If the Transporter were invented NOW, would you use it or not?

lonnehart · July 2012

So if the transporter were working and reliable, would you want to use it?

I wouldn't. One quark out of place and I'd cease to exist. The accident in the first Star Trek movie looked painful.

And then there's THIS transporter accident...

sovereignman · July 2012

Keep government out of our matter transportation. Take our molecules back!

reginamala78 · July 2012

Use it as a tool, but on myself? Nah. On people I don't like on the other hand...... there'd be a rash of mountain-climbing accidents, people falling overboard in the middle of the ocean, maybe taking a leap off a skyscraper here and there.....

adufaux · July 2012

Way to launch a question.

sumghai · July 2012

I'd volunteer immediately as a test subject with full knowledge and understanding of the risks involved...

...so that a few decades down the track, **** doesn't happen to somebody else.

twg042370 · July 2012

If it works, my exact duplicate that comes out on the other end better say nice words about me.

centersolace · July 2012

If it was safe? Possibly. Within reason. There are a few places I would like to go... but I think it would be wonderful now! Think about it, we could beam stuff into space without rockets! It would make colonising space a lot easier...

aesica · July 2012

If it did, I'd want to hotwire it to not break down the source matter. That way, I could make like a vorta and create backup copies of myself...or even better! I'd produce an army of clones, each as brilliant and diabolical as myself and then...oh wait, I'm terrible at taking orders from others. I'd make a lousy clone army.

otakuboyt · July 2012

I'd wait a few years

carmenara · July 2012

Like all Ferengi would say..

My participation depends on the profit/recognition versus risk ratio

sollvax · July 2012

The logical use would be to beam waste materials out of existance
use on living tissue would have to be considered murder

carmenara · July 2012

sollvax wrote: »

The logical use would be to beam waste materials out of existance
use on living tissue would have to be considered murder

Worry not, inert matter transport would of course be perfected first, before any living beings are transported.

You do realize this could revolutionalize search and rescue should the transport of living organisms be perfected, right?

You can just send a miniature robot (ROV is the correct term) to pinpoint survivors, then "Beam them to Sickbay" direct immediately.

tebsu · July 2012

i would beam kim jong un and a few other people like putin on one island where they can all try to dictate themself. i would also beam a logitech HD webcam to see this spectacle and last but not least, some bear onto my table

beezle23 · July 2012

I teleported home one night
With Ron and Sid and Meg.
Ron stole Meggie's heart away
And I got Sidney's leg.

-- Douglas Adams

sollvax · July 2012

more like beam a perfect copy to sick bay

I do not trust this tech even in trek

mind you I can see the advantage of crossing it with the replicators and producing a vast army

carmenara · July 2012

sollvax wrote: »

more like beam a perfect copy to sick bay

I do not trust this tech even in trek

mind you I can see the advantage of crossing it with the replicators and producing a vast army

Indeed as always you are right on the "humanitarian concerns" department.

However seeing as the majority of cutting edge technology is strictly governed by nations with strong ethical backgrounds... I don't think we have to worry that much.

I mean, CERN money could have been used to create a "Star Wars" concept particle beam weapon for anti missile defence, space dominance, etc. A lot of modern day tech we use for innocent purposes could also be weaponized if the Geneva Convention didn't exist. But did they?

No.

sollvax · July 2012

its hard to think of any tech that has not been weaponised

carmenara · July 2012

sollvax wrote: »

its hard to think of any tech that has not been weaponised

Indeed.

We even have USB Missile Launchers for office combat

sollvax · July 2012

actually the USB was military tech first (battlefield systems)

kdr37 · July 2012

Don't know if it's actually true, but I was told that the microwave oven came about because of research into a 'heat ray' type weapon. The idea was to cook soldiers, melt vehicles parts and maybe even metal, and effectively turn all armour into scrap (because no one would dare use them, they would become obsolete).
Of course they couldn't make that work, but the research at least allowed for the development of microwave ovens.

And show me a government with a strong ethical background and I'll show you a bridge I have for sale.
I don't trust my government an inch, tbh. It's not that I think they're out to get me or anything. I just think they don't give two hoots as long as they're OK and their agenda gets advanced.
But...

To get back to something like the topic...I wouldn't use a transporter. The 'beamed up' person is only a copy (with the original being destroyed). Would I still be me after the first transport? And would repeatedly producing copies of copies of copies not eventually lead to info degradation, increasing the chances of something going seriously wrong?
I'd stick to other modes of transport, ta all the same.

sollvax · July 2012

Microwave weapons do exist (and if you use one you WILL hang)

nynik · July 2012

Surely we could use an early ancestor of Admiral Archer's prized Beagle instead of us?

sollvax · July 2012

Tests should be performed using "expendible resources"

Ie politicians , convicted criminals , terminal cases (who might actually be saved by replication) and of course people involved with the 2009 trek film

dalolorn · July 2012

kdr37 wrote: »

To get back to something like the topic...I wouldn't use a transporter. The 'beamed up' person is only a copy (with the original being destroyed). Would I still be me after the first transport? And would repeatedly producing copies of copies of copies not eventually lead to info degradation, increasing the chances of something going seriously wrong?
I'd stick to other modes of transport, ta all the same.

Yes, precisely - what if you (mentally or however) were killed, and your copy was merely that - a copy? :mad:

I for one have no interest in killing myself just so a copy of mine can go around roaming the universe.

However, if you could somehow temporarily decrease the mass of an object whilst at the same time making an airtight bubble... (and ofc catapult said object through whatever obstacles there are to a 'receiver' which reverses the process...

)

I actually did something like that in my RP storyline in StarCraft II (which has extended through Supreme Commander 2, Sins of a Solar Empire, StarCraft (all in the same universe) and STO (completely different universe, of course xD))

kdr37 · July 2012

dalolorn wrote: »

Yes, precisely - what if you (mentally or however) were killed, and your copy was merely that - a copy? :mad:

I for one have no interest in killing myself just so a copy of mine can go around roaming the universe.

However, if you could somehow temporarily decrease the mass of an object whilst at the same time making an airtight bubble... (and ofc catapult said object through whatever obstacles there are to a 'receiver' which reverses the process... )

I actually did something like that in my RP storyline in StarCraft II (which has extended through Supreme Commander 2, Sins of a Solar Empire, StarCraft (all in the same universe) and STO (completely different universe, of course xD))

The laws of physics (as we understand them) actually dictate that the act of transportation MUST result in the original object being annihilated on a molecular (or is it quantum?) level in order for the copy to even exist. I also believe that it's meant to be possible to reproduce numerous copies of an original, using the same piece of receiving equipment, eliminating the need to tie in any sort of replicator technology. Though of course it is all theoretical.

I'm going to have to dig out the actual wording, etc (unless someone else hops in with the proper explanation).

Temporarily decrease mass = anti-Higgs field...field?
But how do you slow the fired object down again? A sudden restoration of original mass is just going to make a bigger mess.
As an aside, though, I've been wondering what the development of an AHF field might mean for space exploration within our own solar system (to start with). Reduce the mass of a craft -> less energy to get it started and make it go faster -> less fuel required = lower payloads -> tied in with research into ion drives -> colonies on Mars, reachable in a few weeks if not days or even hours, and exploration that does not require the lifetimes of researchers to be dedicated to one mission.

mustrumridcully0 · July 2012

sollvax wrote: »

its hard to think of any tech that has not been weaponised

Toilet paper and water-closets.

The inventors of these can look back on their lives and say "Yep, we did improve the quality of life on this world. Not like those guys", pointing their fingers at Oppenheimer, Einstein or Nobel.

dalolorn · July 2012

kdr37 wrote: »

The laws of physics (as we understand them) actually dictate that the act of transportation MUST result in the original object being annihilated on a molecular (or is it quantum?) level in order for the copy to even exist. I also believe that it's meant to be possible to reproduce numerous copies of an original, using the same piece of receiving equipment, eliminating the need to tie in any sort of replicator technology. Though of course it is all theoretical.
I'm going to have to dig out the actual wording, etc (unless someone else hops in with the proper explanation).

Temporarily decrease mass = anti-Higgs field...field?
But how do you slow the fired object down again? A sudden restoration of original mass is just going to make a bigger mess.
As an aside, though, I've been wondering what the development of an AHF field might mean for space exploration within our own solar system (to start with). Reduce the mass of a craft -> less energy to get it started and make it go faster -> less fuel required = lower payloads -> tied in with research into ion drives -> colonies on Mars, reachable in a few weeks if not days or even hours, and exploration that does not require the lifetimes of researchers to be dedicated to one mission.

Simple. Use a big net or something

The tricky bit is making the whole object go through solid objects but still be catched by said 'net' from my above metaphor.

sollvax · July 2012

ok I have to give you toilet paper

nynik · July 2012

mustrumridcully0 wrote: »

Toilet paper and water-closets.

The inventors of these can look back on their lives and say "Yep, we did improve the quality of life on this world. Not like those guys", pointing their fingers at Oppenheimer, Einstein or Nobel.

I've weaponized toilet paper as a projectile in a home-made elastic-band powered, clothes-peg rifle. It could shoot moist toilet paper balls 60 feet. The neighborhood I grew up in had annual wars in this fashion. I was a very successful gunsmith. My designs were sought after. People came close to losing an eye.

Long story short, I don't know how the inventor of toilet paper can sleep at night.

seannewboy · July 2012

As to OP, it would depend on the operating system, are we talking Windows or Linux?;)

aesica · July 2012

sollvax wrote: »

Tests should be performed using "expendible resources"

Ie politicians , convicted criminals , terminal cases (who might actually be saved by replication) and of course people involved with the 2009 trek film

Yeah, criminals especially is a really good idea because our justice system has certainly never been wrong.

carmenara wrote: »

You can just send a miniature robot...

miniature robot

miniature robot

miniature robot

MINIATURE ROBOT!

OMG you have no idea how much I want such a thing. An ARMY of such things!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ft6gNYh0Xk

If the Transporter were invented NOW, would you use it or not?

Comments