Re: Laser as Reactionless Propulsion

Ross A. Finlayson (
Wed, 21 Apr 1999 04:41:08 -0400

Anders Sandberg wrote:

> "Ross A. Finlayson" <> writes:
> > Picture this, they have shown in the laboratory, supposedly, that
> > electrons or atoms can be teleported. Then again, they had "cold
> > fusion" ten years ago. Anyways, as soon as we get past the barriers
> > of space-time in a similar manner as teleportation, we could
> > teleport mass for energy rendering, probably a long time before
> > something like that would be safe for yourself or a houseplant.
> I think you are mixing up things here a bit. The quantum teleportation
> (which has been demonstrated in a scientifically satisfying way,
> unlike cold fusion) moves the *quantum state* of one particle to
> another particle (by using an intermediary). It doesn't mean particle
> A escapes spacetime to appear at location B or something like
> that. Energy transfer using this will be just energy transfer. And I
> don't see how mass-energy conversion get into it.

Energy transfer by itself is quite satisfactory for energy transfer.

For matter to escape or rather circumvent space-time, that is teleportation, and perhaps time travel, or both.

> > Theoretically, no matter where in space-time, there is an infinite
> > number of higher dimensions. So, at an arbitrary coordinate of
> > (0,0,0), at arbitrary time 0, there is a fifth dimension ranging
> > from -oo to oo, where oo is scalar infinity, and that coordinate in
> > space-time might be at any coordinate in the fifth
> > dimension. etcetera. This could mean that there are an infinite
> > number of alternate space-times for each point in space-time.
> Again, you seem to be mixing up "theoretically possible" with
> "real". Sure, there might be extra dimensions (M-brane theory is
> filled with them, although they are "curled up" and run from 0 to 2pi
> instead of -infinity to infinity), but you can't just assume that
> there are arbitrary extra dimensions and then make claims that

There might be many things. This is my view, which is relatively informed. Some people say eight dimensions, some say thirteen dimensions, some say sixteen, some say infinity, others three. Some people were quite adamant in maintaining that the Earth is flat.

> > Once this system is better defined, and we have developed tools to
> > interact with and work with it, then a large variety of "special
> > effects" will be able to be tapped.
> Note that you have drifted from a "may" to a "will". This is very
> dangerous; we may understand how aging works within a few years, but
> if I go around claiming that we will become immortal by 2010 without
> having any support for my view then I will not only appear a bit
> crackpotish to people, but also draw ridicule on much legitimate life
> extension research and immortalism. If I have some evidence or a good
> argument, then things change.
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
> GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y

2010, 4010, what's the difference? When I say "we" in this paragraph I mean humanity.

The statement is not a conditional, in that "Once..." translates to "When...", as opposed to "If..." but does not say that techniques and methodologies will be developed, but will be possible to be developed. There is some acceptance among physics research circles that dimensions above four exist. Measurement would be the first step, for example a rule, a measure of area, a measure of volume, a clock.

What I have stated is speculation. It is not disprovable. When I find or determine a proof that there are infinite dimensions, that will be a good thing.

"Infinity, i, or oo, is a scalar number increase without bounds in one dimension. Infinity, I, is i in i dimensions." - Ross A. Finlayson

Ross A. Finlayson

Ross Andrew Finlayson
"C is the speed of light."