Star Trek Transporter Quandary: Take the Risk?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the theoretical implications and personal perspectives on the use of transporters as depicted in Star Trek. Participants explore the philosophical and technical aspects of teleportation, including identity, existence, and the mechanics of the transporter technology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the transporter, suggesting that it results in the original person's death and the creation of a replica, raising questions about identity and existence.
  • Others propose that if the energy of the soul is transmitted along with the body, then the individual remains the same despite the process of disassembly and reassembly.
  • One participant points out that the human body is constantly renewing itself at the cellular level, questioning why the idea of being replicated by a transporter should be alarming.
  • Concerns are raised about the efficiency and feasibility of converting matter to energy and back, with some arguing that it violates thermodynamic laws and would require additional energy input.
  • Another participant references Gene Roddenberry's statements about transporters, emphasizing that they do not create copies but rather move matter by converting it to energy and back, although this is acknowledged as a fictional concept.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of destructive scanning required to obtain information about matter at a quantum level, questioning the practicality of such a process.
  • There is a mention of the narrative convenience of transporters in storytelling, suggesting that their existence serves a purpose in the context of the series rather than reflecting reality.
  • One participant draws a parallel between matter and energy, questioning the complexity of the conversion process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on the implications of using a transporter. Some agree on the philosophical dilemmas it presents, while others focus on the technical feasibility, leading to multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved questions about the nature of identity, the assumptions underlying the mechanics of teleportation, and the implications of energy conversion processes. The discussion remains speculative and theoretical, with no definitive conclusions drawn.

Do you step up on the transporter pad?

  • I step up.

    Votes: 7 41.2%

  • I refuse.

    Votes: 10 58.8%
  • Total voters
    17
DaveC426913
Gold Member
2025 Award
Messages
24,319
Reaction score
8,514
Stolen shamelessly - and then subjected to the indignities of paraphrasing - I'm taknig a thread from Whitestar and re-organizing it as a poll:


"The transporter in Star Trek is one of the most fascinating theoretical technologies on board the starship Enterprise...

The transporter works by disassembling crew members at the atomic level and converting them into energy. Once the energy arrives at the appointed destination, the process is reversed...

The problem is there no way to actually account for the first person point-of-view, or know if the person would survive the procedure, unless you or I decide to undergo it. Still, it's rather chancy, but I would think that the individual who first underwent this form of teleportation has ceased to exist and replaced with a replica, who would have all your memories and experiences.

What does everybody else think?"

So:

You awake to find yourself suddenly and miraculously aboard the Enterprise. After much shock and a little looksie around, you are told you will be sent back home. They're going to send by way of the transporter.

You've seen every show and read every book on the subject, and have debated with yourself about the "Am I still me?" quandary. You know that everyone around you has taken the transporter at least once. They will look and act exactly the same as before. But are they the same? You ask yourself just how positive you are that a] there is no such thing as a soul, or b] there is, and it goes with you.

The crew is waiting expectantly. What do you do?

(See poll above.)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I had this question once where they had carefully set up the parameters so you were illogical if you said no. I said no anyway. And I still do. I just don't believe that transporter jive; I am going to die as step one of the process. No way do I step up.
 
I think that your body is made from the energy of your soul, so when the energy is sent, your soul is sent with it and reassembled along with the body. Of course, preliminary experiments with an actual transoprter created replicas of apples in the second machine. the original apple was still in the first.
 
The body you have now does not have a single cell of the body you had 7 years ago. In fact your skin falls off and is totally replaced every few weeks. So as you are already a replicate of your former self why should the idea that a transporter creates a replica unduly alarm anyone?
 
I hold something of the same mindset as selfAdjoint: I'd rather be taken back on a space transporter than a quantum teleporter. Unless there were extensive studies and technical papers written which I could review and form a better opinion on the matter, I wouldn't especially trust being disassembled and reassembled. With the ability to further review what the technology entails, however, my opinion would possibly be subject to change. (Although, if it were absolutely necesasry in a way that it's a choice between the teleporter or harm [death, etc], then I would possibly be more inclined to choose the teleporter, having in mind a possibility of escaping).
 
If I am still me when I get to where I am going, then there is no harm. If I cease to exsit and then get reassembled, that if no one else is me, than that is who I am regardless of my reassembled energy.
 
Gene Roddenberry once said "It's called a *transporter*, not a disintegrating Xerox machine. I don't understand why people keep asking this question. Transporters do not disintegrate people at one end and then make a copy of them at the other end. If they did, would *you* use one?"

Gene said this much more than a quarter century ago, he repeated it ad nausium for decades, and yet, people STILL go on about this idea as if they've come up with something new.

"Transporters" **MOVE** matter, by turning it into energy, "beaming" the energy to a new location, and then turning that same energy back into the SAME matter that went into it on the other end.

How do they do that?
By using "Heisenberg compensators", "pattern buffers", and "annular confinement beams", i.e. they rely strongly on the fiction half of the term science fiction.
 
Isn't that... the same thing?
 
MonstersFromTheId said:
"Transporters" **MOVE** matter, by turning it into energy, "beaming" the energy to a new location, and then turning that same energy back into the SAME matter that went into it on the other end.

Seems to me that the first thing that happens when one turns matter into energy, one produces a nuclear bomb. Completely converting the matter of a normal size person to energy would produce a really big explosion. Oh, maybe I am wrong, matter that exists 2000 years from now might not be the same as matter today, sorry.
 
  • #10
MonstersFromTheId said:
they rely strongly on the fiction half of the term science fiction.

Exactly.

Gene Roddenberry also mentioned that the cost of producing special effects of shuttle crafts all the time to carry people around was far too expensive for a TV series in the 60's, so he decided to use transporters instead. Also the fact that you can have them move from point A to point B in two seconds left more time for a story line. Just because he has a term for it doesn't make it reality.

That's why they call it Science FICTION.
 
  • #11
Inefficiency

Converting matter into energy, beaming it to a remote location and then converting it back into matter is extremely inefficient. It violates the laws of thermodynamics. You would have to insert more energy at each step. How would this inserted energy be assembled? And how would you retain the information about the original matter after you converted it into energy?

You would be better off believing in subspace and dilithium.

The question is not "how did they do it". The better question would be "how would we do it".

In order to obtain the information about the matter down to a quantom level, you would need to do a destructive scan.
 
  • #12
jdlech said:
Converting matter into energy, beaming it to a remote location and then converting it back into matter is extremely inefficient.
Of course it is! If it were about energy efficiency they'd skip the whole warp drive thing in the first place, preferring to travel at sublight speeds in a minimum fuel trajectory.
 
  • #13
Converting matter into energy

Isn't matter condensed energy?
 
  • #14
Using a very loose definition of the word "condensed", sure. But the conversion process isn't simple (think H-bomb).
 
  • #15
What I meant was how do you "convert" it when matter is condensed energy?
 
  • #16
it woud be like hotel california by eagles.
why go? i would live with those people/whatever and learn science. i would be still in contact with u all as info can be sent and received by the technology which can send even people; and then i would boast about my knowledge.
 

Similar threads

The Transporter In Star Trek: Conversion of Matter Into Energy
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
12K
The Transporter in Star Trek vs. the Warlord Teleporter
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
Graduate Is Teleportation Scientifically Possible?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
7K