1. Post #41
    Hi.
    reevezy67's Avatar
    July 2011
    4,259 Posts
    No, the point is that it's not ending your current consciousness. When you get knocked out and wake back up, do you feel bad because it's like the last line of consciousness died? No, you're the same person.

    That's like someone saying that your current consciousness ceases when you walk through a door. You can walk through a door and you still feel the same, and even if it did end, you can't tell, you're you. The first guy to go through a teleporter would have the same experience. He'd go through, come back and be like "yeah, worked great, I just got teleported. Sweet." It doesn't matter if your line of consciousness ends. Start living like it ends every second and you should no longer care about "willingly ending your current line of consciousness." That's a really stupid, like, moral thing to worry about. Hell, it isn't even really a moral dilemma, it doesn't change anything.
    If it's killing you and making a clone you are technically dead there is just another one of you that is identical in every way.

  2. Post #42
    provides mlp plot free of charge
    Oicani Gonzales's Avatar
    February 2011
    17,359 Posts
    I read an article saying that there were still some parts of consciousness that we have not found links for in biochemistry in the brain, so that even a perfectly identical brain would not actually be the exact same brain as the original. that means that when transported, whatever came out of the other end wouldn't actually be you
    but then we're going away from science and into spirituality

    if a teleportation system where they rebuild a perfect clone of yourself existed, it'd be just like you, think like you, have your memories and for it, no time'd have passed, but it's not you. you'd have died, and you wouldn't even feel or know it (because hey youre dead)

    the only person that'd care is yourself, because for everyone else for all intents and purposes it's the same person

  3. Post #43
    Gold Member
    bIgFaTwOrM12's Avatar
    October 2010
    1,425 Posts
    What's to say that your heart would start beating again after being teleported? Even with defibrillators don't they still need there to be at least some sort of heart beat to?

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member
    wizard`'s Avatar
    August 2009
    932 Posts
    Laser swords are possible theoretically, right now we just can't provide the energy, pretty sure teleporting certain things works already, being able to teleport actual things is unclear at the moment.
    We managed to "Teleport" the quantum state of an atom. A little way to go.

  5. Post #45
    Sickle's Avatar
    November 2009
    6,600 Posts
    No, the point is that it's not ending your current consciousness. When you get knocked out and wake back up, do you feel bad because it's like the last line of consciousness died? No, you're the same person.
    When you go to sleep, your atoms aren't torn apart.

  6. Post #46
    Gold Member
    Croix's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,739 Posts
    but then we're going away from science and into spirituality

    if a teleportation system where they rebuild a perfect clone of yourself existed, it'd be just like you, think like you, have your memories and for it, no time'd have passed, but it's not you. you'd have died, and you wouldn't even feel or know it (because hey youre dead)

    the only person that'd care is yourself, because for everyone else for all intents and purposes it's the same person
    Yeah well who the fuck would use the teleport then?

    "Oh yeah Billie you'll die from using it, but nobody else gives a shit so it's okay"

  7. Post #47

    December 2011
    123 Posts
    If you have played Eve Online you would know the strange feeling of being cloned then destroyed. At the very start of the game the station AI says "Your previous body has been euthanised with no complications".
    When I heard that I felt uneasy. It was a bad feeling playing as a clone of someone who had voluntarily died.

    I think the only humane way of using a teleporter is to be concious at all times.

  8. Post #48
    The Silent Rater
    Timenova's Avatar
    November 2009
    3,266 Posts
    It might be useful for the transportation of inanimate objects, but I don't think its worth running the risk on living beings.

  9. Post #49
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    February 2007
    13,126 Posts
    Teleporters as a concept is basically "instant cloning from a scan and disintegration of the original".
    The "data" the teleporter would use to assemble you would not be your broken down body, it would be the scanned information telling the destination cloning machine how to create a perfect clone of you.

    The clone would think it has been "teleported". It would remember standing at the other side of the scanner, and now it suddenly stands on the cloner. This person will act, look, talk, and feel like you, it will think it is you, and it will never know that the real him died on the other side. The person who goes in the scanner to be "teleported" dies, but nobody will know he is dead because a perfect clone was created of him.

  10. Post #50
    Thoughtless's Avatar
    September 2011
    689 Posts
    Yup, this pretty much.

    I think the only way of teleporting without suicide is things like wormholes, and warping space. But that requires even more energy I would imagine, if it's even possible.
    It requires infinite energy needed to create exotic matter with negative mass.

    Teleportation has already been done, not on humans but on sub atomic particles, but it would take a few times the age of the universe to teleport a human at the moment using current technology. Knowing how fast technology progresses, we should be able to do it in the future but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

  11. Post #51
    Gold Member
    Arachnidus's Avatar
    July 2007
    7,544 Posts
    I would say in the current imagining of teleporters, they would be possible but implausible. Like you could teleport small things that aren't alive, but I would imagine that with the way teleporters might work, they would basically be killing someone and then rebuilding them in another location.

    I have a problem with the being killed and cloned thing, because esentially it means it's not you anymore. Everyone else thinks its you, but you are dead and this is just a guy who is exactly like you.
    This. I think that, given enough time, we'll definitely figure it out, but it's not transportation so much as replication.

  12. Post #52
    Shadowwalker's Avatar
    November 2010
    1,162 Posts
    I think that anything is possible, We just need to find a way to do it.

  13. Post #53
    Gold Member
    CB1993's Avatar
    July 2010
    207 Posts
    This thread made me rethink my idea about teleportation.

    ...I think I'll take a plane, or a spaceship.

  14. Post #54
    Gold Member
    SuedeSalmon's Avatar
    June 2011
    306 Posts
    What if instead of breaking you apart and reconstructing you, the "Teleporter" moves your atoms through space and around other particles. So it stretches you out as if the calcium in your bones moves around the oxygen atoms.

  15. Post #55
    rovar's Avatar
    November 2009
    3,667 Posts
    Just like the other thread that asks if an exact copy of you is create while you are killed, are you actually dead?

    And I think that if you were to be killed and reconstructed in a different spot, you can be considered dead, and the new replica will be a different entity in your image. Everything will seem the same, but you will take consciousness in an otherwise different body.

    If you go to a religious sense, it is not possible due to your spirit supposedly leaving your body after death. Meaning, being reconstructed is not possible as a spiritual trip is needed from "birth" (In some cases) and if you cannot achieve that as you have skipped that stage, you are dead spiritually and therefore, cannot live in the new body.

    So theoretically speaking, it is possible to an extent in my opinion.

  16. Post #56
    Gold Member
    Catdaemon's Avatar
    February 2005
    2,821 Posts
    Humanity doesn't have the knowledge to this question. It comes in two parts:

    a) If you are disassembled and recreated, will you still function in the same way?
    b) Is the transfer technology actually possible?

    To A I would say yes, we are simply machines and with sufficient understanding of ourselves we will discover this to be true. To B I would also say yes, because if it isn't that is most disappointing and we will also never have interstellar travel.

  17. Post #57
    Gold Member
    aVoN's Avatar
    December 2005
    2,880 Posts
    It is possible, hell low mass teleporters have already been made, it's just that they require so much fucking energy that it's impractical as fuck.
    No, so far we were only able to transport a quantum state from one atom to another (quantum teleportation). No matter has been transported, it already existed. And there was not an energy limitation. Anyway, this concept is not applicable to bigger entities since you need a controlled environment to do this (atoms separated from each other and outer influences in a vacuum).

  18. Post #58
    kenshin6's Avatar
    December 2011
    1,636 Posts
    I figure beaming/transporting technology in the future will be similar to what we have now. Actually, you could say that it already exists. Think of the internet, it is constantly transporting massive amounts of data across the world. Or maybe think about satellites. "Light" waves are beaming to and from them to give us internet, communications, or television shows.

    Transporting something with actual substance may be possible in the future when we figure out how to, say, turn a solid rock into raw data in 1 location, and rebuild it using that same data in another location.

  19. Post #59
    Gold Member
    Splarg!'s Avatar
    September 2005
    2,404 Posts
    No, the point is that it's not ending your current consciousness. When you get knocked out and wake back up, do you feel bad because it's like the last line of consciousness died? No, you're the same person.
    Yes, it is. Let's say you went through normally but the first you wasn't destroyed at the origin. Would you suddenly experience both bodies?

  20. Post #60
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    Teleportation is possible. It exists. It happens on atomic levels.
    Naturally it becomes much more difficult the more complex the molecule is.
    The laws of physics even allow the teleporting of an entire human being but
    we probably won't be able to do that for a long time.
    Yes, it is. Let's say you went through normally but the first you wasn't destroyed at the origin. Would you suddenly experience both bodies?
    Holy shit... you're fucking with my mind right now!

  21. Post #61
    Why so Sirius?
    SIRIUS's Avatar
    April 2009
    1,764 Posts
    hmmm...wormholes?

  22. Post #62
    Gold Member
    TheDecryptor's Avatar
    September 2006
    4,083 Posts
    Yes, it is. Let's say you went through normally but the first you wasn't destroyed at the origin. Would you suddenly experience both bodies?
    I don't see why, the brains aren't linked in any way.

    Of course, if it turned out they were that would be an amazing discovery.

  23. Post #63
    Gold Member
    aVoN's Avatar
    December 2005
    2,880 Posts
    I figure beaming/transporting technology in the future will be similar to what we have now. Actually, you could say that it already exists. Think of the internet, it is constantly transporting massive amounts of data across the world. Or maybe think about satellites. "Light" waves are beaming to and from them to give us internet, communications, or television shows.

    Transporting something with actual substance may be possible in the future when we figure out how to, say, turn a solid rock into raw data in 1 location, and rebuild it using that same data in another location.
    I really doubt you will ever be able to transport just the data of even just 1 g of matter from point a to b.
    1 g lets say Carbon roughly contains 10^22 atoms. Every atom contains the data 3 coordinates (position) and 3 angles (orientation). Every single atom has 6 protons and 6 neutrons which also have a certain alignment and position. Then same for the 12 electrons. Now we just forgot about the quantum numbers (QN) which are main QN n, angular momentum QN l, spin s (just to keep it simple, so we wont take the magnetic m_l/m_j quantum numbers or mixtures of l and s to j) for the electrons. Similar (to keep it simple) accounts for the protons and neutrons.
    Lets say, every of those numbers needs 1 byte (which is far too less for the required precision but it's just an example). Then every atom needs 6*(12+12+1) + 3*(12+12) = 222 bytes.
    So one gram needs 2*10^24 bytes = 2 yotta bytes "disk space".
    Lets now transform this number into something you might be more familiar with. 2,220,000,000,000 Tera Bytes.
    Now lets assume you want to transport this via light. The data can only be sent with a lower rate than the frequency used for transport. For light, we have around 100 Tera Hertz. Modulation of the light (to imprint the data) must be lower than the carrier frequency (100 Tera Hertz) so lets say 50 THz. So you can send 50 TBit/s = 6.25 TByte/s.
    Lets assume you can do this on two perpendicular polarisations of the light and do this via frequency and amplitude modulation -> You gain a factor of 4: 25 TByte/s. Lets say, we use 10000 Channels simultaneously: 250,000 TByte/s.
    This would mean, for 1 g of data transported by light at the physical limits (which we are not able yet to reach technically) we need 8,800,000 seconds = 0,2829 years. This was just for transporting the data at physical limits with enormous channel parallelization.

    Now there is still the question how to read out the data non destructively and beat the quantum uncertainty limitiations...

  24. Post #64

    April 2012
    1 Posts
    From a physics point of view molecular transport of this form would ONLY work if the object is inanimate. The reason for this is simple. A glass of water for example does not move, if you took a picture of it, then took a second picture of it an hour later the glass and the water inside would still be the same (assuming none of the water evaporated). For matter transportation to work the device would have to save the state of the object it was deconstructing. For an inanimate object this would be easy since the molecular structure could be analyzed then duplicated. However we humans, and all living things for that matter are in a constant state of flux. Right now as you are reading this blood is pumping throughout your body, you're eyes are rapidly blinking, your body is in constant motion. For this to work the machine that is deconstructing us would have to take every differential part of us and make note of the rate of change. If even one changing thing in our body is not reproduce on the exact scale it was before then the whole thing falls apart and the person dies upon reconstruction.

    I am willing to bet that someday we will be able to scan the molecular structure of an inanimate object in 3D and be able to convert it directly to energy then reassemble it. But as for moving things, its not as likely. As for the comments on the "soul" that has nothing to do with it. There are constant electrical impulses in your brain that cause your behavior. Neural networks are already beginning to be understand, "consciousness" is is more of a series of electrical impulses and can be reproduced. Even things like memories are encoded in electrical signals much like a computer. As we approach the age of quantum computers we will be able to manipulate more of human memory and experience.

  25. Post #65
    I read an article saying that there were still some parts of consciousness that we have not found links for in biochemistry in the brain,
    "Have not found links for in biochemistry in the brain" =/= brain is controlled by ghosts

  26. Post #66
    Gold Member
    aVoN's Avatar
    December 2005
    2,880 Posts
    *snip*

  27. Post #67

    September 2007
    398 Posts
    *Looks at thread content*

    *See's no math or science*

    *Walks away*

    You're a bunch of idea guys. Keep speculating with your pseudo-science.

    (User was banned for this post ("This is not how you post in Mass Debate. Read the rules the next time you come here." - Swebonny))

  28. Post #68
    *Looks at thread content*

    *See's no math or science*

    *Walks away*

    You're a bunch of idea guys. Keep speculating with your pseudo-science.
    I cannot imagine this post being much more arrogant, especially considering myself and the poster above yours are undergraduate and graduate physics students respectively. If you're not seeing any science or math in this post


    I really doubt you will ever be able to transport just the data of even just 1 g of matter from point a to b.
    1 g lets say Carbon roughly contains 10^22 atoms. Every atom contains the data 3 coordinates (position) and 3 angles (orientation). Every single atom has 6 protons and 6 neutrons which also have a certain alignment and position. Then same for the 12 electrons. Now we just forgot about the quantum numbers (QN) which are main QN n, angular momentum QN l, spin s (just to keep it simple, so we wont take the magnetic m_l/m_j quantum numbers or mixtures of l and s to j) for the electrons. Similar (to keep it simple) accounts for the protons and neutrons.
    Lets say, every of those numbers needs 1 byte (which is far too less for the required precision but it's just an example). Then every atom needs 6*(12+12+1) + 3*(12+12) = 222 bytes.
    So one gram needs 2*10^24 bytes = 2 yotta bytes "disk space".
    Lets now transform this number into something you might be more familiar with. 2,220,000,000,000 Tera Bytes.
    Now lets assume you want to transport this via light. The data can only be sent with a lower rate than the frequency used for transport. For light, we have around 100 Tera Hertz. Modulation of the light (to imprint the data) must be lower than the carrier frequency (100 Tera Hertz) so lets say 50 THz. So you can send 50 TBit/s = 6.25 TByte/s.
    Lets assume you can do this on two perpendicular polarisations of the light and do this via frequency and amplitude modulation -> You gain a factor of 4: 25 TByte/s. Lets say, we use 10000 Channels simultaneously: 250,000 TByte/s.
    This would mean, for 1 g of data transported by light at the physical limits (which we are not able yet to reach technically) we need 8,800,000 seconds = 0,2829 years. This was just for transporting the data at physical limits with enormous channel parallelization.

    Now there is still the question how to read out the data non destructively and beat the quantum uncertainty limitiations...
    you need new glasses.

  29. Post #69
    Gold Member
    Maucer's Avatar
    August 2007
    2,310 Posts
    Why are you making threads out of things that aren't a matter of opinions. Our current science does not know whether it's possible. There's nothing to debate of.

    As far as I know current "laws" of quantium mechanics don't allow beaming. It has to do with the fact that you cannot measure a particles state without manipulating it. And to "beam" you need to measure the particle first. I don't really remember that much so maybe someone wiser can correct me.

  30. Post #70
    Gold Member
    Robbobin's Avatar
    June 2007
    8,026 Posts
    Why are you making threads out of things that aren't a matter of opinions. Our current science does not know whether it's possible. There's nothing to debate of.

    As far as I know current "laws" of quantium mechanics don't allow beaming. It has to do with the fact that you cannot measure a particles state without manipulating it. And to "beam" you need to measure the particle first. I don't really remember that much so maybe someone wiser can correct me.
    Since when has debate been restricted to the domain of opinion? This is intended to be a debate for the theoretical limits of imagined possible future technology, not mere speculation about our current human capabilities. The interesting questions the debate asks are metaphysical, not practical or technological.

  31. Post #71
    Gold Member
    zombini's Avatar
    November 2010
    4,320 Posts
    lots of science
    I remember hearing that this would be possible by transmitting the data through x-rays to satellite relays that would allow reconstruction at any base station. Actually reading the physical object and converting it to data would be a different story though.

  32. Post #72
    Gold Member
    Madman_Andre's Avatar
    November 2007
    7,239 Posts
    A transporter is a fictional teleportation machine used in the Star Trek universe. Transporters convert a person or object into an energy pattern (a process called dematerialization), then "beam" it to a target, where it is reconverted into matter (rematerialization) (from Wikipedia)



    Does anyone think that transporter technology is actually possible?

    In my opinion, beaming a person from site A to site B would kill the person at site a and creating a completely new person at point B. This means that each time a person uses a transporter, they would be 'killed' and a 'clone' of them would appear at their destination. Secondly, the amount of power and information required to reconstruct the matter of a person would be so massive, that no power source nor storage device would be able to complete the task, either in the present or future.
    I prefer to think of it as there's nothing in our current understanding of science outright prohibiting Star Trek-esque transporters, but the outright unfathomable amounts of energy such a device or devices would actually need might as well make it impossible.

    So, plausible? Yes. Practical? No. Will we see them before our sun explodes? probably not.

  33. Post #73
    Gold Member
    Eltro102's Avatar
    February 2008
    10,842 Posts
    what, in 5,000,000,000 years we will not have engineered some way to make perfect clones of ourselves?
    (~5 billion years is the remaining lifetime of our sun)

  34. Post #74
    Gold Member
    reedbo's Avatar
    July 2005
    2,430 Posts
    I prefer to think of it as there's nothing in our current understanding of science outright prohibiting Star Trek-esque transporters, but the outright unfathomable amounts of energy such a device or devices would actually need might as well make it impossible.

    So, plausible? Yes. Practical? No. Will we see them before our sun explodes? probably not.
    Science and technology that is shown to someone with no knowledge about such things is comparable to magic. All it takes is one person to figure out something and our entire concept of science could change.

  35. Post #75
    Gold Member
    Eltro102's Avatar
    February 2008
    10,842 Posts
    The world is heading towards a paragram shift anyway, kinda like what reedbo is saying. Our current theories are a patchwork mess and we need someone like Copernicus to see the obvious.

    Edited:

    intelligent stuff
    not only that but you would have to send with infinite precision the exact deformation of spacetime in that area, which is impossible

  36. Post #76
    tristanguy2's Avatar
    July 2009
    679 Posts
    I would only step through a wormhole or tear in space, not get recreated through a teleporter. As my current being is destroyed.

    I think as the first electrical impulse you ever had in the womb is you, and it developed from there to where you are now. When you are torn apart and stored into information it disrupts that original electrical impulse from birth,
    and recreates it it on the other side. But it will not be perfect. It will be a different impulse and the original is gone, killing the original and the original ceases to be.

  37. Post #77
    Kljunas's Avatar
    August 2011
    2,670 Posts
    From a physics point of view molecular transport of this form would ONLY work if the object is inanimate. The reason for this is simple. A glass of water for example does not move, if you took a picture of it, then took a second picture of it an hour later the glass and the water inside would still be the same (assuming none of the water evaporated). For matter transportation to work the device would have to save the state of the object it was deconstructing. For an inanimate object this would be easy since the molecular structure could be analyzed then duplicated. However we humans, and all living things for that matter are in a constant state of flux. Right now as you are reading this blood is pumping throughout your body, you're eyes are rapidly blinking, your body is in constant motion. For this to work the machine that is deconstructing us would have to take every differential part of us and make note of the rate of change. If even one changing thing in our body is not reproduce on the exact scale it was before then the whole thing falls apart and the person dies upon reconstruction.

    I am willing to bet that someday we will be able to scan the molecular structure of an inanimate object in 3D and be able to convert it directly to energy then reassemble it. But as for moving things, its not as likely. As for the comments on the "soul" that has nothing to do with it. There are constant electrical impulses in your brain that cause your behavior. Neural networks are already beginning to be understand, "consciousness" is is more of a series of electrical impulses and can be reproduced. Even things like memories are encoded in electrical signals much like a computer. As we approach the age of quantum computers we will be able to manipulate more of human memory and experience.
    The device that recreates the body could put molecules in motion, but I agree it is a major difficulty compared with inanimate objects. And the device would have to reconstruct the body extremely fast.

    Edited:

    I would only step through a wormhole or tear in space, not get recreated through a teleporter. As my current being is destroyed.

    I think as the first electrical impulse you ever had in the womb is you, and it developed from there to where you are now. When you are torn apart and stored into information it disrupts that original electrical impulse from birth,
    and recreates it it on the other side. But it will not be perfect. It will be a different impulse and the original is gone, killing the original and the original ceases to be.
    What if your original body is kept, then when the clone returns his memory is copied onto it? You would remember the trip without having to "die".

  38. Post #78
    Gold Member
    Trumple's Avatar
    September 2009
    6,150 Posts
    I really doubt you will ever be able to transport just the data of even just 1 g of matter from point a to b.
    1 g lets say Carbon roughly contains 10^22 atoms. Every atom contains the data 3 coordinates (position) and 3 angles (orientation). Every single atom has 6 protons and 6 neutrons which also have a certain alignment and position. Then same for the 12 electrons. Now we just forgot about the quantum numbers (QN) which are main QN n, angular momentum QN l, spin s (just to keep it simple, so we wont take the magnetic m_l/m_j quantum numbers or mixtures of l and s to j) for the electrons. Similar (to keep it simple) accounts for the protons and neutrons.
    Lets say, every of those numbers needs 1 byte (which is far too less for the required precision but it's just an example). Then every atom needs 6*(12+12+1) + 3*(12+12) = 222 bytes.
    So one gram needs 2*10^24 bytes = 2 yotta bytes "disk space".
    Lets now transform this number into something you might be more familiar with. 2,220,000,000,000 Tera Bytes.
    Now lets assume you want to transport this via light. The data can only be sent with a lower rate than the frequency used for transport. For light, we have around 100 Tera Hertz. Modulation of the light (to imprint the data) must be lower than the carrier frequency (100 Tera Hertz) so lets say 50 THz. So you can send 50 TBit/s = 6.25 TByte/s.
    Lets assume you can do this on two perpendicular polarisations of the light and do this via frequency and amplitude modulation -> You gain a factor of 4: 25 TByte/s. Lets say, we use 10000 Channels simultaneously: 250,000 TByte/s.
    This would mean, for 1 g of data transported by light at the physical limits (which we are not able yet to reach technically) we need 8,800,000 seconds = 0,2829 years. This was just for transporting the data at physical limits with enormous channel parallelization.

    Now there is still the question how to read out the data non destructively and beat the quantum uncertainty limitiations...
    But you're saying you would need to transmit each individual atom. I'm no chemist but 1g of Carbon here is the same as 1g of Carbon in the room next door. You're not taking into account data redundancy. We could instead just transmit the "carbon" atom as a few bits, and the oxygen atom as another few bits. We could take it a step further and say a clump of X carbon atoms is the bit sequence 100101010110 (random number pulled out of thin air), and the same for sensible volumes of other elements. Basically what I'm trying to say is we don't need to transmit the positions of protons and neutrons etc., just the atom itself. But, even with that that's a lot of data. I don't know maybe we could .zip humans
    Anyway just an interesting thought, on what seems impossible

  39. Post #79
    I would only step through a wormhole or tear in space, not get recreated through a teleporter. As my current being is destroyed.

    I think as the first electrical impulse you ever had in the womb is you, and it developed from there to where you are now. When you are torn apart and stored into information it disrupts that original electrical impulse from birth,
    and recreates it it on the other side. But it will not be perfect. It will be a different impulse and the original is gone, killing the original and the original ceases to be.
    Imagine if you suddenly disappeared from existence for a nanosecond and then a perfect clone of you, in the position you would have been in if you still existed for that nanosecond, is created. Is that not you? How do you make the distinction?

  40. Post #80
    Gold Member
    aVoN's Avatar
    December 2005
    2,880 Posts
    But you're saying you would need to transmit each individual atom. I'm no chemist but 1g of Carbon here is the same as 1g of Carbon in the room next door. You're not taking into account data redundancy. We could instead just transmit the "carbon" atom as a few bits, and the oxygen atom as another few bits. We could take it a step further and say a clump of X carbon atoms is the bit sequence 100101010110 (random number pulled out of thin air), and the same for sensible volumes of other elements. Basically what I'm trying to say is we don't need to transmit the positions of protons and neutrons etc., just the atom itself. But, even with that that's a lot of data. I don't know maybe we could .zip humans
    Anyway just an interesting thought, on what seems impossible
    Well, the nuclear core is not unimportant (especially not for molecules. Here e.g. nuclear spin becomes important) but even if we just transmit "hey, it's carbon", we need to transmit the exact state the electrons are in. Otherwise you lose all chemical bonds and relations. And since we have not only the position of the electrons but also the principle quantum number (qn), angular momentum qn, spin qn , magnetic qn (to keep it simple - no molecular qn yet involved. But they are anyway similar), the data will explode. Anyway, if it's roughly 10^23 bits per g or 100 times that number - It doesn't matter, it's still way to much information.