The Physics of the Anywhere Door

The Physics of the Anywhere Door

QOOQ Concept CM
YouTube動画

The Physics of the Anywhere Door and the Identity Problem with "Information Transfer" (Dialogue Log)

1. Conservation Law Problems with Potential and Kinetic Energy

User: Let's think about the physics of the Anywhere Door. If we assume the "door" moves objects directly through it, there's the problem of how the potential energy and kinetic energy at the original location are converted at the destination.

Assistant: Your point about "how potential energy and kinetic energy are handled at the destination" is indeed a conservation law problem that must be addressed if we consider the Anywhere Door as "a device (portal) that allows objects to pass through continuously intact." In conclusion, it cannot be conveniently maintained without a special energy source—making it work requires a mechanism for "the door (device) to exchange energy and momentum."

Let me organize this from a physics perspective.

1) Potential Energy: Who Bears the ΔU?

In the near-surface approximation, the potential energy difference is: $$\Delta U \approx m g \Delta h$$

  • Going from low to high ($\Delta h > 0$): The object's gravitational potential increases, so something must supply that energy $m g \Delta h$. → The source ultimately becomes the door (device) (power supply, external supply, or gravitational field manipulation with "negative energy," etc.).

  • Going from high to low ($\Delta h < 0$): Excess energy $|m g \Delta h|$ is generated. If given directly to the object, velocity increases at the exit, potentially causing destructive collisions or explosive phenomena. → To avoid this, the device must absorb (regenerate) energy and convert it to heat, electricity, etc.

This means it wouldn't be strange if the Anywhere Door "consumes power going up and generates power going down." In fact, not doing so would violate conservation laws.

2) Kinetic Energy and Momentum: The "Reference Frame" Is Most Dangerous

Kinetic energy $\frac{1}{2} m v^2$ depends on velocity $v$, but velocity changes depending on which reference frame (coordinate system) you measure from. This is what makes the Anywhere Door most unstable.

(A) Earth's Rotation and Revolution Problem (Typical "Fatal Flaw")

When entrance and exit are at different locations (latitude, altitude, direction), the velocity due to Earth's rotation differs.

  • Example: The surface near the equator moves at about 465 m/s due to rotation. At higher latitudes, this decreases.
  • If "a person standing still at the entrance and entering the door" is designed to "exit still relative to the ground at the exit," the person's momentum has arbitrarily changed. The momentum and energy difference must ultimately be handled by the device pushing back against the Earth (reaction), etc.

Without proper handling, in extreme cases the behavior at exit becomes "being blown away at tremendous wind speed sideways."

(B) What Quantities Are "Conserved": 4-Momentum Consistency Required

Relativistically, the device must decide how to connect the 4-momentum (set of energy and momentum) of passing objects.

Realistic design policies are one of the following:

  1. Parallel transport the local inertial frame from entrance to exit (the mouths of the portal share the same velocity and direction local coordinates)

    • The sensation during passage is natural.
    • However, viewed from the ground on the exit side, velocity may be offset. Major accidents when landing.

  2. Forcibly match to a safe velocity relative to the exit environment (ground)

    • Human-friendly.
    • In exchange, the device must absorb/supply large amounts of momentum (huge reaction forces, heat generation, structural strength, or involving surrounding air, etc.).

Either way, you can't do it "conveniently without paying anything."

3) What Happens with "Wormhole Type" (Model Closer to Intuition)

  • Objects just travel through the throat, so "the object's internal state is continuous" and "no disassembly/reconstruction" is needed.
  • However, if the mouths have different gravitational fields and velocities, balancing energy and momentum near the mouths occurs.
  • Stable maintenance tends to require stress-energy difficult for normal matter ("exotic matter").

4) Further Troublesome Conservation Laws: Angular Momentum, Charge, Field Continuity

  • Angular momentum: Handling of rotation axis, device-side torque
  • Charge: Electromagnetic field discontinuity may cause discharge, electromagnetic waves
  • Heat: Unless loss is zero, heat generation/cooling design is necessary

5) Minimum Requirements to "Look Natural"

  1. Energy accounting (consumption/regeneration)
  2. Momentum accounting (reaction/safe velocity)
  3. Field consistency (suppression of pressure differential, shock waves, etc.)

Finally, as design branches:

  • Specification A: Exit preserving entrance velocity
  • Specification B: Exit adjusted to match exit environment

2. Alternative: Copy Information, Reconstruct at Destination, Delete Original

User: Let's consider a different method. Copy the object's information, reconstruct it at the destination, and delete the original.

Assistant: That method is "transfer information (blueprint), reconstruct at destination, delete original"—so-called digital transfer (destructive upload + rebuild). The energy problem looks clean at first glance, but to make it work physically, the following "accounting" cannot be avoided.

1) The Difficulty Depends on "What to Copy"

  • Macro information: Extension of 3D printing. But identity of humans becomes questionable
  • Micro information: Measurement disturbs the system
  • Complete copy including quantum states: Fundamentally difficult due to no-cloning
    • However, "transfer" via quantum teleportation is possible, but requires:
      1. Prior entanglement
      2. Classical communication (cannot exceed light speed)
      3. Destruction of original state

2) The "Mass/Material" Problem Inevitably Arises in Reconstruction

  • Materials are needed (prepared at exit/synthesis factory)
  • Energy-to-mass generation is astronomical in scale: $$E = mc^2 \approx 6.29 \times 10^{18} \text{J} \quad (70 \text{ kg})$$ etc.

3) Energy/Momentum Problems "Remain Even with Information Method"

Velocity reference at exit, supply/absorption of $\Delta U = mg\Delta h$, device-side accounting are necessary.

4) Information Volume and Thermodynamic Costs

Landauer limit: $$E_{\min} \geq kT\ln 2 \times (\text{bits erased})$$

The inevitability of heat generation and loss is included.

5) Most Consistent Setting

  • Destructive scan
  • Light speed limitation
  • Material dependency
  • Energy/momentum accounting

Finally, the target branches:

  • (A) Quantum-level perfect identity
  • (B) Practical identity

3. Additional Premise: Per-Particle Entanglement, Sub-Light Speed, Materials Available

User: In the copying process, let's say we can entangle particles one-to-one between entrance and exit. Transmission speed can be sub-light. Also, materials are prepared at the destination.

Assistant: That premise is essentially quantum teleportation extended to "all particles, all degrees of freedom." Consistency with conservation laws and causality improves, but we need to clarify what transfers, what's difficult, and what remains.

1) What "Transfers" Is Quantum State, Not Matter

  • Distribute EPR pairs beforehand
  • Bell measurement at entrance (original state destroyed)
  • Classical communication (sub-light)
  • Correction operation at exit reproduces state

2) How Far Does "One-to-One Particles" Achieve "Complete Reconstruction"?

Position/momentum, electronic states, nuclear spin, vibrational rotation, inter-particle correlations—degrees of freedom are enormous.

3) Biggest Hurdle: Entanglement with Environment (Decoherence)

Objects strongly interact with the environment, and transferring "just the object" may break strict identity. → Super-technology settings like isolation/shielding at entrance are natural.

4) Energy/Momentum (Connection to Original Point)

  • What reference frame to reproduce kinetic state is device specification
  • Gravitational potential difference $mg\Delta h$ isn't "automatically given," so device/exit-side processing must balance it

5) "Consistent" Minimum Specification

  • Pre-distribution (entanglement resources)
  • Destructive scan
  • Classical communication
  • Reconstruction (correction to materials)
  • Reference frame management
  • Error correction, cooling, isolation

Finally, design branches:

  • Spec 1: Faithful reproduction in entrance reference
  • Spec 2: Normalize to exit environment

4. Emotional Problem: "Deletion After Transfer Completion" to Avoid Two People, and Subjective Death

User: Emotionally, option 1 is most problematic. Having two people would be troublesome, so we delete the original after transfer completion. In that case, since we're deleting an almost identical copy, there's no objective problem, but the one being deleted experiences death.

Assistant: With this premise (Spec 1 = faithful reproduction + delete original after transfer completion), objective identity can be maintained, but the main battleground moves to subjective continuity (whether "I" in first person survives).

1) "Not Having Two People" Operation Is Possible via Protocol

  • Lock exit side and don't activate
  • Destructive measurement at entrance (original state irreversibly disappears)
  • After classical communication arrives, activate exit side
  • → Easy to avoid branches where two people move simultaneously

2) Problem That Remains: Doesn't the First Person at Entrance Terminate?

To third parties, it looks like the same person, but the entrance side's stream of consciousness terminates at destructive measurement, and the exit side reports "it was continuous." This gap cannot be verified by external observation.

3) Conclusion Branching by Philosophical Position

  • Psychological continuity (pattern identity) emphasis: Close to survival
  • Biological continuity (same body) emphasis: Death + copy
  • Soul/subject non-transferable: Transfer impossible

4) "Design Escape Routes" for Emotional Acceptance

  • Gradual replacement (swap little by little)
  • Pass matter itself through (portal/wormhole type)
  • If information transfer, then zero branching and thorough irreversibility

Finally, requirement branches:

  • Requirement A: Sufficient if identical by third-party standards
  • Requirement B: First-person continuity required

If Requirement B, information transfer type tends to be disadvantageous.