Beam me over . . . a meter, Scotty

[midlifebear]

This is just too cool! Granted, it's not quite Star Trek cool . . . yet. But it's a start.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/science/03teleportation.html?th&emc=th

I'd be happy for a mobile teleporter just to move the baby grand to the other side of the room. But then I'm getting old and my bones hurt. :biggrin1:

 

[D_Myer_Dogasflees]

You do realise that this is effectively destroying the primary information, just to create new information. if you transported your baby, you would have murdered the first one, just to create an identicle one

 

[Elro]

what is this thread doing here ?!

 

[midlifebear]

what is this thread doing here ?!

Hell if I know, I thought I put it under etc. As for transporting babies, I'm not that concerned. However, your welcome to atomically unzip my grand piano as long as an exact copy is rezipped closer to the fireplace. Of course, I know zipping is not the best metaphor for the quantum spin, but that's about as good as it's going to get for me this afternoon.

 

[JonahFalcon]

I thought this was going to be a story about Kirk having a transporter accident with his cock being a meter long.

 

[nicenycdick]

This really is amazing stuff. If they ever get entangled atoms to work at great distances (and this close) we will see another major jump in technology. It truly can make possible instantaneous data transfer over great distances.

 

[mindseye]

You do realise that this is effectively destroying the primary information, just to create new information. if you transported your baby, you would have murdered the first one, just to create an identicle one

Should the technology ever become feasible (='Star-Trek-like'), I think murder would be an overly strong description of the process.

'Primary information' in our bodies gets destroyed and recreated all the time -- you don't have the same skin, or the same blood, or the same teeth you were born with; we've recently learned that (contrary to previous thinking on the subject) cells in the brain, including glia and neurons, regenerate, too.

And yet, we'd all consider me to be the same human being that was born 40-ish years ago, even though the cells in that human being have died and been replaced.

If we don't consider it to be murder when the body of cells is replaced over a long period of time, why should we consider it to be murder if the body of cells is replaced quickly. Is duration a legitimate factor in murder?

 

[Not_Punny]

McDonalds probably will use this technology to convert gristle into sirloin steak...

Oh, wait! Don't they already do that?

 

[D_Kissimmee Coldsore]

Very cool, entanglement is crazy.

Should the technology ever become feasible (='Star-Trek-like'), I think murder would be an overly strong description of the process.

'Primary information' in our bodies gets destroyed and recreated all the time -- you don't have the same skin, or the same blood, or the same teeth you were born with; we've recently learned that (contrary to previous thinking on the subject) cells in the brain, including glia and neurons, regenerate, too.

And yet, we'd all consider me to be the same human being that was born 40-ish years ago, even though the cells in that human being have died and been replaced.

If we don't consider it to be murder when the body of cells is replaced over a long period of time, why should we consider it to be murder if the body of cells is replaced quickly. Is duration a legitimate factor in murder?

The difference people would probably point out is that your cells replenish gradually through biological processes (you are mostly unchanging at any given time), but that would be like making a complete physical clone of yourself almost instantly and so are completely changed - there is no physical residue of you before whatsoever. I think that's what makes it different.