Quantum Teleportation Sends Information 143 Kilometers 333
SchrodingerZ writes "Scientists from around the world have collaborated to achieve quantum teleportation over 143 kilometers in free space. Quantum information was sent between the Canary Islands of La Palma and Tenerife. Quantum teleportation is not how it is made out in Star Trek, though. Instead of sending an object (in this case a photon) from one location to another; the information of its quantum state is sent, making a photon on the other end look identical to the original. 'Teleportation across 143 kilometres is a crucial milestone in this research, since that is roughly the minimum distance between the ground and orbiting satellites.' It is the hope of the research team that this experiment will lead to commercial use of quantum teleportation to interact with satellites and ground stations. This will increase the efficiency of satellite communication and help with the expansion of quantum internet usage. The full paper on the experiment can be found [note: abstract only, full article paywalled] in the journal Nature."
If I recall..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't this how the Ansible from Ender's Game works? Two particles made to be in the exact same state, despite being physically separated? Too bad we couldn't have put this type of technology on Voyager 1 and 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this how the Ansible from Ender's Game works? Two particles made to be in the exact same state, despite being physically separated? Too bad we couldn't have put this type of technology on Voyager 1 and 2.
No, this particular form of "teleportation" also requires sending photons between the two sites - not storing particles for later usage.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the uncertainty principle still applies. Entangled particles are in an identical state, but that state is still probabilistic. To get any information out of it you have to measure it, and measurements on the two particles can come out different.
Re:If I recall..... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes and no.
Probability is very important, but it is not the measurement, or at least not the initial measurements, which are the issue.
The measurements on the particles will actually be the spookily transmitted values that you would expect. If person A observes his particle and locks in a state, the particle of person B will instantly take on the mirror or opposite of what person A has measured. Until entanglement is broken, particle B will remain in that state for person B to discover almost at their leisure. So, you *can* measure two particles and get the same/mirror answer... but only once per particle.
Or in other words, if Person A observes a living Schrodinger's Cat in his box, Person B will get a dead one in his entangled box instantly, which will be there for him to see when he opens the box. It will not go back to being uncertain until the box is opened and then closed again. Person B does get the opportunity to see the state of his particle as changed by entanglement.
So what is the problem? Sounds like this is faster than light. And it is. However, Relativity does not state that nothing can happen faster than light, only that *information* cannot be transmitted faster than light. The problem is entanglement does not actually create a channel for passing information by itself.
For information to be passed one side must use a channel to send a message to the other. With entanglement you will have "sent" a state, but the other side has no way of knowing you actually sent a message, which in turn means that information is not passed.
Remember, collapsing the probabilities and killing/not killing a cat can be done by *either side*. That means that if you open your box and find a living cat, it could mean that your partner earlier opened his box and found his cat was dead (and is attempting to send you a message). Alternately, it might mean he hadn't gotten around to opening his box yet and you opened first, making you are responsible for killing his cat which he may soon discover (you monster).
This is *not* insurmountable normally. If you could, say, ensure that you always kill the cat in your box when you are sending a message, then I could use frequency analysis or some other algorithm on all of my living cat results because I know that only living cats can be message data. There would still be a ratio of noise to the signal due to the ever present possibility that I am killing his cat on the other side by looking before he does, but you should be able to wring data out of it. You would, of course, need multiple entangled boxes for this, but other than representing mass cat murder, this is not a major problem.
Unfortunately, this is where the Uncertainty Principle checkmates us. When you open a box, it is always completely random what you get. You can't force a result or know ahead of time what you will send, so pre-arranging to only accept one result is pointless. Even the smallest attempt to alter the box before opening it in a manner that would make the result even slightly more predictable counts as a measurement and trips the entanglement effect. Then when you go to look in the box afterward, you are simply looking at particle that is no longer entangled. In effect, altering the box in any useful way is the same thing as opening it.
So, to actually send a decipherable message, you need a classical, slower than light channel to decipher every bit of information you send via entangled particles. While it is technically true that your actual bits arrived faster than light, the information is 100% indecipherable until you get the decoder for each bit at light speed, and so there is no way to disseminate actual information faster than light in this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If I recall..... (Score:4, Funny)
Quantum teleportation is like me calling you on the phone and giving you herpes that way. There still has to be some contact, but in this case it's phone herpes.
So while Voyager could still use this technology to communicate, it would still have to make that phone call and wait 17 hours for the light to travel to Earth.
Re:If I recall..... (Score:5, Informative)
No. No it wouldn't. Quantum entanglement does not allow for faster than light communication. Common myth.
-- MyLongNickName
Re: (Score:2)
No. No it wouldn't. Quantum entanglement does not allow for faster than light communication. Common myth.
And FTL drives mean you also violate causality and have time travel. I know people say it and many agree with it but I don't truly understand the physics. I still have trouble with relativity and time dilation.
I assume all of these facts are, how shall we say, entangled. *rimshot* Could somebody try 'splaining it again? Every time I think I might possibly be on the cusp of comprehension, I try putting it
Re:If I recall..... (Score:5, Informative)
I've been watching this NOVA series on quantum mechanics [pbs.org] - it's been an excellent primer on this stuff for me. It's hosted by Brian Greene, a prof at Columbia who wrote a book about it for a lay audience. I think it would be very approachable for anybody with an interest in science, but without a scientific background.
Re:If I recall..... (Score:5, Informative)
One more thing (dammit Slashdot! Let me edit my damned posts already!!!) --
They just did a new series (the one I linked to above is a little dated - almost 10 years old at this point). You can see that one here [pbs.org]. It covers cosmology as well as a bit of quantum mechanics. Still very approachable.
Re: (Score:2)
100% concur that the "Elegant Universe" is one of the best laymen's description of Quantum Mechanics around.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not about quantum mechanics, it's about string theory.
The first episode does have some nice qualitative discussions about relativity and quantum mechanics as background info however.
Excellent series and interesting book.
Re:If I recall..... (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially, the "sender" does not get to choose the message. The sender "observes" the state of a particle with a previously undetermined state. Upon observing the particle, the "sender" causes the particle to have a determined state but does not get to determine what state that paticle is in. The "receivers" particle then has the same state as the "sender's" particle.
So the "sender" doesn't get to choose what message he sends. He simply discovers (bad term, but trying to keep it simple) the state of the particle which becomes the same as what the "receiver" gets. This would not be useful for sending any type of communication.
Re: (Score:3)
You take 2 pieces of paper. Mark one as A and mark the second as B. Without looking at them you randomly put each into an envelope and send one to a remote location. You both open them at the same time and know that the other person has the opposite paper. The remote envelope had to travel by normal means. It was not teleported anywhere. The travel time is how long it took for you to send the envelope to the remote location.
They really should rename this to quantum en
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This would not be useful for sending any type of communication.
Then whats the practical significance of this? Is it just the secrecy/security during transmission? The Wikipedia page also says 2 'classical' bits would have to be transmitted through a 'classical' way, which seems to remove any advantage of speed or bandwidth.
The PRACTICAL application (Score:3)
The practical application is that any teleportation/entanglement based Quantum Neural Networks (QNN) that happen to already exist on and around planet Earth communicate between nodes via quantum teleportation. Thus, the maximum Quantum Teleportation (QT) range is also the maximum distance between nodes. I happen to know that earth-orbital QT distances have been practical for one QNN for more than ten years, so it's about time that 'official' science caught up with this. Readers should note that the exist
Re:If I recall..... (Score:4, Informative)
You can't "send states" either. You measure on your own photon (or electron, or whatever) and if you find a value. The other guy measure his own photon (or whatever) and find a value. The two values, once you communicate with each other (slower than light) will always match (be the same, or be opposite, depending of the way you entangled them). But you don't send the value of your measurement, and you don't even send the fact you did a measurement.
It has uses, for example in cryptography. Or if you want to run a solar system wide lottery and have the people on Mars and Earth follow, exactly at the same time (warning: that's layman speach, it doesn't have any real meaning in GR), the outcome of the lottery, and no one having the result before the other. But not for communication.
Re:If I recall..... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll try.
If two events are "time like" then one event occurs before the other *in*all*reference*frames*. i.e. the earlier event could cause the later event. Note that being time like doesn't require the two events to be causally linked but if A causes B then events A and B will be time like
If two events are "space like" then they cannot be causally linked because it is impossible for a signal traveling at the speed of light to get from the first event to the second event in the available time. It also turns out that for space like events different inertial observers don't even agree on which event occurred first. But this causes no problems because events C and D are not causally linked.
If an observer can travel faster than light then the above no longer holds. An observer traveling faster than light will no longer necessarily agree that A happens before B even if A causes B. An appropriate observer can wait for B to happen and then stop A from happening even though it was A that caused B. It is this paradox that leads physicists to assume that faster than light communication is impossible.
The idea of a maximum speed isn't really that crazy anyway. There are only two possible universes, one where there is a maximum speed - which implied time dilation and everything else we see in special relativity - and one where there is no maximum speed - which you get if you take the limit as c approaches infinity in the special relativity equations and turns out to be the newtonian universe. If there is no maximum speed then there is universal time and therefore all events can be uniquely assigned a time and all observers will agree on the ordering.
Tim.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you wouldn't. The wheel is made up of individual particles. It bends, it compresses, it shrinks...it seems to be solid and move instantly, but that is only because it is too small to see these effects.
Say you have a giant steel rod from the Earth to Pluto. You push on this rod. You would think that the rod would move forward on Pluto at the instant you push on it, allowing FTL binary communication. But it doesn't. You push on the rod and it creates a pressure wave travelling through the rod around the s
Re: (Score:2)
> And FTL drives mean you also violate causality and have time travel.
You *assume* it violates causality. Causality has not been _proven_ nor time travel.
Only those who don't understand time travel invent nonsensical paradoxes.
Maybe once Scientists have a clue why time "appears" to flow only one way then we can start making predictions about how time is "supposed" to work.
Re: (Score:2)
I will leave the hard science to good books or documentary shows (as mentioned by others).
The benefit to some sort of entanglement-based communication option (like between a ground station and a satellite, as mentioned) is that it would not be subject to eavesdropping/weather (since the information travels in some sort of quantum ether that we don't understand) and that the delay would be exactly that of the speed of light (as demonstrated by other experiments) whereas currently, radio waves traveling throu
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure the Alcubierre Drive does not violate causality or presume time travel.
Re: (Score:2)
Then, it doesn't matter when you measure them (simultaneity being a problem in itself BTW)
What you do know at any time is that both measurements wil be opposite.
But you can do one of them now and the other one 10000 years after, it doesn't change anything
What you don't know is which one will be up, which one will be down. you just know they will be opposite
Re: (Score:3)
No. No it wouldn't. Quantum entanglement does not allow for faster than light communication. Common myth.
-- MyLongNickName
Then what are these guys [nature.com] saying?
Re: (Score:3)
Quantum correlations do exist and are part of the description of quantum mechanics. They do not however allow to transmit information, since the correlations are purely random.
Re: (Score:3)
Now the punchline. The whole point of quantum teleportation is that collapsing a particle's wavefunction will also collapse the wavefunction of a remote, entangled particle. Wil
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Remote receiver: I wonder if I have a q-mail. Let me just check if the wavefunction has collapsed yet. Oh wait, I just measured it so it collapsed. QED.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't get enough information from a single particle to know for sure whether or not it interfered with itself as it passed through the slits. And when you try it with multiple particles, you can only figure out which ones interfered and which ones did not after you match them up with measurements taken at the other end of the experiment.
Whether the particles are entangled or not, the results at both
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There is some dispute on this. What you say is assumed to be true but has not been proven in any conclusive manner yet and the "why" of it isn't understood. We have a general theory that says the speed of light is the speed limit for everything in the universe and given that we assume this to be true we apply that reasoning to information communicated through quantum entanglement and use the idea of the uncertainty principle to support it. That said it's all assumptions and theories at this point so to b
Re: (Score:2)
The experiment saw the successful teleportation of quantum information
Is "quantum information" not useful information?
So what happens if. . . (Score:3)
So what happens if two particles or photos are entangled, and are seperated by enough distance that there is human-scale lag (say 1/2 second to one second), and both ends of the link attempt to transmit at about the same time?
Would that break the entanglement? Or would the information "pass each other" on the way, and each particle takes on the state that the other particle used to have - now they are still both entangled, but aren't in sync? Would a change to one without changing the other re-establish the
Re:If I recall..... (Score:5, Informative)
But it has been mathematically proven that quantum teleportation does not allow faster than light communication. So unless you are not willing to believe mathematical proof, you should believe the previous poster's comment
Re:If I recall..... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's mathematically proven that if our current understanding of quantum mechanics is correct that quantum teleportation does not allow faster than light communication. That's not the quite the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have any reason to suspect that our understanding of quantum mechanics is generally unreliable or flawed in a relevant way?
Sure we do. One, the existence of extra infinities in QED which renormalisation works around shows that quantum field theories can't be the last mathematical word; they're at best an approximation which works as long as we don't extend it to all cases.
Two, the Standard Model containing a huge number of plugged-in variables shows that we don't yet have a fundamental theory which generates those numbers.
Three, the fact that we've yet to achieve a workable theory of quantum gravity despite >50 years of extr
Re:If I recall..... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the book the The Muppets, they show that frogs can talk and that pigs sometimes become infatuated with them.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you suggesting that real ones don't make mistakes [cnn.com] like that?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of very smart people have looked over this proof carefully, since it has such profound consequences. If you have a specific criticism of the proof, present it. Otherwise you should equally well consider the possibility that Venus does not exist, since all the scientists observing it through their telescopes might have collectively made a mistake. Blind skepticism is no better than blind faith.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a choice, I believe in a world where FTL communication/travel is possible or I can believe in a world where causality holds. Even without all the math that says FTL is impossible, I'd still chose causality over FTL.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't understand. We don't know everything about the universe or about physics but we do know some things beyond any reasonable doubt. Relativity is one of those things, specifically time dialation; GPS relies on it, we can put an atomic clock in an airplane and predict how much it will vary from a stationary one at ground level based on altitude and speed. It has been empirically verified.
You cannot have a universe with all three A) Time dilation in line with relativity B) FTL is possible and C) Cau
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you seriously using a work of fiction where they made a fictional math equation to say that a real equation is wrong? Seriously?
And honestly, it isn't even a math equation that shows that quantum entanglement does not allow for FTL communication. The sender doesn't get to choose a message, only determine a state of a particle. No data is gained by determining the state of the particle, thus no information is beind transferred. The only people claiming that this results in FTL communication are those who
Re: (Score:2)
Quantum teleportation does not violate special relativity. He didn't "presume" any more than that. You're trying to be a smartarse, but in a not very smart way..
Re:If I recall..... (Score:5, Informative)
The Higgs was not a common myth. It was entirely expected to be there. That's a reason they spent a bazillion dollars on the Large Hadron Collider, because they expected it to be there. Yes, it was possible it wasn't there, but it fit the standard model and so it was like saying, the world could always end tomorrow, but there's no convincing reason to believe it won't be there when the sun comes up.
Quantum teleportation does not transmit information faster than light and it is not expected to. If there was a mechanism that could do that, it would probably get its own article... and a Nobel Prize for whoever figured it out.
Re:If I recall..... (Score:4, Funny)
and a Nobel Prize for whoever figured it out.
I thought you had to do something political to get one of those.
Re: (Score:3)
They're two different prizes with the same name and somewhat under the same group. The "real" Nobel prizes are in the sciences, and are actually awarded for real accomplishments. It's just the stupid Peace Prize that's been turned into a laughingstock. It's probably not the same people who decide to award those prizes. The ones who gave the PP to Obama should be outcast for their idiocy, and never allowed to decide any more prizes for anything again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
quantum teleportation is a understood and predicted part of physics. Of course our model could be wrong. but if something allowed for FTL information exchange, it wouldn't be quantum teleportation. I guess it would be called something else (and would invalidate most of what we know about physics, but that is another point). Prefixing every comment in a physics article with "If our current understanding of physics is correct" seems pedantic to me, but if it helps you,, maybe you should start doing that.
Re: (Score:3)
The Higgs was never a myth. It was a prediction of the standard model that, until recently, was never seen. (One could argue that they still have not put the final nail in that coffin, though). Key word: predicted. The math said it was going to be there, but nobody had managed to reach those energy levels until the last few years.
100 years ago I doubt anyone had any opinions on quantum entanglement, which research on didn't start until the 1930s... a but shy of 100 years ago.
So in summary, nothing in the co
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to depend on new physics, why limit yourself to quantum entanglement? Pick something else. Personally, I like hyperwave better. You don't need to exchange particles first. If we'd only put hyperwave on Voyager, we could talk to it instantly! Of course, we could have just built it with a hyperspace shunt and not had to wait 30 years for it to clear the solar system in the first place....
Re: (Score:3)
The Higgs boson was also a common myth
That doesn't even make sense... The Higgs Boson was a prediction of the same model of the universe which says that quantum entanglement can't be used for FTL communication. The experimental verification of that prediction is further evidence for the model.
The myth is that quantum entanglement as we understand it would allow for FTL communication, when reality is that this phenomenon as understood does not.
It's possible that we're wrong, but your example is the opposite of supporting the idea that we might
Re:If I recall..... (Score:5, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If I recall..... (Score:5, Informative)
I was the AC who posted the first reply. Please read here for more info on why quantum entanglement does not imply FTL communication. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612 [cornell.edu]
Re:If I recall..... (Score:5, Funny)
It doesn't, that's why you need Scotty to build you a quantum singularity, which allows you to engage the warp nacelles and initiate FTL by sling shotting the message around venus.
Seriously, read a book or something.
Why the Canaries of all places? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why the Canaries of all places? (Score:5, Funny)
It's to provide early warning in the event of a quantum accident - you know something went wrong when the Canaries are both alive and dead.
Re:Why the Canaries of all places? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we should mod this 'hilarious' instead of funny. 10 points, sir A. Coward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Because they had a telescope on the islands that could be directed at transmitter 143 km away over open ocean. It just happened these islands already had the things this experiment needed.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are going to scientific research.
You have a choice.
Montana,
Siberia,
or
Some tropical island. Where would you choose?
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a strange place to do quantum research.
Relatively low pollution, for one thing.
Their earlier attempts in a desert failed, in part due to sand pollution.
Re: (Score:3)
The Canary Islands are the Cancun and Las Vegas of Europe: a boozy sun sex sand party romp. Where else would you travel with research grant money?
Although, what happens is Vegas, stays in Vegas, so I am not sure if Quantum Information can be transmitted outside the islands.
Put Another Way (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it's not teleportation. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually precisely the way teleportation works in Star Trek and most other fiction. The teleported version is a copy that it reassembled at the destination. Usually the original is destroyed (which is actually a requirement of real quantum teleportation), except when the writers are stuck for a plot idea and there's a teleporter accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Which means it is not transporting anything. Just murdering and making a copy of the victim.
Sure the copy thinks he is the one who stepped into the device at the other end, but he is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Yours is a semantic objection, and a nonproductive and ridiculous one at that. If you take a one year round the world trip, the "you" who arrives home won't be the "you" who left either. Essentially all of your atoms will have been swapped for others. Does that mean airplanes, cars and ships aren't transporting anything either?
Re: (Score:2)
It is not semantics.
The person who started the trip and ended the trip using conventional methods was made of all the same stuff and changed slowly over time. Instead of just a exact replica coming out at the end.
I want to stay alive, not think I stayed alive.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not teleportation, it's quantum teleportation. Complaining that it's not real teleportation is like complaining that an electron making a quantum leap isn't actually jumping. It's a compound word made up of two smaller words that, when taken together, have a different meaning.
Why Satellites? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are using quantum teleportation, why you even need a satellite???
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think his point was valid. If instant communication is possible between a hub in the US and a hub in without wires or line-of-sight issues, there's little point spending the money to put those communication hubs into orbit. Sure we'd still have classical channels leading from those hubs, and we'd still need satellites for things like GPS, but the need for communication satellites would be greatly reduced.
Of course, the point is moot if the bandwidth sucks on these things. If it's 300 baud, I don't care h
I don't understand (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't understand exactly what's going on, so that probably explains why I don't see the advantage of this.
From reading the abstract I get the impression that they are transmitting the information via lasers to the other location.
How is this different then using other frequencies in the spectrum? Aren't you still limited to the speed of light? So what is the advantage of this?
Seems like it adds complication without gaining much, other than being quantum.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree and I was hoping someone else would have commented by now.
TFS talks about efficiency. I can only guess that they can improve the bandwidth of the communication by using quantum teleportation but I'm not sure how and would be intrigued to find out.
Tim.
Re: (Score:3)
The main advantage is that it uses a lot less power.
Re: (Score:2)
As best as I can infer from brushing up from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation [wikipedia.org], what this allows you to do is verify the validity of a message. So I send you a message that says "blah blah blah, and the photon should be in this state", and you check your entangled photon and see that it's in that state exactly so you know you received the message properly from me. It's a reliable signature with superior encryption (since it is provably unforgeable)
Can someone else correct me or elaborate
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not quite as simple as teleportation, it's just given that name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation [wikipedia.org]
Most specifically:
"Suppose Alice has a qubit in some arbitrary quantum state
The components of a maximally entangled two-qubit state are distributed to Alice and Bob.
In the end, the qubit in Bob's possession will be in the desired state."
So what Alice is doing is actually modifying the REMOTE qubits to be identical to the LOCAL qubits AFTER the initial information exchange has occurred. You're now literally turning someone's remote blank paper into a copy of the document you have yourself by using a little set of numbers that you determined between yourself last week.
Re: (Score:3)
You have two cats, one live an one dead. You put them in identical boxes, shuffle them around, and send one random box to someone across the country. When they get the box, they call you up and ask, "what did you send me?" You open your box, and if it's a live cat, you say "I sent you a dead cat," or visa versa.
No cats were harmed in this description.
Re: (Score:3)
For example, does it mean that it is like if I have a set of 2 blank pages. I give you one. You go home, I go home. Then later in that day, I write something on my blank page. At this exact moment, the same modifications are applied on your blank page ?
No, more like you have a set of 2 blank pages, and you write "A" and "B" on them. You then seal them in envelopes, shuffle them randomly, and give me one. We go to our separate homes. Later in the day, you open your envelope and see it says "B". You call me up and tell me on the phone that my paper says "A", even though I've not opened my envelope, and magically, you're right!
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like:
You have two pieces of paper that you "entangle" whatever that means in this case and give one away.
Then you go home and paint a picture on your piece.
You take a digital scan of what you've painted and send it to the person with the other piece of paper.
They "print" the scan onto their piece of paper but instead of just getting a digital print they get the identical picture, paint, brush strokes etc but your copy of the picture is destroyed in the process.
Basically you've managed to transfer
Re: (Score:2)
The quantum state is copied (actually it's not copied, it's transferred - quantum copying would imply faster than light communication)
Going back to the more common example of momentum plus position, this would be like transferring the momentum and position from one electron to another (i.e. moving one electron into exactly the same place + velocity as the one you are "copying"). There is no measurement of position or momentum happening so the uncertainty principle is not violated and the transfer process ch
Re: (Score:2)
You destroy the copy on your end leaving the transmitted "copy" as the only one left. At least that's how Star Trek transporters work, sort of.
HOLY SHIT IT'S THE REPLICATOR! (Score:3, Funny)
"Quantum teleportation is not how it is made out in Star Trek though. Instead of sending an object (in this case a photon) from one location to another; the information of its quantum state is sent, making a photon on the other end look identical to the original."
So since matter is energy, if you can make the quantum state of object A identical to object B, IT'S THE REPLICATOR FROM STAR TREK ZOMFG I WANNA CHEESEBURGER
Re: (Score:2)
mod parent up. while they seem kind of overenthusiastic, it's true that quantum teleportation is a lot more like the replicator in Star Trek than anything else.
Well - that explains Fermi's Paradox. (Score:3)
The reason why we aren't receiving radio signals from distant civilizations is that they're not using radios to communicate... they've figured out something better.
Re: (Score:2)
Who says ET doesn't communicate with lasers, or quantum entanglement, or by manipulating t
Galactic Internet with Zero latency (Score:2)
Can you imagine Xbox 360,000 Live gaming across the solar system.
Woot! ;-)
Ok, what? (Score:2)
So basically - you start with two photons next to each, entangle them, then put one on a ship and it sails away. Then, you can tweak the one photon you kept, and every time you do, the other reacts as if you were the one tweaking it? Is it instantaneous? As in, could you put 32 of them side by side and create a 32 bit bus that spans any distance and yet provides connectivity as if where simply plugged into a USB port? Does the reaction on the other end diminish over distance? If not, why not use this to tal
Why satellites? (Score:2)
The reason for using satellites is that many frequencies of electromagnetic radiation require line-of-sight for communication. Putting a satellite in space gives it line-of-sight to many points one the earth's surface which lack line-of-sight, otherwise I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that quantum teleportation does not have the same requirement of line of sight?
If it does not require line of sight, doesn't it completely obsolete satellites? Well, I suppose you might use quantum communication
Re: (Score:2)
You are entirely wrong. It is "satellites" because this quantum nonsense cannot deal with intermediate stations! Hence LOS is critical and over these distances you only get it to satellites.
There is no "quantum Internet" (Score:2)
And hence, there will not be any "expansion" of it. It is also basically impossible. The Internet is packet-switched. Any quantum-communication method (should it ever be more as a stunt, which is highly doubtful) would necessarily be circuit-switched. ATM demonstrated how bad an idea that is for end-to-end communication.
Summary: The usual quantum BS. Theory still says it is limited to light-speed (or rather cannot be used for communication at all), the communication is extremely sensitive to any kind of cha
someone please explain this to me (Score:4, Interesting)
It is the hope of the research team that this experiment will lead to commercial use of quantum teleportation to interact with satellites and ground stations. This will increase the efficiency of satellite communication...
You can't send information via quantum teleportation, so exactly how do they plan to use it in satellite communication?
"same time" = what? (Score:3)
Assume two entangled particles, two synchronized atomic clocks, and two observers. Each observer has agreed to measure the state of their particle at a predetermined time, relative to their atomic clock. Assume one observer/clock/particle is on a spaceship that has been traveling near the speed of light for some time.
What happens when the particles are observed? Will the results be the same, because somehow time is "linked" even though it seems to pass differently for each observer? Will the results be different, because the particles are somehow linked "instantaneously?" (What does that even mean in this context?)
If the former, what happens if the particle is brought back to Earth? We should find the atomic clocks were no longer synchronized. (This part has been tested, right?) If so, wouldn't that mean the particles were permanently out of sync, and that by observing one of them, one could predict the future state of the other? As in, predicting the future?
IANAP, just pointing out some apparent paradoxes that for all I know have been solved.
Re:ping times (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't. The folks in Star Trek only communicate by audio when they are very close to each other (e.g. someone on a planet and a ship orbiting that planet, or two ships within clear visual range). They can pick up signals from light years away, but there is no indication that there isn't a lot of latency going on.
And as others have pointed out earlier in this discussion, quantum teleportation is not faster than light.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I should know better than to discuss Star Trek on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how much data can be transmitted with this technology.
None.