"Miracle" tech in Science Fiction

[Joelist]

If this is the wrong category mods feel free to put it in the correct one.

This is an outgrowth of a discussion Bluce and I were having regarding a Doctor Who episode. In it we started briefly to look at the problems that some of the technology that is included in Science fiction shows and literature creates for the writing of plots.

One such example is the TARDIS in Doctor Who. Because it can travel anywhere and anywhen, it has the potential to render any and all decisions made by characters meaningless because if it turns out bad you can always just go back and undo it. Classic Who (before the new series) avoided this issue by having the Time Lords standing watch over the whole space-time continuum, ready to stop such actions as violations of the Laws of Time. One of the more foolish decisions made by Russell T Davies when he brought Who back was to make the Time Lords extinct - thus removing the barrier to this problem. Since then writers have had to invent a variety of different plot devices (Reapers, damaged fabric of Space-Time, Paradoxes, etc.) to allow the decisions of the characters to have meaning - by giving them permanence.

The same charge can be made against other Science Fiction franchises as well.

For example, the Star Trek transporter device. Given what we have been told about the device and what it does (converts matter to energy and energy to matter according to a computer schematic it stored when matter was converted to energy) this device could have a number of fascinating uses...

a) Ensure no one ever ages - just use Doctor Crusher's transporter trace trick from the TNG episode where the main characters were reverted to children and you can easily keep everyone at biological 18 (or whatever age is desired). And perfect heath by the same logic.

b) Take a transporter trace of people right before they go on away missions. If the redshirt gets killed just put the right amount of matter into the transporter and...BINGO...Mr. Redshirt is back exactly as he was when you took the trace.

c) Run short of shuttlecraft? No problem - convert any matter into them. Starships? Same approach.

Yes the examples get silly, but it is another example of how "miracle" tech can create merry hobb for writers.

These are two examples of "miracle" tech. I am calling it miracle tech because such technologies have the potential ability to render the plot and characters moot. As Bluce noted back in the other thread, you wind up having to use contrived scenarios or in other ways "nerf" the technology.

Any other examples you all have seen?

 

[Bluce Ree]

Some story points have huge issues, like the transporter accident that created two Rikers. Since matter in = matter out, how can the matter from a single person be split equally in two and rematerialize two live humans with only half the matter each?

Your example of dumping any matter into the transporter to recreate a lost crew member from the person's pattern imprint is akin to cloning. It essentially wouldn't be the same person but this becomes more of a philosophical discussion, such as consciousness and the "soul". The whole transporter implication would be a very interesting topic on its own.

 

[OMNI]

 

[shavedape]

Yes, with the ST transporter there is the issue of the person "dying" each time they're deconstructed. As I understand it the person who gets re-materialized on the other end literally can't be the same person who started the journey (depending on how matter is "transported" that is). I think this might also apply to what happens when people enter a stargate (in Stargate of course) but admit there might be a difference to the mechanics involved. As Bluce said though the transporter thing is a whole nuther can o' worms.

As for the TARDIS, well, that does have a lot of issues in terms of physics and even someone as scientifically limited as I can see that. For instance, if the Doctor is popping back and forth in one single time line then things would inevitably change each time he made a stop. Yes, I'm talking the Butterfly Effect. I can see suspending one's disbelief if the Doctor was to make brief stops that didn't involve many people but let's face it, every single time he stops somewhere a TON of stuff happens and the action reverberates out like ripples in a pool and affects tons of lives. To assume that the time line wouldn't be changed to a great degree when large numbers of people are affected by his presence doesn't make sense.

Now, if he does change the future due to a Butterfly Effect would he know it? And what about like when he'd bring Rose back to see her mum and Micky, etc, wouldn't they be different each time? Things always stayed the same in that time line but that doesn't seem like it would be the case what with all the futzing the Doctor did each time he popped in.

Or, does the TARDIS use Crichton's popularized premise of time travel via jumping to parallel universes? If this was the case then the Butterfly Effect wouldn't matter so much as the Doctor would constantly be traveling to a "new" universe/time line. (If I recall correctly though the TARDIS doesn't use this method of time travel as universe jumping is near impossible to do hence the loss of Rose Tyler, yada yada yada.)

Okay, there ya go, some brain candy to suck on. Try not to hurt yourselves kids.

 

[OMNI]

Yes, with the ST transporter there is the issue of the person "dying" each time they're deconstructed. As I understand it the person who gets re-materialized on the other end literally can't be the same person who started the journey (depending on how matter is "transported" that is). I think this might also apply to what happens when people enter a stargate (in Stargate of course) but admit there might be a difference to the mechanics involved. As Bluce said though the transporter thing is a whole nuther can o' worms.

As for the TARDIS, well, that does have a lot of issues in terms of physics and even someone as scientifically limited as I can see that. For instance, if the Doctor is popping back and forth in one single time line then things would inevitably change each time he made a stop. Yes, I'm talking the Butterfly Effect. I can see suspending one's disbelief if the Doctor was to make brief stops that didn't involve many people but let's face it, every single time he stops somewhere a TON of stuff happens and the action reverberates out like ripples in a pool and affects tons of lives. To assume that the time line wouldn't be changed to a great degree when large numbers of people are affected by his presence doesn't make sense.

Now, if he does change the future due to a Butterfly Effect would he know it? And what about like when he'd bring Rose back to see her mum and Micky, etc, wouldn't they be different each time? Things always stayed the same in that time line but that doesn't seem like it would be the case what with all the futzing the Doctor did each time he popped in.

Or, does the TARDIS use Crichton's popularized premise of time travel via jumping to parallel universes? If this was the case then the Butterfly Effect wouldn't matter so much as the Doctor would constantly be traveling to a "new" universe/time line. (If I recall correctly though the TARDIS doesn't use this method of time travel as universe jumping is near impossible to do hence the loss of Rose Tyler, yada yada yada.)

Okay, there ya go, some brain candy to suck on. Try not to hurt yourselves kids.

you CANT be serious?

 

[shavedape]

you CANT be serious?

Why? You want to suck on something else?

 

[Joelist]

Yes the TARDIS has been established in the show to be in a single timeline (even in classic Who with episodes such as Inferno where the Doctor did enter an alt universe - it was clearly not in the TARDIS bag of tricks). With that in place the butterfly effect is indeed a problem. In Classic Who this was a plot function of the Time Lords - they supposedly were policing things to avoid just this type of issue.

As to the StarGate, that one did occur to be too. We know from one of the SG-1 episodes that they gate has a buffer and people can be "stored" in it if the whole gate sequence does not follow through. So theoretically if one were to discover how to download that buffer , store it and upload it back then the gate could be used like a transporter. Plus we know it can be used to time travel as the SG-1 team did it at least twice. So it combines the "miracle tech" issues of both the transporter and the TARDIS.

I was also thinking about the Star Trek replicator as it seems to have a lot of the same potential.

 

[SciphonicStranger]

Earl Grey - Hot!

 

[Joelist]

Indeed.

Consider some other replicator commands that should be possible with enough energy....

"Starship, Sovereign class, ready to go!"

"Human, female (or male), hot"

In a way it is similar to the transporter.

 

[shavedape]

Yes the TARDIS has been established in the show to be in a single timeline (even in classic Who with episodes such as Inferno where the Doctor did enter an alt universe - it was clearly not in the TARDIS bag of tricks). With that in place the butterfly effect is indeed a problem. In Classic Who this was a plot function of the Time Lords - they supposedly were policing things to avoid just this type of issue.

As to the StarGate, that one did occur to be too. We know from one of the SG-1 episodes that they gate has a buffer and people can be "stored" in it if the whole gate sequence does not follow through. So theoretically if one were to discover how to download that buffer , store it and upload it back then the gate could be used like a transporter. Plus we know it can be used to time travel as the SG-1 team did it at least twice. So it combines the "miracle tech" issues of both the transporter and the TARDIS.

I was also thinking about the Star Trek replicator as it seems to have a lot of the same potential.

Yes, but with both the transporter and the stargate doesn't the person who uses them "die" upon being reduced to atoms? Is it just a radio signal sent to the other end with instructions to re-construct that person using matter on that end? If so, that would mean whoever entered the transporter/stargate would not be coming out the other end, rather, an entirely new person would be constructed on the ass end of the transport.

 

[Joelist]

Yes, but with both the transporter and the stargate doesn't the person who uses them "die" upon being reduced to atoms? Is it just a radio signal sent to the other end with instructions to re-construct that person using matter on that end? If so, that would mean whoever entered the transporter/stargate would not be coming out the other end, rather, an entirely new person would be constructed on the ass end of the transport.

Yes, and that is a key issue with the technology when you try to "factualize" it. In order for them to work you would need to be able to reduce the whole person (including their thoughts, emotions, memories, personality, physiology, clothes, devices and so forth) to energy that beams out to another location and reassembles somehow in perfect compliance to the original person (which raises an additional question of how this can work without a machine on the receiving end - at least a stargate has that).

 

[shavedape]

Yes, and that is a key issue with the technology when you try to "factualize" it. In order for them to work you would need to be able to reduce the whole person (including their thoughts, emotions, memories, personality, physiology, clothes, devices and so forth) to energy that beams out to another location and reassembles somehow in perfect compliance to the original person (which raises an additional question of how this can work without a machine on the receiving end - at least a stargate has that).

The stargate premise would be believable if it was an instantaneous transit time, like walking thru a door (space folded over on itself in one spot). This way the person going thru the door would stay intact. Having them de-materialize and shoot thru a light tunnel for several seconds doesn't entirely make sense if you think about it. Yes, having a stargate on the receiving end makes it a little better but still the person coming thru would have to be reconstructed by matter on the exit side and the problem of "dying" remains with that premise.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Yes, with the ST transporter there is the issue of the person "dying" each time they're deconstructed. As I understand it the person who gets re-materialized on the other end literally can't be the same person who started the journey (depending on how matter is "transported" that is). I think this might also apply to what happens when people enter a stargate (in Stargate of course) but admit there might be a difference to the mechanics involved. As Bluce said though the transporter thing is a whole nuther can o' worms.

IMO, the whole ST transporter tech is a little all over the place. The official explanation is that matter is dematerialized, converted to energy and reassembled at its destination. However, in the episode "Realm of Fear", we see that Barclay is clearly conscious and whole during transport, grabbing crew members that were stuck in transport and bringing them out of transport, as if the person or object being transported is merely on another plain of existence rather than being disassembled. If that's the case, then it's feasible that the person is intact and whole at some level during transport. That, though, would fly in the face of the whole two Rikers episode and the entire transporter premise as Gene Roddenberry established it. I think the ST transporter mechanics changes to whatever the writers need it to be for every episode.

As for the TARDIS, well, that does have a lot of issues in terms of physics and even someone as scientifically limited as I can see that. For instance, if the Doctor is popping back and forth in one single time line then things would inevitably change each time he made a stop. Yes, I'm talking the Butterfly Effect. I can see suspending one's disbelief if the Doctor was to make brief stops that didn't involve many people but let's face it, every single time he stops somewhere a TON of stuff happens and the action reverberates out like ripples in a pool and affects tons of lives. To assume that the time line wouldn't be changed to a great degree when large numbers of people are affected by his presence doesn't make sense.

Now, if he does change the future due to a Butterfly Effect would he know it? And what about like when he'd bring Rose back to see her mum and Micky, etc, wouldn't they be different each time? Things always stayed the same in that time line but that doesn't seem like it would be the case what with all the futzing the Doctor did each time he popped in.

Or, does the TARDIS use Crichton's popularized premise of time travel via jumping to parallel universes? If this was the case then the Butterfly Effect wouldn't matter so much as the Doctor would constantly be traveling to a "new" universe/time line. (If I recall correctly though the TARDIS doesn't use this method of time travel as universe jumping is near impossible to do hence the loss of Rose Tyler, yada yada yada.)

Okay, there ya go, some brain candy to suck on. Try not to hurt yourselves kids.

As I recall, Time Lords are immune to the effects of changing the time line to some degree. They remember alternate time lines. In the first Matt Smith series, he also mentioned that being a time traveler makes one aware of changes to the time line in reference to Amy remembering Rory in spite of the fact he was erased from history.

You bring up some very interesting thoughts. I would love to see a time traveler series that explored the butterfly effect more deeply, to see the protagonists mess up and try to repair changes to the time line that are far reaching.

 

[Joelist]

The stargate premise would be believable if it was an instantaneous transit time, like walking thru a door (space folded over on itself in one spot). This way the person going thru the door would stay intact. Having them de-materialize and shoot thru a light tunnel for several seconds doesn't entirely make sense if you think about it. Yes, having a stargate on the receiving end makes it a little better but still the person coming thru would have to be reconstructed by matter on the exit side and the problem of "dying" remains with that premise.

It does indeed. Even assuming we can fully define what constitutes the "lifeforce", we now also have to believe that said lifeforce can be converted to energy and data and transmitted to the new location and reassembled then reactivated. Otherwise you would reassemble the person who would simply collapse to the ground dead.

This at least is one place where the TARDIS possesses an advantage over the other techs - it doesn't engage in converting anyone or anything into energy. Per Who canon the TARDIS actually exists in another dimension and what we see and step through to enter it is simply a gateway it projects into the real world. This is why it gives the appearance of being bigger on the inside than the outside. Granted we have other pretty far out aspects here - like existing at the same time in two different dimensions - but at least it avoids the whole matter-energy conversion problem we are laying out.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Yes, and that is a key issue with the technology when you try to "factualize" it. In order for them to work you would need to be able to reduce the whole person (including their thoughts, emotions, memories, personality, physiology, clothes, devices and so forth) to energy that beams out to another location and reassembles somehow in perfect compliance to the original person (which raises an additional question of how this can work without a machine on the receiving end - at least a stargate has that).

A more feasible transporter technology is the one the terrorists used in the TNG episode "The High Ground". The tech was an interdimensional transport via folding of space. IMO, a perfect transport technology but the TNG writers had to handicap that one, too, by creating a negative DNA damaging effect, which has absolutely no basis in science that I can think of since folding of space does not alter the traveler going through the fold in any manner, just the space around the traveler.

I'm not sure why the creators of Stargate would think dematerialization and one-way wormholes were fantastic ideas other than to insert that stupid whoosh-through-a-tunnel effect for its coolness factor and to create a plot device they can exploit for conflict. A theoretical wormhole would simply look like a hole in space. A wormhole opening up in your livingroom would be like a window with no discernible shape through which one walks to get to the other side some distance away. It wouldn't be a tunnel, it wouldn't be one-way and it wouldn't take any amount of significantly measurable time walking through it to the other side. It's just like stepping through a door. One put one foot through and literally be standing in two distant places at the same time. Although the wormhole is 2-dimensional, the observer walking around the wormhole would see the other side all the way around rather than a flat disk.

 

[Joelist]

A more feasible transporter technology is the one the terrorists used in the TNG episode "The High Ground". The tech was an interdimensional transport via folding of space. IMO, a perfect transport technology but the TNG writers had to handicap that one, too, by creating a negative DNA damaging effect, which has absolutely no basis in science that I can think of since folding of space does not alter the traveler going through the fold in any manner, just the space around the traveler.

I'm not sure why the creators of Stargate would think dematerialization and one-way wormholes were fantastic ideas other than to insert that stupid whoosh-through-a-tunnel effect for its coolness factor and to create a plot device they can exploit for conflict. A theoretical wormhole would simply look like a hole in space. A wormhole opening up in your livingroom would be like a window with no discernible shape through which one walks to get to the other side some distance away. It wouldn't be a tunnel, it wouldn't be one-way and it wouldn't take any amount of significantly measurable time walking through it to the other side. It's just like stepping through a door. One put one foot through and literally be standing in two distant places at the same time. Although the wormhole is 2-dimensional, the observer walking around the wormhole would see the other side all the way around rather than a flat disk.

True enough. Space folding is another way around the issues. It's also why NuBSG (and some other shows) that use space folding FTL as opposed to other "hyperdrive" or "warp" drives are a bit better grounded in reality.

 

[Bluce Ree]

It does indeed. Even assuming we can fully define what constitutes the "lifeforce", we now also have to believe that said lifeforce can be converted to energy and data and transmitted to the new location and reassembled then reactivated. Otherwise you would reassemble the person who would simply collapse to the ground dead.

This at least is one place where the TARDIS possesses an advantage over the other techs - it doesn't engage in converting anyone or anything into energy. Per Who canon the TARDIS actually exists in another dimension and what we see and step through to enter it is simply a gateway it projects into the real world. This is why it gives the appearance of being bigger on the inside than the outside. Granted we have other pretty far out aspects here - like existing at the same time in two different dimensions - but at least it avoids the whole matter-energy conversion problem we are laying out.

I remember hearing the explanation during Tom Baker's era. It's called "dimensionally transcendental". He held a smaller cube and walked away from a larger cube, which he then held up to show how the larger cube now seems to fit into the smaller one to explain how they exist in different dimensional plains. The TARDIS travels space through the 5th dimension, if I recall correctly, which is hyperspace, where an object occupies all points in space at once and, as such, can exit hyperspace at any point for instant travel through large distances in three dimensional space. It travels time by traversing something called a time vortex, whatever that is, which suggests some sort of tunnel outside of physical space that extends to all time from the beginning to the end.

 

[shavedape]

True enough. Space folding is another way around the issues. It's also why NuBSG (and some other shows) that use space folding FTL as opposed to other "hyperdrive" or "warp" drives are a bit better grounded in reality.

That's one thing I really liked about BSG. When the ships would fire up their FTL drives they would simply "wink out" of the area, they didn't go whooshing off at warp speed with a light trail behind them. Nor did they enter some giant, swirling light show vortex thing that stretched them out and sucked them in. I know that's done mostly for effect but really it's getting tired.

BTW, this discussion makes me wonder how in the ST universe they account for time discrepancies between the folks on Earth verses the folks whooshing around the galaxy at near light speed? Time works differently the closer you get to light speed than it does for those of us remaining stationary (I think Einstein theorized this). So, how is it that the Enterprise crew can come back to Earth and resume their lives and contacts here without so much as a blip in changes happening to the folks here? Wouldn't everyone back on Earth be much, much older when the Enterprise crew got back from jaunting around at warp speed???

 

[OMNI]

That's one thing I really liked about BSG. When the ships would fire up their FTL drives they would simply "wink out" of the area, they didn't go whooshing off at warp speed with a light trail behind them. Nor did they enter some giant, swirling light show vortex thing that stretched them out and sucked them in. I know that's done mostly for effect but really it's getting tired.

BTW, this discussion makes me wonder how in the ST universe they account for time discrepancies between the folks on Earth verses the folks whooshing around the galaxy at near light speed? Time works differently the closer you get to light speed than it does for those of us remaining stationary (I think Einstein theorized this). So, how is it that the Enterprise crew can come back to Earth and resume their lives and contacts here without so much as a blip in changes happening to the folks here? Wouldn't everyone back on Earth be much, much older when the Enterprise crew got back from jaunting around at warp speed???

Time dilation is of practical importance. For instance, the clocks in GPS satellites experience this effect due to the reduced gravity they experience (making their clocks appear to run more quickly than those on Earth) and must therefore incorporate relativistically corrected calculations when reporting locations to users. If general relativity were not accounted for, a navigational fix based on the GPS satellites would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day.[SUP][1][/SUP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_drift

 

[shavedape]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_drift

Exactly. So how do they account for this in the ST universe? It seems to be a pretty big hole in the premise of the show.