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!

Mathematical Breakthrough Sets Out Rules For More Effective Teleportation

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the no-farther-away-than-40,000-km dept.

Science 162

dsinc sends this news from the University of Cambridge: "For the last ten years, theoretical physicists have shown that the intense connections generated between particles as established in the quantum law of ‘entanglement’ may hold the key to eventual teleportation of information. Now, for the first time, researchers have worked out how entanglement could be 'recycled' to increase the efficiency of these connections. Published in the journal Physical Review Letters, the result could conceivably take us a step closer to sci-fi style teleportation in the future, although this research is purely theoretical in nature. ... Previous teleportation protocols have fallen into one of two camps, those that could only send scrambled information requiring correction by the receiver or, more recently, "port-based" teleportation that doesn't require a correction, but needs an impractical amount of entanglement – as each object sent would destroy the entangled state. Now, physicists from Cambridge, University College London, and the University of Gdansk have developed a protocol to provide an optimal solution in which the entangled state is 'recycled,' so that the gateway between particles holds for the teleportation of multiple objects. They have even devised a protocol in which multiple qubits can be teleported simultaneously, although the entangled state degrades proportionally to the amount of qubits sent in both cases."

cancel ×

162 comments

"More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630157)

Bit optimistic, aren't we?

Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! (5, Funny)

meadowsoft (831583) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630533)

Don't you mean qubit optimistic?

Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! (5, Funny)

SpzToid (869795) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630607)

640 kbits should be enough for any body.

Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630667)

640 kbits should be enough for any body.

640 qubits should be enough for any body.

Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630899)

640 cubits should be enough for any boo-tay.
I like big butts and I can not lie.

Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631847)

640 kbits should be enough for any body.

You must use AT&T DSL.

Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! (2)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42632227)

You can only get that rate if you happen to live at their central hub, next to the room that the NSA leases.

Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! (5, Funny)

a_hanso (1891616) | about a year and a half ago | (#42632185)

640 qubits may or may not be enough for anybody.

Where does extra energy go? (3, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630161)

Suppose I teleport an object from a height of 1000 feet to a height of 0 feet about sea level. There has been a loss of gravitational potential energy -- where does this energy end up? Conversely, if teleporting the object to a higher elevation, how is the gravitational PE imparted to the system?

Re:Where does extra energy go? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630249)

As I understand the summary, this is dealing with quantum entanglement and the teleportation of information not matter...

In star trek terms, think subspace radio, not transporter.

Re: Where does extra energy go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630257)

Inertial frame.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630283)

Gravitation potential energy is not a change in the energy state of an object. A stationary object at 1000 ft has no energy. Once released, gravity imparts energy.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

Esion Modnar (632431) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630313)

Stationary, relative to what?

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

msk (6205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630401)

And how to deal with changes in angular velocity? Larry Niven had human-engineered teleportation limited to some fraction of the planetary circumference in order for equipment to deal with changes.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630511)

The source of the gravitational field. What else would be relevant when tallking about gravitational potential energy?

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

mfnickster (182520) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631935)

The source of the gravitational field. What else would be relevant when tallking about gravitational potential energy?

Ah, but the stationary object is also a "source of a gravitational field" from the POV of the ground. Relativity, y'see.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631939)

Stationary, relative to what?

Well, obviously it would be relative to the source of gravity imparting this gravitational PE on the object. In our case, the surface of the Earth.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

noshellswill (598066) | about a year and a half ago | (#42632187)

The gravitational potential of a mass identifies a spacial distribution ("volts") of Joules/Kg. Multiply that by the mass of an object experiencing that potential and you get the gravitational potential energy (joules) of one mass in the field of another. Comprende? One mass creates a grav. potential ... two masses give energy.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (3, Interesting)

Neil Jacklin (2818845) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630433)

Actually, the object does have _potential_ energy. I've wondered about OP's question before. I think the answer has to do with the fact that these "teleporters" don't transport matter in the conventional sense. Suppose you did have have a teleporter that could take an object and teleport it 100 ft up a hill. If you dropped the object, collected the potential energy (like in a waterwheel), and teleported it again, you shouldn't be able to violate conservation of energy or make a perpetual motion machine. So, I figure it's either A) impossible, or B) requires an energy input at _least_ equal to the change in potential energy. \\ Of course, I'm talking about gravitation potential energy, but that's just one field. There's also electromagnetic. Conversely, if it took more energy in than the net change in potential energy, where would that energy go? So I suppose the net energy input should be equal to the change in potential energy. \\ This also raises other issues, like if I teleport very far away, or two a more massive planet, I might need to input a lot of energy on this side. \\ A possible resolution to this problem is that the kind of teleportation here is just informational--that is changing one particle's state to match (or oppose) the one on the other side. Thus no mass (or charge) is transported anywhere, and everything is happy energy-wise.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630599)

There is one more option, that conservation of energy is not necessarily enforced on quantum level.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (5, Funny)

pclminion (145572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630957)

There is one more option, that conservation of energy is not necessarily enforced on quantum level.

Another equally likely option is that at the quantum level everything is made of bacon.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (2)

Neil Jacklin (2818845) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631153)

Actually I'd say that this Bacon Hypothesis is _more_ likely than breaking the conservation of energy. That seems to be among the most fundamental laws of physics.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631631)

You must have inspired the story above this one. - Facebook Banter More Memorable Than Lines From Recent Books. Seriously, you just made the list. In an earlier time this might have been included in HHGTG.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42631005)

What the .... is the f icon next to your name?
Does /. allow fecesbook logins now?
There went the neighborhood! September again.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631737)

Actually, the object does have _potential_ energy. I've wondered about OP's question before. I think the answer has to do with the fact that these "teleporters" don't transport matter in the conventional sense.

They don't transport anything at all. All the information is transferred at the speed of light or slower.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631955)

The basic, fundamental principle of quantum entanglement is "instantaneous sympathetic action at a distance"...with no regard for how long that distance is, therefore exceeding the speed of light for basically any measurable distance.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42631123)

Raising an object from 0 ft to 1000 ft increases the rest energy of the earth-object system. In special relativity, at least, there are two types of energy, rest energy and kinetic energy. The classical notion of "potential energy" is covered by rest energy. But there's still a little more to it than that, as much of the rest energy of a proton can be attributed to the kinetic energy of its quarks. Heating an object increases the kinetic energy of its particles, and this increase corresponds to an increase in the rest energy of the macroscopic object.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630289)

The name "quantum teleportation [wikipedia.org] " is a bit misleading: no particles, mass or energy is teleported. The only thing "teleported" is a quantum state.

What's remarkable about quantum teleportation is that you can transfer an exact quantum state from one place to another without sending any particle with that state along the way. That's remarkable because quantum states can't, in general, be copied (see the "no-cloning theorem [wikipedia.org] ). When you perform a quantum teleportation, you must destroy the state of the originating particle during the teleportation process.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631755)

The name "quantum teleportation [wikipedia.org] " is a bit misleading: no particles, mass or energy is teleported. The only thing "teleported" is a quantum state.

Even that is not teleported. The energy is carried on the entangled particles. The quantum state is carried on the entangled particles.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630301)

Suppose I teleport an object from a height of 1000 feet to a height of 0 feet about sea level. There has been a loss of gravitational potential energy -- where does this energy end up? Conversely, if teleporting the object to a higher elevation, how is the gravitational PE imparted to the system?

That entirely depends on how your imaginary teleporter works. The article is about quantum teleportation. No mass is moved between end points, only information.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630441)

Gravitational potential energy isn't real. It's an imaginary construct devised to help us intuitively handle a concept.

For example, what would happen to all that "potential energy" if Earth just suddenly ceased to exist, leaving behind the object floating in space? Your question implies that you believe the object would begin accelerating toward the center of an object (Earth) that no longer exists to attract it simply because the surface (of Earth) isn't in the way to stop it...

Re:Where does extra energy go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630745)

if Earth just suddenly ceased to exist, leaving behind the object floating in space?

Because that is a completely realistic scenario? Try coming up with a mechanism for doing so that doesn't remove the gravitational potential energy of said objects...

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

pclminion (145572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630975)

For example, what would happen to all that "potential energy" if Earth just suddenly ceased to exist, leaving behind the object floating in space?

Speculation on the consequences of impossible events is not really informative.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

HybridST (894157) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631293)

"Speculation on the consequences of impossible
events is not really informative."

About a century ago a patent clerk speculated on impossible events and successfully described space-time and time dilation.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631827)

About a century ago a patent clerk speculated on possible events and successfully described space-time and time dilation.
FTFY
Well, except for that cosmological constant fraud. - that part was impossible. But the Slashdotters of the day bought into it, because, well, because they didn't understand what he was saying anyway, and the rest of it sounded good enough.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (3, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630505)

Despite the authors attempt to make this sound like it has something to do with teleporting real world objects, it doesn't. Entanglement has to do with 2 particles sharing a state such as spin, and when that state changes in one entangled particle it also changes simultaneously regardless of distance or the speed of light in the other entangled particle. All of the laws of physics are observed. Information can not be passed faster than the speed of light. Matter can not move even at the speed of light, most of it no-where near the speed of light. You can not teleport an object from one place to another at all. There may be extended spacial dimensions that would allow us to do an end-run around distance, but keep in mind, if there are 4 or more spacial dimensions, we and all other matter already exist and are moving in those dimensions. There is very likely physical laws governing travel in them that would have the same effect that normal travel would. For example think if we were 2 dimensional creatures living on the surface of the earth and we suddenly discover the 3rd dimension and realize we could travel through the earth to reach china in half the time. While physically possible, there is that whole "Drilling through thousands of miles of solid rock" obstical that would make it a lot easier to just hop on a jet.

Also, keep in mind that, to my knowledge and I just did a quick check and found nothing, humanity has never entangled anything other than photons/light. Which are technically both a wave and particle, but it's a hell of a long way off from entangling actual normal matter. Let me know when they entangle a Neutron and it'll be a big deal. Don't get me wrong, I think it's not beyond the laws of physics but we are very very very far away from true real world applications. The entanglement of photons can be explained via classical physics/optics, and doesn't need quantum theory to explain the effect. That doesn't mean it's not real, it just means you should take it with a grain of salt.

This discovery makes experimentation easier. Teleporting yourself to work? Not so much.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630837)

You can not teleport an object from one place to another at all.

But isn't the quantum state (which is what is being "teleported") exactly equivalent to a full description of the particle in question? Therefore isn't there absolutely no difference between doing this and what might be considered "classical" teleportation, i.e. the movement of a particle from point a to point b without travelling the intervening space?

Also, keep in mind that, to my knowledge and I just did a quick check and found nothing, humanity has never entangled anything other than photons/light.

How about entangling two macroscopic crystals, neutrons and all [popsci.com] ?

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631807)

But isn't the quantum state (which is what is being "teleported") exactly equivalent to a full description of the particle in question?

Not normally. All the quantum experiments to date have only measured a single quantum property. For example, say you know the polarization of a photon. That doesn't mean you also know its phase, direction of travel, time of arrival and energy. Although other particles have not been entangled, the same would go for any other particle.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42631125)

(Posting as AC to preserve mod points ...)

Teleportation in this context may imply duplication of a body via entanglement of multiple (many!) particles rather than a physical reconstructive removal from one location to another. If this is the case, which entity is the master copy and which is the slave may become an interesting question. Or do they both influence one another?

Re:Where does extra energy go? (2)

slew (2918) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631553)

I think you might be a bit confused about entanglement assisted teleporation. As I understand it, basically to do this you start with an entangled pair of qubits which you send to two disparate places. You also have two "bodies" consisting of many(!) corresponding particles one in each place. The thing you want to teleport is quantum *state* of one of the "bodies" of particles to the other body of particles in the other location using entanglement assisted teleportation.

The act of entanglement assisted teleporation requires measurement of the joint state of the entangled qubit you have with the state of the particle you want to transmit. This measurement will destroy the original quantum state of the "master" copy (kinda like schrodinger's cat). The results of these measurements will be classically transmitted to the other place and used to modify the state of the entangled qubit so that the "slave" particle will have the original quantum state of the master.

The trick is that when you do the joint measurement, you don't collapse everything with the measurment (you know the joint state of the qubit and the particle, but not them individually). By modifying the entangled qubit to match the classically transmitted measurement, you create a condition where the particle is influenced to replicate the original state of the master particle. Thus the original "master" body will be there, but the original quantum superposition state will not, but will be reproduced at the other location in the "slave" body meaning the slave becomes essentially the new master...

This mathematical breakthrough apparently gives a framework on how to reuse that one entangled qubit (rather than require one for every particle whose state you want to teleport).

You just can't clone a quantum state, though... See this discussion [wikipedia.org] . Basically, this entanglement trick gets around this by destroying/collapsing the original (quantum/superposition) state avoiding your master/slave problem.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

dfeifer (973821) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631563)

This would be interesting in the realm of communications though. If you were to isolate say 2-16 "bits" and have the equipment compact enough to read the state of these particles in a carryable device you would be looking at near real time communications no matter the distance. 2 bits you are looking at classic morse code one for a * and one for a -. 16 would be basic machine language. This would be great for spacecraft.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42632173)

would be looking at near real time communications no matter the distance.

If by near real time you mean at the speed of light, since there isn't a well defined meaning to "real time" over long distances, and because quantum entanglement doesn't allow for faster than light communication of information.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42631825)

Instantaneous exchange of information between 2 points + 2 MakerBots (1 at each end) ; = teleportation. When MakerBots Bio becomes available teleport copy of self. #win

Re:Where does extra energy go? (3, Informative)

stuckinarut (891702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631879)

Humanity has entangled stuff bigger than photons; The Biggest "Spooky" System Ever Seen: 4 Entangled Ions (Jun 2009) [discovermagazine.com] and Entangled diamonds , big enough for the eye to see (Dec 2011) [nature.com] . We haven't managed the information transportation part with anything other than photons though but we're doing well on distance; quantum key transmitted wirelessly 144km [aps.org] .

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

Zediker (885207) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630555)

More importantly, what actually allows them to change position in the first place. I'm not talking force here... But the actual physical change in position. Teleportation is a waste of time, Translocation however is more useful. Why move matter from point A to B when you can just redefine it at position B?

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630679)

Speedy object goes in, speedy object comes out. -G.L.A.D.O.S.

Where did you learn science?

Re:Where does extra energy go? (2, Interesting)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631249)

Potential energy "exists" inside the gravitational field: It represents the total amount of work you have to do to traverse a certain path while being subjected to the effects of the field. For a conservative field like the gravitational one, the amount of work is independent of the actual path when the end points are fixed, and that's the reason, the only reason, why we can associate a single number, called potential energy, with any given height above ground level.

In other words, potential energy is a mathematical shortcut, it saves you from having to compute a work path integral for each problem involving a particle traversing some path in a conservative field. Potential energy is literally a table of precomputed answers. If you have a path from 1000 feet down to 0 feet, you can 1) compute the work over that path or 2) look up the answer from the potential energy table, by subtracting the values at 1000 and 0 respectively. This works because of the fundamental theorem of calculus.

Now onto the question. If you teleport an object from 1000 feet to 0 feet, there is no traversal of the gravitational field by definition. Therefore there is no work being done against the field since there is no continuous path. Therefore there is no energy change experienced by the object since there is no physical work happening that involves it (disregarding whatever mechanism enables the teleportation in the first place).

Thus: At 1000 feet, the object has zero kinetic energy, and has potential energy V(1000). At 0 feet, the object has zero kinetic energy, and has potential energy V(0).

This does violate the conservation of (kinetic + potential energy), however that quantity is only a convenient approximation of the truth for non-teleportation cases, where the only way of arriving at 0 from 1000 feet is by traversing a continuous path. The truth is that (kinetic + work-over-path) is conserved, in this case, since the path is not continuous.

Re:Where does extra energy go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42632197)

The truth is that (kinetic + work-over-path) is conserved, in this case, since the path is not continuous.

What makes that any more "true" if it seems more appropriate when the previous version is only broken by a method not yet known to exist?

Re:Where does extra energy go? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631915)

I don't think you understand Gravitational Potential very well.

The way you state it, you'd think a top shelf holding up an object would have to exert a larger force to counter gravity than the same object on a lower shelf due to that object's higher PEgrav which is due to it's greater distance from the gravity source(the Earth).

Potential energy has not yet been imparted on the object, hence the word 'potential'. It is "how much energy this object could get solely from the force of gravity". The amount of energy potentially imbued by this force depends on many things, including the object's position and unobstructed path relative to the gravity source. This is why when you change the position of the object within the gravitational field, you also change its PEgrav.

Teleport Whales? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630191)

Maybe?

The idea of Teleportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630203)

As I understand teleportation, the original 'you' is destroyed, and a duplicate 'you' is created in another location. I have always found this prospect disturbing. Could anyone familiar with quantum physics chime in? I'm curious as to whether a solution could be found which also preserved the original consciousness (and not by simply backing it up in another location).

Re:The idea of Teleportation (4, Funny)

Esion Modnar (632431) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630259)

Is that you, Bones?

Re:The idea of Teleportation (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631335)

Is that you, Bones?

Of course it's me! I'm a doctor, not a quantum brick-layer!

Re:The idea of Teleportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630335)

The answer to that will be about as useful as explaining the exact physics of how a "warp core reactor" works. IT'S FICTION!

Re:The idea of Teleportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630579)

LOL but on Slash, sci-fi is real. Space elevators, warp drives, Mars colonies and the hundreds of attendant magical technologies and fantasy materials are just a question of, like, how hard we really want them to happen.

Re:The idea of Teleportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630935)

And in one early episode of Star Trek: TNG, thought becomes reality and the whole crew almost goes insane.

Re:The idea of Teleportation (4, Insightful)

celle (906675) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630993)

"LOL but on Slash, sci-fi is real. Space elevators, warp drives, Mars colonies and the hundreds of attendant magical technologies and fantasy materials are just a question of, like, how hard we really want them to happen."

      And remember Dick Tracy's video wristwatch was described in the 1930s when radio and telephone was less than 50 years old. We have it now and in other forms such as cell phones and tablets less than 75 years later. Slashdot is visited by people in research and science fiction, who knows what could be in the next 100 years if we put the "old nose to the grindstone".

Re:The idea of Teleportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42631081)

And in the 1930s airplanes had motors that burned gasoline and used wings to generate lift. Do you see how information processing and the physical world have different limits?

Re:The idea of Teleportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42631253)

"Well, yes, the amazing things we did in the past were completely possible, but what you're talking about now is just impossible! It's completely different! Really! I can see into the future. I know all and see all." -You

Re:The idea of Teleportation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42631365)

"I think anything I can dream up will become real because I read about it in sci-fi! I totally disregard a century's worth of science and engineering because I watched Star Trek as a child! I also think that any discovery automatically means bigger and better rockets, even though we have solid engineering and physical understanding of the limits of materials and energy sources! I don't like what I hear and don't want to be bothered learning about actual reality because I'm a slack-jawed dreamer!" -You

Re:The idea of Teleportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42632203)

And in the 1930s airplanes had motors that burned gasoline and used wings to generate lift. Do you see how information processing and the physical world have different limits?

And "in Rand McNally, they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people." QED

Re:The idea of Teleportation (1)

dunng808 (448849) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630351)

The universe would not tolerate more than one of me.

Now, turning to Bill Cosby, "What's a qubit?"

Re:The idea of Teleportation (1)

Jamu (852752) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630563)

Until we understand consciousness, it's hard to say. Entanglement might have something to do with it. Duplication of a conscious state could be prohibited.

Re:The idea of Teleportation (1)

pclminion (145572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630913)

As I understand teleportation, the original 'you' is destroyed, and a duplicate 'you' is created in another location. I have always found this prospect disturbing. Could anyone familiar with quantum physics chime in? I'm curious as to whether a solution could be found which also preserved the original consciousness (and not by simply backing it up in another location).

You used to be ten years old, certainly not at all physically the same person you are now, and yet you don't seem disturbed that your ten year old self has "died" only to be replaced with your current self...

Re:The idea of Teleportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42631579)

I never had friends, like the friends I had when I was 12. Actually it disturbs me to no end...

Re:The idea of Teleportation (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42632005)

This is a complete fallacy. The 'you' at 10 years old and the 'you' now are physically the same person. Let's say you clone yourself, and through some convenience-of-hypotheticals magic, your clone is instantly the same age you are.

Now, do you expect that clone has the exact same memories as you do? Even if it is assembled at an atomic level to resemble the exact state of your body, does this 'clone' have your consciousness? Are you able to hear their thoughts as the same being, or is it completely separate from you? Is it a copy but unconnected, or has your mind somehow become linked with it? Of course, we know through animal cloning that it would not be connected, and you would have different physical matter regardless of the precision with which you were duplicated.

In this case, regarding translocation and reassembling a person at a remote location based on 'teleported' information, it is likely that there would either be two of you with the same memories and thought patterns, or if the original is somehow destroyed in transit, you would just cease to exist and your 'cloned' version would just take over as you in the world none the wiser. There is no process by which consciousness should be transferred and not just duplicated in this example - 'consciousness' is relative to the actual physical matter of YOU, not to the general pattern of your atoms.

Re:The idea of Teleportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42631121)

If you mean to create a duplicate an arbitrary state, identical at the quantum level, then the answer is no, you cannot. The no-cloning theorem [wikipedia.org] forbids it.

Re:The idea of Teleportation (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631169)

Not really. 2 entangled particles can actually be viewed as a single particle with 2 disparate manifestations.

Eg, take a wave of light, and send it through a beam splitter. Half the beam goes right, the other half goes left.

The actual light being split is exactly the same light, going in 2 directions. The photons in branch A are entangled with the photons in branch B. (More or less.)

If a device were made that supplied sufficient energy at the "destination" to entangle 100% of all the particles in your body without altering any of the actual states of those particles (pure entanglement, no measurement), then you would exist in both places simultaneously.

The ethical question, is if the dissolution of the "source" instance is murder or not.

Re:The idea of Teleportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42632221)

The actual light being split is exactly the same light, going in 2 directions. The photons in branch A are entangled with the photons in branch B. (More or less.)

Actually, much more of the "less" than "more" as those are not entangled. Additionally, you can see such effects with a single photon. It is a property of a single particle, and that is a separate effect from entanglement.

And that ethical question doesn't come up with quantum teleportation. Quantum teleportation does not allow the copying of states, as the process involves the measurement and hence destruction of states at the origin in order to derive the final instructions needed to transform the state of the particles at the destination into the desired state copying what was at the origin (the same final instructions limiting the process to speed of light communication as they need to be sent from the origin). Otherwise, you would just get a random state at the destination.

Finally (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630211)

Thank jebus, I was just remarking to one of my colleagues about how many seconds it took to beam down to the planet on our last mission.

Now things should go much smoother, live long and prosper Cambridge!

as usual with a hard science post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630229)

slashdot posters have nothing to offer other than retarded comments trying to be funny.

Re:as usual with a hard science post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630275)

We are too ignorant.

Re:as usual with a hard science post (2)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630349)

This one is even better so far, half of the comments are retarded trying to be serious.

Title imply that teleportation is already a thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630299)

Seriously.. "more effective teleportation", any kind of teleportation would be more effective.

Re:Title imply that teleportation is already a thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42631007)

It is already a thing, if you've kept up on physics research instead of scifi, and don't expect it to be the same for both.

I's like to imagine the world with such technology (1)

Jade_Wayfarer (1741180) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630311)

Well, maybe someday that would help to create something like USB but without physical medium between two connected points? Yeah, I know, "no information can be transferred through QE", but still, who knows how else can we sidestep "obvious physical limitations"? Not now, but in 20, 50, 100 years from now? I'd like to imagine our world with such technology widely adapted, and I just can't - possibilities are truly mind-boggling. Ah, I just like news like this - helps to get out of winter depression a little.

Re:I's like to imagine the world with such technol (1)

mbstone (457308) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630473)

Maybe you wouldn't have to figure out which way to plug in the goddamn USB connector.

Re:I's like to imagine the world with such technol (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630843)

Even better, you can plug it in both ways at once. As the physicist said to the grad student.

free energy from teleportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630371)

Maybe this teleportation can be used to create free energy by teleporting to a point with higher potential energy

"More Effective Teleportation" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630391)

Great! Lately I've been feeling that today's means of teleportation just weren't effective enough...

Teleportation and special theory of relativity? (1)

rroman (2627559) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630443)

Instant teleportation of information according to STR violates causality. Is this a really serious science? Recycling state of quantum entanglement might be possible but as far as I know, quantum entangled particles don't "transport" information.

Re:Teleportation and special theory of relativity? (2, Informative)

Tanuki64 (989726) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630639)

Instant teleportation of information according to STR violates causality. Is this a really serious science?

For now it is math. Whether it is really relevant for real world physics is a totally different question.

Re:Teleportation and special theory of relativity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630649)

A small nitpick here. STR (And pretty much all science.) is based on the idea of causality, not the other way around.
Instant teleportation of information invalidates STR rather than violate causality. This is not necessarily a big deal since STR might not hold anyway.
Yes, yes, I know about GPS but elevators also work and they are based on Newtonian physics that we know is wrong, it's just that the model is good enough to be usable.

Re:Teleportation and special theory of relativity? (1)

rroman (2627559) | about a year and a half ago | (#42630685)

I will answer myself. They are talking about transporting quantum information or quantum state. Quantum information is _NOT_ the same as classical information. The summary is misleading in this way.

Re:Teleportation and special theory of relativity? (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42632019)

QE transmits the state of or change in the state of a particle. If you can't call that information, you're not thinking hard enough.

That's like saying a binary 0 isn't information because it is, literally, nothing.

Re:Teleportation and special theory of relativity? (1)

rroman (2627559) | about a year and a half ago | (#42632117)

It does not. QE binds particles in such a way, that when one particle is measured, the second is bound by this measurement. For example if you measure, that one particle has +1/2 spin, the second then has -1/2 spin. This is not transmission of information - you can't force one particle to have spin +1/2 and cause the second particle to have instantly -1/2 spin.

Binding Causality and Light speed is odd.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42632087)

Given that if superluminal phenomena exist (quite possible) then the only issue will be with an observer who's limited to perceiving those phenomena at the speed of light. Since from their perspective, it will appear that causality has been violated

But from the perspective of one who has the technology to perceive superluminal phenomenon, causality will have been maintained.

 

Obligatory xkcd. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630453)

http://xkcd.com/465/

Thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630479)

Am I the only one thinking in a sheldon cooper voice "The physics is theoretical but the fun is not."

Re:Thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42631683)

Am I the only one thinking in a sheldon cooper voice "The physics is theoretical but the fun is not."

Yes.

I'd never use it on myself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630491)

Would this do:

memmove(&over_there, &me_here, sizeof(me)); ...or the more worrying (but possibly easier)...

memcpy(&over_there, &me_here, sizeof(me));
free(&me_here);

I don't care if there is a perfect replica of me at the other end...it's still not *me*.

Original destroyed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42630577)

Teleportation will most likely happen...Not in our lifetimes. The thing is, the original is destroyed. Are we prepared to die, and be reborn? I'd do it!

It's Christmas again! (1)

CHIT2ME (2667601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631107)

Is this going to help me untangle my Christmas tree lights?

The summary should've read (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42631529)

Theoretical physicists suck at math, physics, and engineering. Oh, and deductive reasoning.

Simple math ... (2)

danwiz (538108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631795)

IF countBeingsInChamber > 1 THEN GOTO abort_transfer

Re:Simple math ... (1)

oliverk (82803) | about a year and a half ago | (#42631965)

UNLESS being2 = fly THEN GOTO merge

Re:Simple math ... (4, Funny)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42632023)

Jeff Goldblum says "Thanks, Captain Hindsight!"

Yeah..right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42632253)

Seeing as how I've been teleporting for many years, I'm going to suddenly give your so called rules any credence. Brawhaha....

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...