# Teleportation systems



## chrispenycate (Feb 5, 2014)

AMB said:


> Tease!



Generally, nowadays teleportation is considered to transfer an object from "A" to "Y" (for example) without passing through "B, C, D"etc. in between, although at its origins it was less defined; miracles of levitation and what would now be considered telekinesis all ended up under the same umbrella. But modern linguistics have nailed it down, and now, whether it's by psi powers (I'm not going into psi powers in this discussion; class it under magic for the time being) or high tech, teleportation signifies displacement without movement.

Actually, Larry Niven has written a considerably better analysis of teleportation: "Exercise in Speculation: The Theory and Practice of Teleportation" in – I was expecting it to be 'A hole in space, but it isn't, it's in 'All the myriad ways'. I failed to lay my hands upon my copy, probably retreated to the third level of the bookshelves, but distinctly remember illustrations of a figure firing a gun into a transmission portal in front of him, and the bullet coming out of the reception portal behind him and hitting him in the back.

	1) Bending the four dimensional spacetime continuum through a higher dimension so previously distant points become contiguous.
	Einstein hypothesised, in his general rather than special relativity so it's not all neatly laid out and equationed, that gravity was not an attractive force (requiring some medium to transfer it) but a distortion of space itself; that, rather than being a force. The standard explanation this, putting weights on a rubber sheet and rolling marbles around so they generate curved paths, orbits, masses tend to snuggle up to each other… is not really adequate because we require gravity to make the model work, but we all get the picture, don't we? This clearly requires at least one more dimension* than our standard 3 + 1 spacetime, but particle physicists seem to be going for about eleven dimensions to explain away why their models can't be convinced to simulate what they oserve of nature; fudge-factor dimensions. If you can bend space by a small angle with a mass, a larger mass should bend it a bit more. Is it not possible that some technique can bend it  round until it touches itself, giving us a point which is in two different places at the same time (if 'same time' means anything, which Einstein assures us it doesn't. Still, if your left leg is ten light years away from the rest of your body in normal space measurements, even if this is a temporary situation, it could be considered inconvenient if corpuscles took ten years to do the trip.

	This is the standard model for Portals, Gates and Wormhole travel (note the required capital letters; and ordinary gates can be latch operated). It is clearly better adapted for use in space than between planetary surfaces, so planetary surfaces is where you generally find people writing them. Hamilton is even running railway lines through them. foolish when you consider that even a couple of mm. displacement on a rail cab seriously disturb a train's progress. Differences in atmospheric pressure mean you are either obliged to invent a selectively permeable force field**, close the door between visits or accept a gale as long as the connection is made. It would be much easier for all concerned to go from orbit to orbit, and land by shuttle.

	2) Analysing and transmitting a sufficient quantity of data about an object that it can be reconstituted at its destination indistinguishable from the original. Should the destination be planetary, this is as close to instantaneous as necessary, and electromagnetic radiation is sufficient (if anyone could devise a way to get that much bandwidth onto electromagnetic). For a human being it is important that the electro-chemical state of each molecule is correct, so continuous thoughts arrive. The scan and destruction process (oh, yes, you want to want to destroy the original immediately, if only to avoid legal wrangling) wants to be as fast as possible, since having your top half in Wichita and your posterior in Kansas can be very bad for your long term (or even quite short time – you leak) survival. I assume the StarTrek 'beam me down, Scotty' transporter is based on something like this principle, in which case there is a very uncomfortable period when they're halfway transmitted.  Regarding physical laws, especially conservation, this system has a lot to recommend it, no matter being involved, only information. Regarding other laws, like civil and criminal law, things get a trifle more complicated. 

	3) Exchanging two identical volumes of space separated by physical distance, often by quantum entanglement. Note that, unless you are working in vacuum, it is important to exchange, not send to, as otherwise you het mixed up with a load of air molecules; not good for your health. No risk of 'the Fly' scenarios, as geometry is maintained in a point to point transfer; just as well, as otherwise the topography of your internal organs could be modified or, even if connectivity were maintained, you could end up inside out (inconvenient). It is assumed that the system of booths calculates and compensates for difference of velocity between departure point and destination and altitude in terms of potential energy, otherwise you slam into the walls on trips involving long distances (the Earth's rotation translates into different velocities with movements either in latitude or longitude, and travelling to a extraterrestrial destination - well, everything's moving relative to everything else at vast speeds) and you die of a fever if you jump down from Denver to Salt Lake City. (or end up a smashed to a pulp on the floor). So, this type of transporter is better adapted to in-atmosphere use, though if you do that jump from Denver to SLC is going to make your ears pop worse than an airliner taking off from Geneva.

	*The word 'dimension' is used in the mathematical sense, meaning a direction or characteristic which can not be described by your existing system of coordinates, rather than the 'fifth dimension' type cheap SF use (with one extra dimension you get an infinite umber of – actually, I don't know quite the right term for them. 'Planes' (though mathematicians have their own rigid definition of this word, and aerospacial or military personnel yet another) as used by spiritualists (much as I may disapprove of their distortion of the word 'vibration'), 'universe' being everything that exists and 'continuum' – difficult to spell, among other weaknesses. A single dimension can separate off an infinity of these planes, each indetectible to all the others, there being no interdimensional radar equivalent.

	**If you stretch a sheet of polythene over the gap between worlds, most of it is empty space; the atomic nuclei don't make up one percent of the surface. It's the interatomic forces that keep everything where it ought to be. For a force field, you remove the atoms but leave the interatomic forces. Simple.


----------



## Bowler1 (Feb 5, 2014)

I’ve been busy with assumptions of my own and now need to check some details on my working model.

My Gates are for spaceships and are situated in space (clearly) and not on planets (an assumption I’ve made regarding gravity). The Gate placement is out on Lagrangian points or deep space to avoid gravity (question 1 to follow). My Gates link up like a “Tube Map” (no strikes as it has all long since been automated and all the ticket offices are closed) so travel is from one Gate to another (question 2). So my travel is a little slow, as spaceships have to get to the right gate before they get on the train (metaphor only, or the spaceship is my train/commuter), and may even have to spend time shifting over to another gate when traveling.   

Question 1 – I’m assuming gravity is best avoided (well away from planets anyway) when using the Gates. Is this a valid assumption?
Question 2 – I’ve assumed one Gate is connected to another, but no Gate is connected to multiple Gates. You can have multiple Gates at a transit point, but each Gate is only bending space with one other Gate. Hence the “Tube Map”. Is this a valid assumption? 

I’m trying for something a little different with my space travel, so I’m not just writing and putting forward what everyone else does.


----------



## Liz Bent (Feb 8, 2014)

Thanks, chrispenycate, for opening up this very interesting topic.



Bowler1 said:


> Question 1 – I’m assuming gravity is best avoided (well away from planets anyway) when using the Gates. Is this a valid assumption?
> Question 2 – I’ve assumed one Gate is connected to another, but no Gate is connected to multiple Gates. You can have multiple Gates at a transit point, but each Gate is only bending space with one other Gate. Hence the “Tube Map”. Is this a valid assumption?



I'm no physicist, but isn't gravity present everywhere? The spacetime model I'm familiar with is that planets and large or dense objects are simply "wells" in spacetime and gravity is stronger toward larger or denser objects, so you notice the pull of gravity of Earth because (a) you are close to it and (b) it is larger than you, but you notice the pull of Jupiter a lot less because it is so far away. However, that pull is there. Perhaps you mean to say that Gates would be be away from strong gravitational pulls? And you'd probably have to put them far away from solar systems, not simply in planetary orbit, if that were the case.

I can't answer your second question. I think at that point you're venturing so far into the realm of imagination using physics that you can hypothesize anything you like, really. It's not like people have traversed wormholes and can study their effects and structure, the way we have studied gravitational effects.


----------



## Bowler1 (Feb 8, 2014)

Elizabeth Bent said:


> I think at that point you're venturing so far into the realm of imagination using physics that you can hypothesize anything you like, really.
> 
> 
> It's not like people have traversed wormholes and can study their effects and structure, the way we have studied gravitational effects.




I'm won't put it passed Chrispy. Yet you are correct, I can have what I like.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 8, 2014)

I am preparing your reply - and its ray gun equivalent - but I'm just a bit slow. 

Calling them 'tramlines' instead of tube tunnels, Niven and Pournelle did a fairly good version in 'The Mote in God's Eye' series; all right, CoDominium series, but the moties books. Or Weber's HH series calls them wormholes, (and surfs gravity waves, in hyperspace; multiple systems) but they're geometrically the same, and have the 'weak point in space' detail (I could find one or two more if you're interested).


----------



## Bowler1 (Feb 9, 2014)

There's no time limit on answers mate and at the pace I write there really is no rush. Although, some of what you've given me will make my current WIP, so your input is not wasted (well, at least not with me the comma splice King). 


My tram/tube idea is in good company, better than I'd have expected if I'm really honest. Having space travel that is just a little slow gives me time to introduce my characters, set the stage, then blow it up.


----------



## psychotick (Feb 11, 2014)

Hi,

I personally hate the Star Trek transporter - and I am a Trekkie. It suffers from the twins paradox - in that the person at one end may be identical to the person at the other but still isn't him. So you end up with the very real scenario that your so called transporter is in fact a suicide booth at one end where person A is killed, and a creation booth at the other end where person B is "born".

What sane person would ever get into one of these things if he knows he's going to die and another person is going to wander around somewhere else thinking he's him?

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Nick B (Feb 16, 2014)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> I personally hate the Star Trek transporter - and I am a Trekkie. It suffers from the twins paradox - in that the person at one end may be identical to the person at the other but still isn't him. So you end up with the very real scenario that your so called transporter is in fact a suicide booth at one end where person A is killed, and a creation booth at the other end where person B is "born".
> 
> ...



This is exactly my take on the 'trekkie' version of teleportation. Basically it kills you then makes a replica of you out of different atoms at the point you want to be. The new you thinks it is you, has your memories etc but you are in fact still dead, having been destroyed at the molecular level... 

Leaving only options 1 and 3 as viable from the original post. Obviously inanimate objects could happily be transported by option 2 though.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 17, 2014)

The trekkie transporter is worse than that. Not only does it work slowly (you see the figure fade out, and by portion, so that at one moment his spleen is in orbit while his pituitary is planetside - even assuming we can compensate for relative velocities {which had better be the case, or you'd better be ready to land running - fast}) but it works without a receiver, so you have no reason to believe that the elements will be available in sufficient quantity to build a body with (since the space it transmits into is usually filled with gas, it's highly unlikely there will be enough total mass, and since there will be almost no heavy metals we need transmutation - at a distance - simultaneous with information transfer. And when you are beamed back up, it wouldn't do to have the body just fall to pieces. No, all in all, I'm beginning to think the trek transporter is of the space exchange model, operating without limitation booth or receiver – great for bank robberies - like a Niven 'stepping disc' into an unprepared space; probably why it hunts so much.


----------



## Nick B (Feb 17, 2014)

WARNING - Off topic a bit here

The other star trek thing I hate is the replicator.. I mean, if you had one of those babies you wouldn't need any weapons, troops or anything else.
"Captain, we are surrounded by Klingon (insert shipname here coz I cant remember) ships,"
"Darn, not again. OK, replicate a few dozen nukes and transport them onto their bridges."
"Aye, Captain." 
Bang. Goodbye Klingons.
"Oh and while your at it, make us a few hundred million super battle droids, we'll drop em on Klingon Prime (or whatever their home planet is called) and win forever."


But anyway, yeah...Teleporters, if they dismantle you - DON'T GO!


----------



## Mirannan (Feb 17, 2014)

Regarding FTL space travel that involves some sort of teleportation: One problem, conceptually, with it is that this sort of FTL would immensely destabilise just about any political unit. Why? Simple. Nations and empires need to have the ability to control their borders. If your jumpdrive has no restrictions, this means that you can drop a battalion of troops or a war fleet anywhere you like, including inside the nominal borders of your enemy.

The fictional FTL systems that have some variation on a limit (fixed "tramline" points, hyper limits derived from local gravitational field intensity...) get rid of this problem.


----------

