teleportation and sci-fi

hawai_74

mac über alles
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
Messages
1,074
Location
switzerland
i read somewhere that scientists succeeded to teleport an atom and other tiny things. I was impressed by this technological step. This remind me all the sci-fi books or movies using teleportation.
Here's my question: is sci-fi the main influence for the scientists research? I mean, why physicians had the idea of working on teleportation (or other projects) were they influenced by the litterature?
I've the feeling that most of the new tech today follow a good sci-fi book.
 
with the exception of self awar and intelligent robots, i would hope so. (remember, we have to keep those robot bastards under heel! and the best way to do that is by not giving them intelligence in the first place)
 
Teleporting has been one of the most interesting things in Sci Fi for me :scan: :cool: . How many times I have wished I was immediately
somewhere else :( , or wished others were. :mischief: ;)
 
hawai_74 said:
i read somewhere that scientists succeeded to teleport an atom and other tiny things. I was impressed by this technological step. This remind me all the sci-fi books or movies using teleportation.
Here's my question: is sci-fi the main influence for the scientists research? I mean, why physicians had the idea of working on teleportation (or other projects) were they influenced by the litterature?
I've the feeling that most of the new tech today follow a good sci-fi book.

Transporting single particles is one thing but when it comes to large-scale teleportation you'll find that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle will be a serious problem to overcome.
 
I'd say that on the contrary, sci-fi books come from weird scientific ideas.
Plus a great bunch of sci-fi writers are scientists, with various degrees of respectability (from "top-notch Nobel contestant" down to "your wife back in 4 days guaranteed")

Teleportation would completely change our lives. (doh). I'm always frustrated by the shyness of most writers when they include teleportation. Like people still have houses in one place, go to work, use cars and ships. Whereas your house could have each and every one of its room worlds apart.
"Yes, the living room is on Mars, but the kitchen is near Alpha Centauri, nice view there."

This, and the fact that most space fights are in fact WWII fights with future-looking airplanes (when will people realize there's no direction in space ? No gravity ? And that thus the sphere is the best design for a spaceship, being able to attack and defend from everyside ?) is a constant reason for me to despise 90% of SF. Even if I read it all :lol:
 
Masquerouge said:
This, and the fact that most space fights are in fact WWII fights with future-looking airplanes (when will people realize there's no direction in space ? No gravity ? And that thus the sphere is the best design for a spaceship, being able to attack and defend from everyside ?) is a constant reason for me to despise 90% of SF. Even if I read it all
I disagree. Where would you put the steering wheel?

Though, I agree, it does makes me laugh when I see a space battle where the ships are all "upright", i.e. facing the same way, same orientation, etc.
 
@Xen

Couldn't we give em intelligence, but no free will?
 
Well, right now the biggest thing they've moved were single atoms (which is still quite impressive, them being composed mand particles basicly teloportation is done by quantum entanglement, a method of cheating Hisenberg. The problem is is once you start getting on the large stuff quantum entanglement gets harder and hared to create for all particles. And humans are made of some where around 10^28 atoms. Also remember, that also means 10^28 times as much energy is needed so we're not talking cheap here
 
As for what scientists research I sure hope it's not motivated by sci-fi, then we wouldn't have the really cool stuff like super-low temperature physics. Curiosity motivates them not some stories.
 
Masquerouge said:
Teleportation would completely change our lives. (doh). I'm always frustrated by the shyness of most writers when they include teleportation. Like people still have houses in one place, go to work, use cars and ships. Whereas your house could have each and every one of its room worlds apart.
"Yes, the living room is on Mars, but the kitchen is near Alpha Centauri, nice view there."

I've had the exact same idea (and I think I've posted it before in a thread about "if we could control gravity") - it would be wild. No doors, though you would have to have an "arrival area" that could be kept clear at all times so you wouldn't teleport into your dining room table. Unfortunately the other posters are right about teleportation being impossible for things much larger than atoms.

Masquerouge said:
This, and the fact that most space fights are in fact WWII fights with future-looking airplanes (when will people realize there's no direction in space ? No gravity ? And that thus the sphere is the best design for a spaceship, being able to attack and defend from everyside ?) is a constant reason for me to despise 90% of SF. Even if I read it all :lol:

Why would you make it a sphere and have your largest profile from all angles? If you really wanted to defend yourself you would lower your profile as much as possible and make cigar-shaped spacecraft. From head on you are barely visible, from the side you may be long, but you are very narrow and difficult to hit. Spheres are giant targets.

Plus, the human body is directional (with eyes forward in the direction of our primary motion). We relate to the world in directional terms and quicky get confused in omni-directional environments such as underwater or in outerspace.
 
Perfection said:
As for what scientists research I sure hope it's not motivated by sci-fi, then we wouldn't have the really cool stuff like super-low temperature physics. Curiosity motivates them not some stories.

What Sci-fi stories are good for is exploring what would be the consequence of removing certain limits that we are experiencing now. What if plays an important role, and the good ones really set you thinking. Take teleportation, if you could teleport from everywhere to everywhere, imagine what it would do to privacy... The famous 'three laws of robotics' might come in handy one day. And there are many more examples of this, IMHO it is what makes that genre so interesting, it helps you to think out-of-the-box of the here and now.
 
Well it can and does motivate the sceintific community, an example being Sagan's Contact. It does have the ability to generate curiosity or draw attention to certain ideas. It also can act to draw people into the sceintific field. However, in terms of generating ideas it doesn't work. Curiosity is the creative force of science.

As also mentioned it does deserve credit for starting "what if" conversations.

Still, I'd place it as a side-show to science and not anywhere near a central feature.
 
shadowdude said:
Would this method of transportation be able to safely transport living tissue?

With teleportation the original is destroyed, de-composed and 100% digitized. Information travels at a receiver which exactly duplicates the original. So you die and are re-created, but would it still be YOU on the other side?

I find this article relevant on the topic.

Quantum immortality is the name for the speculation that the Everett many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that a conscious being cannot cease to be. The idea is highly controversial.

The idea comes from a variant of the quantum suicide thought experiment. Suppose a physicist standing beside a nuclear bomb tries to detonate it. In almost all parallel universes, the nuclear explosion will vaporize the physicist. However, there is a small set of alternate universes in which the physicist somehow survives. The idea behind quantum immortality is that the physicist is only alive in, and thus able to experience, one of the universes in which a miraculous survival occurs, even though these universes form a small subset of the possible universes. In this way, the physicist would appear, from a personal point of view, to be living forever. There are some parallels with this in the anthropic principle.

Many people regard this idea as nonsense, and argue that this outcome does not fall out naturally from the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. They say that in the vast majority of universes, the physicist would cease to exist and therefore the most likely experience of a physicist standing next to a nuclear explosion would be the experience (or lack of experience) of ceasing to exist. The counterargument to this is that lack of experience is not itself an experience.

The critics argue that the continuity of consciousness, and the possibility of it enduring forever, are actually assumptions in this scenario, and ones with no physical basis. They also claim that the logic of the thought experiment would suggest that a conscious observer can never become unconscious, and therefore can never sleep. A counterargument to this is that there may indeed be parallel universes in which one never falls asleep; however, the subset of universes in which this happens is vanishingly small compared to the subset of universes in which one falls asleep and later wakes up again. Therefore, given the assumption that consciousness will continue, it is far more likely to continue into the latter set than into the former.

Proponents of the idea point out that while it is highly speculative, there is nothing in the notion of quantum immortality that violates the known laws of physics.

Although quantum immortality is motivated by the quantum suicide experiment, Max Tegmark, one of the inventors of the quantum suicide thought experiment has stated that he does not believe that quantum immortality is a consequence of his work. His argument is that under any sort of normal conditions, before someone completely ceases to exist they undergo a period of non-quantum decline (which can be anywhere from seconds to minutes to years), and hence there is no way of establishing a continuous existence from this world to an alternate one in which the person continues to exist. However, the idea of a "non-quantum decline" has no basis in any known laws of physics.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality
 
I personally think that free teleportation is as abstract as faster-than-light travel...I highly down that you will actually be able to move humans that way.

Some of you may know that my favorite sci-fi author is Orson Scott Card. Not only is he a good writer, but his "fiction" is very beleivable.

I can't explain his theories on teleportation well, but his story Xenocide does.
 
What I don't understand is why they are still traffic jams in the movies where we have invented teleportation ?

Think about it, imagine, we can teleport people from a "teleport boot" to another one... typing the number of that boot as if it was a phone number. That would have sever repercussions on our everyday life.

No need for cars, no need for planes, no need for supertankers, no more pollution ! Cars could still be used for personal driving pleasure. Well, a kind of paradise. :p
 
Yeah, in fact, we'd never even need to move a muscle - we could teleport our arms and legs to whatever position we like...

And we'd never have crappy hair either.
 
actualy we'd all have crapy hair ALL the time, cause all that teleporting will likely cause some sort of problems at some "smaller then atoms" level that we might not even be aware of yet.

we'll have lightingning coming out of random walls and windows.
there'll be so much radiation and god knows what else floating around that humans will mutate at an extrodinary rate, and with all the ball lightning roaming around, little league baseball will consist of:
ball lightining as the ball, the team during who's at bat it blows up, gets an automatic out.
instead of bats and throwing the ball, they'll use their tellikenetic powers (the pitcher has to stop pushing the ball after 1 sec or something).
 
Top Bottom