March 29, 1993: Teleportation Beams From Sci-Fi to Real Science

1993: Scientists show teleportation is possible, at least theoretically. The downsides: The original teleported object must be destroyed, and it can’t happen instantaneously.

The story goes on to flesh out some of the milestones that have occurred in the teleportation arena in the interrum, including teleporting photons a few meters and teleporting information up to 10 miles.

Gizmodo marked the anniversary by sharing this story with us:

Beam Me Up, Scotty: Scientists Transport a Hunk of Matter 18 Inches

Scientists in Copenhagen took one more step toward the Star Trek transporter, figuring out how to teleport groups of billions of atoms from one place to another using light, quantum mechanics, magnetism and a concept they call “entanglement.” Professor Eugene Polzik and his team managed to move an object about 18 inches, using an excruciatingly complicated process that amounts to some serious magic. Says the Prof:

“Creating entanglement is a very important step, but there are two more steps at least to perform teleportation. We have succeeded in making all three steps — that is entanglement, quantum measurement and quantum feedback.”

Somebody on Facebook said this story was actually six years old. Probably so, as the Reuters story linked in the Gizmodo article isn’t there any more. Still very cool.

Star Trek references aside, this method of teleportation sounds somewhat different from the Star Trek models of teleportation which breaks you down into bits and either beams 1) you or 2) your pattern to the other location where it is reconstituted either 1) from your original matter or 2) locally available materials. (For the record, 1) is the original series and 2) is Next Generation and beyond.) I’m not sure if I would ever want to do 1), but 2) is a big no way. The guy who lands on the other side isn’t me — he just thinks he is. I’m dead.

But THIS approach, from the sketchy details provided, might move the whole person intact, irrespective of what the Wired article says about the original having to be destroyed. As I understand it, if you recreate my quantum states, you recreate me. You don’t just have a copy in that case, you have the original. Would the subjective me-ness that is me come along for the ride? Theoretically, yes.

Still, come to think of it, I think I would have to pass. Not that it looks like anyone is going to be offering free teleportation rides any time soon.

I’m just sayin’.

Via Boulder Future Salon, here’s a lecture from Carnegie Mellon University on the subject of innovation.Scott Berkun worked on the development team for Internet Explorer, where he says that innovation was his job. One interesting moment is when he claims that he managed to do some good, innovative work “in spite” of the company he worked for.

He provides some good example of innovators from a lot of different fields, pointing out that they tend to be renegades and rebels. But their most important common characteristic is that they believed in an idea that they thought was interesting or cared about, and pursued it.

Berkun starts out by dispelling what he calls the “myth of epiphany,” the notion that a mgic moment of inspiration touches innovators and moves them to make their contribution. He believes that we use the myth of the epiphany to absolve ourselves from responsibility for innovating. After all, if you don’t have a magic moment, and the “Innovation Muse” passes you by, whose fault is that?.

He uses the familiar stories of Archimedes in the bathtub and Newton and the apple to explain how the “myth of the epiphany” lets us focus on trivia — Archimedes running through the streets naked; Newton getting bonked on the head by the apple — and ignore the hard work and extensive thinking that lay behind the moment of inspiration.

He points out that creativity literature is focused on developing habits for playing with ideas, and lowering inhibitions to new ideas. The “eureka moment” has a lot less to do with the actual moment than it does with the habits of mind the innovator has developed.

He provides some great examples of how following an idea can lead to highly unexpected destinations.
For example, the guys who developed Youtube actually started out trying to develop a video version of Hot or Not. And the folks who developed Flickr were got there by way of trying to start a software company.

He closes with the story of William McKnight and 3M , explaining how a company called “Minnesota Manufacturing and Mining” (3M) came to be in the Post-it Notes business.

American audio historian David Giovannoni recently discovered a phonautogram, captured using a phonautograph, a device created by Parisian inventor Edouard-Leon Scott de Martinville that created visual recordings of sound waves, the Associated Press reports. The phonautograph could not play them back.

De Martinville was quite a visionary: recording sounds in anticipation of a future in which the technology would exist to play them back. And here we are, nearly 150 years later, living in that future.

And yet this invention, as critical a breakthrough as it was, proves to be only a stepping stone, a building block for something even bigger: a major step forward in how we can capture and use solar energy.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. First, let’s have a look at the original, all-important breakthrough technology…

LRAD is basically a focused beam of sound. Originally, it was designed to emit a very loud sound. Anyone whose head was touched by this beam, heard a painfully loud sound. Anyone standing next to them heard nothing. But those hit by the beam promptly fled, or fell to the ground in pain. Permanent hearing loss is possible if the beam is kept on a person for several seconds, but given the effect the sound usually has on people (they move, quickly), it is unlikely to happen. LRAD works. It was recently used off Somalia, by a cruise ship, to repel pirates. Some U.S. Navy ships also carry it, but not just to repel attacking suicide bombers, or whatever. No, the system was sold to the navy for a much gentler application. LRAD can also broadcast speech for up to 300 meters. The navy planned to use LRAD to warn ships to get out of the way. This was needed in places like the crowded coastal waters of the northern Persian Gulf, where the navy patrols. Many small fishing and cargo boats ply these waters, and it’s often hard to get the attention of the crews. With LRAD, you just aim it at a member of the crew, and have an interpreter “speak” to the sailor. It was noted that the guy on the receiving end was sometimes terrified, even after he realized it was that large American destroyer that was talking to him. This apparently gave the army guys some ideas, for there are now rumors in Iraq of a devilish American weapon that makes people believe they are hearing voices in their heads.

This made more sense when an American advertising firm recently used an LRAD unit to support a media campaign for a new TV show. LRAD was pointed at a sidewalk in Manhattan, below the billboard featuring the new show. LRAD broadcast a female voice providing teaser lines from the show. The effect was startling, and a bit scary for many who passed through the LRAD beam. It appears that some of the troops in Iraq are using “spoken” (as opposed to “screeching”) LRAD to mess with enemy fighters. Islamic terrorists tend to be superstitious and, of course, very religious. LRAD can put the “word of God” into their heads. If God, in the form of a voice that only you can hear, tells you to surrender, or run away, what are you gonna do?

I wonder if this thing can shoot sound through walls? The implications are a little scary. As a general rule, I’m not sure that putting the “voice of God” into people’s heads is a good idea. For some reason, the Son of Sam comes to mind. Although I do fully support the effort to persuade anyone fighting US troops to put down their arms — don’t get me wrong.

Anyway, talk about an invasion of privacy. Living our lives immersed in ambient marketing messages is one thing; having voices talk right at us is another. This is about one full step away from having messages beamed straight into our heads.

However, the Navy warning system seems like a good application. I can see this technology having a number of similar applications — this might be one way to talk a potential jumper back from the ledge, for example. On the other hand, he or she might decide that a disembodied voice telling him/her what to do is the absolute last straw.

Goodbye, cruel world.

I wonder if a personal, portable version of this might eventually be available? The screech might be an effective way to ward off home invaders — human or animal. Glenn has written more than once about how suburban human populations are starting to share habitat with rebounding predator populations — often with disastrous results. We don’t have a cougar problem per se in Highlands Ranch (yet), although the occasional house pet does fall prey to the coyotes who roam the “open space” that we’re so proud of.

If the coyote population grows and people start taking more active steps to protect their pets, or if the cougar problem emerges here as it has elsewhere in Colorado, I can imagine a proliferation of shotguns here in the ‘hood. Knowing some of my neighbors as I do, that thought doesn’t make me much more comfortable than the thought of the coyotes and the cougars in the first place.

On the other hand, there is no panacea — I wouldn’t want to be permanently deafened when some neighbor kid decides to pull a “prank” with the family screech unit, either.

Still, I can see a technology such as this ultimately being very useful for personal protection — whether from bears while out backpacking or from potential muggers while making one’s way through a late-night parking lot. Sonic Pepper Spray, if you will.

“There’s that voice again — telling me it’s time to hibernate!”

I’ve never been completely satisfied with the axes of that diagram. I wanted to show how some developments have this immediate overwhelming impact, while others set the stage to allow for further developments that ultimately have that kind of impact. Still others look like there’s something major happening, but it’s less than meets the eye. In its new iteration, I am replacing the vertical axis with disruption and the horizontal axis with transformation. Here’s my new draft version:

But let’s not stop, there folks. Fluorescent bulbs are just the beginning. How about a bulb that’s four times as efficient and lasts, well, forever? Now we’re talking!

There have been only a few true scientific breakthroughs since WWII that truly have been impactful on our lives. I include true new technology, not improvements on existing technology.

My candidates include:

* Transistor
* Integrated circuit (although this could be argued as an improvement on the transistor)
* Laser
* Some medicines, particularly the pill
* Human (and others) genome work

I can’t think of any others. There certainly have been improvements on existing technology galore, but little new science that has made a difference.

Well, but wasn’t the transistor just an improvement over some previous analog technology — tubes and so forth? The pill was just an improvement over the rhythm method, wasn’t it? I think there may be a definitional issue, here. What’s an improvement vs. a wholly new invention?

I think there’s a notion of discontinuity that makes an invention a true invention, rather than just an change over something that came before. These folks had some interesting thoughts about that.

Anyhow, TechRivet goes on to issue a kind of intriguing challenge:

Excluding the list above, what new inventions have had an impact on society? Since WW2? Since 1960? Since 1995?

Make it new and make it impactful. I’ll be doing a follow up post or two on this subject because it is fascinating. What if there has been no new inventions? Does it matter? Do we still need them? Does the law of accellerating returns require new inventions? Are new scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs still looking for anything truly “new”?

So what do you think, folks? Have there been any new inventions? Are any on their way? I can think of one or two, but I’d be interested to see what others come up with first.

I don’t think I’d like this one:

Clocky does a runner when you hit the snooze button, forcing you to actually get up out of bed and find the little bugger to turn it off. By which time, of course, you’ve done the hard work and you’re ready to get up. Simple, but genius.

Better living through technology? See the thing is: when I’m up, I’m up. Once out of bed and walking around, I might have little choice but to go find my trusty sledge hammer.

On the other hand, look at what a cute little guy Clocky is:

Could I really smash him into a thousand pieces?

I’m afraid so.

(I gotta get me one of those.)

Plus, can cars that wash themselves be far behind?

Via GeekPress.

Using a driving simulator under four different conditions: with no distractions, using a handheld cell phone, talking on a hands-free cell phone, and while intoxicated to the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level, 40 participants followed a simulated pace car that braked intermittently.

Researchers found that the drivers on cell phones drove more slowly, braked more slowly and were more likely to crash. In fact, the three participants who collided into the pace car were chatting away. None of the drunken drivers crashed.

Being a personal injury attorney, I wasn’t surprised by this. Probably 3/4th of the accident cases I’m handling at any given time involve alcohol, cell phones, or both. For some reason talking on the cell phone seems to be more distracting to a driver than talking with a passenger or listening to the radio. There seems to be something particularly dangerous about a disembodied conversation that makes people forget their surroundings.

A few state legislatures are attempting to address this problem by limiting cell phone use by drivers. The most common approach is to ban hand held phones. Other approaches outlaw phones for certain drivers – bus drivers, minors, etc.

I could get behind a cellular ban on minor drivers or chauffeurs, but I’m not sure how much good banning hand-helds accomplishes. Drivers are still having a disembodied conversation. Perhaps the hope is that they’ll at least have two hands on the wheel.

I’m sure that lawmakers were considering the problem of enforcing a stricter cell ban: “No officer I wasn’t on the phone. I just talk to myself a lot.”

But the real problem for legislatures is this: cell phones might be comparably dangerous to driving under the influence, but the public will always be more tolerant of this risk because of the utility of a cell phone.

No useful thing is accomplished by downing a six-pack and then jumping behind the wheel. But a phone in the car can be a very important safety device – and not just for ourselves. I’ve probably made a half-dozen 911 calls from my car in the last five years – I witnessed four or five accidents and a store robbery. I also got help for my family and I once when we broke down on a busy street. I wouldn’t think of my wife going out without one.

Some people would ban cell phone use in public places too. That’s simply ridiculous. If all the prohibitionists got their way, where would we use cell phones? Not at a restaurant, not in a car – I guess we’d just go back to land lines exclusively.

Not likely. Even people that have been slow to embrace other types of technology like the Internet, have cell phones. Being able to reach anybody anytime from anywhere is incredibly powerful. People aren’t going to give that up.

This is a perfect example of what typically happens with new technology. The new tech solves old problems, but makes new problems. Throughout history Luddites have attempted to use this phenomenon to argue for relinquishment. They haven’t had much success in this because usually the old problem was much worse than the new problems. Two-steps-forward, one-step-back isn’t perfect, but you’re still a step ahead.

Anyway, new problems can be addressed by technology too. With this “driving while cellular” problem, the day is fast approaching when autodrive technology can help. Perhaps when autodrive is mature we can require cars to be in autodrive mode before the driver can use a cell phone.

INVISIBILITY and the ability to see through walls — dreams that were once confined to the pages of science fiction — are moving into the realms of feasibility.

Sir John Pendry, professor of theoretical physics at Imperial, has compared such materials with the “invisibility cloak” seen in the Harry Potter films and suggests that the first could be created in the next decade.

Pendry, whose work was partly sponsored by the Pentagon, based his research on close analysis of how photons — the basic particles of light — behave when hitting the surface of an object.

Most materials are opaque to light because they absorb photons and convert them to heat. This is why sunlight feels warm on the skin. But a few materials, such as glass, are transparent. This is because their atoms are organised in such a way that the photons can pass between them.

What Pendry and two colleagues from Duke University in North Carolina have shown, in a paper published in Science, the journal, is that there is a third class of materials that can be made to “grab” photons without absorbing them or allowing them straight through.

Instead, the metallic materials would carry the photons within themselves and then emit them from the other side as if they had travelled in a straight line directly through.The researchers liken the behaviour of such light to water flowing around a stick in a stream and then continuing smoothly on behind the stick downstream.

Intriguing idea. They plan to do a proof-of-concept with radar in the near future. Somehow, I have the feeling that something like this might work a lot better on radar or at a great distance than it will, say, close up.

[T]he new design increases the efficiency of the aircraft by 33% while increasing its speed to mach 0.88, or 654 mph — a significant bump from the A380′s speed of 570 mph. This speed increase is a result of the 25% weight reduction and improved aerodynamics that the new body design features. The wingspan of 265 feet is over 50 feet longer than the 747′s but only 3 feet more than the A380′s.

Now that is a bona fide aircraft of the future, ladies and gentleman. I might even have to add this sucker to my list.

2. Jet Packs

3. This Thing:

The Aeroscraft is a heavier-than-air vehicle currently in development for use in the near future — a prototype should be finished by 2010. It will be able to haul massive amounts of cargo and transport hundreds of passengers in luxury with quiet, electric engines. It will also be able to take off and land without an airstrip. The Aeroscraft is sort of a hybrid — it carries helium, like a blimp, but its shape provides lift, like an airplane.

I’m telling you, we need more ships in the sky. If you’re going to travel with a group, it should be a graceful and elegant experience. If you just need to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible, that’s what items 1 and 2 are for.