Time dilation and teleportation

[Wictorian]

2 minutes ago, tikker said:

Time dilation most certainly exists. What I'm saying is that for teleportation our math breaks down, so either it doesn't happen (since you aren't moving with respect to something else) or other weird stuff happens.

Yeah I was talking about this case.

[Amias]

6 hours ago, tikker said:

Time dilation most certainly exists. What I'm saying is that for teleportation our math breaks down, so either it doesn't happen (since you aren't moving with respect to something else) or other weird stuff happens.

His question is akin to saying 1 + 1 = 3. So what does 1 + 2 =

 

You can't answer this question because it has no basis in reality and violates the known universal laws.

[Avocado Diaboli]

10 hours ago, Wictorian said:

Objects are not kinds of energy tho

And what do you think E=mc² means? There's a reason it's called mass-energy equivalence, you can calculate the energy of everything by taking its mass and multiplying it by the speed of light squared. Humans convert energy into mass and vice versa constantly, if you consume more energy than needed, you get more massive (fat) and if you use more energy than you consume, you lose mass. Energy isn't a "thing", it's an abstraction for the potential to have things happen. 

 

As for your example, by your own definition, instantaneous teleportation would lead to zero time dilation, because otherwise it wouldn't be instantaneous. If you teleport to the other side of the planet immediately, then both the clock you're wearing and the one at your destination must align, so no time dilation.

[Sauron]

10 hours ago, Wictorian said:

I was asking if it meant the time would be slower or faster for the one who teleported. Why do you think it is impossible? 

after teleportation I assume your relative speed would be the same as before so... it would be the same.

 

it's impossible to move faster than light in our universe.

10 hours ago, Wictorian said:

Also if I am not wrong time dilation wouldn't exist because as far as I know it is a matter of acceleration, and you are not accelerating in this case, even if it is a case of speed, again, your speed is 0.

You're instantly accelerating to infinite speed so your acceleration is also infinite.

[tikker]

5 hours ago, Amias said:

His question is akin to saying 1 + 1 = 3. So what does 1 + 2 =

 

You can't answer this question because it has no basis in reality and violates the known universal laws.

It's still a fine thought experiment. Like asking what happens at the center of a black hole. IIRC my GR courses correctly we have math that behaves nicely there without a spatial singularity occuring.

[Inelastic]

15 hours ago, Wictorian said:

So no time dilation?

It doesn't mean no time dilation. It means that for an observer in a moving reference frame R', when looking at a clock in a fixed reference frame R will see 1 second tick off (or even 1 hour, it doesn't matter with this result) in the time it takes for 0 seconds to tick off in the observer's reference frame. All time will pass in R before the observer can see it. No time dilation means that t' = t (here we have 0 = t), when both reference frames are moving at the same speed.

 

Time dilation was derived from special relativity, where the universal speed limit is c (unless you somehow have a negative rest mass). Going the speed of light will give you t'=infinity, where the observer needs an infinite amount of time to view any period of time tick off in the R frame (the observer will see time has stopped). Going faster than the speed of light will give an imaginary value for t'. Going at an infinite speed yields 0 because you're dividing by infinity, but really it's an imaginary infinity since you're going above the speed of light.

 

Personally, I don't really know if that's a correct answer or not. It's using equations derived from special relativity using a premise that breaks it. The whole premise is nonsensical anyways. How do you travel at infinite speed; a speed above any real value?

[Wictorian]

2 hours ago, Inelastic said:

It doesn't mean no time dilation. It means that for an observer in a moving reference frame R', when looking at a clock in a fixed reference frame R will see 1 second tick off (or even 1 hour, it doesn't matter with this result) in the time it takes for 0 seconds to tick off in the observer's reference frame. All time will pass in R before the observer can see it. No time dilation means that t' = t (here we have 0 = t), when both reference frames are moving at the same speed.

 

Time dilation was derived from special relativity, where the universal speed limit is c (unless you somehow have a negative rest mass). Going the speed of light will give you t'=infinity, where the observer needs an infinite amount of time to view any period of time tick off in the R frame (the observer will see time has stopped). Going faster than the speed of light will give an imaginary value for t'. Going at an infinite speed yields 0 because you're dividing by infinity, but really it's an imaginary infinity since you're going above the speed of light.

 

Personally, I don't really know if that's a correct answer or not. It's using equations derived from special relativity using a premise that breaks it. The whole premise is nonsensical anyways. How do you travel at infinite speed; a speed above any real value?

It's wrong because you don't travel at an infinite speed. You don't travel at all. Idk if time dilation is 0 but basicall it is the same as just standing still, so I assume 0.

[Inelastic]

1 hour ago, Wictorian said:

It's wrong because you don't travel at an infinite speed. You don't travel at all. Idk if time dilation is 0 but basicall it is the same as just standing still, so I assume 0.

I'm not sure what you mean. Time dilation refers to you observing how time flows in a different inertial reference frame that's moving relative to your inertial reference frame. You can be in a ship travelling at .99c relative to Earth and claim that you aren't moving at all, but Earth is moving past you at .99c. You see your watch tick off at normal intervals, but when you look at a watch on Earth, it will be slowed. You can also be standing on Earth and see a watch on that ship tick off slower while your watch ticks off normally.

[Master Disaster]

On 6/5/2021 at 3:20 PM, Vishera said:

Yep,that definition is impossible.

The closest thing to it is taking an object and convert it to something that can be transferred really fast - like a laser light in an optic fiber cable.

That way the object is travelling as light,then at the destination it's converted back to it's original shape.

That depends how small you get.

On 6/5/2021 at 2:13 PM, Sauron said:

Nothing, this is a meaningless question because it's impossible to teleport.

At our scale.

 

Quantum entanglement shows "teleportation" is possible, you just have to be down at the subatomic scale.

[Wictorian]

6 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

That depends how small you get.

At our scale.

 

Quantum entanglement shows "teleportation" is possible, you just have to be down at the subatomic scale.

Is it impossible at our scale tho?

[Sauron]

11 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Quantum entanglement shows "teleportation" is possible, you just have to be down at the subatomic scale.

Right, teleporting mass is impossible  

[RedRound2]

On 6/5/2021 at 5:33 PM, Wictorian said:

How would time dilation be if you were to instantly teleport from point A to point B?

Going instantly means travelling at the speed of light. But from an outside observer, you will take x amount of years (the amount of years light would take) to reach your destination. But for you, it will be pretty much instant, hence feel like teleporting

 

Tachyon's have not been discovered yet, so physically travelling faster than light seems extremely extremely unlikey. Next bet is something like a warp drive, but you need concepts of negative mass for it to actually work

[Eigenvektor]

13 hours ago, Wictorian said:

It's wrong because you don't travel at an infinite speed. You don't travel at all. Idk if time dilation is 0 but basicall it is the same as just standing still, so I assume 0.

Whether you imagine teleportation as moving matter from point A to point B or destroying matter at point A and recreating an exact duplicate at point B, in both cases something has to travel between these points. You can't move or recreate something without some kind of information being shared between these two locations.

 

In either case you would, at the very least, be limited to the speed of light. Something would disassemble/destroy your particles here, turn them into "data", transmit this data to the remote location where it gets reassembled/recreated.

 

1 minute ago, RedRound2 said:

But from an outside observer, you will take x amount of light years to reach your destination.

Light years is a measure of distance, not time.

[RedRound2]

1 minute ago, Eigenvektor said:

Whether you imagine teleportation as moving matter from point A to point B or destroying matter at point A and recreating an exact duplicate at point B, in both cases something has to travel between these points. You can't move or recreate something without some kind of information being shared between these two locations.

 

In either case you would, at the very least, be limited to the speed of light. Something would disassemble/destroy your particles here, turn them into "data", transmit this data to the remote location where it gets reassembled/recreated.

But you wouldn't be the same person. There is now just a copy of you (and you die)

 

[RedRound2]

6 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Light years is a measure of distance, not time.

Umm, I know that.

 

Proxima centuri is 4 years light years away. Meaning for the OP to 'teleport', it would take him 4 years for an external observer. Using light speed to talk about time to travel large distances in universe is a pretty common practise

[Eigenvektor]

Just now, RedRound2 said:

Umm, I know that.

 

Proxima centuri is 4 years light years away. Meaning for the OP to 'teleport', it would take him 4 years. Using light speed to talk about time to travel large distances in universe is a pretty common practise

Yes, but you said it would "take X light years" which doesn't make sense. You would travel X light years and it would take whatever time something traveling at light speed would require to cover that distance. In either case teleportation would not be instant, it would merely appear to be instant for short enough distances, because light travels so darn fast.

[RedRound2]

7 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Yes, but you said it would "take X light years" which doesn't make sense. You would travel X light years and it would take whatever time something traveling at light speed would require to cover that distance. In either case teleportation would not be instant, it would merely appear to be instant for short enough distances, because light travels so darn fast.

You seem to not know about objects traveling faster experiences slower time ? Aka time dialtion

 

The faster you travel the slower the time is. There is a time dilation equation that you play around with.

 

 

Subsitute V^2 for C^2, meaning you're travelling at the speed of light, then t' becomes 0 (dilated time the traveller experiances equals to 0 = teleportation)

 

If you travel at the speed of light, you experiance 0 time, meaning whatever you intend to do, you will do it in an instant. If you want to travel to the end of the universe, you will do it in an instant.

 

To an external observer however, you would be travelling at the speed of light, that is actually take 100s and million of years to reach the end of the universe. That's how relativity works

 

A fun conclusion you can come up as a consequence of this effect is that if you were a light particle you would see the beginning and the end of the universe at the same time

[Eigenvektor]

1 minute ago, RedRound2 said:

You seem to not know about objects traveling faster experiences slower time ? Aka time dialtion

I understand how time dilation works. I'm not sure what this has to do with the sentence I was pointing out as incorrect.

 

You said it would "take X light years". The word "take" implies time, which makes this sentence nonsensical. As I said, you would travel whatever distance you want your teleport to cover and it would take whatever time it takes for light to travel between these points (from our perspective).

 

The particles/information going from A to B would certainly be subject to time dilation. Whether the person being teleported would (consciously) experience this, I cannot say. Ultimately it doesn't matter. As soon as the person arrives, their reference frame matches ours again and whatever time has passed in "our reality" becomes their new reality.

 

They might experience travel from Earth to Proxima Centuri as instant, but once they arrive 4 years have passed regardless.

[Avocado Diaboli]

11 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

You seem to not know about objects traveling faster experiences slower time ? Aka time dialtion

Read your first post again, that's what @Eigenvektoris referring to when he claims that you've confused the term "light year" as a temporal unit instead of a spatial unit.

 

Also, your entire interpretation of teleportation just being travel at light speed defeats the purpose of it being instantaneous teleportation, because that's not what's being asked. Instantaneous means that if it's 8pm on June 7th 2021 on Earth and you're invited to dinner with friends in Alpha Centauri the same day, if you teleport there, its local time is also 8pm on June 7th 2021 and not 4 years in the future. The same way how, if you return from that dinner later that evening, it's not suddenly 2029, but you're not older. This has never been the conventional interpretation of what "teleportation" is.

[Tan3l6]

What does teleportation mean to a person? Taken apart to atoms and reassembled? That would mean - you die and are resurrected in another point. Maybe not painful, but the other end would just receive a "clone", not the "original". Even if the teleportation would be possible.

Teleportation in popular science means that your cells must be transported somehow? But if the "signal" of teleportation would be "digital", then why erase the "original" if the destruction of "original" is not required?

So are teleported people just clones of themselves? I just think the technology would serve no purpose if it even was possible. Or only good for cloning.

Teleportation in 0 time is like dividing with 0.

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

Right, teleporting mass is impossible  

E=MC² says enery and matter are 2 sides of the same coin though.

 

FTR I'm only being facetious for comedic effect, everything our current understanding of physics tell us agrees with you plus even if we somehow did discover how to teleport matter, teleporting even something as simple as a single celled organism would be very difficult and take a very long time.

 

Plus would you want to get in a teleporter? There's some big philosophical questions about this subject like, are you still the same person or did you technically commit suicide?

[Wictorian]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

E=MC² says enery and matter are 2 sides of the same coin though.

 

FTR I'm only being facetious for comedic effect, everything our current understanding of physics tell us agrees with you plus even if we somehow did discover how to teleport matter, teleporting even something as simple as a single celled organism would be very difficult and take a very long time.

 

Plus would you want to get in a teleporter? There's some big philosophical questions about this subject like, are you still the same person or did you technically commit suicide?

What do you mean it would take a long time?

[Wictorian]

7 minutes ago, Tan3l6 said:

What does teleportation mean to a person? Taken apart to atoms and reassembled? That would mean - you die and are resurrected in another point. Maybe not painful, but the other end would just receive a "clone", not the "original". Even if the teleportation would be possible.

Teleportation in popular science means that your cells must be transported somehow? But if the "signal" of teleportation would be digital, then why erase the "original" if the destruction of "original" is not required?

So are teleported people just clones of themselves? I just think the technology would serve no purpose if it even was possible. Or only good for cloning.

No I didn't mean that. Yes this is pointless. Yes you are dead. And no you are not teleporting, you are travelling at the speed of the light. Teleportation means instantly appearing at a new location. @Master Disaster @RedRound2

[Master Disaster]

6 minutes ago, Wictorian said:

What do you mean it would take a long time?

I'll use an Amoeba as an example. From our perspective its just about as simple as life gets yet they contain 12 pentillion atoms, thats....

 

12,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

...and something has to take all the data contained in those atoms, process it, store it, buffer it (unless you want buffer over/under runs to erase things out of existence) and send it across physical space then something at the other end has to do the reverse to build it back again.

[Wictorian]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I'll use an Amoeba as an example. From our perspective its just about as simple as life gets yet they contain 12 pentillion atoms, thats....

 

12,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

...and something has to take all the data contained in those atoms, process it, store it, buffer it (unless you want buffer over/under runs to erase things out of existence) and send it across physical space then something at the other end has to do the reverse to build it back again.

If the entire universe can be simulated it can be done. And that's not what teleportation really is.