Is Teleportation Really Death? Exploring the Philosophical Implications

[MythioS]

Lets assume that it is technically feasible to copy every quanti of the human body and arrange them in perfect harmony.
Was hoping to get a debate going as to why so many people are *shrugging* at the concept of teleportation. Mainly the idea that because an original is destroyed somehow were losing something of ourselves. What is the difference between someone dying in a teleportation chamber and those that die on a hospital bed to only be 'resurrected' through defibrillators.

 

[sol2]

Lets assume that it is technically feasible to copy every quanti of the human body and arrange them in perfect harmony.
Was hoping to get a debate going as to why so many people are *shrugging* at the concept of teleportation. Mainly the idea that because an original is destroyed somehow were losing something of ourselves. What is the difference between someone dying in a teleportation chamber and those that die on a hospital bed to only be 'resurrected' through defibrillators.

This would be a interesting question if one considers the issue of simultaneity? We need soething concrete to hang onto in order to derive what teleportaion can mean. Zeilinger and others were also interested, and the road to GHZ entanlement raised some new perspectives.

There is a history here, that has to be understood?

http://wc0.worldcrossing.com/WebX?13@0.V83TboQiVWi.19@.1dde7e87/2

 

[MythioS]

lol you a little beyond me i guess. not sure how branes and superstring theory relate to peoples aprehension on this issue.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Sol mentioned simultaneity; this is a problem, According to relativity, which is heavily supported by experiment, there is no absolute simultaneity. Differently moving observers will see two events in one order, or the opposite, or simultanious, depending on their motion relative to the events. So to be teleported over a spacelike gap from A to B would be a dubious thing. Some people might see you arrive before you started. It's just the same as any other way to get from A to B FTL: it leads to paradoxes.

 

[sol2]

Sol mentioned simultaneity; this is a problem, According to relativity, which is heavily supported by experiment, there is no absolute simultaneity.

What is the mathematical reasoning, for reducing GR down to the quantum world?

Mirror symmetry and chirality? How would these application be considered in a supersymmetrical world?

http://www2.math.uic.edu/~fields/anim/8-knot/knot.gif

Is the figure-eight knot the same knot as its mirror-image? The property of "being the same as your mirror-image" is called chirality by knot theorists. The image sequence below shows the figure-eight knot being transformed into its mirror image -- such knots are called achiral

http://www2.math.uic.edu/~fields/anim/8-knot.html

These thoughts are heavy on my mind:)

So what is the ghost issue people have been talking about? That on one hand we have discrete objects, and on the other, in a dimension filled universe? What is the correlation between these discrete things and their relevances in those dimensions.

Don't mean to be to difficult because it sure the heck confusing for me to

I was looking for a way in which to take enormous amounts of data from LIGO and visually see the early universe:) Imagine no distance between the event and Now, and the relationship was in the information that has been collected from LIGO. How shall we interpret the graviton from those gravitational waves?

Can those paradoxes be removed in the quantum world?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'm going to have to think about your question of how chirality questions enter into the quantization of GR. As I think you know, Sol, chirality is a big thing in the Standard Model. You think you understand the symmetries and then chiirality comes in and shuffles things around. For starters, all three neutrino flavors, if I understand right, come only in left handed form. They used to have a neat math trick for that, using only the top half of the four-component Dirac spinors, but that trick only works for massless fermions, so they've had to abandon it since the neutrinos were found to have a little mass.

Chirality is also a big concern of the string physicsits who are trying to generate the Standard Model as a low energy limit. They have forund that corners and cusps are good for generating chiral fermions. There's a brief discussion of this in Dr. Kaku's Hyperspace. So they go for intersecting branes and orbifolds on the compaction spaces and so on.

All of this goes to the utter strangeness of three dimensional space, which we are so used to. It's odd to think that it is mathematically unique as the midlier between two dimensional space which is so simple, and four dimensional euclidean space which has so many ways to go that a lot of stuff gets lost. We think three dimensional space is simple and normal because we live in it, but is is as unique among the infinity of higher dimensional spaces as π is among the infinity of real numbers.

 

[sol2]

All of this goes to the utter strangeness of three dimensional space, which we are so used to. It's odd to think that it is mathematically unique as the midlier between two dimensional space which is so simple, and four dimensional euclidean space which has so many ways to go that a lot of stuff gets lost. We think three dimensional space is simple and normal because we live in it, but is is as unique among the infinity of higher dimensional spaces as π is among the infinity of real numbers.

If you think this odd, then consider this statement.


http://graphics.nytimes.com/library/national/science/040400sci-universal-theory.1.jpg

Each ruled by different laws of physics, the various island universes would be inaccessible to one another. But the tantalizing prospect exists that each would be able to barely sense the other's presence through the weak tug of its gravitational pull.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/040400sci-universal-theory.html

Of course we are looking for experimental proof:)

What makes these ideas strange to me, is that we could have been given a http://superstringtheory.com/forum/philboard/messages19/150.html and from this, we can gather directions?

http://www.cerncourier.com/objects/2003/cerndesy1_4-03.jpg

The issue of cryptography deals directly with what I am saying. Penrose quanglement issue is very relevant here from what I understood. This is part of the basis of what philosphical should have been consider in the discussion of teleportation. I would have been happy here if we could have moved forward.

oh well:)

 

[selfAdjoint]

The "tree structure" that you derive from that picture is just the normal QCD interactions, quark-gluon and gluon-gluon.

 

[sol2]

The "tree structure" that you derive from that picture is just the normal QCD interactions, quark-gluon and gluon-gluon.

How would we see such examples off the brane?

The gravity B Probe just talked about here one would consider such spin orientations off the brane?

We talked about this before. I do not know if you recall?

WE are looking at the idea of what has left the spacetime fabric and floats freely in the bulk? Has descriptions about the nature of these mass impressions and leaves traces for us to discipher, from that information(graviton)?

I mean this is not enough.

I have tried to precede from mathematical interpretation here about the equation for leaving this brane. It is a generalize view I have, but comes from another source.

I have been sitting and pondering for a accurate discription and have yet to try to figure out the latex for the equation. There had to be a starting point? If the spacetime fabric is a derivitive of Einsteins work, then so too must the brane incorporate these views?

There has to be a consistent geometrical explanation for this approach. I once mention to you about Kaluza' cylinder and by this, you might recall? If not, another time.

 

[LURCH]

Lets assume that it is technically feasible to copy every quanti of the human body and arrange them in perfect harmony.
Was hoping to get a debate going as to why so many people are *shrugging* at the concept of teleportation. Mainly the idea that because an original is destroyed somehow were losing something of ourselves. What is the difference between someone dying in a teleportation chamber and those that die on a hospital bed to only be 'resurrected' through defibrillators.

I think that most people who have trepidations about teleportation would respond that the difference lies in the fact that a body that dies and is then resurrected is still the same body. Many view the teleportation process as the making of a "facsimile", much like the work done by a fax machine. The facsimile is not at all the same body; and therefore not at all the same person. By this view, what teleportation actually does is create a new person and kill an existing person.

I usually respond to this position with a philosophical argument that is based on what we might call the "flip-side" of Aristotle's law of non-contradiction.

 

[MythioS]

It just seems odd to me that with religous people so concerned with evolution vs vreationism, that there would be views of such dependence on the physical realm.

 

[sol2]

I thought I was talking about philosophy and teleportation?

Didn't know one had to be religious and could be stereotyped, to the ideas of evolution and creationism?

Would spiritualism fall into this discussion then?

 

[sol2]

I usually respond to this position with a philosophical argument that is based on what we might call the "flip-side" of Aristotle's law of non-contradiction.

How would this apply here.

 

[LURCH]

Aristotle said that two contradictory statements cannot be true of the same thing. I say that the reverse of this would be a law that says that not all the same statements can be true of two different things. That is, if all the statements that are true of A are also true of B, then A and B cannot be two different things; meaning that A actually is B.

Quantum teleportation offers a way to take all of the information that is true of one thing, and make it true of something elsewhere. If it actually accomplishes this, then at that moment in these objects ceased to be two separate things. The "thing elsewhere" actually is the original.

 

[sol2]

Aristotle said that two contradictory statements cannot be true of the same thing. I say that the reverse of this would be a law that says that not all the same statements can be true of two different things. That is, if all the statements that are true of A are also true of B, then A and B cannot be two different things; meaning that A actually is B.

Quantum teleportation offers a way to take all of the information that is true of one thing, and make it true of something elsewhere. If it actually accomplishes this, then at that moment in these objects ceased to be two separate things. The "thing elsewhere" actually is the original.

Are you familiar with spooky action at a distance?

http://www.Newton.cam.ac.uk/webseminars/hartle60/2-penrose/033.jpg

As a observer, we cannot be in two spots at once although we could have detectors, so by this very nature how would you apply A and B?

If you are given a orientation of spin on let's say on one sphere, how would this distance, reveal the opposite idea on another sphere in location B.

In essence these two sphere have to have some association?

Could you correct my thinking for me here?

In the following example Unruh radiation would be spoken too, by recognizing the event A and the information released, B as connected in terms of the spacetime fabric. Graviton information release would have been effectly transmitted outside of that black hole?

If we consider the "states," as Self Adjoint has described in terms of "supposition," then we would have to think about what Heteordyne solutions might mean here. I have looked at this in terms of the Moire effect shown to me in conversation about 2 years ago.


Here is a link Meteor supplied.

In the standard teleportation protocol[1], an unknown quantum state (of
particle X) is teleported to a remote location using two entangled particles
(Y and Z) and two classical bits of information. This has been interpreted
as the disembodied transfer of an unknown quantum state from one place
to a remote location or the exchange of quantum information. (One may
also consider the question of transfer of state mode in teleportation[4].)
The question of the dependence between the amount of classical bits of
information and the conditions necessary for teleportation to occur has not
been addressed before. Here we present new teleportation protocols that
require only one classical bit of information by altering the conditions under
which the protocols proceed.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0305085

I came up with a experiment that I thought might be useful? It can be spoken to here and corrected.

What other simulations might be considered from the black hole and the ideas expressed in the sonoluminence experiments are brought back here for consideration. Also in terms of "Soho" such validation to string's theories energy determnation might provide a suitable pallette for such events being described? Simulate explosion inside bubble before schwarchild radius is reached in its maximum, and automatically collapses.

If gravity B probed is able to gather information in regards to the spacetime fabric then we would want at some point to consider what information is could be sent out the black hole. Can this be thought of, in terms of the strengths and weakness? Would be defined in the expansion and contraction of this black hole according to entropy issues.

Now the intensities of this and expansion and contraction of the black hole would have to be calculated( validations to these calculations) that a detonation inside this black hole very close to the horizon release information?

Any thoughts or opinions here about the teleportation idea on transmission?

 

[MythioS]

sol2... you sure thrown whatever you want in. I just noticed another thread about teleportation and people saying they weren't sure they would use it, scared about the destroyed/recreation concepts so i thought id make a thread reguarding that. Also tryn to find a way to debate about some of the discussions on here without having memorized the entire database of the enterprise :)

 

[sol2]

Philosophical discussion and the math, at its core

Lurch offered a philosphical basis from which to speak to the ideas of teleportation.

If you don't want to speak to it, then it was obvious you did not want the discussion. As to others, I have been down this road before, and if they did not speak to lurch's basis discription, its obvious they did not want it either?


If you thought teleportation strange, then you would have to accept the ideas of simultaneity? Spooky action at a distance? No?



In 1935 Einstein, together with the physicists Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, concocted a 'thought experiment' in which quantum theory seemed to permit 'spooky' action at a distance, whereby a measurement made on one particle instantaneously determines the properties of another particle, no matter how great the distance between the two particles.

Uncomfortable with this bizarre outcome, Einstein suspected that a still more fundamental theory underlies quantum mechanics (just as quantum mechanics underlies the older 'classical mechanics' of Isaac Newton). He invoked 'hidden variables' - quantities that do away with things like quantum uncertainty, but which cannot be measured directly. Bohr disagreed, arguing instead that we simply have to resign ourselves to the fact that quantum theory is counterintuitive.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/011129/011129-15.html

If quantum mechanics is the fundamental description of nature, then non-local correlations should be found with any quantum number," Go told PhysicsWeb. "In this experiment we are testing a quantum number that has never been tested before. Moreover, the particle-antiparticle quantum number is a very fundamental quantity in particle physics and the results might have implications in this area - I am waiting for comments from other particle theorists!"

http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/7/11/3

For those who really want to delve int the issue, I am more then willing to learn. If you do not want the discussion. That's fine. As long as it is not governed by disrespect for the topic:)

 

[sol2]

I have reorganized existing posts ( my own) to accurately reflect the philospophical basis of Lurches statement as I see it extended. Some might see the significance and some might not?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=199880&postcount=6