As long as we aren't trying to fuck with the transporter technology that kills you and makes another you somewhere else, I'm fine.
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
12 points (100.0% liked)
Science
12991 readers
32 users here now
Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
But if the another you is undistinguishable at the quantum level... then it's still you (as seen by external observers, and honestly, I could use a break).
I believe I have read that it's literally impossible to copy an object's quantum state without destroying it, so in a real sense a transporter that's indistinguishable at a quantum level would be moving you rather than creating a copy and killing the original.
Both are true. Copying a quantum state means moving it from one object to another, which turns the target into the source, and the source into... something else. If we managed to do that at a full body scale, a "you" would appear at a target location, while a bunch of "something else" would be left at the source location.
An external observer would say "you moved", turning a pile of target "something else" into you, and leaving a pile of "something else" at the source. You yourself... well, as long as you don't worry too much, you would also perceive having just moved from source to target.
Still, there remains that pile of "something else" that used to be you at the source location... but as long as everyone, including you, don't decide to call it "a corpse" or "your previous you's remains", everything would be fine.
I suggest to you https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0667991
This. Watching this is why I'd never use a Star Trek transporter.
i think while it is interesting philosophical question, in reality we would get used to it quite quickly. every time you get in a car you place lot of trust in people driving in the opposite direction. everyone of them can be drunk or just a moron and every car ride can be your last. and in spite of that we don't really give it a second thought and it usually works out just fine.
Not even close to the same thing. If you create an exact copy of me at a destination, that doesn't make me okay with being disintegrated because another me is at the other end.
are you ok with closing your eyes when you go to sleep? how do you know you weren't replaced during sleep? 😆
Are you suggesting my consciousness can be transferred to another body? Do you think that if an exact copy of you were made in another place, that shooting the first version of you in the face would cause you to suddenly wake up in the other body? I'm not understanding how you think this works.
I’m not understanding how you think this works.
that makes two of us, i am not really sure what you are trying to say.
your "consciousness" is just a result of biochemical processes in your brain. if you have the ability to create a copy of your body on a molecular level, then that new copy has your consciousnes, your memories, it is you. so if you create new copy and don't destroy the old one, there are now two of you. if you destroy the original, then there is only one of you, possibly in different location.
from the point of view of your copy, it is no different than you going to sleep and then waking up. you have no idea what was going on with your body during the sleep. you simply accept all the memories you have as yours and move on with your day.
"from the point of view of your copy"
This is the problem, the point of view for the original is death. I am dead.
the original pressumably didn't experience any gruesome death, no one is shooting it in the face. you just closed your eyes and then opened them at new location. what is the difference from going to sleep and then waking up?
For the one in the new location its just that, but the person being "teleported" just ceases to be.
the person being “teleported” just ceases to be.
no, that person continues to be in the new location
To my surprise and delight, the article itself confirms Betteridge's Law of Headlines by starting off with:
A provisional answer is “no.”
Personally, I've never really seen the need for such a thing. There's no great rush to jump dozens of light years away when we have hundreds of planets and moons and other large bodies we've barely even taken a glimpse at right here in our own back yards. We can go right up to a Kardashev II civilization without having to travel more than a few light hours away.
Don't need to go light years, it's the speed that's important.
If you can hop to Mars in 8 seconds instead of 8 months we can explore our backyard a lot better.
There's no great rush to jump dozens of light years away when we have hundreds of planets and moons and other large bodies we've barely even taken a glimpse at right here in our own back yards
None of those are habitable
Orbiting Habitats are
It's not particularly likely that any of the planets or moons around other stars are habitable either. At least not "step out of the ship and take a nice deep breath of the fresh air, picking an apple off of a nearby tree and making some kind of comment about how it's like Eden" habitable like is so common on TV. It's likely that if there's a native biosphere then that planet is going to be incredibly hostile to alien life like us.
Build habitats. If you've got the tech to build a starship then you've got the tech to build a habitat, it's way easier. Habitats will give you exactly the environment you want, not whatever you happen to find.
As long as the atmosphere is roughly similar, the native biosphere would have very little defense against us. Sure, some of the defenses that local plants and animals developed against each other might cause issues, or they might not.
We would be an invasive species on the grandest scale. A completely foreign biology would maybe have useful nutrients, or maybe not. That would be the key, but the periodic table will be the same everywhere, and chemistry being what it is, we'd probably see similar molecules, at least the simple stuff. Basic hydrocarbons and such.
The complex biochemistry would be vastly different. That could trip up human explorers.
because, much like the show the warp drive is from, it's not about colonization or exploiting resources, but meeting new people and going new places
There won't be any new people there until our colonies get there in the first place, so it's a self-solving problem. Tourists can travel as fast as the colonists can.
That’s a fantastic assumption
Got any evidence to the contrary?
I’m not the one that made a supposition 😉
You said:
it's not about colonization or exploiting resources, but meeting new people
What new people?
Any that are out there :)
You have to assume we are uniquely special to think no one’s out there, do you have any evidence that that’s the case?
I'm not assuming we're "uniquely special." I'm not saying anything about us at all. You're saying there are "new people" out there, that's a positive assertion. I'm asking you to back that up.
No, the null hypothesis is that if life can evolve here then it must be able to evolve elsewhere, unless for some reason it could only evolve here, in which case we are unique and special. You have a pre-copernican model of the universe
I'm asking for any sort of evidence to indicate that the thing you're claiming exists actually exists. If there's no evidence then that's a supposition.
What if I'd said that we shouldn't invent warp drives because then the Reapers will come kill us all? Would you be wanting some kind of evidence from me that Reapers existed?
Think you should probably read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Yes, and? The null hypothesis with regard to the question of whether aliens exist is that aliens don't exist. That's the null hypothesis. It behooves you to disprove it.
Tl;dr: we dunno. 🤷♂️
If there is a way to make it happen, it'll be interesting to find out how the universe resolves the resulting causal paradoxes. What happens if the cause of an event is able to observe the event before causing it? What happens if the cause of the event responds by not causing the event?
I think the best we can hope for if we get very very lucky with future laws of physics is a cheap way to travel near but slightly below lightspeed. Maybe some sort of way to lower the rest mass of matter.
It's much more likely there will be no immediate application of whatever the full laws are, because new physics only appears in very extreme circumstances we can't easily replicate.