Speaker 1: Brought to you by Toyota. Let's go places. Welcome to
Speaker 1: Forward Thinking, Be there, and welcome to Forward Thinking, the
Speaker 1: podcast that looks at the future and says I will
Speaker 1: be there and everywhere, here, there, and everywhere. I'm Jonathan
Speaker 1: Strickland and I'm Joe McCormick. And today we're not going
Speaker 1: to mess around at the beginning. We're gonna get right
Speaker 1: to business because we're talking about teleportation and no burying
Speaker 1: the lead in this episode like we've been known to
Speaker 1: do it like twenty minutes in. So this episode is
Speaker 1: about uh, yeah, we're talking specifically about the the concept
Speaker 1: of teleportation. Obviously, if you've been a fan of any
Speaker 1: sort of science fiction, you've probably seen some implementation of
Speaker 1: this idea, Star Trek of course, being probably the best
Speaker 1: known out of all the the uh sci fi stories
Speaker 1: out there that use this this device. Yeah. So we've
Speaker 1: talked about plenty of science fiction technologies in the past
Speaker 1: where we often, you know, look at something from a
Speaker 1: movie or from a futuristic TV show or book and
Speaker 1: we say, how plausible is that? Will we ever actually
Speaker 1: get there? And teleportation, I think is trickier than some
Speaker 1: of the ones that we've looked at in the past
Speaker 1: to come up with a way of saying, yeah, here's
Speaker 1: how that could work. Yeah, this one requires a lot
Speaker 1: of flexible thinking for you to get to a point
Speaker 1: where you could say, this is obviously not the same
Speaker 1: implementation that we see in these books and movies, but
Speaker 1: here's how it would work in the real world. And
Speaker 1: even in this case, we're like, here's how maybe sort
Speaker 1: of kind of it could possibly sort of work if
Speaker 1: you've got a lot of time on your hands. But
Speaker 1: but we're gonna do our best. So so what is
Speaker 1: the concept in its most basic definition, and how does
Speaker 1: that apply to to the science we're gonna bring in.
Speaker 1: I think we should go basically with the Star Trek model.
Speaker 1: I agree. So the idea is that you're going to
Speaker 1: take a collection of matter, and that could be a stapler,
Speaker 1: Freddy Krueger doll, a cuddlefish, a sopping wet Japanese vengeance
Speaker 1: goes red shirt, Yeah, a red shirt perfectly. You take
Speaker 1: that from one place, cause it to disappear from that place,
Speaker 1: and make it appear in another place. So this rules
Speaker 1: out from the beginning things that make a copy of
Speaker 1: a thing, but keep the original where it is. Unless
Speaker 1: you're talking about that one Star Trek the Next Generation
Speaker 1: episode where the transporter created a secondary riker, he said,
Speaker 1: and shares the normal way. I didn't make it. There's
Speaker 1: no such thing as a secondary riker. They're all number one. Nice.
Speaker 1: That was an excellent joke, you know, But in in
Speaker 1: ordinal number theory, you could maybe say that number one
Speaker 1: really is the second number, because of course the card
Speaker 1: is number zero. Well he's number one, and then there
Speaker 1: was number one prime. But of course, yes, teleportation taking
Speaker 1: a thing make it disappear from where it is, making
Speaker 1: it appear somewhere else. The old magician presto chango. Now
Speaker 1: I'm on the other side of the stage type deal.
Speaker 1: Is that even remotely possible via science? And that's the
Speaker 1: question we're going to imagine today. Now. I think the
Speaker 1: first thing we should do more before we get into
Speaker 1: anything else, is clear up what is actually meant by
Speaker 1: a phrase you've probably seen in science journalism before, and
Speaker 1: that phrase is quantum teleportation. Now, before we jump into this,
Speaker 1: the first thing I want to mention is that there's
Speaker 1: there are very few words out there that cause researchers
Speaker 1: and scientists familiar with material to shutter more than the
Speaker 1: word quantum when it appears in the mass media. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because quantum states are where in stuff does the weird
Speaker 1: stuff to begin with, And it's all on on sub
Speaker 1: atomic particle level, right, We're talking on the super tiny level.
Speaker 1: And the issue I see more often than not is
Speaker 1: people trying to extrapolate that behavior to the macro world,
Speaker 1: and that's not where quantum effects really come into play. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is intrinsically stuff that we only see on this
Speaker 1: very tiny level. Yeah. So, uh, when we first start
Speaker 1: talking about quantum teleportation, the word quantum should already put
Speaker 1: you aware that you know something is going to be
Speaker 1: different from from what we're used to in classical physics. Sure,
Speaker 1: but of course quantum teleportation is not something that you
Speaker 1: should be like, oh, that doesn't really happen. That this
Speaker 1: is referring to a real phenomenon that has been observed
Speaker 1: in the lab, it has been created. Yeah, and uh,
Speaker 1: this is also where we have to the second word
Speaker 1: in quantum teleportation causes a bit of a problem as well, right,
Speaker 1: because the way we established teleportation at the beginning of
Speaker 1: this show, we're talking we were talking about the transportation
Speaker 1: of matter, which is the sci fi concept of it,
Speaker 1: which doesn't actually have that much to do with quantum teleportation. No,
Speaker 1: because quantum teleportation is about information, not matter. It's it's
Speaker 1: a essentially it's a form of communication. What you are
Speaker 1: doing is you are transporting a quantum state from one
Speaker 1: point to another, but not necessarily the quantum particle. So
Speaker 1: let's use electrons as an example, because that's easy to imagine.
Speaker 1: Most of us have you know, at least a passing
Speaker 1: familiarity with one electron. Is that's the negatively charged sub
Speaker 1: atomic particle that you find in atoms. So electrons have
Speaker 1: a spin that you can describe as a direction, and
Speaker 1: let's say that the spin is down for this particular electron.
Speaker 1: What quantum teleportation would allow you to do is to
Speaker 1: take the quantum state of that electron. In this case,
Speaker 1: we're talking about the specific state of the spin. It
Speaker 1: would be able to take the spin, the downward spin,
Speaker 1: and transport the downward spin to a distant location, and
Speaker 1: then you can actually transfer the state of that electron
Speaker 1: to that location. So you're not moving the electron itself,
Speaker 1: your having a property of that electron to a different
Speaker 1: electron essentially, um, which is a different you know, a
Speaker 1: totally different concept than taking a cup and using a
Speaker 1: transporter to dematerialize the cup and re materialize in a
Speaker 1: different location. Just a random object that I decided to pick.
Speaker 1: Why not a hatchet? We couldn't just as easily be
Speaker 1: a hatchet joke. Okay, let's say it's a hatchet sitting
Speaker 1: in a large cup. All right, So there's a hatchet
Speaker 1: and a cup. And if you were to use this
Speaker 1: this approach, it would not work on that level because
Speaker 1: you're not talking about quantum states. You're talking about physical objects.
Speaker 1: At that point. However, we have physically moved these states. Uh.
Speaker 1: In two thousand and fourteen, in fact, a team of
Speaker 1: researchers broke records when teleporting the quantum state of a
Speaker 1: photon fifteen and a half miles or kilometers away. Now,
Speaker 1: the other thing we have to keep in mind is
Speaker 1: that this teleportation doesn't mean that they magically made the
Speaker 1: quantum state of a particle jump instantaneously right fifteen and
Speaker 1: a half miles away. Did not happen like that. They
Speaker 1: actually used an optical cable to transmit the information of
Speaker 1: that quantum state across this distance, and then they were
Speaker 1: able to quote unquote teleport it. Now, some of you
Speaker 1: might think that's kind of cheating. Well, I mean what
Speaker 1: comes to my mind as a lay person is in
Speaker 1: what sense does the word teleportation convey useful information? Then? Well,
Speaker 1: and and it's the same thing like if you were
Speaker 1: to use a people write good headline. They they're talking
Speaker 1: about the movement of a quality of a subtype particle,
Speaker 1: but not the particle itself, so they needed a word
Speaker 1: for it, and teleportation was a cool word. Uh. They're
Speaker 1: also you know, this could be really useful when developing
Speaker 1: something like a quantum computer network, if you wanted to
Speaker 1: have quantum computers communicate across distances. That's why the record
Speaker 1: breaking was such a big deal, was because it was
Speaker 1: a proof of concept that you could actually transmit these uh,
Speaker 1: these quantum states that kind of distance. Now, of course,
Speaker 1: fifteen and a half miles on the solar scale, like
Speaker 1: the outer space scale is nothing at all. Right, it's
Speaker 1: not at all useful in any way to get your
Speaker 1: space ships real close to each other, right close enough
Speaker 1: where you know, you could probably flash lights and communicate
Speaker 1: through morse code. Uh. But yeah, this is the this
Speaker 1: is the the the limitations of where the science and
Speaker 1: technology are right now, and in fact, a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of researchers believe that there are fundamental limits
Speaker 1: on how far apart we can put computer systems to
Speaker 1: communicate through on a quantum level. And it's not a
Speaker 1: whole lot further away than than what they've achieved so far. Uh.
Speaker 1: That being said, you know, there always could be some
Speaker 1: other discovery breakthrough that would allow us to extend this further.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's a different means of actually communicating the information,
Speaker 1: but we are still communicating information. It's again not magically
Speaker 1: disappearing in one spot and instantaneously appearing in another. Okay,
Speaker 1: so quantum teleportation, at least so far, has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with you being able to teleport your body from
Speaker 1: one place to another for a hatchet or Cuba or
Speaker 1: wrecker or record or record number two. I'm sorry number one,
Speaker 1: number one too. I'm so confused, number one. Let's discuss
Speaker 1: some hypotheses about how teleportation could work and some of
Speaker 1: the different branches of thinking that you could go down
Speaker 1: when you're you're imagining this, and I think there's one
Speaker 1: big question we need to address right at the beginning,
Speaker 1: and that question is are your original atoms going somewhere
Speaker 1: or not. Well, that that sounds real messy. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean when when you think about that, wouldn't it, you know,
Speaker 1: be more energy conservative to just send yourself without breaking
Speaker 1: yourself down atomically? Well, then in that case, that's not
Speaker 1: very much teleportation, is it. So you're saying just putting
Speaker 1: your body in a thing and it somewhere. In fact,
Speaker 1: this is okay. So this this kind of reminded me,
Speaker 1: like the question like is that your original atoms? I
Speaker 1: was thinking like, well, this kind of teleportation only works
Speaker 1: in the sense if the world worked in on Willy
Speaker 1: Wonka logic where Mike TV gets broken down by the
Speaker 1: camera and is turned into millions of tiny pieces that
Speaker 1: fly across the air and then reassemble themselves on a
Speaker 1: television screen. In real life, I don't think that would
Speaker 1: be as as successful. Well, there's no I mean, there's
Speaker 1: no method of transporting the atoms, right, even if you
Speaker 1: were able to somehow breaking yeah, I know, right, Like,
Speaker 1: how would how would you get the atoms from point
Speaker 1: A to point be? Assuming that you could break the
Speaker 1: atoms down and reassemble them perfectly. On the other side,
Speaker 1: how do you get them from point A to point B. Well,
Speaker 1: I think there are a couple of schools of thought
Speaker 1: here in the at least in the Star Trek writer's imagination.
Speaker 1: One is the transporter. Teleporter device dissolves your body, puts
Speaker 1: your atoms into some kind of I don't know what
Speaker 1: it does. It sends your atoms somewhere and then the
Speaker 1: atoms reassemble themselves into you in that place. So if
Speaker 1: you were somehow able to totally scan something, convert those
Speaker 1: atoms into energy, and then send the energy to a
Speaker 1: receiving station that could then take the energy and reincorporate
Speaker 1: it as physical atoms and then rebuild the thing you
Speaker 1: needed on an atomic level. Maybe that's how they would
Speaker 1: do it. Well, that was the other thing I was
Speaker 1: going to say, was that it converts your atoms into energy, because,
Speaker 1: as we know from relativity, matter is in a way
Speaker 1: just kind of frozen energy. Matter, energy is all the
Speaker 1: same stuff. Yeah, well, we'll get into a little bit
Speaker 1: later exactly how much energy a human body would represent
Speaker 1: on average. It's a lot, which is not a big
Speaker 1: surprise if you know how atomic bombs work. So uh now, otherwise,
Speaker 1: the only other thing we could think of is what
Speaker 1: Lauren was saying that you disassemble a body into its
Speaker 1: constituent atoms, and then I don't know, pour him into
Speaker 1: a container, than pack those containers onto a spaceship, perhaps
Speaker 1: to save space, and then when you get to your location,
Speaker 1: you just pour the goo out into a recompiler of
Speaker 1: some sort to rebuild all the stuff that it used
Speaker 1: to be. Doesn't seem that much more practical than just
Speaker 1: I don't know, climbing onto a spaceship and going someplace. Right, So,
Speaker 1: in order for it to be more teleportation in the
Speaker 1: way that we imagine it, it seems like the thing
Speaker 1: you'd have to do is dissolved the body, translate that
Speaker 1: material reality into information, transfer the information, and then use
Speaker 1: that information to rebuild the body at the destination, kind
Speaker 1: of atomically three D print from the ground up, right.
Speaker 1: That that's a perfect analogy. Yeah, So there, you don't
Speaker 1: have a model, you don't have the thing you're printing,
Speaker 1: you know, emailing back and forth between computers. You just
Speaker 1: have information that represents how to do it. Yeah. So, uh, there.
Speaker 1: There are arguments about whether or not this would be
Speaker 1: possible to make a copy of something, in which case
Speaker 1: you would have a replicator, right, it's essentially additive manufacturing
Speaker 1: at that point, or if you're actually using quantum teleprotation.
Speaker 1: The argument is that quantum teleprotation does not allow for
Speaker 1: the um the original item to remain intact. You have
Speaker 1: to break it down to scan all the information the
Speaker 1: quantum states that are involved in whatever that thing is. Uh.
Speaker 1: Specifically they've been you know, the experience that have been
Speaker 1: done have been on single sub atomic particles. Keep in
Speaker 1: mind that any physical object would be made up of
Speaker 1: huge number of atoms, let alone sub atomic particles. Okay,
Speaker 1: so you're saying that this is where quantum teleportation might
Speaker 1: actually come into the picture of teleportation is in the
Speaker 1: scanning of the material makeup of your body. Yeah, this
Speaker 1: is like you have to project yourself forward decades and
Speaker 1: decades and decades where we'd have sophisticated equipment to be
Speaker 1: able to do this. But if we did have to
Speaker 1: project yourself decades forward into science fiction. Yeah, I say
Speaker 1: decades forward where we would have technology capable of doing this,
Speaker 1: But I say that as someone who doesn't believe that
Speaker 1: we're ever going to have technology capable of doing this.
Speaker 1: It's more like if we ever could, if we could
Speaker 1: this is this is likely what would happen based upon
Speaker 1: our understanding of quantum teleportation, which still has some pretty
Speaker 1: big limitations to it. So first, uh, you would break
Speaker 1: down the body and and scan that quantum state of
Speaker 1: all the particles, or at least most of them, to
Speaker 1: determine the information about that body. That's important because you
Speaker 1: need to have that information that's part of the teleportation process. Uh. Now,
Speaker 1: there's actually a way to do this on the quantum
Speaker 1: level without measuring everything, and it's actually kind of bizarre
Speaker 1: and interesting, and the reason why you need it is
Speaker 1: because of Heisenberg's uncertain d principle. Ah yeah, well, I mean,
Speaker 1: if I recall correctly, that's the principle that says you
Speaker 1: can't know everything about a sub atomic particle exactly. Usually
Speaker 1: we think of it in terms of complementary states. So,
Speaker 1: for example, you can know a lot about the momentum
Speaker 1: of a sub atomic particle or the position at a
Speaker 1: given time of a sub atomic particle, but not both, right,
Speaker 1: And as you increase your knowledge about one aspect of it,
Speaker 1: you destabilize the system so that your knowledge becomes less
Speaker 1: and less relevant. Yeah. Right, And Star Trek actually knew
Speaker 1: about this or well Star Trek, Yes, the giant unit
Speaker 1: known as Star Trek. The makers of Star Trek knew
Speaker 1: about this and kind of cheekily dealt with it in
Speaker 1: the show by including a little gidget in its transporter
Speaker 1: systems called the Heisenberg compensator. Yeah, which they just never explained.
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe the Heisenberg compensators just like no, I'm sure so, yeah,
Speaker 1: they totally totally just dismisses the uncertainty principle. I'm positive
Speaker 1: I know how this works, but but researchers have figured
Speaker 1: out how to deal with this on a quantum state
Speaker 1: in real life. Yeah, it's it's kind of crazy. They did, like, uh,
Speaker 1: they did a runner round, a workaround of Heisenberg's uncertainty principles.
Speaker 1: So this is sort of what quantum teleportation is, right,
Speaker 1: like the using the pr Yeah, this is this is
Speaker 1: exactly the way that that quantum tell reportation works on
Speaker 1: on a general scale. So I'm gonna be using kind
Speaker 1: of a high level way of explaining this because honestly,
Speaker 1: to get any further into it would require an understanding
Speaker 1: of quantum physics that I simply do not possess. That's
Speaker 1: when the cells and Jonathan's brain start dissolving all on
Speaker 1: their own. Yeah, just start, you know, my ears go
Speaker 1: all quantum at any rate. Here's how it works. You
Speaker 1: measure a quantum particle to a certain extent, but not
Speaker 1: so much that your measurements are going to mess things up.
Speaker 1: The idea that you know, by observing something, you affect
Speaker 1: that which is observed. That's unavoidable. But you if the
Speaker 1: you can get enough of an idea of a quantum
Speaker 1: state without going so far as to try and get
Speaker 1: every single bit of information about it, without completely ruining
Speaker 1: the whole process. So you've got a little bit of
Speaker 1: information about the quantum state of this particular particle. You
Speaker 1: then allow that quantum particle to interact with a second
Speaker 1: quantum particle. And for the purposes of this in order,
Speaker 1: instead of saying one and two and three, I thought
Speaker 1: it would make it easier and name each of the
Speaker 1: quantum particles. So quantum particle one is particle man. Quantum
Speaker 1: particle two is triangle man. Triangle man hates particle man,
Speaker 1: so uh. So particle man is uh is the one
Speaker 1: that you've partially observed, so you've got some information about
Speaker 1: its quantum quantum state. Triangle man has previously for the
Speaker 1: relationship with universe Man, says particle number three subatomic particle
Speaker 1: number three. So universe man and triangle man have become
Speaker 1: entangled quantum entanglement. That is where you have uh complementary
Speaker 1: but different um states of each of these subatomic particles,
Speaker 1: and as one changes, the other one changes to reflect it. Right,
Speaker 1: So in effect, if you know something about one of them,
Speaker 1: you know something about the other one, at least at
Speaker 1: that very moment. Yes, And it doesn't matter how far
Speaker 1: apart these subatomic particles are in space, if they are
Speaker 1: on the other opposite sides of the galaxy, it's still
Speaker 1: the same. So if we go with that electron spin
Speaker 1: that I was mentioning earlier, if one is spinning up,
Speaker 1: the other one spinning down, and it doesn't matter if
Speaker 1: they are next to each other or on the opposite
Speaker 1: side of the galaxy, that relationship remains the same until
Speaker 1: you disturb the system, all right, So triangle man and
Speaker 1: universe man are quantumly entangled. Triangle Man then goes on
Speaker 1: to encounter particle Man, the one that you measured. Now
Speaker 1: this changes particle man, but it also changes triangle man
Speaker 1: and extension changes universe Man because universe Man and triangle
Speaker 1: Man were entangled. You then send the information that you
Speaker 1: gleaned about particle Man to universe Man. Universe Man then
Speaker 1: becomes particle Man. So particle Man itself is no longer
Speaker 1: really particle man after it encounters triangle Man. That that
Speaker 1: encounter changes the very nature of particle Man. Universe Man
Speaker 1: now becomes the new particle Man. However, this process requires
Speaker 1: that you send that information across traditional communication channels so
Speaker 1: it can get to universe Man to complete that transformation
Speaker 1: into particle man. Yeah, they might be giants. Explains it
Speaker 1: better than I do, and and like in like a
Speaker 1: minute less to uh and that's with a repeated chorus.
Speaker 1: But uh, this is this is really interesting to me
Speaker 1: because the idea of using entanglement to create this interaction
Speaker 1: and then send information onto a third particle that was
Speaker 1: part of that entanglement and essentially transform it into the
Speaker 1: first particle you started with is bizarre. There's something very
Speaker 1: admirable about smart people trying to find loopholes in the
Speaker 1: laws of physics, the way that I don't know, you're
Speaker 1: you know, your sketchy accountant might find loopholes in the
Speaker 1: tax code, or gamers might find little cheats that they
Speaker 1: can they can enact in a video, right, right, it
Speaker 1: is really funny. And the of course, the amazing thing
Speaker 1: is it works, right like, this is not theory, This
Speaker 1: isn't a hypothesis. This actually does work um and it
Speaker 1: works on that sub atomic quantum level. It's it is
Speaker 1: really kind of strange. It also, like I said, relies
Speaker 1: on traditional communication. You can't instantaneously have this happen. That
Speaker 1: scanning that you do at the beginning of the first
Speaker 1: quantum particle, that is that is a fundamental part of
Speaker 1: this process. And then you have to you know, scanning
Speaker 1: isn't enough. You have to send that information on. So again,
Speaker 1: without the optical cable or some other means of transmission,
Speaker 1: you could not actually make this transformation happen. Universe man
Speaker 1: would just be different universe man, it wouldn't be particle man.
Speaker 1: But this in theory is how we could know what's
Speaker 1: going on in every single particle in your body if
Speaker 1: we needed to, If if you had a sufficient way
Speaker 1: of breaking everything down and observing just enough the quantum
Speaker 1: state of all the particles, then maybe like even then
Speaker 1: it's a maybe. But the important thing to note is
Speaker 1: that scientists have said there's nothing fundamentally against the laws
Speaker 1: of physics for this to not work on the macro level.
Speaker 1: In other words, there's nothing that we know that says
Speaker 1: it's impossible to do this beyond the quantum level. It
Speaker 1: may still be impossible to do beyond the quantum level,
Speaker 1: but there's nothing we know right now that specifically states that,
Speaker 1: and we haven't tried it yet. So yeah, hey, Bob,
Speaker 1: I got something I want you to give a go.
Speaker 1: You know, let's hop into this pot here. Don't worry
Speaker 1: about the fly um. I mean, it's kind of like
Speaker 1: saying that there's nothing in the laws of physics that
Speaker 1: says you can't make a factory in space that builds stars. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not against the laws of physics. But
Speaker 1: could we really imagine doing that? Could it ever be
Speaker 1: be practical at all? Or even plausible? Like it, It
Speaker 1: may be possible, but not plausible. Right. So the other
Speaker 1: big downside of this, besides the fact that you're still
Speaker 1: relying on at least some means of traditional communication to
Speaker 1: get information to its destination, is that you have to
Speaker 1: destroy the original thing and we'll get to that in
Speaker 1: a bit. Yeah, that's a big downside in general for
Speaker 1: a lot of these telebritation ideas. Well, it's not that
Speaker 1: bad if if you're using a hatchet hatchet cup, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, unless you're very unless unless it's a mystical hatchet. Well,
Speaker 1: we may get into a ship of THESEUS kind of
Speaker 1: problem with this hatchet. So I think we should start
Speaker 1: with a few definite limb stations that are coming up
Speaker 1: whenever we're talking about about any potential teleportation system. And yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: one of them is going to be speed of travel.
Speaker 1: Right now in Star Trek, it's instantaneous. It doesn't matter
Speaker 1: how far away the enterprise is from a planet's surface.
Speaker 1: That as long as they're within teleportation range, which is
Speaker 1: vaguely defined for the purposes of plot, you can totally
Speaker 1: beam them up and beam them down and it takes
Speaker 1: no time at all. Yeah, so I will vene. Sometimes
Speaker 1: it fuzzes a little bit excent there's at range, there's
Speaker 1: like ion cloud cloud. So I'm going to say that
Speaker 1: I feel pretty confident we will never ever have instantaneous
Speaker 1: teleportation of any kind, or at least as it seems
Speaker 1: to be depicted in movies and TV shows. You can't
Speaker 1: disappear in one place and appear in another place instantly
Speaker 1: because that violates relativity. It has you travel faster than
Speaker 1: the speed of light, and the speed of light as
Speaker 1: the universal speed limit. This applies whether you're taking the
Speaker 1: original atoms with you, which we seem to think was
Speaker 1: a pretty ridiculous concept, or not. Even if you're just
Speaker 1: translating your body into a information signal and then having
Speaker 1: a machine build it somewhere else, the transfer of that
Speaker 1: information is going to be limited by the speed of light.
Speaker 1: I just realized that if you sent all the actual atoms,
Speaker 1: you would be sending space jam. That's true. That makes
Speaker 1: Joe so happy, and it fills me with with gloom.
Speaker 1: You don't want to come on and slam. So one
Speaker 1: of the things we wanted to mention here is that
Speaker 1: that quantum teleportation, like we've already said, doesn't involve instantaneous
Speaker 1: transmission of information either. There's some there's some people who
Speaker 1: think that entanglement I think mistakenly believe that entanglement is
Speaker 1: able to give you some instant information across the galaxy.
Speaker 1: Because if you have two particles that are separated by
Speaker 1: an entire galaxy, and you observe one immediately know what
Speaker 1: the state of the other one was. That they say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: then that means you have transmitted information across a galaxy
Speaker 1: in no time. Therefore you go faster than the speed
Speaker 1: of light. That's not exactly true. You could argue that
Speaker 1: the entanglement is actually the basis of the information was
Speaker 1: h was created when the two particles were close to
Speaker 1: one another, and it's just now you know what that
Speaker 1: relationship was. It doesn't mean that the information traveled anywhere.
Speaker 1: And in fact, we wouldn't be able to use quantum
Speaker 1: entanglement to do instantaneous communication across an entire galaxy, let
Speaker 1: alone teleportation. So that is uh, that's a that's a
Speaker 1: non starter as far as that's concerned. And uh, it
Speaker 1: does mean that that we would still be limited by
Speaker 1: that speed of light. That's the if we had a
Speaker 1: way of breaking down an object into information and then
Speaker 1: beaming that information to some distant location, probably be using
Speaker 1: radio waves or something which travel at the speed of light. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's it. That's as fast as you could go. I
Speaker 1: could teleport to Mars in some number of minutes. Yeah,
Speaker 1: depending on how far apart Earth and Mars are at
Speaker 1: that time. Exactly. Yeah, although this all explains to me
Speaker 1: perfectly why Miles O'Brien always looked so bored hanging out
Speaker 1: in the teleporter room of the you know, Star Trek,
Speaker 1: the next generation, the Enterprise. He's just sitting there for
Speaker 1: days at a time waiting for people that I think, like, oh,
Speaker 1: curse the day we got that shuttle. Um. There there
Speaker 1: are some other limitations I think we should bring up.
Speaker 1: One of them is if you're talking about this process
Speaker 1: where you break down a body and just turn it
Speaker 1: completely into energy, and then zapped that across the Solar system. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that sounds super great. Why don't we do that? According
Speaker 1: to the Arizona State physicist Lawrence Krauss, who wrote a
Speaker 1: book called The Physics of Star Trek we referenced on
Speaker 1: this podcast before, when talking about replicators, he says that
Speaker 1: in order to quote de materialize a human body and
Speaker 1: turn it into energy, and I think he just means
Speaker 1: to like to break all the binding energy between all
Speaker 1: the atoms and your body, as if you were using
Speaker 1: your body as the payload of a nuclear bomb, it
Speaker 1: would release the energy of about a thousand, one hundred
Speaker 1: megaton nuclear weapon detonation. That sounds like a lot. The
Speaker 1: largest nuclear weapon ever tested, czar BOMBA, which was tested
Speaker 1: up in the you know that archipelago above Russia, had
Speaker 1: a fifty or fifty seven megaton yield. I've seen sources
Speaker 1: saying both. Some might just be rounding down to fifty.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but around a fifty megaton yield, And
Speaker 1: that's the largest weapon we've ever tested. So so double
Speaker 1: that and then a thousand of those. That's a lot
Speaker 1: of energy holding matter together as we as we've known
Speaker 1: from the consequences of relativity. Sure, humans have a lot
Speaker 1: of atoms. You know, some of us more than others.
Speaker 1: I put on a few this past weekend, for example. Uh,
Speaker 1: maybe teleporters could be like the weight loss plan. You
Speaker 1: get there and you do you have one fewer leg
Speaker 1: I lost several pounds on that last trip. Um. Well,
Speaker 1: there's also the let's say that somehow we managed to
Speaker 1: figure out the energy problem, like we we figured out
Speaker 1: how to convert physical items into that massive amount of
Speaker 1: energy and still managed to to handle it. Then we'd
Speaker 1: have to figure out how to reincorporate from energy back
Speaker 1: to matter. Right, so that's an issue. Now let's let's
Speaker 1: say that. Okay, let's say that that doesn't that's not
Speaker 1: the way we're gonna go. We're not going to convert
Speaker 1: a body into pure energy. Let's say in spend the
Speaker 1: planet every time gets old. Yeah, so so let'st's say
Speaker 1: instead we do the quantum entanglement version or the quantum
Speaker 1: teleportation version, just sending data. Yeah, so we already know
Speaker 1: human body represents a massive amount of energy. What about information? Well,
Speaker 1: I looked into this. Uh, this is one of those
Speaker 1: questions that I guess if you were to ask certain scientists,
Speaker 1: they look at you and don't you have something better
Speaker 1: to do? No, seriously, I asked this question, and I
Speaker 1: didn't know the answer. But Jonathan came up. I found
Speaker 1: and I found some people who tried to answer, how
Speaker 1: much data would it take in I don't know, kill
Speaker 1: a bites to represent all of the matter energy content
Speaker 1: in a human body. I'm not going to convert it
Speaker 1: to kill a bites because I don't have that kind
Speaker 1: of time. All right, Well, first of all, we don't know.
Speaker 1: That's the first thing is, we don't really know. We've
Speaker 1: we've never scanned the quantum state of every particle in
Speaker 1: a human body, which would be such a massive amount
Speaker 1: of information that's impossible to even guess at this point.
Speaker 1: But but what about a relatively simple conversion like like
Speaker 1: your like your DNA and the contents of your brain. Well, fortunately,
Speaker 1: some students at the University of Leicester made some of
Speaker 1: those assumptions for us on on our you know, they
Speaker 1: decided to take on that burden as a thought experiment.
Speaker 1: So they actually thought they would use DNA as the
Speaker 1: means of figuring out the amount of information that humans have.
Speaker 1: They made some assumptions. They assumed that the DNA found
Speaker 1: in any given cell would have all the information needed
Speaker 1: to replicate all the cells in the body, which technically simplification.
Speaker 1: But yeah, so and then they decided, all right, we
Speaker 1: also need to figure out what is the equivalent to
Speaker 1: the amount of information that would be encapsulated in the
Speaker 1: typical human brain. Hold on, hold on, hold on. So
Speaker 1: this sounds to me less like teleportation and more like
Speaker 1: beaming instructions on how to clone you and re teach
Speaker 1: you everything you've ever learned. That's about as close as
Speaker 1: I can get, you know. But they were trying to
Speaker 1: figure out like, how could they potentially make this happen?
Speaker 1: So they their calculations, however, unfortunately, don't make it any
Speaker 1: more likely. Like you, you might think, well, that's not
Speaker 1: the same as teleporting, but I know that another me
Speaker 1: will be at the destination and therefore we'll be able
Speaker 1: to do whatever needs to get done. Hang onto your horses, folks,
Speaker 1: because you don't have that kind of time, trust me.
Speaker 1: Their calculations came to two point six times ten to
Speaker 1: the forty second power in bits, ten to the forty
Speaker 1: two is a rather large number. If that's a trade
Speaker 1: to sillion, that's two point six trade to sillion bits,
Speaker 1: which is three twenty five duo to sillion bites. What
Speaker 1: hold on? Somebody's just coming up with names for numbers
Speaker 1: like ten to the power. Oh yeah, oh yeah. There's
Speaker 1: no prefix for that number of bites, however, because our
Speaker 1: prefixes for naming large numbers of bites stops at ten
Speaker 1: to the eighteen, which is a YadA bite or Yoda bite,
Speaker 1: as we have previously discussed on the show. And I
Speaker 1: think settled on Yoda because because like, alright, I'm more
Speaker 1: of a YadA fan. But yes, I do or do
Speaker 1: not there is and and for general reference, because this
Speaker 1: is a truly unimaginable amount of data that we're talking
Speaker 1: about the last time we talked about big data in
Speaker 1: depth way back, I think in humanity was creating a
Speaker 1: mirror two point five exhibites of data every day. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so that means a human being is represents more information
Speaker 1: than the amount of information all human beings are creating
Speaker 1: every single day. Yeah, that's a lot. That's a lot
Speaker 1: of info. But you know, there is another problem with
Speaker 1: the speed of transmission. That's not just the speed the
Speaker 1: information travel. Right, So let's say that you're talking. You know,
Speaker 1: you've already resigned yourself that this approach is going to
Speaker 1: rely upon transmitting the information over the speed of light.
Speaker 1: And uh that that the destination you're aiming as a
Speaker 1: hundred light years away. So you're already you already resigned
Speaker 1: to the fact that's going to take a hundred years
Speaker 1: for it to get there. You really don't even know
Speaker 1: the beginning of this because there's also the issue of
Speaker 1: bandwidth or throughput. Right, information gets to your fifty six
Speaker 1: K modem pretty quick, yeah, but the mode, the modum
Speaker 1: itself has to process the information, and it has a
Speaker 1: limit to the amount of information can transmit or receive
Speaker 1: at any given time. So let's say that you have
Speaker 1: a device with a bandwidth of around thirty giga hurts
Speaker 1: and you use that to transmit this massive amount of data.
Speaker 1: That would mean that you would need to take four
Speaker 1: point eight five times ten to the fifteen power years
Speaker 1: to transmit one human being worth of data using this
Speaker 1: thirty giga hurt system that, by the way, is longer
Speaker 1: than the age of the universe. Well, so we need
Speaker 1: to work on our modems, is what we're saying. Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: that that needs to that needs to be fixed to
Speaker 1: sweet And of course, like we said, this was just
Speaker 1: using d n A as the means of the the
Speaker 1: information you would send. If you were to actually do
Speaker 1: the quantum states, it would be monumentally more information that
Speaker 1: you would have to transmit, and I don't know how
Speaker 1: you would do it, but at any rate, it would
Speaker 1: be one of those things where you might actually make
Speaker 1: the determination that taking a physical spaceship would mean you
Speaker 1: would use less time getting from point A to point
Speaker 1: B than teleprotation, which it's not kind of defeats the
Speaker 1: purpose really, aside from making it cooler. Yeah, right, it
Speaker 1: could you know, it does sound kind of like a
Speaker 1: Futurama kind of thing, right, where people use a technology
Speaker 1: mainly because it's cool, but not it's totally impractical. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense. But that doesn't really matter. So
Speaker 1: the other question we had, the other big roadblock is
Speaker 1: assuming that you have a version of teleprotation that does
Speaker 1: break down the original, doesn't that mean the original ain't
Speaker 1: around anymore? You know? Yeah. The first thing I thought
Speaker 1: about when we decided we were going to do this
Speaker 1: episode topic was I can't wait to talk about how
Speaker 1: every time you teleport yourself, you make a copy of
Speaker 1: yourself that lives in your house and eats the food
Speaker 1: in your refrigerator and sleeps in a bed with your
Speaker 1: spouse and doesn't realize you are dead. Yeah, it's not
Speaker 1: it's not you. It's not you. Yeah. That The philosophical
Speaker 1: discu and that comes into this is that a teleprotation is,
Speaker 1: as I O. Nine once called it, a suicide machine
Speaker 1: that you would go in. If you use it for
Speaker 1: a living thing, that living thing gets broken down. Therefore
Speaker 1: it goes from living to not living anymore status, and
Speaker 1: then a copy of that thing is reassembled, perhaps even
Speaker 1: with the same memories and emotions, and so the copy
Speaker 1: of you might be unaware that the original you die,
Speaker 1: which is a strange thought. There could be a copy
Speaker 1: of you that, for all you know, has experienced continuous
Speaker 1: consciousness and that it's doing for what appears to be
Speaker 1: continuous well simulation of such. It only be technically aware
Speaker 1: that You that itself had died. Prodhounds get really tricky
Speaker 1: in this. I mean, if if it knows how, if
Speaker 1: it knows how teleprotation works, then it would be aware
Speaker 1: that the version that stepped into the teleporter back at
Speaker 1: point A is not technically the same one that stepped
Speaker 1: out at point although the one that's at Point B
Speaker 1: still has all the memories and experiences of Point A.
Speaker 1: I have a question, have y'all ever seen a Star
Speaker 1: Trek episode, If there is one, I'm not aware of it,
Speaker 1: where they deal with this. Bones would not take a
Speaker 1: teleporter because this was his argument. His argument was that, well,
Speaker 1: two things. One that teleports teleporters sometimes you have a
Speaker 1: hand growing out of your stomach or something. Uh. And
Speaker 1: then the other reason was that he essentially said no,
Speaker 1: it just breaks you down. And then a copy of
Speaker 1: you is remade. So you know, the copy of you
Speaker 1: is unaware that the you know it doesn't have an
Speaker 1: experience of not existing anymore. But the version of you
Speaker 1: that was you, that that's not, That part's over, that
Speaker 1: part's dead. Can you imagine just living in a world
Speaker 1: where people accept to this. You just accept the fact
Speaker 1: that you are going to die when you get into
Speaker 1: the transporter, but a perfect copy of you will be
Speaker 1: able to go about your business. For you, I cannot
Speaker 1: like for me. It's hard to imagine. I wrote in
Speaker 1: our notes, I said, if I know me, the copy
Speaker 1: me will be both sad and a little smug about
Speaker 1: the whole thing. But but Mimi wouldn't care at all,
Speaker 1: because I'd be dead. So here's another complication. Okay. Star
Speaker 1: Trek often shows beaming to a place where there's no
Speaker 1: receiving technology, just beams you down to a jungle of
Speaker 1: potted plants somewhere on the surface of a planet. Right,
Speaker 1: some some vaguely red colored hills in the back. YEA, yeah,
Speaker 1: beam into a sound stage at Burbank, California, but there's
Speaker 1: no transporter receiver. It just beams you down, right. I
Speaker 1: thought that was an advancement in transporter technology. I believe
Speaker 1: that didn't happen until CIRCUA next generation. No, it happened
Speaker 1: because it would beam down to the surface of planets.
Speaker 1: Oh that's right, that's right. Now they could, but but
Speaker 1: for for tricky situations, for like larger loads or something,
Speaker 1: they had to set up the little triangulation. Well, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: they did have to do they'd have to do that
Speaker 1: for some of them. Yeah, in the original series, you're right,
Speaker 1: and by the time they got to the movies that
Speaker 1: was no longer. They were ignoring that anyway, even in
Speaker 1: original series. But but yeah, you are correct in that.
Speaker 1: I think they were trying to plan for that early
Speaker 1: in original series, but at any rate, they eventually abandon it.
Speaker 1: They could also remotely beam you up, so you wouldn't
Speaker 1: have to be in the transporter to get beamed up
Speaker 1: to the ship. They just have to get a lock
Speaker 1: on you. Sometimes the teller, the transport operator would have
Speaker 1: to press like a lot of buttons, like really furious,
Speaker 1: which is weird, right, because there are certain times where
Speaker 1: someone will walk up to a panel and they will
Speaker 1: pull up something that seems really random, like I don't
Speaker 1: know the text to Midsummer Night's Dream and they do
Speaker 1: it with the push of one button on the bridge,
Speaker 1: like there's a button on the bridge dedicated to Midsummer
Speaker 1: Night's Dream. But if you would lock onto somebody, you're
Speaker 1: typing for a good twenty seconds. Captain Picard has shortcut
Speaker 1: needs in macros all seconds. I imagine what they're doing
Speaker 1: with the buttons on the when they're trying to lock
Speaker 1: onto someone on the planet is furiously emailing tech support.
Speaker 1: I want to see. I know this is a tangent,
Speaker 1: but I want to see a version of Star Trek
Speaker 1: where they completely abandon all touch interfaces and it's all
Speaker 1: voice recognition. But the voice recognition is just slightly off,
Speaker 1: so we always have to keep repeating what it is
Speaker 1: they want in order to get it to do. Shields up,
Speaker 1: Like here, here's your breakfast. No, I said shields up
Speaker 1: like that would be great. I would love to see that. Well.
Speaker 1: At any rate, this seems like a very obvious problem.
Speaker 1: In addition to all of the other things we've said
Speaker 1: so far. If you're starting to get the impression that
Speaker 1: teleportation is likely impossible, you're probably right. But here's the
Speaker 1: other thing. If it's possible at all, it seems like
Speaker 1: you would definitely have to have machines at both ends, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you have to have a place to send that that
Speaker 1: communication too that can receive that information and then reassemble.
Speaker 1: We don't have a magic way of being able to
Speaker 1: create a space in a remote location that can reassemble
Speaker 1: something spontaneously. You would have to have some other means
Speaker 1: to do that. So I can't imagine a technology that
Speaker 1: would allow us to do that without some receiver. And
Speaker 1: even with a receiver, I can't really imagine technology capable
Speaker 1: of doing it. Yeah, because it's not only a receiver,
Speaker 1: but like a molecular three D printer. Yeah. Yeah, And
Speaker 1: you know, we actually have talked about replicators before, which
Speaker 1: are very much related to transporters in the Star Trek lore,
Speaker 1: and I think I think, I don't think replicators are likely,
Speaker 1: but I think they're more likely than teleporters. I don't
Speaker 1: think that replicators are in any way close to being
Speaker 1: a real thing, at least not for a general replicator
Speaker 1: that can make anything we've got. We've got certain certain
Speaker 1: substances that we can create a kind of an automatic
Speaker 1: system to generate a whole bunch of it. But you know,
Speaker 1: we can have like self assemblers for things like polymer chains.
Speaker 1: But that's a lot different than all right, I've got
Speaker 1: a chain of polymers than I've got a table or
Speaker 1: a person. When what you're really talking about, I think
Speaker 1: is just further miniaturization of three D printing. Yeah, like that,
Speaker 1: what is the smallest part you can print with your
Speaker 1: three D prints? So instead of printing in a material
Speaker 1: like plastic, you would be printing in individual atoms or molecules,
Speaker 1: which would then be assembled on that layer and then
Speaker 1: put into the right configuration to make whatever it was
Speaker 1: he wanted to make. Right, because we can. We're working
Speaker 1: on technology to be able to three D print organs
Speaker 1: and skin and stuff like that. Not that skin is
Speaker 1: not an organ, but but that's a lot different than
Speaker 1: putting together mirror atoms. Yeah, compared to atoms, those cellular
Speaker 1: materials that we're printing when we make three D printed
Speaker 1: organs are gigantic. Yes, I am very skeptical about the
Speaker 1: idea of molecular assemblers and atoms. I think to as
Speaker 1: of some of the some of the things that have
Speaker 1: been pointed out about this, or once you get down
Speaker 1: on that scale, you enter you leave the realm of
Speaker 1: mechanical action, and you enter the realm of chemistry where
Speaker 1: when you're trying to place molecules and atoms, you're you're
Speaker 1: having to form and break chemical bonds to move them
Speaker 1: and put them in places, and so like, how do
Speaker 1: you pick up a molecule, get it to stick to
Speaker 1: your finger and then put it somewhere and get it
Speaker 1: to stay there? Yeah, and then you know when I
Speaker 1: did ah, I did an article. I wrote an article
Speaker 1: for How Stuff Works years ago about nano robots, and
Speaker 1: even as I was writing it, most of the robots
Speaker 1: I was looking at were really micro robots because obviously nano.
Speaker 1: Getting something to the nano size and having it be
Speaker 1: you know, having having it have sufficient moving parts to
Speaker 1: really call it a robot is something that we're not
Speaker 1: really able to do yet. And in order for us
Speaker 1: to have a molecular assembler that would actually be able
Speaker 1: to just put together whatever it was you wanted, um,
Speaker 1: it would be incredibly difficult to create such a sophisticated
Speaker 1: tiny device. I'm not saying that's going to always be impossible.
Speaker 1: It maybe that one day we get to a level
Speaker 1: sophistication where we can do that, but it's gonna take
Speaker 1: a lot of time. And this is one of the
Speaker 1: reasons why, you know, people have have submitted the gray
Speaker 1: Goose scenario as a disaster scenario. The idea that these
Speaker 1: replicators would just start converting everything into the base units
Speaker 1: that they would use to make stuff out of that
Speaker 1: seems pretty unlikely, seeing how far away we are from
Speaker 1: anything that would be capable of doing that in the
Speaker 1: first place. So it's almost like, yeah, it feels like
Speaker 1: you're you like, if you want to be worried about
Speaker 1: some sort of existential crisis, perhaps an asteroid collision with
Speaker 1: the Earth would be more appropriate, or even or yeah,
Speaker 1: things that are things that are not only possible but
Speaker 1: will happen. Right, So both of those things are happening,
Speaker 1: what climate change is happening, and the Earth will at
Speaker 1: some point be hit by an asteroid, just a question
Speaker 1: of time. Yeah, I I would hazard that at the
Speaker 1: scale that we're going, like a tornado full of sharks
Speaker 1: is more president to worry about. Someone should make a
Speaker 1: trilogy of movies about that. Yeah, I agree with you
Speaker 1: about the the molecular and atomic level precision engineering and
Speaker 1: the molecular symbolers and everything that that seems very far
Speaker 1: off to me, and for the same reasons pretty much
Speaker 1: and more. The teleportation Adam by Adam reassembly idea seems
Speaker 1: pretty just off the map in terms of possibilities. But
Speaker 1: I can see something that could approximate teleportation. Probably not
Speaker 1: for living organisms, because again it would probably kill you,
Speaker 1: but for inanimate objects. I could see something that is
Speaker 1: able to look at inanimate objects and break them, not
Speaker 1: down to an atomic level, but say, Okay, here's a
Speaker 1: chain of polymers that I can recognize as a chain
Speaker 1: of polymers, and that's easy to reproduce. Here's a piece
Speaker 1: of organic material of ex kind that we've got sitting
Speaker 1: in the hopper at the destination location. Here's a piece
Speaker 1: of metal that we've got sitting in the hopper, and
Speaker 1: so you've essentially got very fine precision three D printing.
Speaker 1: So you're thinking about like teleporting a leather chair. Sure,
Speaker 1: that's what I'm hearing. Yeah, yeah, so you you would
Speaker 1: be able to have it break, not atom by atom,
Speaker 1: but but at a larger scale. Sain. Okay, here's the
Speaker 1: here's a basic type of object we've seen before that's
Speaker 1: very tiny, and we can reproduce a fiber like this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so again it would be more of an additive manufacturing
Speaker 1: three D printing style where you just figure out what
Speaker 1: the the ingredients and the orientation of all these different
Speaker 1: elements are in relation to one another, send that information
Speaker 1: off to the destination and it builds that if you
Speaker 1: can scan something well enough, and then you can hypothetically yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean the scanning I think would still present a problem.
Speaker 1: You you would have to be able to look at
Speaker 1: an object and and recognize large enough scale structures that
Speaker 1: wouldn't have to do this atom by atom breakdown that
Speaker 1: we've pointed out the impossibility spectroscope. Yeah, you do something
Speaker 1: like that, I would imagine. Yeah, and even then, even
Speaker 1: then you're talking about communication, right, You're still it's still
Speaker 1: the limit of the speed of light, and I would
Speaker 1: think it would still be easier to to just be like, hey, Bob,
Speaker 1: this is how you build a chair, right right exactly,
Speaker 1: I'll send you some raw materials. Yeah, yeah, I think,
Speaker 1: um or hell, we'll send you a chair. This is
Speaker 1: a thing that comes up there. I'm currently reading Dune
Speaker 1: for the first time, and there's there's a scene in
Speaker 1: Dune where they're walking around their new palace on you know,
Speaker 1: on do on the planet Iraqus and and I believe
Speaker 1: Lady Jessica is commenting on the wood in which obviously
Speaker 1: is not native to the planet, So somebody had to
Speaker 1: ship in wood to the planet Iracus. And that's just ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Transporting would across space and time. Yeah, I don't know
Speaker 1: when you factor in how how expensive it is to
Speaker 1: get stuff into space and how much work it takes. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's yeah, I totally you know understand, it is fun
Speaker 1: to talk about this kind of stuff because you know,
Speaker 1: it's just it's that speculative science fiction that draws us
Speaker 1: to this this sort of stuff. Yeah, it's a bummer
Speaker 1: to kind of say, like, all right, well, this particular
Speaker 1: implementation looks, if not impossible, certainly very implausible to the
Speaker 1: point where there would be no reason to to pursue it.
Speaker 1: But um, it was fun to to look into that
Speaker 1: and to see how people had tried to uh put
Speaker 1: quantitative values to stuff like the amount of energy contained
Speaker 1: in the human or how much data a human represents.
Speaker 1: So if you guys have suggestions for future topics, whether
Speaker 1: they are science fiction related or otherwise, I recommend you
Speaker 1: right in. Our email address is f W Thinking at
Speaker 1: how Stuff Works dot Com, or you can drop us
Speaker 1: a line on Twitter or Google Plus or Facebook. Twitter
Speaker 1: and Google Plus we are FW thinking. Just search FW
Speaker 1: thinking and Facebook and we'll pop right up. You can
Speaker 1: leave us a message. We read all of them. We
Speaker 1: really enjoy the stuff you guys have been sending us.
Speaker 1: Keep it up and we'll talk to you against really soon.
Speaker 1: For more on this topic and the future of technology.
Speaker 1: This is forward sinking dot Com, brought to you by Toyota.
Speaker 1: Let's Go Places,