Slashdot Mirror


Austrian Physicists 'Teleport' Light Over 600m

openSoar writes "The BBC is reporting that: 'Physicists have carried out successful teleportation with particles of light over a distance of 600m across the River Danube in Austria. When physicists say 'teleportation', they are describing the transfer of key properties from one particle to another without a physical link.'"

68 comments

  1. Dear God by NickMc2000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Haven't we learned anything from Half-Life or Doom? Teleportaion can only lead to some race trying to enslave humans. Ya, science is soooooo great.

    1. Re:Dear God by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting about Brundle-fly. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    2. Re:Dear God by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 1
      Your sig:

      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.

      Wow, here's a conundrum:
      Can I write in response to your sig? I mean, you did write it explicitly one time, but does every post constitute an explicit reiteration of the sentiments in your sig? Please advise so I know if replying to your sig is OK or not.

      --
      taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
  2. Does anyone have a handy definition of teleport? by LordOfYourPants · · Score: 1

    "The researchers were able to teleport three distinct polarisation states between Alice and Bob via the fibre-optic cable through the tunnel. The process is not instantaneous as it is limited by the speed of light."

    Doesn't sound like teleporting to me so much as uploading.

    Then again, I'm just grasping at straws hoping to get Canada its first gold medal in first non-anonymous post to have quoted an article done by a member without a Slashdot subscription.

  3. Re:Does anyone have a handy definition of teleport by LordOfYourPants · · Score: 1

    I'll settle for silver. :(

  4. Story title and summary all wrong by menscher · · Score: 5, Informative
    Ok, as a physicist I initially thought these must be crackpots. A careful read made it clear that the science is good, it's just the slashdot title and summary that don't make sense.

    What they did NOT do is teleport particles of light. That just makes no sense. Light was used as the means of conveying the information used to teleport the quantum properties from one particle to another, without the particle having to travel.

    By the way, the reason this is called "teleportation" is that the particle effectively travels at the speed of light -- its properties can be transferred by light. If this could be applied to humans, for example, it would allow for light-speed travel, without all the nuisances of acceleration. It should be noted that this does NOT violate the universal speed limit.

    Oh, and before someone asks, this is entirely different from quantum tunnelling....

    1. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by FLAGGR · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, my spacetime folding machine works better, light speed travel is SOOOOOO 80's.

    2. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by iendedi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The researchers were able to teleport three distinct polarisation states between Alice and Bob via the fibre-optic cable through the tunnel. The process is not instantaneous as it is limited by the speed of light.
      I am feeling particularly stupid, I guess... But wouldn't the fibre-optic cable exist to transfer the entangled photons and the "spooky action at a distance" be performed between the entangled photons regardless of the existance of the fibre-optic cable?

      What does the cable have to do with this other than making sure both sides have an entangled photon?
      --

      It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
    3. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by noselasd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >By the way, the reason this is called "teleportation" is that the
      >particle effectively travels at the speed of light -- its properties
      >can be transferred by light. If this could be applied to humans, for
      >example, it would allow for light-speed travel, without all the
      >nuisances of acceleration. It should be noted that this does NOT violate
      >the universal speed limit.
      These folks did not "teleport" a single particle, they transferred the _properties_ of some particles to particles elsewere. Those properties were transported with the about the speed of light. So, I don't see
      quite how you could apply this to humans in the sence of teleporting an entire human somewhere else.

    4. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      You know, it's actually good news, because this system works a lot more like what most people think is the process of teleporting people as seen in Star Trek: get on the transportation pad, and *BZTT* your physical form is carried away in a flash of light !

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    5. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well, if you simultaneously transferred the _properties_ of every atom in your body to some atoms elsewhere, then you would have achieved teleportation of your body. The fact that your actual subatomic particles didn't move makes it seem kind of like "fake" teleportation, but in the strange quantum world we live in it is completely equivalent to and indistinguishable from "real" teleportation (whatever that means). That's why they call it teleportation even though the actual particles involved don't physically swap places. Of course, usable teleportation of everyday objects is infeasable because in order to get the same object out at the destination you need to have a supply of all the types of atoms in the original object plus the means to assemble them in the configuration of the original object.

      Basically you need to replicate the item first (roughly, ignoring the quantum states of the particles), then you can transfer its quantum state using quantum teleportation to complete the teleport. But you have to do every atom in the object at (about) the same time to avoid having the teleport process affect the object too much. The bandwidth needed to transfer the information held in even a small object dwarfs even theoretical limits on proposed futuristic communication channels. And assembling the replica in the first place is probably even harder; and if you've already made an almost perfect replica of the item then who needs the original anyway? Once you have replicator technology, teleporter technology seems less useful. (You might think it would still be useful for teleporting humans, but if we could do that it would imply that we could also replicate humans. Think of the consequences of that...)

      Wow, that ended up a lot longer than I intended. Some physicist person please come correct all the errors I probably made ;-)

    6. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by rikkus-x · · Score: 5, Funny

      Indeed, this isn't so much teleportation as rsync.

      Rik

    7. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      These folks did not "teleport" a single particle, they transferred the _properties_ of some particles to particles elsewere.


      And what's the difference between the two? If you transmit all the properties of a particle onto another particle for all intents and purposes you've transmitted the particle. The only difference between the two particles is the properties they posess. If you could do this to a huge number of particles (and somehow put them in the same order) you could teleport a person.

      Of course that's kind of like taking one step and then dreaming of going to the Andromeda galaxy. You do still have to take that first step though.

      --
      AccountKiller
    8. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by mmaddox · · Score: 1

      Of course, this underscores the essential problem with teleportation...you're not really transported anywhere. An exact duplicate is made of the teleported human, but the first one is dead. Will you notice? No one else will care, because there's an exact copy prancing about somewhere.

      --

      What'dya mean there's no BLINK tag!?

    9. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Sadly spooky action at a distance doesn't really work. Its really spooky actions between photon A and photon B, then B moves to C, in which spooky action occurs between photon B and photon C.

      Now the impressive part as I understand is that we've been able to do this with A and C being particles not just photons.

    10. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by photon317 · · Score: 1


      I'm under the impression (and IANAP), that you can somehow entangle two photons and then send them down seperate paths at light speed away from each other (say to two endpoints millions of km apart), at which point you can instantaneously transmit information from one photon to the other, by messing with the state of one and seeing a related change in the other. My understanding of this was you could have an entangled-photon generator at the centerpoint of a fiber link between two cities halfway around the world and by sending a constant stream of entangled photons in both directions, you could have instantaneous, zero-lag communication between the endpoints.

      I know this isn't what's being done here, but does anyone know about what I'm (probably incorrectly) talking about, and where I can find some source on that, or what it's called?

      --
      11*43+456^2
    11. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by freqres · · Score: 3, Funny

      Could you use it like a universe folding origami machine? I think that the universe would be much better shaped like a swan than a saddle or a doughnut.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    12. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by flink · · Score: 1

      IANAP either, but I believe the uncertainty principle will muck it up. When you go to read the state of your entagled photon, you won't know if any change in the state is due to a change in the other photon or due to your attempt to read the state. My understanding is that action at a distance only occurs in situations where it conveys no information.

    13. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by cr0sh · · Score: 1

      Do you notice yourself getting older? Same principle, just on a much longer time scale. That, and it isn't all happenning in one shot (that is, all your cells at once aren't dying and being replaceds, but at any one moment, there are some cells dying and being replaced). Right now, the question is still philisophical, but I would bet that if the process occurred extremely quickly, you would never notice it.

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    14. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      That direction leads out of physics and into Reformed Sufiism

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    15. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by menscher · · Score: 1

      You're almost right. Yes, you can send photons down both directions. When you measure the polarization of one photon, it intstantly determines the polarization of the other photon. But you can't choose how to measure the polarization. It's random. Therefore you can't transmit information in this way.

    16. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by menscher · · Score: 1
      Some physicist person please come correct all the errors I probably made

      No physics errors, and a very nice explanation. (And yes, IAAP. Just too lazy to write all that myself.)

      You might want to reconsider your statement "if you've already made an almost perfect replica of the item then who needs the original anyway?" Keep in mind that twins have the same physical makeup, but different personalities, knowledge, and experiences. Quantum teleportation would include those aspects (the part that makes us "conscious") as well.

    17. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humm not quite different at the moment of dupication, the person would only be different the momnet from then on, when they start having different experiences....

    18. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by photon317 · · Score: 1


      Sounds like the whole thing is a lot of BS to me then. So like... if you replace "quantum entanglement" with "randomly-colored can of spraypaint", and "photon" with "tennis ball"... wouldn't you get the same effect? Blast two tennis balls with a single random color of spraypaint, shoot them in two direction, and when you observe one of them being puke-green [drum roll].. the other one is instantly determined to be puke-green!

      Where's the magic?

      --
      11*43+456^2
    19. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      I've always wanted to see one of the myriad Star Trek shows address the fact that the final step of teleportation is obliterating the original once the copy is confirmed successful. Anyone know of an episode where the writers acknowledge that there's a shredder sitting beneath the fax machine?

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    20. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The deal with quantum entanglement is that entangled particles somehow maintain identical states.

      For example, you have two particles A & B.
      You entangle the particles, such that they have state 'foo'.
      You take particle A to Oregon, and particle B to Cuba.
      You change the state of particle A to 'bar'.
      At the very same instant, particle B's state suddenly changes to 'bar'.

      Therefore, if you send a stream of entangled particles in state 'foo' to point's A & B, when point A changes the state of one of those particles, point B can observe the change of state instantaniously.

    21. Re:Story title and summary all wrong by photon317 · · Score: 1


      Well, what you desribed would allow me to instantaneously communicate over very long distances without the pesky latency induced by the speed of light limitation, which is back to the point a few posts up. The other guy said you can't "change" the state of particle A to 'bar', you can only observe that it is bar, and then observe that B is also 'bar', and therefore can't use it for insta-communication.

      Which of the two is correct?

      --
      11*43+456^2
  5. There was a physical link.. by kyhwana · · Score: 2, Informative

    Err, there was a fibre link, ie a physical link. RTFA submitter?

    --
    My email addy? should be easy enough.
    1. Re:There was a physical link.. by Rolken · · Score: 1

      It was the PROPERTIES of the particles that were teleported. Not the actual photons. You lose.

    2. Re:There was a physical link.. by slughead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I just "teleported" your post from the slashdot server into my retinas.

      See your words weren't transmitted, it was the bits that represent them being streamed across the internet, hundreds of miles, to a server, saved, sent to my computer, converted into an image which my monitor projected into my eyes.

      THE FUTURE IS NOW!

    3. Re:There was a physical link.. by Rolken · · Score: 5, Informative

      Um, I'm not even entirely sure what you're getting at... but the point is, two photons are entangled, you move one far away, then mess with the first one and the second one instantly changes in the same way. The photons don't teleport, but their information does.

    4. Re:There was a physical link.. by cft · · Score: 1

      that's called quantum entanglement and is actually not what they did in this experiement. rtfa

    5. Re:There was a physical link.. by charlie763 · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. If you mess with one, the other is not effected. What happens when particles are entagled is that they seem to rotate, flip, spin in the same pattern. It's like an Russian and a Scott being given the same instruction manual in France and both peple start exicuting the instructions at the same time, while they move back to their home countries. They will be doing the same thing at the same time, but if you slap the Scott in the face and give him a new set of in structions, the Russian does not automatticly get a new set of instructions as you seem to be suggesting. What you are suggesting voilates the laws of the Universe. You know, the whole "speed of light" thing.

      --
      Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
    6. Re:There was a physical link.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the other is not effected

      "affected".

  6. I was going to ask a dumb question, but... by benjamindees · · Score: 4, Informative

    I decided to do a little googling instead:
    How this relates to quantum computing:
    When a single photon is split by a beam splitter, its two `halves' can entangle two distant atoms into an EPR pair.

    How to entangle a photon pair: There are certain nonlinear (BBO) crystals, such as are used in optical parametric oscillators, that will supply entangles photon pairs.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  7. Re:Does anyone have a handy definition of teleport by Boronx · · Score: 2, Informative

    Could the article have it wrong? Perhaps they misunderstood the scientists. The photons move at the speed of light, but the entanglement effect ought to be instantaneous since from one way of thinking the distant photon was already in the same state as the input photon.

  8. teleportation ? hell yeah :) by moro_666 · · Score: 1

    don't know about you guys but i like the idea of teleportation

    we probably can't even imagine what would happen if people could finally get teleportation to work so it could teleport every kind of items, spaceprograms surely would have a great benefit from it, also every kind of transportation companies, except maybe bikecabs :) imagine that you could order food over teleportation :)

    althrough from the scientific point of view, this will be a huge effort even to get a single atom teleported from one place to another. teleporting light is a great start thou :)

    ordering stuff from thinkgeek in the speed of light sounds pretty exciting :)

    the question about teleporting living things will be a tabu for quite a while i'm affraid ... cause people are so scared that their soul might get lost ... maybe we should start testing with microsoft workers ? *grin* :)

    --

    I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
  9. think puppets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You move an arm and your 'puppet' moves an arm, instantly. The difference being that arm could be up to 600m away connecting by a fibre optic cable... now if we could get rid of the cabling requirement and the distance limit we'd get teleportation... uh.. puppetry. I'd like to see this happen reliably on a cellular level, before I hop onto a transporter...

    1. Re:think puppets by GTRacer · · Score: 1
      Ummm, TeleSupermarionation, anyone?

      GTRacer
      - FAB

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
  10. *Poof* - *SPLAT!* by MachDelta · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new alien overlords...
    As long as I get to telefrag my boss, they can do anything they damn well want with Earth!

  11. Re:teleportation ? be very afraid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The idea of teleportation is a scary one...

    Imagine waking up in the middle of the night to find the US/Halliburton Army using satellite teleportation to move machinery into your backyard in their global search for oil...

    Teleportion will certainly have its pros and cons... and like all other technologies, its uses will be both beneficial and detrimental... think of its implications in drug trafiking... amongst other things...

  12. How about we call it.... by spineboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cloning! OMG they've cloned light. Hopefully the US Gov't won't make it illegal.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  13. Re:teleportation ? be very afraid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, those are two very scary prospects. Halliburton might show up in your back yard LOOKING 4 OIL!1!111 OMFG!!!!1! It isn't like the US military couldn't show up in anyone's backyard at any moment because, you know, they are a super power and could probably crush all the worlds militaries combined. But boy oh boy, with this new teleportation stuff they could show up in France and totally demand oil, and France would be like "WTF we surrender". And the US would be like "we don't want you to surrender, we just want your oil to run our e\/il corporations with corporate death squads". And France would be like "WTF, we surrender". Then the Italians would be like "we were on France's side, but we are first surrendering then switching sides and are now on the side of the US." And the US would be like "OMFG Italy, you guys r gay, give us your oil too." And Italy would be like, "Okay." And I would be like "OMFG teleportation sucks. No blood for oil! No blood for oil!!!11!!!"

    And then the college aged kids could get their weed quicker, because clearly the war on drugs has almost eliminated drugs from the streets. Just the other day I was out looking for crack and this guy was like "Sorry man, we lost the war on drugs. Just the other day we surrendered. You can no longer get crack on the street ever again." and I was like "fuck. I wanted crack, but the government won the war on drugs." Then teleportation would come and I would be like "Kick ass, I can get drugs sent right to my home." Then I would smoke a lot of pot AND GO INSANE AND KILL SOMEOEN !!!!11!!!!1!! Because pot totally kills people. Just the other day I saw someone overdose on pot. He totally died.

    So I guess what I am saying is that those slopes sure are slippery, it is a good thing you are hear to guide us through the potential problems with teleportation. Drugs and Halliburton/EVIL CORPOTATE DEATH SQUAD/US military sure are scary.

  14. Instant travel by laughing_badger · · Score: 3, Informative

    One interesting point to note is that, if it were possible to transport a person via this process, the trip would appear to be instantaneous. Although travel would occur at the speed of light, no time would appear to pass for the traveller. Cool.

    --
    Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
    1. Re:Instant travel by NanoGator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "One interesting point to note is that, if it were possible to transport a person via this process, the trip would appear to be instantaneous. Although travel would occur at the speed of light, no time would appear to pass for the traveller. Cool."

      Duplicate stories on Slashdot would be a wonderful benefit to these heroic travelers!

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Instant travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is, due to relativity, true for anything travelling at the very speed of light. (This also means that you have to have someone else doing the braking for you...) If you really travel at c, the time dilation is total.

  15. If this works long distance... by mrjb · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be wonderful if the latency between Earth and Mars rover could be eliminated? No more troublesome autonomous machines needed, just use remote control. Unless of course a fiber optic cable is a requirement - I don't see any fiber optic cables of that length being produced anytime soon.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    1. Re:If this works long distance... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you read either the article or existing comments you'd notice that this process is limited by the speed of light. The latency is still there with this system. Removing it would be wonderful, yes, but this will not do it. Nothing currently known to physics will. Nothing currently known to be knowable by physics will. And precious little thought to be possibly knowable by physics will either.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:If this works long distance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still don't understand WHY the speed of light limits these "processes".

      Someone wanna explain?

    3. Re:If this works long distance... by psyconaut · · Score: 1

      Go read up on "Entanglement".

      -psy

    4. Re:If this works long distance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually i know how, but i just don't wanna tell anyone

  16. as someone else said.... by numbski · · Score: 2, Interesting

    rsync at the speed of light. ;)

    I could find some uses for that. My brother in law would like to rsync music collections for backup purposes for example. :D

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

  17. What is really happening by jgardn · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's really more than that, because you have to remember that each photon is neither fully in one state or the other. It is a combination of the two. This is "quantum superposition", or the concept that a particle is really a manifestation of discrete possibilities.

    I think a good example of what is really happening is to imagine a pair of dice guaranteed by nature always to roll a 7. If you see a "3" on one die, then there absolutely must be a "4" on the other. Anything else would be a violation of several fundamental laws. Now imagine taking the two dice and seperating them by a large distance, and then rolling one of the dice. Even though there is a large distance, and even though the speed of light is the limit at which information may be sent, the other die will show the other number pair when measured. (Debate about whether one measurement happens before another is meaningless due to special relativity. In other words, one measurement cannot cause another to be so.) So if you roll a 3, the other die will roll (or has rolled) a 4. If you happen to roll a 1, then the other die will roll (has rolled) a 6. Spooky, huh? Welcome to the crazy world of quantum mechanics! Just when you thought you understood it all, nature throws a curveball.

    Now your first instinct is that somehow those dice decided on something befor they were seperated. This is not how quantum mechanics works. The two particles can't "decide" on anything until measurement. Every observation and every calculation tells you that the particles did not decide on a specific state beforehand. I could show you why this is so, but it's pretty complicated and involves higher level mathematics than the average slashdot reader can understand. If you're really interested, I suggest reading a QM textbook. They keep this topic in one of the last chapters, so you have a lot of studying ahead of you.

    Finally, your next reaction is going to be, "Wow, we can communicate at speeds faster than the speed of light!" Unfortunately, the way this works you can't "force" the particle to a particular state. If the particle comes in with a preference for one state or the other, then the complement will be true for the other particle. (By preference, I mean the chance of one state is 90%, and the other is 10%, or 99.99% and 0.01%, not something pre-decided. See the above paragraph.) And thanks to special relativity, it is fruitless to try and decide whether one measurement occured before or after another, so a causality link cannot be established.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    1. Re:What is really happening by slughead · · Score: 1

      That's not what this is though. They said specifically that it was not quantum entanglement. Quantum Entanglement is instantaneous, not at the speed of light. Nor does it require a fiber cable.

      What this does is send a funky photon from one molecule to another over fiber optics, changing the state of the 2nd molecule... Just another way to transmit data.

    2. Re:What is really happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freemasons run the country.

  18. Re:teleportation ? be very afraid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh,
    you should make a "end of ze world" like animation.

  19. I'll put it to you like this: by numbski · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Piss someone off at work.

    Does the word 'telefrag' mean anything to you? :P

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

  20. You've been had! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


    > When physicists say 'teleportation', they are describing the transfer of key properties from one particle to another without a physical link.

    So some morning when you wake up with a suddenly teeny weenie, you'll know you've been had by a physicist.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  21. Ok so why cant we? by MortisUmbra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since, obviously, you are not actually teleporting the photon itself, but rather its properties. Why can't we use this as a sort of limitless instantaneous data transfer method?

    I.E. Use the manipulation of these properties to single a sort of photonic 1's and 0's (or potentially much more, possibly instead of binary, it might be possible to make it trinary, or better).

    Think about it, you put a pack of these entangled photons into a sort of "storage" device, stick it on your next mars rover, and instead of there being a huge delay, your commands are sent instantaneously. Obviously eventually these entangled photons would be all used up (or could you continue to modify them after the first time?) but still, rovers, for example, are a consumable at this point too.

    --

    "The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
    1. Re:Ok so why cant we? by OwlofCreamCheese · · Score: 0, Troll

      yeah, your a genius... your the first one to think of this genius plan that shows how smart and awsome you are. no wait... it works nothing like you think it does... maybe if someday it does work like that you can use it to post retarded ideas that show you don't understand what you just read (or likely didn't read) really really really quick

      --
      -You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
    2. Re:Ok so why cant we? by MortisUmbra · · Score: 1

      Listen kid, some of us actually have to work for a living instead of sitting in our moms basement bashing people on the internet. You don't like my idea, please feel free to file your opinion in the circular folder next to my desk. And grow up.

      --

      "The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
    3. Re:Ok so why cant we? by OwlofCreamCheese · · Score: 1

      yeah, your working REALLY hard, your a real grownup... surfing the internet in the middle of the day reading slashdot, man, thats great work your doing there, real hard I bet!

      --
      -You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
  22. RTFS by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

    No, the communications would still go at the speed of light. this is non-negotiable.

    Also, I don't think reusable particles would be a problem, if you had a gram or so of entangled helium or something, that'd be about 10^20 bits ... of course, it'd be hard to get them in the right order...

    Reusing the particles is also non-negotiable. Once disentangled, only touching the particles together again in a specific manner would entangle them.

    Note: when I say non-negotiable, I mean it. It is not possible. At all. In any way. It's not a very small non-zero probability, it's a probability of Precisely Zero. With infinite zeros after it. Ok?

    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    1. Re:RTFS by n54 · · Score: 1

      i found the bbc article selfcontradictory or at best badly written as it says both "When physicists say "teleportation", they are describing the transfer of key properties from one particle to another without a physical link." as well as "...used an 800m-long optical fibre fed through a public sewer system tunnel to connect labs..." and "The link establishes a channel between the labs, dubbed Alice and Bob. This enables the properties, or "quantum states", of light particles to be transferred between the sender (Alice) and the receiver (Bob)"

      isn't optical fibre a physical connection? i would say so... the article seems not to be so much about entanglement teleportation as it is about entanglement copying (imo the difference is that between modifying a quantum state in one half of the pair and detecting the changed state in the other pair (= teleportation) and detecting the quantum state then sending that information to modify another quantum state (= copying and what i think the bbc article describes)

      anyway, from http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2003/47.cfm:
      Einstein thought this connection violated the relativity rule that information can't travel faster than the speed of light. Adami and Dr. Robert Gingrich, also of JPL, are the first to apply Einstein's relativity theory to quantum entanglement between particles. They compared the amount of entanglement when the particles were at rest to when they were given a boost. Their findings show that while speeding up ordinary entangled pairs would lead to a loss of the precious entanglement, certain special pairs can be created whose entanglement is increased instead. This increases the connection between them.

      Understanding how some of the characteristics of a particle can become entangled through relative motion alone when they seemed to be unentangled or unconnected when at rest could have many applications. For example, entangled particles could be used to synchronize atomic clocks, which are essential for navigating spacecraft in deep space.


      hmm so let's assume the spacecraft is travelling at close to the speed of light; if (maybe not such a big if considering the link above) an entaglement is possible in that situation wouldn't any communication (which might be something as "simple" as purposely breaking the entanglement in a way that makes if easily detectable that the break did occur) wouldn't that in effect be faster than light communication? (near lightspeed velocity of craft + instantaneous dis-entanglement)

      just reacting to your "non-negotiables" :)

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    2. Re:RTFS by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but no. You can't just add up speeds of light to make stuff go faster, read up on special relativity. Yes, certain quantum effects can happen in two places at the same time, seemingly due to faster than light communications, but no information can be transmitted by this way. I mean it. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's any way to detect if a particle is still entangled without disentangling it, since the observation affects the particle. THe only way to use entanglement to transmit information is the way these people did, by imposing conditions on one particle and _knowing in advance_ to observe the other particle just afterwards. Information cannot go faster than light. Actually, I might be wrong, since time travel isn't actually impossible, but noone's observed it yet, I think there's all kinds of horrible physics about it. It's called "closed timelike curves" nowadays, so they can still get funded for time travel research :)

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    3. Re:RTFS by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      Gah, stupid HTML formatting

      I VOTE FOR MANDATORY PREVIEWING!

      blah blah blah fuck you slashdot, if my post seems like yelling then it'll get modded down, you insensetive clods,

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
  23. Oops ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1
    Then again, I'm just grasping at straws hoping to get Canada its first gold medal in first non-anonymous post to have quoted an article done by a member without a Slashdot subscription.


    Ohh, I'm sorry. On appeal you don't get to go onto the medal round.

    But at least it's a personal best. =)

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.