[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 38 KB, 200x200, 8283.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1436217 No.1436217 [Reply] [Original]

Teleportation.

possible, possible - to a certain extent, or impossible?

>> No.1436224

Only if you can make negative energy.

Which means that it's impossible.

>> No.1436220

You can teleport apples to africa and solver world hunger.

>> No.1436225

>>1436217
It depends on how you define 'teleportation.'

>> No.1436227

>>1436217
if possible then wouldn't molecular cloning be possible too? imagine a copy of you being created in less then a second.

>> No.1436237

Atomic teleportation is proven and is possible, though it's extremely hard and costly even at tiny distances and tiny atomic levels. Imagine how much it would cost to teleport a piece of rock a few miles.

>> No.1436247

>>1436225
disassembling and reassembling the same matter probably

>> No.1436249

>>1436237

Sources of this, please.

>> No.1436258

>>1436237

That's just information though. I mean the actual transfer of matter at large distances at or above the speed of light.

>> No.1436269

>>1436224
Why is negative energy required?

>> No.1436275

>>1436258

Not currently possible, and highly unlikely for any time in the future.

It would require a machine capable of either:

A) taking you apart one molecule at a time, firing you off at the speed of light, and re-assembling you at the destination, all without error. The taking apart and putting back together would also have to happen in a fraction of a milisecond, lest our brains come into existence without any blood being pumped to them from the non-existant heart

b) A machine that would pretty much have to break physics and just warp you around the place.

>> No.1436279

>>1436269

You can (Theoretically) create wormholes in space by utilizing negative energy. However, there's one blatantly obvious flaw with that theory, which is, negative energy.

>> No.1436286

Extremely impractical.

>> No.1436292

Why negative energy is impossible:

Energy is basically shit moving. In any direction. That is energy, in the most basic form I can state it as

When energy reaches it's lowest point, there is zero movement. No movement, no energy.

Negative energy would require negative movement. Not like "Moving left instead of right" negative, but rather "That stuff is anti-moving." which is impossible.

>> No.1436303

two words: QUANTUM TELEPORTATION


shits been done already

>> No.1436327

>>1436303

Before anyone else comes in here with that fake stuff:

Quantum teleportation

When scientists talk about teleportation, they don't typically mean teleporting matter from one place to another as in the new movie. Rather, teleportation involves capturing the essential information about something — its "quantum state" — to recreate it exactly someplace else.

http://www.livescience.com/technology/080214-jumper-movie.html

>> No.1436342

>Rather, teleportation involves capturing the essential information about something — its "quantum state" — to recreate it exactly someplace else.
sounds like teleportation to me

>> No.1436349

Not the same as teleporting matter. Not at all.

>> No.1436354

I guess theoretically, in the near or far future, teleportation might be practical. But not right now.

>> No.1436355

Teleportation looks like something being in one spot and then being in another spot.

Maybe you could "tune" yourself out of the universe, travel the distance at the speed of light, and then "tune" back in.

Pass through solid matter etc. Maybe still effected by gravity?

>> No.1436357

>>1436342

You're basically sending INCREDIBLY detailed blueprints around.

>> No.1436369

>>1436342
teleportation, matter isn't replicated, it "magically" pops somewhere else

>> No.1436384

>>1436355
i herd somewhere that instead of moving matter you could "move" the space you're in so it could "travel" faster than light

>> No.1436405

>>1436384

The Alcubierre drive?

>> No.1436407
File: 26 KB, 380x300, boom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1436407

>>1436384

>> No.1436414

>>1436384
That's the alcubierre drive

Someone made it more efficient by creating a space bubble that goes inside a space bubble. So instead of requiring the energy of several entire stars, you can run it with a nuclear reactor or something.

You also end up being able to fit the spacecraft in a space smaller than it is - like walking into a house that is larger on the inside than the outside.

>> No.1436421

>>1436414
is it possible/feasible?

>> No.1436422

>>1436421
I think it requires negative energy.

Which sounds pretty impossible to me.

>> No.1436446

>>1436421
>>1436422
according to Serguei Krasnikov,[5] it would be impossible to generate the bubble without being able to force the exotic matter to move at locally FTL speeds, which would require the existence of tachyons. Some methods have been suggested which would avoid the problem of tachyonic motion, but would probably generate a naked singularity at the front of the bubble.[6][7]

sounds fun

>> No.1436455

>>1436446
>naked singularity

hell yeah

>> No.1436464
File: 95 KB, 199x218, 1278285377867.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1436464

Simple, you just move objects into the 11th dimension desu.

>> No.1436467

>>1436422
FUCK THIS NEGATIVE ENERGY BULLSHIT

I JUST WANT MY REPLICATORS, TRANSPORTERS AND WARP DRIVES PLEASE.

Cough 'em up /sci/, my future is looking far too boring right now.

>> No.1436471 [DELETED] 

>>1436215

Ａｓ_ＰREVＩＯUSｌＹ_mｅｎtＩＯnｅD,_ＴＨeＳE_meｓsｓＡGｅs WILl_ＣOｎTＩnue uＮTiL Ｙou_ＰｅRmａｎＥNＴLY sＴＯｐ ＡＴｔＡCkIＮG And FＵＣｋiNＧ_with ＷｗＷ.aＮｏNｄｅrｐｔａlＫ.Ｓe_(ＲeｍoVe_ＴhE_DｅRＰ), ｒemovE_AＬｌ_ilＬeｇａＬ CＬＯｎEｓ_ｏF IT ＡＮd_ｌＩＥＳ ＡBＯＵｔ_ｉt_ＡＮｄ dｏnAtｅ_ＡＴ lＥａsｔ A MＩLlｉｏｎ_ｕSｄ_tＯ_ｓysOＰ_ａS ｃＯＭpeｎSＡtIon ｆor ｔHｅ_massＩＶＥ ＤaｍａＧＥ_ｙＯＵ RｅＴＡRdＳ_hAvE ｃＡuSＥd.
t dgbi ll l ldf nqo neyzmit g kqcjchz qvio

>> No.1436478

>>1436467
Replicators aren't too far off.

>> No.1436510

>>1436455

Calling Rule 34 on singularities.

>> No.1436535

>>1436467
I want the Holodeck even more.

>> No.1437455

quantum entanglement couple with classic communcation method to over come the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

destructively copy the exact quantum/atomic state of evey atom in your body.

Transmit the info over a very high bandwith comm system, and put you back together at the other end out of raw matter.

easy

>> No.1437471

keep in mind that if you want to teleport in the ways described, you'd die, phase out of existence, then come back, except you wouldn't be "you" anymore.

imagine if everytime you teleport, a clone of you is made somewhere else, but then you, the original, dies.

>> No.1437484

>>1437471

this is pure conjecture and assumes that humans are somehow more than the sum of their parts. we may very well find this not to be the case.

>> No.1437502

>>1437484
We'd still die and our copy would come out the other end, thinking it all worked fine.

>> No.1437506

>>1437484

humans aren't more than the sum of their parts. but it wouldn't be cool if i "died" to teleport, placing my clone in the destination.

>> No.1437508
File: 14 KB, 480x360, 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1437508

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc

>> No.1437552

>>1437508

nice vid. puts out what I meant to say.

>> No.1437599

>>1437502

not sure what you mean, are you saying that if I were to step into a teleporter and hit the button that that would be the last thing I ever experience, and that some other guy with all of my knowledge etc would come out the other side? Pretty much I would die?

Because if you think that would happen then that means you think that we are more than the sum of our parts.

>> No.1437612

>>1437599

quite the contrary. in fact, it's you that is suggesting that.

you have yourself and a clone. you kill yourself. you cease to exist.

are you saying that if you kill yourself but your clone goes on, that you, the original, still exists?

>> No.1437668

>>1437599
By saying we are more than sum of our parts, you are implying that we are somehow special. We are not, we are just very evolved (on earth) living organisms. But we do have consciousness, which would cease to exist once you get disassembled. An exact copy would come out, but it wouldn't be you. YOU would be dead (not existing anymore).

>> No.1437713

>>1437484
Just imagine that it was done so that you weren't destroyed during it, so there is two of you. You wouldn't be in control over two bodies. They would be identical, but one would be you, the other wouldn't. Just a completely identical clone.

>> No.1437722

>>1437668
I really don't know why some people find this hard to grasp. Your consciousness, the thing that makes you you, won't be transferred. It will be duplicated. Do some people not feel like they are a singular observer? Do you really feel like you are just a machine?

>> No.1437733

>>1437668

I'm saying that if we are the sum of our parts, then if you make an exact copy of me, then it will be me.

If you are saying an exact copy of a person, down to the state and spin of every atom and electron, will somehow have a different consciousness than the original person, then you are necessarily saying that we are more than the sum of our parts. You are saying that a consciousness arises from something beyond the states and patterns of our atoms.

>> No.1437815

Brain cells A & B, linked, are sending out impulses, contributing to a persons consciousness.
How to transfer to another place without a discontinuity of output or destruction of a person?
Soln: the Turing Transfer.
Cell 'B is created in another location, identical to B.
Cell A is linked to 'B in the same configuration as it is to cell B.
Cell A's impulses now trigger both B & 'B, conscious thought continues throughout.
Cell B is destroyed & consciousness is now seated in A & 'B.
The subjects mind is now partially in two locations.
Cell 'A is created, identical to A & linked to 'B, just as A & B were linked.
Both A & 'A are stimulating cell 'B.
Cell A is destroyed.
Cell 'A & 'B continue operate, but the output of human consciousness is now in another location.

>> No.1437835

>>1437506
Sup, feeling a pang of existentialism?

>> No.1437836

Whether you die and are duplicated from different matter, or are pulled apart and reassembled with the same matter, the same process is taking place. Either way you "die".

>> No.1437885

Isn't our consciousness just chemicals in our brain and if our clone is an exact replica..... This is a thinker

>> No.1437929

If you think your exact clone won't be "you", you must believe in a soul, and fuck knows why a spiritual faggot would be posting on /sci/,

>> No.1437955

>>1437836
There is a discontinuity, yes.
But you could say the same of suspended animation...you're dead...except you also come back.

>> No.1437971

>>1437733
It would be an identical consciousness, but not the same one. Just identical.

>> No.1438013

>>1437929
It would be you in the original, and you in the clone. But they are different you's. Identical, but different. If you die, and your clone lives on, it's a different you. What you experience will be cut short and YOU as a consciousness won't survive. An identical one will.

Picture the clone in front of you. You don't experience what the other clone does, you have your own mind.

>> No.1438018

>>1438013

We don't understand enough about conciousness for you to be making this claim.

>> No.1438034

>>1437733
It would be identical, just not the same consciousness. If you have fifty identical copies of yourself, you aren't experiencing what they experience. They are their own mind, their own consciousness from that point.

>> No.1438041

>> Implying that there is some magical, unmeasurable property that would seperate two identical systems if you couldn't tell which was which.

Relativity etc. Nothing seperating them, so the only conclusion I can come up with now is that you would experience both at once.

This is of course, only until we figure out what conciousness is.

>> No.1438065

>>1438018
Unless you believe in a soul yourself transporting with you, you will be a different person. We DO know enough about consciousness to make that claim. It's common sense.

>> No.1438070

>>1438018
To the new 'you' and everyone else, it will be you. To you, yourself, you will cease to exist.

>> No.1438074

>>1438065

Ok cite sources please where we have measured what/where conciousness takes place.

Also no, I'm not implying a soul by saying we don't know enough about conciousness to say that. I'm saying we DON'T KNOW. And all of this is simply speculation with no grounding in scientific evidence.

>> No.1438078

i'm sure "science" will test the clone-teleporting thing.

"Subjects, after going through the 'teleportation process', seem to have increased levels of apathy and decreased empathy towards other organisms and individuals."

nosoouuullls

>> No.1438080

My guy feeling saying impossible. Even if you're "teleporting" you still have to be slower than the speed of light.

>> No.1438083

>>1438080

Agree'd for the most part. So it would be basically pointless and we should just create a decent prepulsion system anyway, as it will no doubt use much less power.

>> No.1438101

If there is the exsistence of a star trek like "Subspace" then I would say that it is plausible..but as a side note if the exsistence of "subspace" were to be proven tons of scientifical breakthroughs would be plausible.. =) O.H

>> No.1438106

>>1438074
"WE DON'T KNOW" doesn't mean you get to insert whatever bullshit you feel like.

Why souls and not some other random bullshit magic fairy shit?

>> No.1438108

>>1438101

Yeah but that's just one of those things that would make life oh so easy.

I doubt it does exist. Also how the fuck would we change dimentions. That just seems stupidly difficult.

>> No.1438112

>>1438106
>>1438106
>>1438106

WTF?! I'm not the one saying there IS a soul?! I'm saying there is no magical quantity that seperates the two systems?! WHAT?!?!?

What the actual fuck?! That was that other guy saying the two conciousnesses are seperate! HE is suggesting something akin to a soul. Not me?!

myheadisfulloffuck.jpg

>> No.1438115

>>1438112
Oh. Well.
Carry on then.

>> No.1438123

>>1438115

I lol'd.

>> No.1438124
File: 48 KB, 800x600, house.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1438124

>>1437929

I agree. I don't understand that some of you guys don't get it. You eat shit everyday that after digestion becomes you.

>> No.1438125

>>1438112
Sorry, turns out it was meant for >>1438078

>> No.1438132

>>1438125

Makes much more sense now.

>> No.1438135

>>1438013
Well if the clone was standing directly in front of me and I was the clone, then the clone would be standing directly in front of me.

If I were in the same situation that the clone was, I would be reacting in the exact same fashion.

>> No.1438143

>>1438135

When we understand enough about the brain, we could simply input the exact same electrical signals into both brains, giving them the exact same conciousness.

This would basically mean there is no difference whatsoever between two the people.

That is of course unless you are seperating the two people through some magical unknown quantity eg A soul?!

>> No.1438159

teleport, both copies still alive and meet

...

it's not gay, it's masturbation!

>> No.1438204

>>1438159
Now neither of us will be virgins!

>> No.1438224

>>1436215

As ｐrｅｖIOUSＬy_ＭｅＮｔIoＮｅＤ,_tHｅSＥ MｅSｓSaＧes ＷIｌL_ＣoNＴinｕＥ uＮｔＩl_YOU_perMAＮEnTＬｙ stoｐ_aｔtaＣＫｉｎg ＡｎＤ_fuCｋINＧ_ｗＩＴＨ_wｗＷ.ANｏｎｄＥＲＰＴaｌk.Ｓｅ_(REmoｖｅ ｔHｅ dＥrp),_REmｏvE ａlｌ IlLｅgＡL_ｃLｏNeS_Oｆ_Ｉt_anｄ ｌＩＥＳ_abｏUt_It_ａnd dｏＮAte aＴ_lEＡｓｔ_a MILＬiｏｎ UsＤ ｔＯ ＳｙSｏP ａS_ＣｏmＰｅnｓAＴｉON ｆoR TｈE_ｍaｓsＩVE dAｍａＧＥ ＹｏU ＲETａＲdｓ_HAｖｅ_ＣAｕｓＥｄ.
yjoujzw khgrdx l qmyzn djpunvjchb do ouoa

>> No.1438237

Fuck we dont need teleportation.

You get a big catapult and a big net and you're done.

>> No.1438242

>>1438159
>>1438204
So, engineering general?

>> No.1438342

>>1438143
That's fine and dandy, but they are still going to be separate people. Even if they are EXACTLY the same. If you have the exact same neurons firing in each, they are identical. Yet, they are still separate entities.

>> No.1438537

>>1438342
So use a process that does not see a separate entity form. As in
>>1437815