Transporters

Indricotherium · 23-07-2012 7:08pm #1

I believe that the transporter raises many issues.

How do you think the religions of the world would react to a device that would ultimately link matter and energy as one and in doing so reduce human life and its will or soul to a series of pre programmed chemical sequences.

I believe if this were developed in the morning it would spark massive debate on a global level. Much like some believed the photographic camera was in some way capturing something other than light patterns when it was invented.

This is never, to my knowledge, explored in startrek. It could have made an interesting episode of enterprise.

downwithpeace · 23-07-2012 8:16pm

Religion and Star Trek, I've seen this type of topic attract some squirrely answers on other sites.

Who knows what would happen in real life, if transporters were unveiled tomorrow I doubt anyone would be using them for another few years if not longer giving people more time to really consider their thoughts on the technology.

Myrddin · 23-07-2012 8:20pm

Matter & energy are already linked, & the laws that govern mass & energy ultimately mean a transporter isn't a possibility [laws of thermodynamics/you can't create or destroy energy only convert it].

Ignoring that, I'd imagine there'd be a fairly big uproar about the ethics of killing someone basically to rebuild them in a different location. The soul argument probably already applies to cloning etc, & would be a factor in why human cloning is such a no-go area.

Kiith · 24-07-2012 12:56pm

If they somehow invented a working transporter, global religions can **** right off if they think i'm not going to use it. No more walking around like a sucker :pac:

Indricotherium · 24-07-2012 3:10pm

Kiith wrote: »

If they somehow invented a working transporter, global religions can **** right off if they think i'm not going to use it. No more walking around like a sucker :pac:

It's happening in the real world at the moment. Particularly I. The area of medical research.

Cloning and stem cell research are good examples.

There are probably many more that could be listed.

But re startrek, I think the transporter is an invention that could cause a huge crisis on this earth.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 24-07-2012 3:12pm

it'd be grand for goods and animals but i'd sure as **** never get into one

if i'm destroyed and reassembled on the other side then for everybody else on the planet.. there's no difference, as far as they're concerned I'm still me.. but the me that is me was destroyed on the transporter pad and whoever stepped off the pad in that love motel in tokyo was a whole new person with my memories and thoughts.. but not me
wouldn't do it, not for all the prostitutes in japan.

Goldstein · 24-07-2012 5:59pm

The transporters create all sorts of problems if you think about it not least of which is that the transporters in Star Trek are suicide booths. Everyone that has ever used them dies - the fact that an absolutely identical clone is manufactured at the other end is of no consequence to you as you're dead.

Anytime they've ever been used without a transporter pad at both ends is also bull$hit - without something on both ends there's either nothing there to "re-materialise" anything or to facilitate "locking on" in the first place.

A pattern is just information. In Lonely Among Us they still have Picard's pattern stored in the pattern buffer from when he last used the transporter and they use that along with his "energy signature" to "rematerialise" him. They just turned the "transporter" into a Picard replicator. There's nothing to stop them doing it again is there for anyone else?

They would definitely have been used as weapons whenever another ship's shields are down - just beam the opposing ship apart - they touched on this idea in Concerning Flight but the purpose is theft of key components rather than structural damage.

And I haven't even mentioned Thomas Riker.

Duggys Housemate · 24-07-2012 6:02pm

Yep. Transporters clone ya and kill ya.

Duggys Housemate · 24-07-2012 6:03pm

But don't get me started on the physics of star trek. They can make anything out of nothing but dylithium crystals.

FGR · 25-07-2012 2:12am

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

But don't get me started on the physics of star trek. They can make anything out of nothing but dylithium crystals.

I wish we had access to the replicators. A machine that makes your favourite food out of thin air but without all the calories and fat..

Heaven

Cookie_Monster · 25-07-2012 3:09am

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

But don't get me started on the physics of star trek. They can make anything out of nothing but dylithium crystals.

and latinum

somuj · 25-07-2012 7:45am

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

But don't get me started on the physics of star trek. They can make anything out of nothing but dylithium crystals.

And alcohol.

Kiith · 25-07-2012 8:46am

A holodeck, replicator, and supermans powers.

My 3 wishes :P

filmbuffboy · 25-07-2012 10:43am

we studied this topic in philosophy in college a couple of years back.

apparently, its generally accepted that if such a technology was to ever be invented what would happen is you would be scanned on the transporter pad, and basically destroyed. Then the computer would send a signal to the other transporter pad on the other side of the planet telling the machine there what to build.

a copy would emerge, with your memories, thoughts, character etc.

no way in hell would i ever get in one if that were the case...

looks like its plain old fashioned shuttle pod for me

somuj · 25-07-2012 2:52pm

How about we create a transporter that does not rip us assunder atom by atom? Instead it will just pull us through some undiscovered layer in space. Think I actually came across it one time by accident. Their I was slumped over a bar and next thing ya know there I was lying on the stairs.

nyarlothothep · 25-07-2012 4:14pm

I don't think the transporter works that way by destroying you and copying you to another location. What about Barclay? He was in the transporter stream and he retained his physical structure. Maybe they work by increasing the probability of you existing at the target location thereby teleporting you to it? If transporters were invented tomorrow that would be awesome. I'd be setting up my band in the Pasadena, working in Italy and would still be home in time for cornflakes in Ireland. Of course I'd expect some assholes, on the basis of other assholes using teleporters for the purpose of suicide bombing or some such, to introduce security checks and limit the use of personal teleporters, basically like airlines. It would then be awkward, difficult and costly, unless global society had been achieved without national borders, such that teleporting from the France to Australia would be like travelling internally from Dublin to Galway. No one would be up in the air with fear or paranoia as we'd finally have realised that we're all one race and that primitive tribalistic national/religious differences are ridiculous, in the same way that now we're within nations regional differences are moot. In which case travelling would be easy and enjoyable. Having a personal teleporter would be amazing.

hardCopy · 25-07-2012 4:21pm

Some of this was explored in The Prestige, I don't want to give too much away for anyone who hasn't seen it but it raises some very interesting questions around whether the person who emerges on the other end of the transport is really the same person as the one who entered.

Myrddin · 25-07-2012 4:28pm

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I don't think the transporter works that way by destroying you and copying you to another location. What about Barclay? He was in the transporter stream and he retained his physical structure. Maybe they work by increasing the probability of you existing at the target location thereby teleporting you to it?

Thats the one episode that contradicts established cannon, the person is indeed 'dematerialized' & 'rematerialized' at another location.

The person is scanned, dematerialized & their pattern is stored. From that moment on, that person does not exist.

The pattern is then rematerialized exactly as it was to begin with down to the subatomic level, recreating the person as they were right up to when they were dematerialized.

It's nothing to do with probability, the person is deconstructed & rebuilt.

I don't think its a technology mankind will ever have to deal with, it seems fundamentally impossible & its only reason for existing in Star Trek was that model shots were too expensive to use all the time.

Indricotherium · 25-07-2012 4:49pm

EnterNow wrote: »

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I don't think the transporter works that way by destroying you and copying you to another location. What about Barclay? He was in the transporter stream and he retained his physical structure. Maybe they work by increasing the probability of you existing at the target location thereby teleporting you to it?

Thats the one episode that contradicts established cannon, the person is indeed 'dematerialized' & 'rematerialized' at another location.

The person is scanned, dematerialized & their pattern is stored. From that moment on, that person does not exist.

The pattern is then rematerialized exactly as it was to begin with down to the subatomic level, recreating the person as they were right up to when they were dematerialized.

It's nothing to do with probability, the person is deconstructed & rebuilt.

I don't think its a technology mankind will ever have to deal with, it seems fundamentally impossible & its only reason for existing in Star Trek was that model shots were too expensive to use all the time.

I'm not saying it can exist, I'm just speculating on the effects it would have on our world if it did.

I suspect it would be banned or suppressed for many years due to the religious implications if it were developed in a western country particularly the USA.

If it weren't it would no doubt, quickly be monetised and kept out of the hands of average people.

It could revolutionise the world on its own and stop a huge amount of suffering without any of the other technology in startrek. Of course so could many technologies that are available today.

This failure to apply the technology available to us to prevent suffering, poverty and death in the world is the reason I think the society in startrek is a total pipe dream. Things like warp drives and transporters being impossible is neither here not there.

Myrddin · 25-07-2012 5:03pm

Indricotherium wrote: »

I'm not saying it can exist, I'm just speculating on the effects it would have on our world if it did.

I know, I'm simply making an observation

This failure to apply the technology available to us to prevent suffering, poverty and death in the world is the reason I think the society in startrek is a total pipe dream. Things like warp drives and transporters being impossible is neither here not there.

Couldn't agree more, I've said many times, the society in Star Trek is often more fictional than the technology. Unfortunately, we're far more like some of the other species portrayed than the actual Humans. The Ferengi spring to mind, & the warlike Cardassians.

But to return on topic, I also agree with you that if a transporter were possible & available today...it would be well out of the hands of mere men. Money, power & war would be the realm of its use.

nyarlothothep · 25-07-2012 5:32pm

EnterNow wrote: »

Thats the one episode that contradicts established cannon, the person is indeed 'dematerialized' & 'rematerialized' at another location.

The person is scanned, dematerialized & their pattern is stored. From that moment on, that person does not exist.

The pattern is then rematerialized exactly as it was to begin with down to the subatomic level, recreating the person as they were right up to when they were dematerialized.

It's nothing to do with probability, the person is deconstructed & rebuilt.

I don't think its a technology mankind will ever have to deal with, it seems fundamentally impossible & its only reason for existing in Star Trek was that model shots were too expensive to use all the time.

Well maybe they mean dematerialised in the sense that the person is immaterial in the subspace transporter field and then they materialise once they exit the field...yes that sequence of words made perfect sense.

I also think that we will have teleporters in the future, there is so much about the universe/omniverse we don't know about, maybe this is all a simulation like in the matrix and by altering the code of the universe we can travel ftl or whatever, there could be some as yet unknown discovery that will allow for teleportation. It was a pretty good idea in Star Trek all things considered, necessity is the mother of invention. I don't think the world of Star Trek is a pipe dream at all. I think it's achievable in the distant future.

Myrddin · 25-07-2012 5:42pm

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Well maybe they mean dematerialised in the sense that the person is immaterial in the subspace transporter field and then they materialise once they exit the field...yes that sequence of words made perfect sense.

It's fairly thoroughly explained in the established Starfleet Tech manuals you can get...the person is duplicated. If it were merely a teleportation as such, the accident involving Thomas Riker wouldn't have been possible...he simply wouldn't have made it back to the ship in the first place.

I also think that we will have teleporters in the future, there is so much about the universe/omniverse we don't know about, maybe this is all a simulation like in the matrix and by altering the code of the universe we can travel ftl or whatever, there could be some as yet unknown discovery that will allow for teleportation.

That may be, but in Einsteins model, which given recent events is looking more & more like being spot on...it's not a possibility. For one, the computer memory required to hold the data of the entire 'pattern' of a human being would be absolutely enourmous. Putting that code together with 100% accuracy, not a hope.

It may be possible if there is some kind of bizarre breakthrough in physics...but all the signs at this point say no.

It was a pretty good idea in Star Trek all things considered, necessity is the mother of invention. I don't think the world of Star Trek is a pipe dream at all. I think it's achievable in the distant future.

It was a good idea, but an idea born out of saving money

Indricotherium · 25-07-2012 5:48pm

nyarlothothep wrote: »

EnterNow wrote: »

Thats the one episode that contradicts established cannon, the person is indeed 'dematerialized' & 'rematerialized' at another location.

The person is scanned, dematerialized & their pattern is stored. From that moment on, that person does not exist.

The pattern is then rematerialized exactly as it was to begin with down to the subatomic level, recreating the person as they were right up to when they were dematerialized.

It's nothing to do with probability, the person is deconstructed & rebuilt.

I don't think its a technology mankind will ever have to deal with, it seems fundamentally impossible & its only reason for existing in Star Trek was that model shots were too expensive to use all the time.

Well maybe they mean dematerialised in the sense that the person is immaterial in the subspace transporter field and then they materialise once they exit the field...yes that sequence of words made perfect sense.

I also think that we will have teleporters in the future, there is so much about the universe/omniverse we don't know about, maybe this is all a simulation like in the matrix and by altering the code of the universe we can travel ftl or whatever, there could be some as yet unknown discovery that will allow for teleportation. It was a pretty good idea in Star Trek all things considered, necessity is the mother of invention. I don't think the world of Star Trek is a pipe dream at all. I think it's achievable in the distant future.

It's a complete pipe dream. It will never happen.

The world in ST is based around an enlightened race of humanity without a care for profit or personal wealth.

The world we live in has people designing cures for illnesses and charging people for them as a business model.

Any nation that has tried to set up an economy that runs on the principles the federation runs on has failed due to internal corruption or external economic / military actions.

nyarlothothep · 25-07-2012 6:15pm

Indricotherium wrote: »

It's a complete pipe dream. It will never happen.

The world in ST is based around an enlightened race of humanity without a care for profit or personal wealth.

The world we live in has people designing cures for illnesses and charging people for them as a business model.

Any nation that has tried to set up an economy that runs on the principles the federation runs on has failed due to internal corruption or external economic / military actions.

Yeah but ze assholes that we know about could get away with executions hundreds of years ago and much more besides, but not as much now, in the West. The world is more civilised. The problem is the assholes and their enablers.

Myrddin · 25-07-2012 6:40pm

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Yeah but ze assholes that we know about could get away with executions hundreds of years ago and much more besides, but not as much now, in the West. The world is more civilised. The problem is the assholes and their enablers.

Your surely aware of whats going on in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel, & the US to name but a few?

Given the technological advancements in recent times, the lessons learned from history, & the increase in population...I'd say we're less civilised than cultures gone by...at least they didn't know any better...we do.

Duggys Housemate · 25-07-2012 9:44pm

EnterNow wrote: »

Your surely aware of whats going on in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel, & the US to name but a few?

Given the technological advancements in recent times, the lessons learned from history, & the increase in population...I'd say we're less civilised than cultures gone by...at least they didn't know any better...we do.

That's not true. Most of the 7 billion people on this planet live in peace. Read Pinker's book.

Duggys Housemate · 25-07-2012 9:50pm

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I don't think the transporter works that way by destroying you and copying you to another location. What about Barclay? He was in the transporter stream and he retained his physical structure. Maybe they work by increasing the probability of you existing at the target location thereby teleporting you to it? If transporters were invented tomorrow that would be awesome. I'd be setting up my band in the Pasadena, working in Italy and would still be home in time for cornflakes in Ireland. Of course I'd expect some assholes, on the basis of other assholes using teleporters for the purpose of suicide bombing or some such, to introduce security checks and limit the use of personal teleporters, basically like airlines. It would then be awkward, difficult and costly, unless global society had been achieved without national borders, such that teleporting from the France to Australia would be like travelling internally from Dublin to Galway. No one would be up in the air with fear or paranoia as we'd finally have realised that we're all one race and that primitive tribalistic national/religious differences are ridiculous, in the same way that now we're within nations regional differences are moot. In which case travelling would be easy and enjoyable. Having a personal teleporter would be amazing.

It's not going to happen for the reasons outlined. If that technology worked teleporting from Australia to France would be instantaneous, not the same as Dublin Galway.

I read a sci fi short story where a house had different rooms on different continents, each door between rooms being a transporter. You could breakfast in Paris, dinner in New York, sleep in Shaghei by moving from breakfast room, to dining room to bedroom. For the rich, of course, and the very rich had "houses" with dozens of rooms. Property tax must have been a bastard.

nyarlothothep · 25-07-2012 10:09pm

EnterNow wrote: »

Your surely aware of whats going on in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel, & the US to name but a few?

Given the technological advancements in recent times, the lessons learned from history, & the increase in population...I'd say we're less civilised than cultures gone by...at least they didn't know any better...we do.

Yeah definately but I think 50/60 years ago a lot more people would have been generally supportive of American foreign policy, for example, whereas now people are a lot more divided. People are more healthily cynical about our leaders and society and that's a positive step. You can argue it both ways though and I for one am mostly critical of human behaviour but taking a fatalistic view of human destiny is self defeating in the respect that if everyone had taken that attitude throughout history we probably wouldn't even be allowed to have this conversation. The future is for the taking, it's really up to us to decide what we want for ourselves as a species.

Myrddin · 26-07-2012 10:10am

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

That's not true. Most of the 7 billion people on this planet live in peace. Read Pinker's book.

Most live in peace? That maybe, but if I brought oppression, racism, discrimination into the foray I think that might change things. I don't need to read anyones book, I just open my eyes

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Yeah definately but I think 50/60 years ago a lot more people would have been generally supportive of American foreign policy, for example, whereas now people are a lot more divided. People are more healthily cynical about our leaders and society and that's a positive step.

Very very true. Perhaps we're at the begining of a very, very, very long journey...

Duggys Housemate · 26-07-2012 10:53am

EnterNow wrote: »

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

That's not true. Most of the 7 billion people on this planet live in peace. Read Pinker's book.

Most live in peace? That maybe, but if I brought oppression, racism, discrimination into the foray I think that might change things. I don't need to read anyones book, I just open my eyes

It doesn't matter what you bring into the foray, all of that is better than it was even 50 years ago. And the murder rate in primitive societies was 20-30 times the world rate now. Etc.

Myrddin · 26-07-2012 11:49am

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

It doesn't matter what you bring into the foray, all of that is better than it was even 50 years ago. And the murder rate in primitive societies was 20-30 times the world rate now. Etc.

I won't bring the thread off topic by discussing this here any further, if you actually believe any of that than fair dues

Transporters

Comments