Wazer Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 In the discussion on the federation economy much of the discussion centred around the fact that everyones needs in the federation can be provided by replicators but several important things such as dilithium can't be replicated. However in a discussion with my brother we decided that transporters could be used to replicate anything provided you had a physical prototype ( not a computer file as in replicators). This idea comes fromthe fact that Will Riker was replicated in TNG. I don't remember the circumstances of the incident but if you could do a similar trick by adding energy to a transport to create the new matter then you could make a copy of anything you can transport which I know includes ketracel white and probably includes dilithium. Only objects that are too unstable for transport such as some explosives could not be replicated in this way. Does anyone remember how it worked in that TNG episode where Tom Riker was created? I unfortunately don't have that episode yet so I can't check the details to see if this idea would work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arktis Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Sure, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The transporter operator thought that Riker wasn't going to make it out, so he activated a "2nd confinement beam" (whatever that means... probably that he created an additional signal pattern from the first one just in case) which for some odd reason was "bounced" off of the ion storm in the atmosphere (or whatever it was that was making transport difficult, I don't remember) back to the planet and somehow miraculously rematerialized all on it's own. Magic. Anyways, why people use transporters for living beings makes no sense to me. Whatever you get back really isn't the original person in my opinion. Also it never made sense how a person could be concious "in the matter stream" during the entire transport. Laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juhan Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Easy. You take one of those glass sheets where one side is transparent and the other is reflective. Then, you beam the person out from the reflective side of the glass, and voila! (I know this arguement is flawed, but as you can see, I'm joking) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I never got why Quark didn't transporter accident himself a spare corpse in that episode where he sells Brunt containers of vacuum dessicated Quark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Anyways, why people use transporters for living beings makes no sense to me. Whatever you get back really isn't the original person in my opinion. Actually, it is. They are just reduced to energy, transmitted through space, and then rematerialized somewhere else. The transporter is NOT a replicator. It cannot replicate things. Sure, replicators probably use technology based on the transporter, but every time a transporter has "replicated" someone or something, it was due to some very, VERY, iffy outside influences. And only once has such a duplication been perfect (Thomas Riker). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Yes - given that it has only happen once in X many years of transporter uses shows it's not exactly something likely to happen. Also to back up my archnemesis ;) queenhank - one need but watch the episode of TNG where Barclay expresses his fear of transporters to see that (somehow) consciousness is maintained throughout the whole process. This isn't quantum teleportation involving the simultaneous creation and destruction of matter, this is sci-fi garabage - if you watch Star Trek, you'll find there's rather a lot of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattf Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 A replicator (or food slot) is a device that uses transporter technology to dematerialize quantities of matter and then rematerialize that matter in another form. 24th century Federation starships are commonly equipped with replicators, because they allow for a wider variety of foods and beverages to be served to crew members, since the selection is limited only by the software and the number of options that have been programmed. Many people find replicated foods and drinks to taste exactly the same as "real" food, although some people claim to be able to tell the difference. (TNG: "Sins of the Father", DS9: "In the Pale Moonlight", "You Are Cordially Invited") Replicators can be used for replicating machineparts or clothing. They can even be used to replicate heavier machine parts, using a special type known as an industrial replicator. (DS9: "For the Cause") Replicators may be capable of producing replacement organs for lifeforms in the ship's databanks. At the very least they are capable of producing artificial organs as replacement for lost/diseased organs. (VOY: "Phage") Replicators are also one of the technologies used in holodecks and holosuites. When the USS Voyager was pulled to the Delta Quadrant, it became clear that replicator technology was unknown to the indigenous people of that region. The Kazon in particular repeatedly tried to obtain this technology, as did other races. Captain Janeway feared that if this technology were acquired by a civilization before they were ready, disastrous consequences could ensue. For this reason, and because of the Prime Directive, Janeway refused to give up this technology at any price. (VOY: "State of Flux") Replicators sample an object at a molecular rather than quantum level. The computer then applies a lossy compression algorithm to save computer memory. This gives the computer a pattern from which to produce copies. Starships keep a small supply of recycled bulk material from which to create new objects. A waveguide conduit system sends bulk material to the replicator, which reforms it into the requested objects, then it transmits the new object to the terminal. Quantum transformational manipulation allows the creation of new elements. Energy costs are high for all forms of replication, thus making practical alchemy, such as creating limitless latinum, impossible, but food (normally simple arrangements of water, proteins, and lipids) is more practical to replicate from bulk matter than to store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I've wondered about this many times, at least in my mind, replication and transportation as in Star Trek aren't all that different and if you can do one, I'd assume that you'd also be able to do the other. However, Star Trek 'rules' say otherwise... That is the only thing that is stopping it really... At least, as far as I can think of things... :) Why do I say the first part? Well what happens when you replicate transport something, you create a pattern and an energy reserve, and when the thing is rematerialised, the pattern is used in unison with the supplied energy to create the same thing as was deconstructed in the first place. So, once you have transported something once, you have the ability to see what it takes to 'replicate' it, since that is essentially what rematerialisation is... The pattern buffer for example is used many times in Star Trek to see if things have changed since last time something/someone was transported, usually in conjunction with some medical equipment... So, that's why I say, the only reason why it can't be done, is because they say so, their is no 'real' and acceptable Star Trek explanation for it. Since appearently it is possible to transport everything... So basically, you could call it a flaw in the Star Trek universe, or a flaw in the writers abilities to comprehend their own 'gimmics' :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Well, remember one thing: the pattern for a person is horrifically complicated. So much so, in fact, that all of the storage space on Deep Space 9 was not enough to hold the patterns of a few people. I'm guessing that the transporter buffer does not store the pattern as digital information, but instead stores it in some way which can be held for a short period of time, which would explain why a transporter pattern can degrade with time. I imagine (to help me understand the concept, not as a practical theory) a radio signal, containing the entire pattern, which is transmitted, but too large to be recorded. Holding a pattern in the buffer means that as it receives each part of the signal, it retransmits it, without saving it, and then forms a sort of loop. I would assume that many things have far too complex patterns to store, which would be why they cannot be replicated. Like latinum. (mattf: did you write that explanation, or did you get it from somewhere?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 All the evidence suggests that the pattern buffer is unable to hold a pattern very long and that the ability to store the patterns for any length of time takes massive amounts of data... That's contradicted by the fact they seem to keep "backups" of patterns but I suppose we could make the supposition that those are less complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Patern buffers ar used at least once in Voyager to 'reform' a person to its original state (I can't remember the episode, but I know it happened). So that would mean all data would have to be there. Furthermore, with some tricks, Scottie managed to get his buffer to hold himself (and a few other, though the trick malfunctioned in their case, comparable to a software program that malfunctions) for a looong time. Now, it might be possible that to do this on a large scale would require lots of storage space, but imo that is not a good explanation for why it (replication of some products) isn't possible. Why, if you can create money out of energy and the money is worth more, than it is very simple to see that it would take only só long before the investment in the storage space would have been regained.... Also the, once the buffer is used, it degrades option is invalid, since all information can be duplicated and even trippled with the right circuits and logic... There is only one explanation that holds out, even though it too is unsatifactory: "Because they say so!" That is the only explanation that cannot be countermanded logically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Maybe they're backing up the patterns onto REALLY lousy floppy disks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Well, I thought my explanation works rather well to explain things. The signal degrades because it is not being "stored" in any traditional sense. Rather, it is constantly being processed. Constant processing can lead to degradation, so it works in that respect, and if the processing uses a medium like a short-wave radio (although far more advanced than that, of course), then the computer never needs to actually have more than a small percentage of the pattern in its system at any one time. It reads incoming signal, and resends it, using that space for the next part of the signal. And the pattern buffer "stores" the pattern of the last person transported, which can be taken to mean that it doesn't revert to a default state after transport, thus allowing for a system of algorithms to be employed to reconstruct the pattern of the last person through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steveo Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Well' date=' I thought my explanation works rather well to explain things. The signal degrades because it is not being "stored" in any traditional sense. Rather, it is constantly being processed. Constant processing can lead to degradation, so it works in that respect, and if the processing uses a medium like a short-wave radio (although far more advanced than that, of course), then the computer never needs to actually have more than a small percentage of the pattern in its system at any one time. It reads incoming signal, and resends it, using that space for the next part of the signal. And the pattern buffer "stores" the pattern of the last person transported, which can be taken to mean that it doesn't revert to a default state after transport, thus allowing for a system of algorithms to be employed to reconstruct the pattern of the last person through.[/quote'] That's backed up by the DS9 episode where the crew have to clear the entire station computer memory to store the neural patterns of most of the senior staff after the accident, and the holodeck stores the physical parameters. Also, when Scotty stores himself in the transporter for all those years, does he not just keep his pattern going round in circles, rather than being stored in the traditional sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 You do realise that you both are confirming my point in what you are saying.... Where is it being processed from btw? Right, from memoy... :) So even if you try and come up with the not enough storage space explanation, it's not going to work. Imagine you are Ferengi, what do you think you are going to do when you learn that all you need for replicating Latinum, is more storage space.... Right, build a bigger memory.... Also, even if it has to be constantly processed for whatever reason, that doesn't mean, it can't be duplicated, it's just going to require another 'processor' to handle the duplicate data... In that way, if you've got 3, you can keep on duplicating 'till eternity ends... There was something with Scotty indeed that he had set on continuous something 'technobable', heck using this as an example I could even state that the latest 'explanation' queenhank came up cannot be true, since that would imply that that Scotty had set the transporter on continuous 'transport', materialising and dematerialising the entire time, but in the episode you can clearly see that this is not so... Anyway, since this is 'fantasy' science, you could come up with any number of 'fantasy' explanations, which I'm certain the writers would do, but from what I know of science, there is no reason at all, you cannot duplicate data and in event of digital data, it can even be an exact duplicate, in analog data, there is allways a fair amount of difference, depending on how 'close' you look of course... That is because of the nature of analog signals and it is one of the reasons why currently most data is processed digitally rather than in an analog way... However, while I was writing this, I did some 'research' on how replicators work, and according to Star Trek, they do not at all work the same way as transporters... Even though it looks as if they do, because we cannot see subatomic particles of course... replicator: it works by rearranging subatomic particles, which are abundant anywhere in the universe, to form the molecules required by the formula at hand. The device then arranges the molecules in accordance with said formula to finally create the substance. So, that at least explains why an ordinary replicator cannot replicate certain things (even though it is hard to imagine that if you can build something that can do enough calculations to completely break down and rebuild a living human body in an instant without them feeling uncomfort, that you cannot build a 'calculator' that can calculate the molecules of certain things), but it still does not explain why nobody 'replicates' Latinum by simply using duplicate data from a transporter, with another transporter... Anyhow, appearently Mike Okuda explained the things like this: because it doesn't... LOL I guess that explains it then eh.... :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhank Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Anyway, since this is 'fantasy' science, you could come up with any number of 'fantasy' explanations And that is the point of this thread, is it not? We're not trying to actually BUILD a transporter, just explain why the ones on Star Trek are not used to duplicate things. Oh, and I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the Ferengi don't want latinum replicated (by this I mean the Ferengi as a whole...an individual would clean up in this manner), because then it becomes just as worthless as gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Anyway' date=' since this is 'fantasy' science, you could come up with any number of 'fantasy' explanations[/quote'] And that is the point of this thread, is it not? We're not trying to actually BUILD a transporter, just explain why the ones on Star Trek are not used to duplicate things. Of course, but what I meant was that anything we come up with, has got to be actually taken out of Star Trek itself, it has got be mentioned somewhere, not something that sounds reasonable... I mean, we cannot start and devellop our own version of their technology with our own explanations... If we were to do that (in my case at least), and we were to base it on what we know of current technology and what you can do with a transporter, the only conclusion can be that you can duplicate anything using a transporter and energy... Now, I'm fairly certain, that it was mentioned somewhere that you cannot do this, but the problem is that all Star Trek explanations about this matter, are so totally uncomprehensible and don't make sense in real life (because of use of not existing terms in 'our' world), and for example also because of contradictory statements, which could be attributed to 'our lesser understanding' of physics than theirs... But could just as well be attributed to the writers not being able to make sense of it all either.... For example, all the transporter 'accidents' make for great stories, but also make for lousy possible explanations of the technology. For example: it is my understanding of this transporter, that the body is competely scanned and patterened and transferred into energy and transmitted (whether it be completely and at once or in different phases, doesn't make a difference in the end), however, in case of the duplication of Riker, it would mean that there was also a duplicate amount of energy involved, this amount would be huuuge, and very precise in the vicinity of the duplicate amount... Where did this energy come from, why did the crew not notice such an enormous energy 'loss'... Of course, you could say: human error or without it there would be no story, but that is not a satisfactory 'scientific' explanation. In the show it is explained that the transporter beam is reflected and refracted, so this would mean that the energy did indeed come from the ship itself, reflection only brings loss of energy, not an increase of it and dense energy waves lose energy on the way, they don't attract more... The only somewhat plausible explanation would be that they attibuted the energy loss to the refocussing of the beam or whatever it was that they did to bring Riker back... That and the fact that he did come back, so there was no need to look any further... However, this would mean that during the course of a transport, if anything doesn't go as planned, enormous amounts of energy are 'lost' all at once, since they didn't know that something special had occured, it would be only logical to assume that these energy-losses occur frequently, only the combination of these factor make for a plausible explanation, but at the same time they make the transport technology a lot less interesting to use (because of the instantaneous and enormous energy loss if it doesn't go completely correct at the first try), in a battle situation, such an energy loss could very likely be fatal for a starship... What I'm trying to say is, that imo while they have created some excellent stories with these transporter 'exceptions', they have also created an environment for themselves in which it is nearly impossible to 'Star-Trek-scientifically' explain the technology in such a way that it would make sense with current science (even though the basics do make sense). As they somewhat freely admit themselves too... Be it in not so many words... So anything we come up with, has a very small chance of ever being accepted as 'the' explanation... That was sort of my point, but don't let me stop you from trying though... Since anything that sounds reasonable, could very well be the thing that 'explains' it for some people, but I'm not going to be one of them... ;) The only acceptable statement (however rediculous it might sound) I've found is the one I stated before in somewhat different words: "it is like it is, because they say it is so." And since they do write it (Star Trek), this is the truth... That's why it is acceptable to me, even though it still doesn't 'really' explain it... :) Oh' date=' and I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the Ferengi don't want latinum replicated (by this I mean the Ferengi as a whole...an individual would clean up in this manner), because then it becomes just as worthless as gold.[/quote'] Completely agreed... It would ruin their economy, but as you say, it wouldn't stop one individual from becoming very rich, real fast, if he could make certain nobody else tried it... :) EDIT: lol, maybe I should start writing a book... didn't intended it to be that long, sorry... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattf Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 MemoryAlpha Well, remember one thing: the pattern for a person is horrifically complicated. So much so, in fact, that all of the storage space on Deep Space 9 was not enough to hold the patterns of a few people. I'm guessing that the transporter buffer does not store the pattern as digital information, but instead stores it in some way which can be held for a short period of time, which would explain why a transporter pattern can degrade with time. I imagine (to help me understand the concept, not as a practical theory) a radio signal, containing the entire pattern, which is transmitted, but too large to be recorded. Holding a pattern in the buffer means that as it receives each part of the signal, it retransmits it, without saving it, and then forms a sort of loop. I would assume that many things have far too complex patterns to store, which would be why they cannot be replicated. Like latinum. (mattf: did you write that explanation, or did you get it from somewhere?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazer Posted February 16, 2006 Author Share Posted February 16, 2006 Thanks Arktis for the summary of the Riker transporter accident. As others have stated the incident doesn't seem to explain where the energy came for an extra Riker. However Starfleet would definately have investigated fully how the incident occured for prevention initially but I'm sure it wouldn't have escaped there notice that recreating the process could be useful. If they could use the process for replication they could make dilithium crystals and difficult to make medicine etc. But they couldn't make some thing because it would only make a copy. For example if you wanted to replace a liver you couldn't because the original is damaged and you would only get another damaged one. Anyway I agree that whatever we say we still don't undestand how the transporter works as Gene Rodenberry freely admited he just made them up to save money making scenes with ships landing. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I think we all know the horrifying truth - transporters are powered by leprechauns. It's why O'Brien was so great with them ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now