Science of 'Star Trek' Falls Short

In its efforts to boldly go where no one has gone before, the latest Star Trek movie boldly introduces scientific ideas which no one has seen before.

According to Harvard astronomers, the makers of "Generations," which premiered last Friday, included several scenes that deviated significantly from the established laws of science.

"Star Trek in general is sort of wishful thinking," said Professor of Astronomy Jonathan E. Grindlay. "It's great entertainment, but unless we have missed something basic about space and time, which is a possibility, I don't think it would work."

Adam G. Reiss, a third-year graduate student in astronomy, agreed.

"They really stretch a lot of the science into inaccuracies in order to further the plot," he said.

One such flaw, Reiss said, occurs when a probe is launched into the center of the star. As soon as the probe reaches the star, the star blinks out.

Although the star would blink out in practice, Reiss said, it would not do so until about 15 minutes after the probe reached the center of the star. Waiting that long would prove tedious for the movie audiences, some say.

"It would be a very long time before you saw the star go dark," said Norman A. Grogin, a third-year graduate student in astronomy.

In fact, the crew of the Starship Enterprise's initial reason for launching the probe was scientifically flawed, some Ph.D. candidates said.

In the movie, the probe was sent to extinguish the star in order to change the magnitude of its gravitational pull, graduate movie-goers said.

But the force of a star's gravity is not changed when its light fades, they point out.

"You haven't changed what is there," Grogin said. "When a log is burning, you see fire. If you throw water on the fire, the log is still there."

Grogin explained that the star is like a log.

If the light of the star burns out, the star is still there, he said. Thus, the mass of the star--which is primarily responsible for its gravitational pull--has stayed the same; only the outer appearance of the star is different.

Consistently Wrong

Some of the scientific inaccuracies in "Generations" are recurrent throughout the Star Trek series, astronomers said.

"Star Trek has always had a million mistakes," said Sylvanie Wallington, a third-year graduate student in astronomy.

Grogin agreed.

"A lot of the problems you could cite are problems that have plagued the series from early on," he said.

Foremost among these problems, professors said, is that of traveling faster than the speed of light. In the Star Trek movies, the Enterprise routinely soars through space at unrealistic "warp speeds."

Professor of Astronomy John P. Huchra said the series has always encouraged a willing suspension of scientific disbelief.

"We don't believe anything can travel faster than the speed of light, but I would love to think we could," he said.

Travel beyond the speed of light is not compatible with known laws of physics, Grogin said.

"All we can say is whatever is known now," he said. "Our best frame-work does not permit travel faster than the speed of light."

Not only is such rapid interstellar trekking impossible, but the Star Trek characters' reliance on molecular transportation must also be taken with a grain of salt, skeptics say.

And when Captain Kirk says "Beam me up," the device Scotty uses to carry out his order is not only scientifically unfounded but hazardous, graduate students said.

"We know you can't really transform every particle into energy," Riess said. "You could never be able to break a person apart and put them together again because you would lose information."

Naysayers say even one of Star Trek's most fundamental ideas--the existence of aliens--is grounded in potentially faulty scientific reasoning.

"Of course, we haven't found any alien life yet," Grogin said, "and alien life that is out there would have to be light years away."

Still, all scientists are not spoil sports. Despite its inaccuracies, the Star Trek series is overall scientifically sound, professors said.

"It has a good scientific flavor," Riess said. "It definitely has some scientific impossibilities to it, but you have to be pretty picky to pay lot of attention to it."

The terminology used in the movies is accurate as well.

"They use a lot of scientific terminology and give a scientific feel to the movie," said Ian Dell'Antonio, a third-year graduate student in astronomy. "The movie just wouldn't fly if they had to stick to scientific fact. It would be a lot more dull.

"It would be a very long time before you saw the star go dark," said Norman A. Grogin, a third-year graduate student in astronomy.

In fact, the crew of the Starship Enterprise's initial reason for launching the probe was scientifically flawed, some Ph.D. candidates said.

In the movie, the probe was sent to extinguish the star in order to change the magnitude of its gravitational pull, graduate movie-goers said.

But the force of a star's gravity is not changed when its light fades, they point out.

"You haven't changed what is there," Grogin said. "When a log is burning, you see fire. If you throw water on the fire, the log is still there."

Grogin explained that the star is like a log.

If the light of the star burns out, the star is still there, he said. Thus, the mass of the star--which is primarily responsible for its gravitational pull--has stayed the same; only the outer appearance of the star is different.

Consistently Wrong

Some of the scientific inaccuracies in "Generations" are recurrent throughout the Star Trek series, astronomers said.

"Star Trek has always had a million mistakes," said Sylvanie Wallington, a third-year graduate student in astronomy.

Grogin agreed.

"A lot of the problems you could cite are problems that have plagued the series from early on," he said.

Foremost among these problems, professors said, is that of traveling faster than the speed of light. In the Star Trek movies, the Enterprise routinely soars through space at unrealistic "warp speeds."

Professor of Astronomy John P. Huchra said the series has always encouraged a willing suspension of scientific disbelief.

"We don't believe anything can travel faster than the speed of light, but I would love to think we could," he said.

Travel beyond the speed of light is not compatible with known laws of physics, Grogin said.

"All we can say is whatever is known now," he said. "Our best frame-work does not permit travel faster than the speed of light."

Not only is such rapid interstellar trekking impossible, but the Star Trek characters' reliance on molecular transportation must also be taken with a grain of salt, skeptics say.

And when Captain Kirk says "Beam me up," the device Scotty uses to carry out his order is not only scientifically unfounded but hazardous, graduate students said.

"We know you can't really transform every particle into energy," Riess said. "You could never be able to break a person apart and put them together again because you would lose information."

Naysayers say even one of Star Trek's most fundamental ideas--the existence of aliens--is grounded in potentially faulty scientific reasoning.

"Of course, we haven't found any alien life yet," Grogin said, "and alien life that is out there would have to be light years away."

Still, all scientists are not spoil sports. Despite its inaccuracies, the Star Trek series is overall scientifically sound, professors said.

"It has a good scientific flavor," Riess said. "It definitely has some scientific impossibilities to it, but you have to be pretty picky to pay lot of attention to it."

The terminology used in the movies is accurate as well.

"They use a lot of scientific terminology and give a scientific feel to the movie," said Ian Dell'Antonio, a third-year graduate student in astronomy. "The movie just wouldn't fly if they had to stick to scientific fact. It would be a lot more dull.