A Few Questions On Matter And Energy Conversion

[Whitestar]

In 1998 researchers at Stanford University's Linear Accelerator Center successfully converted energy into matter. This feat was accomplished by using lasers and incredibly strong electromagnetic fields to change ordinary light into matter. The results of this experiment may allow for the development of variety of technological gadgets. One such development could be matter/energy transporters or food replicators that are commonly seen in some of our favorite science fiction programs.

For more information, check out the following site:

http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/conted/on...10/210_2_2.html


I'm an aspiring science fiction writer and what I want to do in my story is achieve teleportation by actually teleporting the people themselves, not their properties like in quantum teleportation. So, I began thinking about how I was going to do that. I thought about creating a teleporter that works by converting matter into energy and reconverting the energy back into matter and being able to pass through walls and ceilings, sort of like radio signals.


1) Is matter and energy conversion a good candidate for true teleportation?


2) Does conversion of matter into energy and vice-versa in this case imply the destruction of the person undergoing the process, only to be replaced by a replica who was literally born into existence once the energy was reconverted back into matter?


Whitestar

[wisp]

Hi Whitestar,

Here are my thoughts on your questions:
1) Is matter and energy conversion a good candidate for true teleportation?

Yes. I believe that if people were to be transported a process of extracting the energy from them must take place. But this energy could be stored in an energy bank and different energy used to rebuild them.
A small signal could be used to send the structure and thoughts of the people onto remote locations, where they could be rebuilt.
It wouldn't be practical to send the energy long distances as it would be hard to control its power.

2) Does conversion of matter into energy and vice-versa in this case imply the destruction of the person undergoing the process, only to be replaced by a replica who was literally born into existence once the energy was reconverted back into matter?

This would be a process of replication. It could be possible for people to be replicated. All of the replicated people could claim they were original, and there would be no way of telling an original from a replica.
During teleportation the original must be destroyed in order to avoid a situation where two people exist sharing the same body structure and thoughts.

[Whitestar]

Hi Whitestar,

Here are my thoughts on your questions:
Is matter and energy conversion a good candidate for true teleportation?

Yes. I believe that if people were to be transported a process of extracting the energy from them must take place. But this energy could be stored in an energy bank and different energy used to rebuild them.
A small signal could be used to send the structure and thoughts of the people onto remote locations, where they could be rebuilt.
It wouldn't be practical to send the energy long distances as it would be hard to control its power.

1) How would the energy bank look like?


2) Why wouldn't it be practical to send the energy long distances?


The thing that always bothered me about the transporter in Star Trek was that it had no receiving end. The more I think about it, the more implausible it sounds.


3) What do you think?

Does conversion of matter into energy and vice-versa in this case imply the destruction of the person undergoing the process, only to be replaced by a replica who was literally born into existence once the energy was reconverted back into matter?

This would be a process of replication. It could be possible for people to be replicated. All of the replicated people could claim they were original, and there would be no way of telling an original from a replica.
During teleportation the original must be destroyed in order to avoid a situation where two people exist sharing the same body structure and thoughts.

4) Do you consider the conversion of matter into energy a form of capital punishment?


Whitestar

[wisp]

Hi Whitestar,

1) How would the energy bank look like?

This can be anything that can generate a huge amount of power. For example, turning an apple into pure energy would release enough energy to put the Nimbus (largest aircraft carrier into orbit). So I guess the energy source must be an atomic power station that converts matter into 100% energy.
Use the formula E=mc^2 to get the energy in Joules.
Divide this by the time (t seconds) of the "energize" process and that gives the power in watts. Typically modern atomic power stations give about 10MegWatts. So it's not up to the job - it would be like an ant trying to push a lorry up a hill.

2) Why wouldn't it be practical to send the energy long distances?

The energy is just too great to control when sending long distances. If it were beamed as a ray, it would act like a death ray, destroying everything in its path.

The thing that always bothered me about the transporter in Star Trek was that it had no receiving end. The more I think about it, the more implausible it sounds.

I think you should keep an open mind on technology advances. Many times I thought I had reached a limit on something and then someone finds something that suprises me. Podkletnov's impulse gravity beam is one example that has the potential of transmitting energy through space without wires.

4) Do you consider the conversion of matter into energy a form of capital punishment?

Yes, if the conversion process goes wrong.
No, if it doesn't. It doesn't matter if we rematerialize in a body made from different atoms, so long as our physical structure, memories and thoughts are retained.

[Whitestar]

This can be anything that can generate a huge amount of power. For example, turning an apple into pure energy would release enough energy to put the Nimbus (largest aircraft carrier into orbit). So I guess the energy source must be an atomic power station that converts matter into 100% energy. Use the formula E=mc^2 to get the energy in Joules. Divide this by the time (t seconds) of the "energize" process and that gives the power in watts. Typically modern atomic power stations give about 10MegWatts. So it's not up to the job - it would be like an ant trying to push a lorry up a hill.

1) By converting a person into pure energy, are you essentially exploding him/her?

The energy is just too great to control when sending long distances. If it were beamed as a ray, it would act like a death ray, destroying everything in its path.

2) Is there another way to send the energy by other means instead of a ray?

I think you should keep an open mind on technology advances. Many times I thought I had reached a limit on something and then someone finds something that suprises me. Podkletnov's impulse gravity beam is one example that has the potential of transmitting energy through space without wires.

3) Are you saying that there is way to teleport a person or object without a receiving end? If so, how?

Yes, if the conversion process goes wrong.
No, if it doesn't. It doesn't matter if we rematerialize in a body made from different atoms, so long as our physical structure, memories and thoughts are retained.

4) So what you're saying is that if the conversion of matter into energy and vice-versa is 100 percent efficient, the person's life will be preserved?


Whitestar

[wisp]

Hi Whitestar

1) By converting a person into pure energy, are you essentially exploding him/her?

Yes in a sense. But an explosion wastes energy, whereas this process must store it. The person would no longer exist in that location in space/time. It is a question of supplying energy at one place in order to take it back from another place. That way the person doesn't get charged for energy used.

2) Is there another way to send the energy by other means instead of a ray?

Energy could be made from "fuel" matter at the distant location. It doesn't have to be the same energy that was in the person. So long as the amount of energy was equal i.e 7X10^18J is approx 75Kg mass. In theory 75Kg of any matter could be used to remake the person.

3) Are you saying that there is way to teleport a person or object without a receiving end? If so, how?

I don't know. The amount of energy handled to recreate the person would be so great that they would have to be built inside the core of a reactor. This is not a good method to use.
Perhaps the reconstruction could use pre built components, i.e electons, oxygen atoms, carbon atoms, etc. That was the reconstruction would be a molecular process (Reconstructing the girl in the 5th Element comes to mind).

4) So what you're saying is that if the conversion of matter into energy and vice-versa is 100 percent efficient, the person's life will be preserved?

Yes

[wisp]

Corrected facts
Largest aircraft carrier - Nimitz class weighs 98550 tonnes (I don't know why I called it Nimbus!) See
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=43675

Largest nuclear power station gives out 8212MW (Not 10MW as stated earlier)
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=50045

Using the power from the largest nuclear-power station in the world it would take 12.5 days to recreate an apple weighing 100gms.

[cristian]

... so let me know if I understand this correctly: I step into the transporter, it scans me, sends the information remotely, there a big power source is used to create a copy of me, then on this end they're just gonna kill me? Not a pleasant way of travel... From my point of view I just stepped into the transported and died, I didn't even get to see the other end. It's true that a copy of me appeared on the destination, but that's not me, that's somebody else, there's no question about this. Take twins for example, you don't kill one of them just because they're identical. And later in life they can grow to be quite different.

I think this boils down to the philosophycal question of existence: who, or what, are we?

Example: if instead of making a remote copy and then destroying the original, you would do this: decompose the body into its atoms, transport same atoms to the destination, rearrange them into the original positions. Would this be an accepted way of teleporting, or should it be considered that I'm still dead (since I got vaporised) and then an identical replica was made? Because the only difference from the first method would be that the same atoms were used, which doesn't seem to be so important.

[wisp]

Hi Cristian

I think you've understood the process of transportation very well from the point of view of life and death.
If during transportation something went horribly wrong with the process and you did not fully transport across. You could be alive at one end and your "copy" alive at the other end.
From a legal view point both could have claim to being the same person!

[cristian]

If during transportation something went horribly wrong with the process and you did not fully transport across. You could be alive at one end and your "copy" alive at the other end.

My point was that I would want to be alive at this end if the other guy is just a copy. This is not transport, it's just creating a remote copy of me. There's no reason to kill the original, you can argue that you can just destroy the copy when it's done its job.

Although I would argue that as soon as a copy is created each of us will have the same rights as a human being. We'll be just like twins, so what if we're identical now, each one will go on with his life and may end up to be quite different.

As you can see I'm very protective of myself and my copies