Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!mit-eddie!jbs
From: jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Matter transmission, etc.
Message-ID: <87@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 00:51:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.87
Posted: Tue Oct 15 00:51:20 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 07:35:28 EDT
References: <3998@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <1825@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal)
Distribution: net
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 44

In article <1825@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
>In article <3998@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Slocum.CSCDA@HI-MULTICS.ARPA writes:
>
>>Let's not forget the Uncertainty Principle in the context of matter
>>recording/ duplication.  A simple way of stating this is the following:
>>   "When dealing with sub-atomic particles (electrons, etc.), the more
>>accurately the velocity of said particle is known, the less accurately
>>its position is known, and visa versa".
>
>>So, if you know the position of an electron to infinite precision, you
>>know nothing about its velocity.  This kind of screws up the copying
>>process.  I would hope that the copier was awfully precise.
>
>Well, actually, since the person himself constitutes an observing system,
>it's only necessary to be as percise in observation as the human body is of
>itself.  My guess is that this is going to be (by most standards) quite
>sloppy, especially as the need for real precision is going to be
>concentrated in relatively small volume.  The atom-by-atom structure of
>bone, for instance, is likely to be of little importance compared to its
>gross structure.  There are lots of fluid areas where we surely do not care
>where the water molecules are (as long as we have them at the right
>temperature-- a VERY low precision measure of energy).  So from that point
>of view, my estimate is that the problem is not that difficult.  The chief
>problem is simply acquiring the information without destroying it too soon,
>and then finding a place to put it all.
>
>Charley Wingate

This is pure nonsense.  So what if the atom-by-atom structure of bone is
or is not reporduced.  In fact, you could still achieve human matter
transmision without sending bone at all.  It is the thoughts and ideas,
contained in the mind, which is important and this is the part that CAN
NOT be measured with sufficient accuracy.  Period.  No if's and's or
but's (sorry for the cliche).  (sigh, let me repeat myself) There is an
absoulte, lower limit on the accuracy with which one can measure both
the position and momentium of any particle (an electron).  Specifically,
the uncertainty (product of uncertainty of position and uncertainty of
momentum) can be no less than h (Planc's constant).  One can not hope to
reproduce the state of a human brain since doing so would require
reporducing electric impulses and energy states of atoms/molucules.  It
is not enough to know that "there are a few electrons flying around."
You must also know where they are and where thay are going.

Jeff Siegal - MIT EECS