Teleportation

[ronthepon]

Now I just gotta ask:

 

Is there any conceptual way in which we can get from place A to place B faster than light?

 

Well, I have seen some concepts

 

1- Pre-storing the 100% atomic and molecular information of the object to be teleported at the teleportation destination.

Then forming the object there and destroying the initial object.

 

2- Getting them through wormholes

Yeah, that's cool too...

 

3- Converting the object's complete information into electromagnetic radiations and sending it.

Hey! That's not faster than light!

 

Now the problem with the first two techniques is: Hiensenberg's uncertainity principle! Too much information! And the fact that the true molecular organisation of most objects is changing very fast.

 

And the reason that I don't feel good about the second is: Wormholes?!! What wormholes?!

 

Any new ideas?

 

Any justifying these ideas?

[hallenrm]

Here some help!

 

I often feel I am transported, in my dreams;)

 

So transportation is possible as a thought process, it requires

 

1. tuning of the mind wanting to be transported, to mass conciousness, where all the information you are talking about is already there:)

 

2. Will and motivation to be transported.

 

 

How's that ronthenpon?

 

Any way, Good morning!!

[GAHD]

physicly? not too likely on anything oher than anatomic scale anytime in the forseeable future.

[ronthepon]

Hey, thought!

 

That's a new idea.

 

Anyway, I was writing a science fiction peice for the school magazine.

[docbill]

Now I just gotta ask:

 

Is there any conceptual way in which we can get from place A to place B faster than light?

 

Well, I have seen some concepts

 

1- Pre-storing the 100% atomic and molecular information of the object to be teleported at the teleportation destination.

Then forming the object there and destroying the initial object.

 

2- Getting them through wormholes

Yeah, that's cool too...

 

3- Converting the object's complete information into electromagnetic radiations and sending it.

Hey! That's not faster than light!

 

Now the problem with the first two techniques is: Hiensenberg's uncertainity principle! Too much information! And the fact that the true molecular organisation of most objects is changing very fast.

 

And the reason that I don't feel good about the second is: Wormholes?!! What wormholes?!

 

Any new ideas?

 

Any justifying these ideas?

 

 

The point about teleportation, is you do not need to measure values to transmit them. So long as you never "peek" to see what it is you are sending it is theoretically possible to send 100% of the information. So ultimately, the question always boils down to how to send information faster than light.

 

Here are various methods of FTL travel I have seen published in journels:

 

1. Assuming Super String Theory is correct, and it is possible to create stable negative mass then it would in theory be possible to create a stable warp bubble. This bubble would bend space such that it could move relative to someone outside the bubble much faster than light. The bad news is, unlike Star Trek, a warp bubble would be increadably small, smaller than an atom. The good news is that like Dr Who's TARDIS the inside would be bigger. In fact you could make it big enough to place a ship like Dr Who's TARDIS. The problem is of course, how do you get in and out? The only possible way seems to be some sort of tunneling based teleportation.

 

2. Assuming Super String Theory is correct, and it is possible to create stable negative mass, then it might be possible to create stable worm holes. Again the problem with worm holes is size. So again quantum based tunneling teleportation would be necessary.

 

3. Assuming Heim theory is correct, use a gravophotonic field to cancel out part of your mass and displace you into subspace. In theory, this could be done for large objects, so teleportation would not be necessary. However, in practice it might be problematic getting an entire object to enter subspace at the same time. In that case, molecular disintigration would limit you to a form of teleportation as the only FTL transport means.

 

4. Use only the leading edge pulses of long wavelengths. Basically the idea is if you try to receive a 2 m radio signal 3 m away, some of the photons will arrive after only traveling 1 m due to the uncertainty of position. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing which photons will arrive early. Fortunately, to transmit information you do not need to know this. All you need to do is be extremely redundant. So if for example you are transmitting QBIT information, you might quantumly couple 100 photons and read the QBIT from the firsh photon to arrive. The obvious problem here is the farther you are transmitting the information the longer of wavelength that is needed. If you try using many relay stations with shorter wavelengths, you will find the retransmit time will slow down the signal to sublight.

 

Bill

[Farsight]

Conceptual? Who needs conceptual when we've got some actual, LOL!

 

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae219.cfm

[ronthepon]

Conceptual? Who needs conceptual when we've got some actual, LOL!

 

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae219.cfm

Um, popular, I think that you are misunderstanding the link thing a little.

And maybe I got to be more clear.

How to get from point A to point B faster than the speed of light in vacum.

 

The link, which has got to do with Cerenkov radiation, shows the effects of light speeding faster than the speed of light in that medium.

Like, the speed of light in some glass is say 1.879 X 10^8 m/s.

[TheFaithfulStone]

ronthepon,

 

An interesting FAQ about FTL and relativity.

 

http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/index.html

 

Most "methods" of FTL don't fix the ACTUAL problem which is causality violations. (The ability to return before you left, or to send a message into your own past.)

 

So good luck on inventing one that's self consistent.

 

TFS

[ronthepon]

Cheers TFS! and thanks!

[docbill]

ronthepon,

Most "methods" of FTL don't fix the ACTUAL problem which is causality violations. (The ability to return before you left, or to send a message into your own past.)

 

So good luck on inventing one that's self consistent.

 

TFS

 

Actually it isn't hard. You just have to recognize that the universe itself does have a rest reference frame. The rest reference frame of the universe is the one which has the oldest measurable Hubble age for the universe. Then if your FTL travel does not allow you to travel backwards it time with regards to that reference frame you are all set. For example lets say my FTL travel method is to discover a universe which maps with all points in this universe 1/100th the distance apart mapped in the universal rest frame. In that case, transits too and from that universe could never be into the past, since my transit mapping would always be with respect to that reference frame. Ergo, I would have no causality violations.

 

The hard part is finding a theory for FTL travel that actually has physical basis to believe it is true and does not allow time travel.

 

Fortunately, there is no real reason to believe that time travel would violate causality anymore than electrical feedback circuites voilate causality. The equations that govern the universe would simply need to be solved with the fact that time travel happened. That means a time traveler could not change their own history, but they might be able to be part of their own history. The universe could do this several ways:

1. The time traveler could be a boundry condition.

2. There could be multiple parallel universes which the time traveler crosses between.

3. The time traveler is unable to interact with the past, because all wave functions have already collapsed.

 

Of course Occam's razer tells us to accept the simplest possible answer. Which means so long as there are consistent models of the universe that do not allow time travel, we should believe they are more likely to be true.

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

Actually it isn't hard. You just have to recognize that the universe itself does have a rest reference frame. The rest reference frame of the universe is the one which has the oldest measurable Hubble age for the universe.

 

I don't think there is a preferred reference frame... :)

 

TFS

[Mercedes Benzene]

Hmmmm.... honestly, I do not believe that we well ever come up with a successful method of teleportation. It just doesn't seem realistic to me.

Then again, it didn't seem realistic 200 years ago that humans would be able to fly.:P I don't know.

[docbill]

I don't think there is a preferred reference frame... :P

 

TFS

 

When it comes to special relativity, there is no special reference frame. But special relativity only applies locally. Ditto for general relativity.

 

The basic premise is that there are equivalence princibles that hold true if and only if you are confined to a small region for making your measurements. As an example, general relativity postulates that gravitational acceleration and motion acceleration are equivalent "locally". Naturally, if you are allowed to make non-local measurements you can determine the difference. Gravitational attraction drops off at an inverse square law from a point, and the rest of the universe appears to remain stationary. As soon as you step away from the "local" area, equivalence princibles fail to apply and you do have "special" or "preferred" reference frame.

 

I can think of nothing less local than asking how two universes map together after traveling the distances needed for interstellar travel in one. Given those conditions the mappings of space can be skewed anyway our theory demands to maintain causality. It is no different than recognizing that even though a flat world model works well when mapping a city, we have to use a more complex model when mapping continents.

 

For example, the equivalence princible between acceleration and gravitational attraction. That works perfectly if you are confined locally for your measurements. However, if you are allowed to move about, you can quickly determine that gravity follows an inverse square law centered from a point. There are many preferred reference frames when it comes to non-locality. I can think of nothing less local than how our universe would map to another universe, so I would be surprised if someone could invent a theory that was reference frame independant.

 

Bill

[Farsight]

Regarding Causality, here's a concept I quite like: Just suppose you can go "faster than light", which means you can move faster then time progresses forwards. And so you can effectivlely move backwards in the time direction. Ever heard of The River of Time? Suppose you ride a speedboat that lets you go back up river. The thing is, you ain't there. You're back down river drifting along in your canoe with all the other guys here and now. The time you go back to, is full of different people. A parallel world.