In a Galaxy Far Far Away...

[Lilith]

there could be pervs. We can be sure that if there is life elsewhere, a small segment of that population must surely be perfect additions to the Pixies group. We don't discriminate, not even against extraterrestrials (never know how their anatomy may be enhanced out there in the cosmos:D).

Maybe Pixies could be the first porn site they beam (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/03/23/craigslist.space/index.html) into deep space!


I bet they can help us get some of these :teleport:

[Cheyanne]

:teleport: <---- I have always wanted to use that one... never had a reason until now.. ;)

[imaginewithme]

Yeahhhhh, that'd be wayyyyy cooolll!!!! :teleport:

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

You may find it difficult to believe, but “beam me up Scotty” teleportation is theoretically possible! :teleport: Laughably beyond any technology that currently exists, but look at the rate of technology change over the last 50 years. :)

[wyndhy]

it's be better than ads for houses and used cars.
very cool!

[dicksbro]

Are we sure that aliens aren't already registered members? Hmmmmmm?

I seem to recall a thread where the postings were all like ...

Ooga, ooga, ooga
or ffft; ffft ffft;
or ribbit, ribbit, ribbit.

Some of us thought this was cute, but could it have been secret alien communications passing back and forth.

Makes ya' think, don't it.







:)

[PantyFanatic]

You may find it difficult to believe, but “beam me up Scotty” teleportation is theoretically possible!……….

Why is that difficult to believe?:confused:

[jseal]

PantyFanatic,

Teleportation, as exemplified in Star Trek, was like Star Trek itself, Science Fiction, not fact. Both are literary devices, not physical ones.

When introduced in the TV show, teleportation was like FTL and time travel, unsupported by theory as well as practice.

Customarily, I find it easier to believe in fact than I do in fiction.

You?

[PantyFanatic]

Gentlefolk,
.... beyond any technology that currently exists, but look at the rate of technology change over the last 50 years. :)
.....Customarily, I find it easier to believe in fact than I do in fiction.
So which is it? :confused:

[jseal]

PantyFanatic,

Just beyond some people's grasp.

[africandan]

So which is it? :confused:

Fiction.

The problems it creates - both scientifically and philosophically - are far too many in number. That no one even has a theoretical model of how it might work that wouldn't create vast problems about the very nature and structure of our existence is testament to this.

So much as the aliens may like to beam themselves up a CowGirl or a Lilith - they'll just have to come here and get them.

[Oldfart]

Fact or fiction?

We've seen the things in operation in Star Trek, Blake's Seven, Doctor Who and many other shows.

Some of us have read vague stories about single photons being teleported across a laboratory.

The almost unavoidable trap of "seeing is believing".

[BIBI]

Are we sure that aliens aren't already registered members? Hmmmmmm? :)

No we aren't sure, but there definately have been some real good clues ;)

[campingboy]

You mean to tell me that what I saw on TV was not true? But I saw then dissappear and reappear with my own eyes. It has to be true. TV does not lie!

[scotzoidman]

there could be pervs. We can be sure that if there is life elsewhere, a small segment of that population must surely be perfect additions to the Pixies group. We don't discriminate, not even against extraterrestrials (never know how their anatomy may be enhanced out there in the cosmos:D).

If there are any extraterrestrial pervs out there, they'll probably never know about our anatomical structure, esp. if Voyager is their first encounter with us...some may not recall that in the embossed graphics plate that was attached to the craft to show who, what, & where we are to who- or what-ever may find it, the powers that be decided that the pics of humans could not be totally anatomically correct...therefore any ET that gets our message may be able to listen to Chuck Berry AND Beethoven, but conclude that the creatures who created it look like Ken & Barbie...

[PantyFanatic]

PantyFanatic,

Just beyond some people's grasp.
You do better with verboseness.








:rofl:

[BIBI]

I'd like to buy a vowel please Vanna...:)

[PantyFanatic]

You get an "O"ooooooooo. :D











(I'm saving the "A") ;)

[jseal]

You do better with verboseness.

PantyFanatic,

These discoutesies are disfiguring yet another thread. If you have nothing about the thread to post, please don't. :(

[Lilith]

MMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I just love the smell of testosterone early in the morning.

[PantyFanatic]

:spank:


thank you mother :(






:grin: OK I'll be good :)

[osuche]

PF being good???????? :rofl: Now that would be a landmark occasion.


((and before you get *too* pissy, remember it's also why we love you))


As for me.....I know they can get single protons to "teleport" across space -- say, a room -- because I've read the news articles. :D But if only my protons get sent, I am going to be one **very** unhappy woman. :p

[PalaceGuard]

I'd love to live long enough to see :teleport: happen!

[africandan]

No one has ever actually managed to transfer matter - which is essentially what would be required to teleport humans around the place - this remains impossible.

Theroetically there are ways to do similar kinds of things - but these aren't ways that would work with matter on a large scale. And certainly aren't able to overcome the problems that the individual (in terms of human personality) would come across in being teleported.

Oddly enough, Star Trek never really delved into just what a mind fuck it would be.

[Booger]

No one has ever actually managed to transfer matter - which is essentially what would be required to teleport humans around the place - this remains impossible.


Yes this remains impossible for now but who know what the future will hold. I remember read an old si-fi book writen some time in the late 50's. It had a super computer (was a little less powerful the most dest top ones now days) that took up a 5mile square block. Now if you would have told people back then that something like that could fit in a box that would sit on a dest top they most likely would have told you it was impossible. So who it to realy say what the future holds for us.

[jseal]

Booger,

Yes. Why are there no PCs on Arcturus 7? The SF writers definately overlooked that. Asimov, Clark, Heinlein, Herbert, Niven; I'd have thought that one of them would have speculated that the size of computers would drop.

Perhaps the more recent SF authors included desktop machines in their stories.

[africandan]

Yes this remains impossible for now but who know what the future will hold. I remember read an old si-fi book writen some time in the late 50's. It had a super computer (was a little less powerful the most dest top ones now days) that took up a 5mile square block. Now if you would have told people back then that something like that could fit in a box that would sit on a dest top they most likely would have told you it was impossible. So who it to realy say what the future holds for us.

Whilst it is true that science continually exceeds its own expectations and it is almost impossible to predict what the future may hold the challenge of the consequences of teleportation are such that not even current medical knowledge can allow for.

Making computers smaller was simply a matter of technological advances. It's a purely physical problem. There is almost nothing in the world which, once invented, has not been made smaller, lighter or stronger by the application of new materials.

Teleportation is a very different matter. You're not talking about making anything but about changing things. Indeed, quite the reverse, you mustn't create anything. Talk of teleportation by 'reading the structure' of the human in one place and recreating them in another (the only way teleportation has so far been achieved) is riddled with flaws. Both in terms of our understanding of our physical make up and in terms of what constitutes our identity. Would the recreated human be the same person who was deconstructed at the other end? Would all our thoughts and memories survive such a trip? Quite apart from this, it implies that we can simply create humans from matter if we have the right information to hand.

Given the choice of making something smaller or overcoming such obstacles I know which ones most scientists would choose.

Much as many may like it to happen, the days of teleporting Pixies around the galaxy for erotic encounters with suitably equipped alien creatures are still firmly in the realm of fantasy. And the odd teleported photon does almost nothing to change this.

[jseal]

...teleporting Pixies around the galaxy for erotic encounters with suitably equipped alien creatures are still firmly in the realm of fantasy...

africandan,

I can think of several Pixie ladies I've ALREADY fantasized about teleporting into an erotic encounter! MMMmmmmm. :love:

[PalaceGuard]

Talk of teleportation by 'reading the structure' of the human in one place and recreating them in another (the only way teleportation has so far been achieved) is riddled with flaws.


Aren't you talking about Entanglement?

[africandan]

Aren't you talking about Entanglement?

No. Entanglement not only involves quantum effects (which don't apply to humans in the same way as particles) but also links two particles which already exist. In teleportation the aim is to have one particle which exists in one place and then in another - but the two particles cannot exist at the same time (as they would have to to be entangled) because otherwise you have a duplicate of a pre-existing person and you're not teleporting them from one place to another).

[africandan]

I can think of several Pixie ladies I've ALREADY fantasized about teleporting into an erotic encounter! MMMmmmmm. :love:
Join the club!

I'm one of the English contingent. Teleportation would be a great way of getting them over the puddle!

[PalaceGuard]

africandan - I thought that quantum entanglement “enabled” teleportation.

Take that photon for example. At any time, it has a finite number of quantum states – each one has some value. Suppose that two photons, one photon at place A and the other at place B, share an entangled state of polarization. I’ve read that it is possible to perform an operation on the photon in place A that will transform the photon in place B into one of two states, depending on the two possible outcomes of the operation at place A: either polarized, or an unpolarized state that is related back to A in a definite way.

After the operator at place A communicates the outcome of the operation to place B, the operator at place B knows either that the two photons are the same, or how to transform the local photon to the same state as that in place A by a local operation.

The way I understand this is that the operators in place A and B have managed to use their shared entangled state as a quantum communication channel to destroy the polarized state of the photon in place A’s part of the universe and recreate it in place B’s part of the universe.

Now, if an observer cannot distinguish between the photon in place A and place B, then isn’t it reasonable to argue that the photon on place A has ”teleported” to place B?

[PantyFanatic]

You're right. :thumb:

And they did it back in the 50's and you get this.

[africandan]

It enables the teleporting of photons, yes. But as in my previous post - this doesn't help teleporting humans. For exactly the reasons I said.

Firstly, humans don't experience quantum effects - they're too big, they simply don't have different quantum states in the way photons do. And cannot be changed from one sort of human into another.

Secondly, you'll note that the example you give of teleporting photons requires two photons already to exist. For the equivalent in human teleportation you would require two humans who are then made indistinguishable. But the type of teleportation that we want sends one human from one place to another - and preferably doesn't alter them in the process.

So whilst quantum entanglement can enable the impression of teleporting photons, it can't even enable the actual teleporting of a single photon let alone the teleporting of a Pixie lady into my room.

[Lilith]

You're right. :thumb:

And they did it back in the 50's and you get this.
If they finally figure out how I can teleport Pixies men straight into my lair/dungeon/web and they have penises the size of flies I am gonna be one pissed mother fucker :D

[sodaklostsoul]

If they finally figure out how I can teleport Pixies men straight into my lair/dungeon/web and they have penises the size of flies I am gonna be one pissed mother fucker :D
:rofl:

[jseal]

...quantum entanglement “enabled” teleportation...

PalaceGuard,

Sir. You Rock!

While I opened the subject, I did so with the qualification that the needed engineering was unrealistic. I also have a theoretical problem with the process.

The uncertainty principle limits the accuracy that you can measure the position of a particle to be a function of its momentum. It order to measure the momentum of a proton, for example, precisely, you need to renounce all knowledge of the proton’s position. Given that the number of proton’s in a human is approximately 10^26, the resulting loss of information would render the transformation useless.

As for the engineering, assuming that each proposed measurement could – in principle – be carried out, you’d still have to perform 10^26 measurements in 3 seconds or so, if we are to retain the Star Trek metaphor. That’s not CPU clicks now, that’s real world measurements. Further, you’d have to pre-establish 10^26 entangled pairs before the teleportation could occur.

There’s no way that could be done in real time.

[cherrypie7788]

I think some people have far too much time......lol

[PantyFanatic]

I think some people have far too much time......lol
:grin: :rofl: :grin:
:rofl: :grin: :rofl:




:thumb:

[wyndhy]

just goes to show you never can tell what's gonna happen next...ever. :spin:

[africandan]

just goes to show you never can tell what's gonna happen next...ever. :spin:
Indeed, the sun may not rise tomorrow.... but I bet that it does!

[PalaceGuard]

jseal - I agree that the engineering needed for teleportation is overwhelming. I don't think Dr. Heisenberg would stand in the way of this process.

The uncertainty principle can be stated as

uncertainty in position (X) multiplied by the uncertainty in velocity (V) > h/m

Where h is Planck’s constant and m is the mass of the particle.

In the quantum world, each measurement changes the system. To measure the position of the object will introduce an uncertainty in the velocity, and vice versa. This is what it means to have the number on the right side of the equation not equal to zero. As the uncertainty in one variable (V) approaches zero, the uncertainty in the other (X) must increase to keep their product greater than h/m.

Here’s the point: at room temperature, the thermal vibration of the atoms in anything to be teleported creates a sufficiently large X that V can be very small.

As for the engineering, I’m less concerned with the count of the particles that need to be entangled as to the fact that the values of many quantum states must be captured simultaneously for the teleportation to be effective. As I mentioned above, each measurement changes the system being measured. It would be inaccurate to claim that useful measurements cannot be made, but they would be tricky. In all likelihood, the sum of the X * V would be small enough for uncomplicated objects. For dynamic objects like the brain, where the state of the system could change while the measurements were being made, I doubt that what would be received would be identical to what was sent. I sure wouldn’t volunteer.

[wyndhy]

Indeed, the sun may not rise tomorrow....

and if i was around and able to witness it...wouln't that be somethin'!!

[BIGbad]

As both of you have well described the quantum world is nearly impossible to measure.

Then why try to measure it? :hair:

Why not image what you intend to transport and reproduce the exact copy on the other side? A computer could possibly measure the image and determine the position of every object, with future advances of course. The computer could then reassemble the object on the other side, given that all the exact ingredients and an infinite energy source are readily available.

But then there lies yet another problem, do you then destroy the original at the point of origin?

[jseal]

...do you then destroy the original at the point of origin?

BIGbad,

That is what happens with quantum entanglement.

[BIGbad]

BIGbad,

That is what happens with quantum entanglement.

...or in the immortal words of the foremost theologian on the subject of :rofl:

[Lilith]

OMFG~~~~~> rofpmpl


(((((((BIGbad))))))))

[jseal]

:yikes:

[jseal]

PalaceGuard,

Are you familiar with the work of Claude Shannon? :)

[PantyFanatic]

BIGbad :thumb:

:grin::rofl:
:rofl::grin:

[BIGbad]

All:

That "big dummy" was directed at myself for pointing out what was so obviously pointed out by the gentlemen above. If my message was misconstrued by anyone I apologize. Again I am a "big dummy". I never should have weighed in on this one with the big dogs.

BB

[PalaceGuard]

jseal - You wouldn't, by any chance, be referring to Claude Shannon's "A mathematical theory of communication", would you?

[PantyFanatic]

All:

That "big dummy" was directed at myself for pointing out what was so obviously pointed out by the gentlemen above. If my message was misconstrued by anyone I apologize. ....
BB
Nothing miscionstrued and you can't be an indian giver! ;) If we get a tool, we get to ise it where ever it fits. :D

[jseal]

PalaceGuard,

Yes sir, I believe that is the one. Do you think it may be applicable in this instance? :)

[PalaceGuard]

jseal – Well, a portion of it. I do think that the Signal/Noise ratio is relevant in this instance.

In information theory, the Shannon-Hartley theorem computes the maximum amount of information (error-free digital data) that can be transmitted over a communication link with some bandwidth in the presence of noise interference.

We’re facing a similar situation here, where packets of data are being passed through a particular messaging system with a seemingly unavoidable amount of noise. The amount of information which may be carried here is more or less limited by the number and size of the packets of useless data.

[jseal]

PalaceGuard,

How significant is this situation?

[PalaceGuard]

jseal - It depends on the communication channel. In this instance there are many concurrent channels. Assume for the sake of simplicity that all the active channels have the same bandwidth. Some have much higher information content than others. Those channels with high information content are more sensitive to noise degradation than those which don't.

Actually, the usefulness of the messaging system as a whole becomes inversely proportional to the total system noise at high noise levels.

Can't stay tonight - gotta go.

[jseal]

PalaceGuard,

What kind of noise causes the degradation?

[PalaceGuard]

Jseal – It may better to think of noise as “interference” rather than something related to sound. On an analogue line, this interference with the data (signal) does sound like noise. On a digital line, a bit is a bit, so thinking of noise as interference is more useful. The root problem remains unchanged, which is first how to discriminate between the signal (data) and the noise (interference) and also, when approaching the bandwidth limits of the channel, that the noise can elbow the signal aside.

It doesn’t matter what your messaging system is – they all have these problems.

[jseal]

PalaceGuard,

The messaging system must be open enough to enable a complete range of messages, but this openness admits the interference. So noise/interference is an intractable engineering issue. A messaging system must admit noise to admit data, so some portion of the data must be used to identify it as data rather than noise.

[PalaceGuard]

jseal –While the problem is unavoidable, the common technique used to filter out the noise is to encode the signal. The messaging system, or at least the message channel, can distinguish between packets by accepting as data (signal) packets having particular characteristics. That is one way of looking at encoding, the process puts a particular stamp on or shape to a message. Backing into the solution, if the signal can be identified, then the noise can be filtered out.

[jseal]

PalaceGuard,

Isn't encoding computationally expensive?

[PalaceGuard]

jseal - yes, but what commodity has had the greatest increase in cost/performance ratio over the last 10 years? MIPs are cheaper than dirt - and getting cheaper and faster daily.

[jseal]

PalaceGuard,

OK. So with encoding, we can be looking at a minimum of 10^27 or so measurements in 3 seconds.

Now in the almost 30 years since the original supercomputer, the Cray-1, was set up at Los Alamos National Laboratory in 1976, computational speed has increased some 500,000 times.

Even if the rate of progress remains at this level, it will still be 150 years before the necessary computing power is available to be harnessed.

Sir, you’ll have to be fortunate to see teleporting in action! :)

Still it IS fun to speculate how it might be achieved.

:teleport:

Thank you!

[PalaceGuard]

jseal – Can’t agree with you. The rate of change will increase. One of the first applications of quantum entanglement will be in the field of quantum information science. When realized, the number crunching demanded for teleportation will be trivial compared to capacity. Here’s an example:

How many computational steps are needed to find the prime factors of a 300-digit composite integer number?

The best classical algorithm suggests about 5*10^24 steps – about 150,000 years with a 1 GHz clock. The cost of computing increases exponentially. Using quantum computing the cost rises only polynomially, and takes only 5*10^10 steps. Guess what? Less than 1 second on the same box. (Peter Shor, AT&T Labs, 1994)

It will be the rest of the engineering that’ll stop it from happening. Africandan also correctly pointed out that the receiver would have to pre-exist – so no spooky Star Trek opportunities there.

Still, it is theoretically possible – and it will be computationally possible sooner than you may think.

One good source on quantum information science for those who are interested – is www.qubit.org

[jseal]

PalaceGuard,

Perhaps I’m behind the times here – feel free to correct me, but isn’t all this about quantum computing just theoretical? I’m unaware of any computer having been built from these components. Mind you, I’m not saying that it CAN’T be done, only that – to my knowledge – it HASN’T been done yet.

I’d be more comfortable about your projections if I knew of any computer which functioned according to these principles. The Devil is in the details, and there seem to me to be a considerable number of engineering details still to be resolved between now and the time that these brave new machines will be available for use.