PDA

View Full Version : Teleportation



xds4lx
02-06-2003, 11:57 AM
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20030127/teleport.html cant wait to see what happenes when they try to teleport an actual object :-p it would be funny if it showed up all messed up

Travis Dane
02-06-2003, 12:12 PM
Not surprised at all, And if whe can teleport succesfully, We can
clone succesfully (at least we can hope to.).

Govtcheez
02-06-2003, 12:13 PM
>And if whe can teleport succesfully, We can
clone succesfully

Where's the correlation between cloning and teleportation?

"If we can teleport successfully, we can bake a great apple pie"

Travis Dane
02-06-2003, 12:16 PM
Well teleport is breaking down something, Transporting it in a
different form and rebuild it it somewhere else, If whe can break
down and rebuild a human being, well.....

Govtcheez
02-06-2003, 12:18 PM
Then we can teleport a human being? I still fail to see where you're going with this...

Travis Dane
02-06-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Govtcheez
Then we can teleport a human being? I still fail to see where you're going with this...

When a human being has broke down its info is stored in, lets
say, a text file. that text file is transported to the target and from
the text the human is rebuilt. But we can rebuilt infinite number
of those humans with that text file. Just an idea.....dont go too
harsh...

Vber
02-06-2003, 01:30 PM
I dont think they'll be able to teletransport objects, hard to believe, but if they'll, it'll be a big step, and an important one.

*ClownPimp*
02-06-2003, 02:34 PM
>Then we can teleport a human being? I still fail to see where you're going with this...

From what i remember about the work being done on teleportation, what they would do is somehow store the molecular information of the original object, destroy it, send the information, then rebuild an exact duplicate of the object at its destination. Cloning comes into play when you create an exact duplicate but without destroying the original. Interestingly, if it were done properly [and if what we think about what makes us "us" is true], it would be an EXACT copy of the original (ie. same age, same memories,... the same person)

-KEN-
02-06-2003, 02:43 PM
If that's true, I don't think any human would use it - would you want to be destroyed and then rebuilt? Me neither...

SMurf
02-06-2003, 02:53 PM
If it makes that crystal-cascading sound like on Star Trek I'm in :p

Vber
02-06-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by -KEN-
If that's true, I don't think any human would use it - would you want to be destroyed and then rebuilt? Me neither...

haha, me neither :)
So this isn't a really teleportation ;)

Travis Dane
02-06-2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Vber
haha, me neither :)
So this isn't a really teleportation ;)

that matters on how you define teleportation, I define it as
going from one place to another by a different means than
going with the bus like being carried through a wire for example.

I wonder how this is going to work out, As some believe you
can't copy a human because of it's soul and such.

Panopticon
02-06-2003, 07:02 PM
>>Is teleportation possible?
short answer: no
What they call teleportation is subatomically scanning every sub-atomic particle (fermions i think they are called) using electromagnetic radiation, and in doing so, you will be destroyed in the process. (because of the uncertainty principle) The data of your physical make-up is then sent to a transmitter (which would need something like a quantum computer to process all that information in practical time) and the transmitter sends the information in the form of light. Much like a modem converting digital to analog before sending. Then you'll be so called - teleporting to your destination at the speed of light, because the information needed to reconstruct you is EM radiation. On the other end the transmitter will receive the information and i'd assume - require some sort of energy -> matter converter and another quantum computer to properly reconstruct you, piece by piece, atom by atom. (the slightest error in reconstruction, especially in areas like the brain, can leave you with amnesia or a halved IQ lol)

The fact that you'll have to be destroyed and physically duplicated raises many ethical issues. And because of the technology required (quantum computers and fusion power [for energy -> matter converter] or some sort of highly efficient power generating means to name a few) and the information has to overcome the inverse square law over great distances and cannot be interrupted (the slightest refraction / reflection / diffraction of radiation can corrupt the data). . . I can go on about the dangers of teleportation, but I won't.

I forgot to mention why teleportation was so easily achieved by scientists today, its because they only managed to teleport light; no need for scanning atomic structures and energy -> matter conversion. Light is 'homogeneous' so all they had to do was read the light, send the data in the form of electricity to the receiver, and the receiver reproduced the light. the title given to that article - "Teleportation takes another step" seems like "1 down, 998 to go".

One more thing - teleportation is not instantaneous. You are capped at the speed of light. so to teleport from one end of our galaxy to another will take 100,000 years [non dilated time]

Silvercord
02-06-2003, 08:16 PM
what we really need to do is create something that turns us into four dimensional beings so we can go anywhere in an instant and then be converted back into 3d beings (no, I'm actually out of LSD)



This principle states that the more accurately you try to scan or measure an atom or other object in order to teleport it, the more you disrupt its original quantum state, and so you cannot create a true replica.


an inaccuracy unless there's something I'm ignorant of. You can look at atoms, I've got pictures of atoms in my chemistry book, humans can't look at electrons or anything smaller because our eyes absorb photons, but those photons transfer enough energy to electrons and smaller particles to move them.

vasanth
02-08-2003, 12:11 AM
Ok fine.. Lest us consider that we do develop the technology to do that in another 500 years or what ever.. What do you think...

If a person is teleported he is destroyed and an replica of him is created.. THough withg the same memory etc etc.. Isnt it like the actual person has died and the other person only has the same meory etc etc and stuff.. WOuld it be the same person...

Well then there would be no murder.. If a person is murder.. Read the file with his data and recreate him.:D:D:D:D

But if this tech was available i would be the first to try it..:D:D:D

Commander
02-08-2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by vasanth
....But if this tech was available i would be the first to try it..:D:D:D me too, y do u guys have 2 be so negetive for?? think, teleportation on the finding, a star trek scifi..right around the croner...and u guys don't wanna try it??..DAMN. :rolleyes:

Clyde
02-08-2003, 01:07 PM
"This principle states that the more accurately you try to scan or measure an atom or other object in order to teleport it, the more you disrupt its original quantum state, and so you cannot create a true replica. "

"an inaccuracy unless there's something I'm ignorant of. You can look at atoms, I've got pictures of atoms in my chemistry book, humans can't look at electrons or anything smaller because our eyes absorb photons, but those photons transfer enough energy to electrons and smaller particles to move them"

The uncertainty principle applies to atoms but is more of an issue when dealing with smaller particles like electrons. The original statement is correct; you cannot observe a quantum state without altering it.

Incidently the pictures in your chemistry book are either completely made up, or they are pictorial representations of the probability of finding an electron (depending on what level you're at), based upon mathematical solutions of a rather abbreviated version of the wave-equation, rather than a "picture" of a real atom.

DavidP
02-08-2003, 02:25 PM
the method of scanning all atoms, copying them all, and then putting them in another spot, is not the only method of teleportation conceived by our minds.

there are other theories on how teleportation can work in the universe, and only one theory is being explored in this thread.

There is also a theory of teleportation in which you rip a hole in space itself and use that hole to instantaneously move to another spot in space.

Xei
02-08-2003, 03:11 PM
We could live forever. I remember on Star Trek, I think season 5... the old engineer scotty put himself in a teleportation matrix and had it use the ships power to keep the information without it dissipating. Then he came out 70 years later.... we could live forever! We could have games like Unreal Tournament! We could all blow eachother up, then come back to life... then die again. Hehe! It would be great! One day any of us could wake up and wonder what it would be like to be hit by a Semi Truck, or what it would feel like not to use a parachute when skydiving. Hehe, then we would hear school kids argueing "Oh yea! well I've died 56 times already!" Hehe, it would be great... but I dont really understand the significance of transporting a photon, or how you would know you did it.... like isn't that the same as saying "I took a bright light and shined it on the wall..."??

GanglyLamb
02-08-2003, 03:49 PM
I forgot to mention why teleportation was so easily achieved by scientists today, its because they only managed to teleport light; no need for scanning atomic structures and energy -> matter conversion. Light is 'homogeneous' so all they had to do was read the light, send the data in the form of electricity to the receiver, and the receiver reproduced the light. the title given to that article - "Teleportation takes another step" seems like "1 down, 998 to go".

E=M*Cē

i think that says enough. the strange thing about light is that it can be seen as a wave (like radio-waves) but on the other hand light can be seen as a matter.... well im pretty sure einsteins theory will be involved.....

if it would work with humans it would be great.
<<thinking bout myself within 30 years sayin>>
"Beam me up Scotty"
<<in a flash im in the vault of a bank then i page scotty back and then im a billionaire and i'll drink all day, being lazy, becoming old>>

::background flows::
snap back to reality
oh there goes gravity
:cool:
:::::::flow........:::::::

Jeremy G
02-08-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Travis Dane
When a human being has broke down its info is stored in, lets
say, a text file.

DIALOG: This file is too large for word pad, would you like to open it in .....

GanglyLamb
02-08-2003, 04:03 PM
DIALOG: This file is too large for word pad, would you like to open it in .....

LMAO

ammar
02-09-2003, 04:46 AM
I don't think that people will be a ble to do Teleportation as it's in Science Fiction, not in the near future...

salvelinus
02-09-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Xei
We could live forever. I remember on Star Trek, I think season 5... the old engineer scotty put himself in a teleportation matrix
There was no season 5 on the original Star Trek series. I don't remember any episode where that even occurred. It may have been in one of the Star Trek novels, don't know. In one of the novels or movies Bones did mention the destruction/duplication issue.
Teleportation in this manner may or may not be possible, but it seems like it would take prohibitively massive amounts of energy to use on objects at a greater than atomic scale.
The "rip a hole in space" idea isn't actually teleportation, it's faster than light travel. Teleportation in this example is constrained by the speed of light.

Xei
02-09-2003, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by salvelinus
There was no season 5 on the original Star Trek series. I don't remember any episode where that even occurred.

Okay, in Star Trek: The Next Generation, on, I think, Season 5(It might be 6) the Enterprise finds a world which has some sort of shell around it. Meanwhile they find another shuttle which was attached to it and inside of the Teleportation matrix they Find 'Scotty' from the original Star Trek series(The one with Kirk). If you want I can search the set of DVD's and find the name of the episode.

salvelinus
02-09-2003, 06:08 PM
Sorry, my mistake, assumed you meant the first series when you mentioned Scotty.

Silvercord
02-09-2003, 06:18 PM
Incidently the pictures in your chemistry book are either completely made up, or they are pictorial representations of the probability of finding an electron (depending on what level you're at), based upon mathematical solutions of a rather abbreviated version of the wave-equation, rather than a "picture" of a real atom.


text from the book



You might think that because atoms are so small there would be no way to actually see them. However an instrument called the scanning tunneling microscope allows individual atoms to be seen.


text next to a picture of a bunch of gold atoms on graphite


A mound of gold atoms (yellow, red, and brown) is easily discerned from the graphite substrate (green) it rests on


all on page 91 of 'chemistry and change', all four authors have graduate degrees.

Clyde
02-10-2003, 09:55 AM
"text from the book


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You might think that because atoms are so small there would be no way to actually see them. However an instrument called the scanning tunneling microscope allows individual atoms to be seen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"

Ah i see, i thought you were referring the molecular models usually used to pictorially represent atoms/molecules.

Personally i don't really think the term "see" should be used in the way your books uses it; the colours for example are not indicative of the actual colour of the material, they are merely labels and added afterwards. Whilst the technique is exeedingly usefull i think it would be a mistake to believe that those pictures are what atoms "really look like".

STM works a bit like an old record player you a have a fine needle that is passed over a surface, bumps in the surface cause it to move up whilst dips cause it to move down. It is remarkable technology but it cannot break fundamental laws of physics like the uncertainty principle; in order for it to work current has to be passed through the material being examined, as such altering its state.

XR3D403
02-10-2003, 10:11 AM
One more thing - teleportation is not instantaneous. You are capped at the speed of light. so to teleport from one end of our galaxy to another will take 100,000 years [non dilated time]


I wonder if the person which is teleported actualy has any knowledge of the time passing by.. I mean..you wouldn't exist for a 100,000 years right?

Anyway, I think teleportation is a good way to transport stuff, like a shipment of food, not human beings.

Also, if we are able to rebuilt a human being via this technique, then this would be a great "cure" for people who lost limps, like an arm or something. Or remove all the aids cells out of a person infected with aids.

salvelinus
02-10-2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by XR3D403
I wonder if the person which is teleported actualy has any knowledge of the time passing by.. I mean..you wouldn't exist for a 100,000 years right?

Actually, it would seem instantaneous to you. Time, according to Einstein, is relative. At the speed of light, time relative to the rest of the universe is zero.
This why there's the paradox of the twins, one of whom is sent into space at 90% the speed of light for a year (as measured on the spacecrafts's clock) before returning to Earth. For the twin who stayed behind, 60 years (or whatever) have passed. Space twin has only seen a year go by.

Silvercord
02-10-2003, 01:13 PM
the colours for example are not indicative of the actual colour of the material

color is, afterall, only the energy of the photons absorbed by your eye, right? Why can't green and yellow be representative of the 'actual material' of the atom? That would only mean those atoms reflect/emit electromagnetic radiation in waves with the frequency corresponding to yellow and green 'color'. Erm, yeah I'm trying to be careful how I say things because I'm by no means a chem smartie pants :)

Clyde
02-10-2003, 03:19 PM
"color is, afterall, only the energy of the photons absorbed by your eye, right?"

Well colour is caused by the differing energy of photons, yes.

"Why can't green and yellow be representative of the 'actual material' of the atom?"

Well I suppose i really shouldn't talk about the "actual" colour of the material since colour is not a "real" property its one we make up in our heads, but the energy of the photons that result in colour are real values.

Blue is about 400 nm radiation, red is about 700 nm radiation, when i say that the colours in the STM picture are not "real", i mean that the atoms are not "actually" that colour ie. they don't give off (or absorb) the right wavelength of radiation that would make them say green.

Those colours are added after the main spectroscopy is done for ease of labelling.

"That would only mean those atoms reflect/emit electromagnetic radiation in waves with the frequency corresponding to yellow and green 'color'"

Right, but they don't, if graphite absorbed/emited the right wavenlength of radiation to be green then graphite would be green and it's not.

You could colour in the atoms the "right" colour, but that would be an addition afterwards, STM does not pick up radiation hence colour cannot really be applied to it.

What it gives you is a picture deduced from the potential difference between the tip of needle and the atoms below.

Silvercord
02-10-2003, 05:36 PM
Well you obviously know your stuff, and I see what you've been trying to say to me, that the colors were added in basically to just help the reader be able to see the stuff better. I still think it's cool that we can at least 'see' atoms with a STM. I wonder how long it took to build that (from conceiving the idea to actually building what we have today). Probably a great engineering effort.

salvelinus
02-10-2003, 06:34 PM
While most of this seems impossible in a practical sense, who knows? Would people in the 17th century understand quantum mechanics? People in the 20th century usually didn't. There might be all kinds of amazing scientific developments in the next century. Why, Clyde might even renounce evolution! :D

deltabird
02-10-2003, 08:40 PM
One cool application I could think of is with computer games. If you could get all of the information about a person, and send it to a computer game, you could have a computer game where the character is "you". It would be pretty cool for online games I would assume :)

XR3D403
02-11-2003, 05:02 AM
Lol, than it is you who is getting shot :) Man, this stuff hurts my mind :) I like it :D

Clyde
02-11-2003, 10:40 AM
"I still think it's cool that we can at least 'see' atoms with a STM"

I certainly agree that it's cool =).

"There might be all kinds of amazing scientific developments in the next century"

I hope there will be, who knows i might even be part of one :D

"Why, Clyde might even renounce evolution! "

Heh, somehow I doubt it :)