Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Transporter Quandary

  1. I step up.

    7 vote(s)
  2. I refuse.

    10 vote(s)
  1. May 26, 2005 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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?"


    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: May 26, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. May 26, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
  4. May 26, 2005 #3
    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.
  5. May 27, 2005 #4


    User Avatar

    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?
  6. May 29, 2005 #5
    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).
  7. Jun 13, 2005 #6
    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.
  8. Jun 14, 2005 #7
    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.
  9. Jun 24, 2005 #8
    Isn't that... the same thing?
  10. Jul 4, 2005 #9
  11. Aug 1, 2005 #10

    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.
  12. Aug 3, 2005 #11

    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.
  13. Aug 3, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  14. Aug 6, 2005 #13
    Converting matter into energy

    Isn't matter condensed energy?
  15. Aug 8, 2005 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Using a very loose definition of the word "condensed", sure. But the conversion process isn't simple (think H-bomb).
  16. Aug 10, 2005 #15
    What I meant was how do you "convert" it when matter is condensed energy?
  17. Aug 12, 2005 #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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook