The Transporter Debate (2015?)

[tafkats]

But what's to stop the Dominion from creating one million Jemhadar soldiers from the pattern of one? NOTHING!

That's an interesting point, and it suggests that intentionally duplicating people with a transporter can't be done for some reason ... since if it were possible, the Dominion would certainly do it.

What are your conclusions when you encounter a contradiction?

Well, in Star Trek, it's usually that the laws of physics get rewritten every seven days anyway, so ...

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If this were real-world physics, and we were discussing quantum teleportation, then the "no-cloning theorem" would apply, which means that it would be impossible to use the teleporter to exactly duplicate an object.

From Nature:

A single quantum cannot be cloned

W. K. Wootters & W. H. Zurek

If a photon of definite polarization encounters an excited atom, there is typically some nonvanishing probability that the atom will emit a second photon by stimulated emission. Such a photon is guaranteed to have the same polarization as the original photon. But is it possible by this or any other process to amplify a quantum state, that is, to produce several copies of a quantum system (the polarized photon in the present case) each having the same state as the original? If it were, the amplifying process could be used to ascertain the exact state of a quantum system: in the case of a photon, one could determine its polarization by first producing a beam of identically polarized copies and then measuring the Stokes parameters. We show here that the linearity of quantum mechanics forbids such replication and that this conclusion holds for all quantum systems.

 

[Elder Knight]

That's pretty darn scary, the possibility that every living being transported has a final sensation of death and oblivion, and a new copy goes on with all the memories intact. However, as no one "lives" to report this, the process goes on and on.

If they told you, "Yeah, you will die. But, not to worry, a new 'you' with the same capabilities will carry on, and nobody else will know the difference. Still want to go through with it?"

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I seem to remember a novel (or novelization) where a character actually asks how the transporter works, and is told that the body is converted to energy and the molecules are "tunneled" to a new location - meaning, the transportee is not "killed" and duplicated, just moved. I think they called it a "Dirac jump."

 

[Mytran]

]My explanation is the transporter converts you from a physical/material state into a energy state (briefly you're a "energy being"), and this is what is moved to the destination. Barclay could see around himself during the unusually slow transport because he had working eyes the whole time.

Usually the physical - energy - physical conversion is so quick you can't barely perceive it.

That's also my interpretation, based on how the Transporting process is generally presented on the show. Our own Christopher has written an excellent treatise on how quantum teleportation may be possible and still preserve the continuity of self without the usual "kill+copy" debates. However, Star Trek's Transporter is quick, requires very little power (a mere hand phaser was used on one occasion) and demonstrably allows the participants to continue thinking, talking and moving throughout the process.

The TNG technical manual goes into fascinating detail, it's just not detail which is compatible with what is seen on the actual show.

There are always going to be accidents and anomalies, of course. However, aside from these exceptions the Transporter is presented very consistently in the manner described by T'Girl above.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

That's pretty darn scary, the possibility that every living being transported has a final sensation of death and oblivion, and a new copy goes on with all the memories intact. However, as no one "lives" to report this, the process goes on and on.

If they told you, "Yeah, you will die. But, not to worry, a new 'you' with the same capabilities will carry on, and nobody else will know the difference. Still want to go through with it?"

Knowing this, I don't think many people who say now that the transporter as described is safe, would dare to use one, even for a million bucks and even if it were tested first on a million rats without any detectable side effects.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

If this were real-world physics, and we were discussing quantum teleportation, then the "no-cloning theorem" would apply, which means that it would be impossible to use the teleporter to exactly duplicate an object.

From Nature:

A single quantum cannot be cloned

W. K. Wootters & W. H. Zurek

If a photon of definite polarization encounters an excited atom, there is typically some nonvanishing probability that the atom will emit a second photon by stimulated emission. Such a photon is guaranteed to have the same polarization as the original photon. But is it possible by this or any other process to amplify a quantum state, that is, to produce several copies of a quantum system (the polarized photon in the present case) each having the same state as the original? If it were, the amplifying process could be used to ascertain the exact state of a quantum system: in the case of a photon, one could determine its polarization by first producing a beam of identically polarized copies and then measuring the Stokes parameters. We show here that the linearity of quantum mechanics forbids such replication and that this conclusion holds for all quantum systems.

Billions of quanta, change within you every second, without affecting your sense of individuality.

Your example is interesting but it doesn't prove anything concerning the replication of an individual.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If this were real-world physics, and we were discussing quantum teleportation, then the "no-cloning theorem" would apply, which means that it would be impossible to use the teleporter to exactly duplicate an object.

From Nature:

A single quantum cannot be cloned

W. K. Wootters & W. H. Zurek

If a photon of definite polarization encounters an excited atom, there is typically some nonvanishing probability that the atom will emit a second photon by stimulated emission. Such a photon is guaranteed to have the same polarization as the original photon. But is it possible by this or any other process to amplify a quantum state, that is, to produce several copies of a quantum system (the polarized photon in the present case) each having the same state as the original? If it were, the amplifying process could be used to ascertain the exact state of a quantum system: in the case of a photon, one could determine its polarization by first producing a beam of identically polarized copies and then measuring the Stokes parameters. We show here that the linearity of quantum mechanics forbids such replication and that this conclusion holds for all quantum systems.

Billions of quanta, change within you every second, without affecting your sense of individuality.

Your example is interesting but it doesn't prove anything concerning the replication of an individual.

You're wrong about that.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

If this were real-world physics, and we were discussing quantum teleportation, then the "no-cloning theorem" would apply, which means that it would be impossible to use the teleporter to exactly duplicate an object.

From Nature:

Billions of quanta, change within you every second, without affecting your sense of individuality.

Your example is interesting but it doesn't prove anything concerning the replication of an individual.

You're wrong about that.

I am afraid you'll have to do better than that.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Billions of quanta, change within you every second, without affecting your sense of individuality.

Your example is interesting but it doesn't prove anything concerning the replication of an individual.

You're wrong about that.

I am afraid you'll have to do better than that.

You mean that I have to do better than doing what I did, which is prove more than nothing about it? No, I really don't.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

You're wrong about that.

I am afraid you'll have to do better than that.

You mean that I have to do better than doing what I did, which is prove more than nothing about it? No, I really don't.

You didn't prove anything, relevant to our discussion that is, and then said that I was wrong. That's hardly more than nothing. If anything, it's even less than nothing.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I am afraid you'll have to do better than that.

You mean that I have to do better than doing what I did, which is prove more than nothing about it? No, I really don't.

You didn't prove anything, relevant to our discussion that is, and then said that I was wrong. That's hardly more than nothing. If anything, it's even less than nothing.

Then I can only say that it must not have been clear to you what was proven, because I really did cite something relevant to the discussion. Sorry you don't understand it.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

You mean that I have to do better than doing what I did, which is prove more than nothing about it? No, I really don't.

You didn't prove anything, relevant to our discussion that is, and then said that I was wrong. That's hardly more than nothing. If anything, it's even less than nothing.

Then I can only say that it must not have been clear to you what was proven, because I really did cite something relevant to the discussion. Sorry you don't understand it.

The article is about a single particle. It has nothing to do with our discussion. You may as well have shown an article about fishing regulations and said that it proves that it is impossible to make an exact replica of a fish. This is how little relevance your article actually has.

FYI, if you rub your hands together you will remove billions of particles from each hand but I swear to you, it won't change your individuality.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

You didn't prove anything, relevant to our discussion that is, and then said that I was wrong. That's hardly more than nothing. If anything, it's even less than nothing.

Then I can only say that it must not have been clear to you what was proven, because I really did cite something relevant to the discussion. Sorry you don't understand it.

The article is about a single particle. It has nothing to do with our discussion. You may as well have shown an article about fishing regulations and said that it proves that it is impossible to make an exact replica of a fish. This is how little relevance your article actually has.

FYI, if you rub your hands together you will remove billions of particles from each hand but I swear to you, it won't change your individuality.

No, the abstract states quite clearly that they prove their result for all quantum systems, which extends to collections of any number of particles. You should really reread the last sentence of the abstract:

We show here that the linearity of quantum mechanics forbids such replication and that this conclusion holds for all quantum systems.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Two possibilities.

1) There exists a soul.

In this case a soul is magic enough that it comes with you when you transport.

2) There does not exist a soul.

In this case, consciousness is an illusion, all that matters is the perception of consciousness, and the fact that your perception is continuous means that you are continuous.

 

[Amaris]

Two possibilities.

1) There exists a soul.

In this case a soul is magic enough that it comes with you when you transport.

2) There does not exist a soul.

In this case, consciousness is an illusion, all that matters is the perception of consciousness, and the fact that your perception is continuous means that you are continuous.

What if perception isn't continuous, though? What if it's like a film, where individual frames move fast enough to simulate the appearance of seamlessness? We live in a universe where the perception of time moves at a variable rate dependent upon many factors.

The perception of any observer is flawed. Knock a man unconscious without his knowing it, and when he recovers, he will not have noted any time passing until he has a chance to gain awareness of his surroundings. For him, no time has passed until that very moment, but for everyone else around him, the perception of time moving forward is noted and logged. The observer, too, has experienced the forward motion of time, as his body's cells will attest, even though he was not aware of it.

Perception itself can be an illusion.

So a person can be replicated, and the original killed at the moment of transmission, all without being noted by the observer, because the observer has no knowledge of what just happened other than the perception that a smooth transport has taken place.

Of course, that's assuming the machine could instantaneously, and I mean literally instantaneously, assess, break down, transmit, and reconstitute every quark and lepton in a person's body elsewhere, along with the immediate atmosphere surrounding it, without killing that person and everything around that person.

 

[JD5000]

So essentially, by entering a transporter, one becomes the cat in the box.

 

[Amaris]

So essentially, by entering a transporter, one becomes the cat in the box.

Quantum entanglement is a messy business. Possibly.

 

[JD5000]

I should have said, upon entering a transporter, one essentially becomes or doesn't become the cat in the box.

My bad.

 

[Amaris]

I should have said, upon entering a transporter, one essentially becomes or doesn't become the cat in the box.

My bad.

Well, one is the cat in the box, it's just that the point where the juxtaposition of "alive" or "dead" takes place is the part where entanglement gets messy.