Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-13-2016, 03:10 PM
nansbread nansbread is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 27
Are we any closer to beam me up scotty

Since the phrase was used for the first time on Star Trek have we taken any step in the direction of it becoming a reality. Even the tinest little advancement to beam a person from one place on earth to another place on earth. Lets stay on this planet for this question.

Lets have the dope then.

Last edited by nansbread; 04-13-2016 at 03:12 PM.
  #2  
Old 04-13-2016, 03:14 PM
ivylass ivylass is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Orlando(ish)
Posts: 21,171
From what I can gather, they haven't invented a computer big enough to hold a person's matter and energy, and aren't likely to anytime soon.
  #3  
Old 04-13-2016, 03:21 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,199
Not only hasn't there been a step, most of the analysis shows that it's impossible in reality and possibly not even meaningful as a concept.
  #4  
Old 04-13-2016, 03:43 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 16,512
From any technical standpoint, a matter transporter of the Star Trek variety is so much garbage. When they've disintegrated a substantial portion of the crewman, how does the rest of him not just splatter on the floor in a puddle of protoplasm and skeletal residue? How do you rebuild an entire body, one atom at a time, at great range and differential velocity without Doppler shift or interference screwing up your signal? How do you keep from rematerializing your crewman with a bunch of extra air--or worse, in the case of the rare non-"M class" planet with a toxic atmosphere--embedded in him? A writer can invoke "force fields" and "subspace transmissions" but that just brings a whole new layer of bullshititude into the rationale. Trek is pure space opera, written by people who have only the faintest grasp of science, and at best a vehicle for interesting allegorical concepts. Even in a more limited context of just being able to scan a macro scale object in a laboratory and reproduce it by some means at a molecular or atomic level is so vastly beyond even projected technology it may as well be considered magic.

There is a more extensive discussion of the various ways a matter transporter makes no sense in this 2007 thread: "Whgat would it be like to go through a Transporter? (Star Trek style)"?

Stranger

Last edited by Stranger On A Train; 04-13-2016 at 03:45 PM.
  #5  
Old 04-13-2016, 04:16 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,354
One could say that our ability to scan things is improving and you could also say that our ability to build things at a nano- scale is also improving, so in a very technical sense, yes we're getting closer.

But that doesn't mean that we're close, nor does it mean that there's actually a path with leads from here to there. The human brain, for example, may operate like RAM. It runs by constantly bouncing electrical impulses around, without end. The particular configuration of electrical signals isn't just the working medium, it's also the storage medium. If you lose all those signals, then you're just left with a bunch of silicon. You would need to reload all of the electricity back in, into the same exact positions, moving in the exact same direction as before, otherwise all of the information that was in the device is lost.

So assuming that you could put together all of the molecules that exist in the human body, connect them to one another, etc. that still leaves you with dead meat. You would not just need to kick it into life, but restore all of the electric impulses and anything else to the same exact state - after reconstruction of the body.

"Transportation" of inert items is certainly on the table. Granted, 3D printing is basically already doing that. If I have a plastic device here that I want "transported" to over there, they can print a plastic copy of it over there and (for whatever reason) I could smash up my copy so that there's still only one of that item in the universe.

But actual living things? Maybe there's some creature that's simple enough that, after printing the molecules out, can be kicked into life by simple means - because it doesn't need memory of previous states to continue on from its current position - but humans are a lot more complex than that. And, practically speaking, "beaming up" will probably always just be 3D printing, not matter transmission, so there are some practical and ethical considerations to creating copies of real live people that could stop anyone from ever doing it.
  #6  
Old 04-13-2016, 06:10 PM
drachillix drachillix is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: 192.168.0.1
Posts: 9,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
When they've disintegrated a substantial portion of the crewman, how does the rest of him not just splatter on the floor in a puddle of protoplasm and skeletal residue?

Stranger
Volume shadow copy?
  #7  
Old 04-13-2016, 07:24 PM
Richox Richox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 181
Since the original question has effectively been debunked...

In the fantastical realm where you could physically copy someone perfectly at the atomic level... would they be alive, have a personality, memories, etc? Are these facets that are stored at a quantum level, or does any sort of meaningful comparison between these concepts and physical reality make 0 sense?
  #8  
Old 04-13-2016, 09:17 PM
joema joema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
...Even in a more limited context of just being able to scan a macro scale object in a laboratory and reproduce it by some means at a molecular or atomic level is so vastly beyond even projected technology it may as well be considered magic....
I'm not an expert on Star Trek canon but I believe there was an explanation for this. The simple answer is it was beyond Star Trek technology 200 years hence, and it was alien technology of a vastly more advanced civilization preserved in "stasis boxes". IOW the Star Trek era used transporters as a "black box" without really understanding it.

As you described, the technical challenge of scanning and reproducing on an atomic level a human being would seem to be beyond any projected technology -- even 200 years in the future. Phasers, maybe. Warp drive -- no currently known method but there are obviously glimmerings of of new physics that don't fit into the Standard Model such as dark energy. If our current physics cannot explain what we can currently see, the possibility of an expanded explanation allowing for faster than light travel cannot be ruled out.

OTOH matter teleportation would involve hyper dense, hyper accurate scanning and remote reconstruction of an extremely complex 3D organism. Analogs to MRI or laser scanning are just not remotely in the ballpark. Even postulating transporters as "like that but more advanced" implies a lack of understanding about how complex 3D biological material is.

It would be faintly more plausible if the transporter mechanism was described as some kind of trans-dimensional portal. However it is described as scanning, deconstructing and reconstructing the original biological pattern at a remote location using locally-available matter.

Projecting based on current technology is very inexact but it would appear 200 years would not be nearly sufficient to develop teleportation of biological matter on a human scale. Hence the explanation offered was a far more advanced extinct alien civilization preserved this technology and the Star Trek denizens simply discovered it and were able to make practical use without fully understanding the core method.

Some of this was shown in the Star Trek animated series "The Slaver Weapon".
  #9  
Old 04-15-2016, 01:00 PM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 23,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
From any technical standpoint, a matter transporter of the Star Trek variety is so much garbage. ... Trek is pure space opera, written by people who have only the faintest grasp of science, and at best a vehicle for interesting allegorical concepts.
...
There is a more extensive discussion of the various ways a matter transporter makes no sense in this 2007 thread: "Whgat would it be like to go through a Transporter? (Star Trek style)"?

Stranger
I see you've cut-and-pasted part of your reply from that earlier thread—either that, or your mind runs in some extremely well-worn grooves.

As I understand it, the transporter was included in Star Trek for reasons of technical and narrative convenience, and not because the creators didn't know or care that it wasn't scientifically feasible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
According to The Making of Star Trek, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry's original plan did not include transporters, instead calling for characters to land the starship itself. However, this would have required unfeasible and unaffordable sets and model filming, as well as episode running time spent while landing, taking off, etc. The shuttlecraft was the next idea, but when filming began, the full-sized shooting model was not ready. Transporters were devised as a less expensive alternative, achieved by a simple fade-out/fade-in of the subject.
  #10  
Old 04-13-2016, 04:25 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,757
But what we are talking about here is copying people, not "beaming", "transporting" or moving people from point A to point B in any way, shape or form.
  #11  
Old 04-13-2016, 04:42 PM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
But what we are talking about here is copying people, not "beaming", "transporting" or moving people from point A to point B in any way, shape or form.
How do you "build" the person at the receiving end with no receiver?
  #12  
Old 04-13-2016, 04:49 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
How do you "build" the person at the receiving end with no receiver?
What are you receiving-the original pieces, or the building blocks to make a damn good copy?
  #13  
Old 04-13-2016, 05:23 PM
Senegoid Senegoid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 14,182
One reads articles from time to time discussing breakthrough in teleportation. Like, it's been possible to teleport one attribute of some fundamental particle's quantum state over to another particle. Hey, that's progress! Beam that electron's spin over to me, Scotty!
  #14  
Old 04-13-2016, 05:40 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senegoid View Post
One reads articles from time to time discussing breakthrough in teleportation. Like, it's been possible to teleport one attribute of some fundamental particle's quantum state over to another particle. Hey, that's progress! Beam that electron's spin over to me, Scotty!
In a very narrow sense one could claim that it's also been done with macroscopic objects, but still, you're quite correct. The example cited merely shows the quantum teleportation of the spin wave state of a macroscopic collection of 100 million rubidium atoms, not the atoms themselves. Still, hope springs eternal in the bosoms of devoted Trekkies!
  #15  
Old 04-13-2016, 05:23 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
But what we are talking about here is copying people, not "beaming", "transporting" or moving people from point A to point B in any way, shape or form.
They use the transporter to cure people of disease, by comparing them with body scans from earlier, and (I think) the replicator uses the same special effect as the transporter, so I think it's pretty clear that the transporter is just a machine which 3D prints something based on a stored image.

But as displayed, transmitting people down to the planet surface, etc. it seems to function more like a wormhole that can be opened between any two arbitrary locations, swoop someone up from one end and deposit them at the other.

As far as that goes, I don't think we're anywhere past the stage of deciding that wormholes don't conflict with any of the math we have to describe the universe. Which is a long way away from thinking that they even exist, let alone constructing them, let alone using them in a useful manner. And, I'm not certain that our theories on wormholes would even allow for something to go through without being massively transformed (e.g., smashed, pulled apart, turned into energy, etc.)?

Last edited by Sage Rat; 04-13-2016 at 05:24 PM.
  #16  
Old 04-13-2016, 06:01 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
But what we are talking about here is copying people, not "beaming", "transporting" or moving people from point A to point B in any way, shape or form.
There's the "Think Like a Dinosaur" version of the transporter. It records all the information about a person and sends it to whatever destination you want where the original person is reproduced. So from the receiving end, it looks just like a Star Trek style transporter.

But the original person is still standing there at the sending end after their information is transmitted and their copy has been received. So you have to kill the original person in order to avoid being overrun with duplicate people.
  #17  
Old 04-13-2016, 09:33 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 36,874
At best we are no further away.
  #18  
Old 04-13-2016, 11:13 PM
smithsb smithsb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: mid-Pacific
Posts: 2,414
Even in the initial series, teleportation was not perfect. The individuals experienced slight degradation with each "jump". That's the actual reason the "mission" was canceled after three years instead of the original planned five years.

Last edited by smithsb; 04-13-2016 at 11:13 PM.
  #19  
Old 04-14-2016, 01:44 AM
Pleonast Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 6,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by nansbread View Post
Since the phrase was used for the first time on Star Trek
Well, since the exact phrase "Beam me up, Scotty" has not yet been used on Star Trek, we've made zero progress.
  #20  
Old 04-14-2016, 09:01 AM
davida03801 davida03801 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,481
Wouldn’t chaos theory negate the actual use of the teleporter ? One very small minuscule difference at the start can cause a very large effect on the back end. Beam up The Donald and get Bernie upon the rearrangement. Scary.
  #21  
Old 04-14-2016, 07:27 PM
Senegoid Senegoid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 14,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by davida03801 View Post
Wouldn’t chaos theory negate the actual use of the teleporter ? One very small minuscule difference at the start can cause a very large effect on the back end. Beam up The Donald and get Bernie upon the rearrangement. Scary.
Last time they beamed up down The Donald they we got Cthulhu, and nobody seemed to notice any difference.

Last edited by Senegoid; 04-14-2016 at 07:28 PM.
  #22  
Old 04-15-2016, 11:51 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,757
Getting back to the original question, and assuming that we mean "beaming" the original from point A to point B, what we have is a 3-part problem.
Part 1. Breaking the body bits down without destroying the body or killing the person.
Part 2. Safely transporting the body bits in whatever form they have been converted into from point A to Point B without killing the person. At first, they might want to try doing this via a controlled conduit rather through open air.
Part 3. Reassembling said body bits in the proper order to make a living human bean.

At this point in time we have made an ant's fart worth of progress in any one of the three parts of the problem.
  #23  
Old 04-15-2016, 01:53 PM
Senegoid Senegoid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 14,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Getting back to the original question, and assuming that we mean "beaming" the original from point A to point B, what we have is a 3-part problem.
Part 1. Breaking the body bits down without destroying the body or killing the person.
Part 2. Safely transporting the body bits in whatever form they have been converted into from point A to Point B without killing the person. At first, they might want to try doing this via a controlled conduit rather through open air.
Part 3. Reassembling said body bits in the proper order to make a living human bean.

At this point in time we have made an ant's fart worth of progress in any one of the three parts of the problem.
We do, however, have a methodological breakthrough that seems to have been lost in the 23rd century: The concept to developing the above parts using smaller animals (like mice) instead of humans as test subjects.
  #24  
Old 04-15-2016, 02:43 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Getting back to the original question, and assuming that we mean "beaming" the original from point A to point B, what we have is a 3-part problem.
Part 1. Breaking the body bits down without destroying the body or killing the person.
Part 2. Safely transporting the body bits in whatever form they have been converted into from point A to Point B without killing the person. At first, they might want to try doing this via a controlled conduit rather through open air.
Part 3. Reassembling said body bits in the proper order to make a living human bean.

At this point in time we have made an ant's fart worth of progress in any one of the three parts of the problem.
I think you're overstating the situation.

Part 1. Breaking the body bits down without destroying the body or killing the person.

This isn't correct. Disintegrating the body of the person being transported is part of the process we're seeking. Transporting somebody without destroying the original leads to the duplication problem we've already mentioned.

So I think this step should be revised as Part 1. Breaking down the body is such a way that all of its relevant information is recorded.

That said, we haven't made any significant progress on such a process. We can only record the most basic physical information about a person.

Part 2. Safely transporting the body bits in whatever form they have been converted into from point A to Point B without killing the person. At first, they might want to try doing this via a controlled conduit rather through open air.

On this one, I think we're making clear process. Once a person is broken down and recorded, it's just a matter of transmitting information and perhaps energy. We have technology that transmits both of these and we continue to advance in this area.

Part 3. Reassembling said body bits in the proper order to make a living human bean.

The opposite side of Part 1. Even if we somehow developed a means of recording all of the information a person contained, we don't have any means of assembling a person from that information.
  #25  
Old 04-15-2016, 02:56 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think you're overstating the situation.

Part 1. Breaking the body bits down without destroying the body or killing the person.

This isn't correct. Disintegrating the body of the person being transported is part of the process we're seeking. Transporting somebody without destroying the original leads to the duplication problem we've already mentioned.

So I think this step should be revised as Part 1. Breaking down the body is such a way that all of its relevant information is recorded.

That said, we haven't made any significant progress on such a process. We can only record the most basic physical information about a person.

Part 2. Safely transporting the body bits in whatever form they have been converted into from point A to Point B without killing the person. At first, they might want to try doing this via a controlled conduit rather through open air.

On this one, I think we're making clear process. Once a person is broken down and recorded, it's just a matter of transmitting information and perhaps energy. We have technology that transmits both of these and we continue to advance in this area.

Part 3. Reassembling said body bits in the proper order to make a living human bean.

The opposite side of Part 1. Even if we somehow developed a means of recording all of the information a person contained, we don't have any means of assembling a person from that information.
This "information" you talk about: are we still talking about transporting the original from point A to point B, or creating a perfect copy at point B using information about the original?
  #26  
Old 04-15-2016, 03:30 PM
Trinopus Trinopus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,556
Actually, we do have the tools, right now, to sequence and then re-write DNA molecules.

This is currently a proposal for Mars exploration. If we find Martian DNA, we don't have to bring it back physically, but can transmit the data and build the DNA here.

This is very definitely duplicating technology (including destroying the original) as opposed to "transporting" technology, but when it comes to a DNA molecule, what's the difference?
  #27  
Old 04-15-2016, 03:42 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Actually, we do have the tools, right now, to sequence and then re-write DNA molecules.

This is currently a proposal for Mars exploration. If we find Martian DNA, we don't have to bring it back physically, but can transmit the data and build the DNA here.

This is very definitely duplicating technology (including destroying the original) as opposed to "transporting" technology, but when it comes to a DNA molecule, what's the difference?
It's fine and/or dandy for "transporting" technology-It's when you get to people...
"Now that we have confirmed that we have successfully recreated you in our remote base, would you mind stepping out onto the middle of that large plastic sheet over there? Bruno will be with you shortly."

Last edited by Czarcasm; 04-15-2016 at 03:43 PM.
  #28  
Old 04-15-2016, 04:49 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 16,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
This is very definitely duplicating technology (including destroying the original) as opposed to "transporting" technology, but when it comes to a DNA molecule, what's the difference?
The difference is that you are not just DNA; you are the cumulation of development, environmental influences, and experience. To suggest that we could "transport" a person by recreating their genome sequences is like saying we could transport Notre Dame de Paris to Mars by carving stone and building flying buttresses to the same plans. Sure, it would look something like the famous cathedral as long as you don't examine it too closely, but it isn't the same building by any practical definition. Even breaking down the structure and transporting the materials somehow to a new site isn't going to give you the same object, any more than the London Bridge of Lake Havasu is the same structure as the original bridge built by John Rennie.

Stranger
  #29  
Old 04-16-2016, 09:33 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 74,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
This "information" you talk about: are we still talking about transporting the original from point A to point B, or creating a perfect copy at point B using information about the original?
I'm not sure if you're asking a question about technology or philosophy.

If it's technology, my answer is that I'm staying within the topic. I'm talking about a Star Trek style transporter; a device that disintegrates you at one location and reassembles you at a different location. So there's never more than one of you in existence.

If you're asking a philosophy question, something about whether you're still the same person after undergoing such a process, then I feel that's beyond the scope of the thread.
  #30  
Old 04-16-2016, 10:10 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I'm not sure if you're asking a question about technology or philosophy.

If it's technology, my answer is that I'm staying within the topic. I'm talking about a Star Trek style transporter; a device that disintegrates you at one location and reassembles you at a different location. So there's never more than one of you in existence.

If you're asking a philosophy question, something about whether you're still the same person after undergoing such a process, then I feel that's beyond the scope of the thread.
I'm asking a technical question: Is your process transportation, or is it destruction/duplication?
  #31  
Old 04-18-2016, 10:29 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 20,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I'm talking about a Star Trek style transporter; a device that disintegrates you at one location and reassembles you at a different location. So there's never more than one of you in existence.
Tell that to Thomas Riker and Tuvix.
  #32  
Old 04-16-2016, 11:27 AM
cmyk cmyk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Mitt
Posts: 13,993
In the Star Trek style of teleportation, the technical explanation is quite simple really.

The person being teleported is put in a state of quantum homeostasis, a field that brings all matter to a stop, for a few seconds using a Schrödinger phase field transducer. This allows the sub-matter scan to make a full analysis of all subatomic states to store in the ships matter-buffer. Beforehand, a vector in spacetime has been pinpointed relative to the ship, and all matter within the buffer is transported through subspace to its final destination, where is can then be safely restored, verified and the Schrödinger phase field transducer shut down.

QED.

We've made no headway on this, because none of that makes any sense.

Last edited by cmyk; 04-16-2016 at 11:29 AM.
  #33  
Old 04-16-2016, 11:06 PM
DWMarch DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 1,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmyk View Post
In the Star Trek style of teleportation, the technical explanation is quite simple really.

The person being teleported is put in a state of quantum homeostasis, a field that brings all matter to a stop, for a few seconds using a Schrödinger phase field transducer. This allows the sub-matter scan to make a full analysis of all subatomic states to store in the ships matter-buffer. Beforehand, a vector in spacetime has been pinpointed relative to the ship, and all matter within the buffer is transported through subspace to its final destination, where is can then be safely restored, verified and the Schrödinger phase field transducer shut down.

QED.

We've made no headway on this, because none of that makes any sense.
The device you're describing is called the Heisenberg compensator. I don't know what it looks like but I believe it is painted "Skyler" white.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/H...rg_compensator
  #34  
Old 04-17-2016, 09:56 AM
cmyk cmyk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Mitt
Posts: 13,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
The device you're describing is called the Heisenberg compensator. I don't know what it looks like but I believe it is painted "Skyler" white.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/H...rg_compensator
And I just pulled that out of my butt. That is eerily close to what I described.
  #35  
Old 04-18-2016, 09:39 AM
MacLir MacLir is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 519
In reference to several comments on the subject:

In his books (Way Station is the one I'm recalling), Clifford Simak used a transportation system in which the station had chemicals on hand. Bodies were assembled from the raw materials to hold the transferred consciousness. Transfer out left a dead body which was recycled into chemical components.

Last edited by MacLir; 04-18-2016 at 09:40 AM. Reason: Typo
  #36  
Old 04-16-2016, 11:47 AM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 16,512
Of course, nor does transporting parties of crewmen into often hazardous situations and hostile environments rather than sending a remotely operated or autonomous probe. In fact, by the time of the New Generation show, the computer appears to exhibit sufficient artificial general intelligence (e.g. understanding natural language as well as a person, performing complex analysis give very vague criteria, navigating routes, self-diagnostics, et cetera) that there is really no apparent need for a human crew at all except to interpret data or perform specific scientific obserations. It seems more likely that the crew of the USS Enterprise aren't the best and brightest of the Star Fleet, but more likely untreatable ADHD sufferers and social malcontents which were shipped off to interstellar space on a vessel that provides their every need including stimulation in the form of hazards and plot commplications.

Stranger
  #37  
Old 04-28-2016, 07:03 PM
sweat209 sweat209 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by nansbread View Post
Since the phrase was used for the first time on Star Trek have we taken any step in the direction of it becoming a reality. Even the tinest little advancement to beam a person from one place on earth to another place on earth. Lets stay on this planet for this question.

Lets have the dope then.
Star trek has a scanner sorta of like an MRI but way way way better it scan so much detail yes so much detail all the way down to cells, molecules and atoms!! We have no scanner on earth any where close to that detail.

It than kills you and destroys you so called a dematerialization. It than rematerialization making a copy of you!!! So even if we had this technology that can do that no one would sign up.

A persons memory, experience, character and what makes up you was part of energy or soul it would not better killing you and just sending the life force energy and than remaking you body.

But unfortunately a person memory, experience, character and what makes up you is part of your brain. Otherwise we would not have diseases like dementia, Alzheimer's, Brain injuries and other diseases that effect the brain.

So unfortunately science today points we have no life force energy. So things like portals ( Well I love playing video games and steeping into portal and coming out some where else in game) cannot exit in real life.

No one would sign up for portal trip or transporter where there is dematerialization and rematerialization.

If there was way to go through a portal, stargate or use of transporter with out use of dematerialization or rematerialization by bending and folding space time and not killing you aka as dematerialization than you may get people to sign up.

Last edited by sweat209; 04-28-2016 at 07:03 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017