Is teleportation theoretically possible?

[dstebbins]

Many elements of science fiction contradict the laws of physics, fundamentally. For example, a spaceship going faster than light on pure fuel power alone.

 

But, would teleportation, theoretically, comply with the laws of physics? I don't think so, as that would imply infinite velocity, which violates Einstein's rule of e=mc^2.

 

Thoughts?

[Realitycheck]

I always thought that transporters were supposed to somehow disassemble you by each molecule and put you back together somewhere else, as if you could first accomplish that kind of velocity.

[ponderer]

Many elements of science fiction contradict the laws of physics, fundamentally. For example, a spaceship going faster than light on pure fuel power alone.

 

But, would teleportation, theoretically, comply with the laws of physics? I don't think so, as that would imply infinite velocity, which violates Einstein's rule of e=mc^2.

 

Thoughts?

 

If you could build a booth-like worm, you could do something like teleportation, using a booth, say like a ski gondola, or a London police box.

[swansont]

Star-Trek-like teleportation was not instantaneous. From that I don't think you can conclude that the effect requires infinite velocity, though I'm not enough of a treknophile to know if this is hinted at in greater detail in some episodes.

[mooeypoo]

Star-Trek-like teleportation was not instantaneous. From that I don't think you can conclude that the effect requires infinite velocity, though I'm not enough of a treknophile to know if this is hinted at in greater detail in some episodes.

I'm not a treknophile (nice, swansont.. nice.. it's called "trekkie" or "trekker"... just sayin'.. not.. uh.. not that.. that I'm either.. of those... ) but I do have some books on star trek physics and I like star trek in general.

 

In star trek, the transporter didn't require infinite velocity, it required extremely high amounts of storage and input reading.

 

Here's the "rough" description:

A computer scanner reads through the entire body down to the submolecular level, and maps it, then disintegrates the person. Another beam is then sent to the destination, "cleans out" the area (using "force fields" - that's the tubular blue effect, supposedly) and then reassembles the person according to the map, from the subatomic level, atom by atom, molecule by molecule.

 

In star trek "Enterprise" (the quite horrible prequel to the original series) they discussed a few of the problems with such devices; first, they started with a non-biological transporter - the logic was that in a non biologic transporter, you don't have to go to the subatomic level in your readout, you can stick with the molecular level; worse case, the tomato you beamed up/down has tiny variation in taste. Or emerges blue. Still. No big loss.

 

This principle works very similarly to the star trek "replicator" that takes raw matter (whatever it was) from a 'bank' and uses the molecules to create the object. But non-animate objects don't require as much accuracy as living biological stuff, obviously.

 

The main issue here is the storage and readout. The amount of information is *HUGE*. To read each and every atom in the human body - and its EXACT location and interaction with the entire mass -- as well as its charge or other elements requires huge capacity, and huge computational powers. Think of the brain! one tiny variation, and you lost memories? the ability to speak? who knows.

 

As Professor Krauss explains in his video below, one of the main issues here in terms of reading each and every atom is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, where you can know *either* where the atom is *or* what they are doing. Never both.

 

In star trek, btw, they "solve it" by having very handy "Heisenberg compensators". Go science.

 

Also, when a beam of information passes through any medium (be it space for certain distances or, more common in star trek, an alien atmosphere) it degrades - you need to use some sort of error correction. Using error correction on a string that describes the molecules of a tomato is one thing. Using error correction on a strong that describes a person is quite another.

 

Here's a short explanation from Professor Lawrence M. Krauss about the transporters:

mD7X9vGMX0k

 

Here are a few references:

 

• "The Physics of Star Trek" by Laurence M. Krauss (great book for star trek enthusiasts, and physics aficionados in general) http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Star-Trek-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/0060977108
  
• An explanation about some of the Physics behind star trek technologies (from the NASA site): http://ssdoo.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/just_for_fun/startrek.html.
  
• And wikipedia (good place to hunt for more references) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transporter_%28Star_Trek%29
  

[Moontanman]

Asked at a Star Trek convention,

 

"How does your Heisenberg compensator work?"

 

Answer

 

"Very well thank you!"

[ponderer]

I'm not a treknophile

 

In star trek, the transporter didn't require infinite velocity, it required extremely high amounts of storage and input reading.

 

Here's the "rough" description:

A computer scanner reads through the entire body down to the submolecular level, and maps it, then disintegrates the person. Another beam is then sent to the destination, "cleans out" the area (using "force fields" - that's the tubular blue effect, supposedly) and then reassembles the person according to the map, from the subatomic level, atom by atom, molecule by molecule.

 

 

Ain't happen'n. You need to use a worm booth. That is doable. You don't tear down and rebuild anything. You just take a piece of the manifold, jump it to hyperspace, and re-insert it at the desired destination. Like the Tardis in Doctor Who.

 

The worm field bottles the piece of manifold and provides propulsion. This is much easier than trying to analyse and receate a complex biological structure.

 

It still allows you to seeming pass through solid barriers to reach your destination. Very dangerous weapon delivery system. No place could be secured. People could steal just about anything. Home invasions and kidnappings would be rampant. You couldn't see it coming. It's a really bad idea. The world needs to see some significant changes before any such thing could be safely introduced.

Edited May 15, 2010 by ponderer

[mooeypoo]

Okay, first off, ponderer, it's a polite thing to do to either split the "quote" tags or write [...] when you *trim* people's original posts you reply to, so we all avoid out of context explanations.

 

Second,

Ain't happen'n. You need to use a worm booth. That is doable. You don't tear down and rebuild anything. You just take a piece of the manifold, jump it to hyperspace, and re-insert it at the desired destination. Like the Tardis in Doctor Who.

I'm sure this is a joke, though I can't say I understand what's funny about it. Obviously, I continued to explain why this is implausible, if not outright impossible.

 

Since "hyperspace" is nonscience (and nonsense) I assume the rest of your explanation is just an attempt to be funny.

 

Even though this --

The worm field bottles the piece of manifold and provides propulsion. This is much easier than trying to analyse and receate a complex biological structure.

 

It still allows you to seeming pass through solid barriers to reach your destination. Very dangerous weapon delivery system. No place could be secured. People could steal just about anything. Home invasions and kidnappings would be rampant. You couldn't see it coming. It's a really bad idea. The world needs to see some significant changes before any such thing could be safely introduced.

-- is not just not really amusing, it's incomprehensible. What are you saying, exactly, are you joking around, and if not, what manifold are you talking about, which hyperspace, and how is any of this even mildly related to reality?

 

~moo

[ponderer]

Okay, first off, ponderer, it's a polite thing to do to either split the "quote" tags or write [...] when you *trim* people's original posts you reply to, so we all avoid out of context explanations.

 

Second,

 

I'm sure this is a joke, though I can't say I understand what's funny about it. Obviously, I continued to explain why this is implausible, if not outright impossible.

 

Since "hyperspace" is nonscience (and nonsense) I assume the rest of your explanation is just an attempt to be funny.

 

Even though this --

 

-- is not just not really amusing, it's incomprehensible. What are you saying, exactly, are you joking around, and if not, what manifold are you talking about, which hyperspace, and how is any of this even mildly related to reality?

 

~moo

 

I'm glad you feel that way. Please convince others. Like I said. It' a really bad idea, right now.

[swansont]

I'm glad you feel that way. Please convince others. Like I said. It' a really bad idea, right now.

 

People posting in the physics section deserve physics answers. If you have a non-mainstream response, please confine it to the speculations forum.

[mooeypoo]

Ponderer speculative suggestion was moved to speculation: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51979.

[dragonstar57]

my quantum physics is not that good but i think it would need to somehow use entanglement. or one of the weird things that time/space does at the quantum level.

either way it wont happen anytime soon. not to mention that society isn't ready for such a technology

anyway could someone who has more quantum physics knowlage expand on this answer?

[PhysicGuy]

haha, I have no energy to read all respond here, but I have some thinking, that is science was started from question and then imagine...finally experimental prove....but not every proven was absolutely correct. knowledge will change from century to century...so, we are sure to say them are contradict in law of physics but we can not ignore their idea, if we are conclude that teleportation are impossible event, then we will stop here, and always stop here...

[PlatinumZr0]

Many elements of science fiction contradict the laws of physics, fundamentally. For example, a spaceship going faster than light on pure fuel power alone.

 

But, would teleportation, theoretically, comply with the laws of physics? I don't think so, as that would imply infinite velocity, which violates Einstein's rule of e=mc^2.

 

Thoughts?

 

If you've read 'Timeline' by Michael Crichton, they talk about telportation through space-time by transporting themselves to parallel universes. Its very interesting how he depicts teleportation and is a good read. check it out!

[swansont]

If you've read 'Timeline' by Michael Crichton, they talk about telportation through space-time by transporting themselves to parallel universes. Its very interesting how he depicts teleportation and is a good read. check it out!

 

I was less impressed. I thought the solution to the grandfather paradox was rather weak. In any event, this is time travel rather than teleportation; hopping between parallel universes is little more than a science fiction plot device, and such discussion is not really consistent with the OP.

[PlatinumZr0]

Because space and time are connected, this would work. However, please note that you would go to a universe where every thing is identical except for the location of your destination.

[swansont]

AFAIK there is no part of the theory behind the many-worlds interpretation that lets you go from one universe to another. That's purely science fiction.

[between3and26characterslon]

I though teleportation already existed.

 

No seriously!

 

Not in a Star Trek kinda way more in an atomic quantum state kinda way.

 

Here

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3811785.stm

[swansont]

I though teleportation already existed.

 

No seriously!

 

Not in a Star Trek kinda way more in an atomic quantum state kinda way.

 

Here

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3811785.stm

 

It does exist. The two phenomena are very, very different. We've had a number of discussions on this in the past; a search should point you to them.

[Newbies_Kid]

my quantum physics is not that good but i think it would need to somehow use entanglement. or one of the weird things that time/space does at the quantum level.

either way it wont happen anytime soon. not to mention that society isn't ready for such a technology

anyway could someone who has more quantum physics knowlage expand on this answer?

 

I have a friend who study Quantum physics and he had told me something about the teleportation of information. I don't remember very clearly but if i'm not mistaken, he said about a photon was being shot by a photon and it will produce or give birth to a new photon. The newborn photon will have similar characteristic to its primary and there are entanglement between both of them. As the primary receive an information, the new photon will also instantly receive the same information and vice versa. So can this possibly be used to teleport a mass?

Edited September 29, 2010 by Newbies_Kid

[Klaynos]

A quick note on entanglement, there is no information transfer...

[swansont]

I have a friend who study Quantum physics and he had told me something about the teleportation of information. I don't remember very clearly but if i'm not mistaken, he said about a photon was being shot by a photon and it will produce or give birth to a new photon. The newborn photon will have similar characteristic to its primary and there are entanglement between both of them. As the primary receive an information, the new photon will also instantly receive the same information and vice versa. So can this possibly be used to teleport a mass?

 

No. Teleportation is about transferring information about the state of a particle.

[G3N1U5]

Current teleportation is not like the one on "Start-Trek". Within a Lab Teleportation was achieved however, this was only the transfer/copy of one photon's properties to another photon. Also another problem is that if this principle was to put into practice in the real world Theoretically, since your photons etc are being copied, you will be created at one spot somewhere in the world; whilst you would have to be destroyed in your original place... Which I dont know about you, sounds pretty unethical.

 

Also since the Information of each photon would have to be transfered to a reciever how would that be done?

 

Most likely through Internet or something like that... and at the most optimum speeds of internet today, it would take years until we reach our destination.

 

Thanks Hope I answered you well considering this is the first question I ever answered B)

[ewmon]

Just on general principle, if something is theoretically possible but not done in practice, one would want to ask what obstacles exist in its implementation that prevent it from being put into practice (ie, made practical). As of yet, I have not heard of anyone say, "But for this difficulty implementing it, we could have teleportation."