IIRC there are 3 different methods seen for food creation in Star Trek.
Protein Resequencers (ST:ENT, ST:TOS): which presumably take stored amino acids and combined them with supplementary minerals and flavouring into nutritious cubes that look like marshmallows.
Matter Recombinators/Food Sythesizers (ST:TOS): capable of taking stored matter and producing ‘simple’ foodstuffs like drinks, iced cream, slabs of protein similar to chicken breast or steak, etc. I think these were sometimes called replicators but the distinction is the production is done elsewhere and the food delivered in seconds on request.
Replicators (ST:TNG +): I swear they described this as direct energy to matter conversion but I can’t find the source for this. The seemingly ridiculous energy demands this requires can be justified by the fact they use matter+antimatter reactions for energy supply. A cup of water would take a cup of fuel give or take. (edit: To confuse the issue, it’s also described in Discovery that waste matter is broken down and used for things like replication, but matter=energy so it is all the same in the end).
Transporters: it’s been clear from the beginning the matter is being deconstructed into energy and sent to the destination where it is reconstructed using the original’s pattern. The ethics of it are dubious because every time you see someone transport they are being literally killed in front of your eyes and a new copy created elsewhere.
The ethics of it are dubious because every time you see someone transport they are being literally killed in front of your eyes and a new copy created elsewhere.
They “nuh-uh’d” this in Enterprise. The inventor of the technology is introduced and basically says the people who propagate that theory are a constant thorn in his side, despite having no basis for it in the reality of that universe.
They also show people experiencing, and reacting to other things in, the matter streams during longer transports. Kind of hard to do if you’re dead.
They “nuh-uh’d” this in Enterprise. The inventor of the technology is introduced and basically says the people who propagate that theory are a constant thorn in his side, despite having no basis for it in the reality of that universe.
You’re welcome to believe the inventor if you wish, but I’d ask if you also believe the CEO of Boeing when he says their planes are safe…
They also show people experiencing, and reacting to other things in, the matter streams during longer transports. Kind of hard to do if you’re dead.
Yeah I can see why this’d be confusing. Keep in mind the transport process at the referenced time periods takes ~ 6 seconds. 3 to dematerialize, near instantaneous travel to the destination, and 3 to rematerialze. It is that part in the middle which makes it clear the person has died. Being conscious in the matter stream and hence thinking you’re the same person is the result of it being a near-perfect copy.
There are far more examples that refute the inventor:
Dr. Mbemba kept his daughter stored in a transporter buffer for months. She retained no memories of during her storage. Her brain and heart both stopped. This is clinical death by definition. Thus,
every time the transported are held within the buffer completely for any period of time (seconds while they disarm weapons, or decide what to do with them on screen) they are clearly dead and a floppy disk is being discussed.
Thomas Riker’s accident creating Wil’s duplicate. People are almost literally photocopies of a destroyed original by this example alone.
IIRC there are 3 different methods seen for food creation in Star Trek.
Protein Resequencers (ST:ENT, ST:TOS): which presumably take stored amino acids and combined them with supplementary minerals and flavouring into nutritious cubes that look like marshmallows.
Matter Recombinators/Food Sythesizers (ST:TOS): capable of taking stored matter and producing ‘simple’ foodstuffs like drinks, iced cream, slabs of protein similar to chicken breast or steak, etc. I think these were sometimes called replicators but the distinction is the production is done elsewhere and the food delivered in seconds on request.
Replicators (ST:TNG +): I swear they described this as direct energy to matter conversion but I can’t find the source for this. The seemingly ridiculous energy demands this requires can be justified by the fact they use matter+antimatter reactions for energy supply. A cup of water would take a cup of fuel give or take. (edit: To confuse the issue, it’s also described in Discovery that waste matter is broken down and used for things like replication, but matter=energy so it is all the same in the end).
Transporters: it’s been clear from the beginning the matter is being deconstructed into energy and sent to the destination where it is reconstructed using the original’s pattern. The ethics of it are dubious because every time you see someone transport they are being literally killed in front of your eyes and a new copy created elsewhere.
They “nuh-uh’d” this in Enterprise. The inventor of the technology is introduced and basically says the people who propagate that theory are a constant thorn in his side, despite having no basis for it in the reality of that universe.
They also show people experiencing, and reacting to other things in, the matter streams during longer transports. Kind of hard to do if you’re dead.
You’re welcome to believe the inventor if you wish, but I’d ask if you also believe the CEO of Boeing when he says their planes are safe…
Yeah I can see why this’d be confusing. Keep in mind the transport process at the referenced time periods takes ~ 6 seconds. 3 to dematerialize, near instantaneous travel to the destination, and 3 to rematerialze. It is that part in the middle which makes it clear the person has died. Being conscious in the matter stream and hence thinking you’re the same person is the result of it being a near-perfect copy.
There are far more examples that refute the inventor: