Fearful Symmetry logic question

[Lindley]

I've just started Fearful Symmetry, so no spoilers for the book please. This is purely a tech issue.

On page 58 of Side 1, Nog says that Smiley's transporter gizmo can't be replicated because none of their scanners have the requisite quantum resolution to build a working one.

Sooo......how did it get through the transporter in the first place from the Mirror Universe?

On another note, they claim the device recreates the same conditions that caused Kirk's accident, yet the Intendent claimed in "Crossover" that all transporters on their side had been redesigned so that particular event could never cause the problem again. Either Smiley un-redesigned a few, or someone's got something wrong somewhere.

 

[Christopher]

On page 58 of Side 1, Nog says that Smiley's transporter gizmo can't be replicated because none of their scanners have the requisite quantum resolution to build a working one.

Sooo......how did it get through the transporter in the first place from the Mirror Universe?

Perhaps by working in tandem with the sending transporter in the MU?

On another note, they claim the device recreates the same conditions that caused Kirk's accident, yet the Intendent claimed in "Crossover" that all transporters on their side had been redesigned so that particular event could never cause the problem again. Either Smiley un-redesigned a few, or someone's got something wrong somewhere.

The device's design could compensate for the transporter adjustments. I.e. a transporter can't interact with a naturally occurring ion storm in order to create the timeline jump, but Smiley's device is calibrated to create the same effect in a redesigned transporter. So it's recreating the same conditions with the necessary extra tweaks to cancel out the change in the transporters.

 

[Lindley]

On page 58 of Side 1, Nog says that Smiley's transporter gizmo can't be replicated because none of their scanners have the requisite quantum resolution to build a working one.

Sooo......how did it get through the transporter in the first place from the Mirror Universe?

Perhaps by working in tandem with the sending transporter in the MU?

Oh, so MU transporters have more resolution than ours? I suppose that might make some sense. However, it would imply that Smiley had to build a new gizmo for each and every trip, because they'd be fried on the way back.

 

[Christopher]

Or perhaps the device links two transporters, one in each universe, and uses the combined "parallax" from both their scanners to get a higher resolution than either one can by itself.

Either that or a wizard did it.

 

[William Leisner]

[ Fry ]

Magic. Got it.

[ /Fry ]

 

[Stevil2001]

Isn't there a precedent for transporters being able to beam things that can't be replicated, as nonsensical as that seems? I think latinum can be transported...

 

[Lindley]

Actually, I'm sure there is some sort of Heisenberg principal you could apply----"We can move it around, but we can't duplicate it," or something to that effect.

Perhaps by working in tandem with the sending transporter in the MU?

Except that would require communication between universes prior to the transport beginning, and Nog just said they couldn't do that before.

 

[LightningStorm]

I think this is where you just say "Stop it! You're thinking too hard, just enjoy the plot devices and don't ask questions."

 

[Lindley]

Usually, yeah, but when apparent contradictions just jump off the page----particularly in a book which so heavily exploits discrepancies in DS9 episodes----one simply must comment.

Like that time one of the authors (maybe KRAD or DRG3? I don't recall) thought a logarithmic progression was faster than exponential. That sort of thing can't simply slip by uncommented.

 

[captcalhoun]

that was KRAD

 

[Christopher]

Isn't there a precedent for transporters being able to beam things that can't be replicated, as nonsensical as that seems? I think latinum can be transported...

It's not nonsensical, because it's the difference between transmission and storage, between dynamic and static. It's the same principle whereby a broadcast TV signal can have higher resolution than a videotape recording of same (at least in analog) -- or the same principle whereby a length of open pipe can pass more water through it than can be stored in a bucket of the same dimensions.

 

[Stevil2001]

Isn't there a precedent for transporters being able to beam things that can't be replicated, as nonsensical as that seems? I think latinum can be transported...

It's not nonsensical, because it's the difference between transmission and storage, between dynamic and static. It's the same principle whereby a broadcast TV signal can have higher resolution than a videotape recording of same (at least in analog) -- or the same principle whereby a length of open pipe can pass more water through it than can be stored in a bucket of the same dimensions.

But if it's been digitally converted into information-- which it is for transport-- then why couldn't that pattern be retained and replicated?

 

[Christopher]

But if it's been digitally converted into information-- which it is for transport-- then why couldn't that pattern be retained and replicated?

Because story logic forbids it. If any transporter pattern could be stored with perfect resolution, then any character could be cloned or resurrected with the touch of a button, and that would make it impossible to tell meaningful stories. So the rules of the universe require that transporter memory be a volatile, temporary thing at best.

Besides, who says it's digital? It's quantum information we're talking about, and that's not something that can really be encoded with simple 1's and 0's. A transporter beam is something that reads the quantum state of matter and encodes it in the energy matrix of the beam itself -- which actually sounds more like analog storage to me.

 

[Stevil2001]

Well obviously story logic forbids it. You didn't object to my assertion on story logic grounds, though.

 

[Christopher]

Ultimately, even the best technobabble explanation is just an exercise in rationalizing story logic. And when technobabble fails, you just have to throw up your hands and say "It's in the script." Or "A wizard did it."

 

[Stevil2001]

I'm glad I had you to tell me that, because twenty years of watching television failed to clue me in on it.

 

[Turbo]

Have we ever seen latinum go through the cargo transporters? As I recall, the cargo transporters are generally set for molecular resolution as opposed to quantum resolution (though they can be switched to the latter). The replicators are also set for molecular resolution. Perhaps latinum can go through quantum transporters but not molecular ones.

 

[Christopher]

The behavior of transporters has often been magical and not held up to close technical analysis. For instance, in episodes where incorporeal entities sneak aboard in the transporter beam, as in "Day of the Dove" or "Beyond the Farthest Star." How could that happen without the transporter system scanning and detecting those entities' presence and signalling an alert? For that matter, although I can't think of examples, I'm fairly sure there have been episodes where things that were resistant to scanning went through transporters, something that should be a contradiction in terms.

And the broader ramifications of transporter tech are rarely explored. If a transporter can scan anything down to the most fundamental level, then ship's sensors should be just as fine in their resolution and be a lot more informative than they usually are. And if a transporter can dematerialize anything -- even a shuttlecraft made of extremely dense and durable hull material, as seen in VGR -- then that means a transporter beam is essentially an unstoppable disintegrator ray, the most powerful such weapon ever invented. Yet we never see it used that way, or see any spinoff weapon technologies that make use of that all-powerful disintegration effect. Failing that, at least it should've been established that denser materials are resistant to transporters because their molecular bonds are too strong.

 

[David Henderson]

And the broader ramifications of transporter tech are rarely explored. If a transporter can scan anything down to the most fundamental level, then ship's sensors should be just as fine in their resolution and be a lot more informative than they usually are. And if a transporter can dematerialize anything -- even a shuttlecraft made of extremely dense and durable hull material, as seen in VGR -- then that means a transporter beam is essentially an unstoppable disintegrator ray, the most powerful such weapon ever invented. Yet we never see it used that way, or see any spinoff weapon technologies that make use of that all-powerful disintegration effect. Failing that, at least it should've been established that denser materials are resistant to transporters because their molecular bonds are too strong.

There's the often-utilized "transporter lock" issue, and many times that the transporter cannot lock onto something. Typically the transporter cannot lock because of some sort of interference, but it may be that "non-disintegrable" materials couldn't be locked onto, either.

davidh

 

[Marco Palmieri]

I've just started Fearful Symmetry, so no spoilers for the book please. This is purely a tech issue.

On page 58 of Side 1, Nog says that Smiley's transporter gizmo can't be replicated because none of their scanners have the requisite quantum resolution to build a working one.

Sooo......how did it get through the transporter in the first place from the Mirror Universe?

Not sure how I missed this thread until now, so apologies for the delayed reply.

Leaving aside the flaws in the transporter/replicator concepts as they're presented in Star Trek, and which have already been discussed here, there's really no contradiction in Fearful Symmetry, because its been shown on screen that transporters are considerably more sophisticated than replicators in terms of scanning ability. They'd have to be, otherwise replicators would have the capacity to produce living creatures.

This point is driven home by the DS9 episode, "Our Man Bashir," in which it's made explicit that there's no single technological alternative to the memory capacity and scanning resolution of a transporter system.

So, from a storytelling standpoint, it's really that simple: the two technologies, while similar, are clearly different enough to permit narrative conceits of the type described in Fearful Symmetry, which are consistent with precedent.

On another note, they claim the device recreates the same conditions that caused Kirk's accident, yet the Intendent claimed in "Crossover" that all transporters on their side had been redesigned so that particular event could never cause the problem again. Either Smiley un-redesigned a few, or someone's got something wrong somewhere.

Again, there's no contradiction. Christopher's explanation is the right one. On the MU side, the device temporarily corrects the modifications made to a transporter system it interfaces with, and somehow also makes the two universes permeable through that system, simulating the "Mirror, Mirror" malfunction.

That's the way the device seemed to work on screen, anyway. The only time it wasn't shown to interface with a transporter system was in "Resurrection," when MU-Bareil beamed back to the other side from the DS9's Bajoran shrine. We took that to mean the device also employed a "homing beacon" feature for retrieval.

Sure, from a science standpoint it's utter nonsense, like most of Star Trek. But we did try to keep the nonsense internally consistent.