Page 1 of 1
Star Trek and RL antimatter
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:35 pm
by Picard
Re: Star Trek and RL antimatter
Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:28 am
by Lucky
Well that explains a lot.
Re: Star Trek and RL antimatter
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:13 am
by Khas
Who knows? Maybe the laws of physics were different in that universe? Normal universe antimatter behaves realistically in ST, for the most part.
Re: Star Trek and RL antimatter
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:18 am
by Lucky
As I recall multiverse theory suggests there may be at least one universe out there that time runs in reverse from our perspective as I recall. The whole everything being the opposite of our universe is therefore theoretically realistic as I understand it as a guy on the street.
Re: Star Trek and RL antimatter
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:25 am
by Picard
Such universe might exist (althought I don't see how) but it has nothing to do with antimatter. Antimatter abides to same laws as matter does in certain universe; claimimg that just beacouse universe is composed from antmatter time must automatically go in reverse (anti-time), is absurd. To me it seems that someone likes anti- prefix too much.
Re: Star Trek and RL antimatter
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:13 pm
by Lucky
Picard wrote:Such universe might exist (althought I don't see how) but it has nothing to do with antimatter. Antimatter abides to same laws as matter does in certain universe; claimimg that just beacouse universe is composed from antmatter time must automatically go in reverse (anti-time), is absurd. To me it seems that someone likes anti- prefix too much.
Multiverse theory says each universe will have it's own laws of physics, and at least some versions of the theory say that mommy universes spawn baby universes in pairs that are equal but opposite in every way.
You are mixing up alternate time lines with alternate universes.
Re: Star Trek and RL antimatter
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:00 am
by Picard
I know what alternite timeline is, and I know what alternate universe is. But I am pointing out that there is no connection between antimatter and antitime.
Re: Star Trek and RL antimatter
Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:11 am
by Lucky
Picard wrote:I know what alternite timeline is, and I know what alternate universe is. But I am pointing out that there is no connection between antimatter and antitime.
Anti-Time is canon in Star Trek, and nearly destroys the universe.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Anti-time
Time not moving the same way in all universes is part of multiverse theory.
Re: Star Trek and RL antimatter
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:47 pm
by Picard
I know. But that has nothing to do with my point about connection between two (or better, lack of connection). You can have antimatter-based universe where time is running normally, antitime universe based on matter, as well as antitime universe based on antimatter.
EDIT: On another note, "antitime universe" is probably impossible - you would have (for example) apple tree growing backwards towards being sapling, then that sapling turning into pit, then pit turning into rotten apple, and rotten apple "unrotting" towards new apple. Problem is that, at one point, you would have to have apple which fell to the tree "jumping" back on traversal; that partcular feat would require gravity changing into antigravity; as everything we see in universe (planets, stars, etc.) is held together by gravity, there would be literally no visible objects in universe, only particles held by nuclear, covalent, ionic or similar bonds would exist (making mollecules largest possible "pieces" of matter / antimatter within universe). That alone makes universe same as ours which just has time running backwards utterly impossible.
Re: Star Trek and RL antimatter
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:42 am
by Lucky
Picard wrote:I know. But that has nothing to do with my point about connection between two (or better, lack of connection). You can have antimatter-based universe where time is running normally, antitime universe based on matter, as well as antitime universe based on antimatter.
EDIT: On another note, "antitime universe" is probably impossible - you would have (for example) apple tree growing backwards towards being sapling, then that sapling turning into pit, then pit turning into rotten apple, and rotten apple "unrotting" towards new apple. Problem is that, at one point, you would have to have apple which fell to the tree "jumping" back on traversal; that partcular feat would require gravity changing into antigravity; as everything we see in universe (planets, stars, etc.) is held together by gravity, there would be literally no visible objects in universe, only particles held by nuclear, covalent, ionic or similar bonds would exist (making mollecules largest possible "pieces" of matter / antimatter within universe). That alone makes universe same as ours which just has time running backwards utterly impossible.
Picard, the anti-universe would be possible because the laws of physics would be different there then those in our universe.
Re: Star Trek and RL antimatter
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:37 pm
by Picard
And that is entire point. For anti-universe to exist, everything should be opposite - meaning that gravity should deflect objects apart, instead of drawing them together. Meaning that nothing would be able to remain in one piece.
Re: Star Trek and RL antimatter
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:22 am
by Lucky
Picard wrote:And that is entire point. For anti-universe to exist, everything should be opposite - meaning that gravity should deflect objects apart, instead of drawing them together. Meaning that nothing would be able to remain in one piece.
Given the "stars" were black I'd say the place runs on a different set of physical laws then we do.