Atomic Antennae Transmit Quantum Information

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Atomic Antennae Transmit Quantum Information

Posted by timothy on Saturday February 26, 2011 @08:02AM from the quantumnal-equinox dept.

intellitech writes "The Austrian research group led by physicist Rainer Blatt suggests a fundamentally novel architecture for quantum computation. They have experimentally demonstrated quantum antennae, which enable the exchange of quantum information between two separate memory cells located on a computer chip. This offers new opportunities to build practical quantum computers."

57 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hurrah! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 08:04 · Score: 0

Indeed.
1. Re:Hurrah! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  Zoidberg! Get back to work!
This is just the beginning by theillien · 2011-02-26 08:06 · Score: 0

Atom Ant is the next step.
Plural? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 08:15 · Score: 0

Isn't "antennae" the plural for insect appendages? "antennas" is the plural for transmission devices.
1. Re:Plural? by 517714 · 2011-02-26 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  I may be showing my age but when I was young antennae was more or less universal, I prefer the usage you stated, but it depends on whom you ask. The biological appendages are always antennae, but the electronic device may be either according to some sources: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/antenna http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/antenna
  In a few years we can count on it becoming "antenna's"
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
2. Re:Plural? by jwbales · 2011-02-27 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  Well I guess I'm really showing my age. When I was young it was neither radio antennae nor radio antennas, it was radio aerials.
Ansibles? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 08:19 · Score: 0

So without paying much attention to the article (in the grand tradition of slashdot!) this is a proof of the "ansibles" used in Ender's Game?
1. Re:Ansibles? by 0123456 · 2011-02-26 08:31 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  No.
2. Re:Ansibles? by Opyros · 2011-02-26 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  Used in Ender's Game, but not from it; the term was directly borrowed from Le Guin's Hainish series.
final transmissions by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 08:23 · Score: 0, Funny

pardon us for looking so primitive/barbaric at this juncture. it's really not our nature, but much of our time & resources have been commandeered by a band of greed/fear/ego based megalomaniacs who do not have our best interests in mind. quite the opposite in fact. help if you can. thanks.
best regards, see you soon?
many of us
1. Re:final transmissions by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  Kilgore Trout, is that you?
IEEE by Temujin_12 · 2011-02-26 08:39 · Score: 2

IEEE 802.11q... 'nuff said.
Wireless-Q has the defect that you can't broadcast your SSID since that your require devices to observe the signal first first before connecting, which would result in a quantum paradox.

--
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
1. Re:IEEE by WorBlux · 2011-02-26 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  Actaully the worse defect is the range is only 54 micrometers.
2. Re:IEEE by Kratisto · 2011-02-26 10:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That's much better than the router I got from my ISP! Where do I sign up?
  
  --
  Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
3. Re:IEEE by oliverthered · 2011-02-26 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  "since that your require devices to observe the signal first first before connecting, which would result in a quantum paradox."
  sounds a lot like this free-will / choice thing they go on about.
  
  --
  thank God the internet isn't a human right.
4. Re:IEEE by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-27 13:53 · Score: 0
  
  But, if you don't observe the paradox while it's happening does it really exist?
  Perhaps if an optimist programs it with the correct improbabilities and turns it on with a really hot cup of tea it will work!
5. Re:IEEE by oliverthered · 2011-02-27 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'd get my head seriously looked at if that happened.
  I would have thought that the post I replied to, why couldn't you superposition the SSID/s and probably get the right one depending on how you made the measurement/s.
  IEEE 802.11q would be meta not relative.
  
  --
  thank God the internet isn't a human right.
quantum bla bla bla by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-26 08:53 · Score: 1

There hasn't, isn't, and to my mind never will be a practical quantum computer. Given the amount of time people have been failing at building one or even demonstrating that it should be possible, I'm not particularly uncertain about my opinion. Counterproof?
1. Re:quantum bla bla bla by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  I reckon them there "book smart" engineers are never gonna make a horseless carriage. Men been usin' horses since the good lawd had the grace to put 'em on the planet. Ain't nobody gonna change my mind, shure nuff.
2. Re:quantum bla bla bla by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  There hasn't, isn't, and to my mind never will be a practical quantum computer. Given the amount of time people have been failing at building one or even demonstrating that it should be possible, I'm not particularly uncertain about my opinion. Counterproof?
  Counter-proof:
  You, being human, have a long history of being wrong. It's probably the case that you're wrong again.
3. Re:quantum bla bla bla by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-26 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  No, the problem here is one of the probability of implementing a quantum algorithm with a sufficient number of qubits to be useful. Although I'm being flamebaity by whining about the number of failures (or, more precisely, highly overrated demonstrations), that's not really relevant. What's going wrong is people assuming some particular thing can be done just because it "would be cool" to actually implement all this fashionable research.
  That the last 10 years have just about shown that 3x5=15 - although not all demonstrations were really quantum - doesn't mean we can scale to factoring some 1024-bit key.
4. Re:quantum bla bla bla by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  "There hasn't, isn't, and to my mind never will be a practical flying machine. Given the amount of time people have been failing at building one or even demonstrating that it should be possible, I'm not particularly uncertain about my opinion. Counterproof?"
  -random dude in ancient Greece
5. Re:quantum bla bla bla by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-26 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Concentrate a bit.
  Lots of people have said pigs don't fly and they still don't fly. We have good reason to think pigs won't fly, and there is good evidence that quantum computing won't reach the stage where it will be able to fulfil suggested applications.
  Do you have any evidence to the contrary, apart from smartass remarks at the level of rigour used to insist that proof of God's existence is only a matter of time?
6. Re:quantum bla bla bla by Soft+Cosmic+Rusk · 2011-02-26 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  So, what do you propose? That we just stop all research on quantum computers just because it is "highly unlikely" (in your opinion) that they would ever work? That really would be a self-fulfilling prophecy...
7. Re:quantum bla bla bla by lostthoughts54 · 2011-02-26 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Since in reality, we are still missing the key parts of the quantum world and how it operates, it seems very odd to me to assume we can have good evidence quantum computing wont reach the level we one day hope. I am not saying we will, but the possibility is there(and therefor the research into it should continue). We simply dont know enough to say one way or the other but the research may give us that answer.
  And the flying machine comment seems rather appropriate. They didnt have the knowledge of aerodynamics to say it couldn't be done but they did.
  One more thing, if u look at it in large enough timescales, it is possible to pigs to eventually fly, with evolution and all.
8. Re:quantum bla bla bla by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-26 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  No. I think that, what with current security-obsessed Western governments, way too much money is being ploughed into fields which claim they might make or break security. Quantum computing and cryptography are two such fields.
  I have no problem with people continuing to study the subjects. I do have a problem with wild claims about the destination. I don't like that academia has fashionable subjects while people ignore the incremental steps which actually build the world. It creates a horrible misallocation of resources and, when commercial enterprises finally exploit research, they ride the hype and exploit the dreamy shit.
9. Re:quantum bla bla bla by Interoperable · 2011-02-26 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  The trouble lies more in the press releases about the research. I don't think any of the researchers have any illusions about what's needed for a functioning quantum computer or how long it will take the get there.
  There are three reasons why people keep working towards building a quantum computer despite the huge effort that it requires:
  1) A lot of new and interesting fundamental physics gets uncovered along the way.
  2) The fundamentally increased scaling in computing power for a given number of bits is too compelling to ignore.
  3) Because it's hard to do.
  Quantum computers will happen, just not 5 or 10 or even 20 years from now. Until then, chill out and enjoy your 32 nm classical transistors.
  
  --
  So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
10. Re:quantum bla bla bla by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  Replace 'human' with 'FuckingNickName' and your point is twice as valid.
11. Re:quantum bla bla bla by FuckingNickName · 2011-02-26 11:33 · Score: 2
  
  If you're a stalker, I sincerely hope it's because you like the cock.
12. Re:quantum bla bla bla by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  I'm of two minds of the OP. The idea that just because something seems like it's unlikely to be done, it will never be done is counter to all human technology development to date. People said the same thing about flight, super sonic travel, computers that fit on a desk, etc.
  That being said, there are a few things that simply cannot be done, and quantum stuff is odd enough that i wouldn't even begin to make a judgement on whether or not practical quantum computing falls into the former category of "it's hard, but some day we'll figure it out" or the same category as perpetual motion and "free energy".
13. Re:quantum bla bla bla by Iamthecheese · 2011-02-26 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  ahem
  
  --
  If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
14. Re:quantum bla bla bla by Required+Snark · 2011-02-26 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  When there is a quantum computer will you promise to never post on Slashdot again?
  
  --
  Why is Snark Required?
15. Re:quantum bla bla bla by lessthan · 2011-02-26 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  u look at it in large enough timescales, it is possible to pigs to eventually fly, with evolution and all.
  Well, evolution and the horrible affront-to-God genetic experiments I'm doing in my basement. ;-P
  
  --
  Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
16. Re:quantum bla bla bla by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 18:47 · Score: 0
  
  I shouldn't feed the troll...
  You ask for Counter-proof? You offered nothing except your opinion. Ok, proper counter proof: Yes there will be. BAM!
  Maybe you should start by telling us all why it is impossible and can never be done.
  And I will cite the long list of impossible things we have already done. Quantum computing is so very new. Try explaining modern processors the the guys that threw a few vacuum tubes together and see how realistic they think your idea is. No, it's more like trying to explain the network of modern processors to people using arc lighting.
17. Re:quantum bla bla bla by 517714 · 2011-02-26 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  I thought quantum computing would have to fulfill suggested applications before they were suggested.
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
18. Re:quantum bla bla bla by RespekMyAthorati · 2011-02-27 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  I am uncertain as to how you arrived at that conclusion.
19. Re:quantum bla bla bla by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-27 23:16 · Score: 0
  
  "There hasn't, isn't, and to my mind never will be a practical quantum computer."
  What the hell are you talking about? They're already using (and SELLING) quantum chips for tasks like image recognition. Given the recent advancements above and others that have happened recently, I'm actually impressed/worried at how fast we're progressing, without strong encryption etc. that can hold its own.
arxiv link... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 09:01 · Score: 3, Informative

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3639
Sooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 09:08 · Score: 1

Do we know if Schrodinger killed his cat or not?
1. Re:Sooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 09:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That's the boring question. The interesting one is: does the cat know?
2. Re:Sooo.... by turing_m · 2011-02-26 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  It depends. Murphy's law would suggest that his cat would do the inverse of what he wanted it to do, and if he didn't really care then it would remain in an indeterminate state.
  
  --
  If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
3. Re:Sooo.... by mangu · 2011-02-26 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  In a smooth and well calculated leap, the cat jumped upon the table and, after letting his body mold itself to the lumps in the most uncomfortable place, is looking at you with a bored expression in his half-closed eyes.
4. Re:Sooo.... by Adambomb · 2011-02-26 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Hoping that the next leap...would be the leap home!
  
  --
  Ice Cream has no bones.
5. Re:Sooo.... by dwarfsoft · 2011-02-27 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well played, sir!
  I too was thinking of Quantum Leap when I read the GP.
  
  --
  Cheers, Chris
Some day... by pyalot · 2011-02-26 11:07 · Score: 1

they'll figure that entanglement shit out (how does it work anyway? ha! you can't explain that.), and all physicists will be in a world of pain. A world of pain I tell ya.

--
Experiments and other stuff
1. Re:Some day... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 14:54 · Score: 0
  
  fucking quanta, how do they work?
2. Re:Some day... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 18:58 · Score: 0
  
  Well duh, it's the highest resolution that the simulation can account for.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
What about "no cloning"? by mangu · 2011-02-26 11:43 · Score: 1

So without paying much attention to the article (in the grand tradition of slashdot!) this is a proof of the "ansibles" used in Ender's Game?
That's what I thought when I RTFA. At first sight, "the new technology offers the possibility to distribute entanglement" seems to violate the "no cloning" theorem, which is what impedes FTL quantum communications.
Quantum TORSIONAL antennae? by jeffb+(2.718) · 2011-02-26 12:05 · Score: 1

Paging Ravna Bergsndot, Ravna Bergsndot to the red courtesy ultrawave...
The difference by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-26 12:24 · Score: 0

That being said, there are a few things that simply cannot be done, and quantum stuff is odd enough that i wouldn't even begin to make a judgement on whether or not practical quantum computing falls into the former category of "it's hard, but some day we'll figure it out" or the same category as perpetual motion and "free energy".
So the difference would be that the laws of physics, as we understand them, would require that perpetual motion etc are impossible. Whereas the laws of physics, as we understand them, suggest there is no fundamental reason why a quantum computer can't exist. There simply appears to be many practical reasons why it would be very difficult to build one.
So now we don't have to destroy data to read data? by atari2600a · 2011-02-26 14:56 · Score: 0

Sounds...useful & innovative...
All very interesting but can we still play Quake? by Galik · 2011-02-26 18:41 · Score: 1

(we have to have our priorities in order)
Easy breezy by roman_mir · 2011-02-26 22:18 · Score: 1

"We implemented this new concept in a very simple way," explains Rainer Blatt. In a miniaturized ion trap a double-well potential was created, trapping the calcium ions. The two wells were separated by 54 micrometers. "By applying a voltage to the electrodes of the ion trap, we were able to match the oscillation frequencies of the ions," says Blatt.
- then the Austrian with a thick New Jersey accent added: we just used a small ruler with 2 micrometer dividers, badabim badaboom, you know what I am saying? A couple of tweezers to catch the calcium ions and a miniature excavator to dig the wells. It's easy, anybody and their mother can do it. In fact my mother did it the other way in the kitchen. It's still oscillating.

"This resulted in a coupling process and an energy exchange, which can be used to transmit quantum information." A direct coupling of two mechanical oscillations at the quantum level has never been demonstrated before. In addition, the scientists show that the coupling is amplified by using more ions in each well. "These additional ions function as antennas and increase the distance and speed of the transmission," says Rainer Blatt, who is excited about the new concept. This work constitutes a promising approach for building a fully functioning quantum computer.
- Then the madly excited Dr. Blatt aded: -If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits eighty-eight miles per hour... you're gonna see some serious shit.

"The new technology offers the possibility to distribute entanglement. At the same time, we are able to target each memory cell individually," explains Rainer Blatt. The new quantum computer could be based on a chip with many micro traps, where ions communicate with each other through electromagnetic coupling. This new approach represents an important step towards practical quantum technologies for information processing.
The reporter taking the notes looked up from the notebook:
This is uh... This is heavy duty, Doc. This is great. Uh, does it run, like, on regular unleaded gasoline?
Dr. Blatt: Unfortunately no, it requires something with a little more kick - plutonium.
Reporter: Are you telling me that this sucker is nuclear?
Dr. Blatt: No, no, no, no, no. This sucker's electrical. But I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity I need.
Reporter: Doc, you don't just walk into a store and-and buy plutonium. Did you rip that off?
Dr. Blatt: Shhhhhh. Of course. From a group of Libyan nationalists. They wanted me to build them a bomb, so I took their plutonium and in turn, gave them a shiny bomb-casing full of used pinball machine parts! Come on! Let's get you a radiation suit. We must prepare to reload.
TV news anchor: ...the Senate is expected to vote on this today. In other news, officials at the Pacific nuclear research facility have denied the rumor that a case of missing plutonium was, in fact, stolen from their vault two weeks ago. A Libyan terrorist group had claimed responsibility for the alleged theft. However, officials now attribute the discrepancy to a simple clerical error. The FBI, which is still investigating the matter, had no comment. Twelve wooden crates filled with cocaine washed ashore near Boca Raton, Florida, yesterday.

--
You can't handle the truth.
tinfoil hat by OFnow · 2011-02-27 06:34 · Score: 1

Do I need a quantum-mechanical tinfoil hat, or will my regular one do?