A few thoughts about energy weapons

[DAgent]

One thing quite common in Sci Fi shows like Star Trek and Star Wars and Stargate and similar, is that they use some sort of energy weapons, and they seem to have no recoil at all, which makes some sense to me giving it's not working like a conventional firearm, but they do tend to hit with some impact in some cases. See Stormtroopers in Star Wars staggering back after taking a Blaster hit, whereas over in Trek sometimes people simply fall over after taking a Phaser shot, or go flying.

But would that even happen with energy based weapons? Not counting things like vaporising the person being shot as that's a different issue altogether, just how realistic would it be to have energy weapons whose projectiles hit their target with physical force like that, and not generate any recoil on the user?

Also would the length of an energy weapon make any difference to it's range? Think the Hand Phasers from Star Trek TNG for example. There are Phaser Rifles, which are supposed to be more powerful as well as being more bulky overall, but does one really have more range than the other? If you were to secure one of each side by side so their emitters were right next to one another, would they have the same range as one another, or would the Phaser Rifle have more range due to the tech inside it?

Likewise, would Han Solo get more range from his Blaster if he extended the barrel like we sometimes see some real world pistols do? I'm thinking something along the lines of the original Transformers Megatron's gun mode where he had various attachments added to his gun to make his pistol more like a refile, but I'm not sure what any of those parts are called.

 

[Swank]

An integral part of science fiction is the creation and use of technology that does not use known physics. That can be a truly exotic device that "reprograms reality" or something more mundane seeming like a FTL telephone or a weapon that fires a beam that acts like a physical force. They are fiction, and the main thing "serious" SF fans want is that their existence and use are kept consistent and align with other technology.

So "energy weapons" are simply a catch-all for any gun-like thing that isn't a laser or a projectile. For instance: If you have an SF universe with force fields, it would be reasonable that you may be able to project small, short term ones at high velocity. Since they would have velocity and not be penetrateable, they might act like projectiles to the target while having no kick for the shooter.


Most all of this kind of thing is shown on screen, though books do depict it to an extent. However, most weapons (and SF tech in general) follow aesthetic rules borrowed from real life: Big guns are more powerful, more accurate and shoot further. Small guns have limited range and empty faster. But those rules are arbitrary and just allow a TV show to make soldiers look like soldiers with rifles. Which is why the Angry Cricket gun from Men in Black is so funny.

If you want to see the opposite of what you're asking about, read the manga Blame!. The hero has a gravity beam emitter the size of a handgun that he can fire accurately hundreds of miles and will blast through otherwise indestructible matter.


As for Star Wars, keep in mind that the blasters do have kick (they are mostly built out of functioning firearms and were filmed using blanks), so they may not be pure energy weapons. Or, they are firing an energy that acts somewhat like a projectile. There is no discussion in the films about how they function.


Overall, this is a question much like "why do Star Wars space ships fly like planes?" The answer is: Because that's how their underlying technology principles causes them to move. Not that the filmmakers were idiots.

 

[THX1138]

Ray and energy weapons are in all kinds of TV shows and movies, look at the ones from the 50's and 60's!
So, as for your questions, remember that each type of energy weapon in Star Trek, Star Wars, and The Transformers is unique and specific to each of the three worlds. And the power source for these is more akin to that of a Nuclear power plant, in the palm of your hand.

So, in Star Wars and The Transformers, the weapons are energy bolt weapons. They fire a ball of condensed, coherent ion/plasma energy. Thus the tracer appearance. Han Solo's blaster is more powerful than the Stormtroopers because as seen in E4 A New Hope in the Mos Eisley Space Port battle scene. The same goes for the Laser Crossbows too. Think of a lighting bolt condensed into a sphere and fired like what we see in those two movies. Talk about impact! Stormtroopers' blasters are carbines, Solo's blaster is a magnum, and Chewbacca's Crossbow blaster is a magnum carbine. Transformers as well.

Star Trek phasers are phase energy weapons, thus why they are always changing the phase frequency in order to have an effect on their opponents.
Stun affects the nervous system. Kill damages the nervous system and muscle tissue, while disrupters/vaporize distroy/annihilate all organic tissues, as you know.
The rifles have a larger power supply, thus longer last and greater damage. Also, the Star Trek world tends to be more QCB than long-distance attacks, thus there are times of long-distance shots being taken, but not very accurately overall.

So as for today, we have tasers and cattle prods that will put you down, most of the time, but not always. Yes, there are LASERS, Rail Cannons, and Coil Guns. Could the weapons of Star Wars, The Transformers, or Star Trek become real? I think Star Treks could be sooner and more realistic. The other two, maybe on a large scale. Laser weapons are becoming more real today, as are Rail Cannons and Coile Guns, but these two too a point.

 

[Brian G Turner]

they use some sort of energy weapons, and they seem to have no recoil at all

IMO if we're talking about "laser blasters" then they will have no kick because light has no significant mass to accelerate and therefore cause a recoil. However, when the laser hits an object then it might be argued that the impact causes a super heating and expansion of the target area, causing a small explosion and hence kick - but it might be more reasonably be argued that the effect of people falling back from arms fire would look more familiar and acceptable to an audience, so is retained simply for the visual effect.

The bigger question might be to ask why Stormtroopers wear armour at all when it clearly offers so little protection to any kind of weapons-fire - but the main reason they wear it is to dehumanize them, and therefore make it more acceptable for heroes to "kill " them.

this is a question much like "why do Star Wars space ships fly like planes?" The answer is: Because that's how their underlying technology principles causes them to move. Not that the filmmakers were idiots.

IIRC the ships in Star Wars move like aeroplanes simply because George Lucas wanted them to look that way for aesthetic reasons, not because of any consideration for technology or physics - and that before the special effects were added in he used footage of WWI fighters to fill the spaces. At the end of the day film-makers are interested primarily in how something will look to the general audience, rather than pander to a tiny minority who might worry about the physics of realism.

 

[Danny McG]

Dalek's weapons rule

 

[Raincloud Man]

I don't know if it's ever specified in the series but my headcanon is that they use a combination of laser assisted energy transfer and transmat technology.
Since the victims end up with their guts scrambled, and it's Daleks so they obviously want the process to be as painful as possible.

 

[tinkerdan]

Voice from back stage:
"What do you want? We're actors, not physicists".

 

[Vladd67]

I don't know if it's ever specified in the series but my headcanon is that they use a combination of laser assisted energy transfer and transmat technology.
Since the victims end up with their guts scrambled, and it's Daleks so they obviously want the process to be as painful as possible.

In a book I read involving the War Doctor the Daleks invented a gun that not only killed you but removed you from time so you never existed. A weapon that would have far reaching consequences and create many plot holes.

 

[Raincloud Man]

In a book I read involving the War Doctor the Daleks invented a gun that not only killed you but removed you from time so you never existed. A weapon that would have far reaching consequences and create many plot holes.

That's similar to how the timelords basic sidearms for guards work, they freeze your timeline at the point of impact and separates it from local time. They call them staser guns from what I recall.
Of course since the Daleks have cruder time travel tech, removing you from time altogether is probably all they can manage.

 

[Swank]

IIRC the ships in Star Wars move like aeroplanes simply because George Lucas wanted them to look that way for aesthetic reasons, not because of any consideration for technology or physics - and that before the special effects were added in he used footage of WWI fighters to fill the spaces. At the end of the day film-makers are interested primarily in how something will look to the general audience, rather than pander to a tiny minority who might worry about the physics of realism.

That's the aesthetic Lucas wanted, and the rest of the filmmakers (FX department, models, etc) invented and applied the rules of that aesthetic in a consistent manner that is found in every film (except for the The Last Jedi). How something "looks" is the "physics of realism", and audiences see and appreciate that - even if just subconsciously.

Star Wars isn't special. Its fake science is just as carefully crafted as any other decent SF book or movie's fake science. What an author wants to write about is an aesthetic - spaceship battles, humanoid aliens, FTL, handheld weapons, androids, Wild West futures - all of that stuff is absurdly unlikely, but aesthetically pleasing. So authors create fake science to service whatever aesthetic they want to write about and readers want to read. That's 90% of what SF is. And it will be appreciated (or at least remain invisible) as long as it obeys an internal logic the reader/viewer can sense.

I like to use Star Wars (at least the originals) as examples because the display of science and technology is actually much more consistent than it is in something like Star Trek or The Expanse. (And all three are based on speculative nonsense.)

 

[Swank]

In a book I read involving the War Doctor the Daleks invented a gun that not only killed you but removed you from time so you never existed. A weapon that would have far reaching consequences and create many plot holes.

There's also a weapon that fills plot holes. You have to aim it very carefully, though.

 

[Le Panda du Mal]

Energy weapons look cool. They're fun. No need to overthink it. Realistically they aren't getting very far unless we find a way to miniaturize batteries the way we do microchips and other things, as well as get through things like... fog. Whenever I see a military talking about developing an energy weapon I assume it's just another ruse to soak up funding and line someone's pockets.

 

[Raincloud Man]

There's also a weapon that fills plot holes. You have to aim it very carefully, though.

Omega probably invented it, and Rassillon stole the credit as usual.

 

[Vladd67]

Although coil guns are available a lot of work is still needed.

 

[THX1138]

@Vladd67 Very true!