Scientists at the CERN institute has successfully transported matter from one tube to another. They even transported a plastic cube although the cube did materialize slightly smaller in the other tube. So human transportation is decades away.
Scientists at the CERN institute has successfully transported matter from one tube to another. They even transported a plastic cube although the cube did materialize slightly smaller in the other tube. So human transportation is decades away.
No, like death our bodies are only connected to our energy field (soul, consciousness) through will. The consciousness of a transporter candidate is moved physically and metaphysically.
Yes. The existence of Thomas Riker proves it. Tom Riker isn't a clone or duplicate of Will Riker, he is the *same* person. There's no difference, aside from one made it off the planet and one didn't.
I have always been under the assumption transporters did just that, transport. No killing or copying involved. Clones happen because of a failsafe system that indeed does clone, but I would say that's not how it is supposed to work.
at least until starfleet manages to reverse engineer and further develop upon iconian gateway technology anyway. given that the iconians were very similar in spacefaring philosophy as the federation is with its prime directive, i have no doubt that it will eventually happen. probably by the 26th/27th century, assuming they get some help from any of the 12 known surviving iconian's. (several groups of iconians may also exist after fleeing the bombardment of their worlds, one of which is believed to be the so called "Sentinels" which has watched over the remnants of ancient iconian gateways for activity or malicious intent. the sentinels duty is to forcibly shut down or lock-out the gateways used by malicious races from the rest of the iconian network.)
McCoy was right. Unless you transport via wormhole, you are being killed and put back together. There is no wormhole terminology concerning transporters that I am aware of, not have I heard anything about subspace involved unless it's simply the signal carrying the data.
Gene was adamant that transporters be analog, not digital. "Energize" really does mean bumping your atoms up to an energy level that can be sent through subspace and rematerialized back into the same atoms as was started from. Gene believed in a soul for sure. So, no copy-n-paste in Trek, but The Outer Limits has a great treatment of the moral questions about it.
Perhaps but the answer to transporters is the same one for clones, what happens to the original entity and what happens to the soul when the original is transposed. my view is that transporters kill the original and a replacement is synthesized in it's place. Inverse material does not really support this however. if true, why anyone would use them is the question
@@shawntipton5078 yeah your matter can conceivably be preserved just fine through such an event with you still coming out as dead as a doornail in the process, just like with every other kind of fatal industrial accident. I think it’s highly unlikely that the materialist view of mind and consciousness is correct and I don’t think you can just atomize a sentient being, broadcast those particles across vast distances and reassemble them as the same exact person with the same mind/soul/whatever you want to call the spark that makes us uniquely aware of ourselves as distinctly conscious entities. I think it’s likely that the reality of our consciousness is something far more complicated and a part of us that’s tied to or resides in and springs from a dimension beyond the dimensions we can perceive currently, so whether we could actually survive Star Trek style teleportation will depend on whether or not the extra-dimensional form that comprises our consciousness/soul/mind survives the annihilation of our physical form and can be reattached to the new version of our body that’s reassembled at the destination. I could imagine people experiencing a very distressing form of body dysphoria after being teleported that way, or like a phantom limb type phenomenon or trouble with their kinesthetic sense from having their conscious mind’s connection to physical existence severed and grafted back onto a superficially identical clone of their body somewhere else in space and time, and how nightmarish it could be. Like having your head grafted onto a clone body where everything is just a little bit off. I imagine many neurotic hypochondriac type people would feel that way after teleportation anyway just because of how sensitized to their own physical existence they are.
@@doomguy9049 Good analysis, I think the reason it has never been answered in trek or elsewhere is because there is no real world basis to do so, assuming a soul exists, what is it and what is it made of, is it separate from consciousness/memory/self and can it be transferred or destroyed are central questions without answer. now regardless of the soul, the issue would be this if the transportee is indeed duplicated, how much is duplicated and for how long, is there any type of degradation, for example is a transportee is duplicated 3000 times via the transporter, is duplicate 3000 100% the same as the original or even duplicate 1, we know from theories around cloning that every subsequent clone would be degraded to some degree, think how a photocopier works, same principle. This is a big issue of transporters for me and the casual , unquestioned use of it throughout the franchise, basically you can't continually create a duplicate ad infinity from nothing. Star Trek would have been better served without transporters or replicators and so on in it.
@@doomguy9049 Suffice to say that it uses some form of dimensional physics we aren't aware of yet. Perhaps the very dimension that our souls or whatever's you want to call it exists in, in the first place. Nothing in trek is breaking the laws of physics persay, it's just bending them to various degrees. If you think about it and we all die but this energy still remains to some degree, would it really matter which form it returns to in the first place? We aren't the same matter we are born into, most of that matter is replaced throughout our lifetime anyway. The only place we might feel a real difference is in our brains that do stay mostly the same matter throughout our lives. This subject is purely metaphysical in nature and I'm not sure any answer we currently have would be sufficient to explain the phenomenon of transporters.
Gene didn't understand quantum physics nor teleportation. But he did a fantastic job of adopting ideas from those who did. Quantum physics is neither digital nor analog. A quantum bit, is neither binary, nor analog. It doesn't represent a 0 or a 1, or an arbitrary number between those two values. It represents an unknown state that can only be measured as a discrete value.
One thing to keep in mind: early on in the creation of Star Trek they were going to have the Enterprise itself land on what ever planet the ship was visiting or have the characters take a shuttle craft down. For different reasons (ie cost and practicality in filming) those were abandoned and the idea of the transporter was born.
Most people get this wrong. The startrek transporter doesn't kill you. You're only shifts your entire matter into an energy phased state. Kudos on getting it right.
I always wished Gene would have referred to early pioneer Andre Delambre’s work 150 years earlier. Work shelved and forgotten because of the accident with a fly.
Same. That would've been a neat name drop. No refrence to events just 'Doctor Andre Delambre, almost had transporters figured out almost two centuries before they got rolled out but. Well. Accidents.'
Theoretically, if we have a soul and the soul becomes detached from the body when we die, wouldn't that mean that it's tied to the current electrochemical state of our brain? Therefore, I don't think it would kill us. It would still be the same entity, not a copy because it doesn't destroy that chemical or energy state. It's simply transforms it and keeps it the way it is and then reassembles everything on the other side. It might be pretty wonky to go through as a being, but I don't think it would actually kill the entity if we have a soul I mean and then if we don't even better because I don't think it would kill us.
This begs the question of what anchors the soul to the body. If it is the electrochemical state of the brain, then do two electrochemical identical brain signatures, such as two transporter copies, mean each shares the same soul? Does Thomas and Will Riker each now have half a soul? Can a soul exist in pieces? Does one have a soul and the other is soulless?
@@dannyhutton If the soul is some kind of energy, then it cannot be destroyed. As for what anchor our soul to our bodies.....well many people who experienced clinical death saw a silver line which connect the soul to the body. If the body destroyed completely for the teleportation, then it will sever this connection and the person on the other side dies on arrival. Even with the soul teleported as well, the severed connection would not heal. This begs a question....if we can make a body from the required materials, for example with 3d printing, it would be alive or will be just an empty body? What is life and how it made? if we ever want to successfully teleport a living creature, we need to understand what is life and what is the soul if it exist.
Ah, yes. The "transporters don't kill you, don't clone you, and don't just dismantle and reassemble you" video that I did not know I needed in my life. Thank you for making this! Surf Wisely.
Let's nott forget that accident with the transporter in Star Trek TMP. Especially how it's described in the novelization. Like something out of a horror movie!
@@tjf7101 the novel is many times better then the film they left a lot out of the film version. I found no correlation between the book and the film . They were different.
I'm really impressed how much real science (even if much of it is still ongoing) you were able to attach to the made-up physics of the Transporter. 👍 And thanks for including the "how could you tell the difference?" clause on the "kill and copy" question. After all, if I was replaced in my sleep with a clone who had all my memories up to the point where I closed my eyes, how would that person be measurably different from the other me? Perhaps, as with baldness not being an issue in the 24th Century, people in Trek's time just don't see a difference and therefore don't consider "kill and copy" to be an issue.
This is the classic "Ship of Thesus" problem. What gives something identity? If you have a copy of something that is alike in every way possible to the original, is it the same thing? If tasked to define which was the real deal, how would it be possible to choose one and deny the other? Of course, time is a variable. If the cloning process takes any time whatsoever to complete, the clone will be just slightly younger than the original. But again, is that any real difference or even one that may be measurable?
I'm so glad that you talked about this... this is a subject that many people have talked about, but has never been talked about how amazing and fun the technology is or how it could be used in weird ways like having others walk in and walk out a different person... First, to answer your question, I do not think it kills you, but even if it does, it would be akin to a medical procedures that temporarily weakens you to allow for success of a procedure to take place... beyond that, the process is taking your cells and rearranging them, so no, you have not been killed in the process nor did you ever die... this is not Schrödinger's cat. You were never dead. You never died as a result of the process... second, and this is the fun part, matter transporters essentially make immortality. Better than immortality, you can reenter a younger body (or a body that is not yours) than your mind because whatever allows for the matter transportation process to be successful, could be saved. It's essentially a save spot in a video game. if you go in as a 25 year old, you come out a 25 year old. There's nothing to suggest that data cannot be stored and revisited later. Thus, you could save that 25 year old version of your body, enter a matter transporter in your house as a 65 year old and then come out as that 25 year old. When you come out this time, you will have the accumulated knowledge of 65 year old. You would have gone into the transporter come out the 25 year old version with the thoughts and songs in your head, the biochemistry of a 25 year old, the movies and girls and songs in your mind will be at the forefront of your emotions but you'd still be 65... same holds true if you go back to the version of you as an 8 year old... Christmas and birthdays etc would be the forefront of your emotional person but moments after you'd be a 65 year old with the biochemistry and body of an 8 year old susceptible to the problems of an 8 year old body... think 12 years old. think 16... to me, this is the interesting aspect that never gets talked about and should have had an episode showing this technology being used as a means of de facto immortality if not just an interesting form of entertainment or maybe therapy as you might be able to mentally heal in a different biochemical age than the one you currently have where you need therapy and that therapy may not be making meaningful progress.
@@DeetotheDubs I fully and totally agree. Don't you think it would be an interesting episode of star trek or any of the sci fi shows like black mirror that kind of follow the twilight zone way of story telling? I do. I feel like it would have been a great episode from TNG or maybe ST: Enterprise
As an avid scifi fan, I always thought the idea of a transporter was incorrect. Rather than the way it was portrayed, it should have been a portal opening and closing with the subject entering and leaving, rather than being 'processed' and transmitted to another site. Rather than being subjected to being processed into a higher energy state, transmitted, then the energy being lowered back to normal, it makes more sense to have a wormhole type of portal like Stargate, but without needing a transmitting and receiving gate at each end.
That is not teleportation, that is a travel through a space time tunnel. The two was mixed in the Stargate series, where the gate worked as a teleport, made the traveller's body to pure energy and then this energy travelled through a wormhole and reassembled on the other side.
@@Zappina Which is actually a bit more reasonable. The larger the diameter of the wormhole the harder and more energy intensive it is to keep it open. Having it as only a few nanometers in diameter vs the full size of the ring is a massive savings in energy. Of course both ignore the negative mass and energy also needed, but that's left an exercise for Nobel laureate crowd.
Tyler, thought you would mention Hoshi's experience when she was forced to use the transporter. She was afraid that she would appear as just a copy of herself after using it. It seems that her concerns about this may have been correct, as she did not return as her regular self. So your question if we would just be a copy of ourselves may be something worth looking into! Loved uour video. Thanks.
I suppose the real question is if there is a continuity in experiance that lacks any measurable interruption and.... thanks to the episode with barclay, we actually see what being inside the matter stream is like and you are aware through it all.
Are you though? The transporter has to track all the movements of particals. So the awareness is a simulation that is imprinted in your mind. The fact Barclay was aware or what else is in the buffer means that the buffer is continuing another simulation that it had not rematerialised. Both became part of the simulation and allowed completion of the transport.
@@gm2407 Well we only have the one sample size, so it's limited. However in that sampling we see a continual perspective shot from Barclay's PoV of what being transported is like.
@@singletona082 We also have WOK transporter conversation demonstrating completion of action. So as everything is disconnected it has to simulate continuity of action. Same as the freefall in Star Trek Abrams film where he continues with the velocity breaking the transporter pad.
@@singletona082 I get that. One of the things I notice is that the unanswered questions in the tapestry keeps interest in an IP. Just don't make the story threads like that part of the main plot to the series. Mystery box done the right way. Like ASOIAF has loads of unanswered back story and side informatiin which keept people interested for two decades. But the main resolution on how the TV series ends was fumbled. Stuff like the transporter is great world building and theory. I would not want it dealt with as an off hand "yeah we just accept we die and are instantly replaced." or for Q to say his click works the same way and the person remains the person.
A great video on a topic very much in need of clarification. Well done! I just finished a semester course on physics that touched lightly on the development of quantum theory, and it seems like you deployed those arguments very well to resolve the problem, at least theoretically. I don't know about the "would it really matter" question though... It seems the first part of the arguments would resolve any concern with that. When people say that consciousness is a "product" of the electro-chemical activity of the brain, it doesn't seem like they're saying very much. It's just a statement of "we don't know what this is, but we associate it with x activity, so lets say they're meaningfully the same," essentially, it just happens. Certainly we can't empirically separate them, but that's not the same as saying that our limited understanding of one is a full explanation of the other. We have no idea how the most direct and apparent component of human existence actually works; this is the hard problem of consciousness, why would all the electro-chemical activity "feel" like anything? I'm inclined to say that it would matter then, in the case that we have already rejected for the most part, where transporters are just copying and transporting your "information". In that scenario, it would definitely matter to "you", that is, you in the present moment(constructed within your conscious brain though you may be) as your meaningful conscious life would end and a new and entirely separate one would begin. It would be merely cloning through killing as the conventional argument goes. A murderous utilitarian convenience. If we ask again whether this "matters" because there is no surety about the nature of consciousness and neither we, nor the "dead" person, would be aware of the difference, are we just suggesting that maybe killing people is chill because they're not alive anymore to suffer the consequences? edit: include "s" on "argument" in first paragraph
On Heisenberg Compensators: Well, I consider EVERY part of my body a 'primary system', so maybe Bones was right after all ^_^ On your Transporter Clone: Good side is that, if you both work the same job, you can get more days off work! Down side, now you have one paycheck feeding two people ^_^
Great subject and the references you added. Well I'm going to read up on them I think it's a very interesting subject. Thanks for all the info and your preparation in never dry. The bit at the end of this video...the transporter accident was good, lol.
I was glad to see you include clips of TNG's 'Realm of Fear', as that was the episode that established that you remain conscious and aware, as well as being capable of action while in the process of a transport.
What I found bizarre in Star Trek-TNG, episode RELICS... Enterprise is drawn into a Dyson's Shpere. They find a Federation Cargo Ship crashed on surface. The away team discovers Montgomery Scott in a transporter. The device was locked in a maintenance cycle. They recover Scotty alive after 75 years in transporter suspension. There were two people in transporter, but, other person's molecular pattern degraded 53%. Not enough material left reassemble as whole person.
Another fantastic video, but I still can't wrap my head around how, if the transporter is moving particles and not copying them, whete is the information for duplicateslike Thomas Riker and Evil Kirk (and William Boimler) coming from!?
I really enjoyed this video, Tyler. However, it got me thinking when you said that transporter technology relies on "subspace domains." This concept of "subspace" comes into play quite a bit in Star Trek. Perhaps you could dedicate an entire video to subspace?
@@OrangeRiver I'm sure that you will produce an enlightening and engaging video, as you always do. BTW, did you get my message about featuring your channel in a Star Trek forum I admin?
Okay, let's say teleportation breaks your body down into subatomic particles - disintegrates you, if you will - scans all the information of your physical being, and then rebuilds you somewhere else. And as far as you can tell coming out on the other side, you are still you. You can't tell any difference, so in practice it's you moving from one point in space to another. Now let's do that in a different order: The machine scans you, then builds another you using that information, and _then_ you get disintegrated. This is, for all practical purposes, the exact same process. And yet, I feel like most people would feel a lot less eager to be teleported if the process is viewed that way. In fact, we can go a step further and say that the scanner and the matter disintegrator are two different machines and, indeed, that the latter is just a Klingon with a disruptor who vaporizes you. That's more wasteful in terms of energy usage, perhaps, but still _technically_ the same thing.
I know it was more of a "study" of the nature of Man, then it was scientific, but in "The Enemy Within", if Kirk were split into two full beings by the transporter, wouldn't both be half the mass of the whole? And, of course, it would've killed him?
Now that I covered quantum teleportation, the next point about Star Trek transporters is they don't use quantum tunneling, they use subspace. Sub-space was originally postulated by Heim in the 1940's. Heim theory is a quantization of space-time in Planck unit areas across 4 dimensions and extra hidden dimensions. This gave Heim a differential equation. And even before he successfully solved the equation he was able to recognize it had different eigenvalue solution he called subspace. There is little reason to believe Heim was correct, but this is the science Star Trek is based on. Star Trek transporter use subspace. In the Star Trek universe, people are not able to live in subspace, because the laws of physics are slighly different. But you can quantum teleport through subspace. Now subspace has scale factor. A meter stick in normal space, spans across 2 meters of subspace-2. Across 3 meters of subspace-3, etc. So if you teleport through a high enough level of subspace, your transport room is right next to the planet surface. So now think 3-D printing. We normally need to print everything on the printer bed. But you could imagine you could angle the printer jets slightly to print just beyond the edge of the printer bed. If the transporter pad is the printer bed, then in a high enough subspace, materializing something on the planet surface is no more difficult than printing something just off the edge of your printer bed. So in a nut shell, that is how Star Trek transporters are able to transport something at a distant location. As I said we have no reason to believe this theory is correct. But given it also has not been falsified, it still makes for good science-fiction.
Many years ago I played a game (can't remember its name) where the writers got around having to explain how teleportation worked by having cloning pods as save points, and later introducing teleport pods that looked and worked the same way except they also killed and vaporized the original. So they just cranked the moral issues to eleven and played it for laughs since your character was getting killed quite a lot during normal play anyway.
@@duffman18 I don't think so for two reasons. One is that I remember it being a 2D game that I played on mobile back in the mid 2000's, and the other is that I've yet to play any Borderlands game. It was some space/sci-fi western with GBA-like graphics and a comedic tone, if I'm remembering it right it was like a classic beat 'em up but you had a gun and there was plenty of slow paced puzzles in between the combat. I've been trying to remember its name for some time without success.
The [something] _Riverworld_ novels by [someone] Philip Jose Farmer (if I remember the names I'll come back and paste 'em in, imagined someone dying but being "reborn" as the same adult somewhere else in the Riverworld. One character started using this as a transport system. Every human being who had ever lived was reborn in the Riverworld. (So, Mark Twain, may I introduce you to Mr. Charlie Chaplin?) He had no control however over where he'd be remade, so he did a lot of dying until he came within reach of his destination. Those who had built the Riverworld had never thought of any human doing this, and it messed up their plans.
The game called SOMA is somewhat like that but it's a very dramatic RPG/adventure and is definitely NOT played for laughs. It keeps the truth from you until nearly the end. I won't spoil the ending for anyone that hasn't played it but it's very bittersweet, depending on your point of view (in some ways, literally). It will make you think hard for a while after playing it. I loved it and I still sit and think about it once in a while.
@@MaraIndigoJade I've been meaning to play SOMA for quite a while, probably since it's release, I think I actually got it at some point so it might be sitting on my backlog waiting. I'm trying to remember why I never started it, it might have been one of the games I was meaning to play with a friend of mine that sadly passed away a few years ago, I know that's why I can never bring myself to play Control despite knowing that I'll probably love it, I'm still subconsciously waiting to have a chance to play it with him. Sorry for bringing the mood down.
There were several instances of transporter accidents and malfunctions that caused horrible deaths for people materialized. Also have be 100% accuracy. Since possibly you might find yourself beamed into wall or between decks on starship. I agreed with McCoy. I don't want my atoms scattered across Universe.
This could be a boon for “red shirts!” Just keep a copy of the “red shirt” in the pattern buffer and, when they inevitably get killed, dematerialize the “saved” copy - just like a video game. Problem solved!
AWESOME ending. Love it. Probably adds credibility to the theory that was supposed in The Enemy Within where Kirk is duplicated and the "opposite" is the bad guy. LOVE how you did that.
It'd be interesting to see a scientist who rigged a transporter to restore his body to a younger pattern, while retaining his current mental state - sort of a refinement on how they restored Dr. Polaski to a younger state...
Taking out all the philosophical and ontological questions Star Trek teleportation brings, at the very least the people teleported behave with a continuity of consciousness: Memories, ongoing thoughts and feelings seem to run continuously with only a bit of a lapse as the subject suddenly perceives their new environment; perception is the only thing that shows a discontinuity.
Thank you so very much for the video. This has been a theory (Transporters Do Kill You!) since a few years after the first run series went off the air. My take was (for fun) that the transporters transferred the physical material, memories included, but didn't transport the soul. (Again - theory for fun, don't really know that there is 'a soul', or not.) Which lead to a bunch of fun fan-story ideas.
See, I don't think transporter kills you. At one point in its development before TNG, maybe. But during the time that Data exists? His brain is not able to be replicated, or cloned, so I think by the time Data exists they had figured out how to perfect an actual "transporter" that moved matter rather then targeted cloning of sorts that may have existed as late as the original series, but not long after.
The tng explanation is rubbish. Maintaing a zero entropy state through out is key thus a pattern buffer. Their can be no conscienceness in such a state. I give you schodinger's cat.
seems like theres been ambient matter used considering the splitting of persons in two and the youthful Rascals episode. Transporter technology could be used to make cadets immortal but it's too expensive to keep more than the elite and the essential in buffer.
I try not to think about it. Among the numerous inconsistencies of this tech, the next generation episode, where Riker gets copied... Well, that just opens so many doors!
I've always been in the "No Clones Theorem" camp of this discussion as in no, it's a Transporter not a Quantum Fax machine Granted I've always assumed the Trek universe as "Clarketech physicalistic", so it doesn't matter because Matter doesn't matter. To me if any clones show, up just get them to vote for a Fixing via Tuvixing , if any one of them are selfish says no then respect their wishes and let them go their way. I love the episode of Enterprise that addressed this and wish we had more of that world building with people being super paranoid about the Transporter. Also I liked Danica she's a cool cute character, that could've come back and served on Enterprise as Transporter Chief for a potential Season 5 and onward
The one thing the video doesn't address is how 'fast' whatever device that scans translates and stores the 'pattern' info would have to be to both 'break down' and then 'reassemble' the pattern of the object/person being transported. Given the amount of particles and information involved - to do both phases is a few seconds (for up to 6+ objects or more) would require a processer speed and overall computing capacity that somehow would need to involve time travel of some sort as there's no way you can get that level/speed of processing power even in a couple of centuries of technical advancement (IMO). 😳😉
But Molecular Transporter Dilemma in Metaphysics asks the following question: "What makes this arrangement of atoms - "you" versus another exactly identical arrangement, if atoms are all identical? If consciousness is, in fact generated by the neurophysiological processes of the human brain, wouldn't recreation of the exact brain also recreate its consciousness? We covered this in my 4th year Metaphysics class, and one of the suggested solutions (which really isn't much of a solution) was to ask the question differently: "-Would it make any difference to your consciousness if each atom in your body would be replaced with its exact, identical copy, one atom at a time, versus all atoms in an instant, as in the case where the information in the form of instructions is all that is being sent over?". Paradoxically atheists are more prone to answering "yes", or claiming that the actual "you" dies the moment you are de-materialised, and what is being created isn't really you, but your exact copy. This problem seems to expose the fundamental nature of the human consciousness as illusory, rather than examine the problem from the Quantum Physics angle. Illusion of "Agency" is so convincing that we have extreme trouble suspending it even for a second, even for the sake of solving an abstract problem. What makes this bowl of sugar - this bowl, and not another, exactly identical bowl, one metre away from it, is that it is "this bowl" and not "the other bowl", but it is very difficult for us to think the same way about consciousness, because we tend to think there is some kind of fundamental difference between objects and ideas, even though there is really zero evidence of this. It was Lev Vygotsky who was one of the first researchers to point at this as being one of the stages of human infant's development when an infant begins to understand words that have no referents ("Complex Concepts" in Vygotsky's terminology), such as "mass", "volume", "weight", "velocity", etc. versus words which have such referents, like chair, rack, table, cat and bowl of sugar. Consciousness is the former rather than latter.
Two things… 1) Biblically, life is the breath of God, a spiritual quantity that I don’t think can be teleported the way Star Trek does. 2) The best way to teleport an object or person (megastructures like a destroyer) that was actually done in the Philadelphia Experiment, does not require dematerializing/rematerializing stuff. This also works on people that the Montauk Project refined. Check out both books.
We do actually have the technology to transport objects. I think it was developed by MiT in the late 80s. Though I could be wrong about that. Simple objects can be almost transported, right now. We have only tried to transport food, however. But, there are two problems. One being that we do not have the resources to reverse the assembly process. This means that each object that we transport gets turned inside out, molecule by molecule. Furthermore, we do not yet know how to fix the molecular cohesion issue. That is, the molecules do not stick together.
To be fair if I could clone myself I’d totally do it too much and then we’d probably start a gang war with each other over something we don’t really disagree on
Interesting video. One of the scientists working with the New Outer limits showed a way quantum entanglement may work. Look at like a dinosaur episode. You do have to die. It’s called balance the equation. At some point it would be so fast you wouldn’t notice. Fraser
I really liked this. I love star trek. I also love tech and science talk. More about star trek, pleaseee. Maybe the star trek engines and warp capacity.
My headcanon is the transporter actually turns you into a temporary energy being, one dependent on technology to survive, but that would allow you to wave away all the weird transporter accidents that occur from time to time.
@@subraxas Energy beings in Star Trek normally evolved from biological entities. Energy being can take on corporeal forms of multiple types without worrying about silly real world issues like mass or the energy needed to do so. We don't ask questions as the audience on how the energy being can do those things. We don't care if they turn into a human and then later into a cat. We don't worry about the physics of it. The transporter seems to do something similar. If it was just taking you apart and then moving you then we could never have transporter accidents like turning into a kid or two people being fused together. But if the transporter is actually turning you into a energy lifeform then we can accept that kind of weirdness because energy lifeforms do that kind of stuff already.
Transporting "pad to pad", you could perhaps do it more economically by having a supply of "soup" at each end, and atomizing you into soup plus assembly instructions at one end, and just transmitting the assembly instructions to the other end. However, from pad to remote location, there would not be a supply of materials in the right form to work with
Aside from arguing with yourself about who is the copy, why do we often find that the original and clones are unhappy with each other. Instead, they should all think the same and figure out how they could take turns going to work or school while the others relax.
All right, but you know Star Trek, and ‘Beam me up, Scotty’? How they can teleport people around?” “Yeah. The transporters.” “Do you know how they work?” “Just … special effects. CGI or whatever they used.” “No, I mean within the universe of the show. They work by breaking down your molecules, zapping you over a beam, and putting you back together on the other end.” “Sure.” “That is what scares me. I can’t watch it. I find it too disturbing.” I shrugged. “I don’t get it.” “Well, think about it. Your body is just made of a few different types of atoms. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and so on. So this transporter machine, there is no reason in the world to break down all of those atoms and then send those specific atoms thousands of miles away. One oxygen atom is the same as another, so what it does is send the blueprint for your body across the beam. Then it reassembles you at the destination, out of whatever atoms it has nearby. So if there is carbon and hydrogen at the planet you’re beaming down to, it’ll just put you together out of what it has on hand, because you get the exact same result.” “Sure. “So it’s more like sending a fax than mailing a letter. Only the transporter is a fax machine that shreds the original. Your original body, along with your brain, gets vaporized. Which means what comes out the other end isn’t you. It’s an exact copy that the machine made, of a man who is now dead, his atoms floating freely around the interior of the ship. Only within the universe of the show, nobody knows this. “Meanwhile, you are dead. Dead for eternity. All of your memories and emotions and personality end, right there, on that platform, forever. Your wife and children and friends will never see you again. What they will see is this unnatural photocopy of you that emerged from the other end. And in fact, since transporter technology is used routinely, all of the people you see on that ship are copies of copies of copies of long-dead, vaporized crew members. And no one ever figures it out. They all continue to blithely step into this machine that kills one hundred percent of the people who use it, but nobody realizes it because each time, it spits out a perfect replacement for the victim at the other end.
just wanted to make a quick observation here. u said matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but I think it's energy that can neither be created nor destroyed.
One idea for teleportation would be to vibrate an object or a human body very fast but also very minutely. I think the Flash can pass through a wall by doing something like that. In this vibrated state, maybe an object or person can be sent somewhere (teleported) because of their “phantom” state which also allows them to pass through a wall. This way, maybe nothing weird happens to you. It’s the very same you before and after you teleported.
Last year in July for 2 weeks only, RU-vid showed a video by Andrew Biasiago (Pegasus Project) that our Government had accomplished Teleportation back in the 80's. Very interesting Video and he named names of whom were involved and its uses today by our Government.
IMO this is where Stargate took an inspiration for the gate wormhole "magic" or just to have Teal'c stuck in the buffer, but again Stargate paid a homage to Star Trek in multiple ways. For example O'Neill wanting ship named Enterprise with "big honking space guns" (one can only imagine if he got his wish or not).
