Matter & Energy

[lindagarrette]

On the other hand, when you convert matter into energy, you destroy its content so the whole idea is completely rediculous.

[Uncle Martin]

Whitestar,

 

The questions you ask transend science fiction. The world has quite enough science fiction. You seem to be an intelligent, inquisitive type, so I suggest that fiction will never satisfy you. You should consider exploring the world of science FACT. You may find it much more rewarding. Of course you could also tell me to mind my own #$%^*&*^%^&* business too. I would understand.

[Bo]

To whitestar:

1) What do you think? (referring to sliders)

well of course a tv-remote with lots of numbers can do anything But if it refers to some sort of spacetime deformation, i refer to my previous statements: yes i think it can be possible, but we have no idea how...

2) But what if we invented new scanning systems which wouldn't cause the same problem, that is, without probing particles with other particles? Specifically, a particle that has no energy at all?

Well a particle with no energy at all, wouldn't move and can't contain any information (information~energy), so i don't think that will work.

3) Also, if future new physics are introduced, would the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle be broken, disproved, modified or overcomed?

well the (generalized, also working for e.g. energy/time and other observables) heisenberg principle is a fundamental property of QM. If it will be disproved, complete QM will be wrong (not modified or so, really really wrong). if you disregard the heisenberg relation, you basicly disregard the fact that nature is quantized. So i don't think that is very plausible to happen. (if you study modern theories, like string theory, it will begin with: what happens if we apply the heisenberg relation to a string?). There is one modification however which may happen: the minimal uncertainty in the heisnberg relation is proportional to h (planck's constant). And we dont know (as for any physical constant) where it comes from and if it's really constant. i don't know much anout this subject, but a non-constant h would definitly modify the heisnberg relation.

4) Do you believe extra dimensions could be the key to teleportation?

Yes well more precise: i think that multi dimensional space time deformations are the most plausible key, if there is a key at all.

The question is, would the person survive the procedure, or would the individual cease to exist and be replaced with a replica, who was literally born into existence once the energy was reconverted back into matter with the information? 5) What do you think? (Note: I know this question sounds a bit philosophical but I'd be very interested in your opinion anyway.)

well in my view: it depends on your 'sollution' to the mind-body problem. you are the same person if you consider the following sollutions to the mind-body problem: - If your mind or soul is something independent of your physical body, it would certainly makes no differences of what molecules your body is made. The only problem is to 'tell' this independent mind that is body is now 10's of lightyears away - If the mind is an intrinsic property of your body, then it wouldn't matter of what molecules exactly your body is made of, only the 'constellation' of the molecules is important. (you might know the fact that the neurons, making your memory -that can span 10s of years-, are only a few months (or so, i'm not a biologist) old, they get constantly refreshed.)

There would be a problem if the mind and body are mutually dependent. So the mind needs the body and vice versa. Then your mind would cease to exist if the body is destroyed...

To tormod:

There is a fallacy in this assumption. What if the recipient was already there, say, 4 lightyears away, and confirm the receoption of information instantly (*if* it were possible, obviously)? Then they would get results instantly.

Well the point is: he can't confirm the reception insantly, the only way to confirm the reception is to travel to the other recipient (which again cant go faster then the speed of light).

To unclemartin:

<

[Uncle Martin]

Bo'

The accepted theory is that the brain ceases to produce any new cells, neurons once it reaches maturity. Usually by age 25 for humans. What you have is all you're ever going to have, so take care of them. Some studies with monkeys has indicated new neuron growth in the cerebral cortex, but I have no idea what process was used to accomplish this or if it has been verified.

[Whitestar]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Whitestar,

 

The questions you ask transend science fiction. The world has quite enough science fiction. You seem to be an intelligent, inquisitive type, so I suggest that fiction will never satisfy you. You should consider exploring the world of science FACT. You may find it much more rewarding. Of course you could also tell me to mind my own #$%^*&*^%^&* business too. I would understand.

 

 

 

Uncle Martin,

 

 

Thanks for the kind words. I am considering taking a physics course because I would like to become more knowledeable so I can create my science fiction saga. By the way, you are entitled to your opinion, the same as everyone else. And it's okay for us to disagree on a topic, so long as we're willing to do so in a civilized fashion. I know I am and I trust you will too.

 

Whitestar

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Whitestar

But let's play with this thought experiment for now. The atoms that compose our bodies are replaced every (7 years?), I've heard (I don't pretend to know the exact figure, but it seems reasonable). If this is the case, then after 7 years, you are physically completely different than you were at the beginning of the 7 year period. Then, in introspect, I realize to myself that I have a continuity of experiences, at least, my stream of consciousness is not noticeably interrupted.

 

Now imagine for the sake of arugment that teleportation were to be accomplish by converting a person into energy and you had the technology to reverse the process. In addition, you send the information along with the energy.

 

The question is, would the person survive the procedure, or would the individual cease to exist and be replaced with a replica, who was literally born into existence once the energy was reconverted back into matter with the information? In my view, when your body is destroy, you die. End of story. What comes out of the teleporter is an exact copy, with all your memories etc, and no knowledge that it isn't you, but it isn't.

In the first part, you describe the destruction and rebuilding of the body particle by particle over a 7 year period. In the 2nd, over some significantly shorter time. Yet the actual process (particle exchange) is the same. The only difference is the time frame.

 

Why would the time frame of the process change the viablity of the outcome? Why would changing out the particles of the body over 7 years allow for contiuation of the self, but doing it over perhaps subsecond timeframe not?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Bo

And to freethinker:

What you're talking about is the so called EPR-Paradox (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen), which intuitivly violates the principle of relativity: information can't be sent over faster then light. (einstein called this 'spooky action at a distence').

I hesitate to question your response as you are far more qualified, but...

 

We know that Einstien had a conceptual problem with action at a distance and actually fudged his equations to cover it's existence. Everything I have read about quantum pairs indicates that entanglement exists and the particle's pair would resolve it's spin instantly no matter what distance was involved.

 

I also understand that in the dual slit wave/ particle collapse experiments, a particular wave/particle's ultimate state actually can "move back in time" (?) to show a determination of it's eventual state at an earlier point. That if the observation is checking for it's particle state, it will be a particle earlier in time.

 

Sorry if this is not structured correctly. I hope you grasp the intent.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

In the first part, you describe the destruction and rebuilding of the body particle by particle over a 7 year period. In the 2nd, over some significantly shorter time. Yet the actual process (particle exchange) is the same. The only difference is the time frame.

 

 

 

Why would the time frame of the process change the viablity of the outcome? Why would changing out the particles of the body over 7 years allow for contiuation of the self, but doing it over perhaps subsecond timeframe not?

 

That is actually a very good question Freethinker, if our body's mass was actually replaced on the atomic level. It is a cellular level. Most cells have a lifespan that is less than that of the brain. They die and are replaced by the division of healthy cells. This is done on an as needed basis. The "7year" wive's tale applies to the epidermis (outer layer of skin). A cells lifespan is dependent on it's function, an intestinal cell may live for about 1 week, the epidermis 7 years, the dermis (Where a tattoo is located) lasts almost as long as brain cells, which do die, they however are not believed to be replaced, as described in a previous post in this thread.

 

Each cell is a living entity in and of itself. Our bodies are actually a community of trillions of living cells, each with a specific function, living and dying for the ultimate purpose of keeping the brain alive. The brain's lack of cell replacement would seem to be necessary for the cotinuation of self. But if we rebuild the body particle by particle we must also impart "life" unto each cell, or does that happen automatically?

 

The good people at IBM assert that to describe the human body down to the atomic level it would take 10^32 bits of information, if stored on CDrom it would occupy a cube 1000 km per side and take 100 millon centuries to transmit that info using state of the art fiber optic cable. Teleporting a human is pure fantasy. Fun for science fiction I suppose, but to me not worthy of serious contemplation.