Why do people on Star Trek bother going to the transporter room if they can just beam out from the bridge
..., or anywhere on the ship?
..., or anywhere on the ship?
Maybe it's more efficient to use the Transporter Room for routine use.
shareYeah, I've always assumed (In TOS, you don't need to assume, they actually stated that intra-ship beaming was dangerous) that there are too many power conduits, shield generators and other interference producing things dotted around the interior of the ship, which is also made of the most ridiculously impermeable metals... So, doable, but even with the staggeringly precise technology of TNG... just a hair more dangerous than beaming from a transporter room.
shareAlways my assumption as well. Also, it's been shown a few times that having a talented technician at the controls helps a good deal in hairy situations, so the transporter room probably has built in safeguards so your regular schmo doesn't murder people.
shareThere's also the theory that you die every time you're transported, and the reassembled molecules only think they're Captain Kirk, but they're a new person with a fake memory.
shareI've never bought into that theory. I don't remember the exact quotes, but language on the Original Series seemed to indicate that it was converting the transport-ee into energy and firing them through a beam and re-assembling them on the other end of the beam. I suppose, arguably, that process is killing them, but for purposes of in-universe logic, I don't think it's true.
shareI doubt if the designers of the transporters even knew for sure themselves. It's more a philosophical question. But the conversion would have killed the original being. The reassembled being insists he's the original, but is he really? He thinks he is.
shareYeah, I know that that's the philosophical argument. I just assume that since it's standard tech in the Trek universe, and since nobody brings it up in-show (to my knowledge, anyway...? Maybe I haven't seen it/don't recall it) it's not a big worry. I'm guessing that they have definitive proof that the conversion has killed nobody. I don't know what that is, but I think they know. It's a world where beings like Q exist and where faster-than-light travel is possible - and a thousand other fantastic things - and I just don't think that in-universe it tracks that anybody's getting killed by a transporter beam.
It is a fun out-of-Trek-universe thought experiment, though.
Well they're not gonna bring it up in the show because they don't want the audience to lose faith in the characters. I mean why should we love Captain Kirk if that's not even him anymore, but just a shell with an implanted memory?
Teletransportation of material has some basis in science (I would guess). Q doesn't.
Sure, teleporting seems more possible than a Q being to some extent.
Until they do bring it up on the show, I'm assuming that it doesn't work by killing a person and making a new one on the other end.
Yeah, but they're just like us and not sure if it kills them or not. They don't know any more than us.
Maybe Captain Kirk wonders every time he transports if this is his last thought.
Maybe, but they don't even flinch while getting in. Again: since it doesn't seem to be an issue, I'm assuming it isn't.
We don't know that they don't know. Maybe they have some knowledge about how the system works where they know it doesn't do that.
Well I would love for the system to work as promised. It's just that small doubt which is scary.
But neither of us will ever use a transporter so I guess it doesn't really matter. 🤣
Yeah, in real life, I don't know that I'd get into the transporter. I would definitely need to see some kind of proof that it was really me coming out the other end - although I don't know what that proof could even be.
shareThe way it's done in some of the shows, no one needs to stay dead. If their pattern is saved in the transporter, just rebuild him. He won't have memory of having died either.
shareMy question is though, is a stored memory the same as the individual? And he won't remember dying because that was not him who died.
shareTrue. As you said every time a person uses the transporter he dies and is replaced with a
clone. The clone will be embedded with the memory log saved before his death.
I liked what they did in Dark Matter better. The had technology that cloned you at
another location. So the real person never left the original location. The memory of the clone could be uploaded latter.
Okay, that's a much better way to handle it. The original person is not molecularly disassembled. A projected clone is created to act in a different location. When the clone's purpose is done, it's disassembled.* The original person just watches it all from a remote location.
*But then you'd have a whole "right to life" movement evolve around clones. They would be against killing the clone and would claim it's a new person who has a right to exist. 🤣
Presumably, it's considered a bad idea to do anything that could potentially compromise the safety or effective functioning of the bridge.
There's a certain amount of finesse involved in transporting someone, whenever anything goes awry the engineer twiddles and adjusts and changes things, so transporting does not appear to be a 100% reliable process. Therefore, it would be a bad idea to transport things in and out of the bridge as an everyday thing, because if something goes wrong then a vital officer or an important part of the ship's controlling panels might be compromised. So sure, it could be done in an emergency, but not to spare a lazy-ass officer a walk to the transporter room!
While that may be theoretically true, we don't see it on the shows. Without a malfunction (usually caused by a Strange Entity) or some other kind of noticeable interference, the transporters are accurate and run like Swiss clocks. It's a good explanation, I suppose, but they're never nervous about it and they never seem to bring it up as a problem when they need somebody beamed directly to/from a non-transporter environment. "We're beaming directly to sickbay!" is never a problem, for instance.
shareAll speculation, of course!
But I do assume that when you're using equipment that has that billion-to-one chance on interfering with a ship in deep space, those one-on-bazillion odds still aren't quite good enough to allow routine transportation from the bridge.
It's as good an explanation as any. Even if it's just a bit easier on the transporter operator, it'd be reason enough. Like, maybe it's not a problem to lock on coordinates, it's just something that has to be specifically done, and unless minimal time is imperative, there's no real reason not to just go to the transporter room.
shareI mean they could have a small transporter room off of the bridge for the officers to use, but they don't. And I don't know exactly where on the ship the transporter room is, but it doesn't seem to be right next to either the bridge or the main engine complex, and I speculate that there's a reason for that.
We use cars now, we know they're not completely safe, but they're so convenient that we take the risk of getting on freeways to get where we're going, and I assume the transporter is safer than that... but not 100% no-possibility-of-failure safe. So, there are a few tiny limits on how it's used.
Lazy writing or the writer thought it would look cool beaming down from somewhere different.
share