comparing the technologies of different fictional franchises, it never strikes me as a meaningful question. If someone did write a story where the two universes interacted, the weapons would work however the story needed them to. Even within a single universe, technology and weapons behave in wildly inconsistent ways depending on the needs of the story. A photon torpedo can be more powerful than a nuke in one story but behave like an 18th-century cannonball in another. And separate universes aren't even based on the same ground rules and physics, so a direct comparison can't even be made.

 

[Wingsley]

STAR TREK and STAR WARS are in different universes, told as completely different kinds of stories. Their only basic similarities were that both used spacecraft, astronauts and advanced weapons in their stories. STAR WARS is a Knights of the Round Table story set "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away". STAR TREK is a noble vision of the future, Earth-humanity maturing and reaching out into space, "to boldly go where no man has gone before". Some superficial similarities, but very different stories.

That having been said, STAR WARS only uses a vague illusion of advanced weapons. We don't really know what light sabers and turbo-lasers are about and it isn't necessary we care because STAR WARS is more fantasy than science fiction. It's about characters immersed in mysticism arising from "the Force". STAR TREK is about characters on a mission of peaceful exploration, humanitarianism and diplomacy first, science and technology second, and defense as a last resort. There is no mystical "Force" in the United Federation of Planets. If there is conflict brewing, it is settled professionally by diplomacy, the scientific method and force as a last resort.

We can assume turbo-lasers have something to do with laser technology as we understand it today, but we don't really know. According to canon-based inferences sprinkled throughout the STAR TREK TV shows and movies as assembled on Memory Alpha, Phasers are supposedly particle-beam weapons. Photon Torpedoes are supposedly matter-antimatter fusion missiles.

How one franchise's weapons would work against the characters or spaceships in the other franchise is a little like asking "Who would win: Michael Knight driving K.I.T.T. or Batman driving the Batmobile?" It can only be answered with the question: "Win at what?"

 

[Unicron]

My understanding with how turbolasers are purported to work (at least in technical resources offscreen) is that the "turbo" part comes from having more powerful energy systems and focusing technology, allowing them to create a stronger beam with a longer range than would be true of smaller weapons. While that still makes certain applications pretty fantastical and silly (the idea of the Death Star focusing a group of beams into a single huge beam ), that doesn't matter as much when they look cool.

Regarding SW shields, ANH made reference to ray shields which later sources have described as being resistant to lasers and other energy weapons, but not necessarily to physical weapons like torpedoes. This is why proton torpedoes had to be used on the Death Star. Ray shields consume more energy than particle shields, which are geared in the opposite direction (they stop physical objects easier but not energy based projections), and thus only used in combat while particle shields are commonly active to add defenses against things like asteroids.

Clearly they're not perfect, if we're to infer that Vader's squadron of Star Destroyers had its particle shields up in ESB and were apparently taking some degree of damage in the asteroid field. Most Trek shields presumably are designed to handle both types of impact, excepting cases where the script requires them not to work.

As far as crossing over weapons and technology between universes, I agree it's never more than a product of amusing speculation.

 

[KhanSolo]

I understand that the question is merely a fictional scenario that won't happen. It still strikes me as interesting, though. Obviously the weapons and technology in Star Wars are meant for Star Wars and, likewise, Star Trek for Star Trek. The question really stems from some YouTube comments I came across on an "Enterprise-D vs Star Destroyer" video. Classic example of Star Wars vs Star Trek, a debate that I don't usually get involved with. Just curiosity, gentlemen!

 

[KhanSolo]

Although, it does seem odd that Roddenberry included a vessel in whatever episode of TNG that was outfitted with laser cannons. Heck, even in the 2140s and 2150s, Starfleet was using phase weapons. Its very peculiar how a ship nearly 2 centuries after that was still using primitive laser beams...but I digress. It is just a fiction.

 

[urbandefault]

How one franchise's weapons would work against the characters or spaceships in the other franchise is a little like asking "Who would win: Michael Knight driving K.I.T.T. or Batman driving the Batmobile?" It can only be answered with the question: "Win at what?"

Doesn't matter. Batman always wins.

 

[Christopher]

My understanding with how turbolasers are purported to work (at least in technical resources offscreen) is that the "turbo" part comes from having more powerful energy systems and focusing technology, allowing them to create a stronger beam with a longer range than would be true of smaller weapons.

So by analogy with turbocharging as a power boost. But it's still not an accurate use of the prefix "turbo-," which specifically refers to the use of a turbine. A turbine is a set of spinning blades used to drive or compress a fluid. A laser is an optical weapon. The two should have nothing to do with each other.

Although, it does seem odd that Roddenberry included a vessel in whatever episode of TNG that was outfitted with laser cannons.

Roddenberry's direct involvement in writing TNG ended after the first season or two, and he probably would've deferred the technical terminology to the show's tech advisers, Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda. A few TNG episodes depicted alien ships equipped with lasers as an indication that their technology was less sophisticated than Starfleet's. Although there is one notable exception: Worf said in "Q Who" that the Borg were using "a type of laser beam" to cut a core sample out of the saucer section.

Heck, even in the 2140s and 2150s, Starfleet was using phase weapons. Its very peculiar how a ship nearly 2 centuries after that was still using primitive laser beams...but I digress. It is just a fiction.

It's a myth that new technologies cause older technologies to cease to exist. More often, they exist side by side. We live in the age of spaceflight, robots, and nuclear energy, but we still use prehistoric technologies like fire, string, knives, and cloth. Lasers are an eminently useful and versatile technology. They're sure to be around forever in some capacity.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I tend to view the use of the term "laser" in most space operas as being just a commonly-used colloquialism for a directed-energy weapon. They might be similar in some aspects to a real L.A.S.E.R. but also very different in others. In that sense, a "phaser" could be a more specific term for another similar (but not identical) device--like the difference between the terms "warp engine" and "faster-than-light engine" perhaps (some starfaring civilizations might have a totally different FTL propulsion system for their ships although warp drives might be more common and a more common term to describe such systems).

 

[Nebusj]

My understanding with how turbolasers are purported to work (at least in technical resources offscreen) is that the "turbo" part comes from having more powerful energy systems and focusing technology, allowing them to create a stronger beam with a longer range than would be true of smaller weapons.

So by analogy with turbocharging as a power boost. But it's still not an accurate use of the prefix "turbo-," which specifically refers to the use of a turbine. A turbine is a set of spinning blades used to drive or compress a fluid. A laser is an optical weapon. The two should have nothing to do with each other.

And if there's one thing we know about people, it's that they don't extend the use of words by way of analogies or by loose conceptual resemblances to another term's connotations at the expense of the word's original etymology.

 

[Christopher]

The only people who coined the term "turbo laser" were the writers who created Star Wars, and they never intended it to be anything but a completely unscientific fantasy. Other people have subsequently tried to rationalize that non sequitur, but there was nothing rational behind its original coinage, just a Mad Libs approach to technobabble. They figured "turbo" suggests extra power, so they tacked it onto "laser" and that's the entirety of the thought that went into it.

 

[scotpens]

My understanding with how turbolasers are purported to work (at least in technical resources offscreen) is that the "turbo" part comes from having more powerful energy systems and focusing technology, allowing them to create a stronger beam with a longer range than would be true of smaller weapons.

So by analogy with turbocharging as a power boost. But it's still not an accurate use of the prefix "turbo-," which specifically refers to the use of a turbine. A turbine is a set of spinning blades used to drive or compress a fluid. A laser is an optical weapon. The two should have nothing to do with each other.

And if there's one thing we know about people, it's that they don't extend the use of words by way of analogies or by loose conceptual resemblances to another term's connotations at the expense of the word's original etymology.

Indeed, the prefix "turbo-" has been co-opted by advertising to suggest the general meaning of "fast and powerful." I mean, what the heck is Turbo Shave shaving gel? Does it spin your beard away?

 

[Christopher]

^If you're proposing that "turbo laser" is some kind of in-universe brand name that's gone generic, like yo-yo or band-aid, I could actually kind of buy that.

Except how many thousands of years has it been since the Star Wars galaxy advanced beyond internal combustion or jet engines? They might not even remember what turbochargers were.

 

[Ithekro]

There is a website dedicated to showing the superiority of Star Wars technology (especially over Star Trek technology). It tends to be rage inducing.

The logic tends to be based on how much power it would take to vaporize a large iron asteriod or a planet with an energy weapon and other such things, as well as pointing out the Star Wars civilizations have been around for at least 25,000 years using hyperspace (and if one goes by the Knight of the Old Republic series of stories, that galaxy seems to be to be fairly stagnate in terms of technology for thousands of years.) Compared to most Star Trek races which have only been using warp drives for a few hundred years.

I'll stop now because it is one of the few places that does upset me as a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek.

 

[SicOne]

Sheesh, you guys are overthinking this. The difference between lasers and phasers is that one goes "Pew, pew, pew!" and the other goes "SssssSSSSHHHWHAK!"

At least that's how my seven-year-old grandson, a young veteran of both the Star Trek and Star Wars cinematic universes, answered this sage question. And he even asked me to distinguish between TOS-era phasers and TNG-era phasers. A prideful moment.

 

[Christopher]

There is a website dedicated to showing the superiority of Star Wars technology (especially over Star Trek technology). It tends to be rage inducing.

The logic tends to be based on how much power it would take to vaporize a large iron asteriod or a planet with an energy weapon and other such things, as well as pointing out the Star Wars civilizations have been around for at least 25,000 years using hyperspace (and if one goes by the Knight of the Old Republic series of stories, that galaxy seems to be to be fairly stagnate in terms of technology for thousands of years.) Compared to most Star Trek races which have only been using warp drives for a few hundred years.

I'll stop now because it is one of the few places that does upset me as a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek.

Well, Star Wars can't help but "win" because it's a fairy-tale universe where the technology is basically magic. Star Trek is at least nominally a humanistic universe bound by the laws of nature. Granted, a lot of ST bends the rules so much that there's little distinction anymore, but it's a rather pointless comparison, kind of like asking whether Sherlock Holmes could beat Harry Dresden. At most, it's an intellectual exercise, not something that should really be taken seriously.

 

[Unicron]

Sheesh, you guys are overthinking this. The difference between lasers and phasers is that one goes "Pew, pew, pew!" and the other goes "SssssSSSSHHHWHAK!"

At least that's how my seven-year-old grandson, a young veteran of both the Star Trek and Star Wars cinematic universes, answered this sage question. And he even asked me to distinguish between TOS-era phasers and TNG-era phasers. A prideful moment.

So if I ever retire as mod, he'd be a worthy successor?

 

[Christopher]

Arguably the difference between Star Wars "lasers" and real lasers is far greater than the difference between SW "lasers" and phasers. Roddenberry changed the name of his fantasy weapons because he feared that audiences would scoff at him portraying lasers in a way that didn't mesh with reality. Either he underestimated the sci-fi audience's tolerance for inaccuracy, or he overestimated their scientific literacy.

 

[Nebusj]

Arguably the difference between Star Wars "lasers" and real lasers is far greater than the difference between SW "lasers" and phasers. Roddenberry changed the name of his fantasy weapons because he feared that audiences would scoff at him portraying lasers in a way that didn't mesh with reality. Either he underestimated the sci-fi audience's tolerance for inaccuracy, or he overestimated their scientific literacy.

I'm reluctant to credit people with too deviously clever a nature without cause, but I wonder if it crossed Roddenberry's mind (or the mind of other people helping make the show) that a 'phaser' could become a trademarked term for licensed toys, while a 'laser', as the name of a real-word gadget, was about as trademark-able a label as a 'water faucet' would be.

 

[Christopher]

Well, I don't think they ever did trademark the name "phaser," at least not at the time, since I've seen it used in non-Trek contexts. I remember seeing ads for a video game in the '80s called Phaser Battle or something, and it had nothing to do with Trek.

Edit: On second thought, I think the video game spelled it "Phazer" instead, which might've been to avoid trademark infringement, if only barely.