Take the 2-minute tour ×
Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for science fiction and fantasy enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Why do they travel naked in time in Terminator universe? Is it ever explained in the movies or tv serials? If they cannot carry weapons, how do the cyborgs travel with metal under their skin?

share|improve this question
4  
:Glad you could finally post your question. –  apoorv020 Jul 31 '11 at 20:10
8  
The real question is, "Why would Skynet invent a time machine that only works on living tissue?" –  Jeff Aug 1 '11 at 21:15
    
The next real question is, why wouldn't they build weapons into the first two terminators the way they did with the third terminator. It really isn't that big of a revelation... –  Sydenam Aug 2 '11 at 9:06
6  
And, of course, "Why not just grow skin over a nuke and send it back?" –  Jeff Aug 2 '11 at 11:58
2  
@pichoscosama - have you considered accepting an answer? –  Wikis Aug 22 '11 at 7:21
show 3 more comments

5 Answers 5

Update - this has been bugging me for a while, I finally had to write it out. It's speculation (not taken from the scripts), but internally consistent with at least the first two movies.

In regards to Jeff's question, "why would Skynet invent a time machine that only works on living tissue" - I'm not convinced that a) Skynet did the inventing, or that b) it only works on living tissue.

First, we don't know that Skynet really invented time travel - even if one of the characters said Skynet did. It's entirely probable that some (human) laboratory had worked out the basic principles, but alas, never got a chance to publish their exciting results, prior to most of the human race being wiped out in a nuclear Armageddon.

Second, the Temporal Transfer Field doesn't only work on living tissue - see the T-1000 for a counter-example. In fact, the problem that Skynet encountered, was a lack of understanding of the principle of Chrono-topology.

Chrono-topology is the principle that the energy required to activate the Temporal Transfer Field, is correlated to the number of bundled timelines inside the Field 1 . One timeline exists for every object that had a separate existence through the past.

1: Note that power requirements appear to be 1.21 Gigawatts per timeline, making it prohibitive to send more than a single object.

For instance, a (naked) human has one timeline, as he exists as a unitary object going back in time. This includes his hair/fingernails, which are biologically dead tissue, because they are all in the same timeline. If the field only worked on purely living tissue, the subject's hair (and fingernails - ouch) would need to be removed.

If the subject human puts on a pair of jeans - now there are two timelines inside the field, as the jeans have their own existence and path back through the past. The same for picking up a gun (and the bullets).

The T-800s, having been created and (presumably) immediately had skin grown on, have a single timeline. Likewise for the T-1000s. If they were to pick up a weapon, that would double the number of timelines in the Field.

Why the increased energy requirements? The TTF, when activated, is basically trying to push an object out of its existing temporal path back in time, into a different path. The more distinct timelines, the more energy is required for the Field. A timeline is a four-dimensional path made by a physical object, travelling forward through time. Think of a bikepath through soft dirt, where the wheels have made a trench. If you ride a bike back down the trench, it takes an effort to force the wheels out of the trench.

Now, it is true that Skynet could do a number of things to circumvent this restriction, but see the next section for an explanation of why it doesn't.

Skynet is Pac-man on steroids.

Skynet is an AI, and doesn't process scenarios like a human. It follows certain rules programmed into it, no differently from one of the ghosts in Pac-man (just slightly more complex).

Two rules in particular, Local optimum, and Satisficing, prevent Skynet from doing more than the minimum planning necessary. First, when considering the sub-goal of how to send a cyborg through a time-field that seemed to only work on flesh-covered objects, Skynet would run through its list of available assets, realize that it already had flesh-covered cyborgs, and move to the next step - how to arm the newly-arrived Terminator.

For this second sub-goal, Skynet would realize that the Terminator could locally acquire weapons, sufficient to take out a waitress. Having satisfied both of its subgoals, Skynet would stop evaluating additional options, and carry out its plan. It has achieved a local optimum, and doesn't realize (or care) that there might be a better answer elsewhere.

Skynet, as an AI, just isn't creative, and doesn't seem programmed to make intuitive leaps, which would be obvious to a human. It processes trees of (known) options, and picks the ones that meet the given criteria.

Lucky for us...

share|improve this answer
5  
+1 for a good discussion of AI and naive hill-climbing. –  Jeff Aug 2 '11 at 11:58
    
Great answer. Thank you! –  Owen Blacker Feb 25 '12 at 22:57
6  
But every atom in a living thing came from somewhere else. For mammals they mostly come from the food we eat. The atoms in the food came from other objects, and they... etc. So every object is made up of a huge number of previous sub-objects, and so previous timelines. It sounds good for sci-fi babble though! –  Nick Jun 29 '12 at 14:57
    
+1 for pac-man on steroids! –  tryingToGetProgrammingStraight Dec 17 '13 at 14:07
1  
Never clip your nails or cut your hair or lose some skin tissue though! That'd REALLY multiply timelines. I think it's about containment though. If it's all contained within the same membrane (the android skin) it only counts as one "unit". It also creates problems when androids get blown to bits btw. You could say Skynet fixed up some special anti-spreadoverlargeamountoftime matrial in the skin. And reg. not being creative, one super killer android really ought to be enough. –  Lodewijk Dec 17 '13 at 22:57
add comment

I suspect it was deliberately kept vague to make a good story. But from the script:

SILBERMAN: Why didn't you bring any weapons? Something more advanced. Don't you have ray guns? Show me a piece of future technology

REESE: You go naked. Something about the field generated by a living organism. Nothing dead will go.

SILBERMAN: Okay. Okay. But this... cyborg...if it's metal...

REESE: Surrounded by living tissue.

SILBERMAN: Of course.

I think that's it for "official" explanations.

share|improve this answer
1  
Thanks for the dialogue. –  apoorv020 Aug 1 '11 at 12:02
7  
Based on that, it seems like the time machine must require the bioelectric field generated by a living body to target. Hey! I can BS better than some Sci-Fi writers! –  Jeff Aug 1 '11 at 14:18
4  
You mean the T-1000? That's a good question. I don't think it was ever directly addressed, but I could see two explanations. 1: The nanites composing its body may have been able to form into actual skin or 2: the t-1000 was sent back in time as a blob in a sheath of flesh, and then it immediately broke out of it. –  Asmor Aug 4 '11 at 15:05
2  
@WikisAtArea51 Indeed. I'd just chalk that up to a plot hole. E.g. There's no reason a gun couldn't just be encased within a terminator's exoskeleton, like Optimus Prime carrying the Matrix of Leadership in Transformers. –  Asmor Sep 23 '11 at 20:15
2  
For that matter, Reese could have brought back any advanced technology small enough to swallow. (Plot hole here, as it's out of character for future-Connor not to have thought of that.) –  Tynam Jan 4 '12 at 11:09
show 11 more comments

I don't recall very clearly, but I think this issue was raised in the first movie. The guy sent back in time is being questioned about the terminator and he says that the terminator is surrounded by living tissue because bare metal can't be transported back, only living material can.

share|improve this answer
6  
It was explained in the first movie... It was a scientifically horrible expliation why a complex machine like a gun could not be brought back, but a terminator could because of the living tissue surrounding it. I was like so feed the gun to a catfish and send them all back... –  Chad Aug 1 '11 at 14:10
    
They only had these Androids on hand! All catfish died! Maybe swallow a teensy little railgunny though. Nah, no need, you're a terminator robot! –  Lodewijk Dec 17 '13 at 22:59
add comment

In some of the comic books, Terminators bring weapons with them back in time by storing them inside of dead humans.

share|improve this answer
    
In the one I read, it a live human. Not for long though; nasty way to go. –  StuperUser Apr 29 '12 at 16:29
    
Yeah, should definitely be live humans. –  Lodewijk Dec 17 '13 at 23:00
add comment

The general argument posed in all such scenarios is that something about clothing is fundamentally difficult to transport at the same time as a person. One connected entity is easier to transport than multiple objects which are closely bound. It could mistake the distance, and thereby force clothing to stick to a person, for instance.

The Terminator wiki states:

The Terminator arrives nude because of the time machine being powered by organic matter, so that clothes, weapons, etc. can't be sent back.

share|improve this answer
    
What about the metal under their skins? –  pichoscosama Jul 31 '11 at 17:59
    
@pichoscosama: It seems likely that they must have created a metal specifically for the purpose of time traveling. –  PearsonArtPhoto Jul 31 '11 at 18:11
    
@pearsonartphoto: Why not make guns out of that metal? –  DampeS8N Aug 1 '11 at 1:27
6  
@Dampe - because then they couldn't have Arnie asking for Uzi 9mm –  DVK Aug 1 '11 at 1:35
1  
@pichoscosama: It's not a special metal (just the normal terminator endoskeleton), it's the flesh grown over it that lets them travel in time. Apparantly, T-1000 series robots can perfectly mimic that flesh, through SCIENCE! –  Jeff Aug 3 '11 at 13:44
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.