Which laws of physics are violated with teleportation?

[Dragonfall]

Which laws of physics are violated if an object simply instantaneously appear somewhere else?

 

[arildno]

None.

It shouldn't happen too often, though..

 

[Dragonfall]

So you can't go faster than light, but you can just instantaneously jump to somewhere else (in principle)? Seems counterintuitive.

 

[Loren Booda]

So you can't go faster than light, but you can just instantaneously jump to somewhere else (in principle)? Seems counterintuitive.

". . . jump to somewhere else . . ." - yes, according to Born probability (although the chance would take well more than a googol of years), or by the classical hopscotch method. ". . . instantaneously . . ." - no, according to observation and extending the second postulate of relativity.

 

[cesiumfrog]

So you can't go faster than light, but you can just instantaneously jump to somewhere else (in principle)? Seems counterintuitive.

I think the idea is like saying that if I get a phone call from you here in Oz now (a "position measurement") then it is possible (just unlikely) for me to get another call from you in the UK a few minutes later (although not from another galaxy, since traveling that far in a few minutes would violate causality), even if you don't have a boat (nor any obvious ability to cross the barrier between continents).

The point is that it doesn't really involve anything moving "instantaneously". It's the wrong word, implying infinite velocity when velocity was never the problem. It's that if I wait long enough then you can get from point A to point C, even though you will not ever be caught in between at point B.

 

[RyanMcStylin]

if you want to learn more about this read "the Elegant Univers" there is an entire chapter on H-Bar which involves the amount of energy needed to move from point A to point C without passing through point B. basically if you lean on a wall for long enough you will go through it. Although if you started leaning at the beginning of the universe you would probably be nowhere close to transporting through, still.

 

[keinve]

that law stating nothing can go faster than light. if it's instant, it would go faster than light. assuming it goes no faster than light speed, none.

 

[malty]

that law stating nothing can go faster than light. if it's instant, it would go faster than light. assuming it goes no faster than light speed, none.

I thought though that "law" was actually a hypothesis so we don't know if it's true or not, we just assume it to be case. My question is this though if something were teleported instantaneously to say another point in 3-d space. There still would have to have been a slight infinitesimal lapse in time, where exactly would this something be while it disappears from one place and before it reappears in the other, and more importantly exactly what laws of physics would apply to it while it effectively doesn't seem to be either here or there?

Wahey my first post, been on this site for a while, but was never really sure what to say, and when to post.. so just kept browsing and browsing.. and browsing. Cool site btw,

 

[ZapperZ]

I thought though that "law" was actually a hypothesis so we don't know if it's true or not, we just assume it to be case.

There is no such category in physics, or at least such division isn't an issue. Newton's Laws certainly can't be called a hypothesis, or else your house, buildings, and bridges were built on nothing more than a set of hypothesis. I don't think anyone would feel secure with that.

In physics, we should not get hung up on the "names" that we give to things. Just understand the description and look at the degree of certainty them. If such a law, theory, etc. is being used to produce other stuff and it is well-used, then it is well-verified and has a high degree of certainty, no matter what label we attach it to.

Zz,.

 

[malty]

There is no such category in physics, or at least such division isn't an issue. Newton's Laws certainly can't be called a hypothesis, or else your house, buildings, and bridges were built on nothing more than a set of hypothesis. I don't think anyone would feel secure with that.

In physics, we should not get hung up on the "names" that we give to things. Just understand the description and look at the degree of certainty them. If such a law, theory, etc. is being used to produce other stuff and it is well-used, then it is well-verified and has a high degree of certainty, no matter what label we attach it to.

Zz,.

Em, I think you misunderstood me there.
I wasn't referring to Newtons laws though. I was referring to Kevinie "law" that nothing can travel faster than the speed light, I thought that was classed as an hypothesis which was postulated by Einstein. Of course I understand that Newtons laws can't be mathematically derived or proven they just work, as do many of our other natural laws. Every model which we use and describe in physics is based on either the natural laws, or proposed theories, I wholly accept that and I accept that we have just to understand their description but certainly we have also to accept the assumptions in our theory. Think back to the whole aether theory, wasn't Michelsons-Morley regarded as one of the failed experiments of all time? It seemed to call into serious doubt the existence of aether.
An assumption which many theories had used previously to explain the propagation of light.

My point to Keinve, (well my intended point anyways), was to point out that we must know when the difference when something is regarded as to as law and as an hypothesis and that you simply cannot regard the argument that an object cannot travel faster than c as a law until it is experimentally proven! We should distinguish clearly between hypothesis and fact, yes we should understand both and used them both to develop ideas and models of our universe and its contents but we should also accept the possibility of some of our arguments being flawed. At least that is what I believe we should do.

Take it easy
Malt

 

[ZapperZ]

Em, I think you misunderstood me there.
I wasn't referring to Newtons laws though. I was referring to Kevinie "law" that nothing can travel faster than the speed light, I thought that was classed as an hypothesis which was postulated by Einstein. Of course I understand that Newtons laws can't be mathematically derived or proven they just work, as do many of our other natural laws. Every model which we use and describe in physics is based on either the natural laws, or proposed theories, I wholly accept that and I accept that we have just to understand their description but certainly we have also to accept the assumptions in our theory. Think back to the whole aether theory, wasn't Michelsons-Morley regarded as one of the failed experiments of all time? It seemed to call into serious doubt the existence of aether.
An assumption which many theories had used previously to explain the propagation of light.

My point to Keinve, (well my intended point anyways), was to point out that we must know when the difference when something is regarded as to as law and as an hypothesis and that you simply cannot regard the argument that an object cannot travel faster than c as a law until it is experimentally proven! We should distinguish clearly between hypothesis and fact, yes we should understand both and used them both to develop ideas and models of our universe and its contents but we should also accept the possibility of some of our arguments being flawed. At least that is what I believe we should do.

Take it easy
Malt

A "postulate" is very much different than a hypothesis. A postulate means that it can't be derived from any First Principle derivation. It certainly does not mean that it is a hypothesis or remain perpetually a hypothesis. Once a postulate is made, then the consequences of such postulate must be tested, and that is when it becomes a valid postulate. This particular postulate for SR has been tested many times and in many various forms, both directly and via its many consequences. It is definitely not a hypothesis.

Zz.

 

[PhysiksFreak]

Teleportation...it's possible, but what would be the principle behind it? assuming you're not using witchcraft or anything.

 

[arildno]

Teleportation...it's possible, but what would be the principle behind it? assuming you're not using witchcraft or anything.

Why am I NOT allowed to use witchcraft; I WANT to use witchcraft.

As for other possible principles behind them; if we had known about them, we would already have utilized to some advantage already.

 

[sandplasma]

It would be nice if your body could be decomposed, shoved through a wire and then composed again. :D Yep

 

[PhysiksFreak]

Well - teleportation using magic/witchcraft is a bit damn difficult, and as for decomposing yourself, it would take a hell of a lot a time. I guess I'd rather just walk there. So - for using witchcraft to teleport - your mind must be strong and focused. I'm not going to tell you how to do it because I don't know my self, and I wouldn't want you to be doing the wrong thing.

 

[arildno]

Well - teleportation using magic/witchcraft is a bit damn difficult, and as for decomposing yourself, it would take a hell of a lot a time. I guess I'd rather just walk there. So - for using witchcraft to teleport - your mind must be strong and focused. I'm not going to tell you how to do it because I don't know my self, and I wouldn't want you to be doing the wrong thing.

May I handle your broom, then?

 

[jwalker1196]

Say there's nth-dimensional wormhole. This wormhole, while only, say, 50m long in its "native" dimensions, begins and ends in our 3 dimensions some large distance apart. So, let's say you travel at a velocity of 3x the speed of sound (340.29 m/s at Earth sea level) through the wormhole: so 50m at 1020.9 m/s takes you a mere .048976 seconds.

But this wormhole connects two places 50,000 km apart (in our 3 dimensions). So relative to "our" world, you have just gone 50,000 km in less than 1/20th of a second, which is <br>1 020 900 000 m/s or roughly 3.403 times the speed of light! But lightspeed was never exceeded; nowhere close.

This is all theoretical, of course. It is possible that lightspeed can be exceeded. But if it can't, this is one way to "teleport" without breaking it.

 

[arildno]

Can I sit on the broom through the hole, then?

 

[jwalker1196]

Haha. Sure, if the ends of the wormhole are stationary in our 3-dimensional space, and the broom is long enough (50m in my example) then two people 50,000 km away could touch the same broom. We are also assuming that the wormhole is straight in its "native" dimensions.

 

[PatPwnt]

I think it violates conservation of energy. If you teleport to anywhere else in the universe, your potential energy is going to increase or decrease. For example : say you have a portal at 50 ft in the air and one on the ground. If you walk into the portal on the ground and come out 50 ft in the air, all the sudden you gained potential energy. Where did the energy come from?

 

[Wild Angel]

Mental teleportation...okay Physical teleportation...lets work on that in the future

 

[malty]

I think it violates conservation of energy. If you teleport to anywhere else in the universe, your potential energy is going to increase or decrease. For example : say you have a portal at 50 ft in the air and one on the ground. If you walk into the portal on the ground and come out 50 ft in the air, all the sudden you gained potential energy. Where did the energy come from?

You're forgettinng though that potential energy is merely a measure of energy relative to something else, so walking into the portal makes appearing up a height of 50 ft mean nothing, because theoretically haven't actually changed your height; when you walk through the portal you must also threat the ground as having gone through the portal.

 

[jwalker1196]

I'm not entirely sure what malty means... but PatPwnt:

You're still thinking 3-dimensionally. If the universe had only 3 dimensions, this would be violated (along with lightspeed). But in our example, the travel is done through another dimension. So the energy, while gained in one place, is still lost somewhere else. No problems.

edit: yes I do get what malty means. That's correct. It's all about relativity.

 

[PatPwnt]

You're forgettinng though that potential energy is merely a measure of energy relative to something else, so walking into the portal makes appearing up a height of 50 ft mean nothing, because theoretically haven't actually changed your height; when you walk through the portal you must also threat the ground as having gone through the portal.

Imagine placing portals the same way directly above each other. You jump through one and fall into the next causing a loop. You will accelerate indefinitely (ignoring air friction). You could attain any speed you wanted to thus having theoretically infinite energy. This is all assuming momentum is conserved through portals.

 

[jwalker1196]

Imagine any rocket with enough fuel. Left to accelerate indefinitely, it too would exceed c. Yet we know that to be impossible. It's the same question, and I don't have an answer as to why it would be impossible. Maybe it's not. We don't yet know.

 

[malty]

Imagine placing portals the same way directly above each other. You jump through one and fall into the next causing a loop. You will accelerate indefinitely (ignoring air friction). You could attain any speed you wanted to thus having theoretically infinite energy. This is all assuming momentum is conserved through portals.

I understand how you can accelerate, and but thereotically you can't travel faster than the speed of light, so you wouldn't have infinite energy because thereotically the faster you get the more matter you must absorb/create... E=mc^2 tells us that for an object if it can't reach c then it's mass must get larger if its accelates! So you may no longer be able to fit through the portal after a while!

[Ah someone already beat me here]

 

[jwalker1196]

I understand how you can accelerate, and but thereotically you can't travel faster than the speed of light, so you wouldn't have infinite energy because thereotically the faster you get the more matter you must absorb/create... E=mc^2 tells us that for an object if it can't reach c then it's mass must get larger if its accelates! So you may no longer be able to fit through the portal after a while!

[Ah someone already beat me here]

Haha. Very nicely put. Energy has mass, just immeasurably small mass under our daily circumstances. Get near lightspeed, and the added mass from energy becomes large.

 

[malty]

I think it violates conservation of energy. If you teleport to anywhere else in the universe, your potential energy is going to increase or decrease. For example : say you have a portal at 50 ft in the air and one on the ground. If you walk into the portal on the ground and come out 50 ft in the air, all the sudden you gained potential energy. Where did the energy come from?

Ya know, I think I remember seeing this in Spiderman, "the spot" created two portals side by side, but in doing so he created an unstable dimensional rift that would have annihilated everything had it not being for spidey and the spot's sacrafice.
Speaking on a purely theoreotical basis what would actually happen if two such portals as Pat has proposed were placed in close proximitity to each other i.e if you tried to make one portal go through the other?

 

[jwalker1196]

It's an interesting thought, but I'm sure the answer is, you couldn't. That's a bit like asking to "move" one piece of space to another. And I mean space in the vacuum-ed sense. How would you go about changing the position of space? You can change objects' positions in space, but not the position of space.

But I concede that if you could, it would probably be messy.