Transporters and Shields

[CuttingEdge100]

Okay, how does a force field stop a transporter?

I've heard so many explanations of how a transporter works, whether it be

- Quantum entanglement (Impractical -- system would essentially create a clone of you, then kill you)

- Quantum tunneling

- Shooting jacketed streams of matter that are somehow re-assembled on the other end

- Shooting jacketed streams of "phased matter" that are somehow re-assembled and apparently de-"phased" on the other end

- Converting matter to energy, then zapping it along to another location, then re-assembling it there

- Converting matter to energy, phasing that energy, then zapping it along to another location then de-phasing it, and then converting it back to matter

- Converting matter to energy, surrounding that energy with a containment field so it doesn't interact with atmosphere and stuff or disperse, then convert it back to matter at the other end


In ST, force fields are supposed to be able to stop a transporter beam, most likely simply because of the reason that if they could go through force-fields you could beam a nuclear bomb into the engineering room of another ship or they could do it to you.

Regardless, some of the explanations I've heard, including quantum tunneling would be able to bypass shields...


CuttingEdge100

 

[Anticitizen]

In all those methods, there is SOME transfer of matter or energy from point to point. I guess shields just 'get in the way'.

 

[AlxxlA]

Ostensibly, the shields should block the transporters because they prevent energy from passing through.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Shields seem to prevent a "pattern lock". I take this to mean that shields interfere with the sensors necessary to insure that one has accurately "grabbed" all of a person on the other end to beam them out, and with the ability of the transporter operator to "see" what they are doing in putting someone back together properly when beaming them in.

This would lend itself to how O'Brien beamed himself over to the Rutledge with her shields up - precision matching of relative speed combined with the target being a ship with an interior that the Enterprise had detailed information on meant that O'Brien could beam "blind".

 

[Myasishchev]

I sort of envision beaming someone out as a quark separation process. Quarks are torn apart, and with a very fine quark particle beam, leads are thrown at the other ship or at a planet, while the others are held back. The strong force is asymptotically attractive, so the particles should snap back together in the middle. It does this in very fast stages, so that solid objects--~99.9999% empty space--are unable to stop the quark stream.

Now, if quarks are quantum objects, with a wave-particle duality, it may also help explain the seeming discrepancy in transporter operation description, with the competing theories of mass-energy conversion and particle shredding reconciled as both being valid if simplified explanations of quark rendering.

I have no idea how plausible that is, but I think it sounds nice.

Beaming someone up is a whole different bag. It could use the same process I guess, but it employs some kind of magical gravitational or electromagnetic force at a distance to rip apart an object from tens of thousands of kilometers away. Transporters ought to be a fantastic weapon.

In either case, the energy requirements to overcome the binding forces of all the atomic nuclei in a human body, and to accelerate some of them to very high speeds, I would totally guesstimate as being monstrous. Just accelerating the mass of a human body to a hundredth of light speed would be a ridiculously large energy expenditure. I'm not sure how much would be involved in cracking nuclei as I've described. I'm also not sure they wouldn't come back together with an earth-shattering kaboom.

Also, in either case, if shields are regions of gravitationally curved space which oscillate on and off or between different levels of distortion, I can definitely see how they could not block but totally rip asunder a incoming matter stream or an incoming magic snatching hand, just as they would a phaser or photon blast.

 

[03myersd]

I think that it needs to be decided first how the sheilds actually work. Once you have done this you can then decide with more ease and accuracy how they stop transport.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

O3myersd,

I figure they were a magnetic field of some sort that pushes things away?

 

[All Seeing Eye]

The way I see it is that an object is broken down on the transporter pad and held in a confinement beam to stop them from flying off everywhere. A confinement beam is then shot towards the target location and the matter is shot down this confinement beam and re-assembled on the other end by whatever way it's done.
Now since the confinement beam and matter can usually bypass other matter such as ships hulls etc the transporter beam must traverse through subspace.

I assume that shields on a ship are so powerful that they effect subspace in a similar fashion to how warp engines warp subspace.
This disruption of subspace by a ships shield interferes with the confinement/transporter beam being fired.

On another note, for a transporter to work sensors need to be able to focus on the target destination to ensure re-materialisation. Sensors I believe can't penetrate another ships shields making beaming impossible anyway.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Actually, it's possible to beam through shields--O'Brien did it in the TNG episode "The Wounded" by using the frequency windows shields have to allow sensor scans--but apparently the idea of doing that on a regular basis whenever the shields were up was vetoed by Starfleet...

 

[Myasishchev]

Actually, it's possible to beam through shields--O'Brien did it in the TNG episode "The Wounded" by using the frequency windows shields have to allow sensor scans--but apparently the idea of doing that on a regular basis whenever the shields were up was vetoed by Starfleet...

With pretty good reason, I'd bet.

Sensors are ordinarily depicted as at least lightspeed and usually FTL, but transporters, Trek 11 aside, are definitely STL. I figure as soon as anyone realized that sensor windows could be beamed through, they went to more than one "set" of shields, scheduled to deactivate in sequence to permit an FTL signal through, and deny an STL signal like a transporter (or a phaser beam or pho-torp for that matter) adequate time to reach its destination.

Subspace transporters and the like wouldn't be restricted by STL speeds and this is probably how they wind up beaming through shields in the first place.

Beyond that, installing the easy-peasy transporter scramblers as depicted in DS9, which are probably nothing any more sophisticated than a powerful electromagnet, onto every ship in the fleet would seem to be a no brainer.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

How would a transporter scrambler work?

 

[Timo]

Now since the confinement beam and matter can usually bypass other matter such as ships hulls etc the transporter beam must traverse through subspace.

But we know from TNG "Bloodlines" (or "Firstborn", I always get those mixed up) that a subspace transporter is a different thing altogether.

Since subspace transporters are said to be exotic and not in use, one is forced to think that regular transporters don't use subspace, at least not in a prominent role. Otherwise, the name "subspace transporter" would make little sense.

It's probably better to just accept that there are more "magic realms" in the Trek universe than just one. There's subspace, for things like warp drive and mass reduction and FTL communications. And then there's this phased realm, for things like phasers and weird timeshifts and phased matter streams. And somehow they are either utterly unrelated, or then at least represent completely different applications of technology.

Now, if a shield is supposed to stop "phasers", then simple semantics would suggest that they should do very well against "phased matter beams", too. Who knows, perhaps phaser and transporter are really the same device, only rigged a bit differently?

The TNG Tech Manual was perhaps the first to put forth in writing the idea that shields and tractor beams are also the same device, rigged differently. Both suspend artificially created gravitons in space in a controlled manner, with the help of subspace fields. Perhaps the "phase" things do interact with "subspace" things so that the latter block the former. Or perhaps "phase" things are blocked by gravitons, and the subspace element of the latter devices is just coincidental.

We don't know if tractor beams interfere with transporters. Since they're directional, one could probably always fire a transporter beam past them, at least with a little bit of maneuvering - so we couldn't really prove anything even if we saw transporters work on a ship that is tractored or tractoring. But I'd like to speculate that transporter jammers and scramblers work on the same basic physical phenomena as the known transporter blockers, i.e. the shields. That is, there's probably some graviton nastiness at play there.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Okay... let's try a different approach.

I'll list each of the explanations I mentioned above, and some explanations posted in this thread, and let's answer why it would or would not be stopped by a force field, and how well it explains the transporter process m'kay?

Quantum tunneling
Does it explain the transporter process well:
Would it would be stopped by a force field:

Shooting jacketed streams of matter that are somehow re-assembled on the other end
Does it explain the transporter process well:
Would it be stopped by a force-field:

Shooting jacketed streams of "phased matter" that are somehow re-assembled and apparently de-"phased" on the other end
Does it explain the transporter process well:?
Would it be stopped by a force field:?

Converting matter to energy, then zapping it along to another location, then re-assembling it there
Does it explain the transporter process well:?
Would it be stopped by a force field:?

Converting matter to energy, phasing that energy, then zapping it along to another location then de-phasing it, and then converting it back to matter
Does it explain the transporter process well:?
Would it be stopped by a force field:?

Converting matter to energy, surrounding that energy with a containment field so it doesn't interact with atmosphere and stuff or disperse, then convert it back to matter at the other end
Does it explain the transporter process well?:
Would it be stopped by a force field?:

A quark-separation process, in which quarks are torn apart, and with a very fine quark particle beam, leads are thrown at the other ship or object, while others are held back, using the strong-force which is asymptotically attractive to snap the particles back together in the middle. This is done either very quickly or the beam is phased part of the way (basically Myasischev's explanation)
Does it explain the transporter process well?:
Would it be stopped by a force field?:


CuttingEdge100

 

[Myasishchev]

I'm leaving out quantum tunnelling--I am too ignorant on the subject to answer:

Shooting jacketed streams of matter that are somehow re-assembled on the other end
Does it explain the transporter process well: No, it cannot explain reassembly, or how the kinetic energy of the beam is dissipated.
Would it be stopped by a force-field: Yes.

Shooting jacketed streams of "phased matter" that are somehow re-assembled and apparently de-"phased" on the other end
Does it explain the transporter process well: No, for same reasons as above. However, without a definition of "phase" it's impossible to fully dismiss it--and this is a strength of this explanation, even if it is unsatisfying, as it treats magic as magic.
Would it be stopped by a force field:If you want it to.

Converting matter to energy, then zapping it along to another location, then re-assembling it there
Does it explain the transporter process well: Extremely no. Requires a gamma ray and neutrino mirror devices to focus the spherical bloom of reaction products into a beam. The beam will be roughly as powerful as 100,000 Nagasakis. Projected onto a planet, it will penetrate deeply into the crust and probably ionize a significant portion of the atmosphere.Would it be stopped by a force field: No. The reaction products are uncharged.

Converting matter to energy, phasing that energy, then zapping it along to another location then de-phasing it, and then converting it back to matter
Does it explain the transporter process well: See above thoughts on "phasing."
Would it be stopped by a force field: As the script demands.

Converting matter to energy, surrounding that energy with a containment field so it doesn't interact with atmosphere and stuff or disperse, then convert it back to matter at the other end
Does it explain the transporter process well: No. The annular confinement beam would be potentially destructive, compressing many tons of air at speeds far above that of sound. Also, beaming inside structures would require the ACB to put a hole in the roof. Finally, as the reaction products are uncharged, no force field can contain them anyway.
Would it be stopped by a force field: No.

As for mine:

A quark-separation process, in which quarks are torn apart, and with a very fine quark particle beam, leads are thrown at the other ship or object, while others are held back, using the strong-force which is asymptotically attractive to snap the particles back together in the middle. This is done either very quickly or the beam is phased part of the way (basically Myasischev's explanation)
Does it explain the transporter process well: Unfortunately no. Reassembly is explained but there is no explanation of where the energy goes. Strong force asymptotic freedom will bring quarks back together, and potentially at a state of rest relative to any chosen reference frame, but the energy required for their separation is problematic. Further, the release of strong force potential energy is responsible for the exothermic aspect of a fusion reaction--would gluing quarks back together produce this same effect? I think it likely.
Would it be stopped by a force field: Yes. Quarks are charged, massive particles. Which means they'd probably also be affected by that commonest of "force fields," the ceiling.

 

[Timo]

Since we see in "Realm of Fear" that a phased object or person is essentially still a coherent and functional whole, it makes sense to speculate that the transporter could be based on a process where the object is phased into a different realm, shot out in that realm to desired direction, and then allowed to "decay" back into our realm at a given distance. The decay would not need to involve any machinery at the other end: the phased object would simply pop out of the alternate realm, after overstaying its welcome there.

Also, if the device is based on this magical phasing process, then no known conditions or limitations apply, which is very good for our purposes. For example, there is no need to convert the significant mass of a person into an ungodly amount of energy and then handle that energy; the phasing process might involve going over or through some sort of an energy barrier, yes, but the energy levels on the phased and unphased sides of the barrier could be virtually the same, so the "reaction" would involve no net release or consumption of energy.

Also, there'd be no need to scan the object to an unholy accuracy, and then manipulate that immense amount of data, because the object would not be pulled apart. There'd thus be no need for detailed reassembly instructions.

Add to these dramatic-scientific plus sides the dramatic-semantic pluses. Phased matter transporters and phasers seem to behave remarkably similarly. Admittedly, one has a visible beam (of varying colors) and another has an invisible one, but both seem to be line-of-sight systems for causing the complete disappearance of mass from our realm in a seemingly aphysical manner. (In "Time's Arrow" and "The Next Phase", phasing does the same thing.) Both are also blocked by graviton shields or large amounts of ordinary matter. (In "The Next Phase", gravitics seem to stop the phased heroes from falling through the decks, too.)

Certainly "phasing" is a cop-out, but it can be seen as a systematic feature of the Trek universe, IMHO making it a more pleasing cop-out.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Myasishchev]

Reasonable enough. Transporters, like FTL, is maybe one of those things we should just say "is" and leave it black boxed. It is fun to discuss it, though.

Timo, the thing about gravity affecting Geordi and Ro and the Romulan dude in "The Next Phase"--fine and well, but while it's gravity that keeps them pinned to the floor, it's electromagnetic resistance that keeps them from falling through it. As Trek artificial gravity appears to be unidirectional in nature, if it's just gravity affecting them, they should fallen on an average of 10m/s^2 till they were ejected out into space.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Timo,

Still, if phased, why do the shields stop it. That's the thing I'm not getting. It would sail right through them

 

[AthanisTree]

We have Metaphasic shields from TNG then the Transphasic armour from Voy's Endgame and endless variants upon the 'Let's modify the shields for this week's nebula/ anomaly from Hell'... The various vessels pass through Wormholes, transwarp conduits and, even at sublight, most likely pass through bizarre, phase-warped anomalies as a matter of course: stands to reason that the engineers would design the defense system with phase-state attacks/ dangers in mind with the byproduct being that a rogue transported beam gets scrattered to the merry-four winds

 

[Timo]

while it's gravity that keeps them pinned to the floor, it's electromagnetic resistance that keeps them from falling through it. As Trek artificial gravity appears to be unidirectional in nature, if it's just gravity affecting them, they should fallen on an average of 10m/s^2 till they were ejected out into space.

But artificial gravity aboard starships doesn't work quite that way. It doesn't pull people towards the lowest deck - it merely pulls them toward the deck directly beneath their feet. If it pulled towards the lowest deck only, we'd not see the sort of local effects we do (like Archer's shower stall losing gravity while the rest of the ship is fine), and we'd see people at the rims of the saucer being pulled towards the center of the saucer or, worse still, towards the secondary hull somewhere aft of the saucer.

Somehow, the gravity used for keeping people attached to their seats and carpets is of very localized nature - it probably dies out much faster than to the square of distance. Also, it's not unidirectional, or else the ceilings would pull as much as the floors do and there'd be zero net effect. And then we have the highly directional tractor beams that are supposedly based on gravitics and can be switched to push rather than pull...

All that said, I'd think what stopped LaForge and Ro from being pulled through the floor was that the pulling effect only acted on objects above the gravity netting, and had a very strong negative or pushing "reverse lobe" on the underside. So our heroes only sank through the floor until they hit the gravity netting, and then rested on the pushing gravitic effect of that netting's underside. And we failed to see the centimeter's worth of sinkage...

If it were electromagnetic forces stopping them from going through the floor, then the same forces should have stopped them from going through the walls, which they obviously did not. Indeed, the main effect of this "phasing" thing seems to be to turn objects invisible to the electromagnetic force, thus allowing them to pass through walls and stuff - be it a transporter or a phase-cloak that is doing the phasing trick.

Still, if phased, why do the shields stop it. That's the thing I'm not getting. It would sail right through the

If we accept that the same sort of "phasing" is going on in "The Next Phase" and in the transporters, then gravity apparently interacts with phased objects. And the TNG Tech Manual claims that the shields are made of controlled gravity. So naturally they should stop transporter beams pretty well, then.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Timo,

The phased thing in Star Trek, the fact that the crew didn't immediately get left in the dust as the ship moved or accelerated, or even the fact that their feet can grip the floor is completely ridiculous...