Memory Alpha


Back to page

Revision as of 22:00, September 14, 2011 by 31dot (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
40,393pages on
this wiki


Some episode references would help. For example, incidents where special work was done on or through Data's brain? -- Dmsdbo 22:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to go in and out of trek. Jaf 15:08, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)Jaf
Better than half of this article is written in the wrong perspective and is based almost entirely on non-Trek/real world events that have no place in this form of Trek article. I have removed the following as being completely superfluous, however the rest of the article needs a major comb over and rewrite. --Alan del Beccio 22:51, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)


I removed:

Earth's first practical use for this form of antimatter was developed in 1973 AD. The PET, or Positron Emission Tomography scanner is a device that measures the annihilation of positions (supplied by an injected radioisotope) to analyze metabolic activity in specific parts of the body, usually the brain.
Positrons are not solely used in science fiction. PET scanning is a real life example of the use of positrons.

Real-life info, no Trek relevance or basis. --From Andoria with Love 11:24, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite neededEdit

This contains some good commentary data, but needs a drastic rewrite. For example, stating that a positron is a particle of antimatter may be all well and good for purposes of 21st Century science. However, within the Trek universe Data cannot possibly have a bunch of antimatter whirling about his brain; it would tend to explode. And postulating modulating fields that hold the positrons in magnetic confinement and keep him from being a walking core breach is far too complicated and implausible. So whatever else, a positron has to also describe something *else* for purposes of Trek. That is what the article should be concentrating on.Aholland 06:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have done a little research and have attempted to overhaul the article. Aholland 03:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my denseness, but why are "our" positrons different from "theirs"? I remember reading that Asimov pictured robot "thoughts" to be the creation and annihilation of positrons. I've always assumed that Soong found some way for this to work. Since only small numbers of particles are created or destroyed, there shouldn't be a problem with Data.AyalaofBorg 15:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No, i feel you are completely correct. A positron is a well known facet of science, and just because it has never been explained how these particles are used, it has been explicitly stated that they are used, therefore the conflicting reference you mention needed removal. -- Captain M.K.B. 15:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

One millionth of a gram of positrons contain as much energy as 37.8 kilograms (83 pounds) of TNT; it has not been explained how this energy whirling about Data's head is safely discharged. Nor has it been explained how Geordi can detect a subatomic particle that annihilates itself upon impact with any electron in less than a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second. It seemed the more rational suggestion that it is not what we, today, understand a positron to be. Much like the use of anti-photons in Trek - which don't exist at all under today's science. However, having said that, I've fine with leaving it out of the article since there is nothing explicit about them being different than a positively charged electron. Aholland 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that saying that its a completely different particle is entirely speculative. its more likely that, in the future, the way they are detected and contained is what is different than our scientists could imagine. hadn't you taken that into account? -- Captain M.K.B. 17:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The point above was that there was no explanation given, and unless time slows down in the future detection of such a particle will either require capabilities of the VISOR that are not seen (but sure would be useful) in any other episode, and/or a means of keeping Data's head from blowing up. I can buy into the latter; the former is a tad harder. But, as I said above, I've fine with leaving it out of the article since there is nothing explicit about them being different than a positively charged electron. Aholland 17:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The article about positronic brain in the Okuda Encyclopedia makes clear that they are one and the same particle, so there should be no problem.--Jörg 17:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
well, seeing as the exact capabilities of a VISOR have never been comprehensively defined, it might even be likely that Geordi's VISOR can see other unknown subspace particles created by positron interaction. even though that wasn't explicitly stated, i have no trouble "buying into it" when other explanations come to mind, rather than trying to add a more unlikely "renaming" of the particle into the article. Aholland has a good point however, that the article should remain as it is unless a canon problem with the science could be pointed out. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

With respect to how Data works - I see no problem with the possibility that magnetic fields could possibly be used to safely contain positrons with him. Of course there are many problems associated with doing this in practice, but hey, its sci-FI. However I also have an alternative possibility: I do not recall it ever being mentioned that Data's systems contain positrons, only that his systems are "positronic". In conductors and semi-conductors, currents can occur not only due to electrons moving, but also due to the "movement" of "holes" in atoms' structure where elctrons are missing. This is viewed as a positive current (since the absence of the negative electron is equivalent to the presence of a positive charge). Positronic systems, may therefore be those built on currents due to holes, rather than currents due to positrons. If you buy that?? --Desic 02:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed moreEdit

I removed the following:

Positrons are particles that occur naturally, can be created and directed as part of an active sensor scan by Federation starships and shuttlecraft, can be measured by Federation sensors, and is a basis upon which artificial brains can be constructed. Geordi La Forge's VISOR is constructed to sense positrons. The brainpaths of artificial brains are kept active by the flow of positrons, and brains so constructed are called positronic. {{incite}}

Lots of ideas, none of them cited. --Alan del Beccio 22:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

PNA-Incomplete IIEdit

Missing references:

Listed a few to start off with. --Alan del Beccio 22:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I move this whole list onto the main article itself? Or should we work it into a narrative for each mention?--Italianajt 20:17, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


It's a burst of positrons. --Alan del Beccio 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Positronic matrix Edit

Positrons are particles that wold appear during matter-antimatter reaction and they are controlled by magnetic constriction segments (as explained in Star Trek:Enterprise, "otherwise they would breach the hull"). In Data's brain, positrons are aligned in, to form the matrix which IS very unstable and tends to decay. Dr. Soong took several attempts(3 as I recall), until he was able to create stable positronic matrix. Quote: "The cranial unit housed the positronic brain of an android, and the brain was protected by shielding that made it virtually invulnerable to most kinds of radiation as well as a high-intensity charge of electricity or a heavy impact blow." End of quotation. I see this as confirmation of claim that the positrons in Data's brain are the same one as in real life, positively charged particles in place of electron's in anti-mater, protected inside some sort of shielding and aligned by methods of Dr. Soong into matrix that is kept stable. --~~ Zaphaell - Trifun ~~--The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki