Slashdot Mirror


Quantum Dots Might Be Key For Teleportation

prostoalex writes "Researchers from Nanyang Technological University in Singapore have created a model teleportation system using quantum dots. PhysOrg reports that 'tiny clusters of atoms known as quantum dots may be excellent media for quantum teleportation, a physics phenomenon in which information — in the form of a quantum state, a very specific mathematical signature of an atom — can be transmitted almost instantaneously to a distant location without having to physically travel through space.'"

221 comments

  1. bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    BullSHIT!

    1. Re:bullshit by afaik_ianal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know that the Offtopic mod was all that fair on this post. Sure, it lacked a little detail, but what's with this "almost instantaneously" bullshit that keeps coming up every time we talk about teleportation?

      Maybe it's plausible in a Star Trek universe, but in our universe, we appear to be constrained by the speed of light, even for transmitting information through entanglement. Sure, one might argue that speed of light is instantaneous, but we all know that this kind of language gets a bunch of readers' hopes up every time.

    2. Re:bullshit by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "...but what's with this "almost instantaneously" bullshit that keeps coming up every time we talk about teleportation?"

      I think the confusion perhaps relates to the difference between quantum tunneling (where "almost instantaneous" shows up) and any attempt to use quantum tunneling for the purposes of information transfer.

    3. Re:bullshit by NinjaTariq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wasn't that was one of the problems einstein had and could never get to the bottom of was the spooky action at distance? Where effects of quantum entanglement do travel faster than the speed of light. Various theories have come along to explain it, including faster than light particles which travel between the two entangled particles effectively going back in time and setting the observed property when the two were in close proximity.

      In theory it is possible to travel faster than light, the theory of relativity is symetrical around the speed of light. But it is impossible for any particle to go across the light barrier, either slow down under it or speed up over it.

      It may be impossible to implement (currently) like many things in theoretical physics, but so were so many things we take for granted now a century ago.

    4. Re:bullshit by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "The Berkeley group:

      An experiment of theirs, where a single photon tunnelled through a barrier and its tunneling speed (not a signal speed!) was 1.7 times light speed, is described in

      * Steinberg, A.M., Kwiat, P.G. & R.Y. Chiao 1993: "Measurement of the Single-Photon Tunneling Time" in Physical Review Letter 71, S. 708--711 "

    5. Re:bullshit by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 0

      Well, it is bullshit. The scientific method says, when a theory begins to predict absurd results, scrap the theory. Teleportation IS absurd, as are parallel universes, multiple realities and humanoid aliens.

      There is an interview just about that there: http://laputan.blogspot.com/2003_09_21_laputan_arc hive.html That's about the only thing about quantum physics I've ever read that made some sense.

      --
      Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
    6. Re:bullshit by Torvaun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Teleportation is absurd -now-. 150 years ago, magic picture boxes were absurd. 150 years before that, a magic box that could transmit sound near instantaneously from place to place was absurd. How about taking someone's heart out, putting a new one in, and having that person not die from it? Allowing blacks and women to vote? The very concept of a man controlling billions of dollars? The only true absurdity to be found is the certainty that things will always be as they are.

      Some of our routine surgeries would have been called vivisection. Many of our standard technologies would be called witchcraft. And when the rules said no to cruel and unusual punishment, that meant that we wouldn't be burned at the stake.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    7. Re:bullshit by Barryke · · Score: 1

      I don't know that the Offtopic mod was all that fair on this post. Sure, it lacked a little detail, but what's with this "almost instantaneously" bullshit that keeps coming up every time we talk about teleportation?

      Maybe it's plausible in a Star Trek universe, but in our universe, we appear to be constrained by the speed of light, even for transmitting information through entanglement. Sure, one might argue that speed of light is instantaneous, but we all know that this kind of language gets a bunch of readers' hopes up every time. Sir, you asume its about human teleportation. Yes, if it where the case, i'd classify it as bull also.
      TFA however only mentions a quantumdot.

      About the speed of light: (SoL) It is relative.
      If i where to travel at 0,5*SoL, and would throw forward a baseball at 0,3*SoL, the light reflected of the baseball would travel at 1,8*SoL.
      And beyond that simple equation, quantum mechanics have displayed some weird time properties!

      Note the term instantaneous is very open for discussion.
      The definition of "instantaneous" is relative. Adding "almost" makes it an relative aproximate.
      Seen in a 10.000 year timeframe, taking the bus to the next country would seem almost instantaneous.
      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    8. Re:bullshit by TheMadcapZ · · Score: 0

      The universe has no limits. We are just limited by our understanding.

    9. Re:bullshit by afaik_ianal · · Score: 1

      Well go print it on a mug or something. The article doesn't suggest anything will be happening instantaneously (nor have any so far) - it's only the Slashdot summaries and comments that get this crucial detail wrong. Until our understanding changes, I'd prefer we just stick to the facts as we understand them.

  2. Cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Cool, but all this quantum shit makes no sense to me.

    Quantum computing... quantum encryption... quantum dots...

    I've really tried to labor through the explainations but I guess I'm just not close enough to quantum physics and college math. I'm otherwise generally pretty good at understanding these technical explainations, but quantum just sounds like another buzz word, and one that goes over my head.

    Please tell me I'm wrong. Tell me Quantum isn't another cyber, blog, or pod! I really want to be wrong because the implications of these advances sound pretty cool.

    1. Re:Cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it neither. Is this like grabbing an electron and duping its state, and then separate them into a distance apart and see that their states are the same? That's not really transmission is it?.... Or does it actually work by some voodoo that if I switch on/off my dot, that the other dot in some distant galaxy suddenly knows the events that I did in exactomono? voodoo...

    2. Re:Cool. by Derosian · · Score: 5, Informative

      A good place to start 'understand' quantum mechanics is to see the double slit experiment. Link.

    3. Re:Cool. by Davey+McDave · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's basically quantum computing for you. You can get them involved in such a state that they can influence one another even though they're not even next to one another (action at a distance). Hence they're sort of invisibly entangled within one another, if you mess around with one the other will instantly change. This is pretty great though, because if you can get all these things to represent a calculation, and act upon it, it instantly changes at this other place you can read them. Even better, if someone else tries to read it at the other place it'll show up back at the origin.

      Quantum isn't really a buzzword, it actually means that it's taking advantage of the fact that energy is discrete rather than continuous. It's supposed to be used in opposition to classical or Newtonian mechanics, which assumes that energy is continuous, and has a huge amount of crazy consequences.

      If you're REALLY interested in learning about quantum mechanics I'll one up the sister post and recommend you some of Feynman's lectures. In the first video here he whips through almost the entire history of physics and why QM is different: http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

      --
      I've got the spirit, lose the feeling.
    4. Re:Cool. by Rallion · · Score: 4, Funny

      And, I've found, a good place to stop understanding quantum mechanics is looking into more advanced variations of the experiment.

    5. Re:Cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      In the New Age and alternative medicine world (thanks to folks like Deepshit Chopra), it is a buzzword!

      No shit, Chopra really thinks that if you just believe hard enough, you won't get old!!

    6. Re:Cool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear, hear! Just when you think you connected the dots, they're gone already!

    7. Re:Cool. by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered one thing regarding those experiments..

      Isn't the wave-like pattern which shows up when you shoot what should be particles just showing you that there is an interaction between the particles and the material which it is bypassing? that the blocking material is what's affecting the dispersion of particles, and thus the experiment only really reveals whether there is a similar-order-of-magnitude interaction between the particles and the blocking material?

      I mean order-of-magnitude as in the difference between the particles and the material it's passing is so large that there's no interaction between the 2, and thus the normal 2 lines = 2 lines, but when the material has the same order-of-magnitude as the blocking material itself, it shows the same wave function because of interactions between the materials?

      Just wondering out loud really.

    8. Re:Cool. by indrax · · Score: 1

      For me, this looks like the best shot I have at understanding it.

      http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html

      "Quantum mechanics is what you would inevitably come up with if you started from probability theory, and then said, let's try to generalize it so that the numbers we used to call "probabilities" can be negative numbers."

  3. How much POWER will that take? by Travoltus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Measured in nuclear reactors, I mean.

    "Teleporting one quantum dot will take 5 nuclear reactors", and such.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:How much POWER will that take? by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

      It depends on what you want to transport. Would you like to transport... yourself? Power probably measured in "sol output minutes" (or hours, or days, or years), but I'm just guessing. Some information? Your cell phone battery is probably more than adequate.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    2. Re:How much POWER will that take? by Pesh+Hawksfire · · Score: 1

      More importantly, how many International Standard Libraries of Congress can it teleport?

    3. Re:How much POWER will that take? by Nullav · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Depends. Are we talking about text, page scans, or the actual Library of Congress? What do you mean by 'it'?

      --
      I just read Slashdot for the articles.
    4. Re:How much POWER will that take? by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      Myself? Heck no. I subscribe to the Dr Leonard McCoy school of "eh, how do I know my soul goes along with my body?"

      I'll wait for the whole space folding / gate warping thing, where I can physically step from one spot to another (see: Stargate), thankyouverymuch. :)

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    5. Re:How much POWER will that take? by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      I'll wait for the whole space folding / gate warping thing, where I can physically step from one spot to another (see: Stargate), thankyouverymuch. :)

      Don't mean to burst your bubble but ISTR the StarGate supposidly deconstructed you in a similar way to a teleporter before transmitting you through a wormhole. Oops, my geek is showing :)

    6. Re:How much POWER will that take? by vertinox · · Score: 4, Funny

      It depends on what kind of nuclear reactors.

      Are we talking about Africa or European reactors? And secondly how would two reactors carry the quantum dots? With a line or a strand of creeper?

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    7. Re:How much POWER will that take? by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the stargate is really just a ring teleportation system that transmits through a wormhole.

      (my geek is naked before the world)

      --
      If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    8. Re:How much POWER will that take? by ethicalBob · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obviously it would take 1.21 gigawatts

      (oh, wait... only if it's encased in a Delorean)

      --
      Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
    9. Re:How much POWER will that take? by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      You do step from spot to another. Just step on the quantum mat. Bend your knees because there is a seven foot fall as you arrive. If you're taller than seven feet, bend your knees a lot.

    10. Re:How much POWER will that take? by my+$anity++0 · · Score: 1

      More importantly, how much ENERGY.

      Yeah, flashbulbs take a lot of power, but not so much energy. It's all released at once.

      I'd think teleportation is somewhat similar.

    11. Re:How much POWER will that take? by dobestpossible · · Score: 1

      If it were up to me, the device would be powered by lightning. And I'd sit back with the dank ;)

    12. Re:How much POWER will that take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is a just another piece in the puzzle. One application in the end is to be just ahead in time/space (which is what this does) of a anti-matter/fusion explosion (or some other method of time space manipulation we have'nt figured out) and have this contained in some machine attached to a vehicle.

    13. Re:How much POWER will that take? by Clay_Culver · · Score: 1

      Please put that away. There may be children around.

    14. Re:How much POWER will that take? by warpuck · · Score: 1

      Back when lasers were new in 1975 and I was taking electronic physics, it was thought to be impossible to make a LED or laser function in the blue/violet or UV range because of the waste heat. But now we can buy dozens of UV and wide spectrum LED flashlights, for less than a 1975 1/4 watt ruby laser. The laser and the LED are related, and my understanding of the Quantum physics is frozen in 1975, because I don't need to know how it works. The math was really atrocious then. I don't wish to even glance at it now. I'm so glad don't need the 5 credit hours to graduate today. Today you only need know how it works if you are going fix it. Now I just need know how to flip the switch. Dammit! Just tell me where the power button is Scotty.

    15. Re:How much POWER will that take? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      I was about to say the exact same thing. The biggest difference between the gate system and Trek's teleporters is the distance involved. That and the creators.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    16. Re:How much POWER will that take? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Funny

      The biggest difference between the gate system and Trek's teleporters is the distance involved. That and the creators.

      Whereas, the biggest difference between Star Trek and Stargate SG-1 is that Star Trek stole from westerns, and Stargate SG-1 stole from every sci-fi show that's ever been shown. (I'm not saying they did it badly, though.)

  4. drat... iPhone is already obsolete by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1, Funny

    Drat. iPhone is obsolete and it doesn't even go on sale until Friday. This whole quantum dot thing will make 3G networks obsolete before AT&T even gets it rolled out here in the U.S. I want my "iPhone Quantum". : )

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:drat... iPhone is already obsolete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drat. iPhone is obsolete and it doesn't even go on sale until Friday. This whole quantum dot thing will make 3G networks obsolete before AT&T even gets it rolled out here in the U.S. I want my "iPhone Quantum". : ) Sheesh! Some people will contrive almost any excuse to turn the subject to George W. Bush. It appears that others want to do the same with the bloody iPhone. Yeah, I know it's a joke, but even so, it's not like there isn't already enough discussion surrounding the thing on Slashdot.

      It's just a bloody phone. Yes, we all know that Apple revolutionised the digital music player industry. Yes, we all know they *might* do the same here (though I wouldn't bet my life savings on it). Yeah, the interface will probably be nice, and it certainly looks good. But when push comes to shove, it's still just a moderately-smart-phone with a fixed set of applications. Nothing new.
    2. Re:drat... iPhone is already obsolete by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      >> Sheesh! Some people will contrive almost any excuse to turn the subject to George W. Bush.

      > Why? Is there a better explanation for why the WMDs in Iraq were not found? They were simply teleported away!

      Actually, since they haven't yet been observed, they can be considered to both be there AND not be there.

      Well, that's what Rummie told me, anyway.

  5. Biggest Hurdle by JimboFBX · · Score: 5, Funny

    Biggest Hurdle so far is figuring out how to stop the quantum pac-man who keeps eating them.

    1. Re:Biggest Hurdle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Biggest Hurdle so far is figuring out how to stop the quantum pac-man who keeps eating them.

      We could spawn a bunch of daemon processes to take care of that - I saw an early simulation of this idea on an Atari 2600 computer. It all makes sense now.

    2. Re:Biggest Hurdle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, but this is nature's way of telling us to butt out. (We're getting too close to the inner workings, perhaps.)

  6. NOT a matter transporter by Cousarr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Quantum entanglement is a great way to get information from one location to another at faster than the speed of light but offers no way to transmit matter. Theoretically the precesses here allow for technology like the ansible from Card's Ender's Game series but won't be transmitting ensign Ricky to his death from aboard the starship enterprise. Now, if we were all information-based entities teleporting about using quantum entanglement would be highly feasible.

    1. Re:NOT a matter transporter by hubert.lepicki · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but negotiating with Cylons from different part of galaxy without any delay could be useful ;).

    2. Re:NOT a matter transporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your post is almost rigth. Quantum entanglement is used for quantum teleportation but in no way can informaion be transmitted faster than light. In fact in order to be able to teleport somehing, some classical information has also to be exchanged.

    3. Re:NOT a matter transporter by iamspews · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Quantum entanglement is a great way to get information from one location to another at faster than the speed of light

      You can't use QE to transfer information faster than c, either. You can collapse the waveform but you can't control the outcome.
    4. Re:NOT a matter transporter by Prune · · Score: 0, Redundant

      RTFA! You can't use QE to transfer information faster than c, either. You can collapse the waveform but you can't control the outcome.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    5. Re:NOT a matter transporter by mikeplokta · · Score: 1

      In order to teleport an object, you don't need to actually transmit its matter, as long as you have some matter at the destination that you can use. All you need is to teleport the information about the quantum states of the matter so that the matter you already have at the destination can be put into the exact same state as the matter at the source.

    6. Re:NOT a matter transporter by Seumas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      First of all, I don't want a matter transporter. People are going to insist on using it for an alternate form of transportation. That might seem a fantastic idea, but just wait until some underpaid asshole with a hangover uses the wrong coordinates and doesn't beam you into your office cubicle, but sticks you halfway into a concrete wall in the lobby of your office building.

      Now, as for actual matter transportation -- and particularly people -- I've always wondered exactly how that would work. I am not one of those morons who believes that we have a soul or some particular part of our body or supposed spirit that makes us who we are. So - does that mean that simply taking my precise atomic makeup at point A and re-assimiliating it with different atoms over at point B will result in a real, actual me? Or would it be me without whatever makes me myself? I mean, soul and spirit bullshit aside, how could every neuron firing in my brain and every receptor and every blood vessel and capilary and memory stored away in my brain ever be re-produced somewhere else? Surely with so many trillions or quadrillions of atoms that make me up, there will always be some loss. So when you transport me from home to the office, I am a lossy me.

      And then, of course, the more you transport, the more you become like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy. Or, if you like another analogy, you go from being Alec Baldwin to Stephen Baldwin to Daniel Baldwin to a pool of primordial goo.

      I've also always wondered what would keep someone from just creating many copies of themselves. A transporter would never truly transport you. It would simply map your makeup here and assemble the same thing somewhere else. But that isn't to say that you'd have to destroy the version at point A from which the map came.

      So at best, we might some day have matter duplicators. There is no way we would ever have matter *transporters*. If you are going to assemble an orange a mile away, why bother with the energy to destroy a perfectly good orange here, that the duplicate came from? And when it comes to people... can you possibly imagine the indescribable agony you would experience every time you went through the process? They'd confirm that your duplicate was assembled and functional at your destination... and then destroy you at your point of origin. You would somehow be taken apart at the atomic level. Perhaps reduced to a very fine recycleable dust. It wouldn't be harmless and fun like in Star Trek. It would probably be like having a trillion surgical scalpels cutting into you while every inch of your body inside and out felt like it was burning and being shredded and ripped apart.

    7. Re:NOT a matter transporter by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Surely with so many trillions or quadrillions of atoms that make me up, there will always be some loss. So when you transport me from home to the office, I am a lossy me.

      And then, of course, the more you transport, the more you become like a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy.


      Unless there's some form of error correction, you're correct. You would be "faxing" your quantum information to another location which then is applied to matter. I suppose you could use two atomic clocks in sync to provide proper fax error correction, but then what happens when you span great distance (star systems, galaxies...etc)? Surely time dialation would kick them out of sync again. The risk of cancer from DNA corruption scares the hell outta me.

      Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take the cab to work.
      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:NOT a matter transporter by asuffield · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've also always wondered what would keep someone from just creating many copies of themselves. A transporter would never truly transport you. It would simply map your makeup here and assemble the same thing somewhere else. But that isn't to say that you'd have to destroy the version at point A from which the map came.


      Various fundamental results have already been formally proved about quantum physics. One of them is the no cloning theorem, and one of its many implications is that no duplication is ever possible: copying anything on a quantum level must always involve destroying the original.

      Another proven result is the no teleportation theorem. This one indicates that quantum matter teleporters are fundamentally impossible. It just can't be done. It's not a problem with scale or accuracy, you cannot even teleport a single atom.

      These two theorems are not based on vague arguments, but on the mathematics underlying quantum physics. As such they are iron-clad.

      If either a working duplicator or teleporter is ever built, we already know that it will not be based on quantum physics, but on some lower level of physics that has not yet been discovered. This is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes (it takes roughly 100-200 years to move from one level of physics to the next, based on history).
    9. Re:NOT a matter transporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong... This is Quantum mechanics. If you put matter B in to the same state as matter A you are effectively moving matter a, since two particles in the same state are in quantum mechanics the exact same particle. (This is an experimental fact). There is no real "copying" taking place.

      Ofcause you need to understand quantum theory for this to make sence, but noone understands QT, so....

    10. Re:NOT a matter transporter by robably · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now, if we were all information-based entities teleporting about using quantum entanglement would be highly feasible.
      We are information-based entities. You'd still be you if your mind was teleported in to another body. Maybe a robot body. With breasts.
    11. Re:NOT a matter transporter by Jamu · · Score: 1

      Isn't one of those quantum states made up of positions? If you aren't transmitting matter then clearly the position (and momentum) quantum states aren't being included. The only way of identifying identical particles is by their state. If all the states move from one, otherwise identical, particle to another, then the particle itself has moved. The only way you can say it hasn't, would, obviously, be if the position state of the particle hasn't changed. So all the other identifying properties of the particle could move, but you'd need the position to remain so that you could say there was no matter transmission.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    12. Re:NOT a matter transporter by Jamu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not so sure the teleportation theorem does say that. If it's possible to transfer quantum states without measurement, and all you need for teleportation is to transfer these states, then you don't need to make measurements (which is what the teleportation theorem describes). Quantum physics doesn't rule out teleporters. In fact, the cloning theorem suggests that if you do teleport a person, then they are teleported and not destroyed after duplication. That is, if you only transfer their state and don't make measurements in the process of teleportation.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    13. Re:NOT a matter transporter by HateBreeder · · Score: 1

      I don't think that teleportation without measurement is useful.

      You should note, that by saying "measurement" you're actually referring to any sort of interaction between the teleported particle and its surrounding.

      You don't always have to use a ruler to call something a measurement, you know...

      --
      Sigs are for the weak.
    14. Re:NOT a matter transporter by Mudcathi · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Your post is almost rigth." Whath wongth whith ith?

      --

      "He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb

    15. Re:NOT a matter transporter by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 1

      Quantum entanglement is a great way to get information from one location to another at faster than the speed of light but offers no way to transmit matter.

      Sure it does! We just haven't figured out that "Step 2: ???" part yet. You know, the one about converting matter into energy without energy loss (and therefore matter loss).

      On a related note, read "Timeline" by Michael Crichton for an interesting fictional take on time travel by harnessing quantum states to visit other universes in the multiverse that are just like ours but several hundred years in the past. I just finished it, and it's quite entertaining, though obviously not possible for at least the next hundred years or so (if at all).
    16. Re:NOT a matter transporter by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Uh, no, it can't. You have the insignificant little problem of being able to decode all the atoms in a human body simultaneously.

    17. Re:NOT a matter transporter by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I believe that some work has been done towards teleportation without measurement by entangling a particle first, and then measuring its pair, although I don't know what the outcome was.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:NOT a matter transporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i beg to differ.
      see http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportat ion/
      i didn't care for looking for the original article that specifically stated that atom teleportation has been done bu the link above implicitly states this.

    19. Re:NOT a matter transporter by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      If you would "teleport" position, then the position of the "teleported" particle would obviously be at the same position as the original. Of course that type of teleportation is also possible; it's usually called "doing nothing" :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    20. Re:NOT a matter transporter by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Not every interaction between a particle and its surrounding is a measurement. But the point is that in quantum teleportation you don't measure the state you want to teleport. There is a measurement involved (and it's that measurement which destroys the original), but the measurement's outcome doesn't give you any information about the transmitted state. The outcome is, however, needed to reconstruct that state on the receiving side (that's why you can't transmit the state faster than light; you just need that classical information).

      Of course you are free to measure the state after receiving it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    21. Re:NOT a matter transporter by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      While this is quantum mechanics, you also have to define "moving matter" quantum mechanically. That is, for true matter transport, one of the teleported quantum properties would have to be the particle number. In other words, the quantum teleportation would have to change the expectation value of the particle number operator depending on its expectation value on the sender's side before teleportation.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    22. Re:NOT a matter transporter by joto · · Score: 1

      Now, if we were all information-based entities teleporting about using quantum entanglement would be highly feasible.
      We are information-based entities. You'd still be you if your mind was teleported in to another body

      That is your opinion, but that doesn't make it so. Since nobody has performed the experiment yet, we just don't know. Or to be more precise, we don't even have a fucking clue, as we haven't even succeeded with brain-transplants yet.

      Maybe a robot body. With breasts.

      I believe my personality is determined more by my dick, than my brain. So I must disagree.

    23. Re:NOT a matter transporter by metlin · · Score: 1

      > some classical information has also to be exchanged.

      Or rather, a classical channel needs to be present (i.e. a beam of light).

    24. Re:NOT a matter transporter by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Informative

      The risk of cancer from DNA corruption scares the hell outta me.
      Alteration of DNA is not as disastrous to the body as you might think. The decay of a C-14 atom in DNA happens about 50 times per second, changing a carbon atom to one of nitrogen. So there is DNA corruption in about 50 of your cells each second from that cause alone. How often that has disastrous consequences for each cell is somewhat relevant to the body.
    25. Re:NOT a matter transporter by retrosteve · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      I've been saying this every time one of these articles in quantum-entangled info transmission pops up.

      Isn't the idea of instantaneous information transmission outside the light cone, which can possibly even violate causality, a big enough deal on its own? The Ansible is a wonderful technology, and this stuff actually makes it possible in theory.

      Why keep adding "teleportation" to the headlines, which isn't even theoretically made possible as yet?

      Cool stuff the quantum dots DO enable:

      Send a spaceship with a module containing a few billion qbits of entangled dots to a far star, say, 100 light years away. Hang onto the companion module.

      Wait until the spaceship gets there.

      Now any normal (EM-spectrum) signals you send to the far star will be delayed 100 years. Same with anything they send you. According to relativity, that's a hard limit.

      But 100 years later on, war happens at far star, and using the quantum dots, someone over there sends you information about it. You get that info 100 years before it can possibly reach you. You've just received info that's 100 years in the future!

      This may not be teleportation, but it's got a certain potential for spread betting :)

    26. Re:NOT a matter transporter by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      If only the Grebulons had that technology, it would've saved them a lot of headaches.

    27. Re:NOT a matter transporter by icepick72 · · Score: 1

      Even without considering the concrete wall or degeneration of copies, every time a person is transported/duplicated correctly into an "empty space" that space is not really empty because there are always particles floating in the air which would get embedded into the person each time. That would be enough to very soon destroy a person's health and well-being.

    28. Re:NOT a matter transporter by mad.frog · · Score: 1

      Larry Niven covered all these topics (and more) in his excellent essay, "The Theory and Practice of Teleportation".

      Sadly, a quick google didn't show any copies on the web, but it's worth picking up one of his short-story collections that contains it.

    29. Re:NOT a matter transporter by Danse · · Score: 1

      Quantum entanglement is a great way to get information from one location to another at faster than the speed of light but offers no way to transmit matter.

      We really need to get the government to fund this research now! This could solve all our lag problems in CS and BF!!
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    30. Re:NOT a matter transporter by syousef · · Score: 1

      You're right that we're unlikely to see teleportation in our lifetime, and that it may be that the universe is constructed in such a way that it will never be allowed to happen.

      You're wrong about science taking 100-200 years to move from "one level of physics to the next, based on history" as you put it. The rate of scientific advancement has been increasing quite quickly. Take relativity for example.

      Einstein put out his famous 4 papers including special relativity in 1905. By 1945 - just 40 years - you had a practical and working atomic bomb. Now you can argue that you need to add another decade or two before 1905 for the groundwork to be laid for relativity (Michelson-Morley experiment and Lorentz transformations) but that's still not 100 years, it's more like 50 years.

      In contrast it took from the mid to late 1600s to 1905 to move from a Newtonian picture of the world to a relativistic one. A little under 250 years.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    31. Re:NOT a matter transporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not one of those morons who believes that we have a soul or some particular part of our body or supposed spirit that makes us who we are.


      Well it is good you aren't a moron but you do seem to be a bigot instead but as long as you hate/belittle the right people it doesn't go against any moral fiber you may have, right?

    32. Re:NOT a matter transporter by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Quantum entanglement is a great way to get information from one location to another at faster than the speed of light but offers no way to transmit matter. Theoretically the precesses here allow for technology like the ansible from Card's Ender's Game series but won't be transmitting ensign Ricky to his death from aboard the starship enterprise. Now, if we were all information-based entities teleporting about using quantum entanglement would be highly feasible. Exactly what I was thinking. It would also revolutionize teleoperation of robots, or "waldos" as some pedants insist on calling them. I'm thinking of Ghost in the Shell, second manga series, where the Major does not enter action with her real body and brain but does everything through teleoperated droids.

      If we want to get all cyberpunk about this, consider how in today's world the major movers and shakers of the games turn out to be average people or pure nobodies. In the imagined cyberpunk futures, people jacked into VR like this could come across like princes and kings online but still be living in a one-room apartment that smells like cat piss. Now imagine if your player isn't just present in the metaverse, he's also got a high bucks droid replica of himself out in the real world. This would no longer just be about geeks, you're looking at political figures, terrorists, mafiosa, etc, all using telepresence droids to keep their meat brains safe. You assassinate the guy, you find out you only popped a bot. All the benefits of hands on and face to face, none of the risks. So the most important piece of information one could have on another, "where's the original body jacking in from?" I've got this image of a storage unit in the middle of nowhere with something looking like the bacta tank from Empire Strikes Back, a body floating in it. The suspension fluid keeps the body clean, feeding and waste removal is handled intravenously, and the person lives full-time in the net or telepresence bot.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    33. Re:NOT a matter transporter by wikinerd · · Score: 1

      (it takes roughly 100-200 years to move from one level of physics to the next, based on history). We don't have much scientific history to base this proposal. We know for sure, however, that the process can halt for thousands of years as it did during the last dark ages. But we don't know how fast it can proceed. If a scientist at Einstein level or above creates new physics during their 30s, what stops them from creating entirely new physics in their 50s? If a single person had the imagination and intelligence necessary to find out undiscovered physics, then they may be able to do it again in their lifetime, which means that it would be possible to move from one level of physics to the next within a few years or a decade. Furthermore, I would like to add that in my opinion the present world is not very supportive of science in general and that many researchers have to try a lot just to get some funding or even persuade governments to release resources from military development into scientific research. The problem, however, is not only one of resources, but also one of attitude and social implications. Many parents would prefer their children to become supermodels rather than mad scientists into a lab without social life. Not only that, but creativity and imagination much needed for new discoveries and inventions are not promoted into our society, and our educational systems many times fail to capture the enthusiasm of the youth. As a result, science doesn't proceed as fast as it probably could had we had a more science-promoting society.
    34. Re:NOT a matter transporter by master_p · · Score: 1

      It's not possible to transmit information faster than light by using quantum teleportation (yet). Suppose we have two entangled particles A and B. If you measure particle A, the other particle B gets to a symmetrical state, but since you don't know what the state of A was before measuring it, you have to transfer the information to B by a classical way. If you don't do that, B will have a non-meaningful measurement.

    35. Re:NOT a matter transporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also known as "get back to work!"

    36. Re:NOT a matter transporter by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

      this is why if we can get this data it seems more probable to have a "replicator" than a "transporter", if we can find a way to decode the structure quickly, or store it, all we need is some raw atomic material to reconstruct it. That is more probable with a kobe steak than a person.

    37. Re:NOT a matter transporter by the_weasel · · Score: 1

      It eventually leads to death/ Thats pretty disastrous.

      --
      - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
    38. Re:NOT a matter transporter by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Yes.

  7. A little confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was under the impression that quantum entanglement could not transmit information. If these researchers have actually managed superluminal commmunication, then... wow.

    1. Re:A little confused... by asuffield · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was under the impression that quantum entanglement could not transmit information. If these researchers have actually managed superluminal commmunication, then... wow.


      It cannot transmit information faster than the speed of light. It can transmit information when combined with a classical, slower-than-light transfer. It cannot transmit any information without having a classical (non-quantum) information transfer also take place, so the speed is limited by the speed of the classical transfer.

      As you would expect, the utility of this is somewhat limited.
    2. Re:A little confused... by Moochman · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could elaborate.... I understand that the entangled particle has to be moved to a new location once at no faster than the speed of light, but after that one time what is to prevent communication between those two locations at faster than light speeds?

    3. Re:A little confused... by dkasak · · Score: 1

      The fact that you cannot predict to which state the waveform will collapse when you measure it. Yes, after the interaction, both Alice's and Bob's particle will be in the same state but since Alice did not choose that state, she did not transmit any information to Bob. Only by using a separate, classical information channel can she inform Bob whether this was the intended state or not.

      Also note that transmitting information superluminally would effectively be sending messages into the past. This violates causality.

    4. Re:A little confused... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      "Also note that transmitting information superluminally would effectively be sending messages into the past. This violates causality."

      Funny, I don't recall ever going over the "universal law against killing your grandparents before you're born" in any of my physics classes (but I only took 17 of them). This "law" of causality is an assumption; the universal speed limit appears to be the reason why causality remains intact, but "it violates causality" is an empty statement. As long as matter/energy isn't being created/destroyed in the process, and you're not going faster than c, the universe doesn't really care about your grandparents' past well-being.

    5. Re:A little confused... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The fact that nothing you do to the one part of the particle can directly influence any measurement outcome on the other side. You need additional (classical) information from the sending side in order to distinguish any measurement results from completely random garbage. One way to think of it is to think of the quantum information as encrypted by an automatically generated one-time pad during transmission, and you cannot read it until you get the pad, which is only revealed to the sender and thus has to be transmitted classically.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:A little confused... by dkasak · · Score: 1

      Read my post again. I never said it was a law. I only stated that causality would be violated by superluminal information transfer. Insofar, causality has had the trend of not being violated. While this does not even hint that it is a law, it does tell us taht it doesn't get violated very easily. However, even this is more than what I meant to imply with that statement. I was merely explicitly pointing out that superluminal information transfer would violate causality because it is not an obvious consequence to someone who is not familiar with physics. Nothing and more and nothing less. My choice of words was probably not the happiest solution for expressing this, though.

    7. Re:A little confused... by *weasel · · Score: 1

      So could you send a CRC value through a classical channel, and gobs of data through teleportation? Overall, the data wouldn't travel faster than light, but the net effect on transfer speeds would be astounding.

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  8. Speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Almost instantaneously" seems to be another way of saying "not instantaneously", which we could have guessed anyway. So why not say how fast it actually is?

    1. Re:Speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lightspeed?
      Which makes sense considering that nothing can go faster.

    2. Re:Speed? by asuffield · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Almost instantaneously" seems to be another way of saying "not instantaneously", which we could have guessed anyway. So why not say how fast it actually is?


      It's not measurable (really! to measure it would require a system that can transport information faster than light, and that's not possible so far as we know) and not really important. You teleport an entangled blob of quantum state, which arrives "almost instantaneously". You cannot do anything with it until you receive the companion classical information from the transmitter, which you need to "unpack" that blob of quantum state and extract the teleported information from it. The effective speed of the process is precisely the same as the actual speed of your classical (non-quantum) slower-than-light information channel, and that's the important part.
    3. Re:Speed? by zCyl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Almost instantaneously" seems to be another way of saying "not instantaneously", which we could have guessed anyway. So why not say how fast it actually is?

      Quantum teleportation requires the transmission of classical information before the "teleportation" can be completed, and the transmission of this classical information is done by conventional means which are limited to the speed of light. For some reason there seems to be a popular and often repeated misconception that quantum teleportation is instantaneous, but it is not, due to this classical information requirement.
    4. Re:Speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about cracking it, before you receieve the decryption keys?

      As a trick, this could be faster, if you have some redundancy to verify it is indeed correctly decrypted.

      I dont believe the universe has some fundamental rule that says: Information cant be transferred faster than light. We came up with that, since it fits what we have observed so far the best. But we will probably work around it in the future.

    5. Re:Speed? by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      Could it be possible to organise things such that information sent from a third party, equidistant between the sender and reciever, was used as the classical communication channel? If the sender and reciever were 2 light-seconds apart and the sender got the trigger 1 light millisecond before the reciever, couldn't that work? Or does the information going from A to B along classical channels need to be generated by the sender?

      --
      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.
    6. Re:Speed? by dkasak · · Score: 1

      It needs to be generated by the sender, of course, since the opposite would imply that the information could be generated arbitrarily near the receiver.

      Let me explain why the sender needs to send this information. Let's say that the sender and the receiver both have one part of a maximally entangled state (two particles, they both have one). This means that measurement results of the two particles will be correlated. Simplified, if the sender probes the state of her particle and gets a '1', the receiver will also get a '1' if he tries measuring hers. The problem is that the sender cannot control what the result of the measurement will be. Therefore, she cannot send any information to the receiver unless she also sends some information through a classical channel, telling the receiver which bits went through well and which need inverting.

    7. Re:Speed? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Actually the speed is determined by the speed of the classical information you need to transmit in the process. So if you send some messenger who carries it the traditional way, quantum teleportation speed is limited by how fast the messenger can run (assuming you manage to preserve the quantum state for so long, of course).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    8. Re:Speed? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      How about cracking it, before you receieve the decryption keys?

      It's effectively a one-time pad. It's unbreakable, even in principle.

      As a trick, this could be faster, if you have some redundancy to verify it is indeed correctly decrypted.

      Any amount of redundancy will not help with one-time pads.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    9. Re:Speed? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Could it be possible to organise things such that information sent from a third party, equidistant between the sender and reciever, was used as the classical communication channel?

      No. The classical information sent is generated by the sending process itself, at the place of the sender.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  9. quantum dots by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

    Ok, I want to hear from a single guy in this forum/site, who can take this "teleportation might use quantum dots" information and make some use of it.

    And I don't mean Star Trek or cell phone jokes. I don't mean jokes at all (which I suspect will constitute 99% of the posts over here).

    This article in fact doesn't have anything to do with the audience here, except that it's about (drum rolls) magical teleportation. Which won't happen probably in the next 50-60 years, yet we get teleportation articles over here every few days as if on schedule.

    There are so many things happening right now we COULD make use of to further our knowledge, which we possibly comprehend:

    Zap offers new $30000 electric automobile.
    Massive stock spam uses PDF-s to lure investors.
    New petition against Microsoft's open xml format opened at: http://www.noooxml.org/petition
    Critics question EPA's tighter ozone limits

    1. Re:quantum dots by zCyl · · Score: 1

      Ok, I want to hear from a single guy in this forum/site, who can take this "teleportation might use quantum dots" information and make some use of it.

      You could use it to make a Beowulf cluster of quantum computers.

      (I kid you not.)
    2. Re:quantum dots by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

      I want to hear from a single guy in this forum/site, who can take this "teleportation might use quantum dots" information and make some use of it.

      If these particles can actually travel faster than the speed of light...does that mean they may be from "another dimension in another 'time'" where our physical laws don't apply or being sent by other scientists doing the same experiment only in reverse from this other "place"???

      Will we have billions of 1701D's appearing all over the place if this were true or my "evil" twin from this other place come & tell me how rich & powerful he or she is as the galactic overlord??? If it's a she...will she look like a stripper with the mind of Einstein & the talents of Buckaroo Bonzai to become the overlord???

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    3. Re:quantum dots by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Funny


      If these particles can actually travel faster than the speed of light...does that mean they may be from "another dimension in another 'time'" where our physical laws don't apply or being sent by other scientists doing the same experiment only in reverse from this other "place"???


      Well, thanks for confirming my original point...

    4. Re:quantum dots by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Ok, I want to hear from a single guy in this forum/site

      There should be no shortage of single guys here... :)
      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    5. Re:quantum dots by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      There are so many things happening right now we COULD make use of to further our knowledge

      Guess someone's a little grouchy about their rejected submissions, then.

      --
      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.
    6. Re:quantum dots by ChronosWS · · Score: 1

      So you'd rather us spend 100% of our time dwelling on the realities of today and imagining the possibilities of tomorrow?

      Sounds awfully droll to me.

      As for comprehension, don't lump all of us in with you. Some people on here are quantum physicists, and some of us like it as a hobby.

    7. Re:quantum dots by pablob · · Score: 1

      Ok, I want to hear from a single guy in this forum/site, who can take this "teleportation might use quantum dots" information and make some use of it.
      There is not much use to it. It seems to be a theoretical calculation on what kind of parameters would work best if you wanted to perform a quantum teleportation experiment with two quantum dots. From my own experience with semiconductor quantum dots and quantum information, the proper quantum dots to perform an experiment like that (a proof-of-concept experiment, nothing else!) have not been grown yet. There have been some advances in laterally coupled quantum dots, but I haevn't seen any that look good for implementing the two-qubit gates needed for quantum teleportation.

      So don't hold your breath for any kind of quantum teleportation with quantum dots (although they make fine single photon sources!).

      Of couse I haven't read the article, so they might have good suggestion on how to do that or even know of some quantum dot growth I'm not familiar with.

      Pablo B.

  10. Read the discussion... by niceone · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article is pretty light on information, but hte discussion has a pretty thorough description of why this can't (AFAIK) be used to send information, including a link to the wikipedia topic. Maybe they have a way round that, but you can't tell from the article.

    1. Re:Read the discussion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this is not possible to "teleport" information, this is only possible to "teleport" random information.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation #Remarks

    2. Re:Read the discussion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm. No.

      Alice has a qubit Q. Alice sends two classical bits to Bob. Bob now has qubit Q and Alice has a random qubit.

      So in a sense, qubit Q, and all the information therein, was transported from Alice to Bob. It's true that Alice loses the qubit once she sends it. Such is life.

  11. Teleporter death by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This reminds me of a question I never found the answer to: if you teleported yourself, would you die and a clone be made?

    From the sounds of TFA, the new "you" would not actually be you at all, just a copy. It sounds like your conscious mind would be obliterated and a new one created, although the new one might not be aware of it.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Teleporter death by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      From the sounds of TFA, the new "you" would not actually be you at all, just a copy. It sounds like your conscious mind would be obliterated and a new one created, although the new one might not be aware of it.

      If you weren't aware of it, and you kept your previous consious state, would it even matter?

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:Teleporter death by schlichte · · Score: 1

      Telefragged?

      An off topic question perhaps, but if you created a clone and killed it, would it be murder or suicide?

    3. Re:Teleporter death by WarJolt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you are talking about is philosophical issue. With teleportation you no longer exists where you were and you exist where you are now, but thats true as you walk through space. I think the problem occurs when you consider the energy that makes up your matter is part of you.

      Let me ask you a question. Isn't it true that your cells are constantly regenerating themselves? The matter you were made up of when you were born no longer is the same matter, but you are still you. So if your qunatum state was duplicated and during the process the original was destroyed then you would still think you are you. Would you still BE you? That just opens a whole can of worms.

      The question in my mind is can quantum teleportation bring along your soul? If you don't believe in a soul you have to ask yourself a couple of questions. Are you only you because of that matter that makes you up? The matter that makes you up comes from the stuff you eat. So is the stuff you eat part of you before you eat it? Is it only you when you make food part of your cells and your body? What makes you unconfortable with the idea of your body being made up of different energy? Consider this: Your body is constantly rebuilding itself with new and different energy and disposing of the old parts. Whats the difference?

      I bet most people wouldn't step into a teleportation unless the quantum state of your atoms were reconstructed with the SAME energy.

    4. Re:Teleporter death by Derosian · · Score: 1

      I would have to agree a quantum teleportation device would have to recreate everything within the field, not just the matter, but also all forms of energy, and anything else there might be there.

    5. Re:Teleporter death by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      Could you imagine if all the molecules in your body suddenly lost cohesion? You'd turn into a pile of goo. Yeah all forms of energy within a local space must be teleported somehow before I'm going to volunteer to be a test subject.

    6. Re:Teleporter death by stjobe · · Score: 1

      It would matter to the old you -- would you teleport yourself if you knew it was going to kill you?
      Okay, so they say that there's a "new" you at the destination, but the old you dies, right? You die.
      Would you bet your life on the process "keep[ing] your previous cons[c]ious state"?

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    7. Re:Teleporter death by Lobais · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly, because if we said that it _would_ be _you_ in the new body, then if the old you was not destroyed you would be consciously in two bodies at the same time, and that'd be rather confusing.

    8. Re:Teleporter death by stjobe · · Score: 1

      With teleportation you no longer exists where you were and you exist where you are now
      Not quite. With teleportation you cease to exist where you were because your body is destroyed and rebuilt with new matter so that you can exist where you are now. Not as trivial as "walk[ing] through space", is it?

      You might be on to something with the next paragraph though, people usually have a hard enough time getting to grips with the fact that a future me or a past me is somehow still me. Now try and make them see that the teleported me is still me. I doubt it is possible.

      If you don't believe in a soul [yadayadayada]
      That's one of the silliest paragraphs I've seen in a long time. The stuff I eat is part of me before I eat it? I'm uncomfortable with my body "being made up of different energy"? Jeez, Louise! Way to kill a strawman! Let's just say that even without the added complexity of whether there is a soul or not, there might be problems with teleportation and personal identity

      I bet most people wouldn't step into a teleportation unless the quantum state of your atoms were reconstructed with the SAME energy.
      Apart from the fact that I'm not quite sure what you even mean by "the SAME energy" in this context, I bet most people wouldn't step into a teleportation, period.
      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    9. Re:Teleporter death by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      Your body completely remakes itself every few years (I forget the precise length of time). Quite literally, you're not the same person you were 10 years ago.

      Ultimately, though, if a copy is absolutely perfect and wholly indistinguishable from the original, then there is no difference between the two. This is the fundamental basis behind digital data. I doubt all religions will see it that way, though. Those that hold the body sacred (like Jehovah's Witnesses) will probably object to it's use on humans. That's a philosophical debate I thankfully will not have to endure, though, as I expect I will be long since dead by the time it becomes an issue.

      Even then, though, I bet there will always be some people unwilling to take a trip into Schroedinger's box.

      I expect the technology will only be used on inanimate objects for a very long time, though. And that's assuming they can scale it up to an object of worthwhile size. And that's assuming they can get it to do anything worthwhile at all.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    10. Re:Teleporter death by yoprst · · Score: 1

      Teleportation = creation of a clone + killing of the original person. It makes sence to keep the poor guy alive, I think. Also, why would you need such clone? Life's gonna be much more complicated once you do. Anyway, it's not gonna work: you need to measure the quantum state of every atom in your body, and they all will change as a result. I wouldn't want to be you when it happens! I may be dead wrong, of course - I'm not a physicist.

    11. Re:Teleporter death by MythMoth · · Score: 1

      It would matter to the old you -- would you teleport yourself if you knew it was going to kill you?
      Okay, so they say that there's a "new" you at the destination, but the old you dies, right? You die.
      Would you bet your life on the process "keep[ing] your previous cons[c]ious state"?


      Every night I shut down my consciousness and restart it every morning. Ok, maybe I'm semi-conscious during REM, but during deep sleep I'm utterly unconscious. How do I know that my consciousness doesn't die every night and an indistinsguishable one get fired up? I don't - but it makes no practical difference.

      In the phenomenally unlikely event that anything like this could ever be used to usefully teleport something macroscopic, I suspect that it would become accepted in a similar pragmatic way. For now it's so spectacularly remote a possibility that even the philosophical arguments seem a bit pointless - what would happen if we could do something that might not even be possible? Hard to say.
      --
      --- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
    12. Re:Teleporter death by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Luckily Star Trek takes a rather agnostic view of the Universe otherwise Heaven and Hell will be filled with Kirk, Spocks, McCoys, perhaps even more of them then red shirts.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    13. Re:Teleporter death by stjobe · · Score: 1
      You can be pretty certain that your body isn't destroyed and rebuilt every night, and there's the difference. To our present knowledge, destruction of the body equals death of the person.

      Teleportation (as we speak of it in this thread) requires that your body be destroyed at one end of the transmission and rebuilt at the other without the death of the person. Since we don't know -- and can't know -- yet what that does to a person's "conscious state" this is a philosophical question. Science doesn't have the answers to what happens here yet. When it does, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes science.

      For teleportation to be practical hinges on so many different fields of study, and needs so many technological as well as psychological and philosophical breakthroughs it isn't even funny. But the topics of identity and personal identity are well covered in modern philosophy.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    14. Re:Teleporter death by maxume · · Score: 1

      You flatly state at least twice that the arrangement is the important part. That continues to be the case when you move it to some other matter via some technological means.

      I wouldn't step into a transporter until I was sure it reproduced my quantum state, and some other fool had demonstrated that that was sufficient.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    15. Re:Teleporter death by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Right. Another person who doesn't understand the difference between an original and a photocopy.

      Tell you what, you go first.

      --
      Deleted
    16. Re:Teleporter death by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Your body completely remakes itself every few years [...] you're not the same person you were 10 years ago.
      Say you have an axe. You break the handle and replace it. Is it still the same axe? Most people would say yes.
      Now say you later broke the head and replace it. Is it still the same axe? Most people would say yes, even though no parts of the original axe remains.
      Finally, say you broke both the handle and the head and replaced them both. Is it still the same axe? Most people would say no, because you need to replace all the parts of the axe at the same time, i.e. make a new axe.

      Why is this, that you can replace a part of a whole and it can still be considered the same? Why, if you replace all of the parts over time is it still the same thing, but if you replace the parts all at once it's a new thing? Answer this and you'll have answered (one of) the problem(s) with identity in teleportation.
      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    17. Re:Teleporter death by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Since it is just philosophy, discussing it is meaningless and essentially useless. There are (quite obviously) no answers to be found through such an exercise.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    18. Re:Teleporter death by stjobe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, but I disagree :)

      "Just" philosophy (as you so eloquently put it) is not at all "meaningless and essentially useless", and quite a few answers can and have been found through philosophy.

      However, the questions that are asked in philosophy cannot usually be answered empirically. Neither by observation or experiment, nor by reference to faith or revelation, but rely instead wholly on reason. This should not be taken as evidence that the questions cannot be answered. Logic, for instance, is based purely on reason and it springs, as do so many other fields of study, from philosophy. It also answers a lot of questions.

      In fact most of what we now call science was at one time or other found under the heading "philosophy", and only with advances in philosophy did it spring forward as a science in it's own right.

      So you see, far from being meaningless and essentially useless, philosophy is in fact inherently meaningful and useful as a tool to explore areas of knowledge science does not yet have the ability to tread. For instance, the philosophy of mind to which this discussion pertains.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    19. Re:Teleporter death by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Or similar, what if you created a clone of yourself, and then the clone killed the original?
      Now change that to a process where the clone-creation itself destroyed the original, and you'd be right at the teleportation scenario.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    20. Re:Teleporter death by DawnArdent · · Score: 1

      One's conscious mind is obliterated and created anew constantly; that's probably what a decent definition of time is.

      You are more or less who you were a moment ago (temporal dislocation), and you'll probably be more or less yourself when teleported (spatial dislocation).

      We die all the time.

    21. Re:Teleporter death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DawnArdent I'm going to kill you, but I've created a perfect copy of you elsewhere, so it's ok right?

    22. Re:Teleporter death by Fishead · · Score: 1

      What if you created multiple clones of your wife.

      would you be considered a bigamist? Would you have to convert to Mormonism? Would all their birthdays be on the same day? Would "mr. grouchy" come all at the same time (DEFINITELY gotta go fishing THAT week). If all your cloned wifes were to become pregnant, would their children be siblings, or half siblings?

    23. Re:Teleporter death by durnurd · · Score: 1

      Well, when I think of clones, I think of them in the normal sense, where they have to be grown in a test tube from inception. In this case, since you retain your complete self, age and memory included, it would be a copy at worst. Though I may just be hassling over words here, "clone" is one of those words that makes "certain"* people oppose things that would otherwise advance one or more aspects of society greatly. So a copy of you is made, that is, let me make this clear, not a clone of you. And at the risk of getting all philosophic, your conscious mind is based around those elements of your brain that are private to yourself, mainly your memories, thoughts, and feelings. To be very secular about all of this, we can assume that there's not some aether substance** bound to your body as it currently exists that represents your consciousness that would suddenly become unbound when your body becomes disassembled. If there is, then where would a new aether substance come from to bind to the new body? If a body has none of this representation of a conscious mind, then it would not have any memories either. Or it would not be able to access them anyway. This could be tested simply by teaching a lab rat a way through a maze, then teleporting it to see if it still remembers on the other side. Of course, you could argue that a lab rat is simply acting autonomously through brain functions and is not sapient. So if some human were willing to go through, and suddenly this human were no longer sapient, i.e. were acting only autonomously, we would have an answer. This, still, may be hard to gauge, but presumably a human with no consciousness (not conscience) would not have "feelings". This tends to get mushy, but I'm sure somebody could devise a method to test this. * - stupid, if you're not a moderator who opposes things like stem-cell research, or the idea of evolution. ** - Take your pick of soul, spirit, divine spark, etc.

      --
      --Edward Dassmesser
    24. Re:Teleporter death by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Your post is probably the most fundamentally relevant writeup I have ever read on Slashdot. I know this sort of questions and subjects are not discussed often among people, geeks or not. But they should be.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    25. Re:Teleporter death by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1

      It sounds like your conscious mind would be obliterated and a new one created, although the new one might not be aware of it.
      I think that's exactly what is happening all the time anyway.

      We think of time as continuous, but really it can be described discreetly (knowing that Rate x Time = Distance), the smallest measure of time must be the smallest distance (not sure, maybe the Planck length?) divided by the fastest rate (c, the speed of light).

      So... if time isn't continuous, how do you know that you are the same "you" after each unit of time that passes? Maybe your condition changes by some random probability function, but no different than what teleportation would do to you.

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    26. Re:Teleporter death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      With teleportation you cease to exist where you were because your body is destroyed and rebuilt with new matter so that you can exist where you are now.

      So what? with normal metabolism and growth, your "body is destroyed and rebuilt with new matter."

      Every day your cells get rid of old molecules and take in new ones. Every day your body sheds dead cells and replaces them through cell division. You're not the same person you were yesterday, and you're made of completely different matter than you were 10 years ago, but you are still you. "You" are a pattern, not a collection of atoms.

    27. Re:Teleporter death by __aaanwh8370 · · Score: 1

      I think "SAME energy" here is jolt's shorthand for "whatever persistent qualities maintain your identity over time", which I associate with the word pattern. That is, while all the material components might be swapped out over time, there is some sameness which remains. The axe who's handle and wedge have been replaced is the same axe in a sense because its pattern has persisted.

      But its indeed a philosophical question which hinges on your definition for the equivalence operator. Whether the post-teleportation you == the pre-teleportation you depends on what characteristics are relevant for your notion of equivalence.

      Is a copied file equivalent to its copy? For certain definitions of equivalent, the answer is yes. It contains the same information, though it possesses a different identity (as defined by its location).

      Pretty trivial with files (and types/objects, etc...), but what about meatspace entities? Can we use the same notion of equivalence? I'd say yes - that two arrangements of matter organized from different bits of material composed in the same way would demonstrate a certain equivalence. My iPod is both the same as and different from yours. My copy of Running Man is the same and different.

      So if we answer the "bring along your soul" question by substituting the words "persistent identity" for "soul" and suppose that that identity is described completely by the pattern arranging your bits, then I'd say absolutely your "soul" will be transported. I'd expect a complete transportation would establish a functionally equivalent copy of the source (whether or not the source is destroyed).

      That said, I'd argue that "soul" here frames the question in a difficult way to answer (as it carries with it overloaded notions of transcendant aspects which aren't completely explainable from materialistic phenomena, unlike something like "consciousness", which has materialistic explanations (see: emergent phenomena). Whether or not these materialistic definitions of consciousness are correct or not is beside the point - the relevant part is that they appeal only to the physical rather than the metaphysical.

    28. Re:Teleporter death by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      > Consider this: Your body is constantly rebuilding itself with new and different
      > energy and disposing of the old parts. Whats the difference?

      Consider this: no matter how often you upgrade your PC, you can still run the same exact copy of Windows. When you understand that there is no difference between software running on hardware and a soul running in the brain, you'll know that no matter how much health food you eat, you can still end up in Hell.

    29. Re:Teleporter death by caudron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let me ask you a question. Isn't it true that your cells are constantly regenerating themselves? The matter you were made up of when you were born no longer is the same matter, but you are still you. So if your qunatum state was duplicated and during the process the original was destroyed then you would still think you are you. Would you still BE you?

      I'd argue the answer is no, but it is, as you point out, an existential problem. For many people there is a qualitative difference between the slow regeneration of that which constitutes you and a transfer of the information that is your current state of being. That's slow regeneration creations a continuity of self that the latter doesn't afford. Does it matter existentially? Well, as Kierkegaard said, Truth is subjectivity. You'll need to decide that for yourself. For me, that continuity is key to selfhood.

      The question in my mind is can quantum teleportation bring along your soul?

      Agreed that this is the million dollar question, made all the more difficult because of the muddying of the term 'soul' itself in the Western world.

      In the Hebrew context of the dominant Western faiths (Judaism and it's derivatives, Christianity, and Islam) the soul is not separate of the body. There is no distinction of body and soul in the Jewish, Christian, or Islamic holy texts. The Christian resurrection is a bodily resurrection. The Islamic understanding of heaven is a physical one. The Jewish people never made that distinction. In that context, the question falls away. The soul isn't brought along in any different a manner than your liver or skin. Indeed, by virtue of bringing liver and skin over, you subsume the soul in the transfer in a very real tangible sense. In the Hebrew context, the soul is in no more danger than the body of being labeled a copy.

      In the Greek context that informs our Western philosophical outlook, and often works at odds with our religion outlook, there is very much a distinction of Mind, Body, and Soul. So, in that context, the question gets even broader in that you must also ask the same question of the mind. Is it brought over with the body? Is the soul as well? Being separate and noumenal, the mind and soul may not be brought over but copied or a new one created in the reconstitution of the copied body. In that Greek context, teleportation is existentially dangerous, I'd think.

      Personally, I've always tended to adhere to the Hebrew context for these sorts of questions, as they seem to make more logical sense and fit closer with my understanding of how the world appears to work.

      Not sure that I was coming to any conclusions in this comment, but rather just adding to the thought-noise. :)

      Tom Caudron
      http://tom.digitalelite.com/
      --
      -Tom
    30. Re:Teleporter death by skeftomai · · Score: 1

      What if a copy of you was made, and the original you still existed alongside that copy?

      Another question: if you could replace the neurons in your brain with artificial ones, would it still be you? If not, how much you could you replace and it still be you?

    31. Re:Teleporter death by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      What if you created multiple clones of your wife.

      Would you go by "Harcourt" or would you tell people your first name is "Harry"?

    32. Re:Teleporter death by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Actually, it wouldn't. I've thought about it critically, and I'm sure that I would be comfortable with being teleported. IMO, life is a series of moments, and the only connection with the past is state, and memory in particular. If state and memory are consistent, there's no way for the person or an observer to tell the difference. Assuming the error rate was extremely low, perhaps no worse than a specified exposure to radiation, I'd be okay with being serialized.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    33. Re:Teleporter death by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I think the key difference between cell regeneration and teleportation is that with cell regeneration, it happens relatively slowly. I can't remember the figure, something like two months to replace the whole body. During that time, there is continuity in thought and existence.

      Consider a boat. You slowly replace parts as they break, until the whole thing is replaced. Probably, it is the same boat. Take another boat. You disassemble it, move the parts and put it back together. Same boat, but of course with a human being there is a point at which electrical activity (consciousness) would stop and then re-start. Is that death? Were you then revived? Certainly, you can loose an arm, which is then dead, and have it re-attached and alive again. Star Trek teleporters probably don't kill.

      The problem with this kind of quantum teleportation is that it does not move your matter, only the information about it. So, it effectively clones you and destroys the old copy. In a scientific sense, perhaps the new one is the same you (the same quantum information), but none-the-less something was lost and something made.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re:Teleporter death by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Have you read any Richard Morgan? In his books, a person's mind can be digitally copied into another body. It always struck me as that would kill you though. Sure, a COPY of your mind would still be alive and active, but the original one would no longer be. One stream of consciousness would stop and another, identical but separate one would begin.

      Look at it this way, if I copied your mind into two new bodies so that there were two of you, what would I have done? Would the original you still be alive? If so, which one is it? Both?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:Teleporter death by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Science is hardly free from philosophy, for example the ancient Greeks had the idea of "atomos", the smallest indivisable bit of the universe. That is a philosophical concept, not an observable one because there could always be something smaller, and indeed our initial assumption that the atom was this smallest bit was wrong. Postulating thoughts on how the universe might work has been done by many good scientists, but today we call that science and not philosophy.

      Modern philosophy deals with, as you say, what can't be answered empirically. But without observation, logic doesn't have anything to work with. Take very fundamental things like the belief in cause and effect. Plenty science fiction have explored the idea of the effect preceeding the cause, or various concepts like non-linear time, time loops and time travel. In order to get anywhere with reason you need some rules of reasoning, which quite frankly seems to be the philosopher's religion.

      In mathematics we've proven that you can have several different, but consistent models depending on the axioms you choose. Philosophy on some level assumes you can start with nothing and start axiomatically building up reason, which to me seems logically impossible. Even if you assume nothing else, you have to assume some rules on how you can go from one conclusion to the next. That's where it all breaks down, because there's nothing to say that those rules, pulled out of thin air, have anything to do with reality as I know it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    36. Re:Teleporter death by wikinerd · · Score: 1

      You are an ordered collection of cells, molecules, and atoms. If you were blown apart into pieces, we would have the original cells, molecules, and atoms, but not into an ordered state - we would have lost the organised collection, ie you. Now, had we had a way to reconstruct that ordered collection, I believe that we should be able bring you back in life, and if we could alter some of your components maybe we could even implant memories of your destruction and reconstruction into your mind. Now we face the question whether you are a collection of specific cells, molecules, and atoms, but I think the answer is that you can be made up of any kind of components as long as the interactions between these components yields the same results externally. Cells die and regenerate every day. You lose molecules and atoms every day as well, but you replenish them by eating. Could we replace carbon with another hypothetical element that has the same chemical behaviour in its interactions with your other components? I believe so, as the important thing is the properties of an element and not the element itself. It is the set of interactions between your basic components and the way they are interlinked that makes up you. If you lose an organ, you can get a transplant, even an artificial one, but you are still you. This brings us to another question, whether you are just a piece of information. I think so. You may just be the information that describes what properties your components have and how they are interlinked. If we could extract this information, then we could copy you and create a new you (in the end we could create a computer file whenever a new human is born and be able to manage its material existance with simple copy/delete operations, and this also yields the interesting idea that your relatives could bring you back to life after your death, or that you could be re-created as a child and then again as an adult by keeping two or three files with your information at different ages, but now we slip into science fiction). This also brings us to the interesting idea of whether the universe is just an information processing system. It may be. If it is, then we should be able to understand it with mathematics, and there is a scientific paper out there that says that the universe is a set of mathematical relations and that these mathematical objects would think that they really exist into a material world. Similar ideas were also expressed by Zuse and others in the past. In the end we may just live inside a big computer. I just hope it runs a real OS like GNU/Linux and not MS Windows!

    37. Re:Teleporter death by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      In the Greek context that informs our Western philosophical outlook, and often works at odds with our religion outlook, there is very much a distinction of Mind, Body, and Soul. So, in that context, the question gets even broader in that you must also ask the same question of the mind. Is it brought over with the body? Is the soul as well? Being separate and noumenal, the mind and soul may not be brought over but copied or a new one created in the reconstitution of the copied body. In that Greek context, teleportation is existentially dangerous, I'd think.
      This isn't entirely correct. Thanks to our Cartesian-shaped worldview, we use to read these distinctions used by the Greek philosophers of old in a much stronger way than they themselves did, when in fact the first philosopher to absolutely separate soul and body was Descartes. He himself acknowledged this as a very novel move, so much that he presented his own dualism as a complete departure from everything everyone had made before him. The actual Plato, on the other hand, was much more akin to, say, Buddhism, in that the actual "you" is a mixture of heterogeneous elements that once dispersed aren't "you" anymore, than to the post-XV century, Descartes-based, new philosophical and religious movements whose worldview became mainstream in the West. And Aristotle, the Atomists, the Stoics, and pretty much everyone in old Greece, were that way too. What they discussed wasn't the fact, broadly acknowledged, that the human soul is absolutely linked to the body, but what this link was and how it was structured.
      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    38. Re:Teleporter death by chuckT · · Score: 1

      Doesn't anybody read any decent science fiction anymore? "Glasshouse" by Charlie Stross is a pretty good attempt, that covers the issue. It uses assembler gates and teleportation gates. Yes, they clone, and can create multiple instances of you. This can be a nuisance, but the characters just deal with it.

      Cheers, chuck

      --
      - These are small, *those* are _far away_
    39. Re:Teleporter death by beyowulf · · Score: 1

      However, the questions that are asked in philosophy cannot usually be answered empirically. Neither by observation or experiment, nor by reference to faith or revelation, but rely instead wholly on reason. This should not be taken as evidence that the questions cannot be answered. Logic, for instance, is based purely on reason and it springs, as do so many other fields of study, from philosophy. It also answers a lot of questions.
      I think the rub lies in the fact that the answers that philosophy provides are based on incomplete data. Reason based on an incomplete or faulty set of data will yield bad answers. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Its very tempting to think that with philosophy you are actually going anywhere, when you're merely spinning your wheels.
    40. Re:Teleporter death by stjobe · · Score: 1

      You, my friend, need to read (about) Descartes and his methodological skepticism :) Even though he ultimately failed in his endeavor, his journey is very instructional.

      When push comes to shove philosophically, we cannot be absolutely positively certain of anything, in part because our senses are imperfect. But we assume some things because the other way lies madness (and there's also a guy named William with a razor down that way). In a sense, we assume those things that let us assume the least and that simultaneously does not fly in the face of reality as we know it. It is also a big help if what we assume is thought by others to be sound reasoning, i.e. that has some intrasubjectiveness (lest we fall into the trap of solipsism). This way we can be fairly certain that what we build from these first building blocks will not fall down on us at the first breeze of opposition.

      In logic (and mathematics as well I assume; all caveats about assumptions apply here) everything depends on what your axioms are. If they're reasonable you're fine with building further from them. You can build a complete formal system from nothing but axioms about three things: nothing (null, the empty set), something (usually cardinality) and addition (how to go from nothing to something). These three things are not hard to understand or accept as "true", and they are the cornerstones of just about all mathematics.

      As to rules of reasoning being the philosopher's religion, I don't think the philosopher needs another religion; religion itself has traditionally been the master key to most philosopher's theories. When their theories came to a point where they became inconsistent the usual answer was "God made it so"; it has made me throw many a philosophical text away in disgust :)

      But there is a point to all this and it is that in the places where science can tell us nothing, philosophy still can, if you care to listen and if your reasoning is sound.

      Cheers ;)

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    41. Re:Teleporter death by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've read it (and most of Stross' other works as well). It's very good, but I can't help but feel he glosses over the psychological impact of cloning, teleportation and "merging the state vectors" as I seem to recall he called it :)

      May I recommend Richard K Morgan as well? His solution to travel between the stars is to upload and send the person as a data packet, which has a few interesting side effects.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    42. Re:Teleporter death by stjobe · · Score: 1

      As I said in another comment here, that way lies madness. You can never have complete data, so if you don't want to reason from an incomplete set of data you won't be doing any reasoning at all :)

      Philosophy, as does science, endeavors to reason from as complete a set of data as is available. In many circumstances in philosophy this is a very small set, but if the question is an interesting one, we may still be able to make some progress towards an answer.

      Hear me well now: Philosophy is based on reason and reasoning, as is science. There is no conflict between the two; they apply the same instruments in their search for answers. One deals with that which is measurable, the other with that which is not yet. But how do you think the scientist works his way from hypothesis to experiment to theory? By reason. Philosophy goes from hypothesis to _thought_-experiment to theory. There are many things that are not amenable to experimentation other than thought-experiments that are nonetheless worthy of study.

      Anyway, I don't know if you really think philosophy is just "spinning your wheels" but if you do, I suppose I won't be changing your mind in a Slashdot thread. I can only say that I'm sorry and that I believe you'd benefit in whatever your line of work is if you cared to study a bit of philosophy.

      Cheers :)

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    43. Re:Teleporter death by caudron · · Score: 1

      What they discussed wasn't the fact, broadly acknowledged, that the human soul is absolutely linked to the body, but what this link was and how it was structured.

      Interesting clarification. I dig it. It brings up a question, though. If they spoke in terms of linking the two, wouldn't that imply the two were /technically/ though perhaps not functionally, separate things? I know that for the hebrews, there simply was no distinction in any meaningful sense. The two were hopelessly intermingled and not thought of as separate at all. Just curious.

      Tom Caudron
      http://tom.digitalelite.com/
      --
      -Tom
    44. Re:Teleporter death by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      If they spoke in terms of linking the two, wouldn't that imply the two were /technically/ though perhaps not functionally, separate things?
      Not really. The word "soul" is the English version of the Latin "anima" (Greek "psyche"), which is the root of words such as animated, animal etc. It's precise meaning is something like "that which causes a body to move". So, if you throw a stone, you are the soul of the stone while it's moving. And if a body movement is caused by it itself, then it is its own soul, so to speak. This "causality of movement" is what people discussed about in deep details.

      For example: it seems evident that the soul of a stone is simpler from that of a plant, since a stone can move itself only in one direction (down) while a plant has both the "down" movement of a stone as well as an "up" movement (like that of fire), plus a growing movement. And both a stone (or fire) and a plant seemed to have simpler soul than than an animal, for the animal had both kinds of movement as well as that of moving itself based on desires such as thirst, hunger, sex etc. And humans? Humans added to the mix movements based on reasoning, something animals didn't possess. So with this you develop a taxonomy of internal movements: mechanical soul, vegetative soul, volitive soul, rational soul etc., and then proceed to study what causes each one.

      Plato, thinking on this, would work in terms of universal causal principles: there was a structural Cause of movements, and individual entities would be merely entities composed of, among other things, that Cause (but not in the sense that they had "pieces" of that Cause in them). Aristotle, on the other hand, was more concerned with how movement arose from individual beings themselves, and worked in terms of the way the matter from which a body is composed had to be organized for it to be able to move. Both things aren't mutually exclusive, and neither differ from, say, modern-day concepts such as the DNA. A being's DNA causes the matter it's composed of to organize in this or that way, and this organized matter is able to move in this or that way precisely because of this organization (provided there's energy input, of course). On the other hand, a DNA, to exist, must obey the supreme Laws of Physics, which in turn must obey the even more supreme Laws of Mathematics. So, while Plato would probably talk about Mathematics as the ultimate soul of anything (and the properties of a specific individual's DNA as his derivative personal soul), Aristotle would take the matter organization produced by the DNA as the being's soul. But any way you take it, the Mathematics, the Physics, the DNA, the order produced by this DNA etc., nothing in this complex is "separate" from the concrete being in any meaningful way. These are all logical distinctions, not material distinctions, except in the sense that, although every DNA obeys Physics, Physics isn't only about DNAs, and although Physics obeys Mathematics, Mathematics isn't only about Physics, etc. etc. etc. As my Philosophy teacher once told me, nothing proves better the existence of the soul (in the proper, pre-Cartesian meaning of the word) than our 20th-21st century Academic Biology. :)

      So, what we have isn't really an opposition between the Greek and Semitic concepts (or lack thereof) of the soul, but merely the fact that Hebrews simply didn't bother to develop such a fine grained terminology. It's simply the case that in this field the Greeks had more depth than the Hebrews. But in the end what both were talking about was pretty much the same.
      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  12. Quantum dots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    kids have such cute names for herpes these days!

  13. Soon enough by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long until I am getting a bill from a 'Quantum Dot Provider' that pipes these things in over a special line in my house to fill my computer, which keeps emtpying out because of decoherence... "Honey, do you have that spare packet of Quantum Dots for the computer? I think I put mine through the wash..."

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    1. Re:Soon enough by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      What 'special line'? No physical media will be needed.

      Probably more likely that data will just turn up without asking, closely followed by a bill from some company you have never heard of demanding a fee for the 'subscription' to a quantum directory they claim will appear in over 250,000 businesses in your area.

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
  14. The importance by Derosian · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    While the article may not be information rich, the interest of this is rather significant. Communication between two points simultaniously no matter how far apart they be, would greatly increase information reliability of probes we send into space, as well as in the far far future allow us to have probes send us information from the edges of Black Hole event horizons. It is nice to see forward thinkers, but I wish they would have provided us with slightly more information.

    1. Re:The importance by mrjb · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      would greatly increase information reliability of probes we send into space, not to mention controlling said probes in (near) realtime.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    2. Re:The importance by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      The difference between a huckster and a forward thinker is the level of knowledge in his audience.

  15. Economical Impact by KoopaStar · · Score: 1, Funny

    But how much will transportation affect the economy? So many jobs hinge on transporting people and goods. As well as those that service the cars, trucks, trains and planes. That many people out of work would definitely have a major impact.

    1. Re:Economical Impact by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 1

      But how much will transportation affect the economy? So many jobs hinge on transporting people and goods. As well as those that service the cars, trucks, trains and planes. That many people out of work would definitely have a major impact.

      You are falling for the broken window fallacy. Ignoring any shortterm/disruptive effects, and one-off costs in retraining, everyone would get richer, as the manufacturing price for many goods and editables would decline due to cheaper and faster transportation. The money people saves by not having to pay (as much) for transportation would be used elsewhere, and that elsewhere would need more people to do it.

      This is all assuming that this is at all feasible, which I doubt.

      --
      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
  16. Couldn't time delay be the form of communication by ConfusedSelfHating · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let us take 9 "quantum pairs" (honestly, I don't know the exact terminology of them). You have 9 of them on Earth (A) and 9 of them elsewhere (B). They are ordered from 0 to 8. Assuming that you can determine when the quantum waveform collapses into spin up or spin down, you start the communication when A0 is caused to collapse. Instantly B0 becomes up or down. That's the start of the communication. If after 1 ms, B1 is found to have collapsed into an up or down, that counts as a 0. If after 2ms, B1 is found to have collapsed into a up or down, that counts as a 1. You would be able to generate a byte of data this way.

    So start-2-1-2-1-1-1-2-1, would be 10100010.

    The point is that it doesn't matter whatever B0 to B8 end up as. Just when they end up as an up or a down.

    Are you going to be able to determine whether the waveform has collapsed without collapsing it yourself.

    Of course, I didn't sleep last night. My guess is that if you are in a position to determine whether or not the waveform has collapsed, you will collapse it yourself. Maybe there's an indirect method.

    As far as matter transportation, I wouldn't rule it out as impossible. I certainly wouldn't say it's inevitable. When quantum communication is studied in greater depth, some inconsistencies may be uncovered which could lead to a "greater truth".

  17. No Communication Theorem by Evets · · Score: 1

    IANAP(hysicist), but it is my lamens understanding that the No Communication Theorem is such that the act of observation lies in direct contradiction with the potential for communication.

    If you have a set of atoms on earth, and an equivalent set of atoms on say Mars (light minutes away), synced with teleportation - any message sent from earth would be received on Mars faster than the speed of light, but when observed the message would inherently be garbled to the point where it could not be understood due to the fact that the observation of said atoms would disturb their state.

    Somebody please correct me if I have misinterpreted.

    This is certainly a great feat - displaying the capabilities of teleportation, but it is not the only mountain to climb. I do not read that they have resolved the issue of observational mish-mashing, but one could deduct that they did at least to a degree in order to prove that the teleportation happened - although they probably used a known quantum teleportation scheme which would involve additionally a classical information transportation method and thus limiting teleportation communication by the limits of that already existing information transportation methodology. (still pretty neat, but not necessarily groundbreaking as experimentation on this level has been happening since roughly 1998)

    It's not that difficult to come up with a potential list of ways to resolve this problem, finding a solution that actually is provable certainly would be difficult. If in fact they have surmised a way to communicate via teleportation rather than just prove that teleportation is possible an entire world of possibilities just opened up that will take us centuries to truly realize.

  18. Faulty assumption by cat_jesus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Assuming that you can determine when the quantum waveform collapses

    This is the faulty assumption.

    Think of of entanglement this way. You have two roulette wheels and they are "entangled". What this means to the roulette wheels is that they are spinning and the marbles are bouncing along inside them synchronously(I know they'd be at right angles but being the same value works well for the visualization). So you split them up and one roulette wheel is in another galaxy and the other is here. Both are spinning and the marbles are still bouncing around in sync. If you stop one, the other keeps going. If you stop them at the same time the marbles will have the same value. But the problem is the one you assume away. You cannot tell that the other roulette wheel has stopped.

    In QE, if you attempt to observe the entanglement, you make it collapse. You can't tell what the state of the particle is without destroying the entanglement.

    IINAQP and I could be wrong. But this is my understanding and my cousin who is a Physicist tells me I have an accurate, if rudimentary, understanding of this particular phenomenon.

    I wish you were right.

    1. Re:Faulty assumption by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      So what makes an "observation"?

      Can a ruler alone do it? Can bacteria do it? Or does it require a human level consciousness to collapse the wave function?

      --
    2. Re:Faulty assumption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An observation in this case is taking a measurement. Human consciousness has nothing to do with it. (Sorry, fellow hippies. That's countless hours of bong-circle philosophy down the tubes, I know.) To put it simply, there's no way to measure things on a subatomic scale that doesn't involve knocking things around in the process.

  19. Quantum Teleportation == MOV instruction by da+cog · · Score: 1

    Quantum teleportation is nothing more than the equivalent of the MOV instruction on a quantum computer, with the oddity that this instruction actually does *move* the data, rather than copying it. As you can imagine, this is one of those basic instructions that you have to be able to implement properly in order to be able to have a quantum computer, which is why people are trying to get it right.

    The reason it's called "teleportation" is just to emphasize that the data was once in one place and now is in another, in contrast to classical data which you can copy and so have in two places at once.

    As for why you have to teleport the data, the answer is (very, very roughly) that if you were to copy the data then you would be overwriting a register somewhere, which destroys the data at that register; this is not allowed since you cannot destroy information in quantum mechanics. Put another way, you should always be able to construct any arbitrary past state of the universe given the present state; if you were allowed to overwrite a register with a new value, then you would lose the ability to figure out what value it had in the past, ergo copying is not allowed. (The more precise statement of this fact is the so-called "No-cloning Theorem".)

    --
    Snarkiness is inversely proportional to wisdom because it emphasizes feeling right rather than being right.
  20. It won't work for communication... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2, Funny

    At least not until we figure out how to use quantum DASHES along with the quantum dots.

    --
    This space available.
  21. The Swedes Knew This Years Ago...IKEA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure this really even counts as news, what they are saying is that if they record the exact state of each atom in an object, they could reconstruct it on the other side using that data to put each atom back in the proper spot as last time. Sort of like IKEA products, here's the parts, here's some pictures showing you which 'state' each piece of wood is supposed to be in to connect to each other - do it yourself.

    So how fast can it travel? As fast as you can transmit the states of each atom in the object. How much power will it consume? As much as it costs you to transmit that much data through that form of data transfer (fiberoptic, copper, morse code, tribal drum - pick your poison). Honestly, I dont think power is much a concern at all, its not that expensive to point a laser at mars and bust out some morse code style file transfer. It requires some stuff on the opposite end though, like the precise chemical composition of what you are wanting to transfer. If you wanted to transport a person to Mars though, just for the sake of example - you could send a corpse to mars, and then somehow sort out all the atoms into piles in the corpse, and then reassemble a living person from earth on the other end using the corpse atoms.

    This is still quantum copying though, not quantum teleportation the way I see it. You arent causing the atoms to teleport, you are just saying you can rebuild large atomic structures (macro-nanotechnology? lol) if you are given a blueprint of how they existed in the first place.

  22. Re:Couldn't time delay be the form of communicatio by Normal_Deviate · · Score: 1

    I have also wondered whether detecting the timing of waveform collapse provides a loophole to the "No FTL communication" rule. Since quantum calculation relies on having an un-collapsed waveform, Bob could attempt a calculation, and if it fails then he knows that Alice alreadly collapsed his waveform. Ta-Daa! FTL communication. Interestingly, google gives zero hits for "detect waveform collapse", "detect quantum waveform collapse", "detect whether waveform collapsed" and a few other variants.

  23. laser teleportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actually, teleportation is already possible.
    can't find the link now, but some scientists made it possible, it was basically a method in wich a laser copied the original molecule and rebuilt it at the other end.
    it was basically a copy that destroyed the original, and it was actually really slow (they calculated that it would have taken 13 years to teleport the equivalent of matter for a boy...)

  24. this isnt "teleportation" by ebatsky · · Score: 1

    reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation makes it clear that this isnt "teleportaion" as you would think about it. you can't use it for transportation or anything.

    the way it basically works is that say 2 people have an entangled pair of qubits. then person A who wants to send some quantum state to person B measures his qubit which then collapses into some random state. person A, now knows the state of person B's qubit because they are entangled and sends some information to person B (classically, by, say, telephone or whatever) that tells person B what operation to perform on his qubit to turn it into the state that he wanted to send.

    so the best this can be used for, as far as i can see, is transmitting a huge amount of information but only having to send very small amount through 'classical' channels.

  25. broadband? by ruffles321 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't that be useful for unlimited internet connection? like, EVERYWHERE and unlimited bandwidth?

  26. Mordots! by Roksx · · Score: 1

    Throw more dots, more dots, more dots ... Ok, stop dots.

    1. Re:Mordots! by jasonwea · · Score: 1

      Good stuff. I was thinking the same when I read that title.

      To those who are missing the joke, see Onyxia Wipe Animation (if you know someone who plays WoW, you may have seen it).

    2. Re:Mordots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whelps, left side! Even side, many whelps! DEAL WITH IT!

  27. Quantum Dots? by Prototerm · · Score: 1

    Isn't that the "ice cream of the future" you see advertised all over the place? Just asking.

    --
    "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
  28. Imaging is the challenge, not data transfer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does not matter how fast the information is sent from the source to the destination (well, within reason, one could take the bus...). Quantum entaglement as a mechanism is pretty silly when standard electrons or photons in a transmission system such as a terabit tcp/ip network on copper or fiber or quality wireless, would do just fine. The fact is that extremely detailed data on the original configuration of the subject is required, regardless of the transmission mechanism.

    The challenge is in determining the exact state, position and velocity (Damn Heisenberg...) of every particle that makes up a human being, in a minuscule time frame. I have long been proposing ultra high resolution spectroscopic magnetic resonance imaging (UHRS-MRI) for this, computer processor power is almost up to the task of doing it in the time frame required. Receiving equipment would be of a similar design but in an ultra precise cyclotron configuration (in fact the same equipment is required, it would be a transceiver with two modes) to assemble raw materials into the form specified by the received data. The challenge there is to get it to work at atmospheric pressure as reconstructing the subject in a vacuum is not desirable (unless microsecond time frames of reconstruction and repressurisiation could be managed).

    Then the question is what to do with the original once the teleported copy is constructed? Big ethical questions are involved, this amounts to mechanical (not biological) cloning. Do we vaporise the original? Leave it intact? Tough question.

    So long as the imaging system is capable of capturing the state of every subatomic particle of the subject then it will be reproduced intact, right down to the very thought process occurring at the time of teleportation / duplication.

    Unfortunately I think Heisenberg has defined the limitations of physics that may make this impossible, the mechanism of information transfer is irrelevant, the challenge is in coming up with an imaging system that can surpass the uncertainty principle or at least get the error to within acceptable tolerances, which just might be possible.

    Initial trials could be best achieved on a subject such as a house fly (;)), as the smaller the transceiver, the larger the magnetic field gradients (and thus resolution and scan rate) are possible. Research the technologies of MRI and Cyclotron Mass Spectrometry and you will see where I am going with this. Given enough money and time I believe I could do it.

    Though MRI is limited to suitable nuclei, so more than one imaging modality would be required to scan the original, in order to copy the state of every particle including electrons, and non resonant nuclei, but I believe that UHRS-MRI would best form the skeleton of the data. Preferably the imaging modalities used would be non destructive (resulting in mechanical cloning as described above) however with sufficient confidence in reconstruction, destructive methods could be used, avoiding the ethical pitfalls of duplication.

    I'm pretty sure I have thought this through more than the average scientist.

  29. Welcome! by MarcoPon · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I for one welcome our teleporting Quantum Dots Overlords!

    --

    SeqBox
    1. Re:Welcome! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, quantum dots teleport YOU ... oh wait, that wasn't Soviet Russia, it was USS Enterprise. And it wasn't quantum dots, but Scotty. And it also wasn't YOU, but Captain Kirk. But except for those unimportant details, it's correct! :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  30. i thought by holywarrior21c · · Score: 0

    two thick and wet dots were enough for a man to teleport around (her) juicy universe... now u talking more than 2? plz tell me it's not going to be odd numbers too. yuck! wait...

  31. Model teleportation system by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Funny

    They made a model teleportation system. Why do models get special treatment? I can undestand their being able to deduct makeup as a business expense, but why do they get a teleportation system first?

    1. Re:Model teleportation system by cavehobbit · · Score: 1

      "They made a model teleportation system. Why do models get special treatment? I can undestand their being able to deduct makeup as a business expense, but why do they get a teleportation system first?"

      Because there is such demand for their "services", on an hourly basis, that they have a special need for fast transportation.

      Don't you read ANYTHING in teh intertubes?

  32. wait... by derjames · · Score: 1

    ...teleportation will bring privacy concerns...

  33. The cost of reading /. by rts008 · · Score: 1

    One of these days maybe I will learn to quit having a beverage available while reading /.

    This is another of those times...cleaning up spewed coffee (black-no sugar) IS a little better than the beer in the keyboard and all over the monitor!

    But at least I'm still chuckling as I cleanup!

    Thanks for a good laugh to start the day with. :-)

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:The cost of reading /. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Well, this article might help you.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  34. Re:Obligatory.. by Lachlan+Hunt · · Score: 1

    Parent is redundant, the moderator probably just didn't get it. It's funny for the obscure Space Balls reference (except that correct the quote is actually "Why didn't [anyone] tell me my ass was so big!?".)

    --
    By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.
  35. Buy Quantum Dots by os_evaluator · · Score: 1

    Strange google advertising on the site: http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/5095/quantumdot slk3.jpg

  36. Not correct. by aepervius · · Score: 1

    You are making a great "step" to hide a flaw in your reasonement. The difference is that the body is not destroyed and rebuilt each instant. It only very small parts which die off and are replaced. But not identically else you would neither grow, nor would you forget, nor would your body differentiate during foetus growth. I repeat the MAIN mass of the body and brain is NOT replaced at each and very instant even if it is over time. This enorm step you take is assuming a Destruction of the whole body, then at a LATER time reconstruction would be identical to the small replacement which occurs constantly in the body. But it is not. It is NOT a philosophical question. At the moemtn you destroy the body for the teleportation, the life is OVER for this individual. Maybe an identical 1:1 individual is reconstructed with the same memory but it was not the original one. The perception for this individual would be final : death. Pretending otherwise introduce another entity which is the soul (or whetever you want to call the entity holding all info of the individual while his brain and body are non existent and destroyed), the only way to maintain that the individual survive the destruction to be reconstructed. But up to now there is no scientific proof of soul existing, and many evidence that the brain alone and its structure is responsible for our "self". Destroye the brain and everything is gone, even if you make a second one identical in any point. And if you really want to bring soul in the debate, then please feel free to bring evidence. But be warry that extraordinary claim, require extraordinary evidence.

    even worst, if you can measure all atom, position, and quantum state and somehow reconstruct an individual at another place, then there is no obstacle to make multiple copy. If this is the case, then no one can pretend the original did not die and both copy are not the original.


    Bottom line: if ever teleportation come to be in reality and is not science fiction, the only way to put me in a teleporter would be to shoot me dead and send my meat to the other side.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  37. Absence of free will? by constantnormal · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So if communication via entangled quarks is impossible (ref: the forum comments in TFA), and seems to be impossible because passing information instantaneously (i.e., faster than the speed of light) is thwarted by the quantum states being "a jump ahead" of free will and conscious action, adjusting themselves to compensate for the actions of supposed free will -- does this mean that free will is an illusion?

    That we are steered by the manipulations of quantum states, and have no real say in what we do?

    Do we live in a Clockwork Reality, something akin to Stephen Wolfram's automaton theories of reality, where a set of rules generate the next state of Reality from the current state?

    1. Re:Absence of free will? by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      YES. It means your decision tree going forward is limited by where you are on the greater tree of all decisions.

      NO. It means your decision tree going forward is limited by where you are on the greater tree of all decisions.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  38. At last... by revengebomber · · Score: 2, Funny

    Easy suicide!

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  39. Do some more research before posting. by elucido · · Score: 0

    Atoms are matter. Quantum entanglement does NOT transfer information across the universe. In reality there simply is no such thing as distance on the quantum level, therefore there is no such thing as space on the quantum level, therefore something can be in multiple places at a time on the quantum level. If atoms can be entangled and be in multiple places at a time, and matter is made up of atoms, then anything made up of atoms can be in multiple places at a time.

    It's a scale and energy issue, not an issue with the physics itself. It's proven already that it can be done, as they've done experiments already that have proved that a material object can be in multiple places at once.

    Teleportation is the wrong word, quantum non locality is the right word.If this can be scaled up, it will likely change physics as we know it because it breaks all the laws of physics, unless we view the laws of physivs from a completely different philosophical angle. Thus we have quantum philosophy.

    So while information can be in multiple places at a time, in theory so can anything, including matter, we just don't have the equipment to entangle huge amounts of atoms.

    In all likelyhood, the universe is non-local anywhere, which simply means everything comes from the same singularity on the quantum level and space, seperateness, and distance are all illusions of our mind. In reality everythings connected to a web or matrix, everything you do influences everything else because you are a part of the universe and thus a part of everything else.

    The reason quantum entanglement works is because when things are small enough we can SEE everything is non local. This is also an issue of perception, and there are philosophical issues involving the role of the observer as well.

    1. Re:Do some more research before posting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you keep reposting the same basic comment? No matter how many times you say this stuff, it's still hilariously wrong, my fellow hippie.

    2. Re:Do some more research before posting. by blincoln · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you are basing your argument (and the other one earlier in the thread) on the "What the (bleep) do we know?" movies. You would be doing yourself a favour to read critiques of them and see that while there is a bit of actual science present, for the most part they're very inaccurate and heavily padded with wacky cult nonsense.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  40. You are right and wrong. by elucido · · Score: 0

    You are right in saying nothing can be moved through space time faster than light.

    However, because space time does not actually exist, and because on the quantum level everything is one thing, there is no such thing as distance when things are small enough, and therefore everything is everywhere all at once, all at the time, with no seperate, no distance, and so concepts like measuring and calculating the time etc etc are all worthless.

    Electrons move faster than matter because electrons aren't matter, they are actually particles which are also waves. In one form, it's everywhere all the time, in another form, it's in one place as a particle, and the fact that we observe it changes it because our brains and our observation itself depends on electrons and atoms.

    So basically, on the quantum level everything is one thing, and on the larger sizes, everything is seperate. The seperate is the illusion that creates distance, but distance does not actually exist quantumly, and once we start encoding information into the quantum, distance will begin to cease to exist for us.

    Think of the potential of an internet where all questions are answers as soon as you think of them. Information at the speed of thought. Everything on demand. That's what we are talking about here.

  41. Model error by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    I tend to think that when something is too good to be true, it probably is. Quantum entanglement is most probably a result of an error in the physics model and likely doesn't exist in reality.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  42. Imagination by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Teleportation is only limited by your imagination...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  43. Re: stuff by jbengt · · Score: 1

    "Are you only you because of that matter that makes you up?"
    Is a sound only that sound because of the matter that makes it up?

  44. Two bucks? by meiocyte · · Score: 1

    And it only transports matter!?

    --
    The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something; for the box might even be empty.
  45. In Soviet Russia... by feedmetrolls · · Score: 0

    Quantum dots teleport you!

    Oh wait, that's exactly the point.

    --
    You are reading a sig. Cancel or allow?
  46. Quantum foam... by Vermifax · · Score: 1

    ....makes me roam.

    --

    Vermifax

    Logout
  47. Star Trek revisited by FoxNSox · · Score: 1

    Don't bother beaming me up Scotty, there actually IS intelligent life out there!

  48. asian research by saurabhdutta · · Score: 1

    As a part of the project in my junior year, I feel extremely elated to see it on the frontpage of slashdot.

  49. You don't have free will in any case. by master_p · · Score: 1

    We have 2 cases: a) the universe is deterministic, b) the universe is not deterministic (this one is favored by quantum mechanics).

    In case a), the decisions you make are already predetermined by the paths of particles. No free will there, and an entity which knows the exact initial state of the universe can predict its outcome.

    In case b), the world is truly random, it can not be predicted. Therefore, any decision you make, is the outcome of random processes. No free will there, as well: the universe drives your decision making process, albeit in a random way.

  50. that's an oxymoron by khallow · · Score: 1

    "Randon information" is not information. Randomness is better thought of as "anti-information". Information is present only as a deviation from perfect randomness.

  51. We live "on-shell" by khallow · · Score: 1

    No we aren't talking about information traveling faster than the speed of light. We don't exist in that way.

    The physics term is "on-shell" (and i's antonym is "off-shell"). The idea is that quantum mechanically, there can be a lot more going on than in classical systems. A common example of this is vibration modes of a photon. Classically, they can only vibrate transverse to the direction of propagation (as I understand it, this can be thought of as due to the photon travelling at the speed of light). However, in QM systems, one finds that between classical observations of the system, one has to consider virtual photons that can vibrate in the two other possible modes (longitude and compression IIRC). Since we observe things classically, we don't see off-shell dynamics like virtual photons.

    Figuring out how to get space-time coordinates from more basic principles is one of the great unsolved problems in modern physics. There has to be some structure present even on these scales that extends to the concepts like distance, time, and velocity that we are familiar with.

  52. Short Skirt Dress Uniform by Dareth · · Score: 1

    They get to use the teleportation system first, cause they wear the sexy outfits the Captain likes!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  53. Can it transport me to a new world?? by Dareth · · Score: 1

    I would call my new world, the DOT MATRIX!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  54. Re:Teleporter death or duplication? by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

    Believe it or not, the answer is in this movie:The Prestige (2006)
    http://imdb.com/title/tt0482571/plotsummary

    The movie ends up revolving around a trick is called "the moving man" where the magician disappears and reappears 100ft away in an instant. The trick uses a device created by Tesla. If I say more, I'll spoil the movie for you.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  55. Exciting Nonetheless by taff^2 · · Score: 1

    I think the really exciting part about all this teleportation speculation is that as Human Beings move ever closer to creating a matter teleportation device, we become closer to discovering the answers to questions such as "What makes me me?" and "Do I have a soul?".

    These are questions that philosophers have been asking for thousands of years, and yet empirical science has failed to come up with any satisfactory answers. Will we ever make a functional teleporter? Who knows, and who cares? I'm sure that we'll learn a lot about ourselves and the universe we live in trying.

    p.s. Apparently KFC's got Soul.

    --
    Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)
  56. Define "instantly" by kalirion · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that that the universal "now" is an obsolete concept.

  57. Finally! by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    Someone finally managed to post an article about quantum entanglement information transfer without cramming crap about matter transporters into it. They should get a reward. Of course that didn't keep people from making it their point of discussion. But then this is Slashdot, not PhysOrg.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  58. it's so fobvious !!! by vruz · · Score: 1

    connect the fatom dots !!!