At the prompting of Arthur Dent: All things to do with teleporting.

This is of course pure science fiction (ish)

For example one practical theory (practical only in the sense it has been done with photons - below) says that you might be able teleport someone, but only if you copy them in the export teleporter, then send the copy to the import teleporter, then destroy the original. Otherwise you would end up with moral or population problems.  It was (more than once) a "moral" and/or "sociological" question on Star Trek. But on Star Trek their transporters have "Heisenberg compensators" 

We sadly do not.

It has said to have been done in the real world, over short distances, with photons, but quantum entanglement destroyed both copies, when destroying the original.

I heard that some kind of teleportation, or possibly faster than light travel had been achieved with a type of zero-mass particle (possible tachyons)

If teleporters worked by making a copy of me, sending it to a destination then destroying the first me then I'd refuse to set foot inside one

If it's a copy of you, isn't it still you?

Let's  start calling Super-King "McCoy" !

Is that a play on the Real McCoy?

I propose that we will be teleporting before the end of this century!

No Dr. McCoy of  Star Trek (the original)

A Lt. Barclay in ST Next Generation also had fear... but I think of Super-King more like the Doc.

@Mick: not unless you can come up with an infinite amount of energy; or alternatively we stumble across a worm hole or two left over from the first milliseconds after the big bang so that we can move through the pre-established tunnel

@Bric - AAAAAAAAahhhhhhhhhhh

The way I see it, "me" lives inside my brain, and if you destroy this fleshy lump of grey jelly than I'm gone. The fact that you beamed a copy of it to the other side of the room, have an identical copy of me walking out of the other teleport tube doesn't make any difference.

and what if I wasn't destroyed - the 2 mes are clearly different entities, hence if I was destroyed the other me is still different

for the same reason I wouldn't want to be "uploaded" into a computer for any reason other than leaving a record of me for posterity, if that technology comes along then future generations can enjoy computer-me but if its a true copy of me it'll still say that I'm gone and that it's just a clever computer simulation of what was once a human brain

computer-me would probably end up being looked at by a shrink...

I'm in but can I please get a new right knee put on the machine generated me?

LOL!

Look, if there are new right knees on the go, this is my topic, so me first.

Oh dear... here we go again, with the queing n all

Yes but with the teleporter - don't destroy the original 'you' and you can have someone, you in fact, save your place in the queue

Excelleeeeent

Mick: I propose that we will be teleporting before the end of this century!

Bric: not unless you can come up with an infinite amount of energy; or alternatively we stumble across a worm hole or two left over from the first milliseconds after the big bang so that we can move through the pre-established tunnel

"We" won't  be doing anything of the sort. What Bric failed to point out was that "we" also have to live that long. So that's a bit of a draw back.

Can't you get yourself cryogenically frozen first?

Ahhhh Futurama style.

eggactly...

But even then (1000 years hence) they haven't perfected teleporting.

Hmmmm............

@Bric: not unless you can come up with an infinite amount of energy;...

Or a Dyson Sphere  Or start with a Dyson ring. Eminently  more do-able

That still doesn't give an INFINITE amount of energy which would be  required to transport mass (by what we 'know' now).... But since Dyson (a physicist) came up with the idea so many decades ago,  many  astronomers have suggested that our first real hint of other intelligence might come from being able to detect the change in light from a star due to the occlusion by a Dyson RIng.... I'm not sure if the current crop of researchers (who are essentially using this technique for finding planets about other sun) relate at all to Dyson's musings...but I wouldn't be suprised.

There were a couple great science fiction books used Dyson Ring as a focus to build on ... Ringworld and Ringworld Engineers:

Dyson wrote his paper back in the early 60's sometime... and Niven wrote this  Hugo and Nebula award winning novel in 1970 - the year I entered Geophysics and Astronomy in Uni... we did a lot of thought exercises about it in our spare time.

(ps if you are 'into science fiction' both the books I mentioned are good reads but his 3rd and 4th in the series I can't even remember their names were a disappointment in my opinion).

Did you see the announcement on the news wire yesterday where two German physicists claim to have 'caught' some photons traveling  faster than the speed of light? They were doing some Quantum Entanglement work and found that as they changed the set up with prisims, photons taking a longer path than other photons from a fixed source arrived at the same destination at the same time. as the ones taking a shorter path..so they maintain the ones taking the longer path had to be moving faster than the speed of light.

I'll be looking forward to seeing the actual reports.

If Shadowrun is to be believed, we'll be doing it with magic.

Sometimes I really really wish magic was real.... that would be soooooooo cool!

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I remember hearing that they found a gas in which photons travel faster than they do in a vacuum.. does that count?

And a Dyson sphere appears in Stephen Baxter's "The Time Ships", it's written as a sequel to "The Time Machine" and the guy from the original goes forward in time again, ends up either in an alternate future, or much further forward than before and he discovers that the Morlocks built a sphere around the Sun and live on the outside of it (they never were fans of daylight) and their every need is serviced by the energy captured, and they can summon objects up out of the material the sphere is made of - everything from food to a shelter to baby morlocks (in any conceivable configuration of DNA)

There is also some revelation about the nature of time and space, but I remember character stuff more easily than science stuff 

i read that book too.  i think i actually own it.  if you want i can go grab it.  but better yet why don't we look at the wikipedia article on it...

just looked up the wikipedia for the time ships, turns out a lot happened in that book that i forgot about

@ Bric I doubt those looking for other planetary systems bother with looking for a ring. I certainly have never heard nor read of any such references. But then again they probably would worry about the laughter they'd be likely to hear from some quarters.

No, I didn't see that wire article on faster than light photons? Interesting....but a few years back another German, I forget his name, claimed he had accelerated a photon stream to faster than light speed, and then claimed that through that he proved that faster than light travel would do what Einstein (and others) said it would, take you back in time. He set up a receiver to detect the signature embedded in the photon stream and "received" the signature signal, before he activated the stream.

By the way one wouldn't necessarily  need to find a worm hole left over from the big bang/expansion. You could, with enough material, build one. Kerr-metric ring would do the trick....possibly....many many many years from now.

I'm coming in late to this discussion, but I still have stuff to say (of course)

First: IF we are queing up for new knees, then I want to get in line so that both of mine get replaced.

I have never understood why when someone teleports on the Star Trek systems, they are still sick/injured/etc. when they arrived. I mean, why not revert them back... Yeah, they would lose a few memories... But whats a few brain cells when the alternative is severe injury or death?

I believe that teh real alternative is going to turn out to be more like gating than teleporting. I don't just mean the HP type of gate, but also the kind that is covered in Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar books. I don't htink that is just magic. I think it is science that hasnt' been figured out yet.

kathy, that's an interesting idea... mccoy could have a portable mini teleporter which is, by his usage, a medical device. 

I just had an idea. Not sure if this has been thought of, but what if when decent human cloning becomes possible, scientists would just send the contents of our mind to our clone, kind of like computer data? Depending on which technology comes first, this might be the way, at least at first.

Mrs Dent has got a Dyson. For a teleporting machine it makes a very good vacuum cleaner.  Also, I don't think it is a genuine teleporting machine because I paid cash for it and I'd expect to have to hand over a few freight trains worth of high denomination notes for the real thing.

Super-king: [The way I see it, "me" lives inside my brain, and if you destroy this fleshy lump of grey jelly than I'm gone. The fact that you beamed a copy of it to the other side of the room, have an identical copy of me walking out of the other teleport tube doesn't make any difference.] - First of all, if you are saying that you exist because you are in your brain and that a replica of that brain would not be you. Than I disagree... on an applied physics level, your "fleshy lump of grey jelly" is nothing more that a cluster of atoms, and that cluster of atoms is nothing more than a groups of electrons, protons, and neutrons and those electrons, protons, and neutrons are nothing more than quarks and gluons and at a theoretical physics level we keep going down untill we find the 'ether'... so If we were to replicate everything in you from the 'ether' on up then there would be no difference in the 2 of you, and you only become different from the 'point of separation'. The Point of separation is the exact point where your neurons start firing in both you's. so if the first you was to be destroyed at either the point of separation or at the exact moment of partial replication [Say at the atomic level, each Atom was "destroyed" as it was copied to the other side] than you would have essentially been "transported" and there would be now lag in memory or difference from the you before you stepped through the machine.

reetva: [I just had an idea. Not sure if this has been thought of, but what if when decent human cloning becomes possible, scientists would just send the contents of our mind to our clone, kind of like computer data? Depending on which technology comes first, this might be the way, at least at first.] - see EVE online: Clone Jumping

All :

To put it as simply as I can. (I will add links to wikipedia for further reading, and other websites if I feel the need)

Einstein's theory of relativity E = mc², suggests that anything traveling slower than the speed of light can not reach or travel faster than the speed of light.

Working with this theory from applied physics, in theoretical physics we can apply this notion to the object of transportation... say, a vehicle... but the space that the object occupies or around the object can be changed.

The physics behind it:

In particle physics there exists what we call boson particles [2]. bosons are force carrier particles, such as the photon.

Working with photons and Quantum field theory [2] [3] we could theoretically create an electromagnetic force field (the term force field refers to the lines of force one object (the "source object") exerts on another object or a collection of other objects. An object might be a mass particle or an electric or magnetic charge, not the forcefields from star wars and the like but theoretically this would be similar technology) called a Higgs field, named after physicist Peter Higgs. The Higgs field is a theoretical quantum field, mediated by the Higgs boson, which is believed to be throughout the entire universe. Its presence is said to be required in order to explain the large difference in mass between those particles which mediate the W and Z bosons, and that which mediates electromagnetic interactions (the photon).

So what does all this have to do with teleporation?

Ok well this is where it gets interesting... if you have read the links I have been providing, you will have a basic understanding of Boson particles, quantum fields, and how photons relate to light (the speed of) and electromagnetics.

So we take our object (or vehicle) and create our electromagnetic Boson Field around our object by. Being completely encapsulated in the Higgs Boson Field the space around the object should theoretically be massless, like our friend the photon, and will allow us to slip through a vacuum much like the photon.

Projecting forward and turning off the field would appear to be "teleporting", when in fact, the object or vehicle didn't actually "move" at all.

This is what we call boson jumping, or worm hole travel. from outside the Higgs Boson Field an individual would see the object (or vehicle) as moving at the speed of light, but relative to the person inside the field, it would appear that everything outside the field was moving and the object was stationary.

Creating this type of field does not require an "infinite amount of energy".

For all those interested in this type of theoretical physics, I suggest you read up on resonance

• Electrical resonance - as in electrical circuits with one or more capacitors and inductors
• Particle physics
• Orbital resonance in celestial mechanics
• Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)

And also check out the Alternative energy forum, as I will be posting in there on occasion.

And I look forward to your comments and all discussion to come

@ pseudyx: I know that a copy of me and my brain that was accurate all the way down to the level of the tiniest particles would be completely indistinguishable from me in every way, but I still wouldn't think it was "me" if it had been constructed anew based on a stream of information, or through quantum entanglement or whatever.

I also know this is kind of irrational since all those things that I call me, that make me who I am are, on a fundamental level, just patterns represented in particles and cells, but I still think that destroying this copy of me (the body/brain I'm currently using), and constructing a new one in another place is still killing me and making a copy, even if there was no separation between the 2 at the point of teleportation.

It's kinda like when people talk about "uploading" yourself into a computer - I see that not as my consciousness being transferred itself into a new medium, but as a clever computer simulation of my mind being created, and if to make that copy the original is destroyed then I would consider myself to have died, but a copy made.

@SK: Starting from your last paragraph first... I agree with the 'Upload of consciousness', being a clever computer simulation. Especially with our understanding of silicon based computers, and semiconductor based integrated circuits. Even if we could accurately clone/upload the memories of a person, it would be impossible to accurately clone/upload the "personality" or "learning" ability of that individual. It would all be based on Artificial Intelligence (smart programming). However, In quantum physics we look at (what is commonly known as) Quantum Computing.

A quantum computer makes direct use of quantum mechanical phenomena, such as superposition and entanglement. A conventional (silicon, semiconductor) computer, stores information as bits; in a quantum computer, information is stored as qubits. A single qubit can hold a one, a zero, or, crucially, a superposition of these, allowing for an infinite number of states.

The basic principle of quantum computation is that the quantum properties can be used to represent and structure data, and that quantum mechanisms can be devised and built to perform operations with that data.

When computing at a quantum level, I believe it would be not only possible to clone/upload memory, but also 'clone' the processing channels of the individuals brain, so it would be more than just a 'copy' or a brain, it would be identical to the original, and given the same stimuli would react and learn in exaclty the same way as the original.

However, working at this level I would suggest that we would have long steered away from the conventional (silicon, semiconductor) computer, and be using and growing organic computers, using quantum computers to manage and instruct the growth of an organic data system (aka the Brain)

The fist 2 paragraphs: On a theoretical physics level, even though spatially separate, quantum entanglement tells us that we can not describe the quantum state of one entangled object without making reference to the other. If one entangled object is observed to spin-up, than the other object will spin-up... Essentially at a quantum level these 2 objects are the same, having the same quantum state.

However all this being said, at our current understanding of the theory of quantum teleportation, we know that we can only teleport physical information to a distant location, using distributed entangled states. Quantum teleportation does not transport energy or matter, nor does it allow communication of information at faster than light speed, however it is very useful for quantum computing, and would assist in what I outlined above re: Uploading consciousness.

So with our limited understanding of the transportation of matter and energy, we know we can only transport photons and atoms to very short distances and it becomes more of a moral issue, as you have outlined, with our current theories of teleportation.

What we really need to look into is the breakdown and transportation of  matter at faster than light speed, with the reconstruction of matter at the other end... This is completely different from anything we have already discussed.

But we could use the theories we have discussed to help in the process. ie. using quantum teleportation to record the configuration of matter at the 'breakdown', transport the configuration information to the re-constructor to reconstruct the matter when it arrives in the exact configuration as when it left. And using entanglement as a means of transportation, entangling the 'packets' to transfer with photons to travel at light speed. The only drawback, is we are a long way from discovering the ability to transport large amounts of matter, letalone breakdown objects into matter transportable sizes.

@SK: "I still wouldn't think it was "me" if it had been constructed anew based on a stream of information".

Question
If you were "quantum cloned" in your sleep and when you awoke you were lying next to yourself, which 'you' would 'you' destroy, ie. which 'you' is the first you, and which the second... and how could you tell?

Damn.. that last sentence has me foxed, it'd be like the stereotypical "identical twins fighting, someone doesn't know who to shoot" TV moment

Except worse

I think I'd leave both copies of me alive and well - no good reason to murder a perfectly good Super-King clone, but deciding who gets to be called #1 or #2 could be tricky

I see what you're getting at - with that level of identicality, it ceases to matter which one is the copy, but it still matters to me in that I don't want to be vaporised 

I think it'd completely depend on which entity woke up first..... that decides it all

Well, If you've seen the movie Multiplicity you would know that the clone has a little number 2 behind the left ear

Ahhhhhh!

@SK: "but it still matters to me in that I don't want to be vaporised"

 
But witch one are 'you' who it still matters too, are you number 1 or 2.

I meant that I don't want to be vaporised in the teleportation process, not that I think vaporisation is a good method for removing an unwanted quantum clone.

If the process could be carried out without destroying the original then I think it makes it even more true that subsequently destroying the original is essentially a murder, even if it happens microseconds after the teleportation. Except that way you end up with copies of yourself disseminating across the world, and no way of re-merging your rapidly diverging consciousnesses. You could of course take the view that the important part is that a "you" is going and doing whatever it was you needed to be teleported for, but it would get complicated later when you need to keep track of which you has the different memories and experiences..

Or I could just get over the fear of vaporisation - the me that steps out at the other end won't know the difference between me being copied and destroyed as opposed to me being truly teleported.

@pseudyx

In all of your excellent and informed points and posts, you never address the problem of quantum entanglement (you cannot destroy the original without destroying the copy). Nor the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (we never know where sub atomic particles are until we observe and measure them for the purpose of cloning and transmission, and in observing them we change where they are and their very nature. So what we send - in our transporter- will never be exactly the same, no matter how refined).

The waking up in bed scenario is nice, but neither 'you' could morally destroy the other 'you'. It would have to be done, if it were at all possible, at the point of teleportation, or cloning, to avoid this moral dilemma. Otherwise 'you' would destroy neither, without moral consequence, entanglement aside, because one 'you' would always be just that little bit different. At the most basic level one 'you' might very well have had a different dream prior to waking. OR Just as (in times past) you would no more destroy one of identical twins at birth because you only EXPECTED the birth of one child. And identical twins are nice for this argument, because we already have, allbeit anecdotal, evidence that such twins are indeed entangled to some degree. different personas, but very connected.

@John Robie

It's nice to see that there are a few that understand the the complexities of particle entanglement... Yes you are very right, I did leave out some of the more finner issues of particle physics.

For the first part I left issues of quantum entanglement out of my posts to lead to the point that quantum entanglement can not actually transfer classical information (via entanglement) and that entanglement could only be used to measure the state of particles, with measurements being sent from one system to the other through another means of communication. But the observation of the wave function collapse, having implications regarding the entangled partner, is a good point however, it would not be accurate to state "you cannot destroy the original without destroying the copy", only that the destruction of one, as an effect on the other. [see my future post for an explanation]

As an example (for others reading), imagine that I have the first particle and John Robie  has the second. I make  completely random measurements. 50% of the time I will measure a "0", 50% of the time I will measure a "1". There is nothing that John Robie can do to affect this.

No measurement (or rotation of his system) that John Robie makes will affect what I measure. Since John Robie can't do anything to affect what I measure, he can't pass me any information. It is only if John Robie and I communicate (which is limited by the speed of light) that we can make use of the correlations provided by entanglement.

In my post above I touched on entanglements usefulness for teleportation. In teleportation, John Robie and I share an entangled pair. I then make a measurement on my system. Then send the result of this measurement to John Robie. That classical information that I send is limited by the speed of light. John Robie then has to perform different actions on his half of the entangled pair, based on the information that I send him. As you see, it is the correlations that we are making use of. But importantly, it is only when we communicate (which is limited by the speed of light) that we get any advantage.

Secondly, for leaving the uncertainty principle out of my post, this was more of a personal observation of our current understanding of quantum phenomena in relation to probability distribution [2] [3] and chaos theory [2], and that in discussing the subject of human teleportation by the time we could actually achieve this, we as a species would have a much larger grasp of Chaos and Probability Distribution, which would no longer be an uncertainty principle, but quantum laws of Affect and Effect. (for now we can call it "Pseudyx Quantum Affect and Effect")

@Mick "I propose that we will be teleporting before the end of this century!" There is a lot more we need to understand before we even begin to be able to teleport anything more than clusters of atoms. Although possible by the end of this Century, we have 93 years and in that time we need to understand a lot more than just the principles of teleportation, if we even make it that far as a species.

@pseudyx

"(which is limited by the speed of light)"

But you miss the point that we now know entanglement "defeats" C (the speed of light). (Incidentally indicating Newton was right about "relationship"). This leads us to....

No matter what information you send me, it will never beat entanglement. Entanglement being organic and well.... entangled. And all information you send me, if you are sending me any, will affect all information I get. I don't seek to change it because I don't get the choice, neither do you: your measurements of information  will always be mine, and vice-a-versa,  if I have your sent  copy. For example if we transport a particle between planets - you send me one- and my planet has a gravitational fluctuation, my particle  will gain energy and so gain mass, and correspondingly so will yours, thus changing your information.

We do not need to communicate further, we already have. I have all the information (within the pertinent data set) required. In fact, theoretically, and in complete isolation, any further communication after the transfer no matter how incidental, unrelated and/or trivial, would be fatal to both data sets. Even, in theory,  a telephone "hello".

What you are missing here is the theory that entanglement beats C.

I had thought Chaos plays no role here. It has been proposed and punted about a bit, but I'm sure that it has been shown to be no more than an attractive distraction, in what appears to be a linear transfer of data.

I should add:

"we as a species would have a much larger grasp of Chaos and Probability Distribution, which would no longer be an uncertainty principle, but quantum laws of Affect and Effect. (for now we can call it "Pseudyx Quantum Affect and Effect")"

I'm sorry I'm not buying it. Observation will always change that being observed: once chaos is grasped it will no longer be chaotic. If "grasped" it will be measurable and thus changed. And Probability Distribution is still a  glorified mathematical guessing  game. It's another attractive distraction. As an example this is the same tool used to gauge how often we should find life bearing planets in our galaxy (one star every 100 light years), but life/ things is/ are never so regular. It is also the same tool used to beat the roulette table.

Now whilst I know some stuff, I perhaps don't know it all so in layman's terms and for everyone else here, where have I gone wrong?

(Like the naming, btw, If you are right. It all yours.)

Yes, you are correct entanglement is greater than C...

However your theory lacks the basic understanding of 'Quantum Information', or to be more specific no-communication theory [2].
[
Please Read:
Journal: Open Systems & Information Dynamics
Article: Mathematical techniques for quantum communication theory
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Issue: Volume 3, Number 3 / October, 1995
]

Quantum information specifies the complete quantum state vector (or equivalently, wave function) of a system.
Classical information, only picks out a definite quantum state if we are already given a prespecified set of distinguishable quantum states to choose from.

Although two entangled systems appear to interact across large spatial separations, no useful information can be transmitted in this way, so causality cannot be violated through entanglement. This is the statement of no-communication theorem.

Classical information theory does not need to ask the question about the physical representation of information. There is no need for an 'ink-on-paper' information theory or a 'DVD information' theory. This is due to that fact that it is always possible to efficiently transform information from one representation to another representation.

One might think that it is not important if information is stored in a classical system or in a quantum system.

However this is not the case: it is not possible, for example, to write down the previously unknown information contained in the polarisation of a photon, of ink on a paper. General quantum mechanics does not allow us to read out the state of a quantum system with arbitrary precision. The existence of Bell correlations between quantum systems cannot be converted into classical information. It is possible to transform quantum information between quantum systems of sufficient quantum information capacity.

In its original quantum information theoretical sense, the term qubit as I mentioned in my second post is thus a measure for the amount of information. A two-level quantum system can carry at most one qubit, in the same sense a classical binary digit can carry at most one classical bit. The term qubit is used as a synonym for a two-level quantum system.

"your measurements of information will always be mine, and vice-a-versa,  if I have your sent copy." How am I sending you this copy? the only way of transmission for this data is at sub-light speed.

"if we transport a particle between planets - you send me one- and my planet has a gravitational fluctuation, my particle  will gain energy and so gain mass, and correspondingly so will yours, thus changing your information." - Based on your Entanglement communication theory, why would we be sending particles?

And it appears to me that you are confusing the Uncertainty Principle with Schrödinger's cat.

Uncertainty principle states that: "the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa"

"I had thought Chaos plays no role here. It has been proposed and punted about a bit, but I'm sure that it has been shown to be no more than an attractive distraction, in what appears to be a linear transfer of data." - Chaos and distribution, or more specifically the understanding of all things linear from a seemingly nonlinear system play a major roll here, and in relation to the Uncertainty Principle. In understanding Chaotic distribution we would be able to plot the momentum of a particle precisely in relation to that particles position.

There is an under layer to all things... There are hidden variables that we do not understand, hence we try to explain them, re: probability distribution, chaos theory etc. Physical theories must be deterministic to be complete. As Albert Einstein, the most famous proponent of hidden variables, insisted "I am convinced God does not play dice". meaning that If hidden variables exist, new physical phenomena beyond quantum mechanics are needed to explain the universe as we know it.

And  therefor that brings me to my last point in response ...

"I'm sorry I'm not buying it. Observation will always change that being observed: once chaos is grasped it will no longer be chaotic. If "grasped" it will be measurable and thus changed. And Probability Distribution is still a  glorified mathematical guessing  game. It's another attractive distraction. As an example this is the same tool used to gauge how often we should find life bearing planets in our galaxy (one star every 100 light years), but life/ things is/ are never so regular. It is also the same tool used to beat the roulette table."

Yes you are correct, Schrödinger's cat principle "Observation will always change that being observed"

You have nailed the whole point on the head "If "grasped" it will be measurable" Thats the whole point, hence "quantum laws" not theories, and understanding the finner principles of 'why' and 'how' things 'affect' and are 'effected' is the whole reason we create theories, because based on our current understanding, our applied theories are the best possible 'fit'. The theories themselves change, however the mechanisms of the universe always remain the same.

I too agree that I am no 'super man' and I don't know it all, and as you have said before me, I welcome the discussion and to be pointed in the right direction if I have made an error.

And there was me thinking teleporting was basically simple.  Forget Quantums, Dysons and Hiesenbergs.  All you need is an appropriately sophisticated scanner device and then use a transmitter to pass all the scanned information into a re-constructor device.  The original scanner will map all the molecular and phyisical alignments in three dimensions, transmit the information using a wide-bandwidth signal (not necessarily wide-band though)  and the re-constructor device will handshake to error check and confirm reciept.  The scanner device will then destroy the original and the re-constructor will (you're ahead of me now...) re-construct the original.  As for it having your personality etc... that is assured because that is governedby your brain patterns, which in turn are governed by their molecular make-up, quantity and positioning in relation to each other and the chemical composition of the transmitter/receptors etc... all of which will have been located by the scanner device.

Simple huh!

Yes....but.......

Just taking  the brain for example, you have to be sure you know where all the bits go, even down to the very small things like  gluons. That means being able to observe where they are in the subject brain. Doing so alters them.

see "Schrödinger's cat." to begin with.

Then there's the flies to worry about......

Oh yeah.... of cause, the flies... What happens if one flies in at the exact same moment the scanner is scanning your head... On the other side, you might have some sort of amalgamation of your own head with the entire fly body. Or worse the scanner error check might pull both entities apart, and you might come out a deformed half fly person, or worse, a deformed half person fly.

  ... OR ... ... OR ...

I too agree that I am no 'super man' and I don't know it all, and as you have said before me, I welcome the discussion and to be pointed in the right direction if I have made an error.

I'm Super-King and I'm still confused...

I posted pictures of me in the Pictures of yourself thread, from the Annual Publishers ball... The theme was Movie Stars and Super Heroes... I went as Clark Kent/Superman.

I was making reference to a comment in that thread by John Robie, while also trying to humble myself and admit that I don't know all there is to Quantum Particle Physics, and that I welcome the discussion, and being shown where I am wrong, as John Robie did in the post before my own.

You're way too modest pseudyx. You certainly know more than me.

Kudos

reading this topic i suddenly found it sad the me a 16 year old under stood or at least had heard of all the princepals descused. lol what am i going to be like when i get to uni?

ps i like the pics very explanatory

Thats great gandalf, understanding or in the least knowing what we're talking about at 16 is a good accomplishment... it took me many years study to understand... Maybe you will be the next Tesler.... just remember us little people when your receiving your Nobel prize

yeah i dont think im clever enough to do any thing extraordenary, i just find this  very interesting, i read about it and watch copious documentarys. even if i cant spell the word.

also wikipeda very informative

That is so furry-knees

$11.52 for a time machine.....

Sign me up....

The day before yesterday....er...

When it was cheaper

hahahah

Couldn't you just buy it and then go back and change the outcome to what you want it to be?

 

Oh God no....

Now we are back to the Time Travel debate, and every time I start this you don't want to play.....
 

heheheheh I know... but I couldn't resist throwing that in

I responded to this topic, but after buying a time machine I went into the future to see the responses and decided it was best not to post it.

hahahahah

Speaking of which, do you think that time machine being built atm involving lasers will work? On paper it says it should but then again paper says a lot of things.

Which "time machine being built atm involving lasers" do you mean?... sounds like you've been watching Paycheck.

This is all I have to say on time travel.

My theories on time travel from my studies in particle and theoretical physics lead me to beileve the following (I'll keep it as non technical as possible )

To understand how to travel through time you must first understand what time is. Time is a measure of change. everything is changing, from the basic level of earth spinning around the sun, to the electron spinning around an atomic nucleus, and so on.

We measure time by the change between 2 points. At it's most basic level, time is measured by the change of the suns location in the sky. From this most basic formula the time peace was created... now the 'watch'. The measure of change is broken into hours minutes seconds, hundredths sec, mili seconds, etc.

But basically these measures are used to measure change at a constant rate.

For one to travel forward in time at a constant average pace is easy... Activity: Sit still in your chair. Put both hands on your lap and don't move, try to stay as still as possible. Now count to five with a small pause between each number: 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ... 5.

Now, although you haven't physically moved anywhere, you have moved approximately 5 seconds forward in time. While you weren't moving there where many universal things in motion from the rotation of the earth on its spin axis, to the free radicals in the air decaying your cells.

OK, so you get the idea behind what I'm trying to say... So now, Time Travel. Basically I described to you what would need to be done to "teleport" using boson particles and creating a Higgs Boson field above.

Remembering these principles, we could create a field that allowed time to travel around us at a faster rate... this would be traveling forwards in time. A good illustration of this is H. G. Wells 'Time Machine':

But going forward is one thing... As far as my knowledge takes me it appears that going forwards would be possible, but going backwards is a little harder if even possible.

So we have created a field around us that allows time/change to pass around us at a faster pace... but going backwards would require reversing the change that has already happened. To my knowledge, it doesn't actually look possible to "Travel" backwards in time... but viewing history is a whole other story. At a basic level we can already view history through video recording... but viewing coordinates in time/change that have already happened is an interesting concept that I would look more into.

The idea of travel though. I would say you can slow down time or speed it up... but no matter how slow or fast time/change is traveling, you are still going forwards.
 

*wonders if the time-twisting effects around light-speed could be used for anything*

If it weren't for the part where your mass increases as you approach c, it would appear that going faster than light would send you back in time. I've read somewhere that there's a theory that tachyons are actually travelling through time in reverse, not increasing in mass because they had no mass to begin with.

Yeah I've read that too

But you don't need to travel at (or approaching) c to get from point A to point B... Read above. 'Relatively' you are not moving at all, it is everything else that is moving around you. And therefor ( Bf(m)◅m ) || c Mass remains the same within a Boson field and is not effected by c outside the field.
 

I've a theory about c. What if a Land Rover is travelling at its maximum speed of 68Mph (30.22m/s) The centre mounted Narva spotties are on, the beams from which are travelling at 3 x 10^8 m/s. The total speed of the light with the turbo boost provided from the raging fury of the English 2.25L 4 cylinder engine would thus be 300000030.22 m/s. Technically the Land Rover is faster than the speed of light.

mmmm hmmmm

Well, you'd be daft to try and convince him otherwise...

or wasting you time.

or something...

... time travelling

yes... daft to try...

mm.. that's exactly the weird property of light - doesn't matter if you're chasing after it in a land rover (no matter how powerful), it always appears to be travelling at c, relative to you.

So even with the fact that the light source is moving it would appear to still be doing c

Waaait.. moving the light is irrelevant, all that it would cause is a slight Doppler shift (and at land rover speeds, a tiny one).
 

The one in development in the US at the moment looks quite promising. Only problem is a lot of it is based on Einstein's work which apparently he pointed out in his later years was incorrect.

This one however would only be able to go back in time to the point at which the machine was first turned on.

That would at least explain why time travellers haven't (publicly) come back in time to try and change things and/or tell us stuff

hehe, what's the betting that the first time we turn on a properly functioning time machine, a massive stream of people pour out - tourists to the beginnings of time travel.

Unless of course we all know in advance that we can't do that because it's only a small machine and we'd all end up intersecting each other in horrible ways...
 

"This one however would only be able to go back in time to the point at which the machine was first turned on." - I'm very skeptical

what's the betting that the first time we turn on a properly functioning time machine, a massive stream of people pour out - tourists to the beginnings of time travel.

Like that South Park episode! hehehe

I suppose... Thinking about it more, that if the time machine was to create a naked singularity (a black hole without an event horizon) than it may be possible to view back to the point of initialization. The initialization of such an event would be much like a 'time marker'.... This is working within General Relativity, with a time travel theory by Fernando de Felice from the University of Padua in Italy.

But I still don't believe it would be possible for a Human or Animal or anything bigger than a photon for that matter to travel back in time. Because a singularity is a point in space where the density is infinite.

However this theory relies heavily on the fact that naked singularities exist or could be created, when the theory of quantum gravity that coincides with the Standard Model would disallow such objects to come into being.
 

Personally I think a time machine in any age is irrelevant and there are many more important subjects that these scientists can contribute to.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15655_5-awesome-sci-fi-inventions-that-would-actually-suck.html

Right there, number 2, explains my problems with teleportation nice and succinctly.

The other 4 are pretty funny too, I'm kinda using the fact that this topic already exists as an excuse to post this.

hahahah I enjoyed reading that, esp number 1. Looks like I'm not the only one who fantasises about flipping a switch when I'm in bad traffic!

Very cool... I like that. Keep them coming if you find more, we should turn this thread into 'science or sci-fi' and post the interesting things we find.

Also, the comments on teleportation basically said what we said in this topic only in 3 paragraphs
 

hahahaha

oops
 

Hehe, yeah, except it had less metaphysical delving into where the "I" part of a person is (More focus on the issue at hand - teleportation)

I still think that if I get vaporised, I'm dead. Even if you replicate me all the way down to the hypothetical ether, on the other side of the room/city/galaxy then it's still a replication. This isn't all that important to the replication of me - it has a continuous memory through all of the proceedings. It isn't all that important to the rest of the world - the replication is perfectly capable of carrying on where I left off. But I still prefer not being vapour 

"metaphysical delving into where the "I" part of a person " - true

yeah... well in the end, when we achieve the ability to FAX people from point A to point B, it will be the individuals choice whether or not the individual uses the machine and can "live" with the Moral dilemma or not.

Unless of course 1 of the 3 major factors that stop and have stopped many 'advancements' in the past intervene before we get to the point of personal choice.

1. Religion
2. Politics
3. Financial Interest
    

Or safety.. it seems pretty dangerous to me to go around disassembling people. It'd only take one high profile accident early on in the process to shut it down for a long time (say if 2 people got reconstructed into the same space and got melded together, or the transmission was corrupted and their arms (or worse) were 2 feet to the left of the rest of them when they re-assembled.

"safety" - is politics... What one considers safe, may not be considered safe by another.

Also, you would hope that by the time we have the ability to reconstruct people via this "teleportation" process, we would have failsafes like the conventional Fax machine, like a buffer memory.. so if there was an issue at the other end, than the "atomic configuration" in the buffer memory could be dumped to hard memory or redirected to another "teleport unit" to reconstruct, while the unit with the issue is being fixed. Just a thought.
 

You would need to build a failproof system before anybody would even think about using one on another person let alone using one to get to work.

Yeah... I am talking centuries of development here not mere decades. And whats "failproof"? would you say any mode of transportation we have now is 'failproof'?

I think I'm fairly safe from total atomic disassociation when I get in a car or a train 

not what I meant... Is a train or car a total failproof method of transport? are you safe from harm?

With every advancement in technology the rules for "safety" or 'acceptable safety' get rewritten.

Around 1793-1859 it was said that the introduction of Trains was too dangerous for the passenger while traveling at approx 15miles an hour. This is laughable now, but only because we better understand the potential "dangers" and applied physics at this level.

"Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."
Dr Dionysys Larder, professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.

"railroad carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of 15 miles per hour by 'engines'which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers"...

mmm.. I guess..

undoubtably if it worked reliably enough it would be accepted as safe eventually, I was just saying - if there was a major and well publicised accident early on in proceedings then it could set the whole thing back a loooong while.
 

Nothing in technology is failproof but I mean to the point which say air travel is considered foolproof. Crashes do happen but you are more likely to be killed by your trousers than in an aeroplane.

which is actualy a scary thought, i will from now on only ever wear shorts.

Sorry, shorts are worse 

damn... well... I am no longer putting on pants or shorts... are underpants OK, and what about my kilt?

LOL!

The mortal enemy of the kilt wearer is the breeze.

lol now that is funney, and a really desturbing sight

tars a wee breez up me kilt an'tis given ma willy ta chills.

LOL!

mwahahaha!!!

lol

that is all can be said

The mortal enemy of the kilt wearer is the breeze.

This is funny every time I read it
 

Well, I am very hilarious.

You are, you are...but you don't want the girls to think that. Just that you are funny....

Id say funny to look at...In real life (and this is the truth) Im a plank. I just cant hold down a conversation for more than 2 minutes. I can however dance the Becks dance which should come in handy when wooing the ladies.

^^^I dont get out much.^^^

After several Becks, do they care? Should they care?

Having said that, if you get to stay in more - with the ladies - that is surely a good thing....no?

Nice logic however that does involve me relying on my sex appeal which atm is the equivelant of several dead frogs. And the last time I danced in public was...well...never really.

You are in possession of that one thing that girls always find irresistible, a sense of humour.
 

I second that!

Well you would, wouldn't you?

*scratching head*

huh?
 

OK 2 of my posts suddenly became tangled together (how ironic) so I'll start this again.

The great thing about Tangler is that you can reinvent your personality. In real life, trust me on this, im really not funny at all. See its all part of the illusion that is HappyWanderer.

hmmm.... me thinks this warrants a new topic

 

@ Happy

None of us are really the people we are in Tangler. But your sense of humour and personality always shines through. Like me for example: I am a professional arse in real life.

 

Waits for mocking laughter

Unlike SuperKing who is just an....Oh God!! I do hope he doesn't post next.

*laughs*

...*mockingly*

HAHAHAHAHAHHA

Hi there SK how's it all been going?

^^ That was a full-on belly laugh @ SK's reaction btw, not a mocking laugh at all

I didn't even notice the "I hope he doesn't post next", that must have been added while I was typing.

heheheheh edit hover says 5 mins ago

The joy of editing

So how does the sentence "Unlike SuperKing who is just an.." end?

Just an amateur arse?

"Well, I am very hilarious." - and surprisingly very modest

@SK

It doesn't end. Or it does with "..."I was just mucking about with you...

I know 

Sir Montague, that picture is scary.....he would go well in night club on Oxford St in Sydney....