Our tax dollars now tell us that Star Trek's "transporters" are not possible. (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Gatie]

I hardly think a non-scientist is in the position to give a better prediction of that which is scientifically possible in the future than someone who specializes in the field in question. I prefer to get my analysis of the "maybe in the future" from one who is able to deeply and thoroughly explain the "definitely in the present" than one who cannot. I defer to much greater knowledge than mine before even attempting to wade into the shallow end of Physical Laws, and I'm an engineer by trade. To not do so would be quite arrogant. Then again, I'm a scientist, I'm used to not knowing everything...

 

[Jeff Gatie]

That's because Einstein was a "theoretical" physicist, dealing in 99% mathmatical theory. A theory is not believed to be true until actual physical experiments performed by "experimental" physicists back it up (this is what we call the "scientific method"). The experimental "proof" of a theory is often years (even decades) later than the publishing of the theory itself due to inherent limitations in physical experiments. These limitations do not exist in the human mind, hence the lag in the journey from theory to "accepted" theory. The theory of a self-sustaining nuclear reaction was thought of years and years before Enrico Fermi, the greatest experimental physicist of them all, proved it at Chicago Pile #1.

 

[Kevin M]

There were some scientists
Tryin' to figure out the Sasquatch riddle
Then they figured out He was a missing link

In search of sasquatch - That was a kick ass In Search Of..
With Leonard Nimoy kicking out the jams...Hauwww

He captured imaginations of people all around the globe
His name was sasquatch so I'm told

His legend's ancient in the ancient scribe
Of the Indian tribe (apache tribe)

Scientists have proven that the sasquatch he is real
Take a look at the plaster cast of his foot...now you know he's real
Listen real close to the audio tape..not human..now you know he's real
Couldn't be a man in gorilla suit....no fuckin' way now you know he's real
Real..real real-real really..real really-real real


....(looks around) I'm sorry..did I say that out loud?

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

Hey, I would put my money on the scientist too. But it's still only a prediction, albeit an informed one. That hardly makes it the truth.

 

[Kevin M]

Wow.....I never thought my mildly obscure tangent/attempt at humor would shut down the bickering altogether!

So you want world peace? Just play some Tenacious D baby!

Scientists have proven it you know...


....DOH! Spoke too soon!

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Steeve, I'm seeing a bit of irony here. A prediction that has no scientific backing and is put forth by an admitted non-scientist is a "firm belief". Yet it "hardly makes it the truth" when a prediction is well informed and scientifically based. Tell me again which you trust more to put your money on, Steeve?

(seriously, no bickering intended, I'm just real curious why people who are not involved in a scientific field seem to mistrust science so much)

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

I wouldn't say "mistrust so much". We just don't have the same level of confidence, and I've explained why.

 

[Brad Porter]

Something can be classified as impossible because it is an invalid or self-contradictory concept, such as a four-sided triangle or a massless object. It doesn't matter what part of the universe you find yourself in.

Now suppose that some evidence that you gather seems to indicate that the observed phenomena violates a fundamental law of physics such as the conservation of mass - energy. For example, the energy produced in chemical reactions is too great to be produced by just the protons and electrons of the constituent chemicals. You could propose that this conservation law is therefore wrong and that you've disproved it with your evidence, or alternatively you could hypothesize that there is another undiscovered component other than protons and electrons involved in the reaction with the mass necessary to produce the energy that you measured. Both of these possibilities were proposed by famous scientists yet ultimately the neutrino was discovered and the conservation law is still going strong. Is it OK to operate on the principle that a violation of this law is impossible? Using that law as a fundamental premise saves you from lots of wasted time trying to disprove it.

Now suppose that you just accept that law as locally true, but hypothesize that there are other parts of the universe where it isn't true. I'm afraid that we can't go visit those parts of the universe because none of our spacecraft or our bodies would continue to function as desired if it weren't true. That leaves you proposing a hypothesis that doesn't apply to us, that can't be proven or disproven, and that has no practical application to science at all. You might as well throw unicorns and talking dogs in there while you're at it.

Either we accept as a basic premise that the universe works the same everywhere or we resign ourselves to never being able to make a definitive statement about anything. If it works differently somewhere else then there's no reason it can't work differently right here. Just by typing and posting this message I've tested and validated the conservation law trillions and trillions of times (presuming that it actually gets posted with all of the letters intact - and if it doesn't then the failure method won't be caused by a violation of fundamental physics). When you use the term "arrogant" to describe people who classify the violation of these fundamental laws as "impossible" - it just seems like your arguing for the sake of arguing.

Brad

 

[Chu Gai]

Steeve wrote... Sometimes yes Jeff, sometimes no. science fiction writers did a pretty good job of being more optimistic for the timetable about space flight than many scientists. There were some scientists who were quite surprised by the launch of Sputnik. Sometimes I think it's good to be standing away from the forest and be somewhat unfettered and dream big. Sometimes.

 

[Kenneth]

Wow, what a progression. We have gone from debating a 47 page study on trasporter technology to whether scientists even know what they don't know

Actually, science fiction writers are occasionally pretty good at predicting (Verne and Wells have a good track record) that is not necessarily a universal capability though. Hugo Gernsback was the classic example of science and science fiction being in synch when he found the FBI knocking on his door in the mid 40's after he wrote about a fictional weapon that used the power of the Atom

Back to the original discussion on transporters and why it would be improbable to see a technology like that in the near future. With any level of science knowledge there are only four different ways to transport. Some may never be possible without new laws of the universe, others may be possible someday but are easily beyond our current capabilities.

Approach 1: One can teleport like the Wizards in Harry Potter. One obstacle to this is that it violates EVERYTHING we know about the universe. We don't have to find a few new laws or theories, we need to reevaluate our basic understanding of the universe. Magic is one of the coolest things in a book because you have to deal with none of the science questions. You are getting incredible capabilities (matter creation, infinite movement, etc) and it only costs you the study of arcane knowledge. How cool is that How likely is this to ever be true? Highly improbably to impossible.

Approach 2: One can move interdimensionally like the folks in "Wrinkle in Time". This is one step up from "Magic" but not by much. With this you get infinite movement for free by just thinking yourself somewhere. Coolness factor - High; Probability factor - sitting right around zero with "Magic".

Approach 3: One can create interdimensional wormholes or hyperspace gates between locations per "Star Trek", "Star Gate", "Babylon 5", and "Contact". This is scientifically acceptable with our current knowledge of the universe (we suspect there are other dimensions and wormholes are acceptable theoretical objects). However, the ability to create a stable interdimensional wormhole or hyperspace gateway is currently beyond us. Beyond the aspect of needing a gate at both ends (for a stable gateway) there would be energy problems. Objects like this would take incredible amounts of energy, well beyond our current abilities. If we someday get the ability to generate the power of multiple suns, who knows. Coolness factor - Medium; Probability factor - I suspect it is very low for the next few hundreds (maybe thousands) of years based on the obstacles.

Approach 4: One can convert matter into energy, beam the energy to another location, and convert the energy back into matter ("Star Trek" transporters). This is scientifically feasible with our current understanding of the universe (it doesn't violate any basic laws). However, it has even more obstacles than approach 3. It retains the energy problem (remember they require anti-matter reactions in "Star Trek" to transport). It adds two new problems (converting matter to energy, converting energy into SPECIFIC matter). Without resolving all three problems you don't have a viable technology (if I am transported I want to arrive as me, not a book ). As an aside, if you can solve the energy problem and the conversion of energy into matter problems you get a "Star Trek" Holodeck. Coolness factor - Medium; Probability factor - low in my book for quite some time (I suspect we are more likely to get a Holodeck before we get a transporter).

Cheers,

Kenneth

 

[Jack Briggs]

Actually, Kenneth, that was Astounding Science Fiction editor John W. Campbell (aka, the Father of Modern SF).

 

[RobertR]

Campbell wrote a story about a machine that was more than 100% efficient--in other words, it generated more energy than it used. Readers wrote in telling him it was impossible. Campbell responded with energetic defenses of the idea. Perhaps he was just stimulating people to think and discuss, kind of like this thread.

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

An excellent idea.

 

[RobertR]

Based on what? All you have in response is the endlessly repeated "prove the negative!" demand.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I just love that old stopgap: Different physical laws kick in at different points across the Universe! ("Way over here, in Galaxy XX, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine to turn into fire!")

 

[Kenneth]

I agree. I think people are mixing various concepts together.

Is it possible that biological rules differ by location. Quite probably. We don't understand the mechnanisms of life well enough to determine if Star Trek's so called "Carbon-based Life forms" are the only way life evolves. Maybe in the next universe life is based on Germanium or Ununquadium . However, that doesn't mean they will have different physical laws. Gravity should still attract, not repel. Even if we were able to visit an Anti-matter Galaxy the physical rules should still be the same.

If we allow for other dimensions then the sky's the limit. Who can predict what things are like in the 8th dimension (other than they don't seem to very fond of us Monkey Boys ). However, since we live in this dimension and not those it is an academic exercise at best.

I know people are fond of Chaos but physical laws changing from galaxy to galaxy would create a tremendous problem. Even with the laws of Entropy the universe seems to favor order over disorder (although perhaps Dark Matter and Dark Energy are the disorderly Black Sheep of the family :alien: ).

Kenneth

 

[Kevin M]

Yes, but will Black Lectroids sound like Jamaicans?


The entire thread is pretty academic/theoretical to begin with. I mean in all seriousness, it was started with the revelation "Transporters not practical"......even if they were I think I would fall on Bones' side of the argument, blasting your molecules into a billion pieces and reassembling them at a remote location....[Woody Allen]"Um..thanks..b..but I think I..I'll take the shuttle all..t..the same.(adjusts glasses)[/Woody Allen]

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

True.

 

[Kenneth]

In those dimensions, not in ours As I said, once you leave our dimension for another, our predictive models fail. We can hypothesize about what can happen in the fourth or fifth dimension but something like that is truly beyond our comprehension. Just as Mr Sagan's flatland characters couldn't comprehend our universe we can't fully comprehend another dimension's.

On the other hand, that doesn't preclude us from hypothesizing that for a stable universe (which ours appears to be) there need to be a certain set of rules that apply throughout that universe. Although it is highly probable there are many rules we have yet to discover, it is less likely that we will find these rules invalidate those we have identified from observing our own environment and the observable environment around us.

Kenneth

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

I basically agree with that. "Less likely" or "improbable" doesn't equal "impossible" in my book. If it's not impossible, then it may be possible. Even if it goes against our scientific knowledge. That's the only acknowledgement I want from the others.