PDA

View Full Version : Question of Quantum Teleportation in Space?



John Jaksich
2008-Dec-21, 05:57 AM
After some brief study of quantum teleportation and de-coherence, I am wondering (energy considerations aside)---how likely (in the future ?) someone could teleport an object larger than a tea cup from one point to another? :lol: There must be someone who has given this some consideration...?

mugaliens
2008-Dec-21, 12:41 PM
It's supposedly doable, although it's more like you're creating a copy downrange before you destroy the original.

If you were the copy, I think you'd be ok with it, but how would you feel going into the apparatus, knowing that it was you, your original self, that would be destroyed?

Alas, as you said, the energy is huge, and we're hundreds, if not thousands, of years away from making this happen on a practical basis.

John Jaksich
2008-Dec-21, 03:23 PM
I have obviously not thought it out completely...but I still think that it is somewhat intriguing...although I don't think I was assuming to put myself as the "lab rat" or anyone else for that matter. In some sense, this may (or probably is) be a form of "time travel" without completely breaking all of the laws of physics. Science fiction aside...my post was not motivated by any science fiction concept.


I thought that I needed to clarify what I wanted to say, originally.

mugaliens
2008-Dec-21, 05:15 PM
You bring up an interesting point with respect to "time travel."

Let's say, for example, that the human body/mind could be reduced to data. You enter the machine, it records you, then destroys you.

100 years later, you're created again and go merrily about your way, probably to jail, as you didn't pay your daily air tax, which is a capitol offense. By the way, Luna bought rights to you after the company with whom you contracted went out of business, so now you're a slave on the Moon.

But that's beside the point...

The point is in the form of a question: How much data would it take to record a human being? Consider - we wouldn't have to record every atom. We could simply record the full DNA, and armed with general information about the way various cells are made, we could simply say, "Hair follicle x 1.2 Million in this area (graphically depicted)."

Something like that.

The computer would go look up the atom-by-atom structure of a hair follicle, then supplant your DNA, and create 1.2 million of them over the area indicated.

But only complete information for one hair follicle would be stored, and your DNA would be stored only once. The rest is a DO-loop.

a1call
2008-Dec-21, 05:43 PM
Keeping in mind that I am the furthest thing from an expert on these matters, my (miss)understanding is that teleportation in the microscopic level happens due to the uncertainty principal and for a macroscopic object the average of the probabilities of individual particles make the phenomena next to impossible. However still mathematically slightly possible. I read somewhere that the photons from the sun reach us because they teleport through sun's inner gravity well (or something) and that's why the sun shines. So theoretically speaking if you put very large number of tea cups behind a wall it is possible to find one/some of them in front of the wall eventually.
Please feel free to correct my error.

John Jaksich
2008-Dec-21, 11:42 PM
Keeping in mind that I am the furthest thing from an expert on these matters, my (miss)understanding is that teleportation in the microscopic level happens due to the uncertainty principal and for a macroscopic object the average of the probabilities of individual particles make the phenomena next to impossible. However still mathematically slightly possible. I read somewhere that the photons from the sun reach us because they teleport through sun's inner gravity well (or something) and that's why the sun shines. So theoretically speaking if you put very large number of tea cups behind a wall it is possible to find one/some of them in front of the wall eventually.
Please feel free to correct my error.

I have not heard of that interpretation of the Sun's photons being teleported--but rather it being due to a "random walk" since the photons encounter a myriad of particles in the sun's interior and I believe that it takes approximately 1 million years for a photon (from the sun's core) to reach the earth. It would seem like it might pose a seemingly impossible energy barrier for a photon to tunnel or (more accurately) teleport through the sun's inner gravity well. This description is the one that I am most familiar with and it is, I believe, the standard response. To quote my astronomy instructor: "...The sun is boring...it just shines..."

a1call
2008-Dec-21, 11:52 PM
Hi,
Please see this video (http://dotsub.com/view/c059f8b6-a0c2-4be6-9b3a-0839e28bd980) or Google:
quantum tunneling "sun shines"

After reading your post a few more times, I fail to see the difference in what you said than what I did.

John Jaksich
2008-Dec-22, 12:14 AM
It is an intriguing video--if there is any tunneling to be had (in my opinion) it would be the solar neutrino that arrives before the photon. As is well documented--the solar neutrino plays fundamental role in the "shining" (nuclear fusion) of the sun. More to the point, the change of "neutrino-flavor" might be best explained through tunneling, IMO.

I enjoyed your post...

WayneFrancis
2008-Dec-23, 04:33 AM
You bring up an interesting point with respect to "time travel."

Let's say, for example, that the human body/mind could be reduced to data. You enter the machine, it records you, then destroys you.

100 years later, you're created again and go merrily about your way, probably to jail, as you didn't pay your daily air tax, which is a capitol offense. By the way, Luna bought rights to you after the company with whom you contracted went out of business, so now you're a slave on the Moon.

But that's beside the point...

The point is in the form of a question: How much data would it take to record a human being? Consider - we wouldn't have to record every atom. We could simply record the full DNA, and armed with general information about the way various cells are made, we could simply say, "Hair follicle x 1.2 Million in this area (graphically depicted)."

Something like that.

The computer would go look up the atom-by-atom structure of a hair follicle, then supplant your DNA, and create 1.2 million of them over the area indicated.

But only complete information for one hair follicle would be stored, and your DNA would be stored only once. The rest is a DO-loop.

One big problem with this. DNA is only a subset of a person.
Cognitive studies show that only about 50% of a persons personality can be directly attributed to genetics, 10% seems to be parental and about 40% environmental.

There are many test that support this. Many people have heard about twins that have identical, and often very obscure, habits even if they where separated at birth. But even so we can see that 2 twins, that are genetically identical are NOT the same person. To reproduce a person from DNA would take WAY more storage then if you just scanned them and held an atom by atom record of their state. Because unless you also stored their entire life experience and environment you would not reproduce them but at best the equivalent of an identical twin separated at birth.

In essence ~50% of your personality and personal identity has little to do with genetics. The slight changes like did that neuron grow an axon that went left or right. These microscopic differences are very much what makes you who you are. Individually they probably don't matter but collectively it is a big effect. Much like the expansion of the universe on our scale of everyday life doesn't seem to matter but on cosmic scales it does. Even more it is a bit like quantum tunneling. Their is a probability cloud of who you are based on all the events in your life. Even if you replayed the whole thing the same way you would not end up the same. But probably you would end up close enough not to notice any change but this would take all factors being played exactly the same. Take out an event in your life and your brain develops slightly different. Didn't get that rush from kissing Suzy when you where 11? A few neurons probably made different connections which would effect future decisions. The butterfly effect in action.

The movie "The Prestige" is a bit thought provoking on this topic.
Don't read any further if you don't want to know about the end of the movie.
=======Highlight between Here and the next lines you want to know where I am going with this

Hugh Jackman has a machine that duplicates him so he can appear to move from one place to another to fast to be humanly possible. In the process of the trick he kills himself. The first time he did this he killed the copy and you would think "OK the original survives" but with the trick he kills himself and the copy lives on to the next show. Irony is that he does this by drowning which he has been told is a peaceful way to die and it is not until the end he finds out that it isn't and at that point realizes he has been torturing all his previous selves in the process of doing this trick.

=======End of movie spoiler

Would an exact copy of you be you? This is much more philosophical then scientific. I don't think science could ever answer this. If you create 2 of you from that information are they both you?

Will we ever have Scotty beam us up? Who knows. Would you be the first to do it? Would you ever do it. Another good story with quantum teleportation is "Time Line".

thorkil2
2008-Dec-23, 05:15 AM
You bring up an interesting point with respect to "time travel."

Let's say, for example, that the human body/mind could be reduced to data. You enter the machine, it records you, then destroys you.

100 years later, you're created again and go merrily about your way, probably to jail, as you didn't pay your daily air tax, which is a capitol offense. By the way, Luna bought rights to you after the company with whom you contracted went out of business, so now you're a slave on the Moon.

But that's beside the point...

The point is in the form of a question: How much data would it take to record a human being? Consider - we wouldn't have to record every atom. We could simply record the full DNA, and armed with general information about the way various cells are made, we could simply say, "Hair follicle x 1.2 Million in this area (graphically depicted)."

Something like that.

The computer would go look up the atom-by-atom structure of a hair follicle, then supplant your DNA, and create 1.2 million of them over the area indicated.

But only complete information for one hair follicle would be stored, and your DNA would be stored only once. The rest is a DO-loop.

Not quite true. That would recreate a similar body, but you would also have to record a complete set of data on electrical states and field "vectors" (for lack of a better word at the moment) to recreate the mind and personality. That would be far more daunting, I should think, than re-creating the body.

Interesting sci-fi potential. Instead of submitting to destruction on this end, a person whose skills are needed elsewhere at some great distance simply has himself scanned here and reconstructed on-site. Lot of possible story lines out of that one, including personal travel at light speed.

Chunky
2008-Dec-25, 01:33 AM
You bring up an interesting point with respect to "time travel."

Let's say, for example, that the human body/mind could be reduced to data. You enter the machine, it records you, then destroys you.

100 years later, you're created again and go merrily about your way, probably to jail, as you didn't pay your daily air tax, which is a capitol offense. By the way, Luna bought rights to you after the company with whom you contracted went out of business, so now you're a slave on the Moon.

But that's beside the point...
funny stuff man!

Chunky
2008-Dec-25, 01:34 AM
i mest up the quote..

Chunky
2008-Dec-25, 01:37 AM
It's supposedly doable, although it's more like you're creating a copy downrange before you destroy the original.

If you were the copy, I think you'd be ok with it, but how would you feel going into the apparatus, knowing that it was you, your original self, that would be destroyed?

Alas, as you said, the energy is huge, and we're hundreds, if not thousands, of years away from making this happen on a practical basis.

its creepy how you worded that man! id rather just go really fast in space..

your consciousness would probably be distroyed. making you a doll. you think?

mugaliens
2008-Dec-25, 10:17 AM
its creepy how you worded that man! id rather just go really fast in space..

:lol:


your consciousness would probably be distroyed. making you a doll. you think?

Our consciousness is nothing more than trillions upon trillions of chemical potentials stored in the neurons of our brain. You do bring up a good point, though - even if the transfer was 99.99% accurate, the result would still be different enough that we might wind up a complete vegetable, or worse, a wildly convulsing spaz, until our heart, lungs, and other systems simply failed due to the "errors."

There - how's that for more "creepy?" :lol:

Chunky
2008-Dec-25, 06:09 PM
i was banned for cussing too.. i think.

Chunky
2008-Dec-25, 06:12 PM
:lol:



Our consciousness is nothing more than trillions upon trillions of chemical potentials stored in the neurons of our brain. You do bring up a good point, though - even if the transfer was 99.99% accurate, the result would still be different enough that we might wind up a complete vegetable, or worse, a wildly convulsing spaz, until our heart, lungs, and other systems simply failed due to the "errors."

There - how's that for more "creepy?" :lol:


noooo the first reply was creepier.