Commander Data Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Annus_Mirabilis_Papers here then you see that Einstein has proven the teori that a man can be made into Energi and beam to somewhere else and rematerilise (SRY FOR SPELLING :P) We dont have the technology to do it yet but we got the formuler :P So in the furture then we will beable to beam places :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 We-e-e-e-ell, nothing new to me in there. Of course it is theoretically possible (even that is arguably not as simple a statement as it would seem, the fact that energy and mass can be equivalent does not immediately mean that one can be converted into the other just like that, I still have not heard of even a theory that descibes 'how' we could convert raw mass into energy (besides anti-matter), so), but creating a usefull technology from a theory is (unfortunately) another matter entirely (especially one as general/massive/... as this this one). It'll be a lo-o-o-o-ong time before we're up to that. Let me put it simply like this, if a person has a mass of 80kg, he could be equal to the total energy production over a course of 100 years of a very big nuclear powerplant. Try storing that, let alone converting or transmitting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 No... conversion to a blueprint, and rebuilding from that blueprint would be oodles more energy efficient than storing an insane amount of pure energy, AND the blueprint would be required in either case... energy's energy, so why bother shuffling insane amounts of energy when you don't need to? If one has enough energy to convert a person's body into energy, there's enough energy to just build a new body... on the other hand, if it isn't excessively costly convert and send, that energy could be used to supply some of the energy needed to make a new body. Now, if they could only do something about the uncertainty principle that locks away 50% of the necessary information to perfectly recreate a body at the subatomic level... unless, of course, such incredible detail is unnecessary. After all, it's not as if the brain works on a subatomic level. Who cares what the subatomic particles are doing as long as the cells are in the right places and in the right states? (unfortunately, I'm running into troubles accessing Wikipedia at the moment, so I'm running on current knowledge about quantum mechanics. Besides... Einstein didn't use QM (as far as I know, he didn't like it at all) and didn't know about current advances in physics for obvious reasons, so his view of how things work on a subatomic level were... inaccurate. Also, as teleporters / transporters would work on this scale, I'm not sure we should use Einstein as a huge authority on this... ^^') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 No... conversion to a blueprint' date=' and rebuilding from that blueprint would be oodles more energy efficient than storing an insane amount of pure energy, AND the blueprint would be required in either case... energy's energy, so why bother shuffling insane amounts of energy when you don't need to? If one has enough energy to convert a person's body into energy, there's enough energy to just build a new body... on the other hand, if it isn't excessively costly convert and send, that energy could be used to supply some of the energy needed to make a new body.[/quote'] Some remarks on this part: you're going to need the energy to rebuild the body anyway, so you're going to have to store it somewhere for sure (preferably close to the place where it's going to be used), unless you assume that: should we be able to do it, by that time we would have energy production facilties (I'm thinking electricity, so that's why I'm talking production, maybe some other form would be easier, I haven't given it much thought, since the form isn't that relevant at the current level of discussion/technology) that can output such massive quantities of energy in reasonably short periods of time (a lot shorter than it would take to travel to the destination by other means). I did not make this assumption so, we would need such a giant storage capacity. Whether or not it would have to be send, would depend upon the technology. For example, if you look at the StarTrek technology, where they can transport people to the middle of nowhere, they'd need to send the energy, since it is very likely no energy (not sufficient) is present in the middle of nowhere (don't ask how the conversion would happen in the middle of nowhere, since I don't even have a clue how it would happen in a transport facility). :p If you send a person to another transport facility, that facility could provide the energy needed to rebuild, and so only 'the blueprint' would have to be send. The energy from the person (the outgoing traveller), could then be stored for use in the departing point, so when they receive another 'customer' (an incoming traveller so to speak) they can use the previously stored energy (like this not much extra energy would have to be drawn). I don't know what will be easiest by the time we get to such things: creating easily usable energy or storing it. A lot can be philosophised over it, but since all important parts are currently and practically (and probably for the next 50 years at least) unsolvable (energy storage/conversion/transport, information storage/transport/conversion/extraction/....), it's not much use to go beyond: it can't be done (yet). :p (but I'm also unsure whether or not it can be done efficiently at all) edit: aaaah, this spelling thing must be contagious (I checked the thing three times and still I find errors) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now