Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Teleport Information Between Ions a Meter Apart

erickhill writes with word that scientists from the University of Maryland have successfully transferred information from one charged atom to another without having it cross the intervening space of about one meter. The academic paper is available in the journal Science, though it requires a subscription to see more than the abstract. Scientists have previously teleported unmolested qubits between photons of light, and between photons and clouds of atoms. But researchers have long sought to teleport qubits between distant atoms. Light's high speed of travel makes photons good transporters of information, but for storing quantum information, atoms are a much better choice because they're easier to hold on to. 'This is a big deal,' comments Myungshik Kim, a quantum physicist at Queen's University Belfast in the United Kingdom. 'To store information as it is in quantum form, you have to have a teleportation scheme available between two stationary qubits. Then you can store them and manipulate them later on.'"

50 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. Scientists Teleport Information Between Ions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are they positive?

    1. Re:Scientists Teleport Information Between Ions by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      MPF. that's the most entertaining one-liner I've read in days...

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Scientists Teleport Information Between Ions by weirdo557 · · Score: 2, Funny

      its uncertain

  2. Unmolested? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 5, Funny

    Scientists have previously teleported unmolested qubits....

    Qubit molester insists entanglement was consensual, stay tuned for details at 11.

    1. Re:Unmolested? by jd · · Score: 5, Funny

      In breaking news, the molester has been ordered to both sign and not sign the Atomic Sexual Deviancy Register at the same time.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Unmolested? by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unfortunately, as the molester was observed complying with these requirements, it was determined that the molester only completed one of them.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    3. Re:Unmolested? by Terminal+Saint · · Score: 4, Funny

      Police efforts to detain the molester for questioning have been hindered by the fact that, despite knowing the molester's exact speed, his location can not be ascertained.

      --
      It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
  3. Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All sources regarding quantum entanglement/teleportation are quite adamant that you can't use it to actually send information instantaneously. Despite there being "spooky action at a distance", any discernible information had to be transfered when you separated the photons themselves at sub-light speeds. In this case it would be atoms, but I assume it still applies? The article lists applications as super-fast quantum computers (I guess any functional quantum computer could be considered fast at what it does) and quantum encryption (a real application I've heard applied to quantum teleportation, though the encrypted data itself still has to travel at c or less).

    So, am I right, and this is basically the same ol' non-instant-communication but still quite cool kinda teleportation, only using atoms instead of photons? I'm just checking.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by Snowtred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, I know a little about Quantum, but this kind of teleportation stuff still confuses me. I know there is some kind of logic argument that shows that no actual information can be relayed by this means, but how exactly is the information being transfered? Is it at lightspeed, or something weirder?

    2. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by Normal_Deviate · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As I understand, the essence of teleportation is that collapsing the wavefunction of the first particle (by measuring it) instantly collapses the wavefunction of the second particle. What I don't understand is why this does not represent transmission of the information that the first particle has been measured. Is it not possible to test whether the second particle's wavefunction has been collapsed by, say, sending it through slits?

    3. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by plnix0 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Right. The abstract:

      Quantum teleportation is the faithful transfer of quantum states between systems, relying on the prior establishment of entanglement and using only classical communication during the transmission. We report teleportation of quantum information between atomic quantum memories separated by about 1 meter. A quantum bit stored in a single trapped ytterbium ion (Yb+) is teleported to a second Yb+ atom with an average fidelity of 90% over a replete set of states. The teleportation protocol is based on the heralded entanglement of the atoms through interference and detection of photons emitted from each atom and guided through optical fibers. This scheme may be used for scalable quantum computation and quantum communication.

      So yes, this is not true "teleportation". It relies on light actually moving from one atom to another through optical fibers.

    4. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I think that's roughly the essence of why you can't send information instantly. All information about the qubits is actually sent with the qubit itself as you separate them to whatever arbitrary distance you're going to do your 'teleportation' trick. It's a little less obvious to me exactly why that is... my understanding is that it's kinda like you have both a black and red marble and you send one around the world, well when one guy checks and sees that his marble is red, the other guy instantly knows that his marble is black. But the first guy doesn't get to pick black or red, and you always knew that the one marble would be the opposite color of the other, so you don't really know anything you didn't before.

      But I'm not really sure if what I'm saying there is even close to right.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by sarkeizen · · Score: 3, Informative

      "teleportation" always seems to lead people to the wrong conclusions. This is about transferring the informational content of a qubit. Which you can't perfectly represent with a classical system. I can see how this as the one commenting physicist claims is a "big deal" when it comes to building quantum computers. But it's not about instantaneous matter transport or superluminal communication.

      I'm not sure what the article meant by ultra secure "quantum communication". Quantum teleportation *is* a quantum communication *channel* but it's unclear what kind of security they are talking about. Perhaps "Quantum Encryption" but that's another term that often sends people down the wrong track.

    6. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
      If you send a single particle through a slit, you'll get a single spot. If you send many particles through slits, you'll get many spots, just as if you hadn't used entanglement -- they'll be all over the place. Either way, you won't know whether the wavefunction was collapsed by your observation or prior to it by the collapse of an entangled particle's waveform.

      Say particles A and B are entangled, and you are in a position to observe B, but not A. You have no way to know whether A has already been observed, because B will look the same to you either way, unless you already know the state of A.

    7. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by v1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      you have both a black and red marble and you send one around the world, well when one guy checks and sees that his marble is red, the other guy instantly knows that his marble is black.

      More to the point, the other guy can find out his marble is black, but only if you communicate to him that your marble was red. Thus information was transferred, but you have to communicate by other means to make it meaningful, which defeats the purpose. It's like sending someone an encrypted message over an insecure channel. Great until you realize you now have to send him the key over the same channel. Sure it's encrypted, but the means of making it useful renders it ineffective.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    8. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Although the state of one atom, once measured, will affect the other atom instantaneously, there's no possibility for FTL communication.

      The one part of that conclusion I don't get (and I've seen it several times to this point in the thread) is this: Why can't it relay binary information? If I entangle them, separate them, then either DO or DO NOT measure the first, and then measure the second, won't that tell me if the first one was measured or not?

      Hmmm thinking on this I have to ask for clarification on the purpose of the measuring. I was assuming when you say you measure it, it's an on/off kind of thing. Is it more correct to say that in my above scenario, the way to tell if the second measurement produces information, is to compare it to the measurement of the first? That makes more sense as to why it's a pointless exercise. Because after taking the second measurement, the measurement itself is not enough, you have to compare it with the first measurement? Which requires communication which you are trying to avoid?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    9. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by MoellerPlesset2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Okay, can you clarify for me why exactly you can't? Is it because you can't actually control what state the measured atom, and thus the distant atom, will take?

      Sure, I'll try: A quantum 'entangled' state means that two systems are in an 'undefined' state in the quantum sense, that are interdependent.
      When one is measured, the other one will _instantanously_ adopt whatever state is 'required' to complement the other one. So one 'knows' instantly what the other is doing, so to speak. Which means a sort of information has been transferred at FTL speed.

      The reason why this can't actually be used for communication is twofold: One is exactly as you said: Because you can't know which state you'll measure, you can't transfer information through that alone. The second reason is that, an entanglement between two systems occurs only if there's an (unmeasured) interaction between them.

      That means you either separate the two systems from each other (as in the classic example of entangled photons moving apart), or as in this case, by letting them interact with photons - that travel at light speed. Either way though, light speed is the best you can do.

    10. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's like sending someone an encrypted message over an insecure channel. Great until you realize you now have to send him the key over the same channel. Sure it's encrypted, but the means of making it useful renders it ineffective.

      Sure you can, you just need to use public key encryption. So I guess you're saying we need public key quantum entanglement?

      Just kidding, thanks for the clarification. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Which goes to prove that teleporting physicists have lost their marbles.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    12. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by mhall119 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can't determine if a particle is in a super-position or not, because any measurement of it will instantly collapse the waveform on both particles, and if you collapse yours first you will be unable to receive the information being transmitted by the other. You will need to know that the other entangled particle has already been collapsed, before you read yours, and that information still has to get to you by a conventional method.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    13. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it doesn't. View it from the perspective of the two measuring parties. We'll call them Abe and Bob.

      Each particle has a 50% chance of being in one of two states, + or -. Entanglement means that if Abe's particle is +, Bob's is -, and vice versa.

      Abe measures his particle. Regardless of if his particle is + or -, that doesn't tell him if Bob measured his particle or not. While the values of the measurements are dependent on one another, without information from the other measuring party, the measurer can't tell the difference between the entangled and collapsed states.

    14. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by mhall119 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The 2-slit experiment observed quantum super-position, not entanglement. The quantum state was measured when the photons hit the opposite wall, and that measurement only measured the collapsed state, not the super-position. The super-position was only observed in the pattern of interference in the collapsed states.

      The super-position being measured was caused by the photon passing through the two-slits, so even if you took an entangled photon, collapsed it's partner, and sent it through the double-slit, it would still be in a super-position with regard to which slit it passed through, regardless of anything that happened to it's partner.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    15. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by Jamu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Relativity implies that if information goes from A to B instantaneously for some observers, it also goes from A to B in finite time for some other observers. For all the other observers it goes from A to B in negative finite time, from B to A, in other words. For causality, for A to cause B, then information must always travel from A to B.

      Any instantaneous wavefunction collapse cannot transmit information from distant locations, it must create new information for those locations, i.e. a random value.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    16. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Funny

      "You could send something as simple as a yes/no - yes, I've read your message , or no, I haven't. [snip] Someone who understands it better, correct me and be more clear, please."

      Analogy:
      I have two basket balls, one has a cat inside - I don't know which one.
      I send one basket ball to you.
      I open my basket ball (observation).
      I find it empty so I can deduce the cat is in yours (no information is transfered to you).
      I cannot tell if you have opened yours and observed the cat as dead or alive.
      You open yours and find a dead cat (observation).
      Information is transfered in the normal manner when you call me up and ask why I sent you a dead cat in a basketball.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    17. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So I guess you're saying we need public key quantum entanglement?

      Wouldn't it be hilarious if that turned out to be the case? If you just knew enough about the other member of your pair, that you could actually transmit information? It would make your comment one hell of a Doug Adams-type footnote.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Funny
      Yeah, I know a little about Quantum, but this kind of teleportation stuff still confuses me. I know there is some kind of logic argument that shows that no actual information can be relayed by this means, but how exactly is the information being transfered? Is it at lightspeed, or something weirder?

      More importantly, does this kind of teleportation make the same cool sound as the teleportation the original "Star Trek"?

    19. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmm.

      Is there any way this could be used, not for sending FTL messages, but exchanging a cipher? You said you can't know which state you'll measure, but if you can measure some as-yet-unknown random state at one end and measure the corresponding state at the other end, then you should be able to use this random pattern of bits to encode a message, which would then be transferred through traditional (light speed or slower) means. The message could be intercepted in transmission, but the cipher couldn't be.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    20. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by grumbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The way I understand it:

      * you generate two entangled quantum things
      * you move them apart
      * you look at one of them and figure out its state, by that you knock it out of the superposition
      * magic happens and the (inverse of that) state is transported to the other thing
      * you look at the other thing an confirm that the state is as expected

      Since the stuff is in superposition you shouldn't be able to tell its state beforehand, but due to looking at the other thing an teleportation you can. The other thing has the inverse state thing since they must obey conservation of angular momentum (i.e. one spins up, then the other spins down).

      Now what I don't get is why this involves any 'teleportation' or quantum weirdness at all. Analog experiment:

      * you have two boxes
      * you put into one of those boxes a ball at random
      * you move them apart
      * you look into your box and can now tell if a ball is in the other box or not
      * no magic necessary, no teleportation happens, since the state of both boxes is fixed from the start

      I don't get why this teleportation thing is anything special, since as far as I understand it, its completly normal and matches exactly what you would expect.

    21. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by sfazzio · · Score: 4, Informative

      A completely valid arguement-- until 1964:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

    22. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can't send quantum information faster than light either. You can cause change to propagate faster than light, but no actual information is conveyed by that change. It is a subtle, but important, distinction.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    23. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by ThreeGigs · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong.

      The only way to tell if your waveform has collapsed is by measuring it. And measuring it collapses it.
      Thus *every* time you check to see if yours has been collapsed, it will always show as collapsed.

      Go look at yourself in a mirror.
      Now close your eyes.
      Now, you cannot tell when your reflection has opened its eyes, unless you open yours, and if you open yours, the reflection will have its eyes open.

      Same with the waveforms. No matter what, if you look, it'll be collapsed, and you can't tell if it was collapsed before you looked at it, or because you looked at it.

    24. Re:Sounds neat, but I'm confused... by sootman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have two basket balls, one has a cat inside - I don't know which one.

      The heavier one. Duh. :-)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  4. Bah! by GaryOlson · · Score: 5, Funny

    My mother always knew what I had done without anyone telling her. Or whatever I was going to do before I took action. I hear other mothers have the same ability. Therefore, all mothers must exist in some state of constant quantum communication with each other.

    --
    Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
  5. Re:A quantum physicist? by ozphx · · Score: 4, Funny

    You mean a qubit molester?

    --
    3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
  6. A New Form of Wireless by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2

    Adds a whole new meaning to the term: wireless.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  7. Re:No, they have not discovered the ansible... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Informative

    Any use of the word "instantly" is, quite simply, hype. It's instantaneous like an "instant message" is instantaneous. Not that this isn't a cool discovery; it is. But it's not teleportation and it's not instant communication.

    No, "spooky action at a distance" is indeed instantaneous. It's a quantum phenomena - it's not based on the information being transmitted (which would indeed be limited to the speed of light).

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  8. Mod patent up. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yeah. I will try to give a simplified explanation to non-experts (I'm just a curious guy myself):

    First you entangle two particles. Then you let one travel somewhere. (If at bumps into another particle on that way, the particle loses the entanglement.)
    Now if you "measure" the first particle, the "wavefunction" (the entanglement) of both particles collapses in a specific way.

    By measuring that traveled particle, you can get the information on how the other particle got manipulated when it lost the entanglement.
    The nice thing about this is, that it is instantly. There is no measurable delay.

    So you could theoretically entangle a ton of material with another ton of material, and then send the first ton up to some remote planet. (Which of course would take very long. But you could send it at very high speeds which no human could survive too. For example by using a rocket that uses nuclear explosions as propulsion.)
    Say you have defined, that you can use 0.5 kg of material every year for each side, and split the ton in such "blocks". Then you just write the outgoing 0.5 kg block (you collapse the entanglement) over the year, and read the incoming 0.5 kg block at the end of every year. By using a special encoding, you can detect where the data ends, and where the data collapsed trough your measurement. Or you just pipeline the to-be-written data on both sides, and read at the end of every month, week, day, hour, minute, second... whatever is most reasonable. (Making it a buffered transfer of blocks.)

    This would give you a thousand years of infinite-speed (depending on your read rate) communication with the bandwidth of 0.5 kg of material per year (~1,37 g per day). (The amount of bits depends on the material.)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Mod patent up. by EdZ · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, if it were that easy. When you collapse the wave function my measuring one 'end' of your hypothetical particle-block, you: have NO WAY of influencing HOW it collapses, and thus cannot send any information to the other 'end'. You cannot determine what spin you will observe, only that the opposite spin will be observed on the other particle.

    2. Re:Mod patent up. by tylerni7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think that is how it works (although IANAP)

      If you check to see if a block you have is collapsed, then suddenly it becomes collapsed, even if it wasn't before. That means you can't tell what it was supposed to look like before.

      The other option is to only look at the entangled matter after you are sure it has collapsed, and see how the collapsing happened. However, this is also impossible. The way the qbits collapse is completely random, so you can't get any useful information out of reading them.

      The best way to think about it is you have two coins taped to each other head to tail or something.
      Then the coins are flipped, and separated without looking at them. Then take these coins to opposite ends of the universe.
      Now, as soon as one coin is observed, the value of the other coin is known as well. However, looking at either coin does not help to relay information. The only way to do that would be to know how the coin was going to land before looking at it. Or to be able to somehow observe the coin and know if the other has been observed.

    3. Re:Mod patent up. by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unfortunately, you can't do either of the things you want to do. Relativity says you can't have synchronized clocks and quantum mechanics doesn't give you any way to know when/if the wave was collapsed.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  9. Re:How fast is it really? by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You most certainly can measure the propagation time of light over distances of one meter. It takes on the order of 10^-8 seconds for light to travel 1 m, and we have time measurement devices better than ns. (Actually, using clever techniques, you can do way better than meters.)

  10. Re:Bell's theorem by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The teleportation is instantaneous. (A philosophy-inclined physicist might object to you applying the label "instantaneous", since it implies a signal is propagating instantaneously -- but there's no signal at all.) However, the teleportation cannot be used for communication without information transfer -- which means the communication is bound by the speed you can transfer that information (which is lightspeed).

  11. Re:A question that maybe someone might answer... by disputationist · · Score: 2, Informative

    They know it was entangled because they prepared the state way. For example, if you have a spin zero particle that splits up into two particles, and you measure one as spin up, the other must be necessarily spin down, no matter how far away it is, because of the conservation of angular momentum. Or you can think of a neutral particle splitting into positive and negative ones. So I guess it is ultimately the consequence of some conservation law.

  12. Damn... by fenix849 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ok, who voted for the beammeupscotty tag?

    I can't think of a worse place to be beamed, than 'up scotty'.

  13. Re:Sounds neat, but parent needs a MOD UP by getuid() · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is there any way to know that measurement has taken place at the other end and your local qubit has collapsed?

    Crash course in quantum mechanics, perhaps this explains it: a binary quantum mechanical system is in a linear superposition of states A and B. That is, it is either 100% A, or 100% B, or anything in between; for example 70% A and 30% B.

    Now if you measure, you would only get "pure" results, i.e. purely A or purely B. If the system was pure (i.e. 100% B) before the measurement, you get what it was. If the system was mixed (say, 70-30), and you had the chance to measure the system more than once, then you get A in 70% of the cases, or B in 30%. For example: make 1000 copies of the system, and measure each of them. Roughly 700 (give/take a few) would be A, roughly 300 would be B.

    The biggest problem is that you don't have 1000 exact copies -- unlike with classical information, basic QM forbids cloning of a system. So you basically have one shot, and if you happen to measure B, you'll never know whether it was because of a 100% pure B state, or simply because you "got lucky".

    I mean, I know the answer is you can't communicate instantly, I'm just figuring out why (mostly to help explain to people with roughly my same layman's understanding of physics why instant communication is impossible).

    While the "quantum information" is being transfered instantaneously, the problem is that the quantum state is not transfered 1:1 onto the target. It is ... "twisted". Imagine that like x*A+y*B (-> teleport ->) y*A+x*B. Now you know that the numbers x and y mean the same in both systems -- you just don't know exactly how they would be twisted after the teleportation. There are 4 possibilities how they can be twisted, and all 4 are equally probable, there's nothing you can do to favor the one over the other.

    However, after the teleportation, the guy at the source can tell how they have been twisted (because the teleportation act itself is a measurement, which's result tells him exactly what happened), but the guy at the target does not.

    So at first, even if the guy at the target knows that the atom has been "teleported", he stil doesn't know which one of the 4 twisted flavors of the original atom he got. If he just takes a "wild guess" and tries to measure, he'll get a statistical result which reveals absolutely no information about the actual coefficients.

    The target-guy needs the source-guy to tell him which of the 4 twists occured, or in short: needs an information transfer in order to be able to "untwist" his atom and have an exact copy.

    Again, the important part is that if the target-guy does not "untwist" his atom, but instead decides to go away and measure it anyway, he'll have an overall chance of 50-50 (regardless of the original x and y) to measure either A or B, so there's no information whatsoever that he could gain, not even from repeating the experiment.

    It's the "twist" that makes the twist with teleportation... :-)

  14. Good as far as it goes by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's an illustration of the non-tranmission of information via entanglement.

    Suppose we have a pair of 'magic coins'. Either coin can be flipped and come up either heads or tails, and the other coin will always come up the opposite.

    Now, suppose 2 people meet in New York and agree that they will meet again in Oslo if Amy's coin comes up heads and Bill's coin comes up tails, or they will meet in Sidney if Bill's coin comes up heads and Amy's coin comes up tails. Then Amy goes to Peking and flips her coin. It comes up heads, so she meets Bill in Oslo.

    The information, which city they will meet in, was AGREED ON BEFORE HAND, it wasn't 'transmitted' by the flip of the coins. The information was in Amy's head when she went to Peking, it traveled by a classical channel governed by relativistic limitations.

    This can be seen explicitly if you assume that Amy and Bill DIDN'T agree on which face of the coins meant Oslo or Sidney. In that case when Bill and Amy flip their coins they DO know that their opposite number's coin came up the other way, but neither of them knows which city to go to! In other words, no information was conveyed between them BY the flip of the coins.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    1. Re:Good as far as it goes by franl · · Score: 2, Informative

      If Bill or Amy flip a coin, then instantly the other one KNOWS the other person flipped a coin at that point in time.

      Nobody has said that. How can Bill's measurement force Amy to make her measurement at the same time? That's not possible. Especially since "at the same time" has no meaning for spacelike-separated events (cf. the Relativity of Simultaneity).

      This is what happens: Bill measures a random value. Amy measures a random value. The two values are both random, but 100% correlated with each other. Bill knows what value Amy measures and vice versa, but no information has been transmitted, because the values are random.

  15. Yeah, Bells's theorem... by gr8_phk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bell's theorem (which is a logical argument) and common sense (which we base logical arguments upon) are at odds. So the physicists side with "spooky action at a distance" because it's more phun. They've been taking the "magic" path ever since Einstein and relativity came along and said reality is unintuitive (which it is, but it follows from his assumptions which were based on observation). Witness "dark matter" and "dark energy" and "string theory".

    Back to the topic at hand, no one can explain what is different about a particle whose wave function has "collapsed" and one that hasn't. If you can tell the difference, then you can use entangled pairs to communicate instantly at a distance. One person makes a measurement or not, and the other guy checks for the collapsed-ness of his particle - instant transmission. But since no one knows what the collapse means we just chalk it all up as magic - or unknowable, or parallel universes, etc... By the way, the collapsedness of the particles wave function is therefore a hidden variable that we don't have access to. This proves the existence of hidden variables in contradiction to Bell's theorem, and offers the distinct possibility that the spin is also there all along as a "hidden variable".

    I thus predict that an overturn of at least one assumption in Bell's theorem will be one of the biggest headlines in physics some time this century.

    1. Re:Yeah, Bells's theorem... by sfazzio · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's with all of the physics time-travelers from the 1960s? Bell's theorem has repeatedly passed experimental muster, and has become a cornerstone of quantum information theory-- a field which has lead to any number of testable (and subsequently tested) predictions.

  16. But they DON'T know by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 2, Informative

    At no point can either Amy or Bill determine whether or not the other coin has been flipped. All they can say for sure is that WHEN IT IS, it will come up a certain way. Maybe it already has been flipped, maybe it hasn't. The only way to find out would be using a classical communications channel.

    There is a CORRELATION between the two 'coins' with entanglement, but there is NO causality. Flipping one coin does NOT cause the other one to flip, this has actually been verified by various iterations of experiments testing Bell's hypothesis. The logic is a bit trickier and my simple analogy isn't good enough to explain it, but in actual quantum mechanics if one flip caused the other, then certain experiments could be devised which would have different results than if the two flips are merely 'coincidence'.

    This is one of the amazing things about QM. There is actually NO causality anywhere in QM, only a distribution of the probabilities in a particular special type of function space. Causality is an emergent phenomenon which only exists at the 'macroscopic' level. Even then it isn't absolute. I believe it was Stephen Hawking who once quipped that Cthulhu could materialize in the middle of the Pacific Ocean at any moment and no law of physics would be broken.

    There are a LOT of other interesting ideas which come out of this, like questions about the meaning of entropy, which leads into questions like the Anthropic Principle.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson