Don't Starfleet (or whatever they're called) use a similar technology in their holodecks, too?
Top boffins at Imperial College in London, an institution famed for its pioneering research into invisible sheds, have outdone themselves this time. They say they have applied the undetectable garden sanctum theory of metamaterials to produce a still cunninger concept - a type of "space-time cloak" which would produce the " …
Holodecks used a combination of imagery to fool the senses, forcefield to provifde substance (and act as a treadmill) as well s replicators and transporters to create physical objects. Since replicators and shields are derivatives of the transporter (itself a derivative of subspace communications)...then yes. It's sort of based on the transporter.
Everything that's not a vacuum makes like travel more slowly, so you can be faster than the standard speed of light within a material while still remaining firmly below the speed of light in a vacuum.
It's this slowing down that makes things like glasses lenses and magnifying glasses work.
"The speed of light" as people say is more accurately described as "the speed of light in a vacuum." it is possible to slow down and speed up light within any other material, as it will always be slower than the speed of light in a vacuum. These guys are adjusting material properties to do just that. Note that light will never move faster than "the speed of light in a vacuum" relative to a fixed observer.
Essentially, transporters, worked similar to their FTL "radios:" they operated using subspace. The concept behind subspace was that it was essentially another dimension (or series of dimensions) in which the existing rules of physics don't apply. Say for example that you want to move an object faster than light. Impossible in our spacetime, no? What if you could put that object into a universe where the speed of light was higher, and the thrust of an Ion engine could move it at FTL speeds? If that universe mapped distances roughly cognate to our own, then when you recalled the object from this alternate spacetime it would appear to have travelled faster than light.
Hokum by the standards of our current science...but reasonably well explained.
According to the animation, the chicken is crossing an 8 lane highway while traffic is moving. Not only that, but it must move with traffic, entering at one marker and exiting at the next marker down the road. Given 12 foot lanes and 70 feet between markers (rough estimate of the scale of the picture), the chicken would have to travel over 118 feet in the same time that traffic travels 70 feet (the distance between the markers).
If traffic on this highway is running at a pedestrian 60 MPH, the chicken will have to be going almost 102 MPH to get across, assuming he can avoid the inevitable motorcyclist weaving between the cars.
clearly you didn't see that world's fastest Magnetic rail gun they use to get it across the road.
they filled the chicken head full of metal as no one cares about chicken heads on the barbecue ,only fried breast,wing and leg matter >_> you cant see the rail gun or the detached chicken head as its in front on the main body by the time you see it
are aware of individual photons of light but humans sometimes need several photons to register them at all , a chicken/frog hybrid would combine discriminating between induvidual photons and very rapid processing where centrifugal inputs from the isthmo-optic nucleus make calycal synapses on the somata of unusual axon-bearing interneurons in the inner retina of the chicken.
"Hey, boffins: You do the science, we write the headlines, OK?"
Ok then, Lewis, now that we can do the science, would you care to start writing the headlines that do justice to what the science can do, or much more importantly, is doing, cloaked from view.
For the record, I never liked the "transporter" analogy, since at best it only gives the appearance of instantaneous transport. But this device _is_ a cloak.
Rather pleased to see my crap anim in the Reg. :-) And for the full chicken analogy, see http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/files/STcloak/
Regarding "already at the speed of light" above, you have to embed the cloak in a non-vacuum medium -- so you can both slow down from average-speed, and speed up to above average speed (max the vac. speed of light),
...was to get rid of that annyoing lapse in the action that would be caused by launching/landing a shuttlecraft.
@Alan: Light "appears" to speed up and slow down when passing through various forms of matter. In theory, what is actually happening is that spacetime is distorted by mass.
Don't think this is correct. Spacetime is distorted by mass but that's not the explanation for 'slowing'
My understanding is that it is 'slowed' by interaction with the fields in the material & scattering - the photons do travel at c in the vacuum between particles.
...travel by attaching to spacetime, which is moving at C. Kinda like someone standing on a streetcar.
If spacetime bends, the path of photons bends with it, for example gravitational lensing around a star. (After all, gravity is not a force, it is a distortion of spacetime.)
Inside matter, spacetime is likewise distorted by each atom of matter creating a longer total path. The photon is still attached to spacetime, traveling at C, but the path is longer due to the bending back and forth of spacetime. We see this longer path as a slower speed.
This is basically nonsense.
Mass ( and energy ) do distort spacetime and light can be 'bent' by this but the amount of mass required to significantly do this is HUGE, otherwise you'd see gravitational lensing at every street corner Yet light slows reproducibly in even the smallest amount of material no matter how long the path.
"Inside matter, spacetime is likewise distorted by each atom of matter creating a longer total path. The photon is still attached to spacetime, traveling at C, but the path is longer due to the bending back and forth of spacetime. We see this longer path as a slower speed."
Sounds like someone's managed to unify general relativity with quantum mechanics... post your proof and book your ticket to Stockholm!
...here. I am just restating what i have read elsewhere.
The only original thought is the part about photons "attaching" to time. This came to me when I started thinking about oft heard phrases such as:
1. "photons do not experience time" (since a photon is attached to and thus traveling at the same speed as time, time does not pass it.)
2. "As matter moves through space, time passes more slowly" (because the matter is "catching up" to time. Consider, a train traveling at 60 mph passes a stationary observer in 1 minute. That same train will take 2 minutes to pass an observer in a vehicle moving at 30 MPH.)
How much does that gold medal weigh? I would be happy to share it with a math boffin that can write the proofs. Unlike Einstein I do not have a hot wife that can do the math for me.
So how come synchronized clocks with both train, stationary observer and moving observer will show essentially the same time throughout your 'experiment' and indeed after it ?
Measurements will only differ significantly at close to light speeds etc. unless the measurements are over large timescales
(Yes, I know this has been shown even with satellite clocks and commercial airliners but the time difference is very small, even with GPS satellites the velocity component of the relativity effects only equals ~7e-6 seconds/day - DLZ is claiming something - I'm not sure what I must say)
...kick in big time till you approach C. The archtypical story is the space traveller returning after 20 years ship time to find his great great grandchildren to greet him. Airliners go fast enough to make this perceptable, though only with the best of clocks.
That said, the mental picture has to do with visualizing time "passing" a stationary observer and a moving observer. At the speeds mentioned, there are probably no clocks accurate enough. Though, as i said it's just a thought experiment.
I believe he also viewed the transporter as something of a double-edged sword. Having used it to keep the narrative loping along nicely, they then had to engineer all sorts of reasons why it couldn't be used to extract characters from danger, to allow there to be any narrative at all.
Actually Roddenberry came up with the transporter concept precisely because it was expensive to show them getting in the shuttle and flying down and landing on a planet ... plus it was not visually all tat interesting to see them get into a smaller ship, leave dock, fly and land - when them arriving and interacting on taht planet is much more interestng so hence, the transporter ...
if I understand the matter correctly, either you see a beam of light or you feel it...
the object crossing the beam of light (that in some way is slowing down in the vacuum, for what they say) will be in complete darkness but feel the light all around it, while the other external observers will simply notice a sea of light... or just the other way around, mr Particled-waver...
I am surprised no one has pointed out is that this would render the Picard Maneuveur completely obsolete. You would be able to create a deflected image of the said craft without all the hassle of going to warp speed.
You would also not really have to worry about detection through gaseous displacement.
There is your star trek parallel - no need to thank me.
wIj coat 'oH wa' Daq Doq
I never saw a future in invisable sheds. However this sounds more like when the magician climbs into a cabinet, escapes through the trap door runs around the theatre to reappear at the back. With this technology a greener solution is offered. As to cloaks of invisability? We all know how it works but we don't tell Muggles
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020