Reddit reviews The Physics of Star Trek

Wow, you're right. The opening paragraph was promising but then it's all like: "nope." "Yep." "Nope."

For an in-depth discussion of the subject, I enjoyed The Physics of Star Trek.

I think... the starships are using dilithium crystals to focus a matter/antimatter reaction that gives the incredible power to bend spacetime. They compress spacetime behind the ship and flatten it in front so spacetime moves, the ship isn't exactly propelled by anything that would let it coast (unless it was sublight under impulse thrust).

I think that's what this book said anyway

My apologies for my sarcasm - I am, in fact, often literally paid to be an asshole. I don't always remember to turn it off.

Tl;dr = "too long, didn't read" - it's internet shorthand for the summary. It is usually at the end of a long post where someone provides the most important point, or it may be an upvoted comment summarizing what someone else said - in this case it was used sarcastically.

In any event, I appreciate your candor and you came as polite without being defensive - you've upstaged me today, dotcomrade.

I found that when I was studying this stuff the math was always pretty abstract - a book that really covers a ton of this stuff really well and in memorable ways is "The Physics of Star Trek" by Laurence Krauss. You can read it in a weekend and the explanations are super memorable.

The Physics of Star Trek, FTW.

I read The Physics of Star Trek years ago, not canon of course, but I remember it having a section on exactly this question - does the transporter beam include the actual matter or just the information to assemble matter at the destination? If I remember right it doesn't ever settle on an answer, listing serious pros and cons (from a real life science perspective) to both approaches.

It's a pretty good read if you want to dig into this type of question a bit more out of universe: http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048

There are tons of episodes that deal with developing AI--Data's introduction in the pilot (his talk with Riker) probably has a couple gems, though I can't think of them off the top of my head. You might also look at episodes like
"The Ultimate Computer" (TOS), "Quality of Life" (TNG), "Measure of a Man" (TNG), etc. Voyager had some good AI moments with The Doctor, too--"Author, Author," deals with the personal rights of what is essentially a computer program, for example. I believe there was an episode in Voyager with a sentient bomb as well...Dreadnaught? If I weren't at work I'd like nothing better than to watch Star Trek all day and get you some quotes. :)

Also, I'll refer you to an excellent (though probably outdated) book by Lawrence Krauss: The Physics of Star Trek:
http://www.amazon.ca/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048

One of my favorite examinations of the problems with transporters is in Lawrence Krauss's The Physics of Star Trek which is over 20 years old at this point. Still completely relevant as far as these thought experiments go.

If you liked this you should read The Physics Of Star Trek in which they try to tackled the problem of how much energy is needed for the transporter to actually work.

https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048

I didn't say they get everything right. And the first book goes into much greater detail than you have on warp technology and why it doesn't work the way they say it does. I mean, hell, the book starts with the ship engaging in FTL, only to have the entire crew smashed to jelly due to inertia and why the intertial dampers are not quite right. He debunks as often as he supports. That being said, he also acknowledges that Star Trek does a far better job of representing current scientific knowledge than just about any other pop show.

Seriously, you sound like a reasonably intelligent person. Here is a link. Read a few sample pages. http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048#reader_0465002048

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0465002048

Entertaining book, BTW.

The problem is that you think I am complaining. I know you can only read text and not hear my voice but that wasnt what I was doing.

I wasnt complaining about the game at all. Liking it, and thinking about how it is wrong are not mutually exclusive.

The point you were missing is that part of the fun of scifi is thinking about how realistic/unrealistic it is and how it could be made more in line with reality.

One book i love is The Physics of Star Trek which is as much about how close they get to new physics as much as it is about talking about how far off they are sometimes and how they could be closer.

Youre crazy if you think I dont enjoy star trek while thinking about how "wrong" it can be.

Seems like a ripoff of The Physics of Star Trek from 2007