Data has a Positronic Brain, inspired (lifted) from Asimov's Robot stories. Given that a positron is an elementary particle having the same mass and magnitude of charge as an electron but exhibiting a positive charge (basically an antielectron), how would using positrons be an advantage over electrons (Electronic Brain)? Positrons are used today in Tomographic Imaging; could similar principles be at work?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
That's a very good question. Are you wanting a Trek-world answer? Because I don't think anyone's ever come up with one. As you say, the only reason they used the term was as an homage to Asimov; whether or not he had a reason for choosing the term 'positronic' back in about 1940 or 1941 (when the first robot stories were written) other than that it sounded futuristic, I don't know.
Posted by Sargon (Member # 1090) on :
quote: Are you wanting a Trek-world answer?
Of course, why else would I be posting in this forum?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Of course, silly me, daring to mention reality here, of all places. Why then mention Tomographic Imaging?
Posted by kmart (Member # 1092) on :
From what I remember of Asimov's essays about his writing of the stories, positrons had been in the news as of late and so it was a good buzzword (possibly suggested by his editor John Campbell, not sure about that.) I gather he was embarassed by its use later on, and I imagine despite his friendship with GR that he had to have flinched when hearing that crazy DATALORE line of Riker's about Soong's positronics efforts relating to 'Asimov's dream.'
I suppose you could justify it by saying that particular mention of Asimov sets NextGen in an alternate universe from this one, since in that universe, Asimove must not have been a biochemist/sf writer, but instead a failed roboticist.
Further into the trek universe I don't know how to justify it, but since TOS referenced antiproton as hightech weaponry, I guess you could figure that all these anti particles are super high tech, and that positrons would fit into that cutting edge aspect. No practical science to support it that I have ever heard of, though.
Posted by Sargon (Member # 1090) on :
quote: Why then mention Tomographic Imaging?
Because treknical fiction, like all science fiction, is best when there is agrounding in real science and technology. If all we do is throw alot of meaningless technobabble around, then it just becomes tedious and boring. If we speculate how it could work, given certain premises, then it remains quite interesting.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Antiparticle technology need not be cutting edge as such, seeing how it's commonplace in propulsion applications. Certainly the containment of antiparticles is mundane tech by the 23rd century, and might make practical the use of an electronic brain that simply adds (-1) to the possible states that include the presence (1) and absence (0) of elementary charge. Such a system does not sound very high-tech, though. The brief presence of positrons could also be part of some sort of "virtual electronics" where the electrons and positrons aren't there for most of the time, but are created as needed.
Alternately, "positronic" could be a buzzword having nothing to do with positrons. Perhaps a contraction of "positional electronics", whatever that would mean.
It could also be simple engineer humor. Positronic brain == brain that fits inside an android cranium, because that's how the Great Asimov ("great" as every engineer's favorite writer, not "great" as a robotics specialist) put it.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well, consider it from Asimov's potential point of view: if positrons are really anti-electrons, and literall ALL modern, powered technology is electronic (using the transmission of electrons to provide power), might it not seem at least kinda logical that the next step could be to use something that's similar, but different?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Because a Pop-O-Matic brain would have been silly.