Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: A theory for fast as light travel, maybe ..., possibly ..., probably not.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Buckinghamshire, England
    Posts
    5

    Lightbulb A theory for fast as light travel, maybe ..., possibly ..., probably not.

    A theory for fast as light travel, possibly..., maybe..., probably, not.

    E=MC^2

    M= E/C^2

    Thus Energy can be turned into matter as documented here. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrod.../#904a17026ac8

    So then we use positive and negatively charged cathodes and anodes to separate the newly created positron and electron.
    From this point we have possibly harnessed anti-matter, or we can use the
    electrons to create atoms to create matter, but how?

    May 18, 2008 #2
    malawi_glenn Gluons, and quarks.
    For instance in an electron-positron collider, you can create a quark-antiquark pair that undergoes hadronization and gluon emission -> in those processes protons and neutrons (and other hadrons) can be created. Also in a proton-antiproton collider and in a proton-proton collider, you will get free quarks and gluons that will undergo hadronization. In particle physics, a photon is a particle.

    Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...energy.235921/

    Now we have protons and electrons. Thus we simply need to add them together in the correct amounts and the correct way to produce atoms.

    If we can do this with enough precision we can effectively travel at the speed of light.
    1. A space faring vehicle is produced on earth.
    2. It travels to a geostationary station above Earth.
    3. There it and itís inhabitants have their atoms counted and recorded (Problem one)
    4. Exactly equal amounts of light energy are produced.
    5. This is shone towards the target.
    6. The target station collects the light.
    7. The light is turned into electrons.
    8. Hadronization produces protons and neutrons.
    9. Using these, atoms are created to perfectly match those at the original station.(Problem two)
    10. We have thus made a duplicate copy that has traveled at the speed of light, maybe.

    So thanks to everyone who reads this. This is just the product of 30 mins of brainstorming and research. I know many people in the scientific field and on this forum have spent many many times more than that looking for an answer for such a question. The very fact Iíve come up with this shows that itís probably been thought of before and either dismissed or is in the process of undergoing further study. I also understand that this idea is full of some many holes in it that if you were able to make ideas in to matter (I might try that next) it would look like Swiss cheese, and the two problems I mentioned are by no means the only ones. These were the two main problems that would require technology we donít currently have (I donít think) and would need a lot of time, effort and resources to solve.
    I beg that anyone who sees this and can find a problem with it please tell me what it is, or if thereís any blatant information that changes this whole idea. You canít fill in a hole if you donít know it exists and where it is. Iím just a 14 year old having some rather superficial thoughts about a humongous topic, but please feel free to explain to me if possible what Iím missing, in which ever way is best. So once again thanks for reading and this was my theory for fast as light travel, possibly ..., maybe..., probably not

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,378
    Welcome to the CosmoQuest forums, SuperTJ7272. The Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers forum is where folks generally get straightforward, mainstream answers to their questions. So I have move your post to Science and Technology, were more complex answers can be offered.

    However, you should understand that you must not advocate non-mainstream ideas this forum. If you have a new theory, you may present it in the Against The Mainstream forum, where you'll be expected to defend it and answer questions about it.

    If you haven't already done so, please read our rules linked in my signature line below. You might also read the alternate theory advice, also linked.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,079
    You seem to be asking it in a fairly complicated way, but it seems that you are describing essentially a form of "transporter," like in Star Trek. You can transform bodies into some kind of information (via photons), and then reconstitute them on the other side, basically recreating the matter using the information from the photons. I think it's feasible. However, sorry but I wouldn't let you do it to me.
    As above, so below

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,000
    Your two marked problems are not small ones as you rightly point out - the amount of information and the amount of fine scale control of matter needed is a very long way from where we are today. I'm not sure we even know to what level of fidelity you would have to copy a human to in order to have them sit up and say "what just happened?" at the other end. And that is before we think about transmission errors, the limit of information we can measure accurately due to quantum effects (you may have to end up using quantum teleportation, but that hits the issue of scaling this technology beyond a molecule which may be impractical) and so on.

    I'm afraid your basic idea has been around for a little while - but that shouldn't put you off thinking about it. There are a lot of technical and philosophical questions raised by the idea that are definitely interesting (the obvious one being - why should I destroy the person at the start of this, why not just copy them and have two).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Buckinghamshire, England
    Posts
    5
    Entirely understandable. Id also like to keep all my atoms as long as possible.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Buckinghamshire, England
    Posts
    5
    Thanks, I'm new to this whole forum thing. Could you help me, what constitutes a non-mainstream idea. Considerino that we have no fast as light travel ideas isn't there no mainstream, just a jumble of possibilities and dreams. Please explain to me.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Buckinghamshire, England
    Posts
    5
    Yeah I didn't comment on that last point, destroying the original or not. I'm not sure whether that makes this a cloning machine and 3d printer with some very powerful, long distance wifi. Also I suppose that there's the problem that to get the person on the other side to get up, we would literally have created very complex human life, not just a baby without any mental abilities, but a adult with capabilities, skills and memories. That would possibly be one of the biggest problems, how do we build a brain?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,166
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperTJ7272 View Post
    Thanks, I'm new to this whole forum thing. Could you help me, what constitutes a non-mainstream idea. Considerino that we have no fast as light travel ideas isn't there no mainstream, just a jumble of possibilities and dreams. Please explain to me.
    SuperTJ7272

    There is no easy answer to your question as to what is a non-mainstream idea. It is an idea outside of what is considered the well recognized theories of science, and it is determined by the judgement of the Moderation Team of the forum. Maybe the best clues are to look around the forum for a while, as what is in the Against The Mainstream (ATM) forum and what isn't.

    And just because there isn't a mainstream idea, doesn't mean that anything goes. Sometimes the mainstream answer is "we don't know".

    One last thing - I happened to see your question, but moderators don't read every thread on the forum. If you have questions in the future, it is best to either PM one or several of the moderators, to use the Report function (the black triangle in the lower left of each post with the ! in it - that communicates with all moderators), or to post in the Feedback forum

    Have fun..
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,016
    There is a problem with this idea. You do not need to just count atoms. In the case of a brain for example the information file cannot easily be reduced as say a crystal could be zipped up. The interconnection of the synapses would need to be coordinated in xyz and time. Otherwise you transit a shopping basket of atoms like ashes from a crematorium. The information content is a bigger file. So converting the signal back into atoms needs to accumulate the xyzt information for each atom in order to achieve some kind of implossive crystalisation moment. There is a real worry that that implosion implies an infinitely short moment to achieve a true reproduction. I think that last part is likely impossible. It implies a synchronised quantum collapse at one instant. So i will not invest.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,221
    As profloater points out: humans are dynamic objects. They cannot be frozen long enough to record the position of every atom. Looking at it the other way, in the non-zero tme it takes to record a human, the human will have changed.

    What arrives will be the human equivalent of this:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •