Teleportation Gets a Boost

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Wednesday October 4, 2006 @09:35AM from the no-more-beaming-i'll-walk dept.

saavyone writes to tell us Yahoo! News is reporting that while teleportation may not quite be a reality yet a team of Danish scientists have raised the bar on this line of research. From the article: "The experiment involved for the first time a macroscopic atomic object containing thousands of billions of atoms. They also teleported the information a distance of half a meter but believe it can be extended further. 'Teleportation between two single atoms had been done two years ago by two teams but this was done at a distance of a fraction of a millimeter,' Polzik, of the Danish National Research Foundation Center for Quantum Optics, explained. 'Our method allows teleportation to be taken over longer distances because it involves light as the carrier of entanglement,' he added."

61 of 405 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Please... by slimjim8094 · 2006-10-04 09:38 · Score: 3

will a physicist explain what this means? I have a reasonable understanding of physics (for somebody who hasn't studied it) and I have no idea what this means. Does it mean that we can apply energy in some way and make it go somewhere else instantaneously (the more traditional definition of teleportation)? Probably not, but then what?

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
1. Re:Please... by vriemeister · 2006-10-04 09:45 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I'll try, one sec
2. Re:Please... by MyNymWasTaken · 2006-10-04 09:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This process allows you to copy quantum information from one set of atoms to another without measuring it, and thereby destroying it.
  
  It's still isn't anywhere near dematerializing the matter and poof`ing it across the room/planet. However, what is happening is the quantum information (in this case, the spin state) of the matter has been instantly transported. That is a essential step in building a quantum computer or cryptography network.
3. Re:Please... by pscottdv · 2006-10-04 09:55 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  One of the fundamental laws of physics is that particles are "exchangeable." Essentially, this means that any two electrons or protons or whatnot are identical so they can be exchanged without changing the physical system (there is a complication related to whether a particle is a fermion or a boson or [in the case of a 2D system] an "anyon").
  
  So, if I can transmit information in such a way as to make one group of particles be in exactly the same quantum state as another group of particles, I have "teleported" them in some sense.
  
  --
  this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice
4. Re:Please... by vriemeister · 2006-10-04 09:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  A technical explanation would take too long and people would just argue with me anyways so heres a summary -This is not 'traditional' teleportation -It works at the speed of light, there's nothing strange going on here, although it is related to what you might have heard referred to as 'spooky action at a distance' With quantum teleportation you aren't teleporting a THING, you're teleporting a property of that thing without actually measuring that property. Sounds crazy but here's an example: suppose you have two helium atoms and using light you are somehow able to give the second atom the momentum and spin of the first atom but in the process you change the momentum/spin of the first atom. You've basically changed the second atom to be exactly like the first but they call that teleportation. And effectively it is. The reason its so nifty is you don't have to measure or know these properties to transfer them. Thats the quantum part of quantum teleportation. Beyond that, I have no clue how they're applying a property of light to an atom.
5. Re:Please... by tloh · 2006-10-04 09:58 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  That yahoo article isn't really saying much at all. There is almost no real information on how they did it. Scientific American has a much more detailed description. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&arti cleID=000E9691-0261-1524-826183414B7F0000
  
  In taking the next step, Eugene Polzik and his colleagues at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen shined a strong laser beam onto a cloud of room-temperature cesium atoms whose spins were all pointing in the same direction and fluctuating according to their given quantum state. The laser became entangled with the collective spin of the cloud, meaning that the quantum states of laser and gas shared the same amplitude but had opposite phases. The goal was to transfer, or teleport, the quantum state of a second light beam onto the cloud.
  
  To do so, the group mixed a second, weaker laser pulse with the strong laser and split the superimposed beams into two arms. A detector in one arm measured the sum of the beams' amplitudes and a detector in the second arm measured the difference between their phases. Neither measurement disturbed the delicate entangled state between the light and cesium. But the researchers could use the results to apply a precise magnetic field to the cesium vapor that effectively canceled out the ensemble's original spin state and replaced it with one that corresponded to the polarization of the weak pulse, as they report in the 5 October Nature.
  
  --
  Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
6. Re:Please... by Spikeles · 2006-10-04 09:58 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
  
  Put simply you can record the quantum states of an atom/particle(or your entire body) and then send this information using a classical channel like radio. Once this information gets to your destination(eg Mars) the guys at that end can use that information to affect some particles over there, and because of Quantum Entanglement, those particles on Mars will instantly take on the recorded state. The particles at the start will then lose their state due to the no cloning therom(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_cloning_the orem). So you can teleport, but you can't teleport at greater than the speed of light because you still have to send the data to the destination.
  
  Note that it's not technically "Teleportation", you are just changing the states at the quantum level.
  
  --
  I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
7. Re:Please... by squiggleslash · 2006-10-04 10:01 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It's really quite simple. The system involves two opaque boxes (A and B), both with closable lids,.
  One operator places the item to be teleported in box A and closes the lid. The operator of box B then opens the box and observes the contents. By doing so, the item appears in box B.
  This works because of the way particle physics works. Any object may be in multiple places until it is actually observed. By hiding the item from one operator, the location of the item becomes unknown, and therefore the other operator is able to transport it to them merely by observing one of the locations it may have travelled to.
  Really, this is elementary physics and it's surprising how rarely we take advantage of it. I actually go to work every morning by going to the bathroom, alone, closing the door, and then phoning a collegue at work, asking him to open the cubicle door at the bathroom there. By keeping my eyes closed at the precise moment he opens the door, I am able to ensure my own location is unobserved, and therefore that my precise whereabouts are unknown until my collegue opens the door and observes me. It's very useful and saves a lot of gas, but has the disadvantage that you have to rely upon there being someone whereever you want to travel to that you can contact who can observe the contents of a previously unobservable man-sized space. Also there's the danger that two people might do the same thing at once, in which case there's the danger of a time/space paradox being created.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
8. Re:Please... by partenon · 2006-10-04 10:01 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Translating...
  
  Its not a:
  $ mv source target
  
  Its a:
  $ cp source target
  
  Oh Gosh, now I fully know quantum computing!
  
  --
  ilex paraguariensis for all
9. Re:Please... by Spikeles · 2006-10-04 10:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Actually it is a
  $ mv source target
  
  Because of the No cloning theorem(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_cloning_th eorem) which "forbids the creation of identical copies of an arbitrary unknown quantum state"
  
  --
  I don't need to test my programs.. I have an error correcting modem.
10. Re:Please... by kfg · 2006-10-04 10:14 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Oh yeah, yer like being all smug and shit about it now, but just you wait until the day comes when he opens the door and observes you dead.
  
  KFG
11. Re:Please... by BeBoxer · 2006-10-04 10:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You've basically changed the second atom to be exactly like the first but they call that teleportation. And effectively it is.
  
  I think most people's concept of "teleport" is something else entirely. What the physicists are doing is something more aking to "faxing". Granted, it's really high-quality faxing, but faxing none the less. But "quantum faxing" doesn't have the same ring to it.
  
  Fundamental to the concept of "teleport" as all non-physicists know it is that the matter being teleported moves from one place to another. In this case they "teleported" atoms of Cesium. But they started with Cesium atoms on both sides of the "teleporter" at the beginning and the end. They didn't "teleport" the Cesium any more than a FAX machine "teleports" paper.
12. Re:Please... by partenon · 2006-10-04 10:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yeah, I realized that by reading a lot of comments here :-) Its probably more like this:
  
  $ cp source target ; rm -rf source
  
  (actually, I think mv does exactly this, but just to be explicit :-) )
  
  --
  ilex paraguariensis for all
13. Re:Please... by DrVomact · 2006-10-04 10:43 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And if two physicists were to accidentally emerge in the same stall, they'd be a pair o' docs?
  
  --
  Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
14. Re:Please... by JPeMu · 2006-10-04 10:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  There's also a nice article in the Sept 30 issue of New Scientist (although this article is related to the study of bridging time-continuum in order to effectively "modify" the past).
  
  Although the article isn't a "teleportation" article, it does provide a fairly in-depth explanation of the principle and implications of entanglement. The article then takes this one step further by suggesting that if the two paths that the entangled photons took were then themselves split, but splitting the second path an additional length (using fibre optic cable), the two paths would take different time periods to complete, however by using photon detectors, it would be possible to determine which of the 2 sub-paths the entangled photons took, in spite of the fact that the 2nd entangled photon had not yet made that "choice" yet, effectively providing some form of "clairvoyance" ;)
  
  Using a crystal, [Univ of Innsbruck, Austria, researcher Birgit Dopfer] converted one laser beam into two so that photons in one beam were entangled with those in the other, and each pair was matched up by a circuit known as a coincidence detector. One beam passed through a double slit to a photon detector, while the other passed through a lens to a movable detector which could sense a photon in two different positions.
  
  The movable detector is key, because in one position it effectively images the slits and measures each photon as a particle, while in the other it captures only a wave-like interference pattern. Dopfer showed that measuring a photon as a wave or a particle forced its twin in the other beam to be measured in the same way.
  
  To use this set-up to send a signal [through time], it needs to work without a coincidence circuit. Inspired by Raymond Jensen at Notre Dame University in Indiana, [John] Cramer then proposed passing each beam through a double slit, not only to give the experimenter the choice of measuring photons as waves or particles, but also to help track photon pairs. The double slits should filter out most unentangled photons and either block or let pass both members of an entangled pair, at least in theory. So a photon arriving at one detector should have its twin appear at the other.
  
  [snippety snip]
  
  His extra twist is to run the photons you choose how to measure through several km of coiled-up fibre-optic cable, thereby delaying them by microseconds. This delay means that the other beam will arrive at its detector before you make your choice. However, since the rules of quantum mechanics are indifferent to the timings of measurements, the state of the other beam should correspond to how you choose to measure the delayed beam. The effect of your choice can be seen, in principle, before you have even made it! That's the idea anyway.
15. Re:Please... by slack-fu · 2006-10-04 10:53 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  ACTUALLY it is like this:
  
  # mv source target
  
  everyone knows you have to be root to teleport SHEESH.
16. Re:Please... by TheUnknownCoder · 2006-10-04 10:59 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  copy con teleport.bat
  @echo off
  cls
  echo.
  echo Now teleporting...
  move /Y a b > NULL
  REM sleep 30s (OMG! It's taking long this time! IT'S WOKRING!!!):
  PING -n 31 127.0.0.1>nul
  echo.
  echo Done!
  ^Z
  
  --
  Uncopyrightable: The longest word you can write without repeating a letter.
17. Re:Please... by ray-auch · 2006-10-04 11:27 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  This process allows you to copy quantum information from one set of atoms to another without measuring it, and thereby destroying it.
  
  If you can't measure it in the first place (and the original gets destroyed in the process), how do you know that what you end up with is a copy ?
18. Re:Please... by Ucklak · 2006-10-04 11:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  What this boils down to is if I go into a teleportation chamber in Site A, Site B will have a block of mass that will eventually become me; atom by atom.
  Then the ME at Site A gets destroyed or reassembled as someone/something else.
  
  Lets face it, this is what we all want this to come down to. Walk in a room that essentially becomes somewhere near the Swiss alps for lunch and walk back to be home for dinner. Telecommute anywhere.
  
  --
  if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
19. Re:Please... by caitsith01 · 2006-10-04 11:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Seems to me that you would create an exact duplicate of the original person, who would feel and believe that they were the same person. However, they would not be the same person - the original person would (presumably) be dead as their constituent particles are ripped apart from their spin etc changing.
  
  --
  Read Pynchon.
20. Re:Please... by Iron+Condor · 2006-10-04 11:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  $ cp source target ; rm -rf source
  (actually, I think mv does exactly this, but just to be explicit :-) )
  And nobody has corrected this yet? Is this really Slashdot?
  The "cp" operation will temporarily consume twice as much space as the original before the original is removed. Actual data is being replicated. "mv" (at least within the same file system) will leave the data where it is and merely change where the pointer (i.e. directory entry) that points to it is stored. With your version you have two files temporarily and a possible duplication if the operation fails due to a power outage somewhere in the middle. The normal "mv" operation could leave you with NO files (the data is still there but unaccessible) depending on how it's implemented. (No, not on journalling file systems, but thats something else again).
  In particular, a "cp ; rm" will delete your original if the cp fails due to, say, a full destination disk. So at least a "cp && rm" is advised. Which can fail, for example, if some of your source data is unreadable. While "mv" will still work, since the source data is never actually touched. Depending on your filesystem, default flags and implementation, "mv" will often also not change the last-access or creation-timestamps, file ownership and/or file permissions which may or may not be changed by cp. Also the permissions needed in the source and destination directories can be different for the two.
  Really - what's up with you folks out there? Why aren't there 20 posts pointing this out already?
  
  --
  We're all born with nothing.
  If you die in debt, you're ahead.
21. Re:Please... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2006-10-04 11:41 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Umm, Windows has a sleep command
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
22. Re:Please... by BeBoxer · 2006-10-04 11:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  surely "Star Trek" is an example of the popular conception of teleporting, and I always interpretted that as transmitting information, not matter.
  
  When Captain Kirk gets beamed down to the surface of a planet, where does all that matter come from which constitutes his body in the new location? There is no transporter on the receiving end with a stockpile of matter. How big of a vacuum would it leave behind if you just sucked up surrounding gas until you had enough? Put another way, if you tell somebody you are going to teleport a block of gold from box A to box B and then announce "and to begin, I will place a block of gold in each box", they will cry foul. Are you saying you wouldn't?
23. Re:Please... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · 2006-10-04 11:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  1: The 'life force' as it appears in Star Trek is a purely fictional invention that has nothing to do with reality.
  2: Your stuff about the balance of matter and energy is something you made up (unless you can cite me a reference) and has no bearing on reality.
  Please don't confuse the contents of your head with either science or reality. It's stupid.
  
  --
  Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
24. Re:Please... by WilliamSChips · 2006-10-04 12:27 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Actually, it's sudo make me a sandwich.
  
  --
  Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
25. Re:Please... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-04 13:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A piece of meat in a living cow and a dead piece of meat at the butcher shop are both made up of the same elements. The atoms in them react to the other atoms and energy around them in exactly the same way.
  
  However, the meat in the cow has a flow of glucose and oxygen coming in through the circulating blood, and the cells have been metabolizing these to maintain their cell walls and growth processes. There are also hormones, neurotransmitters, and other chemicals.
  
  The meat at the butcher's has lost its source of energy and is unable to metabolize any longer, so it has begun to break down chemically, but the chemical processes are essentially the same. The processes of living matter are a subset of chemistry.
  
  So I would say the difference between the two is merely their circumstances.
  
  But then, you know this and choose to see something more anyway. Be sure to give the Nobel Prize folks a call when you manage to pinpoint the unique non-chemical nature of "life."
26. Re:Please... by ichigo+2.0 · 2006-10-04 15:05 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Actually, I think it's more like:
  
  101010110101101001010111000111100000000001101011 10101001001010011111001010100101010100101010100101 01110100101010010101010011
27. Re:Please... by fmobus · 2006-10-04 16:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Unfortunately it must be destroyed, as RIAA prevents us copying (well, backing-up) anything.
  There, corrected a typo for you
28. Re:Please... by orthogonal · 2006-10-04 19:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I liked the explanation, but this seems great for inanimate objects. What about consciousness? I mean, you can 'teleport' a brain, but will the signals go with it and will the brain retain memories or will it be a exact copy of a body but no 'life force' in it?
  
  I liked the explanation, but this seems great for non-burning objects. What about fire? I mean, you can 'teleport' a log or a charcoal briquette, but will the fire go with it and will the fire retain flames or will it be a exact copy of a log but no 'phlogiston' in it?
  
  Dude: state is state. If you teleport an object's entire state, you end up with an object with the same state in a different location. Consciousness is just a property of (certain kinds of) matter in (certain kinds of) motion. It's nothing magic.
  
  Alternately: when you move your head, does your consciousness or memories or "life force" or "soul" somehow "leak out" or get left behind? What would move with your brain but not teleport with it?
  
  --
  Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
29. Re:Please... by Shaper_pmp · 2006-10-05 00:41 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Not quite.
  
  The "you" at site A will enter an undefined quantum state, and then (simultaneously, less the transit-time between the points at the speed of light) the block of mass at site B will become "you".
  
  IE, the process is:
  
  An atom of "you" exists at Site A, and an atom of "misc. matter" exists at Site B.
  The atom of you is entangled - it stops being an atom of "you" and becomes an atom in an undefined quantum state.
  The "you-ness" of the atom is sent to Site B at the speed of light, where it subsequently merges with an atom of "misc. matter", transferring its "you-ness" to the atom.
  
  Therefore, excepting the transit-time (at the speed of light) each change happens instantaneously in one step. No two-step duplication-then-deletion occurs, as Quantum Mechanics forbids a distinct quantum state from ever being duplicated.
  
  It's mv, not cp.
  
  --
  Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
Very funny Scotty, by vasanth · 2006-10-04 09:39 · Score: 5, Funny

now beam down my clothes!!!!!!!
Anyone have the youtube link? by mr_stinky_britches · 2006-10-04 09:40 · Score: 3, Funny

Anyone have a link to this teleportation video?

--
Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
1. Re:Anyone have the youtube link? by Colin+Smith · 2006-10-04 09:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Nope, but this is their site.
  
  http://www.nbi.ku.dk/side39251.htm
  
  --
  Deleted
SciAm article by MyNymWasTaken · 2006-10-04 09:41 · Score: 4, Informative

Here is Scientific American's article on the matter.

First Teleportation Between Light and Matter
1. Re:SciAm article by Chemisor · 2006-10-04 11:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  According to the SciAm article, all they did was measure the quantum state of a cesium atom cloud without disturbing the cloud.
  
  Neither measurement disturbed the delicate entangled state between the light and cesium. But the researchers could use the results to apply a precise magnetic field to the cesium vapor that effectively canceled out the ensemble's original spin state and replaced it with one that corresponded to the polarization of the weak pulse
  
  I don't know why people keep calling it "teleportation" or any other quantum crap. A very simple way of describing what happened is that they figured out a way to beat the uncertainty principle by creating multiple copies of the same information and measuring amplitude and phase of different copies. Because both copies are identical, any information obtained about one copy is valid about the others, so a complete set of parameters can be determined. It should be pointed out that this experiment clearly demonstrates that the uncertainty principle is not some fundamental property of the universe, but rather an artifact of our measurement instruments. This is the very point that Einstein tried so hard to prove back in 1927, and the one so throughly disputed by the evil Niels Bohr. Unfortunately, Bohr won the argument for some reason, perhaps just out of stubbornness, and the present unsightly state of the science of physics resulted. Perhaps now the quantum heretics can be brought back to the one true faith of objective reality!
2. Re:SciAm article by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2006-10-04 11:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  This is the very point that Einstein tried so hard to prove back in 1927, and the one so throughly disputed by the evil Niels Bohr. Unfortunately, Bohr won the argument for some reason, perhaps just out of stubbornness, and the present unsightly state of the science of physics resulted. Perhaps now the quantum heretics can be brought back to the one true faith of objective reality!
  
  Einstein is always right, Niels Bohr is evil (?!) and your talking about one true faith of objective reality?
  
  Are you ON something? Your Special K ain't the breakfast cereal?
  
  --
  Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Ramifications by Dan+East · 2006-10-04 09:42 · Score: 4, Funny

Apparently these scientists have never watched TRON, or they'd quit why they're ahead. Or, perhaps they know the risks and have brushed up on their 80's era arcade gaming skills.

Dan East

--
Better known as 318230.
I really need to get one of these... by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-10-04 09:45 · Score: 3, Funny

I could use it to teleport all the dust bunnies hiding behind computers to a passing Klingon ship.
Thousands of billions... by truthsearch · 2006-10-04 09:48 · Score: 4, Funny

thousands of billions of atoms

Trillions, even?

--
Developers: We can use your help.
1. Re:Thousands of billions... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-04 10:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually, it depends. Are those English billions or mostly-the-rest-of-the-world-billions?
  
  English-speaking world/Parts of Asia/One or two other places: 1 billion = 1000 millions = 1x10^9
  "Rest of the world": 1 billion = 1 million millions = 1x10^12
  
  Similarly, trillion will mean:
  a) 1x10^12
  b) 1x10^18
  
  So, "thousands of billions" is the same as "trillions" in english-speaking countries, but not in the rest of the world. Since we're talking about danish scientists, I'm guessing it's the second option.
2. Re:Thousands of billions... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-04 10:14 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You were likely going for humor, but if you were interested, the traditional british meaning of the number is not the same as the US meaning:
  
  10^6 million (million)
  10^9 billion (thousand million)
  10^12 trillion (billion)
  10^15 quadrillion (thousand billion)
  10^18 quintillion (trillion)
  10^21 sextillion (thousand trillion)
  10^24 septillion (quadrillion)
  10^27 octillion (thousand quadrillion)
  
  As per http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxbill00.htm l
Re:Just the information? by grammar+fascist · 2006-10-04 09:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

But could you imagine if they could utilize a version of this teleportation to transfer the information to multiple places at once? Wow! That'd be a huge boon to subatomic construction technology!

If they're using quantum teleportation, they can't. It's not possible to clone generic quantum states. Specific ones, yes, but that won't cover everything.

The article is wonderfully sparse on actual information. A "macroscopic atomic object containing thousands of billions of atoms" was "involved," but what does that mean, exactly? Probably not that it was transformed to light (or light was transformed to it), nor that it was actually teleported.

My favorite part of quantum teleportation is that, if it ever is used to teleport objects, it'll have to transfer the state from the source atoms into some entangled destination atoms. Then the state will be lost in the source, and you'll be left with a mound of goo. That'd really make people want to try it out.

--
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
this just proves my theory... by hobo+sapiens · 2006-10-04 09:54 · Score: 5, Funny

...that nerds will stop at NOTHING to prove Star Trek is real. First, transparent aluminum, now this.

--
blah blah blah
No Thanks, I'll walk by TheWoozle · 2006-10-04 09:56 · Score: 5, Funny

I think Douglas Adams said it best:

I teleported home one night
With Ron and Sid and Meg;
Ron stole Meggie's heart away
And I got Sidney's leg.

--
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
Ok I will do it by COMON$ · 2006-10-04 09:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Someone had to ask. How is this technique going to maintain a person? Arent you essentially killing the person and reassembling their likeness in a remote location? How could an outsider tell the difference, the being that is transported would simply cease to exist while a copy lives the rest of their lives.

--
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
1. Re:Ok I will do it by MoogMan · 2006-10-04 10:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In theory, the atoms involved get replicated in a different location. Essentially, yes, the source atom gets destroyed, and the destination atom gets "created". But the destination atom is indistinguishable from the source, so who is to say that they are not the same atom? Technically, the atom does not get destroyed, but it's spin and other state[1] gets set to the state of the original atom.
  
  One question worth asking, is whether the relative position of the atoms are maintained through "teleportation". I would assume not. So at this stage, even if you did succeed in transporting a human, they would end up as a pool of water and carbon atoms I guess.
  
  This is more of a philosophical question, I think. Hypothetically speaking, you could see it as killing the person, and re-assembling their likeness. But "their likeness" would know no different, and he/she would feel and act like the real person. Equally, as you say, an outsider would know no different. Would you be willing to kill yourself, knowing that an exact replica of you is about to be re-created.
  
  It goes further, too. Does the soul exist as something other than the collection of atoms and particles that comprise us? If so, does this get left behind, or somehow carried across?
  
  [1] This is how I understand it, at least. Maybe someone could clarify, and explain if anything other than spin would get replicated.
2. Re:Ok I will do it by kfg · 2006-10-04 10:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  How could an outsider tell the difference. . .
  
  They couldn't, because you are not the atoms "you" are made of. You are a collection of information in the state of the atoms.
  
  Which is a good thing for you, because most of the atoms you are made of today won't be the same atoms you'll be made of next week. That's why you die if you don't drink some water now and again; and maybe a bit of a nosh.
  
  KFG
3. Re:Ok I will do it by asuffield · 2006-10-04 10:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Someone had to ask. How is this technique going to maintain a person?
  
  It isn't. Despite the regular press idiocy on this subject, quantum teleportation has got absolutely nothing to do with Star Trek-style transporters. This is a form of communication link, teleporting information from one place to another at the speed of light. It cannot operate on people, rocks, or any other tangible object. We may someday invent a matter transporter, but it won't be using this technology and it certainly isn't what they're studying. To quote from the opening paragraph in the Wikipedia article, which is the very least any ignorant reporter should read before posting nonsense on the subject:
  
  Quantum teleportation does not transport energy or matter, nor does it allow communication of information at superluminal speed.
  
  This is about the next generation of technology that may someday replace optic fibre for long-distance communication links (and may also be useful in the construction of quantum computers, should we ever find a use for them). Nothing to do with Star Trek. If you ever catch a reporter confusing the two again, please hurt them. Badly.
4. Re:Ok I will do it by CODiNE · 2006-10-04 17:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Every time someone mentions the soul issue I quote some scriptures on it and get modded bigtime offtopic or flamebait. It's late but here's a few from memory.
  
  Numbers 6:6 literally states "do not touch a dead soul" ... some bible translations will use the phrase "dead body" or "corpse" to make it clear to our modern ears.
  
  Genesis 2:7 "the man became a living soul"
  
  Also Ge. 2:19 explains that as each animal or "living soul" would come to Adam he would name them. Ge. 1:20 the waters swarmed forth full of "living souls".
  
  Etc, etc...
  
  Doesn't take too much research to find out that the Hebrew word for "soul" is related to breathing... basically any animal that breathes is a "soul". A living being. Ezekiel 18:4 explains that the "soul" who sins shall die. It means person. You ARE a soul, you don't have one.
  
  --
  Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
5. Re:Ok I will do it by kyb · 2006-10-04 18:29 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  "teleporting information from one place to another at the speed of light"
  
  So what is it about people, rocks, or other tangible objects that cannot be described as information? You are information much more than you are something tangible - pretty much every atom in you will migrate out of you at some point, and you're almost completely different to what you were 5 years ago. It's the information that is important. Actually, quantum teleportation is a method for replicating matter in a remote place (because the only sensible definition of replication is reproducing every facet of the originals state). The only reason nobody has used it yet to teleport a human is because it currently only works on very simple and small structures over distances too small to be useful.
  
  The advancement of quantum teleportation is that in the past, we could only enocode and then transfer information that we could measure (I mean you could transfer the information by walking but that's not the point). You can't measure quantum information without ruining it, so until quantum teleportation we could not transfer quantum information from one place to another. Whether or not you even need to transfer the quantum information to transfer a person is an entirely different question. Would it matter if you just made a classical copy of a human? Maybe not - maybe you would get the same person, but I think everyone would be more comfortable with the process if there was absolutely no information lost, no matter how nebulous.
  
  This almost certainly will not replace optic fibre for long distance communication, because there is very little communication that requires the transmission of quantum information. We generally want to transfer classical information.
Easier method to teleport between solar systems by WillAffleckUW · 2006-10-04 09:57 · Score: 4, Funny

1. Send DNA sequence for human/animal/etc from Star 1 to Star 2.
2. Use DNA sequence to grow said creature.
3. Install memory sequences, also sent as information.
4. Wake person up.
5. Keep original as slave in vast human slave army used to conquer the galaxy.
6. PROFIT!

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Distance?? by Bl4d3 · 2006-10-04 10:01 · Score: 2, Informative

This http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/10/04/195427 .htm (danish) clams 50 meters instead of .5.

--
40% Funny, 40% Insightful, 40% Informative, 40% Dolomite
Re:Scientific... American? by WilliamSChips · 2006-10-04 10:10 · Score: 4, Funny

No, it was created long before Bush was elected.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:oblig by zephc · 2006-10-04 10:10 · Score: 2, Funny

With Heisenberg compensators?

--
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
No, more than that (or less) by 2short · 2006-10-04 10:11 · Score: 2, Informative

Given that they are in Europe, they are presumably using british English, where "thousands of billions" is the correct term for 10^15. So in American English, that would be Quadrillions.

Trillions, in British English, would be 10^18, but if he meant that he'd probalby have said so.

That American & British English spell various words differently is completely understandable, that we use the same words for totally different numbers is utterly ridiculous.
Right... by msimm · 2006-10-04 10:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Its about time to stop calling it teleportation because the implications are much stranger: do you really want to die and while being (hopefully!) reassembled elsewhere? If this is basically like fax or xerox how many copies of myself can I make? And of course the devilish old questions, if you reassemble something atomically does that mean there is no such thing as a soul, or did you atomize it on the other side (or is it in fact, physical)?

--
Quack, quack.
"raised the bar"? by SeePage87 · 2006-10-04 10:21 · Score: 2, Funny

The least they could do is make a corny teleportation pun, like, "In a sudden jump forward..." or something. Such a waste.
Please explain by snowwrestler · 2006-10-04 12:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Please describe, in a repeatable, objectively testable way, how to tell the difference between living and dead matter at the quantum level. For that matter please describe how to tell the difference between living and dead matter over very short periods of time. There's a lot about "life" that we don't understand scientifically yet.

--
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
1. Re:Please explain by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · 2006-10-04 15:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Please describe, in a repeatable, objectively testable way, how to tell the difference between living and dead matter at the quantum level.
  You don't even have a clue what "quantum level" means. You might as well ask me how to tell the difference between apples and oranges at the "astrophysical level" for all the sense you're making. Throwing together random technobabble does not meaning make.
  
  --
  Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Mystical, no. But I'd say mysterious by snowwrestler · 2006-10-05 02:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

My point is that right now there is clearly more to "life" than can be described by our understanding of the raw physics of the materials involved. I don't think it's wrong to call that mysterious--science can be used to investigate mysteries. I do agree with you that a mystical answer is not useful or valuable. But pointing out a gap in our understanding will necessarily involve imprecise language. That doesn't make it a mystical explanation though IMO.

--
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Book rec. by Domomojo · 2006-10-05 02:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Speaking of teleportation, one of the best SF novels about someone who could teleport is "Jumper" by Stephen Gould. It's presently out of print, but won't be much longer once the movie comes out next year. Try to read it before the movie will probably ruin it. Review here: http://www.lostbooks.org/guestreviews/2001-07-06-2 .html