Transporter interpretation given in Canon Database

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2004-10-01 02:10pm

Apologies if this has been asked before.

Voyager Canon Database wrote:Transporters: as previously surmised, it is not necessary to scan an object in order to transport it. In this case, she can get clean scans of only their bones, yet she is able to successfully transport their entire bodies.

Trekkie dogma has long held that a transporter must scan an object at the atomic level so that it can reproduce it somewhere else. However, in this case we have a crushing disproof of that theory; Torres is able to transport people even though she can only scan a miniscule fraction of their bodies!

We must adopt a new model in light of new evidence. Perhaps transporters employ some kind of "subspace phenomenon" (to use typical treknobabble) which interacts with solid objects through some sort of chain reaction once it is focused upon the target for a sufficient length of time. If it creates some kind of long-range entanglement of properties between point A and point B, it would produce the "transporter effect" without an atomic-level scan (all they would need is a precise location).

This would explain how Torres was able to transport people without scanning their entire bodies, why they can't transport pieces of an enemy ship's armour away (a semi-infinite body leads to rapid fall-off in the chain reaction), the fact that certain materials cannot be transported safely or at all (chain reactions are always material-dependent), as well as other curious, seemingly inconsistent transporter properties such as Star Trek Insurrection, where transporters could not be used in the vicinity of a harmless natural inert ore, but a lock-on tag made it possible (the transporter beam locks onto the lock-on tag and the chain reaction propagates through anything which is physically connected to it; no scans necessary). Harking back to TOS, it also explains how Khan was able to transport the Genesis Device from its co-ordinates alone, and also how a woman was able to force transport by seizing Kirk as the effect began in ST4.

How does this "entangling" hypothesis deal with the Riker clone? If transporters disintegrate and then reconstruct as has previously been assumed, then it would be obvious how that happened. Entanglement seems to be a much more satisfying theory on all other accounts, but how does it explain the cloning event?

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-10-01 02:34pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote: How does this "entangling" hypothesis deal with the Riker clone? If transporters disintegrate and then reconstruct as has previously been assumed, then it would be obvious how that happened. Entanglement seems to be a much more satisfying theory on all other accounts, but how does it explain the cloning event?

err-the entanglement hypothesis doesn't say beans about disintegration/reconstruction not happening, it merely tries to get around the scanning business. Disintegration/Reconstruction still happen, they'd merely be done via some sort of subspace chain reaction instead of whatever else they're supposed to be.
What bothers me is how does this theory explain the ST2 Genesis device beaming any better than the classical one?

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2004-10-01 07:42pm

Well it allows the Genesis device to be beamed up without a sensor lock; you tell the transport computer to create the entanglement effect "here" and it does that. I think it may have trouble with explaining the dangers of transporting people during storms and other conditions without a good lock--it would seem that a partial "hit" would simply spread through the rest of the person and safely transport anyway.

I will be giving this idea extra thought, and it jives well with my ideas concerning phaser properties.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-10-01 07:52pm

The Silence and I wrote:Well it allows the Genesis device to be beamed up without a sensor lock; you tell the transport computer to create the entanglement effect "here" and it does that.

Sorry, no. The classical 'Sensor Scan' method enables transporters to beam it up because they now know where to start the scanning, the 'entanglement' scheme enables them to beam it up because they now know where to start whatever chain reaction enables transport. I fail to see the difference...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-01 10:42pm

Batman wrote:
The Silence and I wrote:Well it allows the Genesis device to be beamed up without a sensor lock; you tell the transport computer to create the entanglement effect "here" and it does that.
Sorry, no. The classical 'Sensor Scan' method enables transporters to beam it up because they now know where to start the scanning, the 'entanglement' scheme enables them to beam it up because they now know where to start whatever chain reaction enables transport. I fail to see the difference...

They CAN'T scan, even if they know where to start scanning. That's the whole point. In ST2, they knew exactly what the beam-down co-ordinates were but they had no way of knowing whether they would beam into solid rock or air, remember? How can they possibly be able to scan anything if they can't even tell whether the transport co-ordinates lead into solid rock? The entanglement theory solves this problem: they can transport "blind". The old theory does not.

Jawawithagun · Post by **Jawawithagun** » 2004-10-02 06:25am

So the sensors "lock" onto a small pice and through a chain reaction the rest is dragged through the transport with it? But how does this chain reaction know where to stop? It transports my clothes with me, sometimes equipment I have standing right beside my feet (IIRC) but my feet are touching the ground ...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-02 10:31am

Jawawithagun wrote:So the sensors "lock" onto a small pice and through a chain reaction the rest is dragged through the transport with it? But how does this chain reaction know where to stop? It transports my clothes with me, sometimes equipment I have standing right beside my feet (IIRC) but my feet are touching the ground ...

The ground is a semi-infinite body; it wouldn't be able to do anything to that. As for surrounding objects, I figure it's probably somewhat variable but you wouldn't notice if a bit of air around the transported person came up with him.

And as for the Riker cloning procedure, I figure that would be a freak three-way entanglement. That's why they can't just do this at will; it is a freak phenomenon. The "convert to data" explanation actually does suggest that they could do it at will.

nasor · Post by **nasor** » 2004-10-02 04:36pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Jawawithagun wrote:So the sensors "lock" onto a small pice and through a chain reaction the rest is dragged through the transport with it? But how does this chain reaction know where to stop? It transports my clothes with me, sometimes equipment I have standing right beside my feet (IIRC) but my feet are touching the ground ...
The ground is a semi-infinite body; it wouldn't be able to do anything to that. As for surrounding objects, I figure it's probably somewhat variable but you wouldn't notice if a bit of air around the transported person came up with him.

What about the scene in ST4 where they beam up two whales and a bunch of sea water? The ocean would probably be a ‘semi-infinite body’ according to your definition, but they were able to beam up a small (well, small compared to whole thing) section of it. This would seem to indicate that they should be able to beam off individual pieces of a space ship, etc.

What if I’m leaning against a stack of crates or a wall when they beam me up – how would the entanglement process know where my clothes etc. ended and the crates/wall began?

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-10-02 05:24pm

nasor wrote: What about the scene in ST4 where they beam up two whales and a bunch of sea water? The ocean would probably be a ‘semi-infinite body’ according to your definition, but they were able to beam up a small (well, small compared to whole thing) section of it.

Who says the chain reaction is allowed to go on forever? For all we know, that might be one of the functions of the ACB-terminating that reaction, so that only the stuff within the confines of the ACB is beamed up.

This would seem to indicate that they should be able to beam off individual pieces of a space ship, etc.

As would me the myriad of incidents of beaming out mounted equipment.
I don't see that as a problem.

What if I’m leaning against a stack of crates or a wall when they beam me up – how would the entanglement process know where my clothes etc. ended and the crates/wall began?

Maybe the change in material is enough to stop the chain reaction?
*shrugs*

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-02 08:29pm

nasor wrote:What about the scene in ST4 where they beam up two whales and a bunch of sea water? The ocean would probably be a ‘semi-infinite body’ according to your definition, but they were able to beam up a small (well, small compared to whole thing) section of it. This would seem to indicate that they should be able to beam off individual pieces of a space ship, etc.

Then why don't they ever do this? Solid chemical bonds aren't the same as fluid contact, and it's established in canon that certain materials do not transport well, so there's nothing wrong with the effect working better on some materials than others.

What if I’m leaning against a stack of crates or a wall when they beam me up – how would the entanglement process know where my clothes etc. ended and the crates/wall began?

Explain how the old theory explains this any better than the new one, when someone could defeat the system by simply grabbing onto someone else who was being transported. If the system was scanning at the atomic level, why would it have any trouble differentiating Kirk from the woman in ST4, and simply separating the two? Instead, she came back with him.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-10-03 08:18am

What about the scene in ST4 where they beam up two whales and a bunch of sea water? The ocean would probably be a ‘semi-infinite body’ according to your definition, but they were able to beam up a small (well, small compared to whole thing) section of it. This would seem to indicate that they should be able to beam off individual pieces of a space ship, etc.

Think Nightcrawler from X-Men. Nightcrawler can transport things touching him such as people holding on to him or objects in his hand when he teleports. But it has a limit. He cant obviously transport the entire world even though his feet are touching the ground So like Nightcrawler the transporter can transport an object and a certain amount of things touching that object.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-10-03 02:37pm

The Shadow wrote:
Think Nightcrawler from X-Men. Nightcrawler can transport things touching him such as people holding on to him or objects in his hand when he teleports. But it has a limit. He cant obviously transport the entire world even though his feet are touching the ground So like Nightcrawler the transporter can transport an object and a certain amount of things touching that object.

bad comparison. iirc, nightcrawler teleports by using an alternate dimension to travel. trek transporters disassemble the body and beam it elsewhere. not really the same thing in terms of what they do.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-10-03 06:14pm

nasor wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Jawawithagun wrote:So the sensors "lock" onto a small pice and through a chain reaction the rest is dragged through the transport with it? But how does this chain reaction know where to stop? It transports my clothes with me, sometimes equipment I have standing right beside my feet (IIRC) but my feet are touching the ground ...
The ground is a semi-infinite body; it wouldn't be able to do anything to that. As for surrounding objects, I figure it's probably somewhat variable but you wouldn't notice if a bit of air around the transported person came up with him.
What about the scene in ST4 where they beam up two whales and a bunch of sea water? The ocean would probably be a ‘semi-infinite body’ according to your definition, but they were able to beam up a small (well, small compared to whole thing) section of it. This would seem to indicate that they should be able to beam off individual pieces of a space ship, etc.

IIRC, Scotty programmed the transporter to beam up the surrounding seawater along with the two whales. Past what was programmed in, the surrounding ocean would fulfill the definition of a semi-infinite body and the "transporter effect" would damp away.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2004-10-04 01:16pm

no need to make a new topic, reading through the database I've spotted a few things but most of all this is quite incorrect.

You say Turkana IV, Tasha's homeworld had it's membership revoked in the fashion of a rich neighbourhood kicking out its failiures, but I recalled something different being said on screen, they broke away of their own accord- the Encyclopedia agrees (im aware thats not canon but I dont think they made this up, I think it mirrors dialogue)

Whilst officially a Federation protectorate, the planet's government began breaking down in the 2330s. Dozens of factions developed, and civil war broke out. The Turkana government gave emergency powers to the two largest factions, the Coalition and the Alliance, but they were quickly overthrown by those cadres, and the planet broke away from the Federation in the 2350s, the two factions declaring the planet's indepedence.

I may be wrong but I think the thing about the factions declaring their own independance from the UFP was spoken on screen. I know the fed still suck for allowing a civil war that would cause most of the things they abhore, to rage for 20 years. But ehm.. indeed.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-04 02:06pm

Jon wrote:no need to make a new topic, reading through the database I've spotted a few things but most of all this is quite incorrect.

You say Turkana IV, Tasha's homeworld had it's membership revoked in the fashion of a rich neighbourhood kicking out its failiures, but I recalled something different being said on screen, they broke away of their own accord- the Encyclopedia agrees (im aware thats not canon but I dont think they made this up, I think it mirrors dialogue)

Whilst officially a Federation protectorate, the planet's government began breaking down in the 2330s. Dozens of factions developed, and civil war broke out. The Turkana government gave emergency powers to the two largest factions, the Coalition and the Alliance, but they were quickly overthrown by those cadres, and the planet broke away from the Federation in the 2350s, the two factions declaring the planet's indepedence.

I may be wrong but I think the thing about the factions declaring their own independance from the UFP was spoken on screen. I know the fed still suck for allowing a civil war that would cause most of the things they abhore, to rage for 20 years. But ehm.. indeed.

What does this have to do with transporters? And do you realize that the Encyclopedia is only valid insofar as it echoes the onscreen material, so it's not really evidence in and of itself? Unless you've seen the episode in question and can confirm that the dialogue is different than what was in the script, I don't see what you're hoping to disprove here.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2004-10-05 01:40pm

Nothing to do with Transporters, just didnt want to make a new topic about a similar issue. (As this was about the canon database.) Yup, I was pretty sure that you only use on screen 'canon' material as your source, I wasn't hoping to disprove and have no solid evidence, was just pointing out that I recalled something being said on screen- that the people of this world severed relations with the federation themselves- warning them that any 'visitors' to the world would be killed, they denounced membership by their own accord, had a quick look at the encycolpedia and st.com which in turn echo'd that- hence my mentioning them. Still, I'll stop there as I'm sure anything I say is meaningless without script extractions and so on to support it.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-10-05 03:16pm

Jon wrote:Nothing to do with Transporters, just didnt want to make a new topic about a similar issue. (As this was about the canon database.) Yup, I was pretty sure that you only use on screen 'canon' material as your source, I wasn't hoping to disprove and have no solid evidence, was just pointing out that I recalled something being said on screen- that the people of this world severed relations with the federation themselves- warning them that any 'visitors' to the world would be killed, they denounced membership by their own accord, had a quick look at the encycolpedia and st.com which in turn echo'd that- hence my mentioning them. Still, I'll stop there as I'm sure anything I say is meaningless without script extractions and so on to support it.

There is no evidence they were ever Federation members, we know only that they are an Earth colony which severed relations with the Federation, so you are correct that we have no evidence that the Federation threw them out (indeed we have no evidence they were ever "in").

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-05 04:25pm

Interesting. So colonies of the Federation's capital world are not necessarily part of the Federation at any time? Then why were the Maquis considered subject to Federation rule and Federation edict? Did they undergo formal Federation induction ceremonies and procedures when they could spare up free time from battling Cardassians?

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-10-05 05:08pm

Darth Wong wrote:Interesting. So colonies of the Federation's capital world are not necessarily part of the Federation at any time?

Earth colonies are exactly that, we have examples of Earth colonies that aren't Federation worlds.
The only other use of the term Earth Colony that I am aware of (in modern trek, I believe TOS had them though) was in discussion of a non Federation world (in "Up the Long Ladder") settled by humans.

Then why were the Maquis considered subject to Federation rule and Federation edict?

Because they are Federation (or Cardassian) planets.

I see no link between the two examples, one involves established Federation worlds and the other involves an Earth colony which may or may not have been a Federation world at some point.

Did they undergo formal Federation induction ceremonies and procedures when they could spare up free time from battling Cardassians?

I assume you understand that the Marquis colonies did not spring forth from the ether upon their declaration of war upon the Cardassians.

The Marquis colonies were settled as Federation worlds and were recognised as such by all concerned, the Federation then gave some of them to the Cardassians, at which point they became Cardassian.

Therefore the Marquis colonies are (or rather were) Federation or Cardassian colonies and thus fall under the jurisdiction of those two powers, the Marquis terrorists (as the Federation viewed them) based upon those worlds never declared independence from the Federation and even if they had the Federation would have been under no obligation to recognise such a secession (unless Federation laws mandates such, which I doubt).

Enola Straight · Post by **Enola Straight** » 2004-10-09 02:57pm

Back to the topic...

I had always figured the scanning prior to transporter lock was to measure the orientation and dimensions of the transport object, and adjust the annular confinement beam accordingly.

I'd say an ACB shaped like a cylinder 2Mx1M suffices for most humanoids.

Is that humanoid standing or lying down? How is the beam site oriented relative to the transporter pad?

Under certain circumstances the scanner may not have such a clear idea as to the boundary of the object surface...the transporter chief might accidentally beam someone without their feet...or something else

.

The Torres Skelletal Lock focuses on the denser minerals of the bones rather than the soft flesh.

Barton · Post by **Barton** » 2004-10-11 07:15am

Voyager Canon Database wrote: This would explain how Torres was able to transport people without scanning their entire bodies, why they can't transport pieces of an enemy ship's armour away (a semi-infinite body leads to rapid fall-off in the chain reaction),

(In relation to hull)
Voyager's Futures End episode has shown attempted beaming of Aeon timeship. The failure to transport Aeon timeship was due to issues with Aeon (or related technology)’s hacking toolset against Voyager’s computers (using transport beam as carrier wave to hack in).

Barton · Post by **Barton** » 2004-10-11 07:29am

Darth Wong wrote:
nasor wrote:What about the scene in ST4 where they beam up two whales and a bunch of sea water? The ocean would probably be a ‘semi-infinite body’ according to your definition, but they were able to beam up a small (well, small compared to whole thing) section of it. This would seem to indicate that they should be able to beam off individual pieces of a space ship, etc.
Then why don't they ever do this? Solid chemical bonds aren't the same as fluid contact, and it's established in canon that certain materials do not transport well, so there's nothing wrong with the effect working better on some materials than others.

What if I’m leaning against a stack of crates or a wall when they beam me up – how would the entanglement process know where my clothes etc. ended and the crates/wall began?
Explain how the old theory explains this any better than the new one, when someone could defeat the system by simply grabbing onto someone else who was being transported. If the system was scanning at the atomic level, why would it have any trouble differentiating Kirk from the woman in ST4, and simply separating the two? Instead, she came back with him.

In TNG Emergence, transporters+computers was use as replicators for building a mini-starship.

Barton · Post by **Barton** » 2004-10-11 07:33am

Batman wrote:
nasor wrote: What about the scene in ST4 where they beam up two whales and a bunch of sea water? The ocean would probably be a ‘semi-infinite body’ according to your definition, but they were able to beam up a small (well, small compared to whole thing) section of it.
Who says the chain reaction is allowed to go on forever? For all we know, that might be one of the functions of the ACB-terminating that reaction, so that only the stuff within the confines of the ACB is beamed up.
This would seem to indicate that they should be able to beam off individual pieces of a space ship, etc.
As would me the myriad of incidents of beaming out mounted equipment.
I don't see that as a problem.
What if I’m leaning against a stack of crates or a wall when they beam me up – how would the entanglement process know where my clothes etc. ended and the crates/wall began?
Maybe the change in material is enough to stop the chain reaction?
*shrugs*

In TNG Natural Selection there’s some short of filtering device.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-10-11 08:36am

Barton wrote:
Voyager Canon Database wrote: This would explain how Torres was able to transport people without scanning their entire bodies, why they can't transport pieces of an enemy ship's armour away (a semi-infinite body leads to rapid fall-off in the chain reaction),
(In relation to hull)
Voyager's Futures End episode has shown attempted beaming of Aeon timeship. The failure to transport Aeon timeship was due to issues with Aeon (or related technology)’s hacking toolset against Voyager’s computers (using transport beam as carrier wave to hack in).

Huh ? I thought there was a dampening field that was disrupting the transporters beam.

Barton · Post by **Barton** » 2004-10-11 08:22pm

The Shadow wrote:
Barton wrote:
Voyager Canon Database wrote: This would explain how Torres was able to transport people without scanning their entire bodies, why they can't transport pieces of an enemy ship's armour away (a semi-infinite body leads to rapid fall-off in the chain reaction),
(In relation to hull)
Voyager's Futures End episode has shown attempted beaming of Aeon timeship. The failure to transport Aeon timeship was due to issues with Aeon (or related technology)’s hacking toolset against Voyager’s computers (using transport beam as carrier wave to hack in).
Huh ? I thought there was a dampening field that was disrupting the transporters beam.

The cited scene as follows.
+++
Starling: The forcefield's down!

Dunbar: Sir, the timeship!

Starling: They're trying to teleport the ship!
+++

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Transporter interpretation given in Canon Database

Transporter interpretation given in Canon Database

Re: Transporter interpretation given in Canon Database

Re: Transporter interpretation given in Canon Database

Re: Transporter interpretation given in Canon Database

Re: Transporter interpretation given in Canon Database