Slashdot Mirror


Quantum Teleportation Sends Information 143 Kilometers

SchrodingerZ writes "Scientists from around the world have collaborated to achieve quantum teleportation over 143 kilometers in free space. Quantum information was sent between the Canary Islands of La Palma and Tenerife. Quantum teleportation is not how it is made out in Star Trek, though. Instead of sending an object (in this case a photon) from one location to another; the information of its quantum state is sent, making a photon on the other end look identical to the original. 'Teleportation across 143 kilometres is a crucial milestone in this research, since that is roughly the minimum distance between the ground and orbiting satellites.' It is the hope of the research team that this experiment will lead to commercial use of quantum teleportation to interact with satellites and ground stations. This will increase the efficiency of satellite communication and help with the expansion of quantum internet usage. The full paper on the experiment can be found [note: abstract only, full article paywalled] in the journal Nature."

333 comments

  1. If I recall..... by Sparticus789 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't this how the Ansible from Ender's Game works? Two particles made to be in the exact same state, despite being physically separated? Too bad we couldn't have put this type of technology on Voyager 1 and 2.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:If I recall..... by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I was thinking the same thing; if this actually worked reliably, the ~20 minutes to talk to mars would be instantaneous and voyager wouldn't take 20 hours to send shit back home (and both might use substantially less power)

      --
      -SaNo
    2. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. No it wouldn't. Quantum entanglement does not allow for faster than light communication. Common myth.

      -- MyLongNickName

    3. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding is that quantum teleportation will not allow for faster than light communications.

    4. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instantaneous in which inertial frame?

    5. Re:If I recall..... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Isn't this how the Ansible from Ender's Game works? Two particles made to be in the exact same state, despite being physically separated? Too bad we couldn't have put this type of technology on Voyager 1 and 2.

      No, this particular form of "teleportation" also requires sending photons between the two sites - not storing particles for later usage.

    6. Re:If I recall..... by Millennium · · Score: 1

      No, because the uncertainty principle still applies. Entangled particles are in an identical state, but that state is still probabilistic. To get any information out of it you have to measure it, and measurements on the two particles can come out different.

    7. Re:If I recall..... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      No. No it wouldn't. Quantum entanglement does not allow for faster than light communication. Common myth.

      And FTL drives mean you also violate causality and have time travel. I know people say it and many agree with it but I don't truly understand the physics. I still have trouble with relativity and time dilation.

      I assume all of these facts are, how shall we say, entangled. *rimshot* Could somebody try 'splaining it again? Every time I think I might possibly be on the cusp of comprehension, I try putting it in my own words and it pops like a soap bubble.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    8. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      But it has been mathematically proven that quantum teleportation does not allow faster than light communication. So unless you are not willing to believe mathematical proof, you should believe the previous poster's comment

    9. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You may want to look up the no-communication theorem.

    10. Re:If I recall..... by Air-conditioned+cowh · · Score: 2

      No. No it wouldn't. Quantum entanglement does not allow for faster than light communication. Common myth.

      -- MyLongNickName

      Then what are these guys saying?

    11. Re:If I recall..... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      That's just good old quantum entanglement what the article is describing is taking one of the entangled particles and teleporting it 143km which could put the particle into orbit (just). More info >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

      --

      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.

    12. Re:If I recall..... by ciderbrew · · Score: 4, Funny

      Got a wiki page. It may well be the worst layman's explanation ever :) they got "no-communication" of that theorem just right.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

    13. Re:If I recall..... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Quantum teleportation does not violate special relativity. He didn't "presume" any more than that. You're trying to be a smartarse, but in a not very smart way..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    14. Re:If I recall..... by wiggles · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've been watching this NOVA series on quantum mechanics - it's been an excellent primer on this stuff for me. It's hosted by Brian Greene, a prof at Columbia who wrote a book about it for a lay audience. I think it would be very approachable for anybody with an interest in science, but without a scientific background.

    15. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IANAP
      You measure the spin of two entangled particles in two different places at the same time. You only know the particles were entangled when you compare the results. You also can't control the results. Imagine two magical coins, when one flips head the other flips tails, you can't cheat to make the result heads or tails and they only give this result once.

    16. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the book the The Muppets, they show that frogs can talk and that pigs sometimes become infatuated with them.

    17. Re:If I recall..... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was the AC who posted the first reply. Please read here for more info on why quantum entanglement does not imply FTL communication. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    18. Re:If I recall..... by wiggles · · Score: 4, Informative

      One more thing (dammit Slashdot! Let me edit my damned posts already!!!) --

      They just did a new series (the one I linked to above is a little dated - almost 10 years old at this point). You can see that one here. It covers cosmology as well as a bit of quantum mechanics. Still very approachable.

    19. Re:If I recall..... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Informative

      Essentially, the "sender" does not get to choose the message. The sender "observes" the state of a particle with a previously undetermined state. Upon observing the particle, the "sender" causes the particle to have a determined state but does not get to determine what state that paticle is in. The "receivers" particle then has the same state as the "sender's" particle.

      So the "sender" doesn't get to choose what message he sends. He simply discovers (bad term, but trying to keep it simple) the state of the particle which becomes the same as what the "receiver" gets. This would not be useful for sending any type of communication.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    20. Re:If I recall..... by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Higgs was not a common myth. It was entirely expected to be there. That's a reason they spent a bazillion dollars on the Large Hadron Collider, because they expected it to be there. Yes, it was possible it wasn't there, but it fit the standard model and so it was like saying, the world could always end tomorrow, but there's no convincing reason to believe it won't be there when the sun comes up.

      Quantum teleportation does not transmit information faster than light and it is not expected to. If there was a mechanism that could do that, it would probably get its own article... and a Nobel Prize for whoever figured it out.

    21. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same anon here,
      The "only give this result once" is the interesting (pratical) part. Since the entanglement is something that you can only check with both results, and the entanglement is "read only", this is perfect for encryption.

    22. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      quantum teleportation is a understood and predicted part of physics. Of course our model could be wrong. but if something allowed for FTL information exchange, it wouldn't be quantum teleportation. I guess it would be called something else (and would invalidate most of what we know about physics, but that is another point). Prefixing every comment in a physics article with "If our current understanding of physics is correct" seems pedantic to me, but if it helps you,, maybe you should start doing that.

    23. Re:If I recall..... by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

      It doesn't, that's why you need Scotty to build you a quantum singularity, which allows you to engage the warp nacelles and initiate FTL by sling shotting the message around venus.

      Seriously, read a book or something.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    24. Re:If I recall..... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2

      Are you seriously using a work of fiction where they made a fictional math equation to say that a real equation is wrong? Seriously?

      And honestly, it isn't even a math equation that shows that quantum entanglement does not allow for FTL communication. The sender doesn't get to choose a message, only determine a state of a particle. No data is gained by determining the state of the particle, thus no information is beind transferred. The only people claiming that this results in FTL communication are those who don't have a basic understanding of what quantum entanglement is. They fill in the gaps with what they think they know and then claim to have figured something out that physicists working on things like this their whole lives simply overlooked.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    25. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Essentially, the "sender" does not get to choose the message. The sender "observes" the state of a particle with a previously undetermined state. Upon observing the particle, the "sender" causes the particle to have a determined state but does not get to determine what state that paticle is in. The "receivers" particle then has the same state as the "sender's" particle."

      So it's like`asking the price of an item via phone? The shop guy doesn't know the price but he looks it up and gets it to you via phone (speed of light)?

    26. Re:If I recall..... by locofungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'll try.

      If two events are "time like" then one event occurs before the other *in*all*reference*frames*. i.e. the earlier event could cause the later event. Note that being time like doesn't require the two events to be causally linked but if A causes B then events A and B will be time like

      If two events are "space like" then they cannot be causally linked because it is impossible for a signal traveling at the speed of light to get from the first event to the second event in the available time. It also turns out that for space like events different inertial observers don't even agree on which event occurred first. But this causes no problems because events C and D are not causally linked.

      If an observer can travel faster than light then the above no longer holds. An observer traveling faster than light will no longer necessarily agree that A happens before B even if A causes B. An appropriate observer can wait for B to happen and then stop A from happening even though it was A that caused B. It is this paradox that leads physicists to assume that faster than light communication is impossible.

      The idea of a maximum speed isn't really that crazy anyway. There are only two possible universes, one where there is a maximum speed - which implied time dilation and everything else we see in special relativity - and one where there is no maximum speed - which you get if you take the limit as c approaches infinity in the special relativity equations and turns out to be the newtonian universe. If there is no maximum speed then there is universal time and therefore all events can be uniquely assigned a time and all observers will agree on the ordering.

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    27. Re:If I recall..... by Normal_Deviate · · Score: 2

      I always ask this, and never get an answer. A quantum wavefunction can interfere with itself (E.g., you get interference fringes if you do the 2-slit experiment with a single photon.) But if the wavefunction is collapsed (E.g., by measuring which slit the photon goes through) then it cannot self-interfere. (The fringes disappear.)

      Now the punchline. The whole point of quantum teleportation is that collapsing a particle's wavefunction will also collapse the wavefunction of a remote, entangled particle. Will that destroy the remote particle's self-interference fringes? If so, then we have our ansible.

    28. Re:If I recall..... by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny
      No! Quantum entanglement is more like herpes! Lets say I give you herpes! Now we share the herpes state. Later on the next person you want to have sex with checks and sees you have the herpes state. They can therefore logically infer that I also have herpes, since you claim you didn't have herpes before and I was the only person you can in contact with in between. They can arrive at this conclusion no matter where in the world I am.

      Quantum teleportation is like me calling you on the phone and giving you herpes that way. There still has to be some contact, but in this case it's phone herpes.

      So while Voyager could still use this technology to communicate, it would still have to make that phone call and wait 17 hours for the light to travel to Earth.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    29. Re:If I recall..... by Smidge204 · · Score: 2

      The Higgs was never a myth. It was a prediction of the standard model that, until recently, was never seen. (One could argue that they still have not put the final nail in that coffin, though). Key word: predicted. The math said it was going to be there, but nobody had managed to reach those energy levels until the last few years.

      100 years ago I doubt anyone had any opinions on quantum entanglement, which research on didn't start until the 1930s... a but shy of 100 years ago.

      So in summary, nothing in the collective theories of physics in the past century has yet been truly broken. That includes faster-than-light communication, which this would not accomplish.
      =Smidge=

    30. Re:If I recall..... by Guignol · · Score: 1

      No. you know the particles were entangled because you prepared them to be so
      Then, it doesn't matter when you measure them (simultaneity being a problem in itself BTW)
      What you do know at any time is that both measurements wil be opposite.
      But you can do one of them now and the other one 10000 years after, it doesn't change anything
      What you don't know is which one will be up, which one will be down. you just know they will be opposite

    31. Re:If I recall..... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      If you're going to depend on new physics, why limit yourself to quantum entanglement? Pick something else. Personally, I like hyperwave better. You don't need to exchange particles first. If we'd only put hyperwave on Voyager, we could talk to it instantly! Of course, we could have just built it with a hyperspace shunt and not had to wait 30 years for it to clear the solar system in the first place....

    32. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just put at the same time to show they were somehow communicating faster than the speed of light, as you said.
      You know the particles were entangled, but you can't know if your measurement was the first interaction with that particle, hence you need to compare your results.

    33. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Remote receiver: I wonder if I have a q-mail. Let me just check if the wavefunction has collapsed yet. Oh wait, I just measured it so it collapsed. QED.

    34. Re:If I recall..... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > And FTL drives mean you also violate causality and have time travel.

      You *assume* it violates causality. Causality has not been _proven_ nor time travel.

      Only those who don't understand time travel invent nonsensical paradoxes.

      Maybe once Scientists have a clue why time "appears" to flow only one way then we can start making predictions about how time is "supposed" to work.

    35. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is some dispute on this. What you say is assumed to be true but has not been proven in any conclusive manner yet and the "why" of it isn't understood. We have a general theory that says the speed of light is the speed limit for everything in the universe and given that we assume this to be true we apply that reasoning to information communicated through quantum entanglement and use the idea of the uncertainty principle to support it. That said it's all assumptions and theories at this point so to better state your response....

      No it PROBABLY wouldn't. We don't understand it completely but quantum entanglement is not believed to allow for faster than light communication.

    36. Re:If I recall..... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      100% concur that the "Elegant Universe" is one of the best laymen's description of Quantum Mechanics around.

    37. Re:If I recall..... by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's mathematically proven that if our current understanding of quantum mechanics is correct that quantum teleportation does not allow faster than light communication. That's not the quite the same thing.

    38. Re:If I recall..... by Bengie · · Score: 1
      I'm not saying you're wrong, but wouldn't the term "communicate" indicate information being transferred?

      The experiment saw the successful teleportation of quantum information

      Is "quantum information" not useful information?

    39. Re:If I recall..... by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      Your analogy is too stupid to be understood.

      You suggest that because some fictional mathematicians made a mistake the real ones must have too.

    40. Re:If I recall..... by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      Are you suggesting that real ones don't make mistakes like that?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    41. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      could you use a morse codey system where you send one state, then two in rapid succession if it was what you wanted, but three in rapid succession if it is to be discarded?

    42. Re:If I recall..... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1, Troll

      No, is just you that have problems to understand. I will help you, using your own words:

      You suggest that because some fictional mathematicians can made a mistake the real ones can have too.

      Clear now?

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    43. Re:If I recall..... by TexVex · · Score: 1

      Will that destroy the remote particle's self-interference fringes? If so, then we have our ansible.

      You can't get enough information from a single particle to know for sure whether or not it interfered with itself as it passed through the slits. And when you try it with multiple particles, you can only figure out which ones interfered and which ones did not after you match them up with measurements taken at the other end of the experiment.

      Whether the particles are entangled or not, the results at both detectors taken in aggregate look the same. The effects of entanglement only appear when you correlate both result sets.

      --
      Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    44. Re:If I recall..... by 0x537461746943 · · Score: 2

      Taking it to a simple level...

      You take 2 pieces of paper. Mark one as A and mark the second as B. Without looking at them you randomly put each into an envelope and send one to a remote location. You both open them at the same time and know that the other person has the opposite paper. The remote envelope had to travel by normal means. It was not teleported anywhere. The travel time is how long it took for you to send the envelope to the remote location.

      They really should rename this to quantum encoding or something along those lines.

    45. Re:If I recall..... by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      That's not about quantum mechanics, it's about string theory.

      The first episode does have some nice qualitative discussions about relativity and quantum mechanics as background info however.

      Excellent series and interesting book.

    46. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We have no choice but to assume they are right until someone proves them wrong. Wild speculation doesn't give us any new insight into these problems.

    47. Re:If I recall..... by mounthood · · Score: 2

      This would not be useful for sending any type of communication.

      Then whats the practical significance of this? Is it just the secrecy/security during transmission? The Wikipedia page also says 2 'classical' bits would have to be transmitted through a 'classical' way, which seems to remove any advantage of speed or bandwidth.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    48. Re:If I recall..... by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      I will leave the hard science to good books or documentary shows (as mentioned by others).

      The benefit to some sort of entanglement-based communication option (like between a ground station and a satellite, as mentioned) is that it would not be subject to eavesdropping/weather (since the information travels in some sort of quantum ether that we don't understand) and that the delay would be exactly that of the speed of light (as demonstrated by other experiments) whereas currently, radio waves traveling through the atmosphere experience a speed slower than light due to all the dang atoms in the way.

    49. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can have communication that is faster then light very easily lets take a wheel for example. you can observer the wheel from to either side, if I rotate the wheel from one side the other side rotates at the same time FTL communication just occurred I told you I rotated a wheel. Now if said wheel was so big that it went from earth to mars you would have FTL communication meaningfully,

    50. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A lot of very smart people have looked over this proof carefully, since it has such profound consequences. If you have a specific criticism of the proof, present it. Otherwise you should equally well consider the possibility that Venus does not exist, since all the scientists observing it through their telescopes might have collectively made a mistake. Blind skepticism is no better than blind faith.

    51. Re:If I recall..... by neoshroom · · Score: 1

      No. No it wouldn't. Quantum entanglement does not allow for faster than light communication. Common myth.

      I thought the same thing while reading the article. What's the point in quantum teleportation to satellites though, if you can't transfer information superluminally? The article basically sounds like quantum teleportation to satellites would do something very useful. What is that?

      __

      --
      Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    52. Re:If I recall..... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      There is one very, very critical thing missing: You have zero control over the state that manifests itself synchronously. Completely unusable for anything except a stunt. Which this is.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    53. Re:If I recall..... by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      If we'd only put hyperwave on Voyager, we could talk to it instantly!

      Hyperwave radio, just like hyperspace transportation, was not instantaneous.
      Hyperwave just bridged the distance between points A and B in real-space, to a much shorter distance in hyperspace, wherein hw radio transmission was still limited to light-speed.

      When Nessus was sitting outside the Fleet of Worlds' gravity well, talking to his cohorts on Earth, there was a transport-delay of about an hour in the conversation (granted that was over, what was it, some 30 light years?)

      There was also still the need for hw relay/buoys, as the signal attenuated (just as in normal space) over increasingly large distances.

    54. Re:If I recall..... by Kilobug · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can't "send states" either. You measure on your own photon (or electron, or whatever) and if you find a value. The other guy measure his own photon (or whatever) and find a value. The two values, once you communicate with each other (slower than light) will always match (be the same, or be opposite, depending of the way you entangled them). But you don't send the value of your measurement, and you don't even send the fact you did a measurement.

      It has uses, for example in cryptography. Or if you want to run a solar system wide lottery and have the people on Mars and Earth follow, exactly at the same time (warning: that's layman speach, it doesn't have any real meaning in GR), the outcome of the lottery, and no one having the result before the other. But not for communication.

    55. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sender doesn't get to choose a message, only determine a state of a particle. No data is gained by determining the state of the particle, thus no information is beind transferred.

      If the sender chooses the state and the reciever can then determine the state, data is being transmitted.

    56. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Songs of Distant Earth is fiction. Quantum teleportation is not.

    57. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one said otherwise.

    58. Re:If I recall..... by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0

      And from the Game of Thrones:

      "Hodor!"

      The man is a genius... a freakin' genius. 'Hodor', indeed. Brilliant!

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    59. Re:If I recall..... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      You're too stupid to understand the analogy used.

      he understood it quite well, it's just very, very stupid to pull a work of fiction into discussion about reality, especially if that work of fiction pulls what's essentially just magic to the discussion. the same analogy could be used to justify that there might be time travelling dragons up in the heavens. you see, ftl communications and travel would change quite a bit in the world, so just saying that they might be wrong because some other time some other theory was wrong isn't enough.

      also the slashdot headline is misleading.

      now, of course that kind of pisses on the cereals on many scifi scenarios if you can't do ftl communications. too bad.

      and fuck communications to mars, if you could just get round trip around earth to 1ms that would be pretty useful.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    60. Re:If I recall..... by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      I have a choice, I believe in a world where FTL communication/travel is possible or I can believe in a world where causality holds. Even without all the math that says FTL is impossible, I'd still chose causality over FTL.

    61. Re:If I recall..... by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      This would not be useful for sending any type of communication.

      Yes it would: it would be very useful for encrypting communication. The message itself still travels at the speed of light, but the encryption key can be chosen using quantum teleportation. So if A wants to send an encrypted message to B, they use entanged particles to choose an encryption key. Nobody else can snoop on the key, since it is not "sent" from one to the other. Two identical keys just "appear" at A and B, A uses it to encrypt his message before sending it (classically, for example using a homing pigeon) to B who then uses the same key to decrypt it.

      Being able to create a shared key instantaneously (if the setup has already been done before) and without anyone being able to snoop on it, is very useful indeed. And in theory, you can make the key as long as the message so there's absolutely no chance at all of anyone breaking the "code".

    62. Re:If I recall..... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      But you can have communication that is faster then light very easily lets take a wheel for example. you can observer the wheel from to either side, if I rotate the wheel from one side the other side rotates at the same time FTL communication just occurred I told you I rotated a wheel. Now if said wheel was so big that it went from earth to mars you would have FTL communication meaningfully,

      Nope.
      Objects don't respond to force instantaneously, they respond at different speeds depending on their shape and material.
      A Tempur-Pedic bed dampens and absorbs force and transmits it so slowly that you can jump on it and not spill a glass of wine on the other end of the bed.
      A perfectly solid material would transmit force at near the speed of light.

    63. Re:If I recall..... by NerdmastaX · · Score: 0

      You can't "send states" either. You measure on your own photon (or electron, or whatever) and if you find a value. The other guy measure his own photon (or whatever) and find a value. The two values, once you communicate with each other (slower than light) will always match (be the same, or be opposite, depending of the way you entangled them). But you don't send the value of your measurement, and you don't even send the fact you did a measurement.

      It has uses, for example in cryptography. Or if you want to run a solar system wide lottery and have the people on Mars and Earth follow, exactly at the same time (warning: that's layman speach, it doesn't have any real meaning in GR), the outcome of the lottery, and no one having the result before the other. But not for communication.

      so we could use it for tv?

    64. Re:If I recall..... by cptgrudge · · Score: 1

      But you can have communication that is faster then light very easily lets take a wheel for example. you can observer the wheel from to either side, if I rotate the wheel from one side the other side rotates at the same time FTL communication just occurred I told you I rotated a wheel. Now if said wheel was so big that it went from earth to mars you would have FTL communication meaningfully,

      Might be you're trolling, but that's not FTL communication. Forces are exerted on the wheel, the spokes, the rim, to move the other side, which does not happen at anywhere close to the speed of light. Just because it "looks fast", doesn't mean it's FTL.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    65. Re:If I recall..... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I know certain aspects of quantum communication makes it very secure or at least prohibitively expensive(for now) to intercept. Even if you can't communicate faster, security could make it worth while.

      I don't know much, just regurgitating what little I remember.

    66. Re:If I recall..... by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Oh screw Voyager 1 and 2 lol. If they want $$$$$$$$$$ and fast development, they'll sell it to all the major news agencies. It would be one of the biggest helpful inventions to humankind if they got rid of the international live interview speech delay! but seriously, that's where the money is. That and teleconferencing for multinational companies.

    67. Re:If I recall..... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Encryption. Mathematically-proven-to-be-unbreakable encryption.

    68. Re:If I recall..... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      No he don't. And unfortunately you do not understand too. I'll try again: The analogy is that in the book, physicists also shouted that it would be impossible (in the story, creating a quantum thruster) and even formulated a mathematical proof to prove that they were right ... To only later discovered that the mathematical proof was wrong by a miscalculation of themselves.

      Moral of the story? You can't say "this is so and end point" if you are not sure of seeing all the variables involved. Clarke may have been "just a science fiction writer", but he had more wisdom than many who are here.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    69. Re:If I recall..... by andsens · · Score: 1

      You can't choose the state, it cannot be manipulated expecting the other particle is manipulate the exact opposite way. You entangle them, separate them and then read their state simultaneously, their states will then be the exact opposites.

    70. Re:If I recall..... by Normal_Deviate · · Score: 1

      You seem to be saying there is no such thing as interference fringes.

    71. Re:If I recall..... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      The problem is exactly the "if", which is treated here as if it were "for sure".

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    72. Re:If I recall..... by RobinH · · Score: 1

      There is one very, very critical thing missing: You have zero control over the state that manifests itself synchronously. Completely unusable for anything except a stunt.

      Oh, I don't know... seems to me that's a great way to generate private encryption keys at 2 different locations without having to worry about anyone capturing those keys in transit.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    73. Re:If I recall..... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      First, the delay was due to the time it took for radio signals to travel from the outskirts of the system where the hyperwave buoy was located, to Earth. That type of hyperwave propagation is "near instantaneous."

      Second, we're making stuff up, so I can make hyperwave go as fast as I want. I was stealing names from Niven though. On second thought, it might be more interesting to steal from Hogan, and just have tachyon communication where the message gets there before it was sent.

    74. Re:If I recall..... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      No he don't. And unfortunately you do not understand too. I'll try again: The analogy is that in the book, physicists also shouted that it would be impossible (in the story, creating a quantum thruster) and even formulated a mathematical proof to prove that they were right ... To only later discovered that the mathematical proof was wrong by a miscalculation of themselves.
      Moral of the story? You can't say "this is so and end point" if you are not sure of seeing all the variables involved. Clarke may have been "just a science fiction writer", but he had more wisdom than many who are here.

      yep and therefore space child just might be reality? you're still using just a "we might be wrong" argument when
      it's been logically proven that the world doesn't allow ftl. so you would need some kind of hyperspace plot device discovery to change that - which would change a lot more than just communications(but it does make for easier to write stories hence why clarke & scifi posse usually go with enabling ftl for purposes of the plot).

      you're using a scifi plot device as an argument to argue that we might be wrong about ftl in reality then of course it ended in ridicule. you could've at least have had the decency to pick up something where some scientists were wrong in the history, like assumptions that humans would just insta-die in zero g - Or that you would need 100x bigger amount of radioactive material to initiate explosive nuclear fission.

      I can't be _sure_ that you're not THE space child who travelled in time either, but for all purposes assuming that being even possible would be pretty fucking stupid.

      I'm only bothering because this whole article is pretty damn fucking stupidly presented as something else than physics test gimmick.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    75. Re:If I recall..... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      You can't "send states" either. You measure on your own photon (or electron, or whatever) and if you find a value. The other guy measure his own photon (or whatever) and find a value. The two values, once you communicate with each other (slower than light) will always match (be the same, or be opposite, depending of the way you entangled them). But you don't send the value of your measurement, and you don't even send the fact you did a measurement.

      It has uses, for example in cryptography. Or if you want to run a solar system wide lottery and have the people on Mars and Earth follow, exactly at the same time (warning: that's layman speach, it doesn't have any real meaning in GR), the outcome of the lottery, and no one having the result before the other. But not for communication.

      so we could use it for tv?

      if you like your tv producing random bits to the screen. it could be used for crypto for tv - but you'd still need to send the encrypted tv signal some old fashioned way.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    76. Re:If I recall..... by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the likelihood of us being right is much higher than of us being wrong. All of what we have gathered as evidence points at our current understanding being correct.

      New theories may appear, but as with old theories they usually tend towards old theories (just like how relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics, when approximated to our scale, give classical mechanics).

    77. Re:If I recall..... by hurtfultater · · Score: 1

      The problem is exactly the "if", which is treated here as if it were "for sure".

      Yes, and we use that sort of equivalence all the time. Do you have any reason to suspect that our understanding of quantum mechanics is generally unreliable or flawed in a relevant way?

    78. Re:If I recall..... by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      Quantum correlations do exist and are part of the description of quantum mechanics. They do not however allow to transmit information, since the correlations are purely random.

    79. Re:If I recall..... by SolitaryMan · · Score: 2

      Honest question: what exactly is the point then?

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    80. Re:If I recall..... by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Funny

      and a Nobel Prize for whoever figured it out.

      I thought you had to do something political to get one of those.

    81. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is possible the math behind that proof is wrong. But it is such a simple, straightforward proof, that any errors would most likely be fundamental errors in the basis of quantum mechanics. Without quantum mechanics, you have no explanation or alternative concept of quantum teleportation at the moment, so basically very little could be said about the phenomenon being observed. So either way you have nothing to suggest it could be useful for faster than light communication, in a kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't sense. There is always some chance current theories are wrong and they could find a way for faster than light communication, but that could be said about a lot of research.

    82. Re:If I recall..... by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes and no.

      Probability is very important, but it is not the measurement, or at least not the initial measurements, which are the issue.

      The measurements on the particles will actually be the spookily transmitted values that you would expect. If person A observes his particle and locks in a state, the particle of person B will instantly take on the mirror or opposite of what person A has measured. Until entanglement is broken, particle B will remain in that state for person B to discover almost at their leisure. So, you *can* measure two particles and get the same/mirror answer... but only once per particle.

      Or in other words, if Person A observes a living Schrodinger's Cat in his box, Person B will get a dead one in his entangled box instantly, which will be there for him to see when he opens the box. It will not go back to being uncertain until the box is opened and then closed again. Person B does get the opportunity to see the state of his particle as changed by entanglement.

      So what is the problem? Sounds like this is faster than light. And it is. However, Relativity does not state that nothing can happen faster than light, only that *information* cannot be transmitted faster than light. The problem is entanglement does not actually create a channel for passing information by itself.

      For information to be passed one side must use a channel to send a message to the other. With entanglement you will have "sent" a state, but the other side has no way of knowing you actually sent a message, which in turn means that information is not passed.

      Remember, collapsing the probabilities and killing/not killing a cat can be done by *either side*. That means that if you open your box and find a living cat, it could mean that your partner earlier opened his box and found his cat was dead (and is attempting to send you a message). Alternately, it might mean he hadn't gotten around to opening his box yet and you opened first, making you are responsible for killing his cat which he may soon discover (you monster).

      This is *not* insurmountable normally. If you could, say, ensure that you always kill the cat in your box when you are sending a message, then I could use frequency analysis or some other algorithm on all of my living cat results because I know that only living cats can be message data. There would still be a ratio of noise to the signal due to the ever present possibility that I am killing his cat on the other side by looking before he does, but you should be able to wring data out of it. You would, of course, need multiple entangled boxes for this, but other than representing mass cat murder, this is not a major problem.

      Unfortunately, this is where the Uncertainty Principle checkmates us. When you open a box, it is always completely random what you get. You can't force a result or know ahead of time what you will send, so pre-arranging to only accept one result is pointless. Even the smallest attempt to alter the box before opening it in a manner that would make the result even slightly more predictable counts as a measurement and trips the entanglement effect. Then when you go to look in the box afterward, you are simply looking at particle that is no longer entangled. In effect, altering the box in any useful way is the same thing as opening it.

      So, to actually send a decipherable message, you need a classical, slower than light channel to decipher every bit of information you send via entangled particles. While it is technically true that your actual bits arrived faster than light, the information is 100% indecipherable until you get the decoder for each bit at light speed, and so there is no way to disseminate actual information faster than light in this way.

    83. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What you are describing is quantum entanglement, not quantum teleportation. Quantum teleportation needs quantum entanglement to work, but they are two very different things.

      With quantum teleportation, the sender absolutely does get to choose the message. The message can be any quantum state. You still can not send messages faster than light of course. To send one qubit, the sender needs to send two classical bits (and use one pair of pre-entangled qubits). You are limited by how fast you can send the two classical bits. If you have a classical message to send, you might as well just send it normally.

    84. Re:If I recall..... by Pausanias · · Score: 1

      All that's being said in this whole article (and despite numerous confusing explanations below) is that you couldn't transmit quantum bits the same way you can transmit normal bits. This seemed to be an essential barrier to quantum computing, until this "teleportation" mechanism of transmitting bits was created.

      HOWEVER

      This "quantum teleportation" has a PREREQUISITE that for every quantum bit you send you also need to send some REGULAR bits via regular slower-than-light communication. Therefore

      ***Quantum teleportation just means sending quantum data at regular slower-or-equal-to-light speeds***

    85. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The really cool thing about Quantum Teleportation is that, given both ends having one half of the entangled pair, and a classical communications link between the two ends, you *can* send a quantum state from one end to the other without collapsing it. (Though this uses up the entangled pair.)

    86. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      holy jeebers!!

    87. Re:If I recall..... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      that ties in to what I always wondered. they say they cant choose the state, and therefore cannot choose the message, but i ask, what if the fact of the state being chosen IS the message.

      i think of it like morse code: the mere fact a ping comes through is the message. that is, they dont get to choose the ping, but by varying the rate of them, you create information. could not something similar be done via entanglement? if the state can be one of two possibilities at all times, and by determining the state in one place you cause it to also be the state in second place, the other end then just needs some way of determining how/when the sender determined a state.
      --
      which then brings up my other question...if by determining a state at A, you cause a state at B....how does the "reciever" at B for these experiments determine the state on their side without affecting A? always wondered.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    88. Re:If I recall..... by Urza9814 · · Score: 2

      No, you wouldn't. The wheel is made up of individual particles. It bends, it compresses, it shrinks...it seems to be solid and move instantly, but that is only because it is too small to see these effects.

      Say you have a giant steel rod from the Earth to Pluto. You push on this rod. You would think that the rod would move forward on Pluto at the instant you push on it, allowing FTL binary communication. But it doesn't. You push on the rod and it creates a pressure wave travelling through the rod around the speed of sound. The molecules of steel can compress and move, and they have a top speed. In the end, it's actually going to be a while before that push is felt at the other end.

    89. Re:If I recall..... by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Communication requires that you can control what that information is.

      Bad analogy, but -- static on your TV set is certainly information, but it's not really communication.

    90. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most physicists, at least the ones I've interacted with, will openly claim there is always a chance current theories are wrong, and even will point out guesses at different likelihoods of being wrong based on how thoroughly different things have been investigated. However, 99% of the time when I've interacted with someone using "Physics might be wrong" as a premise to their argument fail to see or acknowledge that the same physics they are assuming is wrong invalidates other premises of their argument.

      An over simplified example: "Quantum physics says faster than light communication is possible." "No, mathematically it shows that is not possible as follows from some of the basic principles within quantum mechanics." "Well, quantum physics might be wrong." "Then your statement is baseless, as you based it on other principles of quantum mechanics that would be disproved at the same time."

    91. Re:If I recall..... by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      Quantum communication also permits "superdense coding." Effectively, you can get two bits for the price of one (a qubit can encode multiple classical bits).

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    92. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (dammit Slashdot! Let me edit my damned posts already!!!)

      You can edit your posts, it's called the "Preview" button. Once you hit "Submit" others start replying. If you then edit your post a little or a lot, the previous responders might have to edit theirs, ad infinitum (unless you have some kind of thread history like Wikipedia; which on /. would be an unreadable writhing mess--or is that what you're after, you devious wiggles).

    93. Re:If I recall..... by Neutral_Observer · · Score: 1

      It would be called time travel. For both particles to experience the same state at the same time, it would have to be sent the information into the past in order for it to be synced in the present. It would be that fulfill FTL communication?

    94. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you measure where a particle comes out of the double slit, you only see it at a single location, you don't get to see the entire wavefunction expressing all possible locations. To map out the wavefunction, you need to measure multiple particles, and the amount of times you see it at different locations corresponds to the probability given by the wavefunction, so you can then reconstruct the wavefunction from measurements. Viewing just a single particle come through, it can be difficult to tell which wavefunction made it end up there, as there are spots both interfering and non-interfering particles are likely to show up, and even where the patterns are different, there is a small chance of getting one from the wrong pattern.

    95. Re:If I recall..... by Pro923 · · Score: 1

      But once a connection is established, why not then would faster than light communications work? IE: You send a space ship away from earth at velocity V. You send a second at velocity V/2. Couldn't that first space ship communicate with earth through the one in the middle at FTL speeds?

    96. Re:If I recall..... by byornski · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. One of the few comments that does not completely miss the point of quantum teleportation.

    97. Re:If I recall..... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      The Higgs boson was also a common myth

      That doesn't even make sense... The Higgs Boson was a prediction of the same model of the universe which says that quantum entanglement can't be used for FTL communication. The experimental verification of that prediction is further evidence for the model.

      The myth is that quantum entanglement as we understand it would allow for FTL communication, when reality is that this phenomenon as understood does not.

      It's possible that we're wrong, but your example is the opposite of supporting the idea that we might be.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    98. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a lot of people saying that on here. I agree that our current models don't support the theory that instant communication could exist.

      However, they're obviously doing experiments for some reason - presumably they don't know EVERYTHING they think they know. That's what science is. Someday maybe we WILL see instantaneous communication using quantum modems of some kind. Until then, we'll just have to put up with that 15-odd minute delay to Curiousity.

      Although if they were going to solve any physics problems, I would rather (1) commercial fusion reactors, very cheap and small (I want one in my backyard!) (2) Pure energy "capacitors" - none of this mucking about with chemical - energy conversions, that is SO 1885 (3) molecular-level engineering on a large scale - such as a pavement extruders, that make pavement or buildings that are as tough as diamond. Or something like that. (4) ground effects vehicles - ie. floating.

      Oh, and a fem-bot. Definately a fem-bot too.

    99. Re:If I recall..... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The problem is exactly the "if", which is treated here as if it were "for sure".

      No, it's treated as if the massive preponderance of evidence in favor if it being the case means you require more than simply saying "we could be wrong" to seriously entertain the notion that we are.

      Everyone knows the current model of the universe could be wrong -- well, it almost certainly is wrong is some ways, but wrong in the ways that would allow FTL communication which are basic and far-reaching -- and we all hope it is because we all would like our Communicators, Transporters, and Warp Drives thank you very much.

      Nevertheless, that's not what the evidence says at this time.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    100. Re:If I recall..... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The point of Quantum Entanglement? It has a number of interesting possible uses but the most immediate and daily-use one is Quantum Networks, which can in principle solve the Key Distribution problem -- what public key crypto is for -- completely securely.

      As in you can send someone a private key, and know (via breaking of the entanglement between you and the end point) if it has been intercepted. If it wasn't intercepted, then you are free to use the private key. And then you can still tell if someone was intercepting your packets (but if it's really sensitive data then you don't want them to be able to read it at all, thus why you still use the private key crypto).

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    101. Re:If I recall..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      To be fair, your link has nothing to do with mistakes by mathematicians at all. The Mars climate orbiter failure was caused by a mistake made by engineers. There's a pretty big difference.

      Accountants use math in their jobs too, but that doesn't make them mathematicians. Retail cashiers also use math in their jobs, but they're certainly no mathematicians.

    102. Re:If I recall..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Why do you need to believe in anything regarding FTL? A belief that FTL is impossible sounds just like a religious belief to me, because you have no evidence to support it. There's also no evidence to support the opposite, so a belief in either seems pretty pointless to me.

      There are hypothetical particles called "tachyons" which always travel FTL. Furthermore, our understanding of physics is very poor; we don't even understand how gravity works. I think once we figure out how gravity works, then maybe we'll have a better idea of how possible FTL is.

    103. Re:If I recall..... by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Sorry.
      I am sure that mathematicians are perfect.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    104. Re:If I recall..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      now, of course that kind of pisses on the cereals on many scifi scenarios if you can't do ftl communications. too bad.

      That's why sci-fi is also sometimes called "speculative fiction". It's not meant to be a blueprint for the future or a reference manual about what's physically possible. FTL communications makes possible many stories which otherwise would be quite impossible. So if we never figure out how to achieve FTL communications, oh well. At least we made up some entertaining stories. But you never know; back in the 1600s, no one though (nearly) instantaneous communication across the Atlantic was possible either, and that all communications had to take weeks by boat. People have dreamed about crazy new inventions for ages, and without those dreams, we wouldn't be where we are now, we'd still be traveling by horse and buggy. Most of those dreams never amounted to anything of course (just check out some of the crazy ideas people had about the future back in the 50s), but some of them have come true.

    105. Re:If I recall..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      They're two different prizes with the same name and somewhat under the same group. The "real" Nobel prizes are in the sciences, and are actually awarded for real accomplishments. It's just the stupid Peace Prize that's been turned into a laughingstock. It's probably not the same people who decide to award those prizes. The ones who gave the PP to Obama should be outcast for their idiocy, and never allowed to decide any more prizes for anything again.

    106. Re:If I recall..... by dissy · · Score: 1

      Einstein used to explain quantum teleportation similarly as you just did.

      In his example, you take a pair of gloves without looking and seal each into a box.
      You then send one box to someone else. Once you look in your box and see, for example, a left hand glove, you now know without looking that the other box has a right hand glove.

      Niels Bohr claimed the particles are in all states until observed, then the observed particle is in a fixed state, say with an UP spin, and instantly the other particle is also now in a fixed state of DOWN spin.

      Albert Einstein claimed the states were fixed before hand, and each box has always contained the particular glove that was in it.

      It was Bell's theorem that proved Einstein was incorrect, and Bohr was right.

      The wiki article explains it much better than I ever could hope to.
      Despite the fact I can not explain the theorem, I have no reason to disbelieve the many experiments that use it and show it to be correct.

    107. Re:If I recall..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Would it invalidate most of what we know about physics, or just add a whole new dimension to it? Quantum physics didn't invalidate relativity, or classic Newtonian physics. No one uses quantum physics for calculating, say, how far an artillery cannon will shoot a projectile; some simple Newtonian equations will work just fine for that.

      The simple fact is, our understanding of physics is missing some very fundamental stuff, for instance how does gravity work? No one knows; it's a complete mystery. All we know is that it correlates to mass for some reason. Einstein thinks it's because mass warps the space-time continuum like a bowling ball on a stretched-out rubber sheet.

    108. Re:If I recall..... by ACE209 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know... seems to me that's a great way to generate private encryption keys at 2 different locations without having to worry about anyone capturing those keys in transit.

      The entagled photons have still to travel to both parties.

      Why shouldn't it be possible to measure one of them on its way and thus gain the key?

      Is there a way to notice if a measurement was taken on it?

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    109. Re:If I recall..... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      which then brings up my other question...if by determining a state at A, you cause a state at B....how does the "reciever" at B for these experiments determine the state on their side without affecting A? always wondered.

      They don't. If B measures on their end first, then when A measures they will see a result correlated with what B measured. It's a symmetric relationship.

      That's why you can't send information by the timing of A's measurements. For B to try to figure out if A measured, they'd have to measure themselves, which would have results indistinguishable from B being the first to measure so they can't actually tell if A measured or not.

      All A and B know is that when the other measures, they'll see correlated results.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    110. Re:If I recall..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure the Alcubierre Drive does not violate causality or presume time travel.

    111. Re:If I recall..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Oh please. Reddit lets you edit your posts, and it works just fine over there. It's a stupid restriction.

    112. Re:If I recall..... by spyke252 · · Score: 1

      IIRC, all of the work is done by transporting the entangled particles in the first place. After the entangled particles are separated, you can send the information instantaneously. After you reveal the information, the particles are useless for communication until they are entangled again.

    113. Re:If I recall..... by spyke252 · · Score: 1

      Ah, oops, forgot about the necessary communication channel.

    114. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Physically proven to be unbreakable, actually.

    115. Re:If I recall..... by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      You don't understand. We don't know everything about the universe or about physics but we do know some things beyond any reasonable doubt. Relativity is one of those things, specifically time dialation; GPS relies on it, we can put an atomic clock in an airplane and predict how much it will vary from a stationary one at ground level based on altitude and speed. It has been empirically verified.

      You cannot have a universe with all three A) Time dilation in line with relativity B) FTL is possible and C) Causality. The three taken together are incompatible. FTL + Time dilation allows for sending messages into the past, breaking causality. Since we know A is true, either B or C must be false (or both I suppose). Therefore I have to choose, a universe that allows FTL or a universe that has causality. IMO assuming causality is true is the lesser assumption and via Occam's Razor I'm left with no FTL.

    116. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you could've at least have had the decency to pick up something where some scientists were wrong in the history, like assumptions that humans would just insta-die in zero g - Or that you would need 100x bigger amount of radioactive material to initiate explosive nuclear fission.

      Happy to oblige:

      o Heavier-than-air powered flight

      o Faster-than-sound flight

      o Quasicrystals

      o Nuclear weapons

      o Spaceflight

      ...and there are *still* scientists who think machine intelligence is impossible, who are going to have their preconceptions handed to them on a platter very shortly. :)

      Happy now?

    117. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, speculative fiction is an attempt at rebranding with an eye to gathering fantasy and science fiction into the same fold; it arose because most science fiction did, in fact, incorporate fantasy elements -- there were very few writers, excepting a small core that arose in the fifties and some rare birds since then, who even gave/give it a serious try.

      FTL travel, communications violating causality, etc... they became merely window dressing for human (or at least life-form) plot turns and twists. It's a rare "SF" book (or dramatic presentation) today that meets the original definition of SF.

      That is why the term speculative fiction has gained traction. Because there is very little science fiction out there.

    118. Re:If I recall..... by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      until you discover some new maths that get around the failings of the other maths. a thousand years ago it was mathematically impossible to do any quantum teleportation. it's mathematically impossible for me to push a piano through a doorway until i magically change the width of the piano by turning it lengthwise. it's mathematically impossible for a 4 year old to push the same piano at all until they age to a point where they are strong enough. our maths just aren't strong enough for this.

      maybe one day we learn to manipulate higher dimensions, sort of how i manipulated the 3rd dimension to push a piano through a doorway. where there's a will, there's a way. if no one wants to spend any time finding a way, then you're right, it can't be done.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    119. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, um, quantum entanglement's pretty bad, right?

    120. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, it took me a while to realize this when I first thought this stuff through - and that, rather absurdly really, we are essentially referring to the speed of sound (in the material in question)! Once I realized that, I was quite comfortable with speeds of sound being relatively slow...

      Ultimately, the atoms in the material are interacting via electromagnetic fields, which propagate at the speed of light. So the speed of sound in any material will always be less than light.

    121. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faster Than Speed of Light?

      Is faster-than-light-speed possible? If so, does it involve the use of the Worm Hole Theory?
      Faster than light speed is not possible within the theories that we currently think explain the Universe best. That does not mean that it is impossible, since our understanding of the Universe is limited. Many of us hope that some way will be found to circumvent "The Laws of Physics". A wormhole is not really a means of going faster than light (or backward or forward in time); it's a shortcut so that something that was far away is much closer. You can think of an ant on a piece of paper. If that ant could fold the paper around and poke a hole through it, it could get to the far end much faster than if it just walked. That's what a wormhole does in 3D space.

      Dr. Eric Christian

      http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_sl.html

      I think NASA disagrees with you, pal.

    122. Re:If I recall..... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Actually they had light speed communications since way back... with semaphores. The problem was the repeater lag.

    123. Re:If I recall..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You don't know that there isn't more that's possible which doesn't affect those. You don't know that it isn't possible to move into another dimension beyond the three we understand. You don't even know how gravity works. You also don't know how time works or why it's linear in one direction. In short, you really don't know much.

    124. Re:If I recall..... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Also importantly, the mass of the entire steel rod is immense. I calculate a one-cm square rod from Earth to Pluto, at its minimum distance, would have a mass of over 3.3 trillion kg. Unless my physics is too rusty, that means it would take 3.3 terawatts to accelerate it to 1 m/s in a second (or about 1/4 of the world's average power output).

      Imagine for a minute what would be required to deliver 3.3 TW into a steel bar. I certainly can't. The best military railgun prototypes only deliver 1/100,000th of that kind of energy. In other words, the earth-side of the steel bar would certainly disintegrate upon such an impact, due to the shock wave you noted.

      Just to accomplish such an experiment, even on much smaller scales (like a space elevator) would probably require materials so flexible that being able to create a pressure wave in such a material would be obvious upon quick inspection.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    125. Re:If I recall..... by OdinOdin_ · · Score: 1

      The topic can also be understood with the flow of electrons through a conductive material. Each atom has electrons spinning around it and a pressure wave is generated at one end causing adjacent atoms to exchange electrons pushes free ones out the other side.

      Because it is an exchange of very light particles and not the movement / displacement of atoms that is why electron flows nearer to the speed of light than the speed of sound and also relatively further as the energy loss during each hop is lower.

      I'm sure computer chip designers would like to like to keep increasing that clock rate, one factor is the few inches distance between the CPU and other components causes a latency concern to engineer around.

    126. Re:If I recall..... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      The problem is until we truly understand the quantum levels frankly we don't know shit. All we can really say is "With the data we have now FTL is impossible" but that data could change tomorrow, hell we aren't even sure how many dimensions there are or what the hell is going on when we get to the micro and macro at cosmic scales.

      Don't forget Einstein spent the last 20 years of his life trying to disprove quantum because in his words "God doesn't play dice" and now we know that even Einstein could blow it occasionally. Do I think FTL is possible? who knows? Again all I can say with certainty is "With the data we have FTL is impossible" but the wise man knows that his knowledge is woefully limited. Hell if you'd have brought someone from just 2 centuries ago, a blink of an eye in cosmic scale, to today he'd have thought the whole thing was magic. In another 2 centuries who the hell knows what rules we'll have to rewrite, what discovers we'll make, personally I think its exciting as hell.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    127. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if there was an time-source available to both communicators, wouldn't it be possible to send information faster than light because they could use a cyclic communication pattern?
      For example a beam of light which sends a frequency coded pattern which can be measured by both communicating parties, (located along the beam of light) and used to synchronize to their time.

    128. Re:If I recall..... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Because there's no connection there! There was one in the past, my penis, but it's not there anymore. You can observe your herpes and infer my herpes. That's it. That's all it is. Atom A has a spin, and atom B has a spin. If they're entangled, the spin is the same. You can observe atom A and you can infer atom B has the same spin if you know they're entangled. The only really magical thing about it is that you don't know the spin of either atom until you observe one or the other, and after you observe one or the other you know the spins of both atoms. Which... really isn't that magical, now that I think of it.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    129. Re:If I recall..... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      NO! It is the GOOD kind of herpes!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    130. Re:If I recall..... by lennier · · Score: 2

      Do you have any reason to suspect that our understanding of quantum mechanics is generally unreliable or flawed in a relevant way?

      Sure we do. One, the existence of extra infinities in QED which renormalisation works around shows that quantum field theories can't be the last mathematical word; they're at best an approximation which works as long as we don't extend it to all cases.

      Two, the Standard Model containing a huge number of plugged-in variables shows that we don't yet have a fundamental theory which generates those numbers.

      Three, the fact that we've yet to achieve a workable theory of quantum gravity despite >50 years of extremely bright effort shows that there are major fundamental mathematical incompatibilities between QED/QCD and General Relativity. The continuing failure of string theory to find its way out of the landscape problem suggests that such a mathematical resolution might not even exist.

      Four, the laser, one of the most spectacular achievements of post-WW2 physics, actually was considered impossible by some of the leading QM theorists of the time. It works, but why did the theory suggest it wouldn't? Food for thought.

      Five (although this generally worries philosophers and laypeople a lot more than it worries trained physicists, for some reason), at a deeper philosophical level the number of arbitrary postulates and principles which get waived and fudged on an ad-hoc fashion in the entire field of QM really ought to give us much pause. Relativity assumes a smooth continuum but QM assumes integer values of very small quantities, except where it doesn't (1/2 spin and 1/3 charge; why are fractions allowed in a supposedly final theory?) Parity is always conserved, except where it isn't. Spacetime ought to be quantized, but maybe it isn't. The wavefunction itself probably isn't quantized, but why? Spin isn't really spin, it's just a number. Fundamental particles are modelled as infinitely small points, but that would assume infinite energy density, which not only isn't quantizable, it doesn't really make sense. Antimatter is indistinguishable from ordinary matter travelling backwards in time (Feynman), but there's apparently no predictions that this makes, despite it being a huge reversal to our ordinary notions of causality. The proton is made of three quarks, except that it isn't; it's actually a uncountable sea of virtual quarks. What are virtual particles made of - it's obviously not "nothing" if it interacts - and why do we need to assume all this?

      There's no wider motivation to any of these assumptions and many of them are mutually contradicting; except that each was introduced to solve a specific problem and then generated its own. To the outside observer, all this looks disturbingly like a series of Ptolemaic epicycles. Classical physics from Newton to Maxwell was clean and simple, required very few postulates to explain a wide range of phenomena, and was easy to explain. The fundamentals were small and logical and worked together without edge cases. Post-Einstein physics seems increasingly to be moving in the opposite direction: a huge bloated kernel where the "fundamental" layer is actually more complicated than the simpler emergent phenomena it claims to explain. This intuitively feels like it's putting the cart before the horse? But since Einstein and Bohr, "intuition" has been increasingly discredited in physics, and "counterintutitive" is seen as high praise, so there's not much leverage for philosophical criticism. And the sheer brute success of, eg, atomic explosions has been seen as empirical justification of the whole subatomic physics enterprise. But - to an outsider - it feels that, despite there being a huge volume of paper produced, basic physics progress (as opposed to engineering) is actually slowing exponentially since WW2, not accelerating.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    131. Re:If I recall..... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      The whole thing about causality confuses me. What does it have to do with how fast you go? Is it like you can't travel faster than sound because if you yell and then travel faster than sound you beat your voice there and you shouldn't be able to say something contrary to what you said further away? Or is it deeper. That is a trollish way to ask, but I really don't get it and it sounds far fetched to a non-theoretical physicist.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    132. Re:If I recall..... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      This sounds like something from "Way Station" (1964) by Clifford Simak. It wasn't the main thrust of the story, which was more about the guy who ran a galactic way station, but definitely was central to it. Travellers would materialize as copies of themselves light-years away, their bodies dying (or being killed, I can't remember) on the sending end. Then the (way station) attendant on the sending end dissolves them in a vat. I read this story a long time ago (in the 70s) but it was the first thing I thought of when I read this article.

      If I recall correctly, according to the story the travelling process worked across significant distances, as in light-years, but it was limited. So the alien managers of the system would go to planets and recruit locals to run 'way stations' where aliens would materialize and then be routed to the next appropriate station (once again leaving their bodies behind to be dissolved). Earth was never the end point for the travellers to this guy's way station. He has to stay secluded in a rural area, living seemingly in a simple home or shack in an Appalachian backwater surrounded by hillbillies. This is because the aliens don't consider earthlings ready for this technology nor entry into the wider galactic society. And he was kept young through alien technology because they couldn't spend the time to come back and hire new guys all the time. This latter part is very central to the story.

      I am pretty sure that is the story in question. The way station attendant on earth was hired during the American Civil War and a government agent is trying to figure out about the rumours of some guy who is supposed to be 130 years old but still looks young (but now that I think about it, it may have something to do with birth and death records... the guy may have faked being his father and grandfather). It takes place in the sixties and has a kind of anti nuclear war twist. It also seems to predate by a couple of years, the earliest references some articles make talking about the same kind of quantum-like teleportation in fiction (like the Wikipedia article on that).

      Anyway, I remember this thing about the vats and the government agent sent to investigate, who manages to get into the way station and sees some of the alien bodies before they are dissolved. Now I could be getting a couple of stories mixed up but I don't think so. I remember thinking that if I have to be killed on either end I'd rather not go because how can I be sure that they didn't kill the real me?

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    133. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was great.

    134. Re:If I recall..... by heironymous · · Score: 1

      Kilobug, this is not so. Perhaps you are confusing entanglement with quantum teleportation.

      Quantum teleportation requires that the sender perform measurements and send information to the receiver. The receiver uses this information to reconstruct the pre-measured state at her end.

    135. Re:If I recall..... by heironymous · · Score: 1

      0x537461746943, what you have described is not quantum teleportation.

      I think you may be confusing entanglement with quantum teleportation.

    136. Re:If I recall..... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Just as an aside: When folks like you mark me as a "foe", I take it as a badge of honor.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    137. Re:If I recall..... by Pro923 · · Score: 1

      I thought that the magic was that you could put a spin on atom A and observe the same spin on atom B instantaneously - even at a great distance. If that's not true, then forget my idea. If it is true, then you could launch a communications probe with any other probe. The communications probe would be at V/2. It would shoot entangled photons both toward the probe and toward earth. The probe would communicate by modifying the spin. Wouldn't this be instantaneous communications? Granted, after years of travel, it would take hours for the photons to reach both the probe and the earth, but since they're constant, there's always something there to modify on one side and observe on the other.

    138. Re:If I recall..... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Thank you. You managed to describe all the problems I see in current physics scholars, and the reason I do not rely so much on what they assume to be true.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    139. Re:If I recall..... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 0

      You are just "yet another dumb guy" for me, the mark is just to remember myself to do not consider what you say.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    140. Re:If I recall..... by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      I give up. Understand what you want.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    141. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's right - The key is in preserving the state of the particles so that they are only tampered with when necessary. This entangled pair of particles are twinned. They are separated in space but in reality they share space - or at least some version of space we don't know of. (or they violate the universal speed limit - take your pick..)

      I look at it like this light travels at the speed of light obviously - Relative to the speed of light, time is practically frozen for the light beam. & time at normal speed (zero) is sped up greatly towards infinity. When one pair of an entangled pair is altered, its twin undergoes the same change. But in their time frame time is practically at a standstill so it appears to us to be spooky transformation at a distance but in reality it's normal - it's just in the world of light, it happens so fast relative to our perception of space-time

    142. Re:If I recall..... by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      Sure, if that's how it worked, that'd be great! And we'd have been using them for communication for decades! They're useful for other things where it's handy to have two particles in the same (Well, opposite) states, especially since you can only observe each particle only once and then its state is destroyed. That's where the encryption and teleportation comes in. For the teleportation to work, you still have to send an external signal to where the other entangled particle is and... perform some magic... there to make it spit out the original one. And that signal still has to travel at the speed of light or less.

      I blame the quantum physicists for a lot of this confusion. So far my herpes-based teaching model has not been embraced by the community. Although it's clearly a flawed model in some respects, I think it does a much better job of explaining the fundamental forces at work then their wonking on about states and all that... second year stuff. Their examples are all about probability and math with two possible answers, but if you narrow down to a single concrete example, there's only one answer and it was that way from the time the particles became entangled. Sure it could have been up or down, but mine was up, so yours has to have been down. That's it. Their model doesn't understand time or what actually did happen very well, which tends to make their explanation... confusing...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    143. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps I'm too much of a novice in this matter, but from your description these issues are not insurmountable.

      If you're able to encode a series of bits...

      And these bits start in a random state...

      You could include a signature with each message, long enough that it's unlikely to be random noise.

      Alternatively, based on your description, it might be strategic to send messages at a consistent interval. The receiving party can check the data once for each interval, knowing that it's been updated.

    144. Re:If I recall..... by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      You can say that all the evidence points to FTL being impossible.

    145. Re:If I recall..... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You can't prove a negative.

    146. Re:If I recall..... by 0x537461746943 · · Score: 2

      I read an article that researches slowed light down to an almost stand still awhile back. So what would happen if you slowed light down on one of the two entangled particles and then read the one that was not slowed down? Would the slowed down light particle then flip to what it should be or would is take awhile for it to do so? It would be an interesting test I think.

    147. Re:If I recall..... by josath · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing you and the other reply is missing: There's no way to encode, you cannot change the value of the bit! You both take the same measurement and both get the same result, but there's now way of forcing that result to be 1 or 0. You're both flipping a coin, and the coins will always land heads or both will land tails, but it's random and you have no control over it.

      --
      sig? uhh, umm, ok
    148. Re:If I recall..... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Here is what i said:

      "No. No it wouldn't. Quantum entanglement does not allow for faster than light communication. Common myth.

      -- MyLongNickName"

      What is incorrect about it? Can you even explain what quantum entanglement means? Probably not if you think it implies FTL communication.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    149. Re:If I recall..... by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      This is not clear, could you provide a car analogy please?

    150. Re:If I recall..... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Ok, so imagine for a second that I gave your car herpes. After that, the example is pretty much the same!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    151. Re:If I recall..... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      What he means is that our current understanding of physics might be wrong and maybe Quantum Entanglement does allow FTL communication.

      Which kind of ignores that the only reason we thought QE was possible -- and then actually did it -- was because our current theory said so.

      It's possible that the theory is wrong in exactly the way he thinks, of course, but it's a bit ridiculously presumptive to believe it is (and in the process accuse scientists of the baseless assumptions).

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    152. Re:If I recall..... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1
      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    153. Re:If I recall..... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      I think your explanation of TheDarkMaster's thesis is accurate. However, it is absurd... basically he can apply the "scientist might be wrong, So i'll believe what I want" to anything from evolution, to gravity to the earth revolving around the Sun.

      Building on what you said, the theory behind quantum entaglement was developed decades before we could actually carry out experiments, and now experiments have verifed what we understand about quantum mechanics. It is weird stuff, and certainly counterintutive to those of us who live in the macro world, but it has been shown to be true over and over.

      Every discussion I've had with someone who insists that entanglement means FTL communication boils down to one misunerstanding: they think the "sender" gets to choose the state of the particle being observed. Once that is disspelled, it becomes much easier to understand why it cannot be used for communication of information. It is a weird phenomenon... one I read with a lot of skepticism years and years ago, but when you see the results of decades of experiments, you begin to realize it is true.

      One could say the same thing about relativity... it certainly is not intuitive, yet our GPS system relies on it to make adjustments in its timing.

      So, I have little patience for "the scientists might be wrong" from someone not offering up any rationalle other than "people aren't perfect they make mistakes".

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    154. Re:If I recall..... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know... seems to me that's a great way to generate private encryption keys at 2 different locations without having to worry about anyone capturing those keys in transit.

      The entagled photons have still to travel to both parties.

      Why shouldn't it be possible to measure one of them on its way and thus gain the key?

      Is there a way to notice if a measurement was taken on it?

      Indeed. Only if both sides happen to compare what they measure, can they find out whether somebody collapsed the wave-function on the way. But that requires them to already have a secure channel. I re-iterate: Completely useless for communication. If you can already transport things securely, transport an one-time pad, that is mathematically secure. If you cannot, this stuff will not help at all.

      This Quantum-BS is basically worthless for all the application the cretin media is hyping it. It does have applications, for example better LEDs.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    155. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I recall... it is in my posts in groups or my emails that indeed it is how it works and you can go further... remember those God gameboards where Gods move pieces and in some real world things happen, albeit with some Free Will (Gods s game)? Some future possibilities for this technology are **intergalactic travel** and **time travel**. Danilo J Bonsignore

    156. Re:If I recall..... by wamatt · · Score: 1

      Out of interest, why is it a problem if communication is FTL versus physical matter travelling.

      Never really understood why information FTL would be such an issue.

    157. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you stop it from changing? Can you make it change? There you go, a 1 and a 0 you can now do computing and communication.

    158. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or in other words, if Person A observes a living Schrodinger's Cat in his box, Person B will get a dead one in his entangled box instantly, which will be there for him to see when he opens the box.

      Ditto: Gods s gameboard. Lets hope their gameboard is the dead ones... !*

    159. Re:If I recall..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... we would need to wait for light to tell us that that solar system out there that is totally similar to THIS Solar system is indeed similar to these Solar system, but conceptually events and affairs would be strongly correlated instantaneously. It is verification that has to wait and be mediated. So conceptually if we build a good enough model here, the thing would communicate with the real It out there and viceversa. So we move the model, the It moves unison too. For complex models it would explain deviations between simulations and expected results. This is intuitive: we EXPECT there to be life in Solar systems similar to ours with planets within the same life thresholds, and we even expect it to be chemically similar if not the same, which is almost an oxymoron, but the line is thin. :D

    160. Re:If I recall..... by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      Isn't this how the Ansible from Ender's Game works? Two particles made to be in the exact same state, despite being physically separated? Too bad we couldn't have put this type of technology on Voyager 1 and 2.

      Captain Janeway could have used it

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  2. Why the Canaries of all places? by stevegee58 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Seems like a strange place to do quantum research.

    1. Re:Why the Canaries of all places? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's to provide early warning in the event of a quantum accident - you know something went wrong when the Canaries are both alive and dead.

    2. Re:Why the Canaries of all places? by operagost · · Score: 1

      They had another team working on their special RFC 1149 implementation.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Why the Canaries of all places? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because they had a telescope on the islands that could be directed at transmitter 143 km away over open ocean. It just happened these islands already had the things this experiment needed.

    4. Re:Why the Canaries of all places? by captainpanic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think we should mod this 'hilarious' instead of funny. 10 points, sir A. Coward.

    5. Re:Why the Canaries of all places? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      If you are going to scientific research.
      You have a choice.
      Montana,
      Siberia,
      or
      Some tropical island. Where would you choose?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Why the Canaries of all places? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Seems like a strange place to do quantum research.

      Relatively low pollution, for one thing.
      Their earlier attempts in a desert failed, in part due to sand pollution.

    7. Re:Why the Canaries of all places? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      The Canary Islands are the Cancun and Las Vegas of Europe: a boozy sun sex sand party romp. Where else would you travel with research grant money?

      Although, what happens is Vegas, stays in Vegas, so I am not sure if Quantum Information can be transmitted outside the islands.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:Why the Canaries of all places? by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

      50 quatloos on the anonymous newcomer!

    9. Re:Why the Canaries of all places? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Physicist 1: I'm writing a grant for our quantum teleportation experiment. Where should we do it? We could go from MIT to Columbia Univ in NYC?

      Physicist 2: Maybe we can convince the public that this research needs to be done somewhere isolated. . . and tropical. I know - let's write up the grant to include a budget to go to some islands.

      Physicist 1: Puerto Rico? Dominican Republic?

      Physicist 2: Too many tourists. . . I know - the Canaries!

    10. Re:Why the Canaries of all places? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Does that mean this only works via line-of-sight? Why use this over radio to talk to satellites?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:Why the Canaries of all places? by wmbetts · · Score: 1

      Montana, what are you some communist trying to hold America back?

      --
      "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
    12. Re:Why the Canaries of all places? by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      you know something went wrong when the Canaries are both alive and dead.

      Zombie canaries?!?

    13. Re:Why the Canaries of all places? by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 1

      I heard from Rupert Ursin that this is the longest free-space range on Earth that has significant infrastructure at both sides. This is to say, scientists can keep small optics labs in telescope buildings, and live in hotels. Also we had a 1 meter diameter telescope at the receiver station in Tenerife (normally used for optical communication with satellites), which is no small beast and it occupies its own dome. One could of course find many longer ranges between mountains, but logistics would become more expensive and difficult... we'd have to build and drive (or airlift) a container full of gear, and probably live in a tent for months.

      Here is a picture of La Palma station sending a tracking beam to Tenerife, above clouds: http://www.vad1.com/lab/pictures/La-Palma-JKT-tracking-beam-4.jpg

      By the way one doesn't get to clill out on beach very much. It's a long drive to the mountaintops where the observatories are situated. When I was there last April, we had snow in the mountains on both islands. I had, like, one day on beach and two weeks of night shifts in the labs. This still was a lot of fun :).

      --
      17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
    14. Re:Why the Canaries of all places? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you are not aware that the Canaries whole economy is pretty much based on tourism.
      If you want to get away from tourists, the Canaries is not the place to be.

      Yes I got that it was a joke, doesn't mean I can't correct you.

  3. Quantum Network Enabled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick! Someone trademark "Quantum Network Enabled" before Apple does!

    And patent a "system of using quantum entanglement for communications" - before Apple does!

    1. Re:Quantum Network Enabled by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      You're thinking too small. Do a grep of the patent database and replace every instance of "Internet", "Online", "Wireless Communications", etc with "Quantum Teleportation".

      Just, the time isn't right yet - patents have a shelf life. The trick is to file the patents just before the products hit the market. Timing is everything if you're going to troll.

    2. Re:Quantum Network Enabled by zlives · · Score: 1

      that patent may or may not already exist... but i am sure if some one uses it... they will be sued.

    3. Re:Quantum Network Enabled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late. They've already been granted the patent.

      (just kidding.. haha)

      They've already been pre-emptively awarded all patents that may be applied for in the future, so this one is covered under that, even though it is theoretically impossible, if someone DOES make it work, they own it.

      Especially if the has rounded corners. But even if it doesn't. So there. You owe me 1 BILLION dollars.

      Appropriate captcha: SLANDER! LOL

  4. Not Star Trek transporters, but communicators! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure the communicators in Star Trek use quantum teleportation. They regularly speak with no latency over light-year distances.

    1. Re:Not Star Trek transporters, but communicators! by dingen · · Score: 1

      No they don't. The folks in Star Trek only communicate by audio when they are very close to each other (e.g. someone on a planet and a ship orbiting that planet, or two ships within clear visual range). They can pick up signals from light years away, but there is no indication that there isn't a lot of latency going on.

      And as others have pointed out earlier in this discussion, quantum teleportation is not faster than light.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    2. Re:Not Star Trek transporters, but communicators! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the communicators in Star Trek use quantum teleportation. They regularly speak with no latency over light-year distances.

      Not so much.

    3. Re:Not Star Trek transporters, but communicators! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. The captain occasionally talks with star fleet command with near latency, but it's due to sunspace transmissions being FTL, not quantum teleportation. Once they get far enough out, the latency becomes big enough to be noticeable; see the Voyager series, or the episode of TNG with the Traveler.

    4. Re:Not Star Trek transporters, but communicators! by dingen · · Score: 2

      I should know better than to discuss Star Trek on Slashdot.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
  5. Put Another Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, it's not teleportation. Thanks.

    1. Re:Put Another Way by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      Or to put it another way, it is.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Put Another Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it really isn't.
      As far as I can tell they are still transmitting the information via traditional means.
      So it's read out some quantum info, transmit it to the other side, reassemble it into quantum info.
      It's like saying you're teleporting movement if you connect a wheel to a dynamo, via a wire to a motor and a wheel.
      When you turn one wheel, the other also turns.
      That is not teleportation.

    3. Re:Put Another Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you call the use of a maximally entangled two-qubit state "traditional", then I guess we're firmly in the quantum era.

    4. Re:Put Another Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the previous commenter said that as a joke: "to put it another way" (then he says the reverse of the previous statement).
      e.g.
      -Yes
      -Or to put it another way, NO.

    5. Re:Put Another Way by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

      It's teleportation because your qbit state is destroyed in A and created in B, and does not travel from A to B.

    6. Re:Put Another Way by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's actually precisely the way teleportation works in Star Trek and most other fiction. The teleported version is a copy that it reassembled at the destination. Usually the original is destroyed (which is actually a requirement of real quantum teleportation), except when the writers are stuck for a plot idea and there's a teleporter accident.

    7. Re:Put Another Way by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      It's not teleportation, it's quantum teleportation. Complaining that it's not real teleportation is like complaining that an electron making a quantum leap isn't actually jumping. It's a compound word made up of two smaller words that, when taken together, have a different meaning.

    8. Re:Put Another Way by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Which means it is not transporting anything. Just murdering and making a copy of the victim.

      Sure the copy thinks he is the one who stepped into the device at the other end, but he is not.

    9. Re:Put Another Way by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yours is a semantic objection, and a nonproductive and ridiculous one at that. If you take a one year round the world trip, the "you" who arrives home won't be the "you" who left either. Essentially all of your atoms will have been swapped for others. Does that mean airplanes, cars and ships aren't transporting anything either?

    10. Re:Put Another Way by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      It is not semantics.
      The person who started the trip and ended the trip using conventional methods was made of all the same stuff and changed slowly over time. Instead of just a exact replica coming out at the end.

      I want to stay alive, not think I stayed alive.

    11. Re:Put Another Way by KramberryKoncerto · · Score: 1

      Cells in your body copy themselves and die, everyday. Lucky for your argument, at least most brain cells don't get replaced over one's lifetime. I'd be satisfied if my consciousness is also transferred, which is not something that can be verified in debate.

    12. Re:Put Another Way by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      Larry Niven wrote about this. He also talked about what kind of society would develop depending on whether or not you needed a transmitter and receiver, or just a transmitter, issues with conservation of energy, distance limits and so on. Exercise in Speculation: The Theory and Practice of Teleportation.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    13. Re:Put Another Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a (Not twilight zone, the other show from the 90s) episode covering this exact situation (the original being kept in isolation until they were sure the duplicate made it.), additionally Schlock Mercenary's entire opening plot arc revolved around that paradigm, and in fact lead to the creation of a whole race of ... a man?

      Point is: farfetched, but certainly not unprecedented in sci-fi literature.

    14. Re:Put Another Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you wouldn't even *think* you stayed alive... rather someone else would *think* they had your past, and were you... !

      Seeing as radiowaves cannot be seen, and were not discovered until the 19th century, who is to say that life isn't more than the particles that can be identified/transported by any particular instance of a teleportation machine?

      Certainly, I would not be prepared to take that chance, no matter how real a person might appear after stepping out of a teleportation machine :D

      Great cartoon about teleportation, concerning these issues "To be":
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUXKUcsvhQc

    15. Re:Put Another Way by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      So your problem is that it happens too fast? What would be an acceptable delay? A nanosecond? Ten minutes? Twenty? An hour? Day? Week? Clearly a year is okay....

      In a hypothetical teleporter every one of the elementary particles in your body is effectively replaced with one that is in precisely the same quantum state as the original, except for position. Since elementary particles with the same quantum numbers are interchangeable, the "new" you is you, more so than the you that took a year, a minute or a microsecond to make the trip.

    16. Re:Put Another Way by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Considering that nobody went faster than a horse can run until the 19th century, and it was believed by some that doing so would kill you, how do you know that moving faster than a horse can run doesn't steal your soul? Certainly, you shouldn't take that chance, no matter how soulful a person might appear after stepping out of a car, plane or train.

    17. Re:Put Another Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that there's not any even remote similarity between Quantum teleportation and regular teleportation.

      Quantum teleportation is more like "Quantum Synchronization", as it's defining characteristic is a relationship between the states of two distant photons.

    18. Re:Put Another Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      had a lot of experience with star trek teleportation, have you?

    19. Re:Put Another Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not like a simple fax machine printing out a copy, where in principle, you could print more copies after making the first scan. In quantum mechanics, you can't just copy the unknown state of an object. You can make a measurement, and then try to make a copy based on the results, but that measurement will destroy some possible states, such as a superposition. Quantum teleportation can move the state from point A to point B, including states you can't just make based on a measurement of the original. In other words, the state disappears at A, appears at B, but doesn't allow you to make multiple copies at B or elsewhere. Arguments over whether point B has the original or a reproduction, etc., are meaningless, and the only meaningful trying to be conveyed is you can effectively move a state but can't duplicate it.

    20. Re:Put Another Way by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That is not the issue at all.
      The issue is that it is not transporting anything. Merely killing one and creating a very good copy.

      You can prove this by the fact that you could create 100 of them at the end point.

    21. Re:Put Another Way by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 1

      We transmit a quantum state, which is impossible to transmit via classical communication.

      The auxiliary classical communication (about two bits per quantum state) has to be there, because faster-than-light communication is impossible. These classical bits carry no information about the quantum state being teleported. If one could teleport a quantum state without this auxiliary classical communication, faster-than-light communication could be implemented as well... which impossible in nature as far as we know.

      --
      17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
    22. Re:Put Another Way by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      No, you can't. Quantum teleportation destroys the original as part of the process and allows the creation of only one "copy" at the destination.

    23. Re:Put Another Way by ACE209 · · Score: 1

      To put it yet another way: you are both correct. (until someone measures one of you)

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    24. Re:Put Another Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, it's not teleportation. Thanks.

      Again? Bahamas!

    25. Re:Put Another Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, ceoyoyo, if teleportation required that someone put a pistol to your forehead and pull the trigger, you would be OK, knowing that an exact copy of you will continue existence somewhere else even though *your* thread of consciousness is cut short?

  6. ping times by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 0

    I for one look forward to ubitiquous 1ms ping times in the future, where the electrical circuits in the router are actaully slower than the data transfer.
    hah.

    1. Re:ping times by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your 1ms ping time will be in compensation for your 80% packet loss.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:ping times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually with the low latency retransmission could easily recover from any packet loss. TCP wouldn't work well, I would need to be tunneled.

      John l. Sokol

  7. Why Satellites? by sergioag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you are using quantum teleportation, why you even need a satellite???

    1. Re:Why Satellites? by operagost · · Score: 2

      And what does God need with a star ship?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Why Satellites? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Because it's not the kind teleportation you're thinking of. You still need a classical channel.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Why Satellites? by s_p_oneil · · Score: 2

      I think his point was valid. If instant communication is possible between a hub in the US and a hub in without wires or line-of-sight issues, there's little point spending the money to put those communication hubs into orbit. Sure we'd still have classical channels leading from those hubs, and we'd still need satellites for things like GPS, but the need for communication satellites would be greatly reduced.

      Of course, the point is moot if the bandwidth sucks on these things. If it's 300 baud, I don't care how amazing the ping time is. ;-)

    4. Re:Why Satellites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. You still need a carrier medium to transmit the information about the quantum states. Although using quantum communication to transmit quantum states would be the holy grail, it's not going to happen. That would be like putting the cart before the horse. At least as we know it.

    5. Re:Why Satellites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've tuned my internet radio into the symphony orchestra station, but nothing's changed...

    6. Re:Why satellites? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You are entirely wrong. It is "satellites" because this quantum nonsense cannot deal with intermediate stations! Hence LOS is critical and over these distances you only get it to satellites.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Why Satellites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's 300 baud

      That just depends on how many I stick together... Stick 5000 in one room and you got... 1.5mb... Now how big are they?

    8. Re:Why Satellites? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      If it's 300 baud

      That just depends on how many I stick together... Stick 5000 in one room and you got... 1.5mb... Now how big are they?

      and you'd have 1.5mbits of random data that are the same at both places? what's that gonna do to you? use it as a lookup table for packing algorithm for data to be sent over the classical channel?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Why Satellites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like Bach or Beethoven?

    10. Re:Why Satellites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the bandwidth would be 0. You can't transmit information over the quantum channel, just synchronized randomness.

      It's only use is generating an eavesdropper-proof one time pad that can be used to encrypt conventional communications.

    11. Re:Why Satellites? by zlives · · Score: 1

      so "Quantum Teleportation Sends Information 143 Kilometers" is basically sensationalist bullshit

    12. Re:Why Satellites? by ACE209 · · Score: 1

      *zaps operagost with a lightning bolt from the eyes.*
      I like its color.

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    13. Re:Why Satellites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all satellites are used as relay for communications. I would guess that relatively few are in fact used as such.
      Weather satellites, spy satellites, even broadcast satellites would benefit from this.

  8. Great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great news for fans of real time video games.

    No more lag!!

    I am eagerly awaiting the first inter galactic quantum Starcraft championship.

  9. Uses by Cinnaman · · Score: 1

    Now, if we can just use it with missions further than the earth's orbit we'll be cooking with gas.

    I wonder how much data can be transmitted with this technology.

    1. Re:Uses by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 2

      I wonder how much data can be transmitted with this technology.

      None.

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  10. I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't understand exactly what's going on, so that probably explains why I don't see the advantage of this.
    From reading the abstract I get the impression that they are transmitting the information via lasers to the other location.
    How is this different then using other frequencies in the spectrum? Aren't you still limited to the speed of light? So what is the advantage of this?
    Seems like it adds complication without gaining much, other than being quantum.

    1. Re:I don't understand by locofungus · · Score: 2

      I agree and I was hoping someone else would have commented by now.

      TFS talks about efficiency. I can only guess that they can improve the bandwidth of the communication by using quantum teleportation but I'm not sure how and would be intrigued to find out.

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    2. Re:I don't understand by dingen · · Score: 2

      The main advantage is that it uses a lot less power.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    3. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can you explain how? They are still transmitting photons through the air.
      How does that consume less power than sending them over an optical cable?
      Not to mention all the additional entanglement and de-entanglement steps.

    4. Re:I don't understand by quintus_horatius · · Score: 1

      As best as I can infer from brushing up from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation, what this allows you to do is verify the validity of a message. So I send you a message that says "blah blah blah, and the photon should be in this state", and you check your entangled photon and see that it's in that state exactly so you know you received the message properly from me. It's a reliable signature with superior encryption (since it is provably unforgeable)

      Can someone else correct me or elaborate further on what quantum teleportation is good for?

    5. Re:I don't understand by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It is even worse than this: You lose most of the advantages of classical communication, like relay stations, etc.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:I don't understand by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      only advantage is that you'll both have the same random number.

      when you put it that way, the use cases drop to almost nothing. but if they put teleportation on the project pr title, they'll get funding since people are stupid.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:I don't understand by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1

      TFS talks about efficiency. I can only guess that they can improve the bandwidth of the communication by using quantum teleportation but I'm not sure how and would be intrigued to find out.

      Tim.

      Seems like increasing the bandwidth could indeed be the case. From what I understand of how this is working, they are storing the information in the photon itself, which differs from how we send info with light today by just using the absence / presence of photons. Just by the fact that we can now leave the stream on the whole time we're sending info should boost the potential bandwidth.

      This is just my layman's understanding from reading a bit into it this morning though; I could easily be wrong.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Just in Time by DexPleiadian · · Score: 1

    I've got some electrons that need to be in Indianapolis by 10!

    1. Re:Just in Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can pass the state verification but your particles will have to remain here, sorry.

    2. Re:Just in Time by DexPleiadian · · Score: 1

      is there a charge for electron impersonators?

  13. HOLY SHIT IT'S THE REPLICATOR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Quantum teleportation is not how it is made out in Star Trek though. Instead of sending an object (in this case a photon) from one location to another; the information of its quantum state is sent, making a photon on the other end look identical to the original."

    So since matter is energy, if you can make the quantum state of object A identical to object B, IT'S THE REPLICATOR FROM STAR TREK ZOMFG I WANNA CHEESEBURGER

    1. Re:HOLY SHIT IT'S THE REPLICATOR! by chichilalescu · · Score: 1

      mod parent up. while they seem kind of overenthusiastic, it's true that quantum teleportation is a lot more like the replicator in Star Trek than anything else.

      --
      new sig
    2. Re:HOLY SHIT IT'S THE REPLICATOR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the scanning process inevitably destroys the original, and the data is so fragile it can't be copied, only transformed, so now you're back to a teleporter...

    3. Re:HOLY SHIT IT'S THE REPLICATOR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's the slight drawback that object B is destroyed in the process - you only ever get one cheeseburger.

  14. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The difference here, from what I understand, is just this: When you fax something, you print ink/toner on another piece of paper somewhere else, that 'resembles' the original document. On different paper, perhaps written in Pencil, etc.

    In this case, the photon at the end is made to be 'exactly identical'. So it would be the equiv of sending a fax of a pencil written document on cotton fiber blend paper. And getting a pencil written cotton fiber blend copy on the other end. That you could even still erase, since it's real pencil ;)

    (OK OK, so that isn't possible ... yet .., this is just currently making a 'photon identical' ... but that's the conceptual difference)

  15. Non-paywalled paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  16. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by ledow · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not quite as simple as teleportation, it's just given that name:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

    Most specifically:

    "Suppose Alice has a qubit in some arbitrary quantum state

    The components of a maximally entangled two-qubit state are distributed to Alice and Bob.

    In the end, the qubit in Bob's possession will be in the desired state."

    So what Alice is doing is actually modifying the REMOTE qubits to be identical to the LOCAL qubits AFTER the initial information exchange has occurred. You're now literally turning someone's remote blank paper into a copy of the document you have yourself by using a little set of numbers that you determined between yourself last week.

  17. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it is a qauntum state being sent. And a quantum state is so delicate that the act of measuring it irreversibly changes that state in an un-knowable way. With a fax, you measure the image, and replicate it. With quantum teleportation, you can't measure the image. Instead, you perform a special type of measurement that does two things: it destroys the state, and it gives you no information about the state. Then, on the other end, you remake the state using the measurement outcome, but that measurement outcome never told you what the state was. So, really, you are destroying the state here, making it there, all the while having no idea what you destroyed or what you made. Yet, you still did it perfectly. Almost like you teleported it.

    There is a thing in quantum mechanics called the no-cloning theorem, which tells us a quantum state can never be copied or cloned. Emails and faxes are copies. Quantum teleportation is not, because it is impossible to copy a quantum state.

  18. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by locofungus · · Score: 1

    The quantum state is copied (actually it's not copied, it's transferred - quantum copying would imply faster than light communication)

    Going back to the more common example of momentum plus position, this would be like transferring the momentum and position from one electron to another (i.e. moving one electron into exactly the same place + velocity as the one you are "copying"). There is no measurement of position or momentum happening so the uncertainty principle is not violated and the transfer process changes the position and momentum of the original so you do not end up with two identical electrons.

    Tim.

    --
    God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
  19. 143 km by roman_mir · · Score: 0

    143 km ought to be enough for anybody.

  20. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can somebody explain to me in which way does this differs as to sending a fax or email and making the fax or email on the other end look identical to the original?

    Destroy the original. Seriously, how is the exact duplicate not the original?

    If a teleporter is not teleporting matter, but rather decomposing matter and recording it's state, transmitting the state, and the replicating that state from a repository of "base" matter, what is the difference?

    See http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/introduction.html for a good philosophical discussion of the issue.

  21. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, that's not right. The difference is that with the fax, you need a carrier for that information in the form of electrons, photons, or some sort of wave (radio, microwave, etc.). All of these things can be stopped, blocked, or degraded by interference. In quantum teleportation, you just have two objects separated by a long distance that are "entangled" and share the same state. So when one is a certain way, the other is too. No chance of interference, and the information is transferred instantaneously.

  22. Armchair Scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having read as much of the TFA as I can (paywall), here's my dumb question: The clocks have to be synched to within 1 nanosecond for the algorithm to work correctly. But the two sites on earth they tested are relatively fixed motionwise. Doesn't relativity say that the satellite times will be slightly offset, in which case it might be difficult to sync them?

  23. I haven't thought this all the way through... by darkharlequin · · Score: 1

    ...but doesn't that mean that information from the frame of reference of the sattelite will arrive 300ms in the future, or however long the dilatation of the gravity well of earth allows?

    --
    i am so very tired....
  24. Well - that explains Fermi's Paradox. by SoupIsGood+Food · · Score: 2

    The reason why we aren't receiving radio signals from distant civilizations is that they're not using radios to communicate... they've figured out something better.

    1. Re:Well - that explains Fermi's Paradox. by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      This is a valid assumption. We have only been using radio for an eyeblink in time, and already many of are signals are directed and lower power. Not much noise leakage or signal strength for others to pick up. Assuming technology continues to advance, hat trend should continue, and our radio signal will look more and more like noise at a distance. Then, if better or different technologies supplant radio it's over.
      Who says ET doesn't communicate with lasers, or quantum entanglement, or by manipulating the string patterns in the dark energy matrix?

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re:Well - that explains Fermi's Paradox. by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Also, cryptography. Properly encrypted data should look like noise even if it's right in front of you.

    3. Re:Well - that explains Fermi's Paradox. by leromarinvit · · Score: 1

      That could very well be true, but from what I gather from the wiki article, quantum teleportation doesn't seem to be a suitable candidate. It looks more like a method to transfer the state of a qubit to a remote location without physically transporting the qubit itself. Crucially, it involves sending the measured state via a classical channel (i.e. radio).

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    4. Re:Well - that explains Fermi's Paradox. by leromarinvit · · Score: 1

      That depends more on the modulation used. Yes, encrypted data looks random, but if you're sending it using a simple modulation scheme, it's very obvious that you're sending something, even if it looks like random data.

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    5. Re:Well - that explains Fermi's Paradox. by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I hadn't thought about modulation. Rethinking it, I'm not sure whether it is possible to robustly transfer undetectable data in an RF signal.

    6. Re:Well - that explains Fermi's Paradox. by leromarinvit · · Score: 1

      You can't hide it from someone who knows what to look for (otherwise noone could ever receive it), but you can obfuscate it from a casual observer by spreading the power over a wide frequency band, spreading the necessary symbol energy in time (transmitting at a lower symbol rate and lower power), changing frequency and modulation according to a pseudorandom pattern, etc.

      Not that I'm an expert at this, just some ideas off the top of my head.

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
  25. Natural by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    One of the solutions to the Fermi paradox is that civilizations invent something better than radio waves for communication, and thus the "radio window" is relatively brief, and so we won't hear anything because there's nothing to hear.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  26. udachny, not just a city in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    udachny is also roman_mir's sock puppet. after being moderated down for trolling, roman_mir has now resorted to heavy puppetry to continue to spread his message. apparently he has no trouble with the obvious hypocrisy of a firm adherent to a religion that whole-heartedly supports suppression of opposing viewpoints going out and making another account to spread his message when he feels he is being suppressed.

    here's a hint, roman_mir / udachny. if you pay slashdot a few bucks you can get a subscriber bonus on your messages. you know, that whole free market thing you love so much? money talks here, too.

  27. ScienceDaily doesn't give enough details. by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

    This one actually explains it better: http://phys.org/news/2012-09-km-physicists-quantum-teleportation-distance.html No FTL communication but does give better security. Maybe better/faster compression to?

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
  28. Galactic Internet with Zero latency by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine Xbox 360,000 Live gaming across the solar system.

    Woot! ;-)

    1. Re:Galactic Internet with Zero latency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or PSN network for that matter only for free!!

    2. Re:Galactic Internet with Zero latency by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Or ISN (Inter-Stellar News Network) - I thinkt hat's what it was called on Babylon 5.

  29. Ok, what? by Marble68 · · Score: 1

    So basically - you start with two photons next to each, entangle them, then put one on a ship and it sails away. Then, you can tweak the one photon you kept, and every time you do, the other reacts as if you were the one tweaking it? Is it instantaneous? As in, could you put 32 of them side by side and create a 32 bit bus that spans any distance and yet provides connectivity as if where simply plugged into a USB port? Does the reaction on the other end diminish over distance? If not, why not use this to talk to a mars or lunar rover? No line of site necessary?

    This really is an incredible phenomenon. I've read about it before, it just doesn't make sense to me.

    --
    /me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
    1. Re:Ok, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK it's not instantaneous.

    2. Re:Ok, what? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      There is no FTL communication. The only thing you can do is toss a die synchronously, i.e. you get a random bit with FTL synchronization. But as you have absolutely no influence on what bit you get, it is not usable for communication in any form.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Ok, what? by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Then, you can tweak the one photon you kept, and every time you do, the other reacts as if you were the one tweaking it?

      You can't 'tweak' it. Just measure it and thereby know/enforce that the measurement on the other side is opposite to (or directly related to) your own. Moreover, the entangled state disappears after one measurement, if I'm not mistaken.

      I found this section of the wikipedia article on entanglement to be most informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Concept

  30. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I remember correctly it violates the speed of light limit so you can send information a hell of a lot faster as you don't have to deal with the delay when designing the communication equipment.

  31. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

    it's exactly identical to the quantum state from point A before teleportation. But state A is modied, so after teleportation you have destroyed the state. (or modified the state to be more precise) So it's a copy at point B, but the original does not exists anymore.

  32. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by heatseeker_around · · Score: 1

    For example, does it mean that it is like if I have a set of 2 blank pages. I give you one. You go home, I go home. Then later in that day, I write something on my blank page. At this exact moment, the same modifications are applied on your blank page ?

  33. quantum phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we get a quantum satellite phone and put Verizon Wireless in it's place?

  34. faster than light speed? by schlachter · · Score: 0

    So does this mean that there can be faster than light communication?

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  35. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by the_humeister · · Score: 1

    You destroy the copy on your end leaving the transmitted "copy" as the only one left. At least that's how Star Trek transporters work, sort of.

  36. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, i think i'm slowly getting this. It means it is possible to transfer quantum states over a classical channel.

    If I follow your analogy and the WP article it seems to me the local document is destroyed in the process. It also looks like the process is destoying something on your side and remotely that has to come from the same source (EPR pair in the article). Is it possible to have a virtually infinite source of EPR pairs or is it something that should be "refilled" ? That looks great for security concerns (like a one time pad) but not very practical for a satellite.

  37. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by Princeofcups · · Score: 2

    You have two cats, one live an one dead. You put them in identical boxes, shuffle them around, and send one random box to someone across the country. When they get the box, they call you up and ask, "what did you send me?" You open your box, and if it's a live cat, you say "I sent you a dead cat," or visa versa.

    No cats were harmed in this description.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  38. Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't Zeilinger do this every four or five years? I mean, they're still good demonstrations, but...

  39. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

    For example, does it mean that it is like if I have a set of 2 blank pages. I give you one. You go home, I go home. Then later in that day, I write something on my blank page. At this exact moment, the same modifications are applied on your blank page ?

    No, more like you have a set of 2 blank pages, and you write "A" and "B" on them. You then seal them in envelopes, shuffle them randomly, and give me one. We go to our separate homes. Later in the day, you open your envelope and see it says "B". You call me up and tell me on the phone that my paper says "A", even though I've not opened my envelope, and magically, you're right!

  40. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

    No. You write what you want on your page, then decide that you want to send it to me. You mesure what you have written, your page turn gray (immediately), you send me light, my page has now what you have written. (at time T measurement + light travel time (+ a time >= 0))

  41. Why satellites? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    The reason for using satellites is that many frequencies of electromagnetic radiation require line-of-sight for communication. Putting a satellite in space gives it line-of-sight to many points one the earth's surface which lack line-of-sight, otherwise I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that quantum teleportation does not have the same requirement of line of sight?

    If it does not require line of sight, doesn't it completely obsolete satellites? Well, I suppose you might use quantum communications for the uplink, say from a newsroom or telecom center, but use EMR for a broadcast to satellite receivers. For a one-to-many transmission, that's still a good model, but for direct site-to-site communications, couldn't you use quantum communication directly (I hate the term quantum teleportation - if it's information, let's call it communication, not teleportation, less confusion).

    This is a great step, but I think the next steps are to keep increasing the distance, so we can do tran-continental and trans-global communications directly with no satellites and no wires. How awesome would that be?

  42. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by locofungus · · Score: 1

    It's more like:

    You have two pieces of paper that you "entangle" whatever that means in this case and give one away.

    Then you go home and paint a picture on your piece.

    You take a digital scan of what you've painted and send it to the person with the other piece of paper.

    They "print" the scan onto their piece of paper but instead of just getting a digital print they get the identical picture, paint, brush strokes etc but your copy of the picture is destroyed in the process.

    Basically you've managed to transfer a physical copy as though you posted it but all you've actually exchanged is information (plus the earlier preparation of a pair of blank sheets of paper)

    Tim.

    --
    God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
  43. Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your comment is the most insightful on this thread. pedantic indeed!

  44. There is no "quantum Internet" by gweihir · · Score: 1

    And hence, there will not be any "expansion" of it. It is also basically impossible. The Internet is packet-switched. Any quantum-communication method (should it ever be more as a stunt, which is highly doubtful) would necessarily be circuit-switched. ATM demonstrated how bad an idea that is for end-to-end communication.

    Summary: The usual quantum BS. Theory still says it is limited to light-speed (or rather cannot be used for communication at all), the communication is extremely sensitive to any kind of channel problems, bandwidth is low and there cannot be intermediate stations. On the other hand, there is zero need for this, classical technologies work quite well.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:There is no "quantum Internet" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could still use quantum communications for the point-to-point, thus eliminating the need for any cables.
      So this would replace the physical layer, you can still keep everything above that as it is.

    2. Re:There is no "quantum Internet" by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      It ain't about the communication, it's about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_encryption

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  45. Google car by StripedCow · · Score: 1

    Who wants an autonomous Google car if we can have teleportation instead?

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:Google car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who believes autonomous cars will arrive in their lifetime and "Star Trek like" teleportation during their grand-grand-...-grandkids. Hollywood-like teleportation is still like a fairytale while automomous cars in my belief are right around the corner.

  46. someone please explain this to me by PJ6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is the hope of the research team that this experiment will lead to commercial use of quantum teleportation to interact with satellites and ground stations. This will increase the efficiency of satellite communication...

    You can't send information via quantum teleportation, so exactly how do they plan to use it in satellite communication?

    1. Re:someone please explain this to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't send information via quantum teleportation

      Read the headline again: "Quantum Teleportation Sends Information 143 Kilometers"

    2. Re:someone please explain this to me by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      You can't send information via quantum teleportation

      Read the headline again: "Quantum Teleportation Sends Information 143 Kilometers"

      this is slashdot. don't trust the headline.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  47. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    But if you didn't measure the original state, how are you sure you correctly recreated it, let alone perfectly recreated? "Have faith, it's science"

  48. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by Keramos · · Score: 1

    Two things to note:

    First, they're not "teleporting" the photon. It's a quantum property (such as spin - which, also, by the way, doesn't have to do with the photon rotating in the way you'd think of, say, a ball spinning, but I digress) that is being "teleported" and applied to the target photon.

    Second, when you send a fax, the "picture" (or the information to recreate it) is sent along the wires (or optic fibres, radio waves, etc.) through space from one location to the other. With entangled particles, the effect that alters the target particle's property doesn't travel through space. It just affects it directly. That's why it's instantaneous (as opposed to travelling at the speed of light or less, like your fax signal) and called teleportation. The downside is that this teleportation effect cannot convey information.

  49. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by Guignol · · Score: 1

    Yes yes, except it is not really a copy (lookup for no cloning theorem) as this is impossible
    What happens is what you had at Alice's place is now at Bob's place, Alice has now just noise at her place, the original was 'destroyed'
    This is sort of neat too because in this way it really is what one would expect for teleportation vs telecopy

  50. article doesnt even understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with quantum entanglement if one atom you entagle rotates clockwise , the entangled one over somewhere else rotates exactly opposite aka counterclockwise.

    THUS you aren't sending you ever sendign a copy of you as you would be exactly opposite in everyway and maybe not a good way.

  51. Not like star trek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this *exactly* like star trek? I'm no trekkie, but I thought the teleporters made duplicates on the other end and then destroyed the original to make sure there was only one copy (hence some episode with a duplicate 'Number 1' or something). Not sure if that was a poor summary, or poor article, or poor memory on my part (but I'll put my money on the summary)

  52. but... Geostationary Orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geostationary orbit is a circular orbit 35,786 kilometers or 22,236 mi above the Earth's equator. Don't think 143km from TFA is going to get the job done.

  53. Re:How does this qualify as "teleportation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty good. its more like this though, I cut a piece of paper in half, give you half, we go a hundred miles apart, suddenly, the letter B appears on mine at the same instant A appears on yours. This outcome is random, it could have just as easily been BA as it could AB, but neither was known until the exact same time.

    Now, instead of using a "random state" A/B, we use a two very accurate watches instead. We get a new president who believes in space travel instead of welfare, I get into nasa and go into space, I orbit the earth a few *big number* times. We meet up, our watches would no longer show the same time (because in fact I had aged less than you, and my watch as well). However, our pieces of paper would still show A/B B/A at the exact same time.

  54. This article makes no sense. by fredrated · · Score: 1

    They talk about quantum communications, but communications cannot occur faster than the speed of light, so what are they on about?

    Also, they talk about hazy atmospheric conditions interfering with the experiment, but a major point of quantum intanglement is that the 'effect' does not pass through the interveining space, so how can atmospheric conditions interfer?

    1. Re:This article makes no sense. by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 1

      Atmospheric conditions matter because you still have to send one photon of the entangled pair over the link. When air is still and clear between the islands, roughly one-in-thousand photons make it from La Palma to the receiver telscope in Tenerife. Available technology limits how much of this loss can be tolerated, and there are inefficiencies in other parts of the experiment as well. The whole experiment is indeed at the edge of what is possible with today's technology (which is one of the reasons it's published in Nature). But, you know, technology improves with time.

      --
      17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
    2. Re:This article makes no sense. by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

      It's a quantum state cipher. The cipher and the message can not travel faster than light. Teleportation refers to the fact that the encoding particle-cipher becomes random when creating the message, leaving only the paired decoding particle able to decipher the message.

  55. FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FAIL. Higgs boson may have been (in a roundabout informal way of looking at things) a "myth," but much more importantly, it was also predicted, as part of a theory. FTL Quantum Entanglement, OTOH, is not predicted; there are no (AFAIK) theories which include that.

    You're idly speculating, like a creationist or a SciFi/Fantasy author. Nothing wrong with that (you might get a neat story idea, and some day, some of the things that you imagine, may even end up being found in reality), but meanwhile, the grownups are talking about science.

    There's currently nothing in science about FTL Quantum Entanglement. I'm not sure there's anything in science about FTL anything.

    1. Re:FAIL by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure there's anything in science about FTL anything.

      Actually, there is: they're called "tachyons". However they're just hypothetical particles at this point. But they were postulated by physicists, not sci-fi writers, so that seems to make them qualify as "anything in science".

  56. Something something by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    "... Wonton Burrito Meals. See you in class, Professor!"

  57. "same time" = what? by Datoyminaytah · · Score: 2

    OK, here are my questions:

    Assume two entangled particles, two synchronized atomic clocks, and two observers. Each observer has agreed to measure the state of their particle at a predetermined time, relative to their atomic clock. Assume one observer/clock/particle is on a spaceship that has been traveling near the speed of light for some time.

    What happens when the particles are observed? Will the results be the same, because somehow time is "linked" even though it seems to pass differently for each observer? Will the results be different, because the particles are somehow linked "instantaneously?" (What does that even mean in this context?)

    If the former, what happens if the particle is brought back to Earth? We should find the atomic clocks were no longer synchronized. (This part has been tested, right?) If so, wouldn't that mean the particles were permanently out of sync, and that by observing one of them, one could predict the future state of the other? As in, predicting the future?

    IANAP, just pointing out some apparent paradoxes that for all I know have been solved.

    --
    assert(birth_date<time-86400)
    1. Re:"same time" = what? by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 1

      And suppose the observers are John and Mary and suppose now John doesn't love Mary anymore. It makes everything interesting, but does it matter?

    2. Re:"same time" = what? by Datoyminaytah · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it matters, because if an encryption key is to be generated by having both sides observe their particle at "the same time," it's important to know how this is affected by time dilation.

      --
      assert(birth_date<time-86400)
  58. The PRACTICAL application by EnergyScholar · · Score: 2

    The practical application is that any teleportation/entanglement based Quantum Neural Networks (QNN) that happen to already exist on and around planet Earth communicate between nodes via quantum teleportation. Thus, the maximum Quantum Teleportation (QT) range is also the maximum distance between nodes. I happen to know that earth-orbital QT distances have been practical for one QNN for more than ten years, so it's about time that 'official' science caught up with this. Readers should note that the existence of ANY practical QNN remains classified, hidden, and secretive, although information about this advanced new (well, 22 years old, but newish) technology is gradually leaking out.

    Note that, as several people have pointed out, there must be a [steganographic] classical back channel to actually accomplish communication between nodes.

  59. So what happens if. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 2

    So what happens if two particles or photos are entangled, and are seperated by enough distance that there is human-scale lag (say 1/2 second to one second), and both ends of the link attempt to transmit at about the same time?

    Would that break the entanglement? Or would the information "pass each other" on the way, and each particle takes on the state that the other particle used to have - now they are still both entangled, but aren't in sync? Would a change to one without changing the other re-establish the synchronization? Would the changes oscillate back and forth in a sort of "standing wave"?

  60. Link to Paper by Skylax · · Score: 1

    Here is the link to the paper on arxiv without paywall:
    Quantum teleportation using active feed-forward between two Canary Islands

    By the way nowadays almost all physics papers can be found as a preprint on arxiv, the difference to the puplished version is usually not significant for the layman.

    Anyway, the main application of this is that you can use it to prepare entangled pairs of qubits to be used in various quantum secure communication schemes.
       

  61. OT: Forum editing... by Zinho · · Score: 1

    (dammit Slashdot! Let me edit my damned posts already!!!)

    You can edit your posts, it's called the "Preview" button. Once you hit "Submit" others start replying. If you then edit your post a little or a lot, the previous responders might have to edit theirs, ad infinitum (unless you have some kind of thread history like Wikipedia; which on /. would be an unreadable writhing mess--or is that what you're after, you devious wiggles).

    And yet, there are other forums that manage just fine, even with editing enabled. It occasionally results in someone revising their statement to make themselves look less foolish, but that's moderated by others quoting their original statement to capture its unaltered idiocy. Hilarity typically ensues. The decision to allow editing or not is at the discretion of the site administrators for forum frameworks that allow it, and while some take Slashdot's (and your) stance, others do not. Commenters who spend more time on edit-friendly boards miss that feature when they come here, because they're used to it.

    Please don't talk down to the people who want to edit their comments after submission; you may not prefer that style of forum, but many do and it's a valid preference.

    --
    "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
  62. I don't copy/pirate files.. by a2ms · · Score: 1

    .. I just quantum transport them

  63. 143 km if it's overhead by bythescruff · · Score: 1

    Most of the time, satellites are much more than 143 kilometres from their nearest ground station; even if they're orbiting at that kind of height, they spend nearly all of their time somewhere other than directly overhead. If you need further enlightenment, allow me to refer you to my esteemed colleague, Mister Pythagorus.

    --
    Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
  64. It's funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to hear people still arguing it's impossible even as they roll out the technology. It appears QE cannot be understood via classical physics.

    We still don't have a theory of everything that unites all theory - not even the standard model. Whether you like it or not, classical physics is going to get an overhaul - a renaissance if you will.

    1. Re:It's funny by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      No one is rolling out FTL communication. It is sad to see how many "nerds" hear a piece of information, do not fully understand it, then fill in the details with their own hopes and dreams about a Star Trek future, then hold onto their beliefs so firmly that they won't listen to an accurate description of what quantum entanglement truly is.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  65. Bop Ad (Douglas Adams) by Stolzy · · Score: 2

    I think Douglas Adams got it right on that front. In Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy he wrote about technology increasing at such a rate that the old "warships" which had been sent off to fight intergalactic wars arrived to find the wars had already been fought and won. Meaning, in 100 years from now our space travel technology will be so far advanced of the Voyager satellites that we could, essentially, travel out to them, pick them up, and return to Earth in 1/100th the time it took for them to travel the total distance they will have potentially travelled up to that time. Hypothetically speaking.

  66. Riding on Big Bang shock wave, futurewards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe once Scientists have a clue why time "appears" to flow only one way then we can start making predictions about how time is "supposed" to work.

    I think it is an easy one: each and every particle in universe is traveling at c, and the direction in time-space at which it is traveling is that particle's time axis. What we normally observe as velocities are just vector differences of slightly diverging or converging individual time axes. Acceleration is rotation of individual time axis in plane determined by time axis itself and direction of acceleration in 3d. Our perception of time having single natural direction is only due to the circumstance (Big Bang?) that most of what we observe near us is only slightly diverging from direction we are headed.

  67. Why is my gmail page divided in TWO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is showing some email leftover at the bottom, and now the page does not fill up the whole window. I need serious help to stop a group of psychotic criminals and hackers. Danilo J Bonsignore

  68. You allowed a very hostile schizophrenic group... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...in the computing system, industry. Their goal is incommunication, they are subject to typical phenomena like the sliding shift rule dynamic (constant departure from the Self), secrecy-trapping-entramping-testing (compulsive), semantic dysfunction (say it not with words), silence vows and people-tagging. If it aint broken, dont fix it! This applies to the google groups, Windows and mass communication setups. Danilo J Bonsignore

  69. Google groups assumed SAFE! But missing posts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cannot find threads nor posts within threads through the Google engine. Not even using my full name as key, when each post is signed. The new interface is hell compared to the truly working one working from at least 2001 til circa 2006. I thought the usenet was safe from hacking and stealing texts! Now it SEEMS to have some **spam** new mechanic and no-cross-posting rules that are VERY OPEN to denial of service attacks: ANYONE can hostilely mark threads and posts as spam and the system follows suit by at least hiding the header under a link. Usenet was the free internet! We are all used to spam and missclassified material but it does not hamper much its use.