When Treknology makes absolutely no sense

[Mr Silver]

I thought I'd start this topic after thinking about some things in Trek that make absolutely no sense. Now fair enough, it's a fictional show with many things that are impossible with current real world physics, etc. The point of this topic is to discuss the things that make absolutely no sense within the fictional world of Star Trek. So I'll start off with the most annoying one for me...

"Quantum Dating"

A concept which was first introduced in ENT (IIRC). It allows them to accurately calculate where a particular item has come from. The thing is, it will tell them if its from the future too! This doesn't make any sense because surely it would only read how old the actual item is and not what time period in the future it is from? I mean seriously?! Technology that doesn't obey the laws of temporal physics in the 22nd century?

Furthermore, when Archer suggest that the Xindi use quantum dating to prove where the emblem came from, I was thinking that there was no way anyone with any sense would believe such a story. Sure, they have the technology that predicts where items come from in the future (which is extremely far fetched) but what is to stop Archer from faking the age of the emblem? Starfleet had access to that technology too, they could have faked the quantum signature.

It also creates a massive plot hole. In the 22nd century, the Vulcans believe that time travel is "impossible". Yet they are obviously aware that quantum dating can identify items as being from future time periods.

There is no real way to explain this without clutching at straws. Sure, the quantum dating could be based on a computer program that factors in predictions and variables along with possible changes that could occur in a future timeframe. But how is it supposed to determine which timeframe in the future an item is actually from? For a series that tried to be more realistic and limiting (It's the 22nd century) with it's technology, they sure screwed up with this one.

Anyone got anymore?

 

[Timo]

surely it would only read how old the actual item is and not what time period in the future it is from

Why? We have technology today that could get that sort of results. Carbon dating doesn't tell how old an object is - it merely tells when the organic matter used in making that object died. The death stops the matter from ingesting radioactive isotopes from the air, fixing an isotope ratio, and the decay changes in that then tell the age of the object. It's quite possible, in the theory of that dating, that an "unnatural" ratio would turn up, indicating the piece of wood died yesterday even though the object was discovered ages ago. This retroactively establishes that time travel happened...

Starfleet had access to that technology too, they could have faked the quantum signature.

We can't fake the isotope ratios of a piece of wood today. A lab could at most fake the results, but another lab could discredit the fake by independently analyzing the original sample. The same may easily be true as regards quantum dating in the 2150s.

In the 22nd century, the Vulcans believe that time travel is "impossible". Yet they are obviously aware that quantum dating can identify items as being from future time periods.

No problem. Carbon dating can identify time travel, too, but nobody seriously believes it ever will. Vulcans may simply acknowledge that variable Z in the quantum dating equation can have positive and negative values, but only the positive ones are considered "natural". Yet when a negative Z turns up, they gotta admit that an otherwise reliable formula is now indicating an object with a negative age. It then becomes a matter of politics whether to interpret that as time travel or as an error of some sort, in the measurements or in the application of the formula. But there's no real reason to insist that the formula couldn't give a specific future date with the same accuracy it gives past dates, not unless there's something specific about quantum dating that prevents it. Generic obstacles cannot be insisted upon.

There is no real way to explain this without clutching at straws.

Utterly and categorically disagreed. We have real-world analogies aplenty of methods that give "natural" and "unnatural" results, and anecdotes on cases where even the "unnatural" ultimately had to be accepted as being an accurate description of the universe. Quantum dating is a nice analogy to carbon dating, and flauts no capabilities that would violate logic and common sense - once we decide to accept that time travel (displacement of objects from future to past, rather than vice versa) is possible as a concept.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr Silver]

Why? We have technology today that could get that sort of results. Carbon dating doesn't tell how old an object is - it merely tells when the organic matter used in making that object died.

But what if there is no organic matter?

The death stops the matter from ingesting radioactive isotopes from the air, fixing an isotope ratio, and the decay changes in that then tell the age of the object. It's quite possible, in the theory of that dating, that an "unnatural" ratio would turn up, indicating the piece of wood died yesterday even though the object was discovered ages ago. This retroactively establishes that time travel happened...

But that doesn't explain where the time reference comes from. How can technology explain the exact date in the future when it hasn't been to that future itself?

We can't fake the isotope ratios of a piece of wood today. A lab could at most fake the results, but another lab could discredit the fake by independently analyzing the original sample. The same may easily be true as regards quantum dating in the 2150s.

But a piece of wood isn't from the future... Again, how could a timeframe be established with no reference? The wood itself would only show real time isotope ratios. Say it was from the future and had been around for 5 years, it would display the isotope ratio relative to 5 years of exitence, regardless of what time it currently resides in.

No problem. Carbon dating can identify time travel, too, but nobody seriously believes it ever will.

I don't think any scientist would put their reputation at risk by suggesting such a ridiculous concept. How could carbon dating measure time travel? There is no practical method of time travel that exists, therefore no one knows what to look at to determine whether something has come from the future. Carbon dating in no way, share or form could determine time travel unless there was a reference. In this case, we knew exactly the atmospheric and other variables from the exact date in the future from where an object comes from.

Utterly and categorically disagreed. We have real-world analogies aplenty of methods that give "natural" and "unnatural" results

But not related to time travel. As I mentioned previously, there are no practical applications and even the theoretical applications are filled with holes.

Quantum dating is a nice analogy to carbon dating, and flauts no capabilities that would violate logic and common sense - once we decide to accept that time travel (displacement of objects from future to past, rather than vice versa) is possible as a concept.

But it does violate logic and common sense, because there are no referrences that exist to determine such an object came from a particular date. I didn't see Archer pull out a tricorder and measure the atmosphere and pollution content of the Ent-J when Daniels gave him the emblem. And even if he did, who would believe him? He could have easily measured a particular area with similar variables and claimed it was from the future. He could have taken an unknown element back with him and claimed it was from the future, when it could easily be argued that he acquired it from another civilization where such an element is common.

 

[David cgc]

What if Quantum Dating works by checking the age of individual subatomic particles relative to the age of the universe. Yes, at first glance, that would make Quantum Dating entirely useless unless you were dealing with an object from the future, but there could be conventional ways such a technology could be practical. Maybe it could be used to figure out if objects had been subject to extreme speeds or gravity wells because of the time dilation. Or maybe the quantum signature is baked in when an atomic or molecular bond is made. In that case, you could date an object to when it was fabricated.

 

[Mr Silver]

What if Quantum Dating works by checking the age of individual subatomic particles relative to the age of the universe. Yes, at first glance, that would make Quantum Dating entirely useless unless you were dealing with an object from the future, but there could be conventional ways such a technology could be practical. Maybe it could be used to figure out if objects had been subject to extreme speeds or gravity wells because of the time dilation. Or maybe the quantum signature is baked in when an atomic or molecular bond is made. In that case, you could date an object to when it was fabricated.

That is a possibility, but again there is no accurate reference to determine which timeframe the object came from. Therefore whilst it would be possible to detect if an item had travelled through time, it wouldn't be able to give an actual date, unless it came from the past.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Or maybe the quantum signature is baked in when an atomic or molecular bond is made. In that case, you could date an object to when it was fabricated.

Which means that quantum dating is just about the only dating technique that would actually work on metals.

 

[Timo]

How can technology explain the exact date in the future when it hasn't been to that future itself?

By simple extrapolation.

Like David CGC says, everything in this universe could carry a ticking clock. Or, more exactly, an hourglass. Radioactive decay is exactly that sort of an hourglass; we can observe the "level of sand" and all we need to know is when the glass was last "tipped over". We don't even have to have been there to witness the tipping-over incident; we can simply observe the sand levels at arbitrary later timepoints and derive the sand flow rate, extrapolating forward and backward.

We don't need to go fetch the frame of reference from the future - we can get it from the past and the present.

We already have a reference for the radioactivity of Earth's core, for example. If we suddenly obtained another Earth that displayed sufficiently reduced levels of radioactivity, current theory would firmly establish that it came from the future.

Sure, science would initially go to all sorts of trouble to disprove this seemingly absurd interpretation. But if this another Earth did come from the future, the evidence would be there and could be interpreted by current theory; science would simply need to come up with a theory that explained the time travel.

And obviously time travel would be accepted eventually, because another Earth suddenly popping up would already be an eye-opening event that would cause the scientists to abandon their outdated notions. Which is quite analogous to Star Trek, really: time travel doesn't look all that absurd when you look at it with eyes that have seen warp drive, pointy-eared aliens, and a probe that just scorched Florida, Cuba and Panama with a death ray. Even Vulcans can't be that thick.

Carbon dating in no way, share or form could determine time travel unless there was a reference. In this case, we knew exactly the atmospheric and other variables from the exact date in the future from where an object comes from.

But in my example, none of those variables mattered vis-á-vis proving the existence of time travel. The piece of wood was established to come from the future (that is, come from the present and travel to the past), even if atmospheric variables and the like would cause minor fluctuation on when exactly it came from (that is, a day or two).

Yet it's trivially easy to imagine a measurable quantity that is not subject to such variables. Isotope ratios of carbon and nitrogen are subject to the environment, but isotope ratios of lead or uranium in the bedrock are not. We could take a piece of geologically easily identifiable Finnish granite and fashion a bowl out of it. We could fashion it in AD 2000, AD 4000, AD 8000 or 6000 BC. And an observer in AD 2000 could then take a look at the granite and tell how old it is. If it's as old as the rest of the granite in the bedrock at the time of the measuring, all is fine. If it's older, it must have time-traveled from the future, and the decay curve gives the exact date. If it's younger, it must have time-traveled from the past, and the decay curve again gives the exact date.

Of course, current methodology on such radiodating won't work in the timescale of mere millennia. But the theoretical basis is there. All we have to accept is that quantum dating features a similar universal hourglass, and that the rate of sand flow can be calibrated from past data and extrapolated infinitely to the future, and that the accuracy is sufficient for Archer's claims. Which is perfectly reasonable as such.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr Silver]

Well I can't argue with your reasoning, so I think we should move onto the next piece of nonsensical Treknology.

"The Computer's Recognition Programming"

When a character wants to confer with the computer they are seen looking upwards, raising their voice slightly and saying "computer". The computer then sounds a tone or asks the person to "state their inquery". Now this may be all very simple, but how does the computer know that an individual wants to speak to them? In fact, how does the computer know that an individual is addressing it rather than making conversation with another person? I see the action of looking upwards and raising the voice to be nothing more than a habit. It's like when you try to get someone elses attention, you look at them and speak their name.

I always thought it would be better to show a person pressing their comms badge (or activating a panel) and then addressing the computer. It makes more sense on the whole and while I don't doubt that AI technology is advanced enough to recognise queries in the Trek universe, I don't think it's advanced enough to be able to understand when its being addressed and when the word "computer" just happens to be mentioned in conversation (even the computer just being on constant standby to recognise that would take up an enormous amount of power).

I suppose it could be explained by particular vocal tones and motion recognition, but I just don't think the success rate of getting through to the computer (if this were the case) first time, would always be 100%.

 

[Buddy Peabody]

I pretty much worship Timo.

 

[blssdwlf]

but I just don't think the success rate of getting through to the computer (if this were the case) first time, would always be 100%.

It probably is not. We just don't get to see Midshipman Joe's hilarious attempts at getting the computer to acknowledge

(And to make bridge officer status, you need to get a 100% on the "Getting the Computer to Acknowledge Training"

 

[Timo]

Personally, I feel the average Trek computer must be at least as adept at interpreting speech, body language and subliminal messages as a human being is, and probably a lot better. After all, something like that is an absolute prerequisite for the computer's ability to run satisfactory holoentertainment...

One the computing capability is there, it will probably see wide application: for example, the doorways are likely to be much smarter than the people using them, and will effortlessly interpret a person's desire to pass through and open the door in the exact manner and timing required. It's just out of legal complications, humanoid rights and that sort of stuff that the computer doesn't autonomously prevent onboard personnel from committing murder, social faux pas or grammatical errors!

...Now, I will stop short of claiming that time travel technology is utilized for enabling the comm system to correctly route the classic "Riker to Picard" without the seemingly necessary routing-process delay between "to Picard" and the response. But when one has a supersmart computer in the first place, it's only realistic to have it used as a doorstop for no extra cost.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

the doorways are likely to be much smarter than the people using them

It always strikes me about the episode Assignment Earth, when the cat Isis enters the transporter room, the doors open to about three time the span of her shoulders. Instead of opening all the way.

But why would they open completely for a creature that size?

 

[Unicron]

Maybe there are cats in some sector of Starfleet? Perhaps in security since they have nine lives to use up? We saw very few admirals on TOS, so that might explain a lot...

 

[mronhifi123]

That is a possibility, but again there is no accurate reference to determine which timeframe the object came from. Therefore whilst it would be possible to detect if an item had travelled through time, it wouldn't be able to give an actual date, unless it came from the past.

 

[Timo]

...A fitting addition to this thread! Could somebody explain to me whether 'bot attacks serve some other, possibly more sinister purpose besides pure annoyance?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[FreddyE]

Technology that doesn't obey the laws of temporal physics in the 22nd century?

I don´t know what to think about that. That whole thing is in doubt know since those CERN experiment where neutrons apperantly broke the lightbarrier. If those results are verifed then pretty much half of physics needs to be reevaluated, if I remember right when the lightbarrier is broken then the laws of cause and effect disappear / change. Then this whole thing about quantum dating doesnt seem to far fetched any more.

 

[FreddyE]

"The Computer's Recognition Programming"

Well apperantly this is already a reality. It seems you can just say "What will the weather be like tomorrow?" to the new iphone without pressing a button or even holding the phone.

I´d say its fairly simple: The enterprise computer constantly monitors all conversations and does a simple context analysis.

 

[Saquist]

yeah that's seems pretty straight forward.
Programing could recognized the appropriate pause and context as well as recognize commands and queries that follow the word, computer.

The computer wouldn't have to monitor all conversations but just be triggered to respond to a base set of parameters.

 

[Timo]

OTOH, on a holodeck, the computer is indeed required to monitor all conversations. And body language to boot!

It thus shouldn't be a technological limitation if doorways or sonic showers are incapable of analyzing every conversation to the fullest and only concentrate on keywords. It's more the result of privacy concerns, or of streamlining done not because the soft- or hardware is struggling to cope, but because the user is better off with streamlined command formats.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Saquist]

OTOH, on a holodeck, the computer is indeed required to monitor all conversations. And body language to boot!

It thus shouldn't be a technological limitation if doorways or sonic showers are incapable of analyzing every conversation to the fullest and only concentrate on keywords. It's more the result of privacy concerns, or of streamlining done not because the soft- or hardware is struggling to cope, but because the user is better off with streamlined command formats.

Timo Saloniemi

The Holodeck is a safety concern
Anything else outside the ship is just a waste of CPU power.