The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > The black holes in this movie are scientifically correct...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 07-02-2009, 11:58 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

It seems they did have somebody onboard for science advice - though this interview is a bit pre-release of the film, there are a couple of interesting points about how some 'real' rules have to be broken in a Hollywood feature film.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/11/inte...ience-advisor/
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-02-2009, 12:25 PM
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
OneBuckFilms OneBuckFilms is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 909
Default

Real Singularities:

A real Black Hole is usually a spinning, spherical object with such incredible mass, that a Singularity is created at it's center.

There is a puzzle in physics caused by this, since information in the Singularity is crushed out of existence, and Black Holes do eventually evaporate (they bleed a tiny mount of energy in the form of radiation), and will eventually disappear, and this breaks the rule in physics that information cannot be destroyed.

The activity around a real black hole depends on what is in it's gravitational pull, such as a star orbiting it, or the matter of a nearby nebula.

Supermassive black holes exist at the center of most Galaxies, producing what used to be called Quasars.

Of course the science is kind of ridiculous and wrong in many areas of Star Trek, and even the Transporter is not a real possibility under our current knowledge of physics.

BTW, the "lightning storm in space" description appears to be for the exit points of these Black Hole tunnels in the movie.
__________________
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-02-2009, 12:46 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

I can't confirm any of that.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-02-2009, 01:28 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneiko Katratze View Post
May be this is what you want me to say so it fits your argument.
Lets find out.

Quote:
I say: it´s ALL fictional. There are no inches or miles in this. Fiction is fiction.
That statement is fiction.
The Entire movie is not Fiction. For instances:
Earth is not a fictional place. Neither is Saturn or Titan.
Space is moving so that is not Fiction.
They Speak English so that's not Fictional.
They use some Physics: Physics is not Fictional.
They actually use the word "Light Year" which is based on a system of miles to inches or Kilometers to centimeters by the time that light travels....

So you're wrong.
There are inches and miles and it's not all fiction.
Your argument was that if one thing is fictional then you can make it all up. However it's the genre of Sci Fiction so it must be real science in some way. You reasoned that if One thing is fictional then it can all be fictional. You said that. If that's not what you meant then you shouldn't have said..."It's all Fictional." -"Red Matter is no more Silly than Transporters are silly."

Quote:
For you it´s just one more way to say, that you don´t like STXI. But I already know that. For me it´s OK if you don´t like it. But is it OK for you, that so many people all around the world like STXI?
Thus what you know is highly suspect. You think I dislike the film. I never said I did. I said it was dumb and silly. You BELIEVE that those points must inevitably lead to dislike. You are in error.

Logic was not with you today, Sneiko.



Quote:
Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms View Post
I'm still not hearing anything convincing to tell me Red Matter is all that silly compared to the Genesis Device.
The point wasn't to convince you.
I could write a persuasive essay and still not convince you for reason that would all equal lack of will or mental incapacity. The point was to inform you.


Quote:
- The Hobus Star contains a significant component of Dilithium and Trilithium, which means that when the star goes nova, part of the explosion will enter the Subspace Domain, and the energy released would rip SpaceTime to shreads throughout the Galaxy.
Stars can't contain any form of crystal.

Quote:
- It is possible to contain the energy by creating a Black Hole, which would have the effect of countering the rapid expansion of the Spacetime fragmentation.
That is possible.
Or at least logically thought out with no real physic contradictions.

Quote:
- Red Matter creates a black hole because when exposed to a high degree of heat, it unwraps the subatomic strings, unleashing the Gravitational force that is normally much more contained, thus creating a singularity.
Gravity isn't a force though. (despite what the books say)
Space IS in motion
If Time is Space in Motioin then Gravity is Space Accelerating. (This is understood)
The only property that can be unleashed from anyform of matter is energy and minisule motion.

Quote:
- Time Travel through a Black Hole is possible through a black hole because the 2 rules in physics, that information cannot be destroyed, and that nothing can escape the black hole's gravitational pull, means that a vessel that can isolate itself into Subspace, although pulled by Gravity, can survive long enough to enter the Singularity. Since Spacetime is fractured at that point, a tunnel could be created, similar to a wormhole, where Matter can pass through to another point in Spacetime. Essentially, what is theoretically referred to as a "White Hole".
1. I completely unfamilar with that first rule. I've never found it anywhere in Physics personally.

2. I don't think a Warp field could make it'self isolated enough not to be destroyed. But at least it's an explanation.

3.The introduction of a expanding Space time seperate the surrounding Space It's still likely to have no effect on a singularity of that many solar masses but A ships warp field might be more than capable of altering or warping the space time of these SO CALLED red matter singularities since they obviously lack the mass to reach even one solar mass. SO...

They would be able to escape the singularity that destroyed the Narada but the others are unlikely.

Quote:
- Red Matter was named by the Vulcan/Human scientists who discovered it, due to it's apparent color, as a shorthand during studies. It's existence and properties leaked out to the public, and the nickname stuck.
More than likelly and more than acceptable if the Movie had said it.
Alas, it's only you.
In the end you're story-guessing and that means that some doesn't know how to actually Tell a Story.

Quote:
Dramatically however, none of this really matters. What would you call it, BTW? Anyone got a better name for it?
Lets see.
It's Matter that Rapidly increases in Density when ignited. Sounds like a Form of Exotic Matter
  1. <LI itxtvisited="1">A hypothetical kind of matter that has both a negative energy density and a negative pressure or tension that exceeds the energy density. All known forms of matter have positive energy density and pressures or tensions that are always less than the energy density in magnitude. In a stretched rubber band, for example, the energy density is 100 trillion times greater than the tension. A possible source of exotic matter lies in the behavior of certain vacuum states in quantum field theory (see Casimir effect). If such matter exists, or could be created, it might make possible schemes for faster-than-light travel, such as stable wormholes and the Alcubierre warp drive.
  2. A more general definition of exotic matter is any kind of matter that is non-baryonic, i.e., not made of baryons – the subatomic particles, such as protons and neutrons, of which ordinary matter is composed.
Or you could call it a Mass Accelerant
E=MC^2 tells us that adding energy to matter in the form of Motion will Add Mass. So..as you can see adding Mass is what Red Matter does. OR that it increases it's energy. Likely there is a threshold. Likely Zero Point energy is the tipping factor.
__________________


Last edited by Saquist : 07-02-2009 at 01:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-02-2009, 01:30 PM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms View Post
Real Singularities:

A real Black Hole is usually a spinning, spherical object with such incredible mass, that a Singularity is created at it's center.
Are there non-spherical black holes? From what I understand, ALL black holes, from the supermassive to the theoretical micro black holes, are spherical. It is just a common misconception to visualize a black hole as a literal hole on a flat surface.


Quote:
Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms View Post
There is a puzzle in physics caused by this, since information in the Singularity is crushed out of existence, and Black Holes do eventually evaporate (they bleed a tiny mount of energy in the form of radiation), and will eventually disappear, and this breaks the rule in physics that information cannot be destroyed.
You know who first proposed this? It was Stephen Hawking. When he came up with this it was NOT very well accepted. In fact, MOST physicists said it could not be true. Hawking was practically alone in this belief for many years. Know how he eventually got "around" the problem? He postulated that the information still exists in an alternate universe where the black hole does not exist. So he is actually looking at the problem from a multi-verse standpoint, rather than from a single universe. I recently saw a documentary on the History channel about all this.

edit: I just read on Wikipedia that Hawking's current theory is that black holes actually radiate all information they "consume", but in garbled form. This is much different from what I saw on the History channel's documentary.


Quote:
Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms View Post
The activity around a real black hole depends on what is in it's gravitational pull, such as a star orbiting it, or the matter of a nearby nebula.
Yep. There could be a black hole sitting out there, but without anything for it to feed off of, it would not be visible. We can't actually see black holes, only their effects on things around them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms View Post
Supermassive black holes exist at the center of most Galaxies, producing what used to be called Quasars.
One theory gaining much acceptance is that supermassive black holes actually are instrumental in the formation of galaxies. I think they are now believed to be in the center of all galaxies. Those pre-galaxy gas clouds don't count since they are not really galaxies yet! The supermassive black hole creates a quasar, the superheated gas spinning around it, and the energy given off actually pushes the rest of the galactic matter away from the center, kind of like a solar wind. This may or may not be what sparks the creation of stars. Eventually the entire quasar is devoured by the supermassive and the rest of the matter is out of it's reach. There is already strong evidence to indicate the overall size of a galaxy is directly propotional to the size of the supermassive black hole at it's center.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica

Last edited by MrQ1701 : 07-02-2009 at 01:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-02-2009, 03:30 PM
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
OneBuckFilms OneBuckFilms is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
The point wasn't to convince you.
I could write a persuasive essay and still not convince you for reason that would all equal lack of will or mental incapacity. The point was to inform you.
Okay. I guess I'm informed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
Stars can't contain any form of crystal.
Did I say Crystal? Dilithium is not necessarily crystaline. It hasn't been established either way whether or not Dilithium in Star Trek is or is not crystaline. Though Countdown does have a different explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
That is possible.
Or at least logically thought out with no real physic contradictions.
Thanks !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
Gravity isn't a force though. (despite what the books say) Space IS in motion. If Time is Space in Motioin then Gravity is Space Accelerating. (This is understood)
The only property that can be unleashed from anyform of matter is energy and minisule motion.
Seems I need to brush up on my physics. I always though Gravity to one of 4 fources (Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces, Electromagnetic and Gravitiational) that were combined as one in the primordial universe into a Superforce. There is a theory that every point in the universe is bound up somehow into a Torus like structure, and that only a limited amount of gravity was unleashed. Something to do with String Theory, though I'm not sure I understand it very well. This was offered as an explanation as to why Gravity was so weak compared tothe other 3 forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
1. I completely unfamilar with that first rule. I've never found it anywhere in Physics personally.
Then what was the Information Paradox that Stephen Hawking was working on that contradicted his theory as to how/why black holes evaporate and disappear?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
2. I don't think a Warp field could make it'self isolated enough not to be destroyed. But at least it's an explanation.

3.The introduction of a expanding Space time seperate the surrounding Space It's still likely to have no effect on a singularity of that many solar masses but A ships warp field might be more than capable of altering or warping the space time of these SO CALLED red matter singularities since they obviously lack the mass to reach even one solar mass. SO...

They would be able to escape the singularity that destroyed the Narada but the others are unlikely.

More than likelly and more than acceptable if the Movie had said it.
Alas, it's only you.

In the end you're story-guessing and that means that some doesn't know how to actually Tell a Story.
Actually it means I like to create a plausible explanation until a better one eventually comes along for the fun of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post

Lets see.
It's Matter that Rapidly increases in Density when ignited. Sounds like a Form of Exotic Matter
  1. <LI itxtvisited="1">A hypothetical kind of matter that has both a negative energy density and a negative pressure or tension that exceeds the energy density. All known forms of matter have positive energy density and pressures or tensions that are always less than the energy density in magnitude. In a stretched rubber band, for example, the energy density is 100 trillion times greater than the tension. A possible source of exotic matter lies in the behavior of certain vacuum states in quantum field theory (see Casimir effect). If such matter exists, or could be created, it might make possible schemes for faster-than-light travel, such as stable wormholes and the Alcubierre warp drive.
  2. A more general definition of exotic matter is any kind of matter that is non-baryonic, i.e., not made of baryons – the subatomic particles, such as protons and neutrons, of which ordinary matter is composed.
Or you could call it a Mass Accelerant
E=MC^2 tells us that adding energy to matter in the form of Motion will Add Mass. So..as you can see adding Mass is what Red Matter does. OR that it increases it's energy. Likely there is a threshold. Likely Zero Point energy is the tipping factor.
I like this. A line simply stating that Red Matter is a variant of Exotic Matter might have worked.

Now the real problem: How does one bring any of this up without hitting a general audience over the head with a science lesson?

Regardless of this, the rest was fantastic, IMHO.
__________________
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-02-2009, 03:54 PM
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
OneBuckFilms OneBuckFilms is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
Are there non-spherical black holes? From what I understand, ALL black holes, from the supermassive to the theoretical micro black holes, are spherical. It is just a common misconception to visualize a black hole as a literal hole on a flat surface.
I didn't know for sure. I'd always heard they were. I think they are also slightly "fuzzy" on a subatomic level in some way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
You know who first proposed this? It was Stephen Hawking. When he came up with this it was NOT very well accepted. In fact, MOST physicists said it could not be true. Hawking was practically alone in this belief for many years. Know how he eventually got "around" the problem? He postulated that the information still exists in an alternate universe where the black hole does not exist. So he is actually looking at the problem from a multi-verse standpoint, rather than from a single universe. I recently saw a documentary on the History channel about all this.

edit: I just read on Wikipedia that Hawking's current theory is that black holes actually radiate all information they "consume", but in garbled form. This is much different from what I saw on the History channel's documentary.
I think we both saw the same documentary. Interesting stuff ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
Yep. There could be a black hole sitting out there, but without anything for it to feed off of, it would not be visible. We can't actually see black holes, only their effects on things around them.
Once Vulcan was consumed, all we saw was a black area, a starfield around/behind it and the Enterprise rush by the camera.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
One theory gaining much acceptance is that supermassive black holes actually are instrumental in the formation of galaxies. I think they are now believed to be in the center of all galaxies. Those pre-galaxy gas clouds don't count since they are not really galaxies yet! The supermassive black hole creates a quasar, the superheated gas spinning around it, and the energy given off actually pushes the rest of the galactic matter away from the center, kind of like a solar wind. This may or may not be what sparks the creation of stars. Eventually the entire quasar is devoured by the supermassive and the rest of the matter is out of it's reach. There is already strong evidence to indicate the overall size of a galaxy is directly propotional to the size of the supermassive black hole at it's center.
Seems we've been watching the same stuff on the Science Channel as well ..
__________________
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:17 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.