×

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!

Quantum Teleportation Sends Information 143 Kilometers

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the like-a-coal-mine-in-the-canaries dept.

Communications 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

333 comments

If I recall..... (2, Insightful)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year and a half ago | (#41246879)

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:If I recall..... (1, Interesting)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about a year and a half ago | (#41246927)

I was thinking the same thing; if this actually worked reliably, the ~20 minutes to talk to mars would be instantaneous and voyager wouldn't take 20 hours to send shit back home (and both might use substantially less power)

Re:If I recall..... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41246969)

No. No it wouldn't. Quantum entanglement does not allow for faster than light communication. Common myth.

-- MyLongNickName

Re:If I recall..... (-1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247055)

The Higgs boson was also a common myth. 100 years ago people would have said physics does not allow for quantum entanglement. Stop presuming that we know everything about physics.

Re:If I recall..... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247143)

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..... (-1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247297)

In the book The Songs of Distant Earth [wikipedia.org] , they also proved mathematically that the technology involved in the propulsion of the ship Magellan would be impossible... Until they discover that a simple sign in the equation was wrong.

Re:If I recall..... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247363)

In the book the The Muppets, they show that frogs can talk and that pigs sometimes become infatuated with them.

Re:If I recall..... (2)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247487)

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 don't have a basic understanding of what quantum entanglement is. They fill in the gaps with what they think they know and then claim to have figured something out that physicists working on things like this their whole lives simply overlooked.

Re:If I recall..... (1)

somersault (912633) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247273)

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..... (4, Informative)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247431)

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..... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247449)

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:If I recall..... (2)

Smidge204 (605297) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247585)

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 collective theories of physics in the past century has yet been truly broken. That includes faster-than-light communication, which this would not accomplish.
=Smidge=

Re:If I recall..... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247635)

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:If I recall..... (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247127)

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 in my own words and it pops like a soap bubble.

Re:If I recall..... (5, Informative)

wiggles (30088) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247339)

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..... (4, Informative)

wiggles (30088) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247375)

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:If I recall..... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247361)

IANAP
You measure the spin of two entangled particles in two different places at the same time. You only know the particles were entangled when you compare the results. You also can't control the results. Imagine two magical coins, when one flips head the other flips tails, you can't cheat to make the result heads or tails and they only give this result once.

Re:If I recall..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247433)

Same anon here,
The "only give this result once" is the interesting (pratical) part. Since the entanglement is something that you can only check with both results, and the entanglement is "read only", this is perfect for encryption.

Re:If I recall..... (1)

Guignol (159087) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247589)

No. you know the particles were entangled because you prepared them to be so
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:If I recall..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247757)

I just put at the same time to show they were somehow communicating faster than the speed of light, as you said.
You know the particles were entangled, but you can't know if your measurement was the first interaction with that particle, hence you need to compare your results.

Re:If I recall..... (4, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247413)

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:If I recall..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247495)

"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 it's like`asking the price of an item via phone? The shop guy doesn't know the price but he looks it up and gets it to you via phone (speed of light)?

Re:If I recall..... (4, Interesting)

locofungus (179280) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247507)

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:If I recall..... (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247823)

> 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:If I recall..... (2)

Normal_Deviate (807129) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247535)

I always ask this, and never get an answer. A quantum wavefunction can interfere with itself (E.g., you get interference fringes if you do the 2-slit experiment with a single photon.) But if the wavefunction is collapsed (E.g., by measuring which slit the photon goes through) then it cannot self-interfere. (The fringes disappear.)

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. Will that destroy the remote particle's self-interference fringes? If so, then we have our ansible.

Re:If I recall..... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247783)

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:If I recall..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247001)

Instantaneous in which inertial frame?

Re:If I recall..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41246999)

My understanding is that quantum teleportation will not allow for faster than light communications.

Re:If I recall..... (4, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247469)

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.

Re:If I recall..... (1)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247035)

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:If I recall..... (1)

Millennium (2451) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247125)

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..... (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247165)

That's just good old quantum entanglement what the article is describing is taking one of the entangled particles and teleporting it 143km which could put the particle into orbit (just). More info >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Re:If I recall..... (3, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247573)

No! Quantum entanglement is more like herpes! Lets say I give you herpes! Now we share the herpes state. Later on the next person you want to have sex with checks and sees you have the herpes state. They can therefore logically infer that I also have herpes, since you claim you didn't have herpes before and I was the only person you can in contact with in between. They can arrive at this conclusion no matter where in the world I am.

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.

Why the Canaries of all places? (1, Informative)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year and a half ago | (#41246891)

Seems like a strange place to do quantum research.

Re:Why the Canaries of all places? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41246973)

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? (3, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247381)

I think we should mod this 'hilarious' instead of funny. 10 points, sir A. Coward.

Re:Why the Canaries of all places? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247163)

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:Why the Canaries of all places? (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247447)

If you are going to scientific research.
You have a choice.
Montana,
Siberia,
or
Some tropical island. Where would you choose?

Re:Why the Canaries of all places? (1)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247493)

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:Why the Canaries of all places? (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247543)

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.

Quantum Network Enabled (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41246909)

Quick! Someone trademark "Quantum Network Enabled" before Apple does!

And patent a "system of using quantum entanglement for communications" - before Apple does!

Not Star Trek transporters, but communicators! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41246925)

I'm pretty sure the communicators in Star Trek use quantum teleportation. They regularly speak with no latency over light-year distances.

Re:Not Star Trek transporters, but communicators! (1)

dingen (958134) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247207)

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:Not Star Trek transporters, but communicators! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247393)

I'm pretty sure the communicators in Star Trek use quantum teleportation. They regularly speak with no latency over light-year distances.

Not so much. [memory-alpha.org]

Put Another Way (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41246935)

So, it's not teleportation. Thanks.

Re:Put Another Way (0)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247133)

Or to put it another way, it is.

Re:Put Another Way (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247269)

No, it really isn't.
As far as I can tell they are still transmitting the information via traditional means.
So it's read out some quantum info, transmit it to the other side, reassemble it into quantum info.
It's like saying you're teleporting movement if you connect a wheel to a dynamo, via a wire to a motor and a wheel.
When you turn one wheel, the other also turns.
That is not teleportation.

Re:Put Another Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247401)

If you call the use of a maximally entangled two-qubit state "traditional", then I guess we're firmly in the quantum era.

Re:Put Another Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247477)

I think the previous commenter said that as a joke: "to put it another way" (then he says the reverse of the previous statement).
e.g.
-Yes
-Or to put it another way, NO.

Re:Put Another Way (1)

Yoda222 (943886) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247501)

It's teleportation because your qbit state is destroyed in A and created in B, and does not travel from A to B.

Re:Put Another Way (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247711)

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.

ping times (0)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about a year and a half ago | (#41246943)

I for one look forward to ubitiquous 1ms ping times in the future, where the electrical circuits in the router are actaully slower than the data transfer.
hah.

Why Satellites? (4, Insightful)

sergioag (1246996) | about a year and a half ago | (#41246945)

If you are using quantum teleportation, why you even need a satellite???

Re:Why Satellites? (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247213)

Because it's not the kind teleportation you're thinking of. You still need a classical channel.

Re:Why Satellites? (2)

s_p_oneil (795792) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247727)

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 how amazing the ping time is. ;-)

Great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41246957)

Great news for fans of real time video games.

No more lag!!

I am eagerly awaiting the first inter galactic quantum Starcraft championship.

I don't understand (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247003)

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:I don't understand (2)

locofungus (179280) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247175)

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:I don't understand (2)

dingen (958134) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247225)

The main advantage is that it uses a lot less power.

Re:I don't understand (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247311)

Can you explain how? They are still transmitting photons through the air.
How does that consume less power than sending them over an optical cable?
Not to mention all the additional entanglement and de-entanglement steps.

How does this qualify as "teleportation"? (3, Insightful)

gapagos (1264716) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247057)

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

With that definition, every time I am faxing a document, I am "teleporting" it. All it does is create a copy of the original object. Can somebody explain to me in which way does this differs as to sending a fax or email and making the fax or email on the other end look identical to the original?

Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247139)

The difference here, from what I understand, is just this: When you fax something, you print ink/toner on another piece of paper somewhere else, that 'resembles' the original document. On different paper, perhaps written in Pencil, etc.

In this case, the photon at the end is made to be 'exactly identical'. So it would be the equiv of sending a fax of a pencil written document on cotton fiber blend paper. And getting a pencil written cotton fiber blend copy on the other end. That you could even still erase, since it's real pencil ;)

(OK OK, so that isn't possible ... yet .., this is just currently making a 'photon identical' ... but that's the conceptual difference)

Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? (1)

Yoda222 (943886) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247577)

it's exactly identical to the quantum state from point A before teleportation. But state A is modied, so after teleportation you have destroyed the state. (or modified the state to be more precise) So it's a copy at point B, but the original does not exists anymore.

Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? (4, Informative)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247189)

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:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? (1)

heatseeker_around (1246024) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247601)

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 ?

Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247257)

Because it is a qauntum state being sent. And a quantum state is so delicate that the act of measuring it irreversibly changes that state in an un-knowable way. With a fax, you measure the image, and replicate it. With quantum teleportation, you can't measure the image. Instead, you perform a special type of measurement that does two things: it destroys the state, and it gives you no information about the state. Then, on the other end, you remake the state using the measurement outcome, but that measurement outcome never told you what the state was. So, really, you are destroying the state here, making it there, all the while having no idea what you destroyed or what you made. Yet, you still did it perfectly. Almost like you teleported it.

There is a thing in quantum mechanics called the no-cloning theorem, which tells us a quantum state can never be copied or cloned. Emails and faxes are copies. Quantum teleportation is not, because it is impossible to copy a quantum state.

Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? (1)

locofungus (179280) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247263)

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 changes the position and momentum of the original so you do not end up with two identical electrons.

Tim.

Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247279)

Can somebody explain to me in which way does this differs as to sending a fax or email and making the fax or email on the other end look identical to the original?

Destroy the original. Seriously, how is the exact duplicate not the original?

If a teleporter is not teleporting matter, but rather decomposing matter and recording it's state, transmitting the state, and the replicating that state from a repository of "base" matter, what is the difference?

See http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/introduction.html for a good philosophical discussion of the issue.

Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247285)

No, that's not right. The difference is that with the fax, you need a carrier for that information in the form of electrons, photons, or some sort of wave (radio, microwave, etc.). All of these things can be stopped, blocked, or degraded by interference. In quantum teleportation, you just have two objects separated by a long distance that are "entangled" and share the same state. So when one is a certain way, the other is too. No chance of interference, and the information is transferred instantaneously.

Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247299)

The difference is that this "teleportation" is instantaneous. There is no "signal" traveling from one side to the other, as with a fax. The information/photon state/whatever just appears on the other side simultaneously.

Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247559)

If I remember correctly it violates the speed of light limit so you can send information a hell of a lot faster as you don't have to deal with the delay when designing the communication equipment.

Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? (1)

the_humeister (922869) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247665)

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! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247087)

"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:HOLY SHIT IT'S THE REPLICATOR! (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247521)

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.

143 km (2)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247275)

143 km ought to be enough for anybody.

udachny, not just a city in Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247397)

udachny is also roman_mir's sock puppet [slashdot.org] . after being moderated down for trolling, roman_mir has now resorted to heavy puppetry to continue to spread his message. apparently he has no trouble with the obvious hypocrisy of a firm adherent to a religion that whole-heartedly supports suppression of opposing viewpoints going out and making another account to spread his message when he feels he is being suppressed.

here's a hint, roman_mir / udachny. if you pay slashdot a few bucks you can get a subscriber bonus on your messages. you know, that whole free market thing you love so much? money talks here, too.

Armchair Scientists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247293)

Having read as much of the TFA as I can (paywall), here's my dumb question: The clocks have to be synched to within 1 nanosecond for the algorithm to work correctly. But the two sites on earth they tested are relatively fixed motionwise. Doesn't relativity say that the satellite times will be slightly offset, in which case it might be difficult to sync them?

I haven't thought this all the way through... (1)

darkharlequin (1923) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247333)

...but doesn't that mean that information from the frame of reference of the sattelite will arrive 300ms in the future, or however long the dilatation of the gravity well of earth allows?

Well - that explains Fermi's Paradox. (2)

SoupIsGood Food (1179) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247353)

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:Well - that explains Fermi's Paradox. (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247473)

This is a valid assumption. We have only been using radio for an eyeblink in time, and already many of are signals are directed and lower power. Not much noise leakage or signal strength for others to pick up. Assuming technology continues to advance, hat trend should continue, and our radio signal will look more and more like noise at a distance. Then, if better or different technologies supplant radio it's over.
Who says ET doesn't communicate with lasers, or quantum entanglement, or by manipulating the string patterns in the dark energy matrix?

Natural (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247357)

One of the solutions to the Fermi paradox is that civilizations invent something better than radio waves for communication, and thus the "radio window" is relatively brief, and so we won't hear anything because there's nothing to hear.

Galactic Internet with Zero latency (1)

PortHaven (242123) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247463)

Can you imagine Xbox 360,000 Live gaming across the solar system.

Woot! ;-)

Ok, what? (1)

Marble68 (746305) | about a year and a half ago | (#41247541)

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 talk to a mars or lunar rover? No line of site necessary?

This really is an incredible phenomenon. I've read about it before, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Re:Ok, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247643)

AFAIK it's not instantaneous.

quantum phone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41247615)

Can we get a quantum satellite phone and put Verizon Wireless in it's place?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...