Slashdot Mirror


The First Universal Quantum Network

MrSeb writes "German scientists at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics have created the first 'universal quantum network' that could be feasibly scaled up to become a quantum internet. So far their quantum network only spans two labs spaced 21 meters apart, but the scientists stress that longer distances and multiple nodes are possible. The network's construction is ingenious: Each node is represented by a single rubidium atom, trapped inside a reflective optical cavity. These atoms communicate with each other by emitting a single photon over an optical fiber. Each atom is a quantum bit — a qubit — and the polarization of the photon emitted carries the quantum state of the qubit. The receiving qubit absorbs the photon and takes on the quantum state of the transmitter. Voila: A network of qubits that can send, receive, and store quantum information. In another, probably more exciting test, the emitted photons were actually used to entangle the rubidium atoms."

156 comments

  1. Re:iPhone qubit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When stupid ACs stop posting lousy first posts.

  2. I have no idea by Dyinobal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have no idea what any of that means! or what it's ultimate implications are technologically speaking but it sounds awesome!

    Anyone care to enlighten me on the subject?

    1. Re:I have no idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It means that one day people will learn the difference between its and it's. Ah, to dream....

    2. Re:I have no idea by sycodon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Really, really fast porn downloads.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:I have no idea by jd2112 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It means that traceroute will be able to tell you response times or router addresses but not both.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    4. Re:I have no idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      But you'll have no way of telling whether a video is Goatse or not-Goatse until you watch it and collapse the state vector.

    5. Re:I have no idea by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Nice

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:I have no idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow, its awesome!!

    7. Re:I have no idea by Courageous · · Score: 4, Funny

      But you'll have no way of telling whether a video is Goatse or not-Goatse until you watch it and collapse the state vector.

      Ah, Schrodinger's Goatse. Brought to you be the intersection of quantum mechanics and 4chan. Where physics and the dark, underbelly of the internet meet, even brave men fear to tread.

    8. Re:I have no idea by fluffythedestroyer · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what they mean too but to my understanding cause I didn't take any physics class (too busy screwing the girls back then). I think the "ultimate" goal or one of them is to create a zero latency network to any distance.

      Entangled qubits might be able to form the basis of a quantum network with zero latency over any distance, which would make it rather useful for the intergalactic Galnet that will eventually succeed the internet.

    9. Re:I have no idea by onebeaumond · · Score: 1

      Well, the researchers have managed to pass around a box containing a cat which is both dead and alive, if that helps any. This is just a prelude to the next step in their research. The next step will be to "special copy" a box, send one box off, then both parties look inside their boxes. If one box contains a dead cat, the other cat must be alive (copy entanglement rule). The idea is that a "man in the middle" would not be able to peek inside a box, because that ruins the box (another entanglement rule), and the other party would know it. Also, you would think that the live cat would need kitty litter whereas the dead cat doesn't, but apparently both boxes "smell" equally bad this way. Ok so you get the idea now, right? Answer yes if you're a liar.

    10. Re:I have no idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But you'll have no way of telling whether a video is Goatse or not-Goatse until you watch it and collapse the state vector.

      And, in the back of your mind, you'll still know it's a superposition.

    11. Re:I have no idea by ewibble · · Score: 1

      Not 100% sure on this but I think at least with entangled bits it is not possible to snoop on the message.

      I am pretty sure it is still limited but the speed of light

    12. Re:I have no idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it'll come on screen before I c...ahhhh... Damn! Not again!

  3. Entanglement Confusion by chiddy · · Score: 2

    FTA: In theory, entangled qubits could be the basis of a quantum network with zero latency over any distance, which would make it rather useful for the intergalactic Galnet that will eventually succeed the internet. I'm pretty sure it's impossibly to transfer information faster than the speed of light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

    1. Re:Entanglement Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aye, thanks -- have updated the story with a link to the no-communication theorem thingee.

    2. Re:Entanglement Confusion by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      But without latency, what will the losing team blame it on?

    3. Re:Entanglement Confusion by DynamoJoe · · Score: 1

      aimbots.

      --
      bah.
    4. Re:Entanglement Confusion by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

      So...

      Even faster troll first pots?

      Nuts to that!

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:Entanglement Confusion by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      When I read the title I got all exited thinking it would be just this: a quantum entanglement network :(

    6. Re:Entanglement Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quantum aimbots

      Here, FTFY.

      They'll shoot in every possible direction at once and then destroy all universes where the bullet didn't hit.

    7. Re:Entanglement Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wall hacks.

  4. Call me when we have instant transfer of data by BenJeremy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'll be impressed when they figure out how to harness entangled particles to achieve instant transfer of information over vast distances.

    Imagine a world with no RF generated, yet completely connected. Better yet... imagine the entire solar system or beyond connected with such a network.

    1. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What or who would we connect with? There's nothing out there, Space Nutter delusions notwithstanding.

    2. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Sorry, not gonna happen. You might as well unplug the phone if that's the call you're waiting for.

      Violating relativity is not on anybody's todo list; entanglement has many useful properties, but you still can't break the speed of light barrier with it, and that isn't an implementation issue.

    3. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are referring to is by all established theories completely impossible. entanglement can at most deliver instant correlation, but this cannot be used to transmit information. We are limited by the universal cap which is the speed of light.

    4. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by bigtrike · · Score: 1

      "instant" meaning at the speed of light? It's theoretically impossible to transfer information any faster than that.

    5. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by dullertap · · Score: 0

      This comment is wrong. Imagine that the sender and receiver were sufficiently far apart, say a million light years. Quantum entanglement would allow them to have faster than light communication even if it was being "encrypted" and "decrypted" with a commodore 64.

    6. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      I thought the rule was anything containing mass could be accelerated past the speed of light. The whole point of entangled atoms, was that the state of one atom was changed, the state of the entangled pair changed to match, and that this change was instantaneous. If the 2 atoms could be moved lightyears apart then you could have (even if it's primitive Morse code) instant transfer of information. Because the information has no mass, you are not breaking the light barrier.

      That's the basis of the Ansible in Ender's Game (and others)

      That's the Sci-Fi version. In this experiment the 'entanglement' was caused by a photon emitted by one atom, down a fiber line to the other atom. So one could argue that it's not classical entanglement, and that the transfer of information between the atom pair is still limited by the speed of the photon (light).

    7. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, the "effects" of entanglement occur faster than the speed of light, but this cannot be used to transfer information in any way (this is a mathematically proven consequence of the principles of QM), so FTL communication is still physically impossible in a quantum universe.

    8. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're wrong. Quantum entanglement does not allow any information to be transferred faster than light.

      Sitting a million miles away from your partner with your entangled particle, the only thing you know is that you and your distant partner will measure a correlated result from that particle -- a fact you already knew a million years ago when you parted company in your very-nearly-light-speed ship.

      You do not know, and can not control, what the value will be. You do not know if the other person has measured their particle's state or not. Measuring the state destroys the entanglement. All you know after is that the result you got will be correlated with what they get, or got.

      No information transfer is possible.

      However entanglement is useful for other things. Like networks where you can detect if someone snooped on your packets.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true. If I cared to log in, I'd search for my "-1, Has Never Read Anything About Transmission of Information via Quantum Entanglement Or Understands How It Works" mod button.

      Seriously, Wikipedia for J.S. Bell's theorem, dude, before you blow a gasket.

    10. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Why not just imagine instant, and free, teleportation? Both violate the lawsof physics as we know them.

    11. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it won't, because you can't send information that way.

      'Entanglement' is merely a mathematical shorthand for 'that particle over there has always been in state X but you can't tell whether it's in state X or state Y until you measure the state of this particle over here'.

      There's no actual information traveling anywhere.

    12. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by dullertap · · Score: 0

      I'm constantly measuring my particle. Spin up is zero. Spin down is one. How is this any different than, say, Morse code? Observing spin does not destroy entanglement. Quantum entanglement appears to propagate at thousands of times the speed of light.

    13. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      This comment is wrong. Imagine that the sender and receiver were sufficiently far apart, say a million light years. Quantum entanglement would allow them to have faster than light communication even if it was being "encrypted" and "decrypted" with a commodore 64.

      No, it does not. Another poster already linked to the No-Communication theorem. Basically, the effects of quantum entanglement are transmitted faster-than-light, instantaneously, in fact. Information through this process cannot be transferred faster than light.

      It boils down to this: if you're light-years apart from me, and we each have one particle that is entangled with the other, if I collapse the state of my particle, I know which state your particle has collapsed to simultaneously. However, I cannot force my particle to collapse to a particular state, so I can't force it to send you any information. I can't even send you the information that I have collapsed the state of my particle. Measuring its state collapses it, and you won't know if your particle has collapsed to a state or not unless you measure it.

    14. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      We'd connect with ourselves, when we eventually leave the planet. Leaving the planet for permanent colonies is something I don't expect to see while I am alive, but it should be possible. Hell, it's probably possible now, but everyone seems to have higher priorities and there is no pressing need at the moment.

      Still, I wouldn't argue with an even better communication method. In the end, better communications is a pillar of modern society as it allows more people to collaborate on much more complex projects.

    15. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      There's no proof that there is anything out there, but there's no proof their isn't either, and there's a lot of space for something else to develop. The idea that sentient life only developed on Earth in such a large universe requires belief in a spectacularly low-power god, IMO.

      Of course, we'd have to transfer entangled nodes to these other civilizations, or have them transferred to us, which may not be feasible, ever, especially if sentience happens once or twice (or less) per galaxy.

      However, if we manage, even by slowships, to colonize other star systems (not solar systems, there's only one solar system), then we'll be out there to communicate with.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    16. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the bigger question then becomes, why does your very-nearly-light-speed ship take a year to travel a single mile?

    17. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, but entanglement cannot violate causality, which is basically what would happen if you transmit information faster than the speed of light. That means that entanglement itself *could* be faster than light, but it has to have some property that mangles any information you try to piggy back on the process so that it is useless as a communication source at FTL speeds.

      The problem isn't getting something faster than light, it's being able to make any use of the process to transmit information.

    18. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by janimal · · Score: 1

      Mod up. If this is correct, it's probably the most lucid explanation I have seen. Statements that "the theorem says so" amount to a faith argument, which doesn't convince me. But I'm no expert.

    19. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      How is this any different than, say, Morse code?

      In Morse Code you can control what state the wire is in without destroying it before a single bit is sent. In Morse Code you can measure the output of the wire without similarly destroying it.

      Observing spin does not destroy entanglement.

      No. Measuring spin causes the particle to take on a definite state, breaking the entanglement, as surely as measuring it's momentum.

      Even if it didn't, though, you still couldn't communicate. You'd just know that a longer sequence of spin data you saw would be correlated with the other end. Interacting with the particle to change the spin would break the entanglement and they would not see a result correlated with the spin you gave the particle.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    20. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Define speed of light.

      If you are measuring a distance in 3D space and the time it takes? yes.

      If quantum entanglement exists in 5,6 or even 7D space, the entanglement distance may not be anywhere as far as the 3D space distance.

      Therefore it IS possible in relation to the observer and based on 3D space constraints to transmit information faster than the speed of light without violating Causality.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    21. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm constantly measuring my particle. Spin up is zero. Spin down is one. How is this any different than, say, Morse code? Observing spin does not destroy entanglement. Quantum entanglement appears to propagate at thousands of times the speed of light.

      For two reasons:

      First, you're constantly measuring those values, but you can't force the particle to assume one of those values. So both you and the other person are reading random values. The same random values, yes, but random values nonetheless.

      Second, reading the spin collapses it a (again, random) value. You might not destroy entanglement, but before you can "use" it again, both particles must be placed into a superposition state once more. Then you read it again. When you're doing the whole measuring / superposition dance, you don't know if you're the one who collapsed it or if you're reading the collapsed state the other person initiated it. Unless of course, you've agreed to always measure at previously established intervals, but you still can't get past the first problem. You'll both be reading the same random data, no information will be passed through.

    22. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I think the bigger question then becomes, why does your very-nearly-light-speed ship take a year to travel a single mile?

      It doesn't. The pit stops to refuel are really long though.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    23. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mod up. If this is correct, it's probably the most lucid explanation I have seen. Statements that "the theorem says so" amount to a faith argument, which doesn't convince me. But I'm no expert.

      It's not correct. Bell's theorem proved that the Hidden variable theory isn't true. The particle really does not have the state until you measure it.

      That said, you still can't transfer information that way, because you can't force the particle to assume the state you want. If the particle can achieve state x or y, and you read x, you can be sure the other particle is in state y. However, you don't know if you're going to read x or y until you read it, so the only thing you can tell is that both you and other person are reading the same random data, containing no information.

    24. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by bigtrike · · Score: 1

      IIRC, anything with mass can be accelerated to the speed of light with an infinite amount of energy. Anything without mass has a maximum speed of the speed of light.

    25. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by sleigher · · Score: 1

      We'll get low on resources eventually. Then we will be out there looking for some. And I don't mean manufactured scarcity.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    26. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you both be tampering with the same particle? You have two particles each, one send, one recieve. You have a 'handshake' that each of you sends via your respective 'sending' particles. Assuming your observations of your recieving particle match up with the handshake agreed upon between your parties, you can then begin decoding data from any future states sent (up until probably some form of termination signal), or begin your own handshake soon after so the other end can verify you're recieving their data, as well as begin signalling back your own data or a response.

      Now whether this works in practice is another matter, but it doesn't seem a whole lot different than modern bidirectional communications.

    27. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Uh, yes you can. Entanglement is order of magnitude faster than the speed of light. It has nothing to with light however. Experiments have been done to see how "fast" it is.

      Stop posting this bullshit. Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Entanglement does not get around this.

    28. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      You have a 'handshake' that each of you sends via your respective 'sending' particles.

      Sending anything at all is the problem. You can't.

      Measuring or modifying your particle breaks the entanglement with the other. You can't control what the other person will see, you can't tell if they've checked. How then do you send your handshake?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    29. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Define speed of light.

      If you are measuring a distance in 3D space and the time it takes? yes.

      If quantum entanglement exists in 5,6 or even 7D space, the entanglement distance may not be anywhere as far as the 3D space distance.

      Therefore it IS possible in relation to the observer and based on 3D space constraints to transmit information faster than the speed of light without violating Causality.

      Wow you're dumb.

      Imagine a 2D plane. Imagine 2 points, A and B, on that plane. They are X units apart.
      Find a path from A to B whose length is shorter than X. Feel free to use as many dimensions as you want.

      Furthermore, there is exactly zero evidence that more than 3 spatial dimensions exist.

    30. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You do not know, and can not control, what the value will be. You do not know if the other person has measured their particle's state or not. Measuring the state destroys the entanglement. All you know after is that the result you got will be correlated with what they get, or got..

      You forget that quantum shit be weird. If you think of particles as particles and their state as a 0/1 variable, then that's totally true. But particles do crazy things. One of the things they do is act like waves if nobody is looking. Entangled particles have to behave like the same sort of thing. In particular, if one of them enters a two slit setup and self interferes, the entangled pair has to also act like a wave and self interfere. This apparently occurs regardless of distance. What this means is that if Alice and Bob have a shared set of atoms. If Alice shoots an atom at a pair of slits, then Bob's atom will self interfere even if shot at an unshielded detector. Now that's not useful for sending messages, because statistically Bob can't tell if it hit where it hit because it's a particle, or because it's a wave. And the quantum equations say the same thing, that statistically the two states cannot be distinguished from random noise. However, the equations do not apply to larger systems, and we don't currently have ones that do.

      Now, people assume there must be some quantum effect to prevent this from being used, because superluminal signals are mutually exclusive with causality, and most people assume causality holds. But there's no strong evidence either way at the moment.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    31. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not correct. Bell's theorem proved that the Hidden variable theory isn't true. The particle really does not have the state until you measure it.

      Are you an expert in the field, in that case I have a few questions.

      When people talk about measuring a particle, what does that mean?
      Sending a particle anywhere would require some sort of interaction so I assume that something specific has to happen for a measurement to take place.

      That said, you still can't transfer information that way, because you can't force the particle to assume the state you want. If the particle can achieve state x or y, and you read x, you can be sure the other particle is in state y. However, you don't know if you're going to read x or y until you read it, so the only thing you can tell is that both you and other person are reading the same random data, containing no information.

      Why would it be impossible to entagle more than two particles and send two of them to a receiver and destroy the entaglement from the third at a time previusly decided upon to transfer information. It seems to me that if entaglement exists then it would work, if entaglement doesn't exists what seems like entaglement is just two independent particles that have the same attributes before reading then the two unmeasured particles would still seem "entangled".

    32. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just imagine instant, and free, teleportation? Both violate the lawsof physics as we know them.

      Well, if it weren't possible to violate the laws of physics as we know them we wouldn't have dark matter so one of them have to go.

      I guess the creation of matter to begin with is outside the bounds of the laws of physics too.

    33. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      This is the angle I'm thinking. Information has no mass so there for it should not be affect by relativity. Please explain how I'm wrong.

      No, really explain how I'm wrong. I would rather know I'm wrong about something to keep thinking it was right.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    34. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      turns out you're the dumb one!

    35. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sitting a million miles away ...a fact you already knew a million years ago when you parted company in your very-nearly-light-speed ship

      I don't know from quantum entanglement, but surely it does not require running your very-nearly-light-speed drive at 1 mile/year, or conversely, very-nearly-light-speed in circles for a million years.

    36. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Information" can't "travel". Information is a pattern in some substrate, you have to be able to transport that substrate and measure the patter to send information.

      substrates such as photons or matter cannon exceed the speed of light.

      substrates such as quantumly entangled particles don't have a controllable pattern.

    37. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      I can't explain it very well, but here's the Wikipedia article on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem . It's generally thought of to be true (no contradictary experimental results), but it's not totally certain.

      One way to think about it is that to send information faster than light will break causality and that leads to loads of paradoxes.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    38. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Okay, I think I understand from reading the article and the comments here. You can't entangle the particles and use them to send information because the process of reading the information changes the state of the particles. Its the Heisenberg uncertainty principal at work. For some reason I didn't put these two together just now.

      Can't we just couple up the Heisenberg compensator and call it good?

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    39. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Mr+Bubble · · Score: 1

      This is a question - not an argument...

      But isn't entanglement itself a known reality? Haven't they shown that two entangled particles are in sync - that one particle reflects the state of another instantly? So, doesn't that imply that the information IS traveling faster than the speed of light? Doesn't the information about the state of the particle that changes have to travel to the other particle?

      I am aware that probably behind the scenes distance is an illusion in this case and the two particles are just one. But, what is to stop us from changing the state of the particle at one end and observing the change in the particle at the other? I probably don't really have a grasp on the subject...

      --
      "The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
    40. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impossible or it would have already happened.

    41. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by TheLink · · Score: 1

      What if that entangled particle was part of you, and you change accordingly?

      What is the limit of entanglement? Could the whole universe be entangled already?

      --
    42. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 2

      This whole conversation is based on a misunderstanding of entanglement.

      Entanglement is where two (or more, but let's keep it at two) particles are created in such a way that a conservation law must be maintained - say for example a particle of spin 0 decays and emits two electrons, then these 2 electrons must have spin -1/2 and spin +1/2 (or something like that, I can't remember how conservation of angular momentum works in quantum physics, but the principle is there).

      Anyway, you have two particles, whose spin must equal that of the parent particle to converse angular momentum.

      So, if you measure one, you will by necessity know the spin of the other.

      Quantum theory, at least in the controversial Copenhagen Interpretation, says that the particular spin values of a particle are not an inherent property of that particle, they instead are a function of its probabilistic (Schrodinger) wave function.

      When you measure the particle (i.e. observer it) it then take on a spin value. To fulfil the conversation law, at the very same time the other (entangled) particle must adopt the relevant spin value that balances out.

      It must take this balancing spin value immediately, even if the particles are many light years apart, otherwise there would be a creation or destruction of energy. This will happen instantly, i.e. faster than light.

      So, the cliché about entanglement transmitting info is just that it tell the other particle which value to take on for one of its properties.

      But, all you can do is measure the first particle. You cannot force it to have a certain spin. It will have whatever spin it is measured to have. So you cannot communicate any info. All you can do is measure you particle and know that its entangled partner will have a corresponding value.

      And you can't tell that you other particle has been measured. If you measure your particle you cannot tell if you measured it first. You would get the same result if you measured it first or not.

      So, entanglement does imply faster than light, but it does not allow any information to travel that we can use.

    43. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      I haven't ever read that a two slit type situation is applicable to an entangled particle pair. Entangled particles will exhibit interference patterns because all particle are also waves, I don't know that it's a function of them being entangled.

      Also, if one particle was subject to a two-slit scenario, then the other could not possibly react with an interference situation in absence of its own pair of slits - what if both particles were going through two different pairs of slits at the same time, they would have two different mutually exclusive sets of diffraction and interference patterns.

      Plus, all waves suffer diffraction and interference from other waves, so all particles would have the same by interacting with other particles - all particles are also waves after all - so it cannot be that an entangled particle adopts the wave interference of its partner unless both exist in a vacuum.

    44. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      "Why would it be impossible to entagle more than two particles and send two of them to a receiver and destroy the entaglement from the third at a time previusly decided upon to transfer information"

      I don't think you've understood what entanglement means. I just means that a set number if particle have been created, and one of their properties (spin, mass, charge, etc.) must together add up to some know amount.

      I.e. a charge +1 proton decays and spews out some particles, and these particle must add up to having +1 charge (so as to maintain conservation of charge).

      You could have 3 entangled particles, no problem. But how could you transfer info with this?

      If you have 2 entangled particles, you have particle a and your friend has particle b. You measure particle a and find it has charge 1/3. So you know that particle b must have charge 2/3 (to make +1). But your friend doesn't know this. And if they measure their particle they can't tell that you've measure yours. The only info you know is the charge of the other particle, but that doesn't allow you to transmit info to your friend.

      Neither of you know if the other has measure their particle (even after you've measure yours).

      None of this changes if you have three entangled particles.

      If you have three entangled particles and send two of them to a detector, the owner of the third doesn't know anything about it. And if they measure theirs they could tell whether you sent yours to the detector or not.

      (It is odd, this argument is getting nearly a hundred years old, since the EPR paper was put out)

    45. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      I think it is one of the deepest questions of today:

      1) if particles really do not have well defined properties until they're measured (i.e. they exist as a probabilistic waveform until they are measured and that waveform collapses to a definitive set of values) then yes, presumably the two entangled particles have communicated faster than light.

      2) If however, the probability aspect of quantum physics represents the fact that we are still nowhere near the truth, and that our current theories are approximations, then all that is happening is just maths. The particles had a set of values from the beginning whether we measured them or not.

      Answer 1) could be summarised as the Copenhagen Interpretation, and inevitability leads to the question of what constitutes a measurement? If a wave function doesn't collapse until measure then at what point does that happen? Human involvement? Machine measurement? Affecting other atoms? (if so, and other atoms are also waveforms until measured, then how does that work?)

       

    46. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      "anything with mass can be accelerated to the speed of light with an infinite amount of energy."

      Except e = mc2 suggests that were you to do so the object being accelerated would acquire an infinite mass.

      And would so consume the universe.

      "Anything without mass has a maximum speed of the speed of light."

      Also, anything without mass would have a minimum speed of the c. The slightest force it received would cause it accelerate at maximum (infinite) acceleration.

      f = ma, so a = f/m, so possibly it would cause infinite acceleration, or cause a universal "division by zero" error.

    47. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      It helps to be civil, especially when attacking someone with greater knowledge.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    48. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It helps to be civil, especially when attacking someone with greater knowledge.

      No it doesn't, idiots like him (and you) will continue to be idiots, and think that they're right, despite being completely and totally wrong.
      The comment isn't for him, it's for others who may see his post.

      It is fundamentally impossible to transmit information faster than the speed of light. Using extra dimensions doesn't help. If you want to compress space you'll have to do so at a rate faster than the speed of light across a path that is longer than the initial distance and that traverses the initial dimension(s) of the two points as as well as one or more higher-order dimensions.

      In short: It's fucking stupid and impossible.

    49. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by HybridST · · Score: 1

      soab my mod points just expired. I "think" that this is an implication of quantum-theory as well as several flavours of string-theory. I'm still learning the relevant mathematics from Leonard Susskind's lectures on youtube and checking the Perimeter Institute's past public lectures for gems like Roger Penrose or S. James Gates jr. or Stephen Hawking for some guidance on which fields of maths to focus my learnimg next.

      Sir Penrose speaks elequently but somewhat obtusely on spinors and spinor-theory being useful to calculate infinities like entangled states.

      For those who REALLY enjoy new developments in theoretical physics these resources have been invaluable in my self-education.

      Typoed on my ipod.

      --
      Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
    50. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Apolloe · · Score: 1

      However entanglement is useful for other things. Like networks where you can detect if someone snooped on your packets.

      I don't quite understand this, but maybe I'm just missing the details of the practical application you have in mind. If what you mean is that you have one of the entangled pairs, and you have the other one in transit, and you can look at yours to see if the in-transit one has been snooped on, then this would allow faster than light communication, wouldn't it?

      Have some entangled particle emitter at a midpoint between you and the person you are communicating with, and have the emitter emit a constant stream of pairs, one to you and one to your friend. Let "someone snooped on my packets" = 1, and "my packets have not been snooped" = 0. Your friend then snoops on your packets at appropriate intervals when they reach him, in order to send a sequence of bits corresponding to a message. You then observe your particles to see if they have been snooped on or not. That would be faster than light communication, if you could indeed detect from one paired particle if the other had been snooped on or not.

    51. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      "Wow you're dumb."

      Says the kid that cant think. GO back to Geometry 101 kid.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    52. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are raging fucking stupid and have a could of obviousness that you know nothing at all about physics or geometry that looms around you.

      Take your meds and wipe the drool off your mouth, your personal rage fit is quite embarrassing, Assburgers can be treated.

      Did you not understand the "in relation to the observer" part? Too big of words in there for you?

    53. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      The current MODEL of quantum mechanics, with some as of now unprovable assumptions baked in to make the maths easier, says this is impossible. That being said, nobody's come up with a model saying it is possible either.

      In any case, the point is moot unless we figure out how to manipulate an atom on command to emit an electron with a specific spin. Then and ONLY then would QEC be even theoretically possible.

    54. Re:Call me when we have instant transfer of data by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I hope you get help. You maintain that it is "stupid and impossible" to bend a piece of paper back on itself so that your expressed two points A and B then have no distance between them? And, yes, we will take your challenge and attempt to "fold space faster than the speed of light"; that is what experiments with other dimensions are for. My AC sibling and I agree, you need both tutoring and charm school.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  5. Quantum Internet by pablo_max · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am no physicist, so I am actually asking seriously to those of you who are.
    As it is already know, particles which are entangled at the quantum level have an instant and equal reaction on one another regardless of distance. Would it not be possible to use this "Quantum Internet" for C from say, a satellite controller a rover on Mars and one on Earth?
    I have heard that it is not really workable, but is that from an engineering prospective or from a laws of physics perspective?

    1. Re:Quantum Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am also not a physicist, but I am a mathematician with some basic familiarity with quantum computing (from a computer science perspective). From what I understand, it is impossible to use entanglement to send or receive any information at all - no matter how many entangled particles you have arranged you cannot transmit a single bit/qubit through them. However, you can use entanglement along with transmission of classical information to send more interesting information - quantum teleportation is the transmission of a single qubit via an existing entangled pair of qubits and the transmission of two bits of classical data. Arguably (depending on which interpretation of QM we accept) a qubit contains more information than two bits of classical data, but that information is fundamentally inaccessible.

    2. Re:Quantum Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's from a law of physics perspective. Without additional classical information sent along, when using entanglement for communication, all you get from your quantum system alone is white noise. Only with the additional classical information (which by itself also looks like white noise) you can get any information. And that classical information transfer is still bound by the speed of light. Great for cryptography (basically you non-locally create a one-time pad), useless for faster-than-light communication.

    3. Re:Quantum Internet by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      Right, but you are not actually sending data. When they are entangled, you separate them. When you change the state of one, it changes the state of another. Why could you not just view the state as a way of transferring information?

    4. Re:Quantum Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Suppose you have a rover on Mars and a rover on Earth, and the question is whether they should go North or South. With quantum entanglement, you can say "go the same way!" and both rovers will instantly go the same way, or you can say "go different ways!" and both rovers will instantly go different ways. But when you do this you can't control which way a particular rover is going, which will be random. You only control the "xor" of the two directions.

    5. Re:Quantum Internet by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Informative

      When you change the state of one, it changes the state of another. Why could you not just view the state as a way of transferring information?

      Because you can't control the state that it collapses to when you measure it and break the entanglement. You can't tell whether or not the person on the other end has already done this. All you know is that whatever state you measure, they will see a correlated result. Which you already knew; you've learned nothing.

      A useful analogy* -- it's like you and the person you want to "communicate" with put two marbles, one red and one black, into two bags. You randomly pick one, your partner takes the other. You fly apart at 0.9c for a while. Then you look in your bag. It's a red marble. You now "instantly" know that your partner has a black marble -- but you haven't actually communicated anything.

      * It's just an analogy; the fact that it doesn't obey Bell's theorem is immaterial to understanding why you haven't communicated anything.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Quantum Internet by Endovior · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone who actually knows a bit about the science; this really is a very good analogy. I would add that basically all the work done to date doesn't actually have anything to do with getting useful information transfer from looking at the marbles (which is still actually impossible, under current theories), it's more preventing the marbles from falling into random buckets of paint (ie: getting their state changed by various environmental factors), and providing less then no information.

    7. Re:Quantum Internet by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      So is there anything you could actually accomplish with this "network"? I assume you are correct, which would then make the article complete hogwash.

    8. Re:Quantum Internet by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The problem with using this for FTL is what is known as the no-communication theorem. The quantum state of two entangled particles will change faster than light (instantly, actually), but you will never be able to control what state that the particle switches to when you make the change because of the way quantum mechanics works.

      For instance, I separate two entangled particles and then proceed to start altering the state of one of them. I know I can change the state, but I do not know what the value of that new state will be until I observe it.

      Also, the state of the particles is always uncertain until observed, and can change between observations, so one observation does not fix the quantum state of the particle pair permanently.

      When I do change the state purposely on one side, quantum entanglement means that the state on the other particle will change at the same time to be the exact same value, as expected. However, since I was unable to predict what state the particle will be in when it is changed, the other side cannot tell if the change was due to transmission or just some random event. Thus, your message arrives faster than light, but no one can read it, or even realize that there even was a message sent to begin with.

      That was my paraphrase of it. I'm sure someone could do better, but the central point is the same. Having an FTL particle or process does not mean you can do anything useful with it..

    9. Re:Quantum Internet by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      So is there anything you could actually accomplish with this "network"?

      Yes! Because measuring the state of the particles breaks the entanglement, in a quantum network you would theoretically be able to tell if someone was listening in -- you'd send the correlation information along with the regular data, and if it didn't line up with what you saw in your particles at your end, then you'd know that the entanglement had been broken and someone had sniffed your packets.

      The application would be key exchange. You could just send a shared key over the insecure network, and if nobody intercepted it, then you're good to go.

      This is how I understand it, anyway.

      The article is indeed wrong about the "zero latency" aspect. If the researchers were actually claiming to be able to send information instantaneously then they'd be a lot more obvious about it -- see the recent ICARUS FTL neutrino result where the mere hint of FTL communication resulted in international attention and a constant barrage of headlines.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:Quantum Internet by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone who actually knows a bit about the science; this really is a very good analogy.

      Thanks! I added the disclaimer because I've had people complain that because the outcome of the marble-bag experiment doesn't precisely match the statistical behavior of quantum particles it is a bad analogy. But... that's not what the analogy is about. :)

      it's more preventing the marbles from falling into random buckets of paint (ie: getting their state changed by various environmental factors), and providing less then no information.

      Isn't this part of the appeal of the quantum network -- if environmental factors like a dude sniffing your packets broke the entanglement, you could detect it? I guess if you can't prevent the environment from breaking entanglement all the time then that's a problem. :) Are there other applications for this known?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:Quantum Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but why can't a change in direction or a controlled pattern of changes in direction indicate anything? When the person notices a change in direction, who cares if the rovers are traveling in the same direction or in opposite directions, the person on the other end can just notice the timing of that change.

      For it to prevent communication using your analogy the following would have to be true. The quantum system would have to automatically signal changes in direction at random, some being in the same direction and others being in the opposite direction, without any human input. Then, to prevent us from noticing controlled patterns in timing, when I signal that the rovers should travel either in the same or opposite directions, the quantum system would have to set a random delay between when I set it and when it actually executes my setting, that random delay being equal to whatever its next random state alteration time would be had I not signaled anything. and, of course, such a random delay makes such signals not instant, though perhaps easily faster than light.

      Anything different can lead to communication because we can communicate timing patterns in the form of directional changes, even in the face of some random noise (ie: random directional changes).

    12. Re:Quantum Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to add a disclaimer, then add the right one. The analogy is different from quantum entanglement because it *obeys* Bell's theorem instead of violating it.

    13. Re:Quantum Internet by FridayBob · · Score: 1

      ... particles which are entangled at the quantum level have an instant and equal reaction on one another regardless of distance. Would it not be possible to use this "Quantum Internet" for C from say, a satellite controller a rover on Mars and one on Earth? ...

      It would be cool, but a quick search shows that the answer is apparently No. It seems two entangled atoms are like two coins that mirror each other such that if one is tossed, the next time the other is tossed it will show the same value. It's weird, but it can't be used for communication, something that also prevents causality from being violated.

    14. Re:Quantum Internet by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      But if I didn't fuck up, how would I be able to keep striving to improve?

      Yeah... I'm not buying it either...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    15. Re:Quantum Internet by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      What if you had a bag of entangled particles? Both sides have a bag of say 10,000 serialized, entangled particles and the guy holding the bag in DC asks, "Have they launched anything yet?" "No." "Okay, checking the next particle. Have they launched anything yet?" "No." Etc.

    16. Re:Quantum Internet by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Both sides have a bag of say 10,000 serialized, entangled particles and the guy holding the bag in DC asks, "Have they launched anything yet?" "No."

      But how are you determining that the answer to the question is "no"? You don't know if they've measured their particles or not. You only know that when you measure yours, you'll see a result that's correlated with what they see.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:Quantum Internet by Courageous · · Score: 1

      (which is still actually impossible, under current theories)

      This may seem like a trivial, idle remark, but I sincerely appreciate the effort you made in saying "impossible, under current theories." There are too many peoplewho fall into either the linguistic or mental trap of treating current theory as the ground truth state of the universe.

      C//

    18. Re:Quantum Internet by atisss · · Score: 1

      However, since I was unable to predict what state the particle will be in when it is changed, the other side cannot tell if the change was due to transmission or just some random event. Thus, your message arrives faster than light, but no one can read it, or even realize that there even was a message sent to begin with.

      If the state changes are truly random, you can work by detecting non-random anomalies in state, and build an information transmission scheme around it.

    19. Re:Quantum Internet by Strilanc · · Score: 1

      Entanglement allows you to instantaneously share a bit of information, but doesn't let you control what the bit will be. This makes it useless for most communication tasks.

      That being said, entanglement can allow coordination in a way that is similar to communication. Check out the Wikipedia article on "quantum pseudo telepathy".

    20. Re:Quantum Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I'm missing two pieces of information here for novice computer scientists like myself.
      A: if two particles are entangled and to one of them a state is written, does the state of the other 'end' change? My understanding of the discussion so far says yes, but I want to be clear here.
      B: after reading the state at the other end, can two particles be brought in an entangled state without bringing them together and/or using another not-faster-than-light communication channel? My understanding from previous comments would be that the answer here is no, and that is why you cannot communicate.

      After all, if both of these are actually possible, you could otherwise transfer information in one direction by periodically writing a state in location A and reading it in location B. If the period is sufficiently wide and/or you assume perfectly synchronised clocks without drift, then this would work exactly as I'd want it to:
      entangle -> write state -> read state -> re-entangle -> write state -> read state and so on.
      I suppose this is somewhat hard to map to the marble experiment...

    21. Re:Quantum Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer to (B) is, indeed, 'No'. (At least with the information and understanding we currently have.)

      That said, the biggest flaw in your understanding lies in an assumption you probably don't even realize you're making in (A). With our current understanding and capabilities of quantum entangling we can't 'write' a state to the particle in the first place. In fact, we don't even know what state the particle *has* until we measure it, thus breaking the entanglement. The only thing we *do* know about entangled particles is that, once one of the pair is measured, we know that *both* particles will exhibit the same state. Unfortunetly, we won't see the state in the *other particle* until we measure *it*, so there's no way for the person on each end to know *who* took the state-collapsing measurement.

      Basically, it's akin to trying to communicate using two big bags of marbles where you're guaranteed to draw the marbles from each bag in the same order, but you have no control over what that order is. Drawing from each bag will result in an identical, but uncontrolled result, regardless of who drew which marble first.

    22. Re:Quantum Internet by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      A: if two particles are entangled and to one of them a state is written, does the state of the other 'end' change? My understanding of the discussion so far says yes, but I want to be clear here.

      No. "Writing" a new state to one of the two particles breaks the entanglement. The other particle's observed state will no longer be correlated with the one you wrote to.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    23. Re:Quantum Internet by loneDreamer · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly from my quantum computation courses, that is not exactly so (if the explanation were that easy, all this common confusion would not happen). Quantum state CAN be manipulated to alter the probabilistic outcome of observing a specific quantum state to a degree were you are effectively setting that state. Of course, it can only be done BEFORE observing it (and thus collapsing the wave function). But you can do this if you hold only one side of the entanglement, so you can basically remote-paint your marbles instantaneously at any distance! The problem is that there are more than one possible state that you could have set for me to observe another state (it's not a 1-to-1 map), thus I still need additional information that needs to come in a standard channel (at less than the speed of light). So no faster than light transmission of information, but nevertheless teleportation does happen. The basics of quantum criptography for instance are supposed to use this fact by mixing quantum and normal communications.

      Of course, if somebody knows more, I'm happy to be corrected.

    24. Re:Quantum Internet by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      When you change the state of one, it changes the state of another.

      No, you don't. If you take e.g. a singlet state of two spin-1/2 (which is an entangled state that has the property that if you measure both spins in the same direction, the two results are always opposite, so if one is up, the other is down and vice versa) and do (without measurement) a spin-flip on one (a spin flip exchanges up and down for that spin), then you'll get a different entangles state where the up measurement of the other spin now corresponds to an up measurement of your spin, and vice versa. In other words, the other spin did not follow (if it had followed, you'd still have the original singlet state).

      And yes, I'm a physicist.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    25. Re:Quantum Internet by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Yes: You could transfer quantum states from one place to another. Which is essential if you want to do something quantum (like quantum cryptography, or quantum computation).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    26. Re:Quantum Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, in this analogy the rovers know the time when the command will be given in advance, they just don't know what the command will be in advance. If you plan to give more than one command, then they have to be prescheduled too. These are procedural details that I omitted for simplicity.

    27. Re:Quantum Internet by Endovior · · Score: 1

      Glad you approve. It's unwise to assume anything really is totally impossible; if you begin by assuming that, then whether it's true or not, you can no longer be convinced by evidence that proves otherwise. Though, in this case, it really is such a degree of improbability that 'impossible under current theories' is about right; if we were to have evidence that proves otherwise, said evidence would imply that either causality is wrong, or locality is wrong. And as much as you'd like to think that means 'cool, time-travel and FTL'... what it would actually mean would be more along the lines of 'things can happen for no discernible reason, based on events in distant places or times'. Since we haven't seen any evidence that that kind of thing actually happens, and nothing like that happens in the rest of known physics, it's pretty unlikely... but again, it only takes one (solid, reproducible) observation to disprove a theory. If that experiment with the FTL neutrinos was replicated by other teams, on other equipment, instead of actually being caused by a loose cable, it would've been strong evidence against locality.

    28. Re:Quantum Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the no-communication theorem does state that. However, the problem with the argument is that you are stating a theory as law. Until experimentation is thorough enough to state "yes, this is always the case," it will just remain that: a theory. - noun, plural-ries 1. group of propositions used as principles to explain a class of phenomena 2. proposed explanation 3. the branch of a field of knowledge that deals with its principles rather than its practice. Notice in two of the definitions we are dealing with a proposal, and the third says it does not deal with practice.

      In other words pull your head from your derriere and accept the fact that no one really knows just yet.

  6. Heisenberg Disagrees? by dullertap · · Score: 2

    Doesn't the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle kind of say that when these machines are determining spins of particles, that they cause them to change? ie entropy?

  7. Re:iPhone qubit? by DynamoJoe · · Score: 4, Funny

    So "Never", then?

    --
    bah.
  8. 99.8% data loss by melonman · · Score: 2

    From TFA, this is apparently a huge improvement on previous attempts, but it's still not exactly dazzling. What sort of self-correcting protocol do you need to handle 499 of every 500 bits being lost?

    --
    Virtually serving coffee
    1. Re:99.8% data loss by PIBM · · Score: 1

      Sending 500 times the exact same information would fix your specific problem... =)

    2. Re:99.8% data loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quantum parity error correction.

      arxiv.org/pdf/1007.1778

    3. Re:99.8% data loss by Luyseyal · · Score: 2

      I guess we won't discuss the state-of-the-art in neutrino communication, then...

      http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27648/

      These guys used an experiment called NuMI (NeUtrino beam at the Main Injector) to generate an intense beam of neutrinos. The beam consisted of about 25 pulses each separated by 2 seconds or so, with each pulse containing some 10^13 neutrinos.

      The beam is pointed at a detector called MINERvA weighing about 170 tonnes and sitting in an underground cavern about a kilometre away. To reach MINERvA, the beam has to travel through 240 metres of solid rock.

      MINERvA is one of world's most sensitive neutrino detectors and yet, out of 10^13 neutrinos in each pulse, it detects only about 0.8 of them on average.

      Nevertheless, that's enough to send a message. The FermiLab team used a simple on-off protocol to represent the 0s and 1s of digital code and transmitted the word "neutrino".

      The entire message took about 140 minutes to send at a data rate that these guys later worked out to be about 0.1 bits per second with an error rate of less than 1 per cent.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    4. Re:99.8% data loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you filter the current average internet connection to remove spam, advertizing, porn, malware/viruses, and subliterate ravings of shaven apes, that's about 99.6% right there. That only leaves 0.2% error to correct for.

    5. Re:99.8% data loss by Skylax · · Score: 1

      The main point of a quantum network is to produce entangled qubit pairs and to store them long enough to use them. With 99.8% failure rate you just have to try 500 times and do it faster than your decay rate (which is easy). Once you succeed, the important figure of merit is your state fidelity (how close the real state is to the desired ideal state). Here they report around 85% fidelity. Which means that if you create 100 entangled pairs 85 of them will be pure (in the sense that any subsequent operation with them, like a teleportation, will work).
      This not too bad, but not the best in the field. There are so called entanglement purification protocols with which you can filter out the bad apples and get almost 100% fidelity.

  9. "carries the quantum state"? by fatphil · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can't copy quantum state. The only way it can carries the quantum state of something is if it also destroys that something's quantum state. (But of course you can't destroy quantum state either, you've effectively just swapping quantum state.)

    So information might be passed around, but it's never actually being shared.
    Which isn't much of a network.

    Disclaimer - I'm rusty.

    --
    Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    1. Re:"carries the quantum state"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when does "network" imply "sharing"? Note that despite the fact that classical information can be duplicated at will, the typical internet packet still is transported from one sender to one receiver. Shall I conclude that the internet is not a network? And what about the water supply network? Last I checked, you could not send the same drop of water to different houses.

    2. Re:"carries the quantum state"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a computer programmer, this concept of not being able to transmit something with entanglement has always seemed like a fallacy to me. In my mind there has to be a way to pull it off. Unfortunately, a lot of physicists aren't programmers so they're just looking at the raw data and saying it can't be done, but they're not thinking like a software engineer and saying how can we at least get this to halfway work.

      I'll throw out an idea, and I'm not sure if it's physically possible. Okay, so as soon as you observe the spin of an atom, you've changed the atom which means that the sender never knows what he actually sent to the destination. He sent something, but he doesn't know what it is. So, here is my question, is there a way to simultaneously send the same unknown data to two destinations instead of one? A duplicate of the same unknown state being sent to two different destinations, with the sender themselves not being aware of what was sent. If so, the sender themselves could be on the receiving end of one of those two signals and use that to determine what was sent to the actual destination.

      Did I just solve something?

    3. Re:"carries the quantum state"? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. Assuming that's all possible, how does that help the sender to send meaningful information? All he knows is that he just sent a 1 or a 0. He doesn't know what the next bit will be. It's still no better than having two magically-FTL-interlinked RNGs.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:"carries the quantum state"? by Fned · · Score: 1

      Since when does "network" imply "sharing"?

      Since computers?

      Note that despite the fact that classical information can be duplicated at will,

      Noisily, expensively, and most importantly, uniquely; that is to say, when you copy a physical document, the new copy is, in fact, a completely different and separate thing than every other copy, that just happens to contain patterns that can be interpreted as information.

      On a computer network, that interprable pattern, all by itself, can be copied, transmitted, and manipulated, without ever permanently committing any given copy of that pattern to any particular physical object. The most important thing about this, the really new thing, is that when this happens, every copy of that pattern is absolutely indistinguishable, down to the smallest indivisible portion, from every other copy of of that pattern, unless you change it on purpose.

      You can take a book and figure out where it came from. Where it was bought, where the store got it, where the printer got the paper from. You can look at a specific blank area on page 57 with a microscope, record the pattern of the paper fibers, and know immediately by the same test if any given copy you get your hands on is the same copy or a different copy. You can take a master recording and make two pristine copies directly from it, and if you play them side by side into an oscilloscope, you will be able to discern differences in the patterns. Moreover, you can write your signature on one of the tape reels, and the two copies are now physically distinct even without changing the patterns stored on them.

      If you make a bit-for-bit copy of a computer file, you end up with two files that are absolutely indistinguishable. There are no minute differences that you can look at to distinguish them, that aren't entirely circumstantial and ephemeral. There is no microscope that can see smaller than bits. There is no way to look at a bit and say "aha! This bit came from that computer!", because in a very real sense, each bit "came from" whatever piece of equipment you're observing it on.

      the typical internet packet still is transported from one sender to one receiver.

      No, it isn't. We use the term "transport" sometimes, as a helpful abstraction, but nothing actually leaves one place and goes to another; equipment on either end of a wire changes the electrical state of the wire so that information is transmitted from one end to the other. In the end, that pattern remains at both ends until it is destroyed. Ultimately, and unavoidably, the typical internet packet is, in fact, copied from one sender to one receiver.

      Shall I conclude that the internet is not a network?

      You shan't.

      And what about the water supply network? Last I checked, you could not send the same drop of water to different houses.

      You are correct. Matter and information are NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING. Congratulations, you have awoken from the Matrix. That IS air you're breathing now. Welcome to the desert of the real, enjoy your stay.

    5. Re:"carries the quantum state"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just hammer on the RNG until you get the desired outcome. Use several of them to reduce the probability of transmitting the wrong value (kind of like voting logic).

      You could even go so far as to define a handshaking protocol (I set a bundle of entangled particles to state X, then you set yours to state X, then I set another bundle of entangled particles to the actual data value, etc...).

      Nobody cares if the information is *physically* transmitted, so long as the guy on the other end of the line knows what you meant.

    6. Re:"carries the quantum state"? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      The main problem is that you can't set state X or state Y - you can measure it and thus work out what was "sent", but it'll be a random string of Xs and Ys.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    7. Re:"carries the quantum state"? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      As a computer programmer, this concept of not being able to transmit something with entanglement has always seemed like a fallacy to me. In my mind there has to be a way to pull it off. Unfortunately, a lot of physicists aren't programmers so they're just looking at the raw data and saying it can't be done, but they're not thinking like a software engineer and saying how can we at least get this to halfway work.

      Yeah, and similarly if only they'd let software engineers loose on solving the problem of faster than light travel, instead of listening to all those boring scientists with their negative "you cannot exceed the speed of light" attitude.

      Because anything can be solved by a clever enough computer programmer.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:"carries the quantum state"? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Thank you for fielding that one! I don't see ACs.

      The difference from the water network (lack of copy) is an interesting point. There's no fan-out - no two people can have the same bit at the same time. And if you get fan-out via mixing, you get dilution. I certainly don't want C20 solutions of homeopathic internet.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  10. Scaling Up by bacon.frankfurter · · Score: 1

    Sounds like it's going to be a pretty gigantic leap to go from this experiment to an entire Internet. Keeping in mind that they only sent, received, and stored one bit, from one persistent store to another, each of which was capable of store who knows how many bits.

    One bit.

    How many bits (not bytes, bits) make up an "internet"?

    +1 internets to anybody who can give a reasonable answer.

    1. Re:Scaling Up by the_pace · · Score: 0

      On top of that, 99.8% failure rate. We are looking at quite a long time before quantum network becomes even close to useful.

    2. Re:Scaling Up by niftydude · · Score: 1

      How many bits (not bytes, bits) make up an "internet"?

      Why, eight times the number of bytes of course. Did I win teh internets?

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
  11. Installer's dream by rullywowr · · Score: 1

    "Hey Bart, pass me another 500ft spool of that rubidium!"

    1. Re:Installer's dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's nothing. I used to have a Quantum hard drive.

  12. IP Traffic into the future by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    So basically we could have one of these nodes orbiting Mars and communicate with it instantaneously when actually the node orbiting Mars is 18 minutes or more ago but it could communicate to our past the same way..... Oh dear my head just exploded!

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  13. quantum what??? by stanlyb · · Score: 2

    If this is really a quantum network, why do they need a fiber to send the information!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  14. Re:iPhone qubit? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

    So when does the iPhone Qubit come out?

    As soon as Apple can patent the idea "for use on a handheld communications device", and it will be called the qBit. Actually, iQ is a much more catchy name.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  15. I'm looking forward by aglider · · Score: 1

    to read the quantum version of Slashdot.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  16. Ansible? by mspring · · Score: 1

    Still no ansible I guess.

  17. I'm In the Wrong Field by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

    Ritter acknowledges that the new work is simply a prototype, and one for which numerous improvements are possible. For instance, the transfer of a quantum state between labs succeeded only 0.2 percent of the time, owing to various inefficiencies and technical limitations. "Everything is at the edge of what can be done," he says. "All these characteristics are good enough to do what we've done, but there are clear strategies to pursue to make them even better."

    I wish I could publish a 0.2 % yield, or an experiment that worked 0.2 % of the time in Nature! Clearly I'm in the wrong field (but in all serious, getting atoms to communicate through a fiber optic cable is pretty freaking cool.)

    --
    Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    1. Re:I'm In the Wrong Field by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Hey as long as it can be made to work reliably it's still a link, not unlike a range-limit wifi connection with a ton of dropped packets.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  18. China's Muppet Communique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China is not amused
    April Fool's joke:
    http://qbnets.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/chinas-muppet-communique/

  19. FTL info transfer. by kaws · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that no interactions of QM go FTL. But a lot of posts have been saying that collapse is basically instantaneously. If this is the case than a encumbersome form of FTL communication could be made. Instead of measuring the states, just use positioning. Like optimise the signal so that you can send your message in a byte, then arrange it so each molecule is arranged like a normal binary number of 1s and 0s. Then send a message by just collapsing the corresponding bits. I suppose that this would only work for emergency messages considering reestablishment the entanglement would be a lot slower.

    1. Re:FTL info transfer. by Fned · · Score: 1

      Then send a message by just collapsing the corresponding bits.

      The bits don't collapse until they're measured, which destroys the entanglement. You can't watch the bits to see if they collapse on their own, because you can't observe them at all without destructively measuring them. All you know for sure is that when someone else measures their entangled bits, they'll get the same pattern you did when you measured yours.

      You can use it to send a message and know that the first person to read it will be the only person that will be able to read it.

  20. Re:iPhone qubit? by jamiesan · · Score: 2

    Archos is going to come out with one that has a 3 dimensional qbit array.

    It will be 300 qbits long, 50 qbits wide, and 30qbits tall

  21. fold the plane over so A and B touch by Chirs · · Score: 1

    If you're allowed to use more than 2 dimensions, fold the plane over on itself so that points A and B touch. Now the distance is zero.

    1. Re:fold the plane over so A and B touch by sexconker · · Score: 1

      If you're allowed to use more than 2 dimensions, fold the plane over on itself so that points A and B touch. Now the distance is zero.

      Okay then, have fun folding space at a rate faster than the speed of light.

  22. Perhaps I missed this qbit ... by leftover · · Score: 1

    Maybe the explanation is in TFA and it went over my head but are the two atoms actually quantum entangled? The process seemed to me more like ordinary synchronization. One photon carrying information (at exactly the speed of light, natch) from one of the atoms to the other, somehow making the quantum value of the recipient the same as the value of the sender at the time it was sent. Isn't "entanglement" more that a copy-and-assign?

    Not that maintaining the total information in a qbit over a link could not be valuable: even if you just encoded values in the different spins palimpset-style you could get more than one ordinary bit per photon.

    It just seems to miss the whole 'bi-directional spooky action at a distance' thing. What did I miss?

    --
    Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
    1. Re:Perhaps I missed this qbit ... by Skylax · · Score: 1

      The entanglement procedure relies on the polarization of the photons. What they do is to apply some light pulse to atom A which prepares its state into either one of two possible states (qubit A 0 or 1). As long as you don't measure it, the atom is in a superposition of those two state (so you cannot even in principle say whether it is 0 or 1). However depending on this state the photon emitted from atom A during the state preparation will have a specific polarization (so before you measure qubit A the photon will be a superposition of two polarizations). This photon after going through the fiber will be absorbed (with 0.5% probability) by atom B and depending on the polarization this will prepare this atom in either of two states as well (this is then qubit B 0 or 1), but as the polarization is not yet determined qubit B will also be in a superposition of 0 and 1 (again you can't even in principal know the state before measuring).
      Now qubit A and B are entangled because if you measure either atom A or atom B it will automatically determine the state of the other atom as well.

      By the way here is a link to arxiv preprint:
      An Elementary Quantum Network of Single Atoms in Optical Cavities

  23. Re:iPhone qubit? by Shemmie · · Score: 2

    I know a few Apple fans who have an iQ 4.

  24. Re:iPhone qubit? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 0

    No, when anonymous posting gets forbidden by law.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  25. please not on the quantum internet... by CSMoran · · Score: 1

    trapped inside a reflective optical cavity. These atoms communicate with each other by emitting a single photon over an optical fiber. Each atom is a quantum bit — a qubit — and the polarization of the photon

    Sounds to me like they're reinventing Flash.

    --
    Every end has half a stick.
  26. cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when do the anonymous do care for the law? Being a legion and such.

  27. Better than "regular" optical fibre? by scarlac · · Score: 1

    I've read TFA several times, looked at the diagram and read every single comment in here.

    I still don't get it...
    How is this technique any better/faster than the current optical fibre method we currently use?

  28. NOT the first quantum network by Skylax · · Score: 1

    (Disclaimer: IAAP) This is actually not the first realization of a quantum network, that's not the point. Chinese and other researches have already created a quantum network link over up to 16km distance (see for example here: Experimental free-space quantum teleportation (only abstract)). Allthough strictly speaking this was only a 2-point link.
    A quantum repeater which is elementary part of a quantum network has also been demonstrated with atomic ensembles.

    The new thing here is that their quantum repeater used a single atom in an optical cavity as a photon storage device. The advantage of using only a single atom as qubit storage is the potentially much longer storage time compared to a group of atoms but it is much more difficult to get enough coupling strength to the photon.
    This is why they use a cavity which is resonant with the atomic transition used in their setup. But even then you only successfully write a photon in 0.5% of all tries.
    But that doesn't actually matter, all you need is to establish an entangled pair before your storage time runs out, so you just to need to repeat the write attempts fast enough.

    To clarify: the applications are in quantum key distribution, distribution of entangled qubits for quantum computing purposes, it cannot be used for FTL communication, if ever it will be a very long time before this can be used for superior data transfer (look up quantum dense coding).

    This is all basic research to learn how to handle single atoms, how to couple them to photons (so that you can use optical fiber networks) and how to increase fidelity of state preparation and storage time (the stronger you make the coupling to the photons the faster any quantum state will decay due to coupling to the environment). But the main purpose is (to be as cynical as possible) to advance the careers of the principal scientists involved, ensure the flow of grant money and produce phds:)
    Seriously the setups they use (ultra high vaccuum, laser cooling etc.) will NEVER be used in any commercial application. You'd need some sort of solid state device where the physics is quiet different and you'd have to do the research all over again.
       

  29. Re:iPhone qubit? by gtvr · · Score: 1

    I want you to build an Ark Right! Whats an Ark? Get some wood build it 300 qbits by 80 qbits by 40 qbits Right! Whats a qbit? Lets see a qbit...I used to know what a qbit was Well don't worry about that Noah When you get that done Go out into the world and Collect all of the animals in the world by twos Male and female, and put them into the ark

  30. Compatibility by theswimmingbird · · Score: 1

    Can I use this with my Isolinear Processors?