The Transporter In Star Trek

[princesinexile]

The transporter in Star Trek is one of the most fascinating theoretical technologies on board the starship Enterprise. The concept was created by the late-Gene Roddenberry. He needed his characters to get from the ship to the planet within a short period of time. Originally, Roddenberry set out to have his characters on a shuttlecraft, but was unable to afford the necessary budget to do so, hence, the transpoter was born. From a creative point-of-view, it served as an excellent plot device, however, scientifically it will never work. To find out why let's examine how the transporter operates. The transporter works by disassembling crew members at the atomic level and converting them into energy. Once the energy arrives at the appointed destination, the process is reversed. <br /><br />One major problem with the transporter is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This principle states that it is possible to determine an atom or particle's velocity or position with one hundred percent accuracy, however, we can never know both at the same time. Why? Well, simply put, you cannot observe a particle without disturbing it because you would need to 'touch' it with something, like a photon or some other particle. This will transfer energy to the observed particle. Sort of like shooting pool or playing soccer. <br /><br />While we're on the subject of matter and energy, I read an article on the net regarding the conversion of energy into matter. Einstein has stated in his equations that matter and energy are interconvertible. Anyway, an experiment conducted at Stanford University was accomplished at S.L.A.C. (short for Stanford Linear Accelerator Center). <br /><br />Here are some links to SLAC's statements released to various publications concerning the experiment: <br /><br />http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/e144/nytimes.html<br />http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/e144/nytimes.html</safety_wrapper

 

[peacekeeper]

I fully agree with what you just said. When I was reading the first part of the post, I was indeed ready to answer with the whole problem about the souls, but then I noticed you took it up yourself.<br /><br />Since I am a true believer in both souls and reincarnation, I also believe that, contrary to what you say, there <i>can</i> be consciousness without a physical body. However, if your body would get converted into energy, it would also be "disconnected" from the soul, and you would die. The hypothetical new body that would be created out of the energy would only be a dead shell. I do not think a brain as advanced as the human one would be able to function withouth its connection to a soul.<br /><br />And even if that would in fact not be the case, the empty body would still be just as dead as an Artificial Intelligence.

 

[bobvanx]

There are those who claim the ability to project their consciousness across vast distances. Perhaps only people who could demonstrate astral projection abilites would be fit to take a ride from a transporter.<br /><br />They would follow their energy signature to the destination, and perhaps even take part in their re-assembly in some manner, holding the "image" of their body in their consciousness.

 

[slayera]

Ok, so which part of a human do you remove to take away their soul? I can't not believe in souls, unless you give them to single cells, plants, fungi, and mushrooms as they are as much live as any human. <br />Why would you want to use the same engery to recreate your human back again. All you need is the information to rebuild them, why port the engery over? Basically copy, destory, and rebuild, much like sending a fax. Once we can record and model ANY human brain, the whole body won't be far behind. This does leave out sending over cases of anti-matter, though, as this method would require the building matterial on the other side.

 

[heyo]

One thing I can tell you:<br /><br />Even if the transporter portrayed in Star Trek did exist, and had the safety record that it does in the show, warm up a shuttlecraft for me.<br /><br />It reminds me of a song from the 80's.. "I can't go for that, no, no, no can do, I, I can't go for that..."<br /><br />In one episode of Start Trek TNG they spoke of the safety record of the transporter, said there had been 2 accidents in the last however long, ever since (some certain technlogy) had been put to use.<br /><br />Heyo

 

[nexium]

Many of the American lndians (Native Americans) and some Mormons believe animals (including humans) and plants have a soul, more often called a spirit.<br /> The 30s movie "The Fly" used a matter transmiter simular to the Star trek Transporter. Logically the technology of the food replicator has some simularity. Neither is likely in the 21 st century, except with a radically different theory of operation. Neil

 

[Leovinus]

I think the transporter actually kills the orignal crewman and creates a new copy. The new copy thinks he is the original one, but he isn't. The whole thing is immoral. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[peacekeeper]

The food replicator on the other hand... That would be great! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[Leovinus]

That's right. The cow is already dead, go ahead and eat the burger. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[claywoman]

I don't know...I guess I'd like to be one of the first guinea pigs for this...my life span isn't suppose to last long anyway, so why not? what do I have to lose? I think it would be fun personally...to basically go from x to z without passing y would be great!!! Then if this were in every house, our road wouldn't be clogged, work would be easy to get to, and we could buy those tickets to a big game online and then Zap! be in the seats watching it!!!

 

[bobvanx]

Transporter testing<br /><br />1) go on a spirit/vision quest. report the results.<br /><br />2) get transported<br /><br />3) go on a spirit/vision quest, compare/contrast the results.<br /><br />Heck, claywoman, I'd interview you before and after, and truthfully report whether you had lost your soul (or gathered a new one somehow) after being transported.

 

[5stone10]

I believe that the transporter is a MacGuffin, a plot device, used to give shape to a scene or an episode. Of course in the context of Star Trek - everything is subject to a scientific reality check. So the transporter has taken on a life of it own.<br /><br />I think Roddenberry used a lot of MacGuffins because of budgetary and other constraints. For instance, there was Corbomite and the Tholian Web, among others.

 

[Leovinus]

If you died every time you drove somewhere in your car and then when the car arrived a clone of yourself stepped out, then I'd say you had a valid comparison. Otherwise, it's apples and oranges. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobvanx]

>>Some of it abnormal.<br /><br />I appreciate your opinion, and fully support your right to have it.

 

[newtonian]

PrincessInExile - You notice that responses are both religious and scientific?<br /><br />In fact, Star Trek did present scenarios involving both. I like science fiction. I like Star Trek.<br /><br />However, I share your interest in determining what is actually fact or possible future fact from pure fiction.<br /><br />The question of reassembling via energy transmission is similar to resurection in the Bible.<br /><br />The question of whether this would be merely a copy or really you is a valid question. To understand the answer, you need to know what actually makes you you!<br /><br />The Bible does not teach an immortal soul that separates from the body at death - that is a man-made religious doctrine with no scientific evidence for it. In this I agree with Steve.<br /><br />NDE's (near death experiences) have mostly been shown to be tricks of the mind, created in the human brain. Note I said most - I know supernatural phenomena does exist but I prefer to steer clear of researching it, since it is very dangerous - though I do read scientific studies such as of NDE's. <br /><br />Getting back to the question of souls, this is what the Bible clearly states:<br /><br />"The Soul that is sinning, it itself will die." - Ezekiel 18:4, 20<br /><br />Note the Bible distinguishes the soul from the spirit, and the spirit - the latter in Hebrew and Greek means invisible active force or energy. However, Psalms 146:4 shows this energy does not actually contain our thoughts - and Ecclesiastes 3:19 shows all animals including man are kept alive by the same life force- "all have the same spirit."<br /><br />However, I do believe resurection is not a mere copy but really involves everything that makes you you.<br /><br />That involves self-consciousness, for example, which is something science is still trying to fathom.<br /><br />It also involves love.<br /><br />And the Biblical definition of soul (there is more than one definition) is usually what makes you you - e.g. a synonym for the phr

 

[Leovinus]

I thought brain cells were permanent. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

Right -- so as far as your brain goes -- you are the same person, or at least a subset of the same person, as you age. That's considering that "you" refers to your brain. I mean, you can lose your limbs but that wouldn't change who you are. But lose your brain and you're just a vegetable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[the_masked_squiggy]

http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/9712/10/beam.me.up.ap/<br /><br />Has potential, however distant, no?

 

[dub_]

No.

 

[newtonian]

Leovinus - I do believe it has been recently discovered that brain cells can multiply - contrary to what was previously believed. <br /><br />I will research that and get back to you.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the thoughts of the brain are not contained in the spirit, as identified in the Bible, which we have in common with animals.<br /><br />[Note: latin anima = english soul = Greek psyche = Hebrew nephesh; English spirit= Greek pneuma = Hebrew ruahh]]<br /><br />1. We share the same spirit as animals - it is not individual to us like our soul is:<br /><br />(Ecclesiastes 3:18-21) 18 I, even I, have said in my heart with regard to the sons of mankind that the [true] God is going to select them, that they may see that they themselves are beasts. 19 For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity. 20 All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust. 21 Who is there knowing the spirit of the sons of mankind, whether it is ascending upward; and the spirit of the beast, whether it is descending downward to the earth?. . .<br /><br />2. Our thoughts, corresponsing with brain activity, perish at death:<br /><br />(Psalm 146:2-4) . . .I will praise Jehovah during my lifetime. I will make melody to my God as long as I am. 3 Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. 4 His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish. . .<br /><br />3. Therefore, since spirit is energy (the Hebrew and Greek definitions of spirit are "invisible active force" or energy) and energy cannot die, yet our thoughts perish at death, the logical conclusion is that the spirit we have in common with animals does not contain our thoug

 

[nacnud]

Leovinus - I do believe it has been recently discovered that brain cells can multiply - contrary to what was previously believed.<br /><br />Yep thats true <br />

 

[newtonian]

nacnud - Thanks for confirming that. <br /><br />Here are a few quotes for details:<br /><br />"Adult Brains Produce New Nerve Cells?<br /><br />"For decades, it was axiomatic that people were born with all the brain cells they would ever have," states The New York Times. Even though as far back as 1965, experiments with certain animals indicated that their brains were generating new nerve cells, many neurologists believed that this did not happen in humans. During the past decade, however, evidence has mounted to indicate that the brain does produce new nerve cells and that it may be constantly renewing itself. Last year researchers discovered that new cells were formed in a part of the human brain associated with short-term memory. Some scientists now believe that "the brain may be repairing itself all the time." - "Awake!," 9/8/00, p. 29.<br /><br />"Older and Wiser"<br /><br />Researchers have discovered that parts of the brain are able to grow new cells as people age, reports The Times of London. Previously it was believed that brain cells did not reproduce during adulthood. "The key to encouraging the growth is keeping the mind active," says The Times. A recent study of people over the age of 65 found that learning and interaction with other people appear to encourage new growth in brain cells and their connections. The researchers found that mixing with other people improved "health, longevity and quality of life." Neuroscientist Susan Greenfield comments: "The richer your experience, the more connections you have. So people do get older and wiser." - Awake!," 10/22/00, p. 28<br /><br />A NEW LOOK AT BRAIN CELLS<br /><br /> "We used to think that you lost brain cells every day of your life everywhere in the brain," says Dr. Marilyn Albert, a professor of psychiatry and neurology. "That's just not so-you do have some loss with healthy aging, but not so dramatic, and in very selective brain areas." Moreover, recent findings suggest that even the long-held conviction that hu

 

[bobvanx]

>>There is no scientific basis for it being anything else.<br /><br />I agree. One reason it's hard for you and to have conversations about this sort of thing is that we approach it with different tools and different toolboxes. I'm much more comfortable with "mystery" than you are, and you are much more comfortable with "incontrovertible truth" than I am.<br /><br />If your only tool to measure a tree is a 1000ml beaker, how do you measure the tree? You could grind it up, pour it onto the beaker 1000ml at a time, and eventually you can say something like "This tree filled 1x10^7liters of volume."<br /><br />Could you describe how the birds used it? How the wind sounds as it blew through the leaves? How the leaves respirated? How the sap flowed? With a 1000ml beaker as your only instrument, there are aspects of the tree you cannot observe.<br /><br />The point is, that science does not hold all the answers. It will forever be constrained to describe merely the physical universe. A technology like the fantasy of teleportation bumps up against what science cannot know and cannot describe, because it breaks the rules of the physical universe.<br /><br />This is why some of us have such a good time contemplating these things. Not because we are in some way abnormal, or missing some cards in our deck, or any of the other ad hominems you toss out with the excuse that they are observations not opinions. We enjoy thinking about these things becasue we know that science is only part of the answer to understanding ourselves and our place in the universe.

 

[rogerinnh]

There is no soul. There is only physical energy and matter. If you claim that there is such a thing as a soul, kindly provide a means of measuring it and of distinguising between it and just plain old matter and energry.<br /><br />As for transporting, it shouldn't be necessary to measure every single electron, neutron, proton, quark, or whatever. You only need to measure, and transfer the measuremements of, "enough" of the physical matter of the transport subject to "sufficiently" reproduce it at the destination. In fact, if you obtained measurements of a "standard" subject (e.g. the "average" person), all you'd really have to transfer are the differences between the subject and the standard, which would substantially less than transferring the entire set of measurements for the subject.<br />At the destination you'd then reconstruct a sufficiently comparable copy of the original. And, yes, in the case of transporting a living being, it would have all the thoughts and memories of the original, since thoughts and memories are inherently embodied in the physical structure (primarily within the brain).<br /><br />You'd have a copy. No need to destroy the original. You'd now have two of what you originally had one of. Sure, they'd each believe that they were the genuine original, but so what?

 

[bobvanx]

>>Sure, they'd each believe that they were the genuine original, but so what? <br /><br />Well, the so what is that only one of them has any rights under the law. There can only be one "incorporation" of a person.<br /><br />Sci-fi deals with this issue al the time. In "Think like a dinosaur" the answer is to kill the original. Stephen King (I think) wrote a story in which the originals get tagged for slave labor.