Why do Borg vessels lack shields?

[Teaos]

The chemical they use is one of the ones used in dry cleaning oddly enough. But I am talking about visibly. You cant see these particals at all even in large nubers.

[Thorin]

Let's make it simple;

Neutrinos (even a near-infinite number) are invisible - they cannot reflect light.
They do not interact easily at all (even a near-infinite number).
We can detect them today, however the process is extremely difficult and cumbersom.
Neutrinos can be detected by 23rd/24th century scanning devices, as easily as anything else.


But I don't see the problem with them being detected, and why that would discount this theory.

[Mikey]

Of course they're not visible!!! For all we know, they may have less mass than a photon - how would they be visible?

Better question: what does that have to do with anything?

[Thorin]

Incase people think because there are so many of them they will eventually become more visible (they won't).

You can't see an atom. But if you get enough of them you can see them, just pointing out that its different with neutrinos.

[Mikey]

You can't see an atom. But if you get enough of them you can see them, just pointing out that its different with neutrinos.

No you can't. You can see the characteristics of the composite body, but not the atoms. And with the state of sensors in 'Trek, I don't think it matters if you can actually see them or not.

[MetalHead]

I read the top post - it mentioned dry cleaning

just how far off topic IS this thread!?

[Mikey]

Believe it or not, there WAS a progression that led to dry cleaning.

[Thorin]

You can't see an atom. But if you get enough of them you can see them, just pointing out that its different with neutrinos.

No you can't. You can see the characteristics of the composite body, but not the atoms. And with the state of sensors in 'Trek, I don't think it matters if you can actually see them or not.

That's just being pedantic. If there were no atoms, you would not see anything. As there are, you do. To say you are seeing the light as opposed to the atoms is silly, even though it may be the most strict definition of "sight". I suppose you could say that you can't see anything, merely the light that they reflect. Which is true, but pedantic.

[Mikey]

I wasn't talking about a question of semantics. What I meant was this: if you look at me, you can see me, AND I comprise a number of atoms. However, you don't see my component atoms when you look at me. Neutrinos are not invisible in large numbers because of some special quality that they have; they are invisible because they don't bond, and therefore do not form large bodies like me, or a rock, or a stop sign.

Even if we define "seeing" as any form of observation, neutrinos still present a problem. Aside from observation of effects, as in a bubble chamber, it could be impossible to ever find a way to directly "see" a neutrino. Neutrinos are small mass, high-energy particles; even if there were a quantum small enough to reflect accurately from a neutrino, the Heisenberg principle posits that such observation will greatly affect a substantial attribute of the particle.

This in a sense is academic, however. We can't observe Schrodinger's cat, but would any of us bet on the scenario that it's not in the box?

[Thorin]

Of course I don't see your component atoms, but I am seeing the combination of a septillion number of atoms.
But what I meant is that with enough of anything, you can see the composite body. Apart from neutrinos; it's probably physically impossible to ever be able to see them with any technology, they're simply too small for any wavelength of light, or for any photon to hit.

But yes this is all academic; in the 24th century neutrinos can be easily tracked by scanning equipment. They make no interactions with surrounding matter. So this seems quite a possibility as the real meaning of "vapourised".

[Mikey]

Who would have thougth that after all that, we were actually in agreement?