No. Which is why it "works" for me better than Star Trek. It seems to be Matter transposition, which is less silly than Star Trek where you'd never be able to store the data nor store & transmit the energy, nor reassemble without an receiving apparatus
I don't think so. Entanglement has to do with the relationship between the qualities of 2 photons that WERE produced in specific processes that DO produce pairs. AFAIK, there is no requirement for photons to BE produced only in pairs.
That sounds right to me. To his credit, he dealt with the fact that it wouldn't just be position that would be changing but also velocity and that the change in velocity would still reqire an input of energy, which would then become heat, which set limits on the device. At least if you didn't want to arrive toasted.
Somehow I've missed that. Would you mind pointing me to a listing of stories and which universe they belong in? Or at least some examples of each U? I'm 'fraid I might get lost.
Thank you!
Yes.
If you consider observing the first in a way that collapses the quantum uncertainty of both to be "changing" them. It isn't as if you can cause the uncertainty to collapse in a particular direction. A subtle nomenclatural distinction perhaps, or perhaps an invalid one, and like much of QM, a hard thing to get a grip on. I believe it was Bohr who said something like "If you think you understand QM, you obviously don't". I do/don't. If you observe carefully, you'll probably find I don't.
Not knowing either the "if" or the "how" you can't possibly know that.
Since the folding is purely hypothetical and has no clear path to engineering details; and doubly since the from and to locations weren't specified, there is no obvious applicability. When there is actually some proposed mechanism and some physical theory suggesting how space might be folded in a higher dimension, THEN you can do calculations of the energy required. Lacking something calculable, this is just talk. It is as meaningful as asking who the Red Queen's great grandmother was.
Not sure if it's the same quote as the one you're thinking of but Feynman introduced his third volume of lectures with "‘I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
I'd bet against it being possible myself, but that is beside the point. This is the post that first used the word "folding":
This doesn't imply galactic distances to anyone familiar with the work in question. I've already pointed out that the energy requirement of changing velocity is acknowledged. Indeed it is part of what makes one of the plots work. AFAIK there is no minimum amount of energy required, for example, to move an object 10 km across a horizontal plain between 2 points with the same elevation in a vacuum. Energy is required to begin movement and to stop it, but the amount can be arbitrarily small. In practice, it may also be required to overcome friction, but there is no theoretical minimum here either. By definition we are talking about a process that involves unknown physics (unless you have a stepping disk in your basement). Unless you can advance a plausible calculation of the amount of energy required for some definite essential physical process, claiming some technology which doesn't, AFAIK, exist, and may never exist, requires immense amounts of energy is just talking through your hat.
That is in the job description.
The concept has been taken seriously by physicists since the early 20s. There is a wealth of professional lit on this.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Larry Niven question | Classic SF&F | 3 | |
|
Gryphon In Light by Mercedes Lackey and Larry Dixon | Reviews & Interviews | 1 | |
|
Larry Niven's Known Space Reading-Order Flowchart | Larry Niven | 12 | |
| B | Larry Niven's website | Larry Niven | 0 | |
| B | Do You Think Larry Niven's Ring World Series Would work Well as a TV Series ? | Larry Niven | 27 |
