• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

How do Star Trek Transporters work?

kafka47

SOC-14 5K
Marquis
Just was mulling this one over...the ship would have to remain in fairly close to geosynchronous orbit for the whole transporter thing to work. Furthermore, have precise scanners to pick up the individuals in question. Yes, of course, Hollywood is all about handwavium but there is no feasible way that this could actually work.
 
Not to mention converting all the atoms to energy and then back again.

The Stargate transport rings or some sort of mini-wormhole generator are better handwaves IMHO.
 
You're only just now realizing this ;)

Actually the way they work is...

...the plot writer pens "The away party beams... " :)

It was an act of desperation for part of the early scripts. They didn't have the budget to do all the sets they wanted, in this case specifically, those involving the shuttle craft. The original ST universe didn't have Transporters, it (planetary interface and such) was all going to be done by shuttle craft. But when they got the go ahead to start shooting, but couldn't do the shuttle craft scenes... well, they invented Transporters and ran with it, and have been waving their arms ever since to explain the science behind it.
 
I think it was in the 2nd season they got the budget for a shuttle, but only because Aurora Model company wanted the license: they actually built the shuttle I think so that they could make the model of said shuttle. Then suddenly we started having shuttle rides and reasons why a transporter would not work. That and it was a quicker transition since who wants to watch a hour show where 45 minutes are spent in a shuttle: Are we there yet? Spock kicked me! Checkov keeps poking me!
 
I have a vague memory that the saucer section was meant to detatch to land - like finally happened in STNG - and hence have the clasic flying saucer element.

Thank goodness they couldn't afford it.
 
Dunno about the Star Trek transporters, but I developed a rationale for a Traveller teleport machine IMTU - only at high TL, though.

Briefly, Jump Gates are introduced at TL16 and the availability of antimatter at TL17 allows use of a different 'layer' of Jump space thanks to the increased energy density, allowing short jumps of less than 1 week (a fortuitous mathematical adaptation of my Jumpspace Formula). Later developments allow an unprotected human to traverse a gate, allow transfer using only a single gate, and allow single gate transfer to form pocket universes. So Jump Gates, Teleports and Pocket Universes are all logical developments of Jump technology IMTU. I'm not sure that they have less handwavium than the Trek system, but at least it's Traveller Tech. :)

BTW, if the Trek device can beam through the planet, meson-style, you wouldn't need synch orbit, and Trek canon has beaming underground.
 
...BTW, if the Trek device can beam through the planet, meson-style, you wouldn't need synch orbit, and Trek canon has beaming underground.

Only where the writers needed it to: next ep it could not even go through a planetary atmosphere due to some interference, necessitating the use of a *gasp* shuttle so that the shuttle can crash & strand them on the ground (and hopefully they've changed the 8 track by now!)
 
It wasn't exactly an "act of desperation". Roddenberry and crew had to come in on time and under budget. That's live or die in TV. Roddenberry was heavily influenced by "Forbidden Planet", and originally wanted to land the ship. But special effects were handmade and tricky back then, and thus, expensive. As the concept of the ship grew, they realised the thought of landing a 14 story ship was ludicrous. Then came the idea of the shuttlecraft. They actually had the shuttlecraft in the first season, "Galileo 7", but that too was finicky model work.

Then they hit on the idea of the transporter. A simple lap disolve, a little sparkle, voila! The same effects had been used for years to make ghosts dissappear, etc. so any effects company could do it. And the facts that it looked cool and got the characters into the story faster were a happy bonus.

Even at the beginning, people pointed out problems with the idea. Early on, they had a consultant from the Rand corporation as a science adviser. I think his name was Kellam DeForest, but I have to find my copy of "The Making of Star Trek". He would read a script, and send back a memo with notes about his concerns. One said, in effect, if the transporter can get you into a story fast, can't it also get you out of a story fast? If Captain April (the original script captain's name) and company get into a scrape, why not just beam out? The science adviser then asked, "Where's the fun in that? Where's the adventure?" He was less concerned with the science of it than the guy in front of his TV screaming at the tube, "Moron! Beam up!"

But the magic transporter also created stories. Two of my favorites, "Enemy Within" and "Mirror, Mirror", could not have happened without the transporter.

As far as the science, other authors have pointed out that the transporter in effect destroys the person beamed, disintegrates him, if you will, and turns him into a beam of energy, which is the fired at the planet. I mass about 76 kg. Using E=MC 2, if I did my math right, is about 6.8e18 joules, about the amount of energy released by the Indian Oacean earthquake that caused the tsunami. Seems beaming down is an act of war! Also, the system has to be 100% efficient, since any losses come out... where? Your heart, lung, brain?

Also, let's say Ensign Redshirt gets lunched by the monster du jour. Why not put 76 kg of sand through the transporter with Ensign Redshirt's pattern, and voila, new Ensign Redshirt. In fact, why wait until he's dead? Why not just keep replicating Ensign Redshirts to make a replicated army? There was an SF story like this, where scientists were trying to get into a trapped alien vault on the moon. They chose a soldier, beamed him up to the vault, with full telemetry. The first trap kills him. They note what it did, figure a way to defeat it, beam him up again with the new info. Beam, die, repeat.

For your own peace of mind, some sort of space warp portal, like Heinlein's "Tunnel in the Sky", would save you many headaches.
 
Just was mulling this one over...the ship would have to remain in fairly close to geosynchronous orbit for the whole transporter thing to work.

Why?

Cf. James Blish, "Spock Must Die!": the transporter acts upon objects by creating an equivalent (quantum) energy state at the destination (presumably by shifting the object's wave function's "local" value). Given that by definition, the destination location will itself have a different energy state that the origin location, the requirement that the two reference frames be stationary relative to each other is superfluous, and indeed nearly impossible to achieve in practical applications.

Although Jump drive presumably operates upon a different principle/mechanism, the same conservation of energy considerations apply, which is why you can Jump from one potential energy state to another within the same galaxy; it's all compensated for by the calculations and the (extra) energy expended by the machinery making the process function.
 
Plagerism is the Best Form of Imitation

Here's a quick history lesson: Go and watch the original Buck Rogers serial with Buster Crabbe. You'll see a 'transporter' in action. I've no doubt The Great Bird of the Galaxy saw this at one time or another.
 
Apart from the usual concerns of converting matter into energy, I always get hung up on the idea that what materialises at the other end is not the same person, but just a facsimile of them, but that gets into a discussion about souls or spirits and stuff.

A portal / gate thing at least gets you out of that one, but does mandate some kind of structure or mechanism at each end.
 
Apart from the usual concerns of converting matter into energy, I always get hung up on the idea that what materialises at the other end is not the same person, but just a facsimile of them, but that gets into a discussion about souls or spirits and stuff.

This is actually a major theme running through "Spock Must Die!"; James Blish (who wrote many of, and edited all of, the novelizations of the TOS episodes) has Dr. McCoy get into a metaphysical debate with Scotty about whether or not transporting someone is actually murdering them in favor of creating a duplicate elsewhere and if so, does the putative "soul" reincarnate on the other end or is the duplicate soulless, et cetera...

Which is then all backstory for McCoy's perennial dislike of the device...

(In the story, which is technically the first Star Trek novel as such by the way, a transporter accident creates two Spocks -- one of whom, of course, is the proverbial Evil Twin... but I digress.)
 
The teleporter has been explained to death, and looking up "teleportation" on wikipedia will get you a lot of explanations for it.

As for me, there was one 1960's tv gadget that I've never seen anyone explain, and that was the costume changer on "Batman". I mean, they slide down the batpoles in bruce's study wearing reglular clothes and come down into the batcave wearing their costumes? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?:oo:
 
Never mind the whole dematerializing and rematerializing thing, which can be justified, however vaguely, with television physics (kind of like anime physics, but with live action)…

Star Trek transporters violate an even more basic issue that causes my suspension of disbelief to bottom out. Explain this, if you can--

When you beam down to the planet, you have a transmitter in the ship, but no receiver on the planet. When you beam back up, you have a receiver in the ship, but no transmitter on the planet! What perverse twist of physics will allow that to work?

There's no handwavium in the universe that will fix THAT problem!
 
Never mind the whole dematerializing and rematerializing thing, which can be justified, however vaguely, with television physics (kind of like anime physics, but with live action)…

Star Trek transporters violate an even more basic issue that causes my suspension of disbelief to bottom out. Explain this, if you can--

When you beam down to the planet, you have a transmitter in the ship, but no receiver on the planet. When you beam back up, you have a receiver in the ship, but no transmitter on the planet! What perverse twist of physics will allow that to work?

There's no handwavium in the universe that will fix THAT problem!

Apparently it just requires a transceiver at one point.
 
I have a vague memory that the saucer section was meant to detatch to land - like finally happened in STNG - and hence have the clasic flying saucer element.

Thank goodness they couldn't afford it.

Yeah, IIRC the primary hull in TOS was detachable for emergency use only - i.e., it was a one time deal.
 
Back
Top