Ponderer's theory of teleportation

[ponderer]

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

 

Whatever you say.

 

http://memebox.com/futureblogger/show/835-new-hyperspace-engine-could-roundtrip-mars-in-5-hours

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_ylP4kh-xA

Edited May 16, 2010 by ponderer

[mooeypoo]

Seeing as neither 'memebox' nor 'youtube' are peer reviewed scientific sources, this belongs in speculations until anyone can actually show otherwise.

Please keep speculative subjects in speculations, where they belong. When it comes from a moderator, ponderer, it's not really a request.

[ponderer]

Seeing as neither 'memebox' nor 'youtube' are peer reviewed scientific sources, this belongs in speculations until anyone can actually show otherwise.

Please keep speculative subjects in speculations, where they belong. When it comes from a moderator, ponderer, it's not really a request.

 

The US government believes this theory could become reality; researcher Roger Lenard at Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratories says he can test the idea with their “Z” machine, which can generate the necessary field intensities and gradients. NASA and the Department of Defense are also expressing interest in hyperspace engines.

[ydoaPs]

The US government believes this theory could become reality; researcher Roger Lenard at Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratories says he can test the idea with their “Z” machine, which can generate the necessary field intensities and gradients. NASA and the Department of Defense are also expressing interest in hyperspace engines.

They also fund cold fusion. What's your point?

[mooeypoo]

The US government believes this theory could become reality; researcher Roger Lenard at Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratories says he can test the idea with their “Z” machine, which can generate the necessary field intensities and gradients. NASA and the Department of Defense are also expressing interest in hyperspace engines.

Ponderer, this isn't your fantasy-world-forum, this is a science forum. Here, we make claims and we back them up.

 

Also, the fact the government is interested in something isn't really good science support on its own; the government supported lots of things that had no bearing in reality, like ESP experiments in the 60s, for instance.

 

Interest by the army or by the government doesn't mean the science is any good.

 

So, Ponderer, if you have any sort of scientific backing (hell, a coherent explanation would be nice for a start) to this suggestion of yours for a teleportation device, please feel free to share it with us.

 

You will find it very hard to convince anyone in here of anything without some sort of serious scientific discussion, ponderer.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Here you go:

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html

 

There's a (probably illegal) full copy available online, if you're not a subscriber:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_hyperdimensions11.htm

 

Here's the first page of a paper presented at an American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics conference about the theory:

 

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC2003_775/PV2003_4990.pdf

 

It's not straight-up quackery. You can probably use the above links to find more info. I can get access to papers through the university library if you find any good ones.

[mooeypoo]

Excellent, please do, so we can actually talk about this properly, cap'n. I'd love to see the science articles about hyperspace and how it may be used for teleportation. Again, the fact that the army is interested in it isn't much of a scientific reassurance.

 

Can you get the AAIAA paper? the full one? I only see the cover page.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Hmm. I can get that full paper, but I doubt I can legally publish it online.

 

However, this is a later paper by the same two authors titled "GUIDELINES FOR A SPACE PROPULSION DEVICE BASED ON HEIM'S QUANTUM THEORY":

 

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf

 

(not peer-reviewed, but contains math and references) (also, warning, contains gravitophotons)

[ydoaPs]

(also, warning, contains gravitophotons)

Like what happens nine months after a photon and a graviton bump uglies?

[mooeypoo]

But that's the main problem, Cap'n. These hypotheses are based on so many 'ifs' that they're often unrealistic because of the ifs. Iffff.... a graviton is detected... Ifffff there's a graviphoton.... Iffff there's hyperspace.... Ifffff we can reach it... then sure, hey, we can have teleportation!

 

I'm not saying it's not interesting btw, I love those ideas, but I am not sure I'd call them science just yet.

 

What's the difference between this type of idea and the startrek subspace idea? They're both equally 'logical' on the basis of many 'ifs' that are yet to be determined, but there are so many 'ifs', that the idea starts to look like it's not really realistic at all.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Gravitophotons aren't an "if" of the theory, they're a prediction of the theory. Basically it all depends on Heim Theory, which has never really been peer-reviewed, but also hasn't yet been definitively wrong. There's a few physicists still pursuing it.

[mooeypoo]

Gravitophotons aren't an "if" of the theory, they're a prediction of the theory. Basically it all depends on Heim Theory, which has never really been peer-reviewed, but also hasn't yet been definitively wrong. There's a few physicists still pursuing it.

Interesting, I'll check it out.

 

Again, I'm not saying it's crap, I'm just saying I wouldnt' completely define it as science just yet. On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd call the anthropic principle science either, so I guess these theories are in a good place

[swansont]

They also fund cold fusion.

 

And Podkletnov's antigravity machine.

 

 

ydoaPs's point is well-taken: just because funding exists is insufficient to classify something as accepted science. Funding exists to test ideas. But to be accepted science, the ideas have to pass the test. Heim shouldn't be lumped in with the dime-a-dozen crackpots who can't/won't come up with a mathematical framework for their ideas (or worse, don't recognize the need). But lots of scientific ideas end up being wrong.

[ponderer]

Ponderer, this isn't your fantasy-world-forum, this is a science forum. Here, we make claims and we back them up.

 

Also, the fact the government is interested in something isn't really good science support on its own; the government supported lots of things that had no bearing in reality, like ESP experiments in the 60s, for instance.

 

Interest by the army or by the government doesn't mean the science is any good.

 

So, Ponderer, if you have any sort of scientific backing (hell, a coherent explanation would be nice for a start) to this suggestion of yours for a teleportation device, please feel free to share it with us.

 

You will find it very hard to convince anyone in here of anything without some sort of serious scientific discussion, ponderer.

 

~moo

 

OK. I am beginning to lose patience.

 

The whole topic was a fantasy to start with.

 

You were discussing teleportation for @#$% sake.

 

You want to discuss impossible? Teleportation by turning matter into energy and back into matter is impossible. The energy released would blow up a city! Heck we both know it would likely be enough to blow up the whole planet. You are talking about total conversion of matter into energy, not just simple fission even. You would probably take out the moon too.

 

The possiblity of reassembling a living organism in any sort of working state is ridiculous.

 

My point was simply that if you insist on trying to do something impossible, this alternative seems much less impossible, at least there is an idea of how to do it.

 

Suddenly you want me to explain how to do it. Aint happen'n. Fish somewhere else. I was not making any claims, just pointing out that you might get a similar result with a different approach, that seems more doable.

 

In any case I still think it's a really bad idea. As such you cannot possibly expect me to advance the idea, beyond conception.

 

Berhard Heim has a theory. Since he derived all the known particles and their properties, it seems he might have some credibility. He was afterall a theoretical physicist. Look up his bio on wikipedia.

 

Certainly his theory has not been proven, or tested. However it is a testable theory, that is to be tested.

 

That's more that you have to try to disassemble and reassemble matter.

 

So don't tell me about fantasies.

 

I am making more sense than the lot of you.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

OK. I am beginning to lose patience.

 

The whole topic was a fantasy to start with.

 

You were discussing teleportation for @#$% sake.

 

You want to discuss impossible? Teleportation by turning matter into energy and back into matter is impossible. The energy released would blow up a city! Heck we both know it would likely be enough to blow up the whole planet. You are talking about total conversion of matter into energy, not just simple fission even. You would probably take out the moon too.

 

The possiblity of reassembling a living organism in any sort of working state is ridiculous.

 

My point was simply that if you insist on trying to do something impossible, this alternative seems much less impossible, at least there is an idea of how to do it.

 

Suddenly you want me to explain how to do it. Aint happen'n. Fish somewhere else. I was not making any claims, just pointing out that you might get a similar result with a different approach, that seems more doable.

 

In any case I still think it's a really bad idea. As such you cannot possibly expect me to advance the idea, beyond conception.

 

Berhard Heim has a theory. Since he derived all the known particles and their properties, it seems he might have some credibility. He was afterall a theoretical physicist. Look up his bio on wikipedia.

 

Certainly his theory has not been proven, or tested. However it is a testable theory, that is to be tested.

 

That's more that you have to try to disassemble and reassemble matter.

 

So don't tell me about fantasies.

 

I am making more sense than the lot of you.

 

This what I am trying to tell you. It's a really bad idea.

 

Heim stopped work on the propulsion aspect of his theory in 1959. Neither failures nor flaws had made Heim discontinue his propulsion research – it was the unbridled interest of unsavory firms.[13] The preface by Helmut Goeckel to Heim’s first paper in the series of four articles published by Magazine for Missiles indicated various aerospace and ordnance companies had made several attempts to kidnap him. Subsequently, the remainder of his life was devoted to refining the unified field attributes of his theory.[

 

I agree with him.

Edited May 18, 2010 by ponderer

[mooeypoo]

Then next time, supply the substantiation along with your claims instead of waiting for *others* to do that for you, so that we can see this is more than just pointless nonsense.

 

That's what separates a science minded person from the rest. Right? right. You make an unlikely statement, you back it up.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Part of being a good skeptic is not dismissing things as pointless nonsense until you've seen the evidence.

[mooeypoo]

Part of being a good skeptic is not dismissing things as pointless nonsense until you've seen the evidence.

I didn't dismiss the claim, I dismissed the method the claim was raised in.

 

Ponderer was asked several times to participate in a proper discussion instead of tossing unfounded and unclear notions to a *mainstream physics* discussion. He kept repeating the claims without any sort of explanation or substantiation.

 

The claims were then moved to their proper place: speculations.

 

Even now the claims are still not mainstream science, they are speculative - though they might be more substantiated than mere wordgarbage. Still, they're not mainstream science. The fact this thread is in speculation doesn't mean we dismissed the claims outright. The fact I'm still debating in it shows I personally didn't dismiss anything outright either.

 

Speculation isn't the garbage can, and claims should go with substantiation if they are to be taken seriously - specially when the discussion was in mainstream physics which requires an even deeper degree of substantiation.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I didn't dismiss the claim, I dismissed the method the claim was raised in.

No. You immediately treated the claim as unscientific nonsense, suggesting that ponderer must be in a fantasy world to even suggest the idea. Then you compared the idea to government experiments on ESP.

 

Ponderer was asked several times to participate in a proper discussion instead of tossing unfounded and unclear notions to a *mainstream physics* discussion. He kept repeating the claims without any sort of explanation or substantiation.

Ponderer's mistake was to not preface his posts with, "In Heim theory, ...", perhaps linking to a site about Heim theory.

 

Of course, as ponderer rightly points out,

 

The whole topic was a fantasy to start with.

 

You were discussing teleportation for @#$% sake.

 

Star Trek physics is hardly "mainstream" physics.

 

But in any case' date=' I am merely fed up with our continuing validations of Alex's Second Law. Perhaps it should have a new corollary:

 

It is far easier to discuss the scientific method than it is to discuss actual science.

 

Many of our members do not have a formal scientific education. They read something interesting in a science magazine, or maybe on an interesting blog, or just somewhere in general, and they think it sounds reasonable. Then they post about it, and what do they get in return? A long lecture on the scientific method, using peer-reviewed sources (which they do not have access to, and don't understand anyway), and what constitutes "mainstream" physics; or, on other occasions, they're just told to bugger off.

 

This is no way to handle speculative subjects. Idealistically, it's perfect, but in practical purposes it just seems to annoy everyone.

[mooeypoo]

No. You immediately treated the claim as unscientific nonsense, suggesting that ponderer must be in a fantasy world to even suggest the idea. Then you compared the idea to government experiments on ESP.

No I didn't.

 

I moved the thread to speculations because it's unsupported. It's also not mainstream. It *STILL* isn't mainstream.

 

My comparison to ESP was only made when ponderer's idea of substantiation was that the army is supporting it. My claim came to show that the fact the army supports something, doesn't mean it's science. I gave ESP as an example. I wasn't the only one to make that observation.

 

Ponderer's mistake was to not preface his posts with, "In Heim theory, ...", perhaps linking to a site about Heim theory.

 

Of course, as ponderer rightly points out,

Ponderer's mistake was to put speculative claims in the format of facts without backing them up.

 

Star Trek physics is hardly "mainstream" physics.

It isn't. The difference is that I *SAID* it wasn't science, I explained what star trek physics says and why it's *not* valid in mainstream physics. I was also answering swansont who raised star trek as an example.

 

I explained why the star trek version isn't science, not gave it as an example of proper explanation in a mainstream thread.

 

But in any case, I am merely fed up with our continuing validations of Alex's Second Law. Perhaps it should have a new corollary:

I know you love inventing your lovely logic laws, but you're coming out a bit condecending here, honestly. The claims ponderer made is non mainstream science, which is why it's in speculation. It was done in a factual matter without being substantiated, which is why I dismissed it *UNTIL FURTHER SUBSTANTIATION WAS PROVIDED*. It was also the second time I requested he do the work and give us something to work with here.

 

You did the work for him, good job. I read the articles, and I don't dismiss anything - but that doesn;'t mean it's not a speculative issue, still. If it was utter nonsense, we both know the thread might've been locked, closed, or sent to trash. Neither of those happened.

 

The problem here wasn't the idea, or the theory proposed (though both *still* belong in speculation, which isn't science-hell, it's just not science-mainstream) the problem was ponderer insisting on posting speculation as fact in a mainstream science thread after two moderators asked him to explain and substantiate and, at least, not treat the speculation as fact.

 

I know you love finding examples where people outright dismiss ideas and cause discussions to go south, but this wasn't one of those cases. This is about science, and about proper presentation of a scientific idea (or nonidea) in mainstream thread and in speculation thread.

 

Many of our members do not have a formal scientific education. They read something interesting in a science magazine, or maybe on an interesting blog, or just somewhere in general, and they think it sounds reasonable. Then they post about it, and what do they get in return? A long lecture on the scientific method, using peer-reviewed sources (which they do not have access to, and don't understand anyway), and what constitutes "mainstream" physics; or, on other occasions, they're just told to bugger off.

If ponderer was to give us the name of the magazine, or a link, or even the name of the theory, or the blog, or whatever - ANYTHING to work with, it might've been different. The theory would still belong in speculation, but we would all have SOMETHING to work with to show why the suggestion is or isn't science, or is or isn't valid speculation.

 

Since ponderer, instead, posted (TWICE) the speculation as if it's fact, without any remnant or shred of any substantiation, we asked him to supply some evidence. I truly didn't understand *WHAT* he's talking about in the first post, which is why I answered the way I did. Instead of giving us SOMETHING to work with - 'I read this in a magzine" would be somewhat better, ushering us to ask him which one, and find a link - the idea didn't belong in a mainstream thread.

 

It wouldn't have belonged in the speculation thread if not for *SOME* articles or substantiated matter (he should thank you for taking the time).

 

I don't expect everyone to be able to prove/substantiate using high level physics or math. I do expect, in this forum, that a claim is substantiated - or at least properly explained.

 

The problem wasn't the idea, Cap'n. The problem was the delivery.

And we've tried to correct the delivery twice in the original thread, to no avail. The thread was split here, so as to not mix non-supported claims (presented as facts) from a mainstream-science explanation.

 

This is no way to handle speculative subjects. Idealistically, it's perfect, but in practical purposes it just seems to annoy everyone.

 

Posting unsupported claims as if they're facts in a thread that answers a new'bie question annoys physicists even more. You seem to have this knee-jerk reaction that everything annoys everything.

 

This is a speculation. It belongs in speculation, and if oyu wouldn't have saved it with accidentally understanding what ponderer spilled onto the page, it would've ended up in trash.

 

Don't make it seem like I'm the villain here when we attempted to get some cooperation and got none.

 

And if you think I handled this wrong as a moderator, then you, as the master-of-the-site, mister administrator, can overrule, erase, and remerge.

 

I personally think you're makingit into a bigger deal than it is. Speculative notions go in speculations. Non cooperative posters get 'please start cooperating' moderation notes. Ponderer isn't new to the forum; he knows this.

 

~moo

[swansont]

IMO it's perfectly valid to ask if some science-fiction notion has any basis in science, or if it's wholly fiction. However, if you are going to answer the question, you had better back it up — explain what principle you violate, or what allows it to happen. You don't answer it with an untested hypothesis.

[ponderer]

IMO it's perfectly valid to ask if some science-fiction notion has any basis in science, or if it's wholly fiction. However, if you are going to answer the question, you had better back it up — explain what principle you violate, or what allows it to happen. You don't answer it with an untested hypothesis.

 

First off, we have a group of physicists here, and you all know e=mc^2.

 

Yet you entertain the idea that you can convert matter into energy for a transporter concept. You all know how much energy that would produce, say for a human being converted. You cannot contain that energy, never mind transmit it. If you could convert matter into energy your first priority would be power generation.

 

You are going off into a fanatasy world.

 

moo is being defensive, and wont admit she is wrong.

 

This is mainstream science being conducted by respected researchers in respected insitutions, based on a theory by a fully trained and qualified theoretical physicist. Just because you don't know about it, or do not know or agree with the theory, does not make it outside mainstream science.

 

It only makes you ignorant of the facts.

[mooeypoo]

First off, we have a group of physicists here, and you all know e=mc^2.

 

Yet you entertain the idea that you can convert matter into energy for a transporter concept. You all know how much energy that would produce, say for a human being converted. You cannot contain that energy, never mind transmit it. If you could convert matter into energy your first priority would be power generation.

Interesting. I believe that's pretty much what I said in the original thread, plus explaining the problem with the heisenberg principle.

 

And yet, you posted a claim that was untested, unverified and unsupported, and expected others to do the work of understanding what you meant, why you say it and where it's supported *FOR YOU*.

 

You know better, ponderer. You're not new in this forum.

 

You are going off into a fanatasy world.

 

moo is being defensive, and wont admit she is wrong.

You're being cryptic, and I'm not wrong.

 

This is mainstream science being conducted by respected researchers in respected insitutions, based on a theory by a fully trained and qualified theoretical physicist. Just because you don't know about it, or do not know or agree with the theory, does not make it outside mainstream science.

 

It only makes you ignorant of the facts.

Yes, whcih you were supposed to supply. I didn't say it was crap, I said it was unsupported. The responsibility to support this claim is on you.

 

By the way - the claim is STILL not mainstream science, and therefore it's STILL not valid as an *answer* to a mainstream science question.

 

But if you post something, then do the whole job and post the facts with it.

 

You were careless, lazy or you didn't care, and you posted an unsupported claim, expecting us to run around and provide the evidence for you. I asked you - TWICE - to support it. To show evidence. You just continued to post unsupported gibberish. I wasn't the only one to ask you, you know. Nor was it the first time.

 

That's not science, and you know it. Stop hiding behind the fact you were miraculously saved by Cap'ns incidental find. *YOU* made that claim, and YOU were supposed to back it up. Since you didn't, it was an irrelevant answer to a mainstream-science question.

 

 

 

~moo

[swansont]

First off, we have a group of physicists here, and you all know e=mc^2.

 

Yet you entertain the idea that you can convert matter into energy for a transporter concept.

 

I don't believe I ever entertained such an idea, or even offered to buy it a drink. IIRC my sole contribution to the previous discussion was to counter the notion that there was a violation of moving information faster than light. Moo further discussed the idea that you would be moving information, rather than matter, which does not (by itself) violate any physical principles, but never actually said that such a device was possible.

 

You were one who proposed that it could actually work. But you called upon a speculative idea that is not part of mainstream physics, and a new speculations thread was split off. I don't understand why that should be such a source of consternation. If it's that you want the thread renamed to Heim theory, or something else, so that it's not associated with you, just ask.

 

The problem with "Teleportation by turning matter into energy and back into matter is impossible." is that you have assumed there was a specific topic for the discussion, which is not borne out by an actual inspection of the thread. You have debunked a position that nobody has taken.

[ponderer]

I don't believe I ever entertained such an idea, or even offered to buy it a drink. IIRC my sole contribution to the previous discussion was to counter the notion that there was a violation of moving information faster than light. Moo further discussed the idea that you would be moving information, rather than matter, which does not (by itself) violate any physical principles, but never actually said that such a device was possible.

 

You were one who proposed that it could actually work. But you called upon a speculative idea that is not part of mainstream physics, and a new speculations thread was split off. I don't understand why that should be such a source of consternation. If it's that you want the thread renamed to Heim theory, or something else, so that it's not associated with you, just ask.

 

The problem with "Teleportation by turning matter into energy and back into matter is impossible." is that you have assumed there was a specific topic for the discussion, which is not borne out by an actual inspection of the thread. You have debunked a position that nobody has taken.

 

Look, I did not like being accussed of using this site as some sort of fantasy fulfillment.

 

I have already explained that I am not a physicist. You want to talk about outside manistream physics. That's me. You know you are outside mainstream physics when you build your experimental apparatus in your basement shop, and do your experiments in your garage.

 

You can do a search for Burkhard Heim on google and you will find many physics forums where he has been discussed. I am relatively new here, regardless of moo's assertion otherwise. I assumed that being a science site, that Heim must have been discussed already, and that the idea of hyperspace would not be so fanciful to you. Heim is not new. This idea has been around for over half a century.

 

Excuse me if I stand back and marvel. I find it hard to imagine any physicist who would not know of the only proposed testable method for travel through hyperspace.

 

I am aghast.

Edited May 20, 2010 by ponderer

[swansont]

Excuse me if I stand back and marvel. I find it hard to imagine any physicist who would not know of the only proposed testable method for travel through hyperspace.

 

I am aghast.

 

Actually I'm not surprised. I don't mean this as a knock on you — it's pretty much endemic outside the scientific community. If you don't have the experience of actually trying to keep up with the new science that goes on, even within some small community, you won't be prone to appreciate the sheer magnitude of what's out there.

 

But no, I have to disagree with the equity of your reaction; not being aware of any particular untested hypothesis is not, IMO, surprising. I discuss some of the particulars of posts concerning obscure conjectures with colleagues, and they are often unaware, too. From a scientific standpoint, an untested hypothesis is the analogue of trivia. I don't find it unreasonable in the least.