you'd better have a damned efficient energy containment and transmission system. Consider the ramifications of e=mc^2. Approximately 50 grams of matter converted to energy results in 1 megaton of energy (the equivalent of 1 million tons of TNT detonating). So, transporting 100 KG of matter results in 2,000 megatons of energy, roughly equivalent to the US's entire nuclear weapons arsenal.
There's also the detail of transmission losses. Energy is lost during transmission, so there would be less matter produced at the other end. That wouldn't be so bad if all you lost was body fat, but it'd be a different story if the losses were in gray matter.
From "The Physics of Star Trek", it seems that of all the technologies mentioned on the show(s), the transporter is probably the least likely to ever happen. The author also had his doubts about "inertial dampeners", if memory serves.
Space/Science » in reply to re: Star Trek and the existence of the soul
In addition to the memory and processing capability....
The whole thread (25 posts)
- Suspended animation for large mammals.
- ****A post was deleted by ModBob****
- How do you tell if a dog is brain damaged?
- re: How do you tell if a dog is brain damaged?
- Do a CAT scan. (n/t)
- :) lol
- Yeah? Imaging being the first person in the Star Trek universe to try a transporter...
- A joke...
- :) lol