Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Instant Quantum Communication Is Near

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the by-the-time-you-read-this dept.

Communications 287

fljmayer writes "In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, 'alive' again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost."

cancel ×

287 comments

HU? (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875704)

Wait wasn't this impossible like a week ago?

Re:HU? (2)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875748)

Don't worry, no USEFUL information was transferred.

Re:HU? (2)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875908)

Hurray, networks and computers full of no USEFUL information!

Re:HU? (2)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875940)

What about porn? Can we use this to transmit porn at lighting fast speeds over an extended period of time and for massive profit?

Re:HU? (3, Funny)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876076)

Sorry, you have reached your Quantum limit here at Comcast, you are now at 56kbps speeds.

Re:HU? (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876126)

Sorry, you have reached your Quantum limit here at Comcast, you are now at 56kbps speeds.

That's ok... I'll use my Quantum tunnel to the other universe.

no we are useing that for MLB EI HD (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876142)

no we are useing that for MLB EI HD

Re:HU? (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876180)

Hurray, networks and computers full of no USEFUL information!

Could be useful for Facebook and Twitter.

Re:HU? (1, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875986)

Don't worry, no USEFUL information was transferred

Holy cow, they're broadcasting CNN on a quantum teleportation channel now?

Re:HU? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876152)

No, they're still working on it. For now it's just Fox News.

Re:HU? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876358)

Nope...just FOX and HLN.

Re:HU? (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876146)

It's OK, I entangled it with the number on my betting slip and interfered with the slip between the result coming in and the clerk checking the slip

Re:HU? (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876356)

Through the magic of Slashdot, I will now attempt to transmit information forward through time! (Gentlemen, I bid you adieu!)

CAC 40 3908.58 +0.7% ; NIKKEI 225,9441.03 -1.21% ; FTSE100,5896.87

Re:HU? (5, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875924)

No. This has been possible to do for millennia. We've finally got around to actually attempting it.

Re:HU? (4, Funny)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876248)

This is the kind of comment that gets you slapped with a trout.

Re:HU? (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876410)

I suppose it depends on how complex the trout is.

Re:HU? (2)

stms (1132653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875952)

Yeah I believe that's why they call it a breakthrough.

Re:HU? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876102)

Wow. That's like faster than Verizon Billing. Never thought I'd live to see this day.

fix (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35875706)

first post?

Re:fix (5, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875722)

Sorry I'm posting from a quantum computer... And also not posting....

Re:fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876192)

I wasn't posting from a quantum computer until you looked at this.

Re:fix (2)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876244)

I wasn't posting from a quantum computer until you looked at this.

That's why I invested in a box of kittens. You feed them into the Quantum computer to avoid problems like that.

Re:fix (1)

mcneely.mike (927221) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876286)

that's okay... you're both alive and dead.

Physics (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875728)

Isn't there some law of physics that says information can not be transmitted faster than the speed of light?

Re:Physics (3, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875742)

Hint: the title is unrelated to both the summary and the article.

Re:Physics (5, Funny)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875794)

Not really.

Your post shows you have read neither the summary or the article.
And your cat is dead.

Re:Physics (2)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875812)

I read the article 3 days ago when it was news.

Re:Physics (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875846)

Not really.

Your post shows you have read neither the summary or the article.
And your cat is dead.

How so?

From TFA:

In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost.

that suggests to me they are claiming to be able to transfer information faster than the speed of light.
They use the word "instant" to describe the amount of time it took to "move information". Information transmitted via light between any 2 points that are not occupying the same space always takes more time than "instant"

Re:Physics (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875868)

Sorry IceBike. Thought you were replying to me, disregard the parent post.

Re:Physics (5, Informative)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876026)

This article is awful. Terribly written, incoherent and obviously inaccurate.

This sounds like an extension of previous quantum state "teleportation" via entanglement. These are interesting phenomena, but cannot be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light.

It's not really quite clear what the breakthrough is here. But I'm fairly certain it doesn't involve a group velocity (i.e. information transmission) greater than c.

Re:Physics (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876090)

If he read neither the post nor the summary, then why would you assume he bothered checking the status of the cat?

Re:Physics (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875880)

No, no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable cat, the Norwegian Blue.

Re:Physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876182)

What happens if the cat in the box is a Cheshire cat???

Re:Physics (0)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876324)

But it won't be a Cheshire cat once you open the box. Just ask Alice.

Re:Physics (1)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875888)

It wasn't my cat, but Schrödinger might be a bit miffed since he preferred it both alive and dead at the same time.

Re:Physics (1)

JustinRLynn (831164) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875932)

As they say, "A cat in any state is fine too."

Re:Physics (2)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876264)

It wasn't my cat, but Schrödinger might be a bit miffed since he preferred it both alive and dead at the same time.

That's just something he came up with so he wouldn't have to explain death to his kids.

"Daddy, what's wrong with Mr. Whiskers?"
"Well, see, if we put him in this box ..."

Re:Physics (1)

Xachariah (995669) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876172)

And your cat is dead.

Maybe...

Wonderful world of quantum computing (2)

formfeed (703859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876362)

This email is to inform you that your cat is either alive or dead.

Re:Wonderful world of quantum computing (2)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876444)

Every time I put a cat in a box and come back to it, I measure the cat as dead. Starting to think it's not truly random or I'm getting bad luck.

Re:Physics (4, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875760)

Yes. Yes, of course there is. Unfortunately, there is no law of physics limiting the scope of journalistic hyperbole.

Re:Physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876336)

Laws are made to be broken.

Re:Physics (3, Informative)

Americium (1343605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875866)

Yes, it's in the details,I haven't read this article, but I assume it's similar to other methods than seem to invoke FTL.

  You can't be sure what state you have before you transfer it, and if you do measure it, it changes the state. Therefore, when you teleport the current state, the receiver can see what state it's in, let's say 0 or 1. But since the sender didn't know if it was a 0 or a 1, the information is useless.

Personally I think spooky action at a distance isn't spooky at all. Consider the time-honored classic of two electrons in a correlated state being shot out of some device. Assume they are entangled in such a way that when you measure one to be up, you instantly know the other is down. Physicists will say, how could the other electron possibly know this, instantly. But a very simple explanation is that the device always shoots 1 up, 1 down. Sure you don't know if it's up or down until you measure it, but that doesn't make it spooky at all.

The actual spookiness is in the details, like what if I now measure it's spin with respect to a different axis, the classical and quantum results differ then, but I cannot think of any practical application this provides us.

Re:Physics (4, Interesting)

TexVex (669445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875926)

The actual spookiness is in the details, like what if I now measure it's spin with respect to a different axis, the classical and quantum results differ then, but I cannot think of any practical application this provides us.

Basically, the rate of correlation when measuring entangled things is a function of the orientations of the detectors. The only way to explain that is: 1> Assume that the universe is deterministic, so the entire future state of the system is known at the time of the event that creates the entanglement; 2> Assume that a change made to one member of an entangled pair have an instant effect across any distance on the other member of that pair.

Since entanglement and randomness are inextricably linked here, there's no way to use the effect to either foresee the future or communicate faster than light (and by extension, change the past). So you're right that there's no practical application for it.

It just raises some extremely thought-provoking questions about the nature of our reality.

Re:Physics (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876420)

It just raises some extremely thought-provoking questions about the nature of our reality.

...and, how we can play with it.

Re:Physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35875994)

The thing I don't understand is why people care what state it's in -- if you can trap two quantum-entangled electrons & move one several miles away you have either instant or speed-of-light (I'm not sure which) -- and possibly private -- communication.

A simple solution -- connect old-style half-duplex modems to an electric or magnetic field generators/sensors. The modems will wiggle & sense the state of the electrons at an audio rate. Now send information from one modem, wiggling electron 1 to its quantum entangled electron 2 which wiggles at the same rate, is sensed & the audio fed to the other modem.

At least this is what the EPR (Einstein-someone-someone) experiment seemed to predict. It would be great to have cellphones without the need for cell towers, and the question about cell phone causing cancer would be moot :-).

Re:Physics (2)

TexVex (669445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876092)

What you are suggesting sounds like an ansible. This is a science fiction FTL communication device invented by Orson Scott Card. It's based on the idea of a trapped subatomic particle that has been split in two, while the resulting pair of particles remain permanently linked such that any change made to one is reflected instantly in the other no matter how much spacial distance separates them.

Quantum entanglement can be thought of as working like that, except that as soon as one of the split particles interacts with anything else at all in any way and the resulting change is "transferred" to the paired particle, that entanglement is broken.

Re:Physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876160)

The ansible is a lot older than Card, it's been a hokey SF trope since relativity was new.. The term "ansible" comes from Ursula K. LeGuin's "Rocannon's World" (thanks wikipedia).

The biggest problem with this whole thing is that you can't set the spin of the particles once they're entangled, and entanglement requires moving them next to each other - doing so breaks the entanglement. This means it can never be any faster a means of transportation than just writing your message down and carrying it to the destination.

  I wish we could slap all these awful science journalists and make them stop. But we might as well get used to it. My ansible just spat out a message from future-me that says we'll continue to get these stupid stories from now until the robot conquest makes human journalists an obsolete curiosity.

Re:Physics (4, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875998)

Physicists will say, how could the other electron possibly know this, instantly

Why would they assume that the electrons are separated? Because we perceive them that way?

Isn't it easier to assume that they're not separate entities and that we just don't know how the universe is put together than to assume that we understand the universe and there's a 'magical' force communicating across infinite distance?

Re:Physics (1)

Dr Max (1696200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876022)

How do you explain that when you change the spin of one you change the spin direction of the other aswell?

Re:Physics (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876080)

How do you explain that when you change the spin of one you change the spin direction of the other aswell?

Two words: Transactional Interpretation.

The only spooky thing about 'spooky action at a distance' is that people think it's spooky. It's just a consequence of using non-relativistic quantum mechanics; you shouldn't be surprised that non-relativistic physics allows things to travel faster than light.

Re:Physics (1)

Americium (1343605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876210)

If you flip it after you make the measurement it doesn't do anything.

So you are suggesting to put in a spin flipper before you make a measurement. Does the entanglement still hold then?

Re:Physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876436)

Nope.

Re:Physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876170)

You know what's spooky? People with vast knowledge of physics, history and mathematics who still can't tell IT IS from ITS. Damn that apostrophe is POWERFUL mojo!

Re:Physics (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35875874)

Isn't there some law of physics that says information can not be transmitted faster than the speed of light?

Yes. The headline is incorrect. The experiment 'teleported' the quantum state of photons (but not the photons themselves, that is almost certainly impossible, or at least, grossly impractical) in a way that was much faster than previous experiments. But still slower than the speed of light.

Re:Physics (2)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875886)

Isn't there some law of physics that says information can not be transmitted faster than the speed of light?

Yes. The headline is incorrect. The experiment 'teleported' the quantum state of photons (but not the photons themselves, that is almost certainly impossible, or at least, grossly impractical) in a way that was much faster than previous experiments. But still slower than the speed of light.

To be fair to the headline, the text of the article mentions that the state was transmitted instantly, which implies speeds faster than light.

Re:Physics (2)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875964)

As odd as it sounds, there's not actually any difference between teleporting "only" the quantum state of the photons and teleporting the photons themselves -- provide the state you're teleporting is the entire state of the photon. Quantum mechanical particles are entirely defined by their state; beyond that state, they're all the same. (Of course, this is counterintuitive.)

Still, while the state change technically is propagated instantaneously (a pair of entangled photons are sharing a single state, so changes in the state are "instant"), it's impossible to make any use of this (to transmit information, for example) without transmitting information via conventional means, which can be no faster than light.

Re:Physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35875978)

That is only belived by a couple of physicists with no imagination and a need to be listened too. Einstein knew about instantaneous information transfer but he didn't understand it.

Re:Physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876072)

That is only belived by a couple of physicists with no imagination and a need to be listened too. Einstein knew about instantaneous information transfer but he didn't understand it.

Bullshit. Lrn2science, kid.
  Einstein began with the hypothesis that the laws of physics must function the same for all observers. (A sane starting place, and one that's held true in our measurements from the largest galaxies to the smallest subatomic particles.)
  From that fell out the fact that light speed is the limit, and there is no universal frame of reference. There is no absolute rest (so nothing "stops" moving, except relative to other things) and no absolute time (so there's no "instant" except within the context of a reference frame.) and nothing moves faster than light.

  The problem for FTL proponents is that if an object or signal at one location, call it A, arrives at a distant location (B) before its own light arrives, then it will have arrived before it left in some reference frames. Sci-fi usually handwaves these reference frames away and tries to ignore their implications.
  However, if one returns the signal or object the way it came, it will now arrive before it departed in ALL reference frames, and causality is borked. Say hello to time travel, and the huge can of worms that it involves.

Think like a Dinosaur (3, Insightful)

PhreakOfTime (588141) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875988)

There is no law, there is just an equation. It must always be balanced.

The Equation must be balanced [wikipedia.org]

Re:Physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876000)

Data is not "transfered" it is "teleported" so it's not faster than the speed of light it's just as two place at once

Not really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876018)

Law? Last I checked, c is still a theory, along with most of the stuff we know that are wrongfully labelled "laws".
In fact, nothing rules out Tachyons either. The only thing that rules out FTL is Relativity, which we know isn't even near correct, just correct enough for the uses we care about now. (just like Newtons laws have their own uses as well)
People always cite collider experiments as proof, but as any good scientist should know, correlation does not mean causation.
Just because light travels at the that speed, doesn't mean there aren't things that can't go faster.
In fact, the speed of light in a vacuum isn't even the fastest speed, the speed of light in between 2 charged plates small enough to prevent virtual particle pairs from interrupting the beam of light is faster. (not sure how much again, don't think it was that much faster though*)
Most of the time, light is just bouncing from particle to particle, very rarely does it experience times where it is in a true empty space.

For all we know, the thing keeping galaxies in the states they are in could be down to particles with some sort of FTL influence, rather than WIMPS or whatever else there is.

Not meaning to beat in to science or anything, but we don't know shit.
And I hope these kinds of experiments continue to grow.
The quantum world is a messy place.
The speed of light could be ripped apart next week for all we know.
Some dude could come back from the future to tell us to watch out for the alien dinosaurs from the planet Zorg.
While it is unlikely, it could very well still happen.

* links here
PDF - The Light Velocity Casimir Effect [slashdot.org]
View the PDF in Google Docs [google.com]

Re:Physics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876284)

No, there is no law for this. It is true that you cannot move matter or energy faster than the speed of light. Matter and energy are normally used to CARRY information, but information itself is not subject to this limit.

Near? (5, Funny)

Dan East (318230) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875752)

Neither Australia nor Japan is close to me, so unfortunately Instant Quantum Communication Is Not Near.

Re:Near? (3, Informative)

snookums (48954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876034)

And if you are near Australia, the PopSci website force-redirects you to the .au URL where this article is 404, so you can't find out about it.

Re:Near? (1)

mykro76 (1137341) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876346)

Oh so that's why the URL in the article wasn't working for me. Thanks. Stupid website design...

Re:Near? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876418)

https://proxify.com/u?http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/quantum-teleportation-breakthrough-could-lead-instantanous-computing

Nearly near there and here (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876116)

Well, the moment that Instant Quantum Communication is Not Near there, but rather Not NOT NEAR there (i.e. THERE there), you can be assured that it will make it possible for Instant Quantum Communication to be Near everywhere--it's Instant, after all. Or, rather, instead of Near everywhere it will be THERE everywhere since it's there THERE (except here, where it is not THERE but HERE there (here)) and will instantly be there HERE, too. So, the moment it's there there it's also here HERE. And this works for values of HERE that are not here where I am (there), but THERE where you are (here).

So there. Or here--it doesn't matter.

Ah, so this is the dupe (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875788)

The original article will post six hours from now... but what is 'now'?

Re:Ah, so this is the dupe (2, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875930)

The original article will post six hours from now... but what is 'now'?

Colonel Sandurz: Try here. Stop.
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?
Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then.
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.
Dark Helmet: How soon?

Okay, but... (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875792)

Will this instant quantum communication make my AT&T 3G signal any faster?

Re:Okay, but... (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876186)

No, this won't make any signal faster. Only the transmission of data would be faster.

Destroyed? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35875818)

I bet the bit that was destroyed was in Japan...

Re:Destroyed? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35875962)

Totally not cool man, just totally not cool at all.

Yeah, Right (1, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875854)

Do you think any government on the planet would allow that? I'm sure any researcher who so much as hints that he's actually close to a breakthrough on that topic quietly disappears in the night.

Re:Yeah, Right (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875982)

So, I herd you like conspiracy theories...

Re:Yeah, Right (1)

Bruce_Nash (766419) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876240)

So, I herd you like conspiracy theories...

How does that compare to herding cats?

Re:Yeah, Right (2)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876372)

Wow, your comment is either truly profound or you have no clue how to spell. Quick, someone check in on his cat...

Re:Yeah, Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876328)

That's just what Fleischmann and Pons want you to believe...

Re:Yeah, Right (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876338)

What are you talking about? This is a huge leap for the Federation.

Re:Yeah, Right (1)

fabioalcor (1663783) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876352)

I'm sure any researcher who so much as hints that he's actually close to a breakthrough on that topic quietly disappears in the night.

Don't worry, he will reappear in another place, "alive" again and unchanged.

Re:Yeah, Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876374)

Thats only in the US, in the free world we don't have to live with that sort of fear.

The Upshot: (2)

TexVex (669445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875878)

It's the same old teleportation thing, except now faster and with higher fidelity.

The article is extremely light on information and (as usual) rife with such misleading phrases as "SchrÃdinger's Cat" and "spooky action at a distance".

Re:The Upshot: (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875954)

and "spooky action at a distance"

Did you just make that up or do you have a saved response for quantum teleportation articles?

Re:The Upshot: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876014)

That phrase was actually Einstein's objection to quantum mechanical predictions. Check out the EPR Paradox.

Re:The Upshot: (3, Informative)

Gastrobot (998966) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876064)

The phrase "spooky action at a distance" was coined by Einstein for the ability of one particle to instantaneously affect another.

Re:The Upshot: (1)

daenris (892027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876396)

yes, but the phrase "spooky action at a distance" is not in the article, as TexVex seems to be suggesting, indicating that he's throwing out the criticism without actually having read the article.

http://www.fullmalls.com (-1, Offtopic)

xiaojiekyyy (2048816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35875956)

Click on our website: ( http://www.fullmalls.com/ [fullmalls.com] ) Website wholesale various fashion shoes, such as Nike, Jordan, prada, also includes the jeans, shirt, bags, hats and decoration. Personality manufacturing execution systems (Mes) clothing, Grab an eye bag coat + tide bag Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30 Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i) $15 New era cap $12 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $20accept paypal and free shipping ( http://www.fullmalls.com/ [fullmalls.com] )

That's not how quantum entanglement works (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35875958)

Transferring information faster than the speed of light through the use of quantum entanglement is impossible. Only through the use of a second, traditionally light-speed-bound communication channel one make any use of the oddness that is quantum entanglement.

That said, it might still have practical uses, but instantaneous communication to the other side of the galaxy is not one of them.

Re:That's not how quantum entanglement works (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876254)

Although I figured using it as a network interconnect across the planet, say EU to US would be a good start, of course depending how quick you can flip that bit as to whether it's even feasible vs under sea cables. Though saying that I figure it's far more complex than merely using it as an overcomplicated cable. No doubt thinking of traditional uses for quantum processing systems is too simple, but I'm not a quantum physicist so I'm a bit stuck there. The engineer part of me says "Right, now what? Let's find a use for it and start building another one."

Re:That's not how quantum entanglement works (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876298)

Its *impossible* to use entanglement to perform communication instantaneously over *any* distance. No-Signal Theorem and No-Clone Theorem both play a roll here. Its not a matter of "well we just haven't figured it out yet", its a matter of "oh we can't violate the basic laws of physics" (see causality).

Sure it is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876038)

Instant Quantum Communication Is Near*

* Note that Instant Quantum Communication requires our advanced Friends and Quantums plan, at $159.99/month. Instant Quantum Communication may not be Instant, depending on Quantum traffic patterns in your service area. Instant Quantum Traffic may be routed to a lower priority because we want you to buy our Quantums, not Netflix's Quantums.

Article says nothing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876052)

I RTFA, but I'm unconvinced as to what they actually achieved. The article says researches in Australia and Japan teleported light without damage to the information and without taking forever to copy that one state (so they upgraded their quantum modem so to speak).

But... TFA lets me assume they teleported that FROM Australia TO Japan or the other way around, and somehow I feel they didn't. I feel more like they teleported that photon independently within their separate laboratories. Why? Because quantum entanglement isn't that big of a deal: you split one thing into two, and one's state depends on the state of the other, like two gears that used to spin together and you separated them and by measuring one's state you automatically know the state of the other. Unless of course I misunderstood Wikipedia. :)

How long.... (1)

asm2750 (1124425) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876086)

.... until we have head crabs jumping around latching on to people when this technology goes wrong?

good god (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876164)

If I were a grandfather, I'd buy a gun today.

The Federal Reserve Already Uses This (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876232)

1. Don't observe the price of commodities when calculating inflation.

2. Observe the price of everything else.

3. Massive ammounts of money are magicly transported from everything else into commodities.

4. So much money flees the measurement that it actually looke like there's deflation.

5. In fact, you faulty observations have caused you to trick yourself into seeing something that isn't there.

6. ???

7. Profit. For somebody. I'm sure.

Yawn... (1)

Holi (250190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876394)

Wake me when they have an ansible.

When they can do this with an entire human (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35876440)

who would volunteer?

wow (1)

koan (80826) | more than 3 years ago | (#35876442)

What's the distance between transfer points, was it between Japan and Australia or were those just 2 lab locations running separate experiments? information transfer faster than light?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...