It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

teleporting machine

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   
My girlfriend wen't off to college yesterday and I am determined to build a teleporting machine so I can visit her daily. Is it true that many have been built, for example by uh...the australian ANU team? Because all I have heard are primitive type machines that can transport information or something of the sort. Seriously, I need to build one. I'm going to marry her haha. I just want to know if anyone knows the basics for one or how it could be possible.




posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
BBC News


Check this out. This is the first reported case of Teleportation. Primitive; maybe, useless: yep, but a breakthrough; Hell yeah!!



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
The concept is not new or really complicated...its carrying out that concept that is tough.

Teleportation of a macroscopic object goes like so...

Map all energy and matter of the target.
Deconstruct the target.
Send the mapped information to teh destination.
Reassemble target using mapped data at the destination.

Now.. if you can figure out how to do any of those aside from the sending of information (though you'd need to send a TON of info REALLY fast) then you just won a nobel prize.



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
So basically like a computer transfer of a file. Except in this case, the file is extremely complex. The computer or machine would need to scan the file or "the person" and map out all energy and matter. However, I don't see a reason for deconstructing the target. Some people say it would basically be like killing yourself and then putting yourself back together. Well why can't we be sent to another destination without being reconstructed on arrival.

I have no idea if this makes any sense because I'm seriously an idiot, but could there be a way to send something without deconstructing it first?



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
This wont become even close to happening until computer speeds vastly improve. You would need to map all of 'something' in the human body to transport it. All the atoms, connections in the brain, ect.

And then when you did teleport yourself, is that really you, or is it just a clone of yourself? Does the 1st you die and then are are copied or does it transport the individual atoms of your body and reconstruct them? If teleportation exists than the ability to copy yourself should exist as well... gets a little wierd in the details of it all....



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by superslicksh0es
I have no idea if this makes any sense because I'm seriously an idiot, but could there be a way to send something without deconstructing it first?


You don't need to deconstruct anything once mapped...but then you wouldn't be teleporting...you'd be duplicatting...

A copy would arrive at the destination and leave the original behind... if you destroy the original then since the duplicate is an EXACT copy that IS the person.

I'm not going to get into ethics or the idea of a "soul" here because thats just an endless philosophical/religious debate.



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Ya that whole "soul" thing is an endless debate. But I'm trying to figure out if there is a way to basically walk through the door and come out the other side. A way around the whole duplicate of yourself or copying every inch of your body. Something relating to a wormhole but not so science fiction. I will have to think about this a lot more. When I usually picture this in my head, I see this see-through box similar to a telephone booth. You walk in and dial a number. The number is like a phone number (with area codes and the whole bit) and everyone has one of these booths in their household. When you dial the number, the person with the booth on the opposite end has to approve the incoming travel. Haha I can draw out the blueprints but there's no use if in the end it won't work.



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I am not religious, but I find the idea of "destroying" the original and having an exact copy in place rather disturbing.

The copy would think, and act as if it where you, but it isn't. If you didnt destroy the original you would have two, henceforth making the second "you" not you.

Now destroying/deconstructing the first would kill the original "you", but the second you would have no concept of death and would continue to act and think it was you as if you hadn't died, but you (the actual first, real you) have............. follow?

unless there is a soul (ie..and EM/bio signature or something,) then this would in theory get mapped as well and transported....
sorry for the many "you"s but i think i made my point.



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
The wormhole idea is good....I dont know the mechanics behind what the scientists did, but it might involve some sort of subspace thing....



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   
If you are going to transport a substance, figure out the E=mc^2 energy
of 70 kg of human being. If you are going to transport the information...
how many bytes are we talking? Read some Claude Shannon and note a mole
contains 6x10^23 little fellas.



The nice thing is that a lot of info is redundant. Your body
contains a lot of water molecules (in fact numerically MOST of the
body's molecules) which can go anywhere-- only vague info on placement
needed, and none at all on orientation. Same for a lot of generic
chemicals in solution. Proteins? You only have 100,000 different ones
or so (same number as the number of your genes) and once you identify
one, it takes only ln(100,000) = 6 x ln10 = 14 bits to say what you've
got (assuming modest code library on receiving end). Add a few more
for spacial orientation (say 6, giving 32 possible solid angles for the
agreed "head" to point in) if it's a lipid-bound protein, and 2 x 9 x
ln10 = 40 bits or so for the nanoassemblers to place it on the 1 meter
square 2-D receiver plate (again, assuming a code library grid for
receiver placement). Think of it as DVD for humans. How many protein
molecules in a human? Figure 100,000 dalton molecules (1.7e-21 kg) and
10 kg of protein and you get 6e21 molecules, each specified (if you
give each a number like a stone in some old cathedral being moved from
here to there) by 50 bits. Add it up for proteins and you've got 6e21
molecules to place, each requiring 14 + 6 + 40 = 60 bits of info.
Total of 4e22 bits, perhaps, and that's a pretty good start.

Present fiberoptic info transfer rates are only 1e11 bits/sec or 3e18
bits/yr. So it would 10,000 yrs to transfer a human. But Moore's law
works for this kind of thing, also, and you get a factor of 10
improvement every 8 years, with no obvious law of physics in the way
for a long while. That means in 40 years we should be able to transfer
this in 5 weeks or so.



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Thankyou Shadow.......my brain hurts now........



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   
So you want to build a wormhole?

Read this article (it explains how to construct a wormhole):

Wormhole Physics
by John G. Cramer



[edit on 1/8/04 by gravitron]



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Now we are getting into Stargate SG1 territory. If I understand the anture of wormholes right, even if they are purely theoretical, the amount of energy needed wouldn't allow for moving between 2 places as close together as on one planet. More like between solar systems. Not to mention, Im guessing the energy needed and the possibility of any objects of sufficient mass to be sucked right in would make it very dangerous to open one on a actual planet.


- Was



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Present fiberoptic info transfer rates are only 1e11 bits/sec or 3e18
bits/yr. So it would 10,000 yrs to transfer a human. But Moore's law
works for this kind of thing, also, and you get a factor of 10
improvement every 8 years, with no obvious law of physics in the way
for a long while. That means in 40 years we should be able to transfer
this in 5 weeks or so.

thats sounding like time travel of some sorts



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Well instead of teleporting to your girlfriends college, watch DBZ and study Goku's instant transmission technique



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
But Moore's law
works for this kind of thing, also, and you get a factor of 10
improvement every 8 years, with no obvious law of physics in the way
for a long while. That means in 40 years we should be able to transfer
this in 5 weeks or so.



Moore's Law will only be good for another 20 years or so. Speed doubles every X and size reduces by X. Eventually X will be reduced to the size smaller than an atom. New computing processes will have to be invented (and will be).
IE: What if your processor for your computer was a big cube instead of a flat chip?



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Hey shadow how long would it
take to send my molecular structure(72 kg)
over my 54k Modem.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Too long DeathDenton you better upgrade to broadband or lose about 71.999999999 kgs



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 07:56 AM
link   
teleportation does NOT exist. There were some stories of this in mystism or religion. You cannot be in two places at once.
What happened was that a person was "snatched" and very quickly,not instantaneously,carried off to a distant place.
"Impossible! You got here in an instant!"

Like the car that was "carried" and deposited by a Ufo 500 miles away.They were "teleported" although there was hours of lost time.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join