🚀 go-pugleaf

True, true, but specifically, I was referring to the inability to know both
the position and momentum of a subatomic particle simultaneously.  One would
definitely have to use what, in the Star Trek universe, is called either
'imaging scanners' or 'targeting scanners' to observe the position and
momentum of each subatomic particle in an object in order to transport it.
The problem with observing subatomic particles has always been the fact
that, by merely observing them, you interfere with them.  If you shine a
really tiny flashlight on a subatomic particle, long before the light
rebounds back to the observer, it has already moved the particle (change in
position).  Furthermore, the light also changes the velocity of the particle
slightly (change in momentum).  Worse yet, Heisenberg found that the
discrepencies caused in both the position and momentum of observed subatomic
particles had an inverse relationship.  This basically means that the more
you know (observe) about one, the further off the other becomes.  It's a bad
problem for Star Trek, but I'll suspend my disbelief for a good show any
day. . .


Steven B. Harris wrote in message <7i9u1e$32n@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <7i9hiq$3j6$1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> "Danny Boy"
><danny_._boy@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>>Hey, if Star Trek can toss the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to
>>make their transporters work, why can't we toss conservation of
>>energy?
>
>
>   I don't think the transporters are in trouble due to Heisenberg.
>Atoms can be localized pretty well-- haven't you seen those STM and AFM
>pics?  It's electrons that begin to show real QM effects.  Atoms are
>nearly as manipulatable as marbles.  Molecules even more so.  If we can
>transmit your information some place and just put all the biomolecules
>in position (perfectly possible to within thermal noise-- and why be
>more acurate than that anyway), and then for the rest of the space fill
>'er er up with water and salts: that's you.