Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How far would you go for science?

What would you be willing to do

Poll closed Jul 14, 2004.
  1. Go to the space station

    15 vote(s)
    60.0%
  2. Go to the moon

    15 vote(s)
    60.0%
  3. Go to Mars

    17 vote(s)
    68.0%
  4. Go on an interstellar mission

    15 vote(s)
    60.0%
  5. Attempt time travel

    10 vote(s)
    40.0%
  6. Attempt travel by teleportation

    9 vote(s)
    36.0%
  7. None of the above

    4 vote(s)
    16.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Dec 27, 2003 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Would you be willing to make a trip to Mars or the moon? How about the space station? On the extreme side, how about a 20 years long mission to another star [assuming that we know an interesting planet is found there, and during which time a couple of hundred years pass on earth? In the most extreme, would you jump in a time machine that appears to work? How about a Star Trek style transporter?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 27, 2003 #2
    I voted 'none of the above'. However, I would be willing to spend every waking hour of my life working on helping someone else achieve the other options. I never was much of an adrenaline junkie.
     
  4. Dec 27, 2003 #3
    I clicked all of them, except for the Tim travel one. I'd never attempt it, but I would study the results of it.
     
  5. Dec 27, 2003 #4

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, the interstellar mission part sounds like
    a bit too much - I think I could be more usefull
    down here... :wink: But, sign me up first for Mars !
     
  6. Dec 27, 2003 #5
    I would do just about anything of a science nature, as long as I am the one working on it.
     
  7. Dec 27, 2003 #6
    Yes.

    I'd only jump in a time machine or a transporter that really works, but not the one that appears to work. Which means I won't be the first few guys to do it.
     
  8. Dec 27, 2003 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: How far would you go for science?

    How could you be sure that the person who transported is truly the same person who materialized? Could a copy of the body and consciousness pop out of the aether, identical in every way to the ones that left, but with the original consciousness lost and no one the wiser? We might produce an entire world of copies!
     
  9. Dec 28, 2003 #8
    Do IQ tests, personality tests, personal history tests, etc to make sure the transported person is the same as the materialized one.

    I don't think it's that easy to produce copies like that. Well, of course we'll use animals to try it out first beforehand.
     
  10. Dec 28, 2003 #9
    Re: Re: Re: How far would you go for science?

    "The Next Generation" occasionally touched on "transporter psychosis" and the fact that the food replicators were an offshoot from transporter technology. I often wondered if "transporter psychosis" were caused by the fear you were no longer the original, just an exact copy with all memories intact, just a replicant. The fact the food replicators could produce real matter from a mere recipe of that matter would tend to confirm this belief.

    The problem is further complicated by the occasional "splitting" of characters due to transporter malfunction: Kirk into "Good" and "Evil" Kirk, and, in The Next Generation the episode where Number Two is split into two roughly equal people.

    What happens during these splitting incidents isn't clear but it leaves the question of authentic transport vs copy open.

    I thought what the writers of the show might do to get themselves out of this dilema is to introduce the existence of an element that cannot be replicated under any circumstances but which transports quite easily. To be transported holding a vial of this non-replicable element and arrive intact with the element, should be enough to quiet anyone's fears they are not themselves.
     
  11. Dec 30, 2003 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Presently, at least as I understand this stuff [which ain't much], Quantum Teleportation produces a copy of that "teleported". It could be that since we can't tell one electron or proton from another we can never really know, which probably would not really matter in this case anyway, but we don't know what it would mean to teleport a consciousness. Until consciousness can be precisely defined, I can never be sure if the person who just "teleported" really "materialized", or if they effectively died and an exact or inexact copy just took their place.

    Of course, up scaling the teleportation of subatomic particles to that of teleporting humans is beyond any foreseeable technology. The complexity may well rule out any such possibility due to limitations on knowledge; e.g. by The Uncertainty Principle.

    Does anyone know if we know yet? Is this kind of teleportation of complex systems implicitly disallowed; or is this strictly a matter of computing power, speed…things that might be manageable in a few thousand years?

    All we really need are those darned Heisenberg Compensators from the Enterprise's Holo-deck.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2003
  12. Dec 30, 2003 #11
    If the teleported "you" is not the original "you" but an absolutlely identical copy, and "you" didn't even know the difference, then what does it matter?
    (Unless, of course, you are religious and believe in the "soul". But even then, wouldn't you know if your soul wasn't there?)

    Anyway...

    Time travel (as it is commonly visualized) is not possible in my opinion, so "No" on that one.

    The transporter thing...
    I said this on another thread somewhere:
    If we attained the capability to exactly map the location and interraction of every particle in the body...
    Plus we had the ability to transform those particles into an EM wave (or some other signal)...
    Plus we had the ability to take that signal and transform it BACK into the original form it was...
    Transporters would be moot.
    What's the point?
    Just map the subject, send the signal of the map to the reciever and have the reciever generate a perfect facsimilie of the subject.
    Instant cloning.
    Unlimited disposable yous.
    What's the point of transporting then?
    Except the emotional aspect of "being there yourself", what is the practical and pragmatic value of a transporter?
    You don't need to send any equipment when anything you need can be created out of "thin air" my simply manipulating EM waves.

    As for the other options...
    Sign me up.
     
  13. Dec 30, 2003 #12
    The copy wouldn't know the difference. The original "you", though, would be dead. This is why it makes a difference.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2003
  14. Dec 30, 2003 #13

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Bah, the Heisenberg compensators were part of the transporter system, not the holodeck. Evil Kirk was from a parallel universe; no "copies" were made of anyone.

    Anyways, IIRC, the star trek universe explained that the current generation of transporters retained your original molecules in the transport, due to concerns people had about copies and stuff. I *think* this was explained in TNG, but implied that it was true in the original series's timeframe as well.
     
  15. Dec 30, 2003 #14
    You are thinking of a different episode. The one I'm talking about had both "good" and "evil" Kirk, split by transporter malfunction, on the Enterprise at the same time. "Good" Kirk was so sensitive and vascillating he didn't dare make any command decisions. "Evil" Kirk was so reckless and self centered he was equally useless. Only by finding a way to recombine the two via transporter could things get back to normal.
     
  16. Dec 30, 2003 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh yes, I was thinking of beaming Moriarty off of the holo-deck. .

    Silly me...I skipped a lot my Heisenberg Compensator classes.
     
  17. Dec 30, 2003 #16
    teleporters and stuff

    .

    Looks like I'm not just a coward but in the minority.

    I regret to admit I would be very suspicious of any machine claiming to make copies of me or otherwise generate a situation where I might die and others might or might not notice.

    Sad eh?

    .
     
  18. Dec 30, 2003 #17
    I heard that when asked how the Heisenberg compensators worked, one of the technical experts for ST responded, "They work very well, thank you."

    Still you have wonder what might be lost in translation, so to speak.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: How far would you go for science?
  1. WHERE would you go (Replies: 8)

  2. Where would you go? (Replies: 17)

Loading...