Matter & Energy

[Whitestar]

Hello.

I'm an aspiring sci-fi writer and I'm currently developing a story in which scientists have
created the first teleportation device. I am having a somewhat difficult time as to how I
want it to work. I'm thinking of using a matter-energy conversion type of teleporter, but
there are some things about this theorical technology that I find questionable.


For example, if you don't convert an individual into energy, you still have a blob of atoms
weighing several kilograms that need to be put into some sort of suspension matrix for
transportation. What makes this all the more dangerous is that these atoms will have
considerable mass, and will be affected by environmental variables such as gravity and
atmospheric drag. Since they'll have substantial mass, they won't be able to travel at any
significant percentage of light speed, making for a longer trip, and unless they can be
slowed somehow, will probably impact the planetary surface at speeds equivalent to that
of a meteorite. Not a pretty prospect.


Okay on to more ethical implications on this theorical technology. Let's say that John
Doe undergoes teleportation by converting him into energy and back into matter, would it
still be the same person? Perhaps it's a matter of semantics; a replica may be an imprecise
term. The assumption is that the John Doe who steps off the teleportation device will for
all intent and purpose be the exact same as the person who stepped on, with all his
physical features, thought processes, personality and memory, even his brainwave
patterns -- but I think that under this technological theory, it will still be a reconstruction
of the original, NOT the original.


Thoughts anyone?

[syndicated]

I would tend to agree with you on the matter-energy conversion idea, to transport tangible matter would be a ridiculas proposition. But I think that the computing power required to store the information about the placement of (X) scar tissue and (Y) white blood cell would be incredible. Especially for the brain! But I suppose that's the beauty of sci-fi, you can make up whatever the hell you want.
I think in star trek however, what they did was read the exact build of the person send the information to the target transport device and then used a ton of energy to rebuild them there, so i would assume that your "replica" reference would be correct.


Just my thoughts,

Ben

[Tormod]

Hi Whitestar -

I think it is even an existential question. If, for all practical purposes, the entity that emerges from the teleportation device is 100% indistuingishable from the entity which stepped into it, it would be the same entity. In classical physics the original entity must perish in the process, which I assume is why you're looking into the ethical issue. If not, you'll end up with a duplicate, not a teleported individual. After only tiny fractions of a second, the two entities will no longer be the same, because they will be influenced by different environments.

In quantum physics teleportation has already been proven. It is not possible (yet!) to teleport a particle. What is teleported is the _state_ of the particle. However, on a quantum level one can argue that the state of the particle _is_ the particle, since the particle is only a manifestation on an energy level. This state is transferred from the first particle to the other instantly (faster than light if the particles are entangled). The original particle loses all memory of the state it had before the teleportation.

So, the difference between classical and quantum teleportation is that in classical physics, you move the particles (can't exceed speed of light), while in quantum pysics you teleport the _state_ of the particles. The outlook for being able to teleport classical objects are extremely slim, though. As syndicated points out, you'd need to teleport an incomprehensively vast amount of information.

Then again, in SF you can of course make up your own rules. A great tip is to go to the Scientific American and buy the online special issue called "Edge of Physics". It's brand new, and has a collection of updated articles on stuff like quantum teleportation. At $5 it's a steal. I just read it - that's why I recommend it. It mentions a rumor which says that Gene Roddenberry (the guy behind Star Trek) created the Beam-me-up-scotty device to save money (i.e., no need to film all those planetary landings).

Tormod

[CD27]

i myself am a science fiction writer of two novels, my first is 60,000 words and my second was 34,000 words. i kinda don't expect many poeple to try and write that much, but you can if you want, it is your book after all. my best advice is this: make things up, just anything, make sure it is fascinating, close enough to reality to think that it is a possibility. that's all i did, and my book, if i can get the stupid thing published, i'm sure would be a best seller, not to brag. i have an exstensive imagination. which is also VERY good for being a scientist. my imagination is so great that i could think something and almost be able to actually see it if i wanted to. i can picture non-reality over reality very easily, this is why it is so easy for me to solve problems. check this out, i'm only 17 years old, and i have a theory. i ahve updated it since the 4 months that i have had it, but even then i had college profesors calling me the next einstein. currently i am not too good in mathematics, but that's enough about me, you need help with your writing. just, make something orriginal. look at other shows and movies, see how they do things. they usually throw in a few twists. and don't make it too serious, put in some funny things. i guess that is all i can tell you at this moment, the rest is up to you to decide, because that would be the story itself.

Eric