Re: Transports in New Trek (novelization)

[CommodoreKong]

I think it's pretty clearly established in TNG that transporters kill you and make a copy of you based on the fact there are two Rikers after a transporter accident. If they were just reassembling you it shouldn't be possible for there to be two of them.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Really?

Huh...

 

[Sovay]

Original series it the only one I've seen every episode of a few times, and from that I gathered it was done as in the OP. In that case I don't blame Bones for not liking them, I don't think I would either! Even with the nice version of how it works, I wouldn't do it, especially after what happened in the very first movie D:

 

[Jeri]

I think it's pretty clearly established in TNG that transporters kill you and make a copy of you based on the fact there are two Rikers after a transporter accident. If they were just reassembling you it shouldn't be possible for there to be two of them.

I think that incidence can be explained without alluding to death; whereas, incidences against transporter "death" are numerous, as mentioned upthread.

 

[Sabataage]

Re: Transports in New Trek

There was an episode of Enterprise that set the record straight ("Daedalus" in Season 4). It featured the man who invented the transporter talking about this apparently common misconception about transporters, laughing and saying there wasn't an ounce of truth to it. The transporter does indeed just convert you to energy, transport you, and then reconstitute you -- the original you, not some sort of duplicate. So there you go.

Of course the guy who makes the thing would say that. Having not seen that that particular episode (for some reason I keep imagining him as looking like Jeff Goldblum), you should keep in mind that ciggarettes don't kill you either... according to ciggarette companies.

 

[Augustus]

Re: Transports in New Trek

So let me get this straight, you wonder onto the transporter pad knowing that you will die but go anyway? It makes a copy of you, sure... with all the same memories, etc, but YOU die. In other words, if I transported for the first time today, then I die, my conscience ceases to exist. Sure there is another me around, but my soul or spirit or whatever is gone. That is just dumb to me. No one would agree to do that and it is just a lame idea altogether IMHO.

 

[warpus]

Re: Transports in New Trek

So let me get this straight, you wonder onto the transporter pad knowing that you will die but go anyway? It makes a copy of you, sure... with all the same memories, etc, but YOU die. In other words, if I transported for the first time today, then I die, my conscience ceases to exist. Sure there is another me around, but my soul or spirit or whatever is gone. That is just dumb to me. No one would agree to do that and it is just a lame idea altogether IMHO.

Well, that's how a "transporter" would work in real life - but that's not how it works in Trek, as established on screen.

 

[Tau Ceti III]

-Spock has a "katra" or "soul", established in Star Trek II and III

-Spock used the transporter many times prior to Star Trek II

-If his body was destroyed and recreated, his katra obviously found it's way home

-Or, if his body was simply moved, his katra went with it

-So in either case, the Spock that went in is the Spock that came out ;-)

 

[CuttingEdge100]

That's a serious flaw... you get killed and a duplicate gets created?

 

[CommodoreKong]

I think it's pretty clearly established in TNG that transporters kill you and make a copy of you based on the fact there are two Rikers after a transporter accident. If they were just reassembling you it shouldn't be possible for there to be two of them.

I think that incidence can be explained without alluding to death; whereas, incidences against transporter "death" are numerous, as mentioned upthread.

If the transporter does disassemble you and move the disassembled parts of you to a new location having two Rikers would of been impossible, neither Riker could of lived if half materialized on the planet and half on the ship.

 

[Photoman15]

The OP's original concept was what "SPOCK MUST DIE!" was about. It was the first STAR TREK fictional novel after the show went off the air.

How the transporter works is more complicated than just killing you and reassembling a copy. It scans every atom of your body at a quantum level (that's why your thoughts and consciousness is maintained in transport). Since it is impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of an atom, the Heisenberg Compensator is used for live subjects. Then the transporter dissolves the molecular cohesion of the subject. A data stream containing all the information is beamed to the destination and is "assembled" at the destination. The quantum level scan is required for live subjects because the chemical chains/reactions in the brain are what makes memory/consciousness/etc...

Technically, you cease to exist when your molecules lose cohesion, so technically, you're dead. Since the same atoms are NOT sent to the destination and the reconstruction is used with local material, you are not the exact same thing at the other side than you were before beaming.

Souls/Katra cost extra.

Now, those subspace transporters ("Higher Ground" et al), they may not dissolve you. You may actually be moved via micro-wormholes from one place to another.

 

[Photoman15]

I think it's pretty clearly established in TNG that transporters kill you and make a copy of you based on the fact there are two Rikers after a transporter accident. If they were just reassembling you it shouldn't be possible for there to be two of them.

I think that incidence can be explained without alluding to death; whereas, incidences against transporter "death" are numerous, as mentioned upthread.

If the transporter does disassemble you and move the disassembled parts of you to a new location having two Rikers would of been impossible, neither Riker could of lived if half materialized on the planet and half on the ship.

Two Rikers were possible (read my previous post) because the data stream was duplicated by the transporter operator because he was having trouble with the beam up. When "Riker, Will" appeared to be in the ships buffer, the operator killed the other data stream, but the signal was reflected by the atmosphere of the planet, data stream and recontruction instructions and all. Thus, "Riker, Tom" was created.

 

[Jeri]

There you go. How about explaining the conversation that continued to take place -- before, during and after transport in TWoK.

 

[gastrof]

Re: Transports in New Trek

Oh, did we have to refer to Enterprise to answer this?...

Let's try TNG, then.

In the episode where Reg Barclay discusses his fear of the transporter with Deanna Troi, she says something like "You have the right to feel a little uncomfortable about it. It DOES take you apart molecule by molecule..."

This also seems to suggest the actual person is what's moved from one place to another. Not just their "pattern" which then any old energy is filtered thru to create a duplicate of a destroyed original.

I just remembered an episode of the OUTER LIMTS television series (more recent version), where aliens gave Earth teleportation technology, but actually required the original be destroyed at the time of transport.

Something goes wrong in one beaming, and the original isn't destroyed. The woman who got beamed remains behind, and a guy at the beamout site doesn't quite know how to handle the situation. Later the aliens tell him she has to be killed because the beaming was successful and the other version of her has been living her life at the place she beamed to and 'all things must be kept in balance'.

I won't spoil the end of the episode.

 

[Photoman15]

There you go. How about explaining the conversation that continued to take place -- before, during and after transport in TWoK.

Nick Meyers not understanding how transporters work. OR----
the conversation is interrupted at the point cohesion is lost and then resumed when put back together. The "transporter effect" (sound & visual) just lasts longer on these transporters, maybe a prototype decon scan that became standard by TNG.

 

[Jeri]

There you go. How about explaining the conversation that continued to take place -- before, during and after transport in TWoK.

Nick Meyers not understanding how transporters work. OR----
the conversation is interrupted at the point cohesion is lost and then resumed when put back together. The "transporter effect" (sound & visual) just lasts longer on these transporters, maybe a prototype decon scan that became standard by TNG.

Or, it doesn't kill either them or Barclay. The no-kill scenario works for all examples; the kill scenario doesn't.

 

[Photoman15]

There you go. How about explaining the conversation that continued to take place -- before, during and after transport in TWoK.

Nick Meyers not understanding how transporters work. OR----
the conversation is interrupted at the point cohesion is lost and then resumed when put back together. The "transporter effect" (sound & visual) just lasts longer on these transporters, maybe a prototype decon scan that became standard by TNG.

Or, it doesn't kill either them or Barclay. The no-kill scenario works for all examples; the kill scenario doesn't.

The Barclay episode was ridiculous and badly written (as to transporter (Trek) science). Or explained wrong. Once cohesion is lost (and it must be to either convert to transmittable energy (no-kill) or separated (kill) there can be no conscious thought, nor sensory input. The step that Barclay saw these things had to have happened during the quantum scan or at least before cohesion is dissolved.

 

[Daneel]

Re: Transports in New Trek

The transporter does indeed just convert you to energy, transport you, and then reconstitute you -- the original you, not some sort of duplicate. So there you go.

This is like saying that you could drop someone into a Cuisinart, reduce them to People Puree - and then if you could somehow reassemble the molecules into a copy it would mean that they hadn't been killed.

Doesn't pass the smell test.

Well, I suppose, as Photoman15 said, since the transporter does disassemble you at the molecular level, you do cease to exist as a human being during transport and thus are technically no longer alive. So yes, in that respect, the transporter has to "kill" you to fulfill its very function, then bring you back to life, in a manner of speaking. That's certainly one way of looking at it. Personally, I don't think it would bother me that much -- if transporters were real, that is.

The analogy you give kind of reminds me of an X-Files episode in which the people of a small town would use a creature to cure all their illnesses -- but for it to do so, it first had to consume the sick person, take the disease (which would then afflict the creature), and regurgitate the individual, who would then reform, completely healed and seemingly none the worse for wear! Of course, in this story, the explanation was some sort of magic, which the viewer accepts after the usual suspension of disbelief. In the case of most Treknology (especially transporters), I think we have to look at it in a similar way -- like it's almost some sort of magic. Otherwise we'd go nuts thinking about it.

This approach does have its limits, however, i.e. "Realm of Fear". I think it would be best to ignore that one, as it requires you to suspend your disbelief even more than usual. In fact, it basically asks you to ignore the previously established (if admittedly fictional) rules about transporting in the Trek universe. There's really no way Barclay could be consciously aware of what was going on inside the matter stream, let alone move his body to grab onto the Yosemite's crew members. It doesn't make a lick of sense, even by Star Trek's usual pseudo-scientific standards.

Thanks a lot for that one, Mr. Braga.

 

[Destructor]

Er... for some reason I have a memory of when Kirk+Spock met Zephram Cochrane and he was terrified of the idea of the transporter because even if a copy of him materialized at the other end, he himself would die, and Kirk assured him this was not the case, it really was 'you' that was being transported- your molecules.

Did this happen or am I crazy?

 

[Destructor]

Re: Transports in New Trek

I just remembered an episode of the OUTER LIMTS television series (more recent version), where aliens gave Earth teleportation technology, but actually required the original be destroyed at the time of transport.

Something goes wrong in one beaming, and the original isn't destroyed. The woman who got beamed remains behind, and a guy at the beamout site doesn't quite know how to handle the situation. Later the aliens tell him she has to be killed because the beaming was successful and the other version of her has been living her life at the place she beamed to and 'all things must be kept in balance'.

There's a Stephen King book about a transport system that sends you to other planets, but you have to be made unconcious before you are sent, because while you are moving at light speed, time stretches out to infinity. One guy doesn't take his sleep injectino (or whatever) and when he gets to the destination he has gone completely insane.