Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists Transfer Info Between Atoms (Star Trek Teleportation is REAL!)
Local 6 News ^ | 6-16-2004 | AP

Posted on 06/16/2004 1:54:18 PM PDT by vannrox

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-312 next last
To: AntiGuv
Well, here's something to consider...if superluminal transportation of information is possible, why hasn't anyone sent us messages from the future?

For instance, someone could send himself winning lottery numbers from the future...and I'm guessing that guy in West Virginia is not a physicist.

101 posted on 06/16/2004 3:24:47 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Or...maybe they have sent messages from the future...and we just haven't been told about them! </tinfoil>
102 posted on 06/16/2004 3:26:47 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Put Sundog on it, Pat.

Thanks.


103 posted on 06/16/2004 3:28:10 PM PDT by Sundog (Cheers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

You might be, but then so am I.


104 posted on 06/16/2004 3:29:18 PM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Arthalion
Yup, but without all the wierd transdimensional metaphysics.

Well, they know that it does it; they still don't know how it does it.
105 posted on 06/16/2004 3:32:02 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: D_Idaho
Just a thought... if teleportation is possible, what happens to your intellect when your atoms get scrambled and reassembled? What about spirit? Does that get emailed as well? Like an attachment maybe?

After I'm dead and my spirit is on the way to Heaven (or Hell, but Heaven I hope) I sure don't want it it get infected with a virus some teenager created while he was playing with this "spooky action at a distance" teleporter thing.

106 posted on 06/16/2004 3:32:19 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

.


It IS ..SPOCK..!!!


.


107 posted on 06/16/2004 3:33:35 PM PDT by ALOHA RONNIE (Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.LZXRAY.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
Quantum entanglement is also an essential requirement of quantum computing as it is envisioned. It also raises the distinct prospect of quantum jumps and quantum teleportation.
108 posted on 06/16/2004 3:34:33 PM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent; RightWhale; Buggman
Hey, I just found this! "Exact uncertainty" brought to quantum world: Theoretical physicists use 80-year old maths to improve the famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
109 posted on 06/16/2004 3:37:01 PM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

But superluminal transportation would not enable one to send messages from the future into the past. It would enable one only to send messages from the present into the future.


110 posted on 06/16/2004 3:39:38 PM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green; Petronski
Transporter technology is cool, but I wish they'd work on the food replicators first.

They are, in effect, the same thing.

As far as I can see, whether it's Star Trek or Cal Tech, the only difference between 'Beam me up!' and 'Tea, Earl Grey, hot', is in the first place the original item is destroyed as it's copied, and the second, the item is copied from a pattern previously saved.

Lots of questions to be asked and settled if this is truly real. It's the the effect of preverbal perpetual motion machine, even if the physics works. If you can copy the atoms of an object, then you can have unlimited objects. Unlimited Oil, unlimited gold, unlimited food. The entire economic base falls flat on it's face as everything valuable becomes worth only as much as the energy needed to copy it. Star Trek indeed!

That's before you consider the actual questions of teleportation by making a copy on the other end. If you were to step in, and they fail to complete the transfer, there really could be two of you! What if some judge is having a snarky day and rules that your wife is now a widow because your original body was physically destroyed in the move? How could you ever be sure it was really 'you' that stepped out, and not a saved copy days later to be manipulated into some nefarious act or experiment?

Paranoia comes easy when the possibilities are real. ;)

As a kid, I always wondered what it was like to have been born with barely a working telephone available, and see atomic power and computers and the internet... Not any more.

111 posted on 06/16/2004 3:47:52 PM PDT by kAcknor (That's my version of it anyway....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

That's pretty neat, but it only seems to quantify just how corrupted a data message should be if it's transferred via entanglment. I suppose we have some good ECC from microprocessor technology that would help reconstruct the corrupted portions, but I wonder just how reliable such a transmission technology would be. Any thoughts on this?


112 posted on 06/16/2004 3:55:57 PM PDT by NJ_gent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: vannrox

While an interesting bit of science ( and one that merely confirms much of what is now called "modern" phsysics), your title is not only misleading it is out and out wrong. To transfer "state" information from one atom to another is NOT the same as making atoms move from one location to another....Don't get so excited...this is the natural progression from research that has been ongoing since the 80s ( that I am aware of)


113 posted on 06/16/2004 4:00:18 PM PDT by jnarcus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kAcknor
"It's the the effect of preverbal perpetual motion machine, even if the physics works. If you can copy the atoms of an object, then you can have unlimited objects. Unlimited Oil, unlimited gold, unlimited food."

The cost of everything in that situation is energy. Your tea costs the device power on the order of e=mc^2 plus some amount for inefficiency and such. The number of objects you can "create" is limited by the amount of power you have available. Probably the most interesting aspect is that you can toss your old socks in there, have them converted into energy, and have them reformed as a slice of delicious cheesecake.

"That's before you consider the actual questions of teleportation by making a copy on the other end. If you were to step in, and they fail to complete the transfer, there really could be two of you!"

There's no copy being made - the original is converted to energy, the energy is transferred to a new location, and that energy is reformed into you. Although one episode of ST:TNG did indeed have a transporter accident create a copy of someone, it was a break in the continuity of the understanding put forth about the technology. It was a single incident in which the writers apparently partied a bit too hard the previous night and came up with a bad story (and one which defied the limits placed upon the technology) in between Advils. (I just made that up, but watching that episode, as a fan, makes you wonder)

"How could you ever be sure it was really 'you' that stepped out, and not a saved copy days later to be manipulated into some nefarious act or experiment?"

The transporter technology in Star Trek was quite limited in what it could do. Making apple pie was pretty easy, and copies could be put out in droves. In order to make anything as complex as a person, though, it had to have the original within its buffer. In other words, multiple copies was impossible, as was using old transporter data to make a new you. Even weapons were beyond the abilities of the transporter and replicator systems. No complex, moving parts systems were reproducable.
114 posted on 06/16/2004 4:08:37 PM PDT by NJ_gent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

I'm pretty sure superluminal communication would send messages from the future into the past. We can already send messages into the future. We're doing it right now.


115 posted on 06/16/2004 4:23:00 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent; Buggman

But how is uncertainty relevant to the conjectured application? Why isn't this reply from Buggman adequate?

"Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Heisenburg simply states that you can't know both the location and the velocity of a given subatomic particle at the same time--the more accurately you pin down one, the "fuzzier" the other gets. We can still accurately detect spin just fine, so how would this affect ansible communication?


116 posted on 06/16/2004 4:23:13 PM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I'm pretty sure superluminal communication would send messages from the future into the past.

Why and how? I'm unaware of any speculated property of superluminal communication that would support such a statement.

We can already send messages into the future. We're doing it right now.

Yes, obviously, but I hope you know what I meant without my having to spell it out..

117 posted on 06/16/2004 4:24:56 PM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

OK...now I'm really confused. Wouldn't a faster than light transfer of information arrive before it was sent? That would imply to me that the information would go from the future into the past.


118 posted on 06/16/2004 4:42:01 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv; B Knotts; Physicist; longshadow
But superluminal transportation would not enable one to send messages from the future into the past. It would enable one only to send messages from the present into the future.

Here's something I've posted a time or two before, which I will repeat here in pretty much the original wording. "Physicist" has much more to say on this topic, so I'm pinging him in case he has any input.

Here's why an instant communications system creates time paradoxes:

Let's say you take off from earth in a ship that travels around 99% of lightspeed, fast enough for you to experience the effects of time dilation. And before you take off, you synchronize clocks with your buddy back home (synchronized clocks are a standard bit of equipment in these thought experiments). You've also got that mythical "subspace radio" which keeps you in instantaneous contact with earth. In due course, I shall demonstrate the impossibility of that device.

Okay, as you accelerate to 99% of lightspeed, less time is passing on ship than back home. You're not aging as rapidly as you would if you stayed home. This is apparent only in comparison with earth, however. On the ship you notice nothing odd. But your once-synchronized clocks are no longer in sync. Yours is now showing less time passing than the clock on earth (from earth's point of view). This is standard stuff, plain old special relativity.

After a while, let's say your ship clock is a day behind the earth clock (never earlier than launch date, however, as that would be quite impossible. The divergence commences after that point). Now you receive a message from earth: "Terrible news! President Hillary Clinton assasinated! USA in mourning." This message comes over your "subspace radio," so it's an instantaneous communication. However ... you have accelerated away from earth, so your clocks now register an earlier time than that on earth. If the message is sent on earth's July 4th, you receive it on your ships's July 3d. Okay. You're still with me, right? Get this next point, because it'll make your brain ache. Because of the relative velocity between the two reference frames, the sender's clock is later than the receiver's clock. This is always going to be true -- in all reference frames.

Now you get on the supspace radio and send your condolences back to earth: "So sorry to learn of the July 4th assasination of President Hillary Clinton." Ah, but here comes the catch. You are sending this message on your July 3d. Because of your acceleration away from earth, from your point of view -- which is just as valid as earth's viewpoint -- it's earlier on earth than it is on your ship. So your message travels instantly and gets to earth on July 2nd. Earth's July 2nd. And they now know of the event before it happened.

No, you say. Why would it get to earth earlier? Why? Because earth's message got to you earlier than it was sent, and it always gets where it's going earlier than it was sent. There are no privileged reference frames. From the point of view of your ship, earth accelerated away from you and is experiencing its own time dilation effect. It works both ways.

So your subspace radio allows messages to be sent into the past, which generates all kinds of paradoxes; and it is generally accepted that no such contrivance is possible. One of the advantages of a lightspeed limit is that it keeps the universe from going crazy.

But note that it takes large distances for this to have any significant "back in time" effect. So if there is a technique for exceeding lightspeed over a small distance, there's no major problem. We won't be receiving any messages from tomorrow.

If you're troubled by having Earth in the scenario, then consider two ships out in space somewhere, at rest relative to each other. They synchronize their clocks. Then they each accelerate in opposite directions, each moving very close to lightspeed, better than 99.5% of c, fast enough for each ship to experience significant time dilation. And they communicate with each other instantaneously. (In Heinlein's novel, he used twins who were telepathic for this.) Each ship has its clock slowed down with respect to the other (I think this is the result), so each one is sending messages "into the past," and they will be received at the other ship "earlier" than they were sent. As they exchange messages back and forth, each ship is receiving messages from the "future." Same paradox, but we leave earth out of it.

119 posted on 06/16/2004 4:49:13 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yes, that IS a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks. Yes, that's how I thought it worked.


120 posted on 06/16/2004 4:54:11 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: vannrox

Not so much for the transporter - but it might make for good “subspace communications”.


121 posted on 06/16/2004 4:57:01 PM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv; SevenofNine; cyborg; OXENinFLA
If they reversed the spin of one particle then the other particle's spin instantly reversed with no time delay due to distance. By using that method, you could communicate instantly with binary code,

Sub-space communications? ;-)

122 posted on 06/16/2004 5:10:50 PM PDT by StriperSniper ("Ronald Reagan, the Founding Father of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy." - Mark Levin 6/8/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Hah! Planets are not in deserts. Deserts are on planets. Guess those comic strip guys don't think of everything.

But, that's what makes it
BIZARRO!!!

123 posted on 06/16/2004 5:15:31 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I want to die in my sleep like Gramps -- not yelling and screaming like those in his car)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; B Knotts; Physicist; longshadow
Oh, I see what the problem is. First, to answer B Knotts question*, the quick answer is: No, nothing is ever travelling from the given 'present' into the past in the course of superluminal communication. Some things are arriving at a given point in the future 'faster' than others. But, everything is moving from the 'present' to the 'future'.

In reply to PatrickHenry, your pasted post contains a dreadful logical fallacy. I will post a detailed reply to that later.

* Wouldn't a faster than light transfer of information arrive before it was sent?

124 posted on 06/16/2004 5:17:01 PM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Quantum entanglement is also an essential requirement of quantum computing as it is envisioned. It also raises the distinct prospect of quantum jumps and quantum teleportation.

Which leads us to:


125 posted on 06/16/2004 5:18:46 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I want to die in my sleep like Gramps -- not yelling and screaming like those in his car)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

I meant to add that I will post a more detailed explanation to your question as well, as soon as I have the time.


126 posted on 06/16/2004 5:19:05 PM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Wouldn't a faster than light transfer of information arrive before it was sent?

Not precisely, if I understand it correctly (and I might not). It would appear to to someone observing the point of origin through light-waves, but to take my earlier example, while you might be observing the earth as it was 10 years ago from a point 10 light-years away, the earth isn't actually 10 years younger--that's just how long the light took to reach there. If you sent an ansible signal to earth, you wouldn't see an instant result--you'd have to wait ten years for the light waves carrying the result to reach you.

If I'm wrong, please someone explain how and why.

127 posted on 06/16/2004 5:31:10 PM PDT by Buggman ("You can't tell a deaf Chinaman anything by whispering in French." --Protagoras)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Hmmm . . . I'm not sure I buy that, but let's play with this. First, a question: From earth, you would appear to be slowing down, whereas from your vantage point, earth's activities (her clock) would appear to be accelerated, wouldn't they?


128 posted on 06/16/2004 5:36:03 PM PDT by Buggman ("You can't tell a deaf Chinaman anything by whispering in French." --Protagoras)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Transporter technology is cool

Are you quoting Einstein?

129 posted on 06/16/2004 5:51:05 PM PDT by judgeandjury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Disagree, Sir,--I think we are "Inches Away From "Transporters!"

I'm Probably Overly Optimistic, But I BET we "Transport" "Inanimate Objects" within the Next 10 Years!!

"Human Technological Knowlege" ALWAYS seems to be AT LEAST 10 Years Behind Human Research!!

Invariably, we will encounter abberrations unforseen as we attempt to use this Method of "Transport," but we will "Find a way " to "Make This Work!"

If we can "Transport" ANYTHING using this Method--We'll Figure Out a Way to Do It!!

Doc

130 posted on 06/16/2004 6:22:19 PM PDT by Doc On The Bay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JenB; Fedora; Professional Engineer; RosieCotton; Bear_in_RoseBear; Rose in RoseBear

ping!

Dangit! We ALL coulda gone to wedding-moot!


131 posted on 06/16/2004 6:24:08 PM PDT by Corin Stormhands (Ronald Reagan on DU: "There's got to be a pony in there somewhere...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
First, a question: From earth, you [in the ship, I assume] would appear to be slowing down, whereas from your vantage point, earth's activities (her clock) would appear to be accelerated, wouldn't they?

No, each would observe that the other's clocks had slowed down. So it would always be, unless the ship decelerates, turns around, and accelerates toward earth again. Then you have a situation where the ship's clocks have been through some motions that earth had not experienced. This gets complex, and I'll rely on Physicist to go into detail (as I always do when I'm over my head). When the ship gets back to earth, it becomes obvious that it's only the ship's clocks that had slowed down.

132 posted on 06/16/2004 6:29:49 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yes, that IS a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Hmm, again. I see where you're going with this, but then we have to ask the question of why the twins' paradox happens, since the two clocks would simply sinc up again when our hypothetical ship flew back towards the earth and both parties observed the other's speeding up.


133 posted on 06/16/2004 6:44:20 PM PDT by Buggman ("You can't tell a deaf Chinaman anything by whispering in French." --Protagoras)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands

"Dangit! We ALL coulda gone to wedding-moot!"

ROFL!


134 posted on 06/16/2004 6:44:51 PM PDT by Fedora (Smeagol-Gollum 2004: "We can be our own VP, my Precious")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
I see where you're going with this, but then we have to ask the question of why the twins' paradox happens, since the two clocks would simply sinc up again when our hypothetical ship flew back towards the earth and both parties observed the other's speeding up.

The clocks never sync up, and neither sees the other's clock speeding up. Acceleration always slows a clock down. But when they are brought together, in the same frame of reference, the ship-board traveler and earth-bound fellow will both agree that it's the ship's clock that had slowed down.

135 posted on 06/16/2004 6:50:24 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Yes, that IS a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Doc On The Bay

Dunno. The only thing transported by this experiment was information.


136 posted on 06/16/2004 6:51:50 PM PDT by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: judgeandjury
Are you quoting Einstein?

No, I don't think so.
I know he had a cameo appearance in at least one episode...
but that was on the Holodeck.
I don't remember him ever being in the transporter room.

137 posted on 06/16/2004 6:53:40 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

S.D Haldane, the Marxist, atheist
physicist who believed that scientific laws, not God would explain the universe wrote, in a fit of honesty, that "the world is stranger than we suppose it is, in fact, it is stranger than we can ever suppose it is."

There is something going on and we are all going along for the ride.
138 posted on 06/16/2004 6:58:27 PM PDT by catonsville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Junior; PatrickHenry; B Knotts
Actually, nothing is being "transported" anywhere. The information has been transmitted but nothing 'moved' from one location to another. That is the fundamental misconception that is causing all these issues with causality and so on to arise but I am still figuring out how to explain it properly. =)
139 posted on 06/16/2004 7:00:22 PM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

I see what you're saying, and it seems correct intuitively, but a lot has been written on the causality problems of instantaneous communication across large distances, so I would reckon there must be something to it.


140 posted on 06/16/2004 7:03:39 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Thanks. This stuff makes my head hurt. :-P


141 posted on 06/16/2004 7:05:05 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

You're correct. Misuse of terms. Five yard penalty (to me).


142 posted on 06/16/2004 7:08:05 PM PDT by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Well, I am totally lost, except for the reference to "Quantum Leap." I majored in geology, which didn't have much to do with invisible things. Physics makes me understand the limits of my intellect.

I think I will try to reread this thread tomorrow, and see if I can understand more the second time around. Thanks to all who have been explaining this effect. It sounds quite important.

143 posted on 06/16/2004 7:11:23 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: techcor
"How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all". Line from a comedy sketch. Bet no one knows which one.

That would be Firesign Theater - I think "We're all Bozos on This Bus", but it has been quite awhile. I'd probably also need some doobage to shake the memory loose...and that ain't gonna happen.

144 posted on 06/16/2004 7:16:22 PM PDT by Ol' Sox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Acceleration always slows a clock down.

Something about that isn't sitting right with me. Maybe I just need to chew it over (it's been many years since I tried to figure out relativity). "Acceleration" according to what viewpoint? And if the effect of any acceleration in any direction is to always see the other clock as slowing down, wouldn't that cause light from the other source to seem to be moving faster or slower than c (an effect that relativistic effects are supposed to cancel out, so that all parties always observe light from every source to be precisely c)?

145 posted on 06/16/2004 7:18:03 PM PDT by Buggman ("You can't tell a deaf Chinaman anything by whispering in French." --Protagoras)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

Heh - it's making me dizzy. I think I feel neurons going into seizure.. =) I'm gonna brew a pot of coffee and then I'll give it a shot. I think I have the explanation (as best I understand it) almost focused in my mind's vision..


146 posted on 06/16/2004 7:21:39 PM PDT by AntiGuv (When the countdown hits zero - something's gonna happen..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: vannrox

If time travel was possible, visitors from the future would already have been here. Personally, I would have traveled to 1986 and invested $10,000 in Microsoft and laid another $10,000 in Vegas that the Red Sox would lose the World Series to the New York Mets in 7 games.



147 posted on 06/16/2004 7:22:48 PM PDT by SamAdams76 ("Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born" - Ronald Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I see what you're saying, and it seems correct intuitively, but a lot has been written on the causality problems of instantaneous communication across large distances, so I would reckon there must be something to it.

The problems that I've seen discussed seem to be logical and conceptual rather than mechanical. Scientists are naturally leery about Star Trekkian time travel paradoxes--which is as they should be.

On the other hand, I'm not seeing that instantanious communication would actually go back in time. Then again, I'm probably wrong about that for some reason that still escapes me. *chuckle*

148 posted on 06/16/2004 7:25:19 PM PDT by Buggman ("You can't tell a deaf Chinaman anything by whispering in French." --Protagoras)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Chode

Actually it is Firesign Theater's album "How Can You Be in Two Places At Once When Your Not Anywhere At All?"


149 posted on 06/16/2004 7:30:24 PM PDT by DaiHuy (MUST HAVE JUST BEEN BORN THAT WAY...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
OK, this is NOT the Star Trek transporter, but it would make a dandy weapon

Basically, researchers can use lab techniques to create a weird relationship between pairs of tiny particles. After that, the fate of one particle instantly affects the other; if one particle is made to take on a certain set of properties, the other immediately takes on identical or opposite properties, no matter how far away it is and without any apparent physical connection to the first particle.

OK, so you establish the relationship between two particles of unstable matter, say Plutonium. Then let soem bad guys get hold of a load of Plutonium big enough to make a nasty bomb out of, but you've managed to insert one half of your "coupled" pair into this critical mass. Let the bad guys smuggle their ill gotten gains to, oh, I don't know, UBLs lair. You then simply place the "lonely" particle in an atom smasher at the focal point of your beam and I think you might be able to trigger a dandy little surprise for the baddies.

Going back to the ST transporter, I've never been able to figure out why they never used IT as a weapon. Say beaming out a big chunk of the side of your enemies ship, or his engine core. Would have nasty effects.

Now watch this comment be pulled... reason... loose lips.

150 posted on 06/16/2004 7:30:29 PM PDT by Phsstpok (often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-312 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson