One of the things that Star Trek does best is create a vast universe that is absolutely packed with information, lore, and culture, the forefront of this being both the highly advanced sociopolitical infrastructure created since the show first hit TV screens, and the fairly realistic fictional technology. This technology is, despite some aspects of it being achievable today, high science fiction. They're the wils imaginings of a far-off future, but that is not to say they are not based in real science.

Things like universal translators are based on (granted fairly primitive) real-world linguistic theories of identifying key signatures. Others that are less grounded, such as thewarp drive, are at least consistent within the fictional science framework presented in the show )at least until Discovery aired). Transportation technology, however, is a whole different thing. The science behind this piece of tech sometimes collapses under its own weight from contradicting information presented over the many years. In fact, by following some trains of canon logic, immortality might even be possible.

RELATED: Star Trek: Why TNG Improved So Much After Season 1

Transporters work by converting a person into an energy pattern, breaking them down atom by atom in a process called dematerialization, and then sending this pattern to a different place ("beaming" them), where they are then reconverted into matter in a process called rematerialization. It’s like having a Lego set that is disassembled into its individual parts, sent in a box to another location, and then reassembled there, but on a quantum theory level. Examining the real world since behind the process, it is possible within quantum theory for a quantum particle to move from point A to point B without it traversing the space in between, but the particle does not disassemble or break down to do so, as it is small enough to work on the quantum level. Following this theory through to the transporters, people are a lot bigger, and do not work on a quantum level. Thus, they must be broken down into small enough particles, and then somehow be reliably "transported" to point B, then put back together.

What is interesting regarding the immortality side of things is that in the process of transporting said person to another location, their energy pattern (which is basically everything they are, physically and mentally) is stored in a pattern buffer. This is where a lot of the misconception comes in, as well a large amount of contradicting information presented to audiences through the shows. This pattern buffer is not, or not supposed to be, a battery. The energy pattern is so complex that it can not be copied, even when converted into a somewhat digital format. That’s just it though: teleportation in Star Trek is regarded as a somewhat analog technology. It is impossible to store all this information for long periods of time, or keep a copy of it after said teleportation has been completed.

Star Trek transporter clone

There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, where the franchise breaks its own logic. For example, Scottie was stored in a pattern buffer for 75 years. Riker has a duplicate created in a transporter accident, as does Boimler from Lower Decks (whether it is to be believed as canon or not).

A lot of philosophical thought has been put into transportation technology, as there is a large question of whether the process of disassembling a living organism is the same as killing it. Some theorize that if a transporter breaks a person apart, that specific person is dead, and the reassembled person is just a copy (creating parallels with the hit horror video game SOMA). The argument revolves heavily around the idea of a person's soul, and whether or not they are real. Would a transporter, which only targets and dematerializes tangible matter, also transport a soul, or would it leave it behind? Is the recreated being simply an empty husk devoid of consciousness? The creators of Star Trek were largely humanists, however, so the idea of a soul or non-tangible/ethereal elements that help form consciousness or being is most likely not factored into the technology equation.

Removing the soul element, then, creates a very large possibility for immortality to be achieved through this quantum manipulating device. Riker and Boimler’s clones were accidents, transporter malfunctions, but they show that it is in fact possible to recreate everything that makes up a person, duplicating even their memories and emotions into another fully functioning and living organism. While this was an accident, surely as this is possible, why couldn't it be recreated in a more controlled manner?

If the only issue is the lack of power required to store a person's energy pattern, converting it from analog to digital, then it is surely only a matter of time until the Federation possesses such power. If the pattern is stored, a person can be recreated/rematerizaled at any point, even long after the original person has died. If an energy pattern can be altered (again, historically by accident) to rematerialize people as their childhood selves but with all their adult memories like it does in the TNG episode “Rascals,” then this is proven to be possible. This means it is only a matter of time until someone understands how this happened, and is able to de-age themselves at will using transporter technology.

Star Trek transporter children

What’s interesting (and rather worrying) about transporters is that, despite them being used constantly, there is very little understanding of them even in-universe. The plethora of complex problems and contradicting science at every turn should surely make them a banned device in the Federation, at least until they are fully understood. They have proven themselves to be capable, if not understandably so, of providing immortality in various ways, the consequences of which are never fully addressed within the many shows and movies.

This is probably a result of there never really being a full fleshed out theory behind transporters from the start, their creation being a last-minute decision by Roddenberry and the writers to make up for not having enough funds to shuttle the crew to every planet they wanted to explore. The consequences of this budgetary decision have rippled through the franchise, creating a sea of unanswerable questions and moral quandaries.

MORE: Star Trek: The Worst Episodes Of The Franchise