The Transporter Debate (2015?)
- Thread starter JD5000
- Start date
A
Amaris
Guest
Well, Schrodinger's Paradox is a bit more than just states of perception. It's a commentary on how we understand the nature of quantum superposition, which is what the thought experiment was all about. A lot of people think it's about a cat being both alive and dead, but that's actually the opposite of what Schrodinger was trying to point out. It's not so much about whether, as it is about when. See, at some point, the state of the cat would have to change from either alive to alive or alive to dead depending upon a number of factors among multiple outcomes. Schrodinger was saying that the way we approached quantum mechanics wasn't making any sense, and the thought experiment, in his mind, was a way to express that absurdity.
A
Amaris
Guest
The problem is that there's no way for us to observe at what moment the subject goes from being alive to dead or alive to alive, and since we're dealing with quantum elements that change based upon observation, it is likely that we won't know. So the observer effect is worthless, as it is flawed. This is usually where the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle comes in to pretty much state that it isn't possible to predict the position of a subatomic particle, so taking that pattern, breaking it down, sending it to its destination and rebuilding it as it's supposed to be shouldn't be possible.
Of course with transporters in Star Trek there's the Heisenberg Compensators, which are a lovely bit of magic, but ultimately serve no purpose.
In short, scientifically speaking (with the caveat that I could have missed something), the transporters we see on Star Trek just cannot exist.
A
Amaris
Guest
There's an interesting idea; how would you propose such a system would work? Theoretically, of course.
There has been technology in Star Trek that would qualify as working like that, such as the dimensional shifting used by the Ansata separatists in "The High Ground." But based on dialog, I don't believe that the transporters could be said to operate that way. How a practical real-world teleporter might operate is another question.
A
Amaris
Guest
Ah, or perhaps like the transporter used in Galaxy Quest, maybe? It didn't appear to break down anything, instead it appeared to encapsulate the traveler and transfer them to their destination via more physical means.
Oh, wait, but it appears they use a form of black hole, and that will break down the body, unless it's a wormhole, by which the traveler makes passage through it without losing cohesion.
I might have to think a bit more on that.
There were two different things in Galaxy Quest.
There were the "pods" that could even protect someone going through a black hole. That was how Jason was returned to Earth and how the crew was brought to the ship. That was totally awesome. Those were launched, and could be picked off and destroyed by an enemy ship.
Then there was the "digital conveyor."
A
Amaris
Guest
There were two different things in Galaxy Quest.
There were the "pods" that could even protect someone going through a black hole. That was how Jason was returned to Earth and how the crew was brought to the ship. That was totally awesome. Those were launched, and could be picked off and destroyed by an enemy ship.
Then there was the "digital conveyor."
"...and it exploded."
JD5000 you are right, I was just talking about the "breaking apart" aspect. If an individual can be converted/phased into an different state of being (partially existing in a dimension connected but different to our own), that being can then be transmitted to a destination without the usual physical restrictions, maybe through subspace? It's similar to something T'Girl suggested earlier in the thread:
There are always going to be accidents and anomalies, of course. However, aside from those sorts of exceptional incidents the Transporter is presented very consistently in the manner described above.
If there's no conversion of matter into energy (merely a "phased" form of matter) then there is no massive explosion risk (about 6 billion million Joules I think) every time someone steps onto the pad. In fact, the system can be comparatively low powered (a mere hand phaser was used on one occasion in TNG). There's no break in consciousness because the being is kept intact and it is unquestionably the same person at the start and end of the process. There's no need to chart the position and speed of every particle in the body. A transporter beam from a different machine can be intercepted and reformed without needing a copy of all that data (this happened on DS9 once, I think, albeit with O'Brien on hand to assist)
There are always going to be accidents and anomalies, of course. However, aside from those sorts of exceptional incidents the Transporter is presented very consistently in the manner described above.
The problem with the transporter is that there is a period of time during which you don't exist as a living being but as computer data. In effect, you are as dead as a fictional character. The transporter then reconstructs you, using that data as a blueprint. That's why I seriously doubt that the person reconstructed is the same one as that, that was disintegrated. That person may be fooled into believing that, but that doesn't change anything.
Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
A
Amaris
Guest
Schrodinger's cat definitely walks into a bar, but the question of where the moment he walked in actually occurred on the quantum level is up for debate.
A factor which argues against that is the Federation's (supposed) high ethical philosophy. Even if other were using it, would the Federation commonly employ a devise that did indeed deliberately kill someone?
As I recall, the "transporter" in The High Ground was gradually harming/killing it's users. Beverly viewed this as a negative, but why would she if the transporter she herself repeated used did the same, and with each use?
While you could argue that the people in the Federation don't truly understand how their own transporter works, that really wouldn't make sense.
Why would Kirk be upset that he beamed two men into open space (instead of to a planet) if he knew that they had already been killed by the transporter?
A factor which argues against that is the Federation's (supposed) high ethical philosophy. Even if other were using it, would the Federation commonly employ a devise that did indeed deliberately kill someone?
As I recall, the "transporter" in The High Ground was gradually harming/killing it's users. Beverly viewed this as a negative, but why would she if the transporter she herself repeated used did the same, and with each use?
While you could argue that the people in the Federation don't truly understand how their own transporter works, that really wouldn't make sense.
Why would Kirk be upset that he beamed two men into open space (instead of to a planet) if he knew that they had already been killed by the transporter?
The point is that they don't know. The copy doesn't know that they're a copy and the dead, they don't know anything.
People usually do something when there are people complaining about it, otherwise they assume that everything is AOK.
I'm sticking with the idea that whatever the transporter converts people into, is then simply *moved*, not copied.
I mean, to believe that anyone or anything can be broken down into energy at all is comical enough; to then suggest that the resulting energy is just moved to a different place, and converted back into the original (not a copy) isn't much of a stretch.
I mean, to believe that anyone or anything can be broken down into energy at all is comical enough; to then suggest that the resulting energy is just moved to a different place, and converted back into the original (not a copy) isn't much of a stretch.
Montgomery Scott doesn't know?
Geordi LaForge doesn't know?
Miles O'Brien doesn't know?
This is the part of supposition that would make no sense. These men (and other in the Federation) are talented experts in the field of engineering, how could they not be aware of something so basic about how the transporters work?
It isn't a matter of the people who when through the process not being aware that they are a exact copy, it is the the engineers who understand the underlying theory not knowing that the end result is a copy.
How would that be possible?
)
