Talk:Transporter (Star Trek)

message: Well - there you go folks - ST was right? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19489385  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.120.214 (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Oops. :) (Compensators)

message: That new topic addresses only a similarity in the fictional universe of the tv series Dr. Who.  I wonder whether it's the case of creating a topic, albeit short, whithin this article to discuss an aspect of another tv show that has its own specific article.  I believe it would suffice to link the Dr. Who article in the "See also" category (maybe with a direct note to the fact that it features a similar fictional technology).  Unless people object, I will proceed to this within the next few days (giving time for a discussion in this page).  Regards,  Redux 16:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other transporters topic 

message: "A disease affecting Pulaski is cured, and the damage it has done removed, by transporter."
Is it really cured?  I had the impression that Pulaski was "remade" with a previous, uncontaminated sample of her DNA. PrometheusX303 20:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnatural selection 

message: I was listening to Paul Harvey today and he mentioned that Physysists in Denmark were able to take a document (single page) dematerialize it (turn it into a ray of light) and rematerialize it 1/2 meter away. Back in 1997, scientists were successful in taking a couple photons of light and transporting it a few millimeters, and in 2002 they were able to do the same, but 55 meters apart, simulating a distance of 2km.
1997 Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/201815.stm
http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/at/tele.htm
2002 Source:
http://p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue22/Physics_22.htm
Danball1976 01:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transporters in Current time 

message: Earlier today, a user at IP address 67.187.176.202 added the following to the "Capabilities and limitations" section of the article. I feel it was more appropriately added here, so I cut it from the article and pasted it here without editorial change:
"its interesting how some of these explanations are from the standpoint of being with in the startrek universe cannon while others seem to activly mock star trek also interesting that any storyline a particular individual cant follow or doesnt understand becomes technobabble the simple truth is startrek is a collection of the works of hundreds of different authors so theirs bound to be some incongruities they tie it together when they can.. just try to enjoy it when they cant"
Dave 12:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment removed from article

message: The article mentions that transporters can not beam through sheilds, and then lists a number of times where this was sidestepped through various means.  It lists First Contact as being an example of transporting through sheilds.  When did this happen?  The only time I can think of where an editor might have thought someone was beaming through the sheilds was when the Borg first boarded the Enterprise.  It was stated later in dialogue that the Enterprise's sheilds were down when they attacked the Borg Sphere, though I don't think they elaborated on why.--Raguleader 07:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the reference is to when the Enterprise beams the Defiant's crew aboard. --EEMeltonIV 20:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Defiant's sheilds were down at the time, and there's nothing to show that the Enterprise did not lower her sheilds to recover Defiant's crew, although they were shown moments before to be taking fire from the Borg, who probably wouldn't stop firing at the Enterprise just because the first shot didn't work (then again, if the Enterprise lowered her sheilds and started transporting crew off a crippled ship, she may have gone down the list of threats and the Borg could have then focused on another ship, but then, this is just fanwanking on my part).--Raguleader 09:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, is it bad when I read a comment here, think "What the hell is this guy thinking?" and then realize it's one of my own posts?--Raguleader 10:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Either that, or Enterprise lowered shields on one small spot only, maintaining shields around the rest of the ship, while being unshielded only in the area required to let a transport beam through--129.241.130.228 06:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transporters beaming through shields 

message: I don't know about the "it's unclear why transporter rooms exist" bit. The transporter room is fairly clearly as much a meeting and preparation room as it is an actual disembarkation point. An away team has to meet somewhere to pick up equipment and undergo a final briefing - it might as well be the transporter room. Additionally, I have always got the impression that site-to-site transport is a relatively recent (as of TNG) innovation, so perhaps transporter rooms are maintained out of institutional inertia.
As for the six spots - if you watch away teams materialise, they are often more spread out than they were on the transporter platform. I think that as well as a single annular confinement beam for the whole platform, each of the six spots has its own dedicated sub-beam, allowing up to six people to be beamed to and from six separate locations simultaneously. They probably use the latter when beaming into unknown situations so that a) the away team don’t materialise in a tight group, where they’d be an easy target, b) the team doesn't have to reassemble in one place in order to be beamed up together, and c) an ACB failure caused by unpredictable conditions doesn’t kill the whole team. Has anyone read the TNG tech manual?Denorios 12:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transporter rooms & the six spots 

message: I am not sure I understand what is wrong with the philosophical section. Give me tips and I will see what I can do. RickardV 22:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical questions 

message: Can there be a small section on describing how the transporter works behind the scenes PRIOR to using the computer to make the effect. I heard about something to do with optical lens but am not sure about the details. 70.70.209.25 14:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behind the Scenes 

message: :Moved this section of OR to talk page. Please re-add in whole or in part with the addition of citations --EEMeltonIV 05:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't identity still remain a one-one relation but in a more specific manner? IE when two people are created they may have had the same identity experiences up to that point, but upon being separate entities they'd have separate identities but only to minor specific degrees. Also, what if there are aliens that are closer to the borg in respect that act as 'one entity' through many bodies, though the borg do have individualism through the comprised pieces, what about telepathic shared bodies as such. As for the quantum impossibility of creating. I didn't read the articles related to identical copy copies of an object impossible, as for technical limitation in life sure, but as far as TNG, wouldn't that not be a problem at all for say, Q.
Derek Parfit in his book Reasons and Persons  (1982) uses teletransportation examples to test different intuitions regarding personal identity.
In recognition of these philosophical questions, the Star Trek: Enterprise writers had Emory Erickson allude to these in the dialogue of "Daedalus."
James Blish in his book Spock must die considers the question of whether the person being recreated at the destination has the exact same soul of the person that entered the transported on the other end.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.224.37 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philisophical questions 

message: I've just been going through the extras on my Forbidden Planet DVD and the deceleration beams are mentioned as an influence on Star Trek's transporter effects, is this enough to be put in the article? Alastairward (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were from Gene Roddenberry then you could put it in as established fact.  However, if it isn't, put it in as "<this person> said that ..." with the appropriate reference in reference tags.  You should include in the reference which DVD it is on, which extra on that DVD and how far into that extra (minutes would work because the statement is going to take a few seconds); just use the counter at the top, which most players provide via a button on the remote. — Val42 (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences 

message: This article criticises the concept of the Star Trek transporter:. Fences&Windows 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: It's illogical, Captain

message: In the lead we read: "Gene Roddenberry in 1964 had not seen The Fly upon his first draft of 'The Cage', but it was brought to his attention, and this is how the transporter was considered." This really should be explained further (preferably by someone who can provide the citation currently requested at this point in the article). It took me a minute to realize what the connection was, and I've actually seen both versions of that movie. Those who have not seen either version would surely not understand the reference at all. - dcljr (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fly 

message: I see the word "pad" used, but I don't see any effort to formally name the components.  Chamber, pod, booth, platform, disc, beam bulkhead?  — MaxEnt 12:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pad 

message: The below is a strong claim, which I'm dubious about.  Given it's unreferenced, I moved it here:
:Notably the first half of the transportation process has been developed and proven by random disintegration of particles at the atomic level.  Movement of subatomic particles to a new location is possible with a variety of conventional methods, as long as they don't need to pass through matter.  However it is noted that the re-assembly of the components has yet to be confirmed.
-- Beland (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed claim 

message: As usual , no mention that 'matter transmission' was a staple of prose science fiction going back to the 19th century.
Became common in written SF by the 1940s. (Way before Forbidden Planet or The Fly.) There may even be 'receiver-less' stories. Early on Roddenberry acknowledged his debt to science fiction literature, but seems to be a detail no one cares about.
Odd that Wikipedia contains no entry for 'Matter Transmitter' , that I can find, should be one and a link to it.aajacksoniv (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose Science Fiction 

message: See transporter in the film Forbidden Planet (1956)
The Android Robbie also shows up 148.170.185.76 (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  See transporter in the 1956 film Forbidden Planet