Now I know most people do not study insects, I don't myself but I happen to watch a lot of science stuff, and you just sort of pick these things up. Why don't changelings fold their wings under their shells when on the ground? Was this simply a mistake on the artist's part? A Lack of science?

See, the brightly colored "shell" on the backs of changelings greatly resembles the shells we see on beetles. (Not saying lings are insects, they are not. But they do use insect flight and have gossamer wings, so we can make certain assumptions.) On beetles and many other species of lying insect the shiny bit on the back, the shell, are shields for the wings. See?

When in flight, the shell unfolds, the wings unfurl (they actually roll up, it's pretty cool to see one take off in slow mo), and then the insect flies. Now admittedly, the shell stays open for the duration of the flight, but with how taxa defying changelings are it's not out of the question for the shell to open, wings unfurl, and then the shell closes with wings extended. I'm basically just wondering what other people interested in FiM's species think. How much like insects are these adorable little guys?

EDIT: This is also an important question for my world building. If the shell is a wing cover, then it implies that changelings use indirect muscle moment to fly. But if their wings are constantly uncovered, then it helps me narrow down their exact flight mechanism, which will allow me to calculate their flight abilities. Which is important, because insect flight could allow changelings to fly without the aid of magic. (Insect flight functions in a way which causes wings to generate more lift and thrust then they would if used like a plane or bird wing. It may be possible for a changeling to fly on it's wing flaps alone.)

Have some relevant science!

3990552
I will not say that changlings is really are insect or bugs. I'm more believe that their shell is accully their armored May or may not come off. To me they could be curse flutterponies from the g1 that was revamped.

3990759 Technically they are arthropods, so you are correct :P

3990859

they are arthropods

Well, technically we have no evidence of that. They could just be black ponies with weird eyes and fangs and hardened skin. Their legs don't seem segmented in any way either.

But I think you're putting too much thought into this. As there is no evidence in canon suggesting you're right or wrong, go with whatever you feel like. Just make sure to communicate that to the reader if it's really important. But honestly, one line like "changeling wings are different and allow for flight without magic" should suffice.

Maybe I'm approaching this the wrong way, but I could never care for any serious analysis of the biology of marshmallow ponies or related creatures.

3990950

Well, technically we have no evidence of that.

We actually have plenty of proof of that :D I personally like figuring out how fictional races, items, or ideas work and I also happen to be a bit of a science nerd. Additionally I am of the school that while the reader needs only the information needed for the plot, the author should have an idea of everything involved. Knowing that X species cannot preform action Y means that perhaps the character can't fly away from the explosion in time, thus a different solution is needed. I personally being a nerd like to use science and physics to determine the racial baselines for my characters and then where they fall on, above, or below that line. It's just my process.

The rest of this is my proof that changelings are arthropods.

Observations

1. Large numbers of Earth life forms indicate the monstrous creatures are monsters, magical in nature, and that these creatures are different from animals. We can assume the basic taxonomic structure applies to FiM based on the existence of dogs, rabbits, dozens of bird species, fish, and other such life forms.
2. The episode in which Pinkie Pie baby sits the newborn cake twins proved that ponies reproduce sexually (and the author confirmed this). Since the cake twins have different physical traits from their parents we see proof of decent with modification. Therefore evolution functions in FiM's world as well, it's just the name for decent with modification.
3. Twilight's use of math and science indicates that FiM's world can be analyzed using methods similar or identacle to that of our own world. Furthermore many of her statements indicate that our worlds function in largely the same manner. Therefore human scientific observations are not necessarily proven for FiM, but it dosen't mean that unless the show says otherwise they are safe to fall back on. In a phrase, the same until proven different.
4. Species can have magical abilities as a simple natural part of their biology. See unicorns, pegasus, and earth ponies.

Given these observations, I will apply my scientific skills towards changelings under the assumption they are a natural species within FiM's world.

Changelings possess translucent wings. Given the show's art style, we dont likely see the individual cells in them, but it is clear that changelings posses insectoid wings. Insect wings are adult outgrowths of the insect exoskeleton. They evolved their wings from flaps in earlier species exoskeletons and therefore, their presence and use by a creature requires an exoskeleton. This is a fundamentle fact of their wing type, and the shimmering rapid beating we see when a changeling flies of hovers is further proof, showing the wings operate in the normal insect fashion. Insect flight is accomplished by muscles pulling on sections of the exoskeleton which pulls the wing directly, or squishes their entire skeletal system to warp the wing's position.

While it is true that certain species posses an endoskeleton as well as exoskeletal segments (see armadillos), this is not possible if the organism uses insect flight. As proven by taxonomy and biomechanics, all winged insects are descended from the same species and thus do not have endoskeletons, additionally the mechanics of muscle movement to manipulate their wings dose not allow for an endoskeleton to evolve without removing the ability to fly in the species. Therefore, a full exoskeleton is required for the means by which a changeling flies.

There are several different categories of animals which posses exoskeletons. Howeaver the majority of them are types of fish, whcih a simple look can show is not the case in changelings. Looking at a changeling we can see a joint in the exoskeleton at the base of the neck on the chest (its a small v shape). This indicates their exoskeletons are segmented and not very felxable. The lack of more joints is likely a limitation of the art design. This indicates the exoskeleton is composed of sections, and therefore is the same type of exoskeleton found on arthropods.

An arthropods is characterized by their jointed limbs and cuticles (science talk for the exoskeleton type), which are mainly made of α-chitin; The rigid cuticle inhibits growth, so arthropods replace it periodically by moulting. The arthropod body plan consists of repeated segments, each with a pair of appendages. They make up 80% of all lifeforms on earth and are one of the most diverce phylum of life out there. Arthropods range in size from microscopic plankton up to forms a few meters long. Their vision relies on various combinations of compound eyes and pigment-pit ocelli

In Changelings we can clearly see three distinct segments, the head, 'torso', and hind quarters. The two major body segments have two pairs of appendages (the head need not have appendages) namely their legs. Changeling eyes are unique in the show's animation style and appear as one uniform color with a slightly glowing white spot. This is very close to the way compound eyes of many creatures look, and is likely how the art style renders them (Queenie's eyes are different, but these ARE shape changers, and besides her eyes are very close to a preying mantis's eyes in appearance). These observations, in conjunction with the wings, and exoskeleton place changelings firmly within the phylum arthropoda.

Howeaver... we do not have the data to place them further within established taxa, nor dose any branch of Arthrpoda seem appropriate even though they are very close to arachnids (lacking only the needed number of legs). Changelings would likely be within their own branch of the tree. Howeaver, since we can establish their phylum, we have an excellent base for creating lore to fill out their species. Sine arthropods are so diverse, you can have changelings which lay eggs, have live birth, reproduce from the queen exclusively, or reproduce in pairs. This leaves plenty of room for creativity atop a base on which to build. But we know that they molt while growing, and other such things characteristic of their phylum.

3991074

it is clear that changelings posses insectoid wings

I get that they look like arthropods. That was pretty clearly the design direction there. That is why explicitly having them not be arthropods despite their looks is much more interesting. Looking like something!=being something.

You can't really apply real science to ponyland, given that they defy the laws of physics as we know them on a daily basis. And I look at your attempts at understanding Equestrian evolution and raise you Discord, manticores and chimeras. Changelings might have popped out of thin air or evolved from pineapples. There's no way to know that their wings are like Earth insect wings at all, or if they evolved through the same path even if they are.

Knowing that X species cannot preform action Y means that perhaps the character can't fly away from the explosion in time, thus a different solution is needed.

You don't need an extensive knowledge of how your fictional species has evolved or what their biology is. Do you want a story where they can fly? Bam, they can. Do you want them not to be able to fly? Bam, they can't. Do you want to place arbitrary restrictions on their flight capabilities? Bam, you got it. Maybe changelings can only fly on Thursdays. Or if they have a lot of happy thoughts. You can do it because you're creating them. Do whatever you like. An adventurer is you!

If you like looking so deeply into it, go for it. But it's all assumptions (reasonably as they might be). Personally I'm just tired of seeing changelings depicted as insectoid because it's been done and overdone.

3991092 Humm yes... Discord. A pan-dimentional creature existing in 5 spacial dimensions... I got nothing there to be honest...

Howeaver pony magic can be explained as a natural ability to manipulate quantum strata in certain way. I know it's fiction, but I enjoy the serious discussion. I understand that it might be more interesting if changelings are presented as being say, actually a type of mollusk, but I personally cant do that. It would be like saying that ponies are actually clouds of nanites, or that Pinkie Pie isn't hyperactive and funloving. If I wanted to do something besides a... ponyoid arthropod, I would make up a species. I'm not creatively bankrupt or anything, I just like to build on that which exists. Hence, I do fanfic.

3991097

Discord. A pan-dimentional creature existing in 5 spacial dimensions... I got nothing there to be honest...

[citation needed]

pony magic can be explained as a natural ability to manipulate quantum strata in certain way.

You know, "quantums!!" isn't an answer to everything. You can get clever and explain a lot of things with it, but you can't explain everything. Teleportation is probably the simplest example as it breaks the law of conservation of charge. Either the pony universe operates by different laws than ours, or it's a TV show for little girls and you're not meant to examine it too closely.

I just like to build on that which exists. Hence, I do fanfic.

For what it's worth, I also built on what we know about changelings to create a picture of them that intentionally broke all the common tropes. Changelings being arthropods was the first thing to go. I did it with the express purpose to show that it can be done.

3991100 Cool beans! No seriously. The point of fanfic is to do things you think would be awesome. If you want to think outside of the box, do it. Your stuff is pretty cool even. All I am saying is that I like to do my head canon using science. It's fun IMO because I live in a cave of books 5 miles underground shaped like CERN. Doesn't mean I cant appreciate others ideas and creations though. (But it dose mean I will defend my position like Rommel with the proper amount of supplies for his forces.)

On an unrelated note, a quote from your linked work:

Perfection would sustain our kind forever.

had me giggle remembering a joke I made about the changeling hive mind idea leading to how I did changeling names. A proper name for use by friends, and an official designation such as "1 of 4, Primary Infiltrator of Quadrimatrix 8417"

3991104
Well to answer the initial question of the thread: I think it's pointless to argue whether changeling shells are for protecting wings or not. There's no concrete proof either way. The real question is, do you want them to be?

To which I'm guessing the answer is yes. So stop worrying about it and write the thing. Nobody will question it either way because it's marshmallow pony land.

3991109 Actually the answer is no. I was polling the community with this. See if the answer is yes, then they loose some speed and maneuverability and cannot glide. Howeaver if they are instead permanently uncovered, given the dark stripe on the wing they likely work like dragonfly wings... Which is awesome because the math says they could fly without aid. At about 187 kph directly upwards, and hit over 220 in a dive. (Thats about 120 miles per hour in case your American). Which kicks ass. Also there is a brony joke in there... because Dragonfly wings are 20% more efficient then other insect wings XD

Also I'm done writing, I'm editing at the moment and was well... My insert OC is an astrophysicist. That's all I think i need to say.

3991113
I have no idea where your numbers for changeling flight came from, but I assume you assume.

3991123 I assume and crunch numbers given averages with the established equations. Thrust, drag, lift, it's all calculable with a little math.

3991136
But you can't know the exact build of changelings. Weight, muscle strength, or even how their wings work. You assume it all based on real-world science and biology. You have to assume so much that calculating exact numbers becomes pointless. They already fly exactly as fast as you want them to.

3991139 While to you the numbers may be meaningless, to me they from an ordered frame work within which I can operate. I like rules, I like ordered sets, I like things that make sence and ahve reason within them. So I invent rule sets to follow when needed. To me, those numbers are important. I use them to let my stories take on a life of their own. Perhaps I want a character to survive a dangerous situation, but there just inst a way in the rules I have set up, so the character dies, or is injured gavly. The story has taken a turn even I did not expect, but still follows within the rules... I don't know, I just like it that way. Like I said, It's not for everyone, but it works for me.

I admit, this is barely even reaching for me. Working out a way to do the cost of goods in bits is some real straws grasping let me tell you.

Hello,

To address the original question and the discussion of evolution and changelings. There are multiple natural pressures to why a phenotype, characteristic, develops. Examples: Natural selection, random mating, population size, and sexual selection, like in many types of birds, etc. A possible pressure for the shell could be linked to a changelings disguise, with wings constantly exposed it could make it easier to disguise as any winged species and as they disguise as a non-winged species they roll up their wings. Or maybe its linked to sexual attraction with the wings signalling good heath and fitness, like peacocks. We can never really know however, because all the races of Equestria evolved in the presence of an energy not found on earth, magic. With the introduction of Tirek, its shown that, at least, all ponies use a form of magic that gives each race of Equine their distinct characteristics with only unicorns having the ability to directly manipulate this "magic".

Looking at the Changelings and Equines they may even have a fairly recent common ancestor, looking at their characteristics only, because we don't know if ponies and changelings can breed together and produce fertile offspring. They look similar in some cases and Unicorns and Changelings can both manipulate magic directly.

Maybe before recorded history two groups of the equine/changeling ancestors split up into different regions of Equestria. In one region, a soft colorful exterior was selected against through natural selection and a harder exterior developed. This would lead to the present plating of the changelings. A horn could have developed the same way. Another possibility is that a communicable mutation, a mutation that can be passed through gametes in sexual reproduction, could be responsible for a changelings ability to manipulate magic via their horn, like unicorns. This is just all assumption; however, if in the cartoons it is ever shown that a changeling and an equine have viable offspring that are fertile then, biologically, by definition changelings and equines are the same species but different races like with different kinds of dogs.

That's all I got for now, I am a biochem major at Loyola (a freshman though so I don't know much) so this discussion intrigued me, I hope I contributed and this could lead to further discussion.

Humbly,
Xinamar

3991100

Teleportation is probably the simplest example as it breaks the law of conservation of charge.

How?

3991991
Consider the following scenario:

Twilight is standing on the left, a single positive point charge is close to her, and Rainbow is to the right.

__+________

Twilight uses her magic to teleport the charge a closer to Rainbow. The charge moves instantaneously; no time passes while it moves and it most certainly does not flow continuously.

________+__

Let's examine what happens here. At the start, Rainbow and Twilight both see the charge. Information travels at the speed of light. Information in our case refers to the charge being where it is. There is currently one positive charge in this system, and this, according to the law of conservation of charge, cannot change. This is true for all points of reference in the system.

At the start, when the charge is still closer to Twilight, Twilight knows it's there because of the light that bounces off it (assume, for simplicity's sake, that this can happen). Twilight sees the light of the particle being there. Similarly, Rainbow also sees the light of the particle being there.

When the particle teleports, it blips out of existence in its former spot (close to Twilight) and reappears at the same exact moment closer to Rainbow. The ponies know the particle disappeared because they see the light of the particle not being there any more. At the same time, they know the particle reappeared because they see the light of the particle being in a new place. This is where it gets tricky.

See, Twilight will only know that the particle reappeared when the light of the reappeared particle reaches her. Similarly, Rainbow will only know the particle disappeared when the light of the disappeared particle reaches her. Look at what's happening again:

________+__

Because of their relative distances to the dis- and reappearing particle, Twilight will see the particle disappear before Rainbow does. The light of the disappearing particle has to cover less distance to get to Twilight, therefore she will see it happen first.
Conversely, Rainbow will see the particle reappear before Twilight does. The light of the reappearing particle has to cover less distance to Rainbow.

That is to say, there is a brief moment in time where Twilight sees this:

__________ (No charge at all; Twilight saw the charge disappear but has not yet seen it reappear.)

Whilst Rainbow will see this:

__+______+__ (Two charges; Rainbow has already seen the charge "reappear," but has not yet seen it disappear.)

From one particle we suddenly got none and two. It doesn't just break the law, it does so spectacularly.

Note that all this is based on my high school understanding of physics coupled with browsing random pages on Google and Wikipedia. Feel free to have it reviewed by someone more knowledgeable. I'm fairly certain it checks out, though. Absolutely do tell if it doesn't.

Hello,

I am having a hard time agreeing with this. I like the analogy but how I see it is that teleportation acts on a body of matter. Said matter could have charge, yes, but if what you're saying is true then the matter would be nonexistent for a period of time within the teleportaion as well as the charge. So just using the law of conservation of matter would have sufficed for your explanation and worked a lot easier. But this is on the assumption that you have to phase out of reality to teleport. Another possible assumption on how teleportation works is that one travels at the speed of light as a body of light, particles, magic. Light looks instantaneous to us. So if a body moved at the speed of light, we would observe it as teleporting. In turn, with my assumption that teleporting is just very fast motion, the laws of conservation of matter and charge remain unaffected.

But if it is instantaneous, my theory may still hold some ground because instantaneous means just that, instant. The matter, energy, and charge never left reality but merely changed location in space instantly. You wouldn't see it because the light would not bounce off of it for that instant to allow us to perceive said matter or charge, in the case of the analogy. So teleportaion isn't enough to prove that any laws of the natural world are broken. This, however, is only true if teleportation is either a motion or instant movement for point a to point b.

3992884

matter would be nonexistent for a period of time

You seem to have completely misunderstood my example. I specified teleportation as being instantaneous.

The charge moves instantaneously; no time passes while it moves and it most certainly does not flow continuously.

I don't know how I could phrase this any clearer. The particle never leaves; it changes position. If you tried to measure something between when the particle disappears and reappears, you would fail because no time passes in between.

Travelling at light speed is not teleportation. That's not to say that you can't explain "teleportation" in the show as in fact "travelling at light speed" but then teleportation is a misnomer. Assuming that teleportation in the show is in fact teleportation, it would have to be instantaneous and as such faster than light.

The matter, energy, and charge never left reality but merely changed location in space instantly.

This is exactly what my example was about.

Take Twilight's perspective: she sees the particle at the start. Light is continuously bouncing off that particle, and as such she continuously sees it being there. The moment it teleports (instantaneously!), light stops bouncing off the particle at its former location and begins bouncing off at its new location. There is a gap in the stream of light that reaches Twilight. This means that until the light of the "reappeared" particle reaches Twilight, which takes time, Twilight will see no particle at all.

From Rainbow's perspective, she sees the light of the particle in its current location. The particle then teleports (instantaneously!) closer. However, the light from the disappeared particle is still on its way to Rainbow. The particle has jumped ahead of its own light. At the same time, the reappeared particle also beings bouncing light in Rainbow's direction. The light from the reappeared particle will reach Rainbow before the light of the now-disappeared particle runs out. For a brief moment in time, Rainbow will see both the light of the reappeared particle and the old light of the disappeared particle. Rainbow will see two particles instead of one.

It's true that the charge "never left," however Twilight and Rainbow cannot know that. They know what they see, and they see the charge disappear entirely (Twilight) or see a brand new charge pop out of nowhere (Rainbow). For Twilight, the charge was destroyed while for Rainbow, a new charge was inexplicably made.

You made me fire up Gimp for this. Open in a new tab if it's too small. (Let's hope it's not riddled with typos...)

3994751

Hello again ,

I see what you mean now, and we are now both using the assumption that teleportation is instantaneous and not light speed travel, which could be perceived as teleportation to anyone watching the event occur. To rebuttal you explanation on the topic at hand, all of your examples rely on the weaknesses of our own perception. Because one party can no longer see the particle and one sees double, does not prove that said particle somehow doesn't exist and does exist in double. Your explanation of perceiving the particles could also be applied to an object at light speed, again adding to its unreliability. Finally I need to adress the definitions on the two conservation laws we are debating about. The Law of Conservation of Charge. The net charge of an isolated system remains constant. The only way to change the net charge of a system is to bring in charge from elsewhere, or remove charge from the system. Charge can be created and destroyed, but only in positive-negative pairs, and principle of mass/matter conservation is that the mass of a closed system (in the sense of a completely isolated system) will remain constant over time. The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. A similar statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products. I addressed these definitions because in instantaneous transportation the charge or atom never cease to exist because the motion is instant and immeasurable due to the definition of speed, distance over time (ex: meters per second). With the time always being zero. These statements then prove that teleportation does not break the law of conservation of mass and charge because the charge and mass of a system never changes.

However, you do win that teleportaion is impossible but for another reason which I am researching. However I need to be in class in seven minutes so I look forward to your rebuttal.

Humbly,
Xinamar

3995207

Your explanation of perceiving the particles could also be applied to an object at light speed

Moving at light speed is still continuous movement, so no.

Because one party can no longer see the particle and one sees double, does not prove that said particle somehow doesn't exist and does exist in double.

It does, though. Okay, I'm simplifying here.

It's not about Twilight and Rainbow seeing the particle; it's about the propagation of information within the system. Information propagates at the speed of light (in our example). This means that a beam of light is an accurate representation of how far information about a certain thing (such as the particle being somewhere) has travelled. For any given point of reference, anything you have information about exists, and anything you don't have information about doesn't.

For example, there are (most likely) things outside the observable universe. They do not affect us in any way because we have no information about them (their light hasn't reached us yet). We assume there are things outside the observable universe because we continuously see new things "pop" into existence as their light reaches us. Once that photon hits the Earth, it has affected the Earth; it exists for the Earth.

In my example, Twilight and Rainbow are chosen as points of reference to make it easer to understand. But in fact, they wouldn't have to be there at all. You could replace them with a pair of detectors. Or you could have nothing there at all but empty space. The point is that all frames of reference must agree on how much charge there is in the system based on what they've observed. Ie. charge must be conserved for all points of reference.

To put it another way, as long as Twilight sees a particle, that means information of the particle being there is getting to that point of space -- from her point of reference, the particle exists. She stops seeing it when there is no more information about the particle being there -- that is, the particle no longer exists. The same happens for Rainbow's point of reference, except with an extra particle being created. She is simultaneously getting information about two particles, therefore as far as her portion of the universe "knows," two particles exist.

Here's a thought experiment superficially similar to Schrödinger's Cat: Twilight and Rainbow each hold a detector that activates when there are two charges nearby. When the device actives, an atomic bomb goes off in Ponyville, obliterating both ponies. Twilight teleports the particle. Are the ponies dead? From Twilight's point of reference, the answer is firmly no; there was only ever one charge, which she lost sight of for a brief moment. From Rainbow's point of reference, though, Ponyville is dust glass. The bomb didn't go off, but it went off. It's a paradox.

You don't seem to understand the law of conservation of charge. The site you linked does not give an incomplete law, but doesn't make a very important distinction clear. The law, put tersely:

Q(t2) = Q(t1) + Q(in) - Q(out)

Where "in" and "out" refer to charge flowing into and out of the area over a surface. This is important, and the reason teleportation breaks the law. Charge must not only be conserved, it must also move continuously.

While teleportation does indeed conserve total charge, the problem with it is that you cannot see the charge leave its old place, and you cannot see it enter its new place. It simply disappears and reappears -- teleports, as it were. From seperate points of reference, the law is broken; one loses charge, and another gains charge without any of them knowing where that charge went or where it came from.

Let's take my example again. Except this time, Twilight doesn't teleport the particle. She simply makes it move towards Rainbow at a leasurely, continuous (<c) pace. Let's ignore how she actually does this and focus on the movement itself. The particle used to be at a certain spot, but then moved a little bit to the right. Twilight focuses on the part of space where the charge used to be. There was previously one charge there (Q(t1)=1), now there is none (Q(t2)=0). However, she saw the charge leave (Q(out)=1). 0=1-1; the law allows this.

As the charge moves into its new position, it enters a portion of space where there used to be no charge (Q(t1)=0), but now there is a charge (Q(t2)=1). Twilight saw the charge move there, flowing through the surface area of that portion of space (Q(in)=1). 1=0+1; the law is unbroken.

This is mirrored exactly for Rainbow. All throughout the process, Twilight and Rainbow agree on the number of charges present being 1. The bomb thus never goes off.

If the charge does not move continuously, ie. it teleports, Twilight will never see the particle leave, she will only see it disappear. This inevitably leads to the paradox where the ponies simultaneously see no particle and two particles. In other words, if the particle teleports, there exist points of reference where the number of charges isn't equal. There is a moment in time where for one point of reference there are no particles, whilst for another there are two particles, whereas there is in fact only one particle. You can't break the law of charge conservation any more blatantly.

To reiterate an earlier point: it isn't in fact important what the ponies see. What's important is that the presence of the particle affects certain points in the universe. In the case of teleportation it creates a paradox where one portion of the universe has no particle (despite there having been one earlier, breaking the law of conservation), and another has two particles (whereas it only had one, again breaking the law of conservation).

The law of conservation of charge must hold true for all points of reference in the system. This means that charge must enter or exit through a surface area. This, in turn, means that charge must flow continuously, which immediately rules out teleportation.

This is important because if charge doesn't flow continuously -- it teleports -- then you inevitably run into paradoxes like the one I've outlined.

3995512

Hello,

I see it now and after looking into it, you are right. Any primary source, secondary source, and Wikipedia article I pull up says the same thing. And yes I didn't know about the Continuity equation, only about the preservation. Thus in turn what I was saying made sense to me because of that lack of knowledge. Thanks for the debate though and I always like knowing more so I could use it in any future fimfics. So my final comment is that in order for magic to not defy the natural word a teleport would have to only be a movement at light speed?

Humbly,
Xin

3995730
If teleporting means making an object jump to another place at light speed, that implies you can accelerate that object to light speed. As far as we know, that is not possible. Note that even light doesn't accelerate to light speed; photons are created at light speed.

If you're desperate for somewhat-plausible technobabble to explain teleportation, have a look at wave-particle duality, probability density, and quantum tunneling. This still limits you to light speed but at least there is a basis for it in physics as we know it. Also look at warping space as an option (wormholes).

Or you could just say it's, you know, magic.

EDIT: And hey, don't think of it like a debate. We were both out to learn something in case we were wrong.

Hello JawJoe,

Thank you for the response and I have looked into the matters of teleportation. I'll leave the primary, secondary,and wiki sources here. I like the definition of teleportation I found, which does allow information and matter to move at light speed.

Article: Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels Author: Bennett, Charles H. Journal: Physical review letters (WARNING: A LOT OF RIDICULOUS HARD VOCABULARY AND TECHNOBABBLE)

Focus: Landmarks: Teleportation is not Science Fiction

Quantum teleportation

Again thanks for your time and I look forward to any conversations we may have because this was kinda fun.

Side Note: I haven't taken a physics course since sophmore year of High school. So my knowledge is limited but I have taken some Chem and Biol as a requirement in my chosen path of study and both contain some physics. Once next semester comes though I will be much more knowledgeable in the area of physics.
3995987

3995987

Another quick question then I am done cause I am replyin' at work, can I get a quick rundown of wave-particle duality. A Fic of mine uses that to explain magic but the evidence I got is really lacking.

3996172
I'm not a scientist, so I can't speak with any confidence about high-level stuff like quantum entanglement. For what it's worth, "quantum teleportation" doesn't seem to be teleportation in the classical sense. It does not move matter. It copies certain aspects of matter and imprints them on another piece of matter arbitrarily far away. It's a big thing, but not what we're looking for, or at least not in this form.

Quantum tunneling and the probability density explanation are cop-outs; the "particle" (wave, really) doesn't so much move as it has always been there, you just happened to not observe it there before. Essentially the wave exists simultaneously both at the starting location and its destination; it's a question of where it happens to "collapse" into a "particle" state. I'm sure there are better scientific terms for that.

This ties in with wave-particle duality. The idea is that fundamental particles (and by extension all matter) are in fact waves that sometimes have very specific upswellings (which we call particles). Take the electrons around a nucleus. They don't actually orbit the nucleus; the electrons exist as a standing wave around the nucleus*. They are never at any specific point in space around the nucleus because they are everywhere around it; it's the chance of interacting with that wave that varies based on spatial location. Look up the double-slit experiment. It's quite mind-blowing.

An electron bound to an atom in my eye is in your room right now. The chances of you detecting it are so close to zero, however, that it will never happen even if you look for it until the heat death of the universe.

*This is especially important if you're taking chemistry. Chemists like to talk about atomic "orbitals" because that model accurately describes the observed behaviour of electrons for the purposes of chemistry. Always keep in mind that it is not literally true. Electrons do not orbit.

I have gotten into orbitals before (evil things when you get passed the P-orbital, or hybrid orbitals). Also the electron wave model which is described mathematically by Schrodinger (I also know its discrepancies in predicting the order in the d and f orbitals). And finally the uncertainty principle by Heisenberg which applies to the duality of electrons, stating that if you know the momentum of a particle you can't reliably know its location and vice versa. How I understand electrons and there orbitals are that they are always in motion at certain electron shells/energy levels. They then fluctuate to other energy level as they gain and lose energy, moving "closer" to the nucleus as energy is absorbed and away as energy is released as expressed in the Balmer Series. Note that these energy levels are only related to the probability of finding electron density, space that the electrons' presence is most prevalent. Thus orbitals themselves are just representations of probable locations of electron density. Electrons are also stated, due to their duality, as a particle which has the probability of occupying different locations simultaneously.

So that's what I know about electrons but duality is still alluding my understanding. You said that matter is "in fact waves that sometimes have very specific upswellings (which we call particles)." I don't quite understand what that means, specifically upswellings, then later standing wave. Is that in regards to wavelength or magnitude or que? I do understand that the location of an electron is unknown and its all probabilistic.

NOTE: I am reviewing my CHEM 101 power point slides for this information. Don't judge. Also it sounds like electrons exhibit something like teleportation.

3996383

3996383

Thinking about it some more, I think I understand. All it states is that all matter is waves that have very specific "magnitude and wavelength" (upswelling). These are the referred to as particles. Thanks for the explanation and see you when I see you.

3990552 Changelings are Quadrupeds, and an Exosceleton isn't monopolised by Insects.
If they can fly without relying on Magic, but we know they have it.
Personally, I commonly paint them as a veriety of Equines like other Ponies.
There are a few refferences claiming they were originally Ponies in the first place.

They fly, just not quite as well as Pegsi, they have Magic, just not quite as good as Unicorns.

3990552 It's part of my headcanon that the changelings can 'tuck' their wings under their shell if they really need to. It's also my headcanon that their wings grow back, and the process is uncomfortable, which can lead to some weird conversations.

Changeling: Hey, I'm back!
Pegasus: *gasp* YOUR WINGS! Oh you poor poor dear! *hugs*
C: Hmm? *looks over, notices missing wings* Augh, growing those back is gonna itch!
P: ... wat?