# Star Trek transporters **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 14, 2013, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324 "2013-12-14T20:22:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Vagabond](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/258eb7/32.png) [@Vagabond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vagabond)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/21 "2013-12-15T04:55:05Z")
I have always believed in the destroyed original/new facsimile version. The reasons I’ve heard are as follows. 1. Your memories/personality are stored in the brain as physical/chemical values that can be recreated. 2. We do this ourselves slowly IRL. Biologist say we replace every atom/cell in our body every 7-11 years. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/22 "2013-12-15T05:20:47Z")
Thomas Riker could not exist as he does if the transporter did not kill the user. If both Thomas and William Riker were continuities of the same consciousness, William Riker would _know_ they left Thomas Riker behind, just as easily as he knew whether his left hand was holding up two fingers or three. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/23 "2013-12-15T12:33:20Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > … If both Thomas and William Riker were continuities of the same consciousness, William Riker would _know_ they left Thomas Riker behind, just as easily as he knew whether his left hand was holding up two fingers or three. Huh? So when an embryo splits and becomes twins the original embryo is killed? Or else all twins would always be experiencing the same thing as the other? Continuities _of_ the same consciousness is not the same thing as being the same consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/24 "2013-12-15T16:03:37Z")
There’s a difference between Star Trek canon and the philosophical argument over bodily reconstitution. The first is a cite, the second is an argument. I’m squarely in the “you die” camp. The pro-_cloning = you teleport_ people must either hate or not grok the conflict in the standard clone episode that every show seems to do, especially cartoons. Like why the original wants to not be replaced so badly, or why the duplicates don’t want to thrown away like they’re garbage. It would be interesting if your consciousness was a sort of nebulous hivemind that could be sent into multiple bodies if the targets had the same or similar hardware to receive the consciousness. You see that in sci-fi aliens or robots a lot. It’s weird to imagine, since coordinating one body can be tough enough. But that’s the only way I can see disintegration not leading to a cessation of my current consciousness, since then my consciousness wouldn’t be tied to my brain and would be kinda floating out there. That way 50 clones could all be my unique experiential self, instead of 50 duplicates having 50 unique experiences. But for humans I don’t see any reason to think it’s not one seat of consciousness, one body. Well, split brain experiments aside, but that’s a different topic. Same thing when sci-fi/fantasy villains have backup copies of themselves as a backup plan for when they die. That guy who died stopped having experiences, his unique self doesn’t get to see if his diabolical plans work or not. The only immortal is whoever’s the latest copy to wake up. Unless the guy has a magic soul that’s jumping from body to body and he just keeps making empty vessels for backups, as is sometimes the case. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/25 "2013-12-15T16:28:57Z")
Obviously mass disappears off the transporter platform and appears on the planet (or vice-versa). So I vote for “physically transported”. BTW, I don’t think the transporter works by classically disassembling atoms; it’s probably more like they’re converted into an intangible quantum wave function which is recollapsed at its destination. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/26 "2013-12-15T16:37:11Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Huh? > > So when an embryo splits and becomes twins the original embryo is killed? Or else all twins would always be experiencing the same thing as the other? > > Continuities _of_ the same consciousness is not the same thing as being the same consciousness. When an embryo splits and becomes twins _there is no consciousness to continue_. It occurs before the earliest precursor of the nervous system even begins to form. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/27 "2013-12-15T16:38:36Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Huh? > > So when an embryo splits and becomes twins the original embryo is killed? Or else all twins would always be experiencing the same thing as the other? > > Continuities _of_ the same consciousness is not the same thing as being the same consciousness. That would seem to be an argument against anyone having a continuous consciousness… ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/28 "2013-12-15T16:41:34Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > That would seem to be an argument against anyone having a continuous consciousness… Don’t forget the Well of Souls! ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/29 "2013-12-15T16:46:52Z")
> [@Shawn1767](#): > > Why Star Trek transporter technology would never work in the real world or even in the Star Trek world: > > But here’s the key thing. That steak never came from a cow. It didn’t exist before you ordered it. It’s taking the basic building blocks of matter and manipulating them to make something you want. It’s similar to taking Legos and using a pattern to build a house. The house was just a jumble of Legos until you built them into a house. My point is that the replicator uses energy to create things that didn’t originally exist. So what? By definition, atoms are identical to other molecules of the same element. If you have some sort of molecular-level replicator that can reproduce a steak, it doesn’t matter if it never came from a cow. A cow is just a reactor that converts grass molecules into energy and delicious meat. > [@Shawn1767](#): > > Let’s say you’re unconscious and I want to bring you next door to my neighbor’s house. You’re hard to transport, so I cut you into two pieces right through your midsection. Do you think you’d survive the process? Do you think I could put you back together and you’d be alive when you got to the neighbor’s house? What if I cut you into 4 pieces? What if I separated you into 1,000 pieces? Or 100 quadrillion? You would have to do it instantly, and reassemble you in a way that doesn’t damage your organs, cell structure or DNA. Your example isn’t a good metaphor. You’re talking about chopping up a person at a macro level, which is different from doing it at the molecular level. Personally, I think a better argument is one related to the sheer volume of information you would need to store to reproduce a person on a molecular level. I mean how much computing power is needed to decode a single molecule of DNA? ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/30 "2013-12-15T16:49:35Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Personally, I think a better argument is one related to the sheer volume of information you would need to store to reproduce a person on a molecular level. I mean how much computing power is needed to decode a single molecule of DNA? … Which is why they have Heisenberg compensators! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim_r.mortiss/32/142_2.png) [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_R.Mortiss)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/31 "2013-12-15T16:50:45Z")
> [@Vagabond](#): > > …2. We do this ourselves slowly IRL. Biologist say we replace every atom/cell in our body every 7-11 years. This, to me, is the key point. The transporter is only doing what nature already does to our bodies, only much much faster. But that is only a difference of degree, not a difference of kind. By the by, I have a Papermate ballpoint pen that I’ve had since 1973. I’ve replaced the cartridge many times, and the spring a few times, and the top half of the body about three times, and the bottom half of the body twice. Is it the same pen? I always claim that it is. I call it “The Pen of Theseus.” ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/32 "2013-12-15T16:57:49Z")
> [@shijinn](#): > > one of the reasons why this keeps coming up is, even with an actual teleporter to experiment with, no scientific answer is possible. Bingo. > [@Trinopus](#): > > Oh, crap, it’s a duplicator, not a transporter! FTW. Since folks aren’t bothering to read the other thread, I’ll summarize my view: continuity of consciousness is an illusion caused by memory anyway, so there’s no significant difference between going unconscious and regaining consciousness, versus being disassembled and reassembled. Clearly, it’s not the atoms that matter, so I don’t care whether the atoms are transmitted or just the information. I’d step into a transporter without a moment’s hesitation. The result, Learjeff2, wouldn’t either. 😉 (Actually, he’s Learjeff20440 anyway.) ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/33 "2013-12-15T17:37:07Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Since folks aren’t bothering to read the other thread… Yeah, it’s a little long to wade through. In any case, this thread isn’t about the existential aspects of teleportation. It’s not about how a transporter works, nor how it _possibly could_ work. It’s about this: According to _The Official Star Trek Writer’s Guide_, Gene Roddenberry’s notes, and other official/approved sources, is the individual or object at the destination the same individual or object that left the origin and not a facsimile thereof? Let me put it another way. Suppose I have a device called a ‘door’. I step through the device and I find myself outside of my house. When I get outside, am I the same person who went through the portal from inside of my house? Or did this ‘door’ destroy me and create an exact facsimile without my noticing? It doesn’t matter _how_ it works; just the end result. Where it gets sticky, and where people start answering questions that were not asked, is when you consider ‘Well, if the result is _this_ then how does it work? And if it works _that_ way, then how can you possibly still be you?’ It’s not important. We all know that the reason there are transporters at all, is because it was too expensive to build and film models for practical effects. What I’m after is the _intention_ of Roddenberry et. al. aside from the practical aspects of film production, as to what comes out the other end. Based on answers I quoted from responders upthread, I’m concluding that Roddenberry’s intention was that transporters teleport people and objects ‘intact’, in the same way that ‘Jeannie’ or ‘Samantha’ teleported people on their shows; that transportees are not destroyed and facsimiles made of them. They step onto the transporter pad (or, in the case of objects, are placed there), and magically appear at the destination. The only difference is that you have a film set instead of a genie or a witch or one of these ‘door’ things. Except when the plot requires duplicates or multiple copies. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/34 "2013-12-15T17:45:15Z")
Lots of Roddenberry’s ideas evolved thru the years. And after he was pushed aside, they evolved even more. I see the transporter in the same light as warp tech and subspace communications. A technological magic to make the TV stories move quickly (and cheaply). Somewhere in Trek-dom (maybe as far back as McCoy leaving his communicator behind in A Piece of the Action), it is strongly implied, if not stated outright, that replicators, warp, transporters, and subspace communication are all part of the same leap forward in technology. Based on tri-lithium somehow. If I can find my old Trek bibles, I may find a cite… ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/35 "2013-12-15T17:56:56Z")
> [@NoClueBoy](#): > > Somewhere in Trek-dom (maybe as far back as McCoy leaving his communicator behind in A Piece of the Action), it is strongly implied, if not stated outright, that replicators, warp, transporters, and subspace communication are all part of the same leap forward in technology. Based on tri-lithium somehow. If I can find my old Trek bibles, I may find a cite… [McCoy is concerned because he seems to have left his communicator somewhere in Oxmyx’s office. Kirk and Spock speculate that with that kind of technology in the hands of the Iotians and with their gift for imitation, the Iotians may one day want a piece of the Federation’s action.](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/A_Piece_of_the_Action_%28episode%29) [[last lines] Capt. Kirk: All right, Bones, in the language of the planet, “What’s your beef?” Dr. McCoy: Well, I don’t know how serious this is, Jim. And I don’t quite know how to tell you… Capt. Kirk: Go ahead. Dr. McCoy: But in all the confusion, I… Capt. Kirk: Tell me. Dr. McCoy: I think I left it in Bela’s office. Capt. Kirk: You left it? Dr. McCoy: Somewhere, I’m-I’m not certain. Capt. Kirk: You’re not certain of what? Dr. McCoy: I left my communicator. Capt. Kirk: In Bela’s office? Spock: Captain, if the Iotians, who are very bright an imitative people, should take that communicator apart… Capt. Kirk: They will, they will. And they’ll find out how the transtator works. Spock: The transtator is the basis for every important piece of equipment that we have - the transporter, the… Capt. Kirk: [overlapping] Everything, everything. Dr. McCoy: You really think it’s that serious? Capt. Kirk: Serious? Serious, Bones? It upsets the whole percentage. Dr. McCoy: How do you mean? Capt. Kirk: Well, in a few years, the Iotians may demand a piece of OUR action.](["Star Trek" A Piece of the Action (TV Episode 1968) - Trivia - IMDb](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708412/trivia?tab=qt&ref_=tt_trv_qu)) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/36 "2013-12-15T18:01:18Z")
> [@Shawn1767](#): > > Let’s go back to the Lego’s example. Let’s say you have a Lego house. Then you take that house apart and put the Legos into their individual pieces. Do you have a house? No, you have a pile of building blocks.Then you use a pattern and make the house over again. Difference is, houses aren’t alive. Neither are building blocks. Neither are individual atoms and subatomic particles and energy. So what? “Alive” and “dead” are human concepts with no objective reality. A house and a person are both just accumulations of matter of varying complexity. There’s nothing special about a human that says you can’t break him down and reassemble him, just like you can a house. There’s no “life particle” that exists in the human and not in the house. > [@](#): > > Here’s the sober reality of Star Trek transporter technology: A machine scans you and makes a pattern from all the atoms and particles in your body. Then it separates all the particles, in effect KILLING YOU, turns those particles into energy that is then beamed somewhere else. Then, using the pattern created earlier, the basic building blocks of matter (which are not alive) are then reformed into a replica of you which was never alive before the atoms were put together (just like the ribeye in the first example). Sure, it kills you. Then it brings you back to life. We could do this today with a bucket of water and someone who knows CPR. Of course, we generally don’t consider that “death.” But we used to. Time was, if someone wasn’t breathing, that was it. He was dead. Then we found ways to get the lungs working again, and we redefined death as “when the heart stops.” Nowadays, we can cut someone open, rip the heart out of their chest, and stick someone else’s in there. So we moved death back again, to “when brain activity stops.” How much longer until we figure out a way to push the boundaries back again? How much further will we have pushed them by the time _Star Trek_ is meant to happen? ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/37 "2013-12-15T18:19:34Z")
[Not much info on the transtator.](http://www.startrek.com/database_article/transtator) If we knew more about the transtator, maybe we would know the answer to this recurring question. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/38 "2013-12-15T18:28:06Z")
> [@Shawn1767](#): > > Let’s say you’re unconscious and I want to bring you next door to my neighbor’s house. You’re hard to transport, so I cut you into two pieces right through your midsection. Do you think you’d survive the process? Do you think I could put you back together and you’d be alive when you got to the neighbor’s house? What if I cut you into 4 pieces? What if I separated you into 1,000 pieces? Or 100 quadrillion? I’d say 100 quadrillion is much preferred to 2. I’d rather be missing 1 cell rather than missing a whole mess of cells. Plus, if you’re chopping me in two, moving me, and then reattaching me instantaneously, I don’t think I would die just the same as if my heart stopped beating for just one nanosecond. It’d be a different matter if the teleporter worked with hacksaws and gunnysacks though. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/39 "2013-12-15T18:46:50Z")
[More](http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Transtator) transtator [clues](http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transtator). Seriously, find out how this fictional tech is supposed to work and we probably have an answer to kill I/no kill I transporting. Anybody find more? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324/40 "2013-12-15T18:54:44Z")
The canon answer is that “you” exist before and after to the same degree as if you walked through a door. Those of the Star Trek universe accepted that it was them on each side of the process even if the “original” was eliminated and the version that reappeared was a freshly assembled exact copy. (IOW **LearJeff** would fit in well.) Neither Riker was a copy anymore than both were and each had within their past the same experience (and consiousness) up to the transporter event and divergent experiences from then on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/star-trek-transporters/676324.md?page=3)