One of the things that most fascinated me was his statements in regards to invisibility cloaks. Apparently these are becoming a very real possibility(!!!!!). Scentists have already invented a material that is "invisible" to micro-waves (that is, the waves bend around it, rather than registering it by going through it).
Hmm...
maser-proof armour. Might come in handy.
Also, with microwaves being right next door to infrared in the EM spectrum, something like it could (maybe) serve as heat shielding, even if it's not necessarily fire-proof itself.
Oh, wait - did he say that the material would also conceal objects wrapped in it, or just the material itself? Otherwise, Saran Wrap would do the trick.
He also discussed teleportation and how scientists are already teleporting particles of light.
So, at what velocity would the teleportation data propagate?
How is it different from fibreoptic cable, or ... a flashlight?
Or, were they not
photons, but
electrons? (A possibly more remarkable feat.) Larry Niven did a wonderful little essay, titled
Exercise In Speculation: The Theory and Practice of Teleportation. (that links to the first of 6 pages of the text)
An excerpt:
Anyone know anything about tunnel diodes?
The field is full of good writers named Smith. One wrote a story using a teleportation system
based on the tunnel diode effect. Apparently physics students are now taught that a tunnel diode takes an
electron here and puts it there without allowing it to occupy the intervening space. If you can do it with
quantum physics, why not with larger masses? With people? The theory looks good, and it hasn't been
used much in science fiction.
Tunnel diodes have been around for a while.
What fascinated me about this was the ethical implications involved: to teleport something, it had to be destroyed, then its "information' copied to the alternate location. In other words, if eventually teleportation technology evolved to be able to handle humans, you'd first have to kill the person, then remake them (complete with memories and such) in the new location. All the implications in regards to that are just fascinating.
That was always the "rhinocerous in the parlour" for me when it came to Star Trek technology. If it worked the way it was purported to work, there was no reason for them to take advantage of it, and resurrect any hapless Red Shirts. The replicators use transporter technology too, and they didn't have to destroy food to make food, they only had to have the raw elements somewhere on board to assemble it from. After all, we do not have to have shredders integrated with our fax machines. I can see the reason why the writers chose to avoid the whole idea of backup copies of personnel, but for that reason alone, the Star Trek series will always be "fantasy" to me, not SF.
More Niven goodies:
Let's say we've reached step. one. We've recorded our customer and we now have a record and
a ball of ionised plasma. Why not beam the record to two receivers? Now we've got a duplicator. The
legalities get sticky. We could get around them by permitting one, say, one Isaac Asimov to a planet; but
who gets the royalties on the FOUNDATION trilogy?
Similarly, you can keep the record. You fire the signal at the receiver, but you store the tape.
Ten years later the passenger walks in front of a bus. You can recreate him from tape, minus ten years of
his life. But-aside from questions concerning his soul-can he collect his own life insurance?
Suppose we change our mind after step one. We store the tape instead of firing it. Is it
kidnapping? Or, in view of the fact that we have mortally vaporized a man, is it murder? Does it cease to
be murder if we reconstitute him before the trial?
Finally, we assume an advance whereby we needn't destroy the model to get the record.
Shouldn't we destroy him anyway? Otherwise he hasn't gone anywhere.
