Beam Me Up: 'Teleportation' Is Year's Biggest Breakthrough

[Gerald]

Thanks to physics, and the truly bizarre quirks of quarks, those Star Trek style teleporters may be more than fiction. A strange discovery by quantum physicists at the University of California Santa Barbara means that an object you can see in front of you may exist simultaneously in a parallel universe -- a multi-state condition that has scientists theorizing that teleportation or even time travel may be much more than just the plaything of science fiction writers.Until this year, all human-made objects have moved according to the laws of classical mechanics, the rules governing ordinary objects. Toss a ball in the air and it falls back to Earth. Drop a coin from your roof and it falls into your yard. But back in March, a group of researchers designed a gadget that moves in ways that can only be described by quantum mechanics -- the set of rules that governs the behavior of tiny things like molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/17/beam-teleportation-years-biggest-breakthrough/


Note:Published December 17, 2010

[Gerald]

Smooth, just what I need, to keep up with what should be done in the near future.

[onelifecrisis]

Hmm. If time travel is possible, how come nobody has visited us from the future? :88)

[TLAM Strike]

Hmm. If time travel is possible, how come nobody has visited us from the future? :88)
One explanation: by traveling in time the traveler creates a divergent reality to their own. No time traveler visits an existing reality and thus not creating a paradox, they can only visit the reality they created.

[Jimbuna]

One explanation: by traveling in time the traveler creates a divergent reality to their own. No time traveler visits an existing reality and thus not creating a paradox, they can only visit the reality they created.

Ah, that explains it then :hmmm:

:doh:

[papa_smurf]

One explanation: by traveling in time the traveler creates a divergent reality to their own. No time traveler visits an existing reality and thus not creating a paradox, they can only visit the reality they created.

Don't get me started on paradoxes :doh:

[Growler]

Huh?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/The_pair_of_ducks.jpg

[onelifecrisis]

One explanation: by traveling in time the traveler creates a divergent reality to their own. No time traveler visits an existing reality and thus not creating a paradox, they can only visit the reality they created.

Surely all those alternate realities would cause even God's CPU to overheat.

[Growler]

Surely all those alternate realities would cause even God's CPU to overheat.

How does one overCLOCK a TIME machine?

[onelifecrisis]

How does one overCLOCK a TIME machine?

ohhhhhhhh you! :haha:

[TLAM Strike]

Surely all those alternate realities would cause even God's CPU to overheat.

He has a multi-core processor. One for each reality. ;)

[onelifecrisis]

He has a multi-core processor. One for each reality. ;)

So when you time travel you don't just make a new reality, but a new core as well?

Getting back on track... sort of... if going back in time makes a new reality then how come we happen to be in the one "original" or "true" reality? Isn't that reminiscent of the old "earth is the centre of the universe" theory?

[onelifecrisis]

Also, if time travel creates alternate realities then a time travel machine that works would result in the traveller disappearing and never, ever returning (to that reality) which would mean it would be indistinguishable from a machine that just vaporises anyone stupid enough to get in it. That would make it kind of difficult to test.

[TLAM Strike]

So when you time travel you don't just make a new reality, but a new core as well? It also partitions his hard drive, but thats a whole other discussion...

Getting back on track... sort of... if going back in time makes a new reality then how come we happen to be in the one "original" or "true" reality? Isn't that reminiscent of the old "earth is the centre of the universe" theory? Or it could be said that this universe is the center of our reality.

Also, if time travel creates alternate realities then a time travel machine that works would result in the traveller disappearing and never, ever returning (to that reality) which would mean it would be indistinguishable from a machine that just vaporises anyone stupid enough to get in it. That would make it kind of difficult to test.
Not really, in any reaction no matter is created or destroyed. This is a fundamental law of physics. A through examination of the machine would show that all the matter in the traver's body either was converted to another state (destroyed) or is not there anymore (sent to another reality).

[onelifecrisis]

Or it could be said that this universe is the center of our reality.

I'm not sure what you mean.
If time travel is possible and it creates new realities then every time something travels through time a reality is created in which something or someone just popped into existence. How come we're not in one of those realities? Do we just happen to be in the "original" reality?

Not really, in any reaction no matter is created or destroyed. This is a fundamental law of physics. A through examination of the machine would show that all the matter in the traver's body either was converted to another state (destroyed) or is not there anymore (sent to another reality).

My use of the word "vaporised" was... let's call it artistic license. The point is that you wouldn't know where it went or what state it arrived in. All you'd know is that it disappeared. You could say "I made a machine that makes things disappear! REALLY disappear!" and someone would probably give you a physics prize, but I bet you couldn't persuade anyone to get in and go for a ride. Even if you could, you'd still have no idea whether you'd made a time travel machine or just a "vaporizer".

[TLAM Strike]

I'm not sure what you mean.
If time travel is possible and it creates new realities then every time something travels through time a reality is created in which something or someone just popped into existence. How come we're not in one of those realities? Do we just happen to be in the "original" reality? With out knowing that a time travel event occurred they we can't know.



My use of the word "vaporised" was whimsical. The point is that you wouldn't know where it went or what state it arrived in. All you'd know is that it disappeared. You could say "I made a machine that makes things disappear! REALLY disappear!" and someone would probably give you a physics prize, but I bet you couldn't persuade anyone to get in and go for a ride. Even if you could, you'd still have no idea whether you'd made a time travel machine or a "vaporizer". Well you are assuming that someone just tossed a bunch of parts together and declared it a time machine. How to construct a time machine is actually know, but insanely difficult to do- it involves wormholes, black holes and near light speed velocities. In such a case matter can travel both ways though a wormhole allowing the traveler to return and confirm the trip.

[onelifecrisis]

I thought wormholes were supposed to connect regions of space-time within our reality, not connect to other realities. :06:

[TLAM Strike]

I thought wormholes were supposed to connect regions of space-time within our reality, not connect to other realities. :06:

As I understand it they can both connect to other realities.


Isn’t time travel by wormhole or any other means impossible due to the paradoxes that it implies?
Not necessarily. Dealing with time travel paradoxes by conjecturing the impossibility of time travel is only one of three ways of resolving the issue. The other ways are:
1) Impose self consistency on classical physics: A time traveler cannot change the past because he was always part of it. When he attempts to change the past, his efforts will be thwarted by an apparent conspiracy of events. 2) Impose self consistency on quantum physics: A time traveler cannot change the past because all possible pasts have already occurred in parallel universes. When he attempts to change the past, his efforts will not seem to him to be thwarted. This is because he will have entered the past of a preexisting parallel universe in which he has already made the changes that he seeks to effect.
http://www.webfilesuci.org/WormholeFAQ.html

[Sailor Steve]

All of the above is pure speculation. Until a real experiment is conducted, how does anyone know what a wormhole actually does or where it leads? How does anyone know what can or can't be done with time travel until someone actually does it?

[DarkFish]

How to construct a time machine is actually know, but insanely difficult to do- it involves wormholes, black holes and near light speed velocities. In such a case matter can travel both ways though a wormhole allowing the traveler to return and confirm the trip.So until someone invents the portable wormhole a time machine is not just insanely difficult but impossible to make:O:

[onelifecrisis]

1) Impose self consistency on classical physics: A time traveler cannot change the past because he was always part of it. When he attempts to change the past, his efforts will be thwarted by an apparent conspiracy of events.

Wouldn't the "conspiracy of events" constitute a change to the past? Not the change intended by the traveller, but still a change.

2) Impose self consistency on quantum physics: A time traveler cannot change the past because all possible pasts have already occurred in parallel universes. When he attempts to change the past, his efforts will not seem to him to be thwarted. This is because he will have entered the past of a pre-existing parallel universe in which he has already made the changes that he seeks to effect.

:doh:

If he intends to change something then he must enter the parallel universe at a time prior to the events that he wishes to change, in which case how can he have already made the changes?

[MH]

If he intends to change something then he must enter the parallel universe at a time prior to the events that he wishes to change, in which case how can he have already made the changes?

What it means that the universe knows that he will enter to change the past and the stage is already set for this.

[MaddogK]

Yup, time travel is possible because they can do it on paper.

...sounds like the 'it's true because I read it on the internet' argument.

[onelifecrisis]

What it means that the universe knows that he will enter to change the past and the stage is already set for this.

So we're talking about a deterministic universe? In which case there is only one universe, not many. Contradiction.

Yup, time travel is possible because they can do it on paper.

In physics some very important things have been shown to be true on paper before they were shown to be true by experimentation.

...sounds like the 'it's true because I read it on the internet' argument.

Er, not really.

[Diopos]

...
Not really, in any reaction no matter is created or destroyed. This is a fundamental law of physics. A through examination of the machine would show that all the matter in the traver's body either was converted to another state (destroyed) or is not there anymore (sent to another reality).

Mass is "destroyed" or "created" all the time producing or expending equivalent amounts of energy. E=mc² and all that. It's the sum of mass and energy that remains constant. Atomic bomb anyone? BUT in systems where you don't have nuclear reactions or sub atomic particle """transformations""" mass is preserved ... pending further investigation :)


.

[TLAM Strike]

Mass is "destroyed" or "created" all the time producing or expending equivalent amounts of energy. E=mc² and all that. It's the sum of mass and energy that remains constant. Atomic bomb anyone? BUT in systems where you don't have nuclear reactions or sub atomic particle """transformations""" mass is preserved ... pending further investigation :)


.

But mass is not matter. You can add mass by increasing speed but the matter in an object does not increase.

[kiwi_2005]

Wouldn't it be great if we all had a teleporter machine in our living rooms as common as the television. Just hop on the teleporter and zap to your destination, forgot to do that report for your boss and time is up go back 24hrs and start on it. Haha. Not in our lifetime. :damn:

[TLAM Strike]

Wouldn't it be great if we all had a teleporter machine in our living rooms as common as the television. Just hop on the teleporter and zap to your destination, forgot to do that report for your boss and time is up go back 24hrs and start on it. Haha. Not in our lifetime. :damn:

Is that really the best use you can think of for a teleporter/time machine? Redo a report for your boss?

:O:

[Madox58]

This thread reminded me of a Sci-Fi story I read long ago.
If a viewing device was placed far enuff from Earth you could view past events in real time.
Given the speed of light?
The theory is possible.
Placed far enuff from Earth we could view the bombing of Japan with Nukes and such.
Closer looks would require better viewers of course.
It was a good book!
Does anyone remember the name of that Book?
I'd like to read it again.

[Diopos]

But mass is not matter. You can add mass by increasing speed but the matter in an object does not increase.

Ahh. We're getting dirty aren't we?! :D
Relativistically speaking you are correct. Mass is a measure of inertia rather than amount of substance. But when you wrote: "Not really, in any reaction no matter is created or destroyed" you were actually using a phrase directly pointing to the "conservation of mass law" as formulated by Antoine Lavoisier. Back then the universe was Newtonian and matter mattered!!!:doh:

.

[Madox58]

Ahhhh...............
:o
Now my head hurts!!!!
:nope:

[Sailor Steve]

This thread reminded me of a Sci-Fi story I read long ago.
If a viewing device was placed far enuff from Earth you could view past events in real time.
Given the speed of light?
The theory is possible.
Placed far enuff from Earth we could view the bombing of Japan with Nukes and such.
Closer looks would require better viewers of course.
It was a good book!
Does anyone remember the name of that Book?
I'd like to read it again.
But to view Hiroshima we would need to be 65 light-years from Earth. How long would it take to get there and set it up? And how would we pinpoint a specific incident for viewing? How would the viewer focus on a chosen location when the Earth is in constant motion?

[TLAM Strike]

Ahh. We're getting dirty aren't we?! :D
Relativistically speaking you are correct. Mass is a measure of inertia rather than amount of substance. But when you wrote: "Not really, in any reaction no matter is created or destroyed" you were actually using a phrase directly pointing to the "conservation of mass law" as formulated by Antoine Lavoisier. Back then the universe was Newtonian and matter mattered!!!:doh:

.

Ahhh, Antoine Lavoisier! That was the guy I was thinking of but couldn't remember his name. He was put to death during the French Revolution and his wife took over his quest to study matter IIRC.

[Dowly]

This thread reminded me of a Sci-Fi story I read long ago.
If a viewing device was placed far enuff from Earth you could view past events in real time.
Given the speed of light?
The theory is possible.
Placed far enuff from Earth we could view the bombing of Japan with Nukes and such.
Closer looks would require better viewers of course.
It was a good book!
Does anyone remember the name of that Book?
I'd like to read it again.

Oh yes, definitely possible, this method is used to take pictures from the "past" universe. Hubble has taken pictures off galaxies hundreds of millions of years from the "past". The James Webb space telescope that is to be launched in few years is hoped to be able to take pictures of galaxies and planets from the very early universe.

[Sailor Steve]

Oh yes, definitely possible, this method is used to take pictures from the "past" universe. Hubble has taken pictures off galaxies hundreds of millions of years from the "past". The James Webb space telescope that is to be launched in few years is hoped to be able to take pictures of galaxies and planets from the very early universe.
I stand by my objection. Any star we see is a picture from the past, but we can't pinpoint a specific building in a specific city on a specific planet and look at a single incident that took place there millions of years ago. We can only see the light from the stars themselves.

A wonderful feat, but not actually seeing "the past".

[antikristuseke]

I'm not sure if i understand what you are saying right Steve, have been awake for allmost 38 hours and close to 24 of that spent at work, but you seem to be saying that just because we can not make out specific details we are not seeing the past when looking at distant luminous objects in space. Or have I missed something?

[Sailor Steve]

I'm not sure if i understand what you are saying right Steve, have been awake for allmost 38 hours and close to 24 of that spent at work, but you seem to be saying that just because we can not make out specific details we are not seeing the past when looking at distant luminous objects in space. Or have I missed something?
Yes and no. I was specifically replying to Privateer's comment that if we placed a viewer far enough from Earth we could outpace the light from 1945 and see the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The light we see from distant stars is indeed from the past, but I don't think that kind of viewing of past events is possible, because the further away we get the harder it is to pinpoint anything.

[antikristuseke]

Given a hypothetical situation with perfect conditions I suppose it might be possible to see that event, but hightly doubt it, as the nukes droped then compared to the Suns luminosity is kind of like shining one of those huge searchlights used against night time bomber raids in your face while lighing a candle in the light beam and expecting you to be able to tell the difference.
This next bit im probably going to get wrong, but meh, at 65 light years planets are detected by the wobble they cause in the stars movement as they orbit it so yeah, not to mention the fact that the plant itself spins on an axis completely independant of its orbit (well not completely but meh again) and a nuclear explosion takes a miniscule ammount of time the odds are staggering.

[TLAM Strike]

I stand by my objection. Any star we see is a picture from the past, but we can't pinpoint a specific building in a specific city on a specific planet and look at a single incident that took place there millions of years ago. We can only see the light from the stars themselves.

A wonderful feat, but not actually seeing "the past".

I have to concur with Sailor Steve. We get like 99% of our light from the sun (a tiny fraction we get from starlight), everything we see on Earth we see because sunlight reflects off it unless its lit by a man made source. The best cameras in Earth Orbit can't make out the stuff we left on the Moon from Apollo. The best telescopes are just starting to make out planets in orbit of other stars. Seeing historical events from many lightyears is just not feasible with current or any projected future technology, and I seriously doubt anything short of a Gigaton nuclear blast in space will be visible or detectable for more than a few light years.

Not to mention the fact that you would need to travel faster than light to "Get in front of" the light of the event. If you can travel faster than light than causality or relativity (Pick one) starts to go out the window and time travel becomes possible (http://sheol.org/throopw/tachyon-pistols.html). You might as well go back and see it for your self.

... clean up on aisle 3... privateer's head has just exploded.

[Sammi79]

Wow this thread has already gone far beyond my laymans understanding of spacetime and relativity. Reading through made me remember a couple of films involving time travel that were really good.
There was one where future humans from a near perfect (but ultimately stagnant) world would travel back to watch the imperfections (disasters etc...) of the past, the film played out pretty much hollywood style but the idea was a good one.
A better film was the one when future humans had destroyed their world through time travel - as paradoxes occur they cause time 'quakes' in the (future)present measuring on a sort of richter scale of how significant the changes caused by the initial paradox were. They had also managed to open a wormhole to a new world however, they as a species were now bound by the myriad paradoxes that they had instigated, so what they were doing was analysing history to find when groups of people were killed in plane crashes etc... kidnapping them moments before the event and replacing them with corpses, so they could send them through to the new world to start again. That one ended with the line "Time Quake approaching, force, INFINITY!" as reality unravelled around them.
If anyone remembers these films also and can remember what they are called I'd love to watch them again.

My favourite time travel flick though is more recent, it is called 'Los Cronocrimenes' or 'Timecrimes'. It really emphasizes that however much we think we understand, and can prepare for, that things like time travel (even travelling back a few minutes, nevermind going back far enough to change history) would have unimaginable and very, very serious consequences (or would that be presequences?) for those involved.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480669/

Check it out it's well worth a watch, It stays very close to what we (our best scientists) actually know about the subject.

Back on topic what always baffles me is - If a photon moves at the speed of light, time dilation means that from the photons point of view, time does not move. Therefore, for the photon, it exists at all possible points along its path at the same time. How does the photon know which direction it is travelling? when the start of travel happens at the same time as the end of travel, aswell as the actual travel, what difference would a reversal of direction make? None that's what. So who's to say photons don't really burst out of dark objects and zoom towards the nearest light source? and what about.... :damn: oww. time to stop.

[Sailor Steve]

Larry Niven wrote a short treatise titled 'The Theory and Practice of Time Travel', in which he approached the concept from several points of view. The final idea was along the lines of the possibility of going to the past and changing things, over and over again, finally ending with the possibility of creating a universe in which time travel was never invented...wait a minute - what it's that's what happened?
:rotfl2: