TELETRANSFER should be better... (Re: PHYS: Quantum
Prof. Gomes (profgomes@geocities.com)
Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:40:08 -0300
At 12:12 11/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Max More <maxmore@primenet.com> quotes:
>>Note that this scheme
>>transports the particle's properties to the remote location and not the
>>particle itself.
>
>This is the crucial bit of (disappointing) information. I looked
>carefully into this when the idea was originally annoucned, and decided
>that "teleportation" was definitely the wrong word. It is *not*
>teleportation in any sense whatsoever. It is the merely the ability to
>transfer the exact quantum state of one particle to an identical
>particle. The second particle has to exist at the destination; the
>only thing that is transfered is the quantum state.
>
>It is almost certain that the quantum state of a normal, everyday object
>(like a brick, or a human) is completely irrelevant when it comes to
>true teleportation. For example, the exact quantum state of the atoms
>inside the neurons in our head is almost certainly irrelevant to our
>consciousness. This is why people can put their heads into MRI scanners,
>and nobody has ever come out of one as a vegetable, an axe murderer,
>or anything other than a little bit peckish.
>
>So, unfortunately, it's not teleportation at all, and the guy who
>decided to use that term for this effect should be shot for trying
>to make the effect look like so much more than it actually is.
>
>Wayne Hayes <wayne@cs.toronto.edu>
Well, formally speaking it would be better name it "teletransfer"... (SERIOUS)
PS: It also makes possible "telecopies" of a particle (not destructing the
originals)...
what about via fax ??? (HUMOR)
Gomes.