Australian teleport breakthrough

Scruff

A group of Aussies are reportidly the first research group to successfully teleport a laser beam. Read about it here.

Main areas for use will be quantum computing and cryptology, Stark Trek type teleporter is still quite a bit off...

The achievement confirms that in theory teleportation is possible, at least for sub-atomic particles; whether it can be done for larger systems, such as atoms, remains to be seen.

At first sight, entanglement offers the prospect of sending a signal faster than the speed of light. But a closer look at what is actually possible shows that this will not work because of the limits of what can be known about quantum mechanical systems and how such information is relayed.

Rabies

sounds cool.
right now its just protons of light.
the possibilities are endless.

i dont think we will see a huge increase in our life time but as was stated on the web site they hope to be able to transport an atom in the next maybe 10yrs or so...

but its only a copy that is created. if they ever mange to transport organic matter then it be a clone. that will create a huge debate in the future.

po0k

Photons are just bundels of light energy, and mass and energy are interchangable terms (in my understanding at least).
Seems reasonably plausible at this stage at least.
Saw this for about 20seconds on Euronews last night. Of all places.

seamus

Originally posted by Rabies
but its only a copy that is created. if they ever mange to transport organic matter then it be a clone. that will create a huge debate in the future.

Quantum teleporting is problematic for humans because the original is destroyed in the process of creating the replica.

So, there wouldn't be two of a person, but fundamentally, yes, it would be creating a clone. The big question is, would the copy actually be the original person that was destroyed, or is he a new person who just looks the same.

The other big question is whether the copy would retain all of the memories, functions, etc of the original - i.e. would he come out of the transporter saying 'I am John Doe', or will be a vegetable.

As soon as some nutcase proves the second by transporting himself, then the first one is left to the philosophers, but IMO, it would prove a non-existence of the soul.

It seems to not be a transporter as such either, in the true star trek theme, ie.
Matter-->Energy-->Move energy to new place--->Energy--->Matter
In that the original energy is retained. Rather, the person is being copied in much the same way as you'd copy/move a file from your HD to a floppy --> by examining the original, and using new resources to constitute an exact replica.

I dunno

Clinical Waste

Originally posted by seamus
..........The other big question is whether the copy would retain all of the memories, functions, etc of the original - i.e. would he come out of the transporter saying 'I am John Doe', or will be a vegetable...........

Well I think somebody somewhere has already done it, beause I know people for which this would explain the way they are!

Its like they are there, but not really.........

bonkey

Originally posted by seamus
but fundamentally, yes, it would be creating a clone. The big question is, would the copy actually be the original person that was destroyed, or is he a new person who just looks the same.

Actually, the degree of "sameness" is so large that the distinction between "original" and "new person" becomes obsolete. This degree of accuracy in copying is literally beyond our comprehension - our terms of "same" or "copy" do not really cover this situation. You end up in a semantic or existentialist discussion to resolve it.

From a scientific point - they are identical enough to be considered the same.

The other big question is whether the copy would retain all of the memories, functions, etc of the original - i.e. would he come out of the transporter saying 'I am John Doe', or will be a vegetable.

Given that we're talking about duplication to a quantum level, including details such as particle spin, there is no possible way that a successful transference could create a vegetable. Talking about unsuccessful attempts is a bit pointless of course. This, of course, only holds true if you assume that memory is actually a physical property and we dont go off into non-scientific existentialism claiming that our memory, like our souls, is actually seperate to our physical beings.

It seems to not be a transporter as such either, in the true star trek theme, ie.
Matter-->Energy-->Move energy to new place--->Energy--->Matter
In that the original energy is retained.

Actually - the Star Trek system is :

Matter scanned to a pattern.
Matter "destroyed".
Pattern transmitted to position X (but not the energy from the original matter)
New copy created using transmitted pattern, but not from the original matter.

Given that a transporter accident resulted in two Rikers at one point - due to the "delete" phase malfunctioning, its kinda hard to see it any other way

So why arent transporters used as cloning devices? Why dont they store people's patterns permanently, updating each time they transport, so in the case of death, they can simply recreate from the pattern?

Well - its for the same reason they dont replicate entire starships. The writers said "no reason why it cant, but it would ruin the story, so they dont." They fluff it with excuses about ethics and garbage about certain types of matter / antimatter.

jc

radiospan

Isn't it known that memory is a physical substance, or I am thinking of Star Trek?

ykt0di9url7bc3

where we can change any ordinary matter into energy, like what seamus said (without poolutant) is where we solve our energy needs and our rubbish problem......

bonkey

Originally posted by SearrarD
where we can change any ordinary matter into energy, like what seamus said (without poolutant) is where we solve our energy needs and our rubbish problem......

Heheheh. I guess it depends what you mean by "ordinary" matter. Theres nothing "unordinary" about the matter used in nuclear reactions - where through fission we convert matter into energy.

Originally posted by plazz2000
Isn't it known that memory is a physical substance, or I am thinking of Star Trek?

Memory is *stored* in physical matter (our brains) - or at least there is a sufficient amount of corroborating evidence to show that it is. However, there is also a lot about the working of our brains which is unknown, as well as enough cases to challenge conventional wisdom as to how it all works.

Bit like all the rest of science as well. Mystics from every walk of life will shake their heads sadly at scientists tring to explain reality, because, well, they've already figured out what its all about (to some degree).

Inevitably, when one starts talking about cutting edge science and speculative science such as teleportation, the mystical/religious/existential defenders are far more vocal because this is an area which "proven" science cannot defend....leaving room for the mystical.

jc

po0k

this is an area which "proven" science cannot defend....leaving room for the mystical

Oooohh--eee---ooohh---ooww......

Typical middle-class domestic setting:
"Aaahhhhh....room-temperature fusion in a lunchbox...
It's getting a bit nippy dear, throw some more deutrium on te reactor, would you pet?"


and dream....

Scruff

theres a small bit of Q & A in relation to the article by the BBC News Online Science Editor, Dr David Whitehouse. I think he kind of puts the question of teleporting a human into perspective:

And will we ever transport a human?

To teleport a human would require knowledge of the type and exact position and movement of every atom of the person to be teleported. That is about a hundred thousand million million million million atoms. To send that information down today's fast data transfer systems would take a hundred million times longer than the present age of the Universe (which is about 15 thousand million years).

If it is ever possible, there is the question of whether destroying a human to teleport their information to another place to rebuild them again would constitute murder, and you might also want to discuss if the teleported human would actually be the original person or a copy.

won't be doing it over 3G anyway so!

seamus

Originally posted by bonkey
Given that we're talking about duplication to a quantum level, including details such as particle spin, there is no possible way that a successful transference could create a vegetable. Talking about unsuccessful attempts is a bit pointless of course. This, of course, only holds true if you assume that memory is actually a physical property and we dont go off into non-scientific existentialism claiming that our memory, like our souls, is actually seperate to our physical beings.

Well, obviously, yeah. I was looking at it more from a philosophical point of view really. Scientifically, it's perfectly simple that an exact copy will work exactly the same, but philosophically it raises questions, which don't belong the science board

Given that a transporter accident resulted in two Rikers at one point - due to the "delete" phase malfunctioning, its kinda hard to see it any other way

So why arent transporters used as cloning devices? Why dont they store people's patterns permanently, updating each time they transport, so in the case of death, they can simply recreate from the pattern?

Well - its for the same reason they dont replicate entire starships. The writers said "no reason why it cant, but it would ruin the story, so they dont." They fluff it with excuses about ethics and garbage about certain types of matter / antimatter.

jc

Hehe, yeah it's fairly full of holes alright. That double Riker one was probably the dodgiest piece of explaining ever. Surely the computer needs to be used to reconstitute the person back on the transport pad, so when the second beam was deflected, surely it would just turn into free energy, instead of magically turning itself into a intricately assembled lump of matter.

I think it's safe to agree that it's perfectly conceivable, but all the hard questions need to be left to the philosophers.