Slashdot Mirror


Mathematical Breakthrough Sets Out Rules For More Effective Teleportation

dsinc sends this news from the University of Cambridge: "For the last ten years, theoretical physicists have shown that the intense connections generated between particles as established in the quantum law of ‘entanglement’ may hold the key to eventual teleportation of information. Now, for the first time, researchers have worked out how entanglement could be 'recycled' to increase the efficiency of these connections. Published in the journal Physical Review Letters, the result could conceivably take us a step closer to sci-fi style teleportation in the future, although this research is purely theoretical in nature. ... Previous teleportation protocols have fallen into one of two camps, those that could only send scrambled information requiring correction by the receiver or, more recently, "port-based" teleportation that doesn't require a correction, but needs an impractical amount of entanglement – as each object sent would destroy the entangled state. Now, physicists from Cambridge, University College London, and the University of Gdansk have developed a protocol to provide an optimal solution in which the entangled state is 'recycled,' so that the gateway between particles holds for the teleportation of multiple objects. They have even devised a protocol in which multiple qubits can be teleported simultaneously, although the entangled state degrades proportionally to the amount of qubits sent in both cases."

162 comments

  1. "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bit optimistic, aren't we?

    1. Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! by meadowsoft · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't you mean qubit optimistic?

    2. Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! by SpzToid · · Score: 5, Funny

      640 kbits should be enough for any body.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    3. Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      640 kbits should be enough for any body.

      640 qubits should be enough for any body.

    4. Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      640 cubits should be enough for any boo-tay.
      I like big butts and I can not lie.

    5. Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      640 kbits should be enough for any body.

      You must use AT&T DSL.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    6. Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! by a_hanso · · Score: 5, Funny

      640 qubits may or may not be enough for anybody.

    7. Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! by davester666 · · Score: 2

      You can only get that rate if you happen to live at their central hub, next to the room that the NSA leases.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! by Spugglefink · · Score: 1

      640 qubits may or may not be enough for anybody.

      At the same time!

    9. Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

      I know you are joking, but seeing how the universe is around 10^82 atoms, 640000 qbits (that is, holding 2^640000 states) definitely would be enough to transport the universe. Your mileage may vary of course, depending on what universe you want to teleport. 640k qbits is a hell of a lot of information.

    10. Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Vroomfondle, is that you?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    11. Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I know you are joking, but seeing how the universe is around 10^82 atoms, 640000 qbits (that is, holding 2^640000 states) definitely would be enough to transport the universe. Your mileage may vary of course, depending on what universe you want to teleport. 640k qbits is a hell of a lot of information.

      Your argument is like saying that Shakespeare's works have less than 2^64 letters, while 64 bits have 2^64 different states, and thus you should be able to store the complete work of Shakespeare into 64 bits.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    12. Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (00101011) ^ !(00101011)

  2. Where does extra energy go? by pclminion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Suppose I teleport an object from a height of 1000 feet to a height of 0 feet about sea level. There has been a loss of gravitational potential energy -- where does this energy end up? Conversely, if teleporting the object to a higher elevation, how is the gravitational PE imparted to the system?

    1. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      As I understand the summary, this is dealing with quantum entanglement and the teleportation of information not matter...

      In star trek terms, think subspace radio, not transporter.

    2. Re: Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inertial frame.

    3. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gravitation potential energy is not a change in the energy state of an object. A stationary object at 1000 ft has no energy. Once released, gravity imparts energy.

    4. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The name "quantum teleportation" is a bit misleading: no particles, mass or energy is teleported. The only thing "teleported" is a quantum state.

      What's remarkable about quantum teleportation is that you can transfer an exact quantum state from one place to another without sending any particle with that state along the way. That's remarkable because quantum states can't, in general, be copied (see the "no-cloning theorem). When you perform a quantum teleportation, you must destroy the state of the originating particle during the teleportation process.

    5. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppose I teleport an object from a height of 1000 feet to a height of 0 feet about sea level. There has been a loss of gravitational potential energy -- where does this energy end up? Conversely, if teleporting the object to a higher elevation, how is the gravitational PE imparted to the system?

      That entirely depends on how your imaginary teleporter works. The article is about quantum teleportation. No mass is moved between end points, only information.

    6. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

      Stationary, relative to what?

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    7. Re:Where does extra energy go? by msk · · Score: 1

      And how to deal with changes in angular velocity? Larry Niven had human-engineered teleportation limited to some fraction of the planetary circumference in order for equipment to deal with changes.

    8. Re:Where does extra energy go? by NeilJacklin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, the object does have _potential_ energy. I've wondered about OP's question before. I think the answer has to do with the fact that these "teleporters" don't transport matter in the conventional sense. Suppose you did have have a teleporter that could take an object and teleport it 100 ft up a hill. If you dropped the object, collected the potential energy (like in a waterwheel), and teleported it again, you shouldn't be able to violate conservation of energy or make a perpetual motion machine. So, I figure it's either A) impossible, or B) requires an energy input at _least_ equal to the change in potential energy. \\ Of course, I'm talking about gravitation potential energy, but that's just one field. There's also electromagnetic. Conversely, if it took more energy in than the net change in potential energy, where would that energy go? So I suppose the net energy input should be equal to the change in potential energy. \\ This also raises other issues, like if I teleport very far away, or two a more massive planet, I might need to input a lot of energy on this side. \\ A possible resolution to this problem is that the kind of teleportation here is just informational--that is changing one particle's state to match (or oppose) the one on the other side. Thus no mass (or charge) is transported anywhere, and everything is happy energy-wise.

    9. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gravitational potential energy isn't real. It's an imaginary construct devised to help us intuitively handle a concept.

      For example, what would happen to all that "potential energy" if Earth just suddenly ceased to exist, leaving behind the object floating in space? Your question implies that you believe the object would begin accelerating toward the center of an object (Earth) that no longer exists to attract it simply because the surface (of Earth) isn't in the way to stop it...

    10. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Informative

      Despite the authors attempt to make this sound like it has something to do with teleporting real world objects, it doesn't. Entanglement has to do with 2 particles sharing a state such as spin, and when that state changes in one entangled particle it also changes simultaneously regardless of distance or the speed of light in the other entangled particle. All of the laws of physics are observed. Information can not be passed faster than the speed of light. Matter can not move even at the speed of light, most of it no-where near the speed of light. You can not teleport an object from one place to another at all. There may be extended spacial dimensions that would allow us to do an end-run around distance, but keep in mind, if there are 4 or more spacial dimensions, we and all other matter already exist and are moving in those dimensions. There is very likely physical laws governing travel in them that would have the same effect that normal travel would. For example think if we were 2 dimensional creatures living on the surface of the earth and we suddenly discover the 3rd dimension and realize we could travel through the earth to reach china in half the time. While physically possible, there is that whole "Drilling through thousands of miles of solid rock" obstical that would make it a lot easier to just hop on a jet.

      Also, keep in mind that, to my knowledge and I just did a quick check and found nothing, humanity has never entangled anything other than photons/light. Which are technically both a wave and particle, but it's a hell of a long way off from entangling actual normal matter. Let me know when they entangle a Neutron and it'll be a big deal. Don't get me wrong, I think it's not beyond the laws of physics but we are very very very far away from true real world applications. The entanglement of photons can be explained via classical physics/optics, and doesn't need quantum theory to explain the effect. That doesn't mean it's not real, it just means you should take it with a grain of salt.

      This discovery makes experimentation easier. Teleporting yourself to work? Not so much.

    11. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The source of the gravitational field. What else would be relevant when tallking about gravitational potential energy?

    12. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Zediker · · Score: 1

      More importantly, what actually allows them to change position in the first place. I'm not talking force here... But the actual physical change in position. Teleportation is a waste of time, Translocation however is more useful. Why move matter from point A to B when you can just redefine it at position B?

      --
      I love to slaughter the english language.
    13. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is one more option, that conservation of energy is not necessarily enforced on quantum level.

    14. Re:Where does extra energy go? by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Speedy object goes in, speedy object comes out. -G.L.A.D.O.S.

      Where did you learn science?

    15. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if Earth just suddenly ceased to exist, leaving behind the object floating in space?

      Because that is a completely realistic scenario? Try coming up with a mechanism for doing so that doesn't remove the gravitational potential energy of said objects...

    16. Re:Where does extra energy go? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      You can not teleport an object from one place to another at all.

      But isn't the quantum state (which is what is being "teleported") exactly equivalent to a full description of the particle in question? Therefore isn't there absolutely no difference between doing this and what might be considered "classical" teleportation, i.e. the movement of a particle from point a to point b without travelling the intervening space?

      Also, keep in mind that, to my knowledge and I just did a quick check and found nothing, humanity has never entangled anything other than photons/light.

      How about entangling two macroscopic crystals, neutrons and all?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    17. Re:Where does extra energy go? by pclminion · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is one more option, that conservation of energy is not necessarily enforced on quantum level.

      Another equally likely option is that at the quantum level everything is made of bacon.

    18. Re:Where does extra energy go? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      For example, what would happen to all that "potential energy" if Earth just suddenly ceased to exist, leaving behind the object floating in space?

      Speculation on the consequences of impossible events is not really informative.

    19. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What the .... is the f icon next to your name?
      Does /. allow fecesbook logins now?
      There went the neighborhood! September again.

    20. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raising an object from 0 ft to 1000 ft increases the rest energy of the earth-object system. In special relativity, at least, there are two types of energy, rest energy and kinetic energy. The classical notion of "potential energy" is covered by rest energy. But there's still a little more to it than that, as much of the rest energy of a proton can be attributed to the kinetic energy of its quarks. Heating an object increases the kinetic energy of its particles, and this increase corresponds to an increase in the rest energy of the macroscopic object.

    21. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Posting as AC to preserve mod points ...)

      Teleportation in this context may imply duplication of a body via entanglement of multiple (many!) particles rather than a physical reconstructive removal from one location to another. If this is the case, which entity is the master copy and which is the slave may become an interesting question. Or do they both influence one another?

    22. Re:Where does extra energy go? by NeilJacklin · · Score: 2

      Actually I'd say that this Bacon Hypothesis is _more_ likely than breaking the conservation of energy. That seems to be among the most fundamental laws of physics.

    23. Re:Where does extra energy go? by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Potential energy "exists" inside the gravitational field: It represents the total amount of work you have to do to traverse a certain path while being subjected to the effects of the field. For a conservative field like the gravitational one, the amount of work is independent of the actual path when the end points are fixed, and that's the reason, the only reason, why we can associate a single number, called potential energy, with any given height above ground level.

      In other words, potential energy is a mathematical shortcut, it saves you from having to compute a work path integral for each problem involving a particle traversing some path in a conservative field. Potential energy is literally a table of precomputed answers. If you have a path from 1000 feet down to 0 feet, you can 1) compute the work over that path or 2) look up the answer from the potential energy table, by subtracting the values at 1000 and 0 respectively. This works because of the fundamental theorem of calculus.

      Now onto the question. If you teleport an object from 1000 feet to 0 feet, there is no traversal of the gravitational field by definition. Therefore there is no work being done against the field since there is no continuous path. Therefore there is no energy change experienced by the object since there is no physical work happening that involves it (disregarding whatever mechanism enables the teleportation in the first place).

      Thus: At 1000 feet, the object has zero kinetic energy, and has potential energy V(1000). At 0 feet, the object has zero kinetic energy, and has potential energy V(0).

      This does violate the conservation of (kinetic + potential energy), however that quantity is only a convenient approximation of the truth for non-teleportation cases, where the only way of arriving at 0 from 1000 feet is by traversing a continuous path. The truth is that (kinetic + work-over-path) is conserved, in this case, since the path is not continuous.

    24. Re:Where does extra energy go? by HybridST · · Score: 1

      "Speculation on the consequences of impossible
      events is not really informative."

      About a century ago a patent clerk speculated on impossible events and successfully described space-time and time dilation.

      --
      Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
    25. Re:Where does extra energy go? by s4ltyd0g · · Score: 1

      10 years ago, they were able to do the same trick with electrons.
        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1888-teleporting-larger-objects-becomes-real-possibility.html

      cheers

    26. Re:Where does extra energy go? by slew · · Score: 2

      I think you might be a bit confused about entanglement assisted teleporation. As I understand it, basically to do this you start with an entangled pair of qubits which you send to two disparate places. You also have two "bodies" consisting of many(!) corresponding particles one in each place. The thing you want to teleport is quantum *state* of one of the "bodies" of particles to the other body of particles in the other location using entanglement assisted teleportation.

      The act of entanglement assisted teleporation requires measurement of the joint state of the entangled qubit you have with the state of the particle you want to transmit. This measurement will destroy the original quantum state of the "master" copy (kinda like schrodinger's cat). The results of these measurements will be classically transmitted to the other place and used to modify the state of the entangled qubit so that the "slave" particle will have the original quantum state of the master.

      The trick is that when you do the joint measurement, you don't collapse everything with the measurment (you know the joint state of the qubit and the particle, but not them individually). By modifying the entangled qubit to match the classically transmitted measurement, you create a condition where the particle is influenced to replicate the original state of the master particle. Thus the original "master" body will be there, but the original quantum superposition state will not, but will be reproduced at the other location in the "slave" body meaning the slave becomes essentially the new master...

      This mathematical breakthrough apparently gives a framework on how to reuse that one entangled qubit (rather than require one for every particle whose state you want to teleport).

      You just can't clone a quantum state, though... See this discussion. Basically, this entanglement trick gets around this by destroying/collapsing the original (quantum/superposition) state avoiding your master/slave problem.

    27. Re:Where does extra energy go? by dfeifer · · Score: 1

      This would be interesting in the realm of communications though. If you were to isolate say 2-16 "bits" and have the equipment compact enough to read the state of these particles in a carryable device you would be looking at near real time communications no matter the distance. 2 bits you are looking at classic morse code one for a * and one for a -. 16 would be basic machine language. This would be great for spacecraft.

    28. Re:Where does extra energy go? by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      You must have inspired the story above this one. - Facebook Banter More Memorable Than Lines From Recent Books. Seriously, you just made the list. In an earlier time this might have been included in HHGTG.

    29. Re:Where does extra energy go? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the object does have _potential_ energy. I've wondered about OP's question before. I think the answer has to do with the fact that these "teleporters" don't transport matter in the conventional sense.

      They don't transport anything at all. All the information is transferred at the speed of light or slower.

    30. Re:Where does extra energy go? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      The name "quantum teleportation" is a bit misleading: no particles, mass or energy is teleported. The only thing "teleported" is a quantum state.

      Even that is not teleported. The energy is carried on the entangled particles. The quantum state is carried on the entangled particles.

    31. Re:Where does extra energy go? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      But isn't the quantum state (which is what is being "teleported") exactly equivalent to a full description of the particle in question?

      Not normally. All the quantum experiments to date have only measured a single quantum property. For example, say you know the polarization of a photon. That doesn't mean you also know its phase, direction of travel, time of arrival and energy. Although other particles have not been entangled, the same would go for any other particle.

    32. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instantaneous exchange of information between 2 points + 2 MakerBots (1 at each end) ; = teleportation. When MakerBots Bio becomes available teleport copy of self. #win

    33. Re:Where does extra energy go? by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      About a century ago a patent clerk speculated on possible events and successfully described space-time and time dilation.
      FTFY
      Well, except for that cosmological constant fraud. - that part was impossible. But the Slashdotters of the day bought into it, because, well, because they didn't understand what he was saying anyway, and the rest of it sounded good enough.

    34. Re:Where does extra energy go? by stuckinarut · · Score: 3, Informative

      Humanity has entangled stuff bigger than photons; The Biggest "Spooky" System Ever Seen: 4 Entangled Ions (Jun 2009) and Entangled diamonds , big enough for the eye to see (Dec 2011). We haven't managed the information transportation part with anything other than photons though but we're doing well on distance; quantum key transmitted wirelessly 144km.

    35. Re:Where does extra energy go? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand Gravitational Potential very well.

      The way you state it, you'd think a top shelf holding up an object would have to exert a larger force to counter gravity than the same object on a lower shelf due to that object's higher PEgrav which is due to it's greater distance from the gravity source(the Earth).

      Potential energy has not yet been imparted on the object, hence the word 'potential'. It is "how much energy this object could get solely from the force of gravity". The amount of energy potentially imbued by this force depends on many things, including the object's position and unobstructed path relative to the gravity source. This is why when you change the position of the object within the gravitational field, you also change its PEgrav.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    36. Re:Where does extra energy go? by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      The source of the gravitational field. What else would be relevant when tallking about gravitational potential energy?

      Ah, but the stationary object is also a "source of a gravitational field" from the POV of the ground. Relativity, y'see.

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    37. Re:Where does extra energy go? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      Stationary, relative to what?

      Well, obviously it would be relative to the source of gravity imparting this gravitational PE on the object. In our case, the surface of the Earth.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    38. Re:Where does extra energy go? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      The basic, fundamental principle of quantum entanglement is "instantaneous sympathetic action at a distance"...with no regard for how long that distance is, therefore exceeding the speed of light for basically any measurable distance.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    39. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would be looking at near real time communications no matter the distance.

      If by near real time you mean at the speed of light, since there isn't a well defined meaning to "real time" over long distances, and because quantum entanglement doesn't allow for faster than light communication of information.

    40. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truth is that (kinetic + work-over-path) is conserved, in this case, since the path is not continuous.

      What makes that any more "true" if it seems more appropriate when the previous version is only broken by a method not yet known to exist?

    41. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Another equally likely option is that you would have just converted released gravitational energy. IANA Physicist, but as I understand it, we still don't completely understand gravity. We see it. We can measure it, but we don't really understand what makes it work. If we could teleport matter from a lower altitude to a higher one, it is conceivable that we could extract energy from the system without violating any laws of physics. Just as we can extract energy from a piece of wood if we light it on fire.

    42. Re:Where does extra energy go? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Suppose I teleport an object from a height of 1000 feet to a height of 0 feet about sea level. There has been a loss of gravitational potential energy -- where does this energy end up? Conversely, if teleporting the object to a higher elevation, how is the gravitational PE imparted to the system?

      Easy - it's absorbed/used by the transporter device.

      Lets say Kirk asks Scotty to beam him up. The Enterprise's transporter then takes Kirk's atoms and moves them to the Enterprise in orbit. Because transporter has to move the atoms up, it puts in the required energy to move the atoms to the new PE level.

      The reverse happens when you beam down. I'm sure you can figure out if you want to go from the top of a mountain to ground level by a transporter in a third location.

      That assumes the atoms transported are the same ones.

      If they aren't, using quantum mechanics to do an entangling based transport (e.g., two transporters contain a bunch of entangled atoms already in place and the "scanner" reads your atoms and finds appropriate entangled atoms and modifies them appropriately. The information on which atoms went where is then transmitted and hte receiver end picks the right atoms and reassembles you - not faster than light as the list containing your atoms is still transmitted at the speed of light). In this case, the energy was put into the system because the atoms were pre-entangled.

    43. Re:Where does extra energy go? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      Because the previous method (aka conservation of KE + PE) is not fundamental. In mechanics, conservation of energy is a _consequence_ of Hamilton's equations: the Hamiltonian is a first integral of the motion. That is why you must look at work, and when you do it is clear that a hollywood style teleportation doesn't do any.

      The original question arises because some people are used to thinking that KE + PE is conserved. If they thought in terms of work done, that question wouldn't be puzzling.

    44. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were certainly impressed with the results just a few years later...

    45. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quantum state isn't carried by the entangled particles, if by which you mean contained in one of them before they are separated. The state is transferred from a third particle to one end of the pair plus some classical information that can be used to manipulate the receiving end of the pair into the state to be teleported.

    46. Re:Where does extra energy go? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      As I understand the summary, this is dealing with quantum entanglement and the teleportation of information not matter...

      In star trek terms, think subspace radio, not transporter.

      Uh, what a disappointment. Why can't you just flip that switch

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    47. Re:Where does extra energy go? by jnm11 · · Score: 1

      Of course he didn't speculate on impossible events. It is well known in philosophy that if you assume a counterfactual, i.e. something impossible like the earth ceasing to exist, you can prove anything including things which are false. If the earth ceased to exist as matter, e.g. some unknown physcical processes converted it to photons", then they would still result in the same gravitational potential field since teh source of gravity is mass-energy not just mass in general relativity. There is a deeper question of energy conservation in general relativity due to the self-energy of the gravitational field itself, a completely different matter than gravitational potential energy which is the energy of objects in the field, which is poorly understood and does not appear to be conserved though this is controversial

    48. Re:Where does extra energy go? by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 1

      No information is exchanged though, information still moves slower than light.

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
    49. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is kind of communication (in a sense that you'd know what the other side got) but it wouldn't allow you to transfer messages.
      It could be used for "faster than light" exchange of encryption keys though... :)

    50. Re:Where does extra energy go? by jnm11 · · Score: 1

      It's a fundemental violation of the laws of physics. Mass-energy can neither be created or destroyed. Nothing can "disappear" it can change state and move at the speed of light at best. Even the interactions of quantum mechanics and general relativity, e.g. Hawking radiation, conserve mass-energy and involve propogation of nothing faster than the speed of light. Quantum teleportation is no different.

    51. Re:Where does extra energy go? by jnm11 · · Score: 1

      The two must fundamental things in physics are nothing propogates faster than the speed of light and conservation of energy, i.e. KE+PE. It is totally fundamental.

    52. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      That's kind of a philosophical question isn't it? If they are 2 identical particals, are they the "Same" partical in any sense that matters? If they are, instead of teleporting and object don't you just have the object existing in 2 places at once? I think there's certainly a difference between classical teleportation and this, it just depends on your view of the universe. I think that there are plenty of 1950's SciFi novels that have addressed this conundrum without any successful resolution to the dilemma. As usual, once we figure out the science, it'll probably work itself out.

      In regards to the crystal thing... that's what I'd consider a parlor trick.. we're they "really" entangled? Maybe... but this isn't really proof of anything. It's basically a lens and entangled photons again. Like I said before, it can be explained by classical physics. That doesn't mean there's not entanglement going on, it's just that we're not learning anything new here. They're just showing you something interesting we can do with optics.

    53. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Bose and Home show mathematically that whenever one electron is detected in each path, they will be entangled.

      No they didn't. They did some math.

    54. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, to the best of our knowledge, the ground states of condensed matter systems (i.e., normal matter) are huge entangled states; but it is bloody hard to do useful stuff with this entanglement, so people don't talk that much about it. The examples that you mentioned are about the entanglement we can control.

    55. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      The Biggest "Spooky" System Ever Seen: 4 Entangled Ions (Jun 2009)

      Ok, that's Discover magazine. Never quote discover magazine. They're the foxnews of science. I don't trust a god damned thing they say. I tried looking up the experiment and I just keep seeing the word "Study"... So I'm thinking this was all on paper. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't trust it. Actually entangling IONs would be big news and I should find it all over the net.

      and Entangled diamonds , big enough for the eye to see (Dec 2011). We haven't managed the information transportation part with anything other than photons though but we're doing well on distance; quantum key transmitted wirelessly 144km.

      With both of these, see my post above. To me these are just parlor tricks with optics that maybe... or even are likely to be examples of Quantum teleportation. But they are not proof. It's neat that people are doing this, but it's not the "Real-deal" yet. It's kind of like that meteorite with the possible fossilized martian bacteria. Was there life on mars at one time? Most likely. Is the meteorite proof of that life? Maybe, maybe not... we need something better.

    56. Re:Where does extra energy go? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I've also already spotted a g+ logo next to a name this week.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    57. Re:Where does extra energy go? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      For example, what would happen to all that "potential energy" if Earth just suddenly ceased to exist, leaving behind the object floating in space?

      Well, given that this would already violate energy conservation (namely the energy of the earth's mass would suddenly vanish), it is a moot point to ask where any other energy goes in this case (especially if that energy is insignificant compared to the energy disappearing in form of the earth's mass).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    58. Re:Where does extra energy go? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Despite the authors attempt to make this sound like it has something to do with teleporting real world objects

      Which authors? I haven't seen any reference to object teleportation in the arXiv article (which contains the actual science). I also have seen no such mention in the text from the University of Cambridge. The only text making such connections is the Slashdot summary.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    59. Re:Where does extra energy go? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Indeed, even the vacuum is entangled.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    60. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1993 theory of quantum teleportation ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1103%2FPhysRevLett.70.1895 ),
      1997 experiments with light / photons ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2F37539 ),
      2004 experiments with ions in two groups: Innsbruck/Gemany and NIST/Colorado ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature02570 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2Fnature02608 ),
      2004 experiments with photons across the Donau river (600m) ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2F430849a ),
      2009 theory of "strong" teleportation ( http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0565v1 ),
      2010 photons over 16km in China with 89% accurarcy,
      2012 photons over 97km in China ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2024 )
      2012 photons over 143km in Teneriffa,
      2012 claimed macroscopic entanglement ( http://www.technologyreview.com/view/507531/first-teleportation-from-one-macroscopic-object-to-another/ )

    61. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are way more than four dimensions

    62. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's basically a lens and entangled photons again. Like I said before, it can be explained by classical physics.

      If you think it can be explained by classical physics, you either are missing something about classical physics or quantum entanglement. It is probably the latter, as the most basic examples given in forums and pop-sci stuff are typically examples that look like they could be done with classical physics (e.g. it looks like someone just separating two differently colored marbles, and the obviously each destination could figure out what marble the other got). But when you get in to more "advanced" examples (actually still really basic and simple by quantum mechanics examples... but much more difficult to teach without the math component), you will find cases where you can choose what type of measurement to make at one end and still see correlation at the other end even if the measurement was decided after the particles were separated.

      In other, shorter words, experiments related to Bell's inequality require either quantum mechanics, or that both quantum and classical physics be really wrong in some fundamental ways. And it is not specific to photons, as entanglement has been done with ions and electrons for some time now, to the point of it being a standard tool in labs for looking at more difficult subjects.

    63. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we can answer this because we know the geometry and the form the Hamiltonian takes for Hollywood style teleportation...

      And arguing over what is more fundamental to Hamilton's equation: an integral over motion or using it to define energy for a system, kind of goes in a big loop, especially without a specific edge case. And it might not like a case where one of the coordinates is non-differentiable very well...

    64. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe things on the small scale break that conservation. But within quantum mechanics, energy certainly is conserved, and said conservation is quite fundamental to the entire field's derivations.

    65. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      Suppose I teleport an object from a height of 1000 feet to a height of 0 feet about sea level. There has been a loss of gravitational potential energy -- where does this energy end up? Conversely, if teleporting the object to a higher elevation, how is the gravitational PE imparted to the system?

      Although what they are talking about has to do with transporting data, not objects, your assumption is incorrect. If you transport the object from 1000 feet to 0 feet, something fills in the space that used to be occupied by the object and the object displaces what used to be occupying the space it now occupies. As such, the potential energy balances out, at least it would, if such a thing were possible in the first place.

    66. Re:Where does extra energy go? by tokencode · · Score: 1

      The input energy in order to entangle the particles or to set a particular state maybe different depending on their relative position to each other.

    67. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      Bacon? I thought is was pastrami! God's Jewish right?

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    68. Re:Where does extra energy go? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      I've never seen any evidence of "instantaneous sympathetic action at a distance" much less instantaneous transfer of information.

      Every experiment I've seen described -- it's entirely possible that I missed a lot -- was a variation on this:

      1. Some process generates two entangled photons, with unknown but complimentary polarization.
      2. Some aparatus, e.g. a beam splitter, causes one photon to go take one path and the other photon to take the other path. One photon goes to location A and other entangled photon goes to location B. The apparatus does not bias which polarization of photon goes to which location.
      3. The polarization of the photon is measured at location A. The experimenter at location A knows the polarization of both photons because he understands how the apparatus works.

      An experimenter at location B might simultaneously measure the polarization of his photon. He will also know the polarization of both photons. But he did not get this information from location A. He got it by measuring his photon. He can also get the information from location A, but to do so he will have to wait for a message to arrive from location A telling him of the results of the experiment at that location. Although the same information is known at both locations, it does not imply that information has passed from A to B. There is nothing to see here.

    69. Re:Where does extra energy go? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Here's a classical analog to a quantum teleportation experiment:

      Dr. Roberts, in London, selects two cards from a deck. One is the Jack of Diamonds and the other is the Jack of Spades. He puts each of them in a sealed envelope along with a letter detailing his experiment. He instructs a graduate assistant, Miss Cunningham, to mail one to to Dr. Patel, in Mumbai and Dr. Eastwood, in Palo Alto. The accompanying letters identify all of the participants and the cards that were sent.

      Dr. Patel receives his letter first, observes that he has the Jack of Diamonds and publishes the result that he has teleported the Jack of Spades to Dr. Eastwood faster than the speed of mail.

      Everybody wins. Drs. Roberts and Patel receive recognition for their contributions to science. Miss Cunningham gets her Ph.D. She moves to Palo Alto and marries Dr. Eastwood. Everybody wins.

    70. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      The traditional way to extract energy from gravity is to drop something from high altitude to low altitude. The problem with teleporting from low to high is it implies *adding* gravitational energy, and the question of where it comes from. In the case of the article, the resolution is simple: the source atoms aren't actually moving, it's just reconstructing the gestalt "thing" in place and it just takes whatever energy it takes (or gives!) to construct that thing at the destination from local materials.

      I think what you may be getting at is weakening the gravitational field slightly such that on net the gravitational potential energy of the entire rest of the universe to the Earth, including the thing you teleported, remains constant. So if it was highly massive, g might go from 9.8 to 9.5. In other words, removing some of the Earth's mass (I'm assuming you don't want to lose any mass from the teleported object), because that's what the definition of gravitational mass is. Removing mass still means removing energy, but you could find a balance where you turn X amount of Earth mass into Y amount of energy, and the combination of the reduction in gravity from the loss of X mass leads to potential energy increasing by Y which is accounted for by the energy extracted from Earth's mass. Kind of a just-in-time nuclear/antimatter reaction.

      Or a third option is that you are extracting gravitational mass while leaving inertial mass the same. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to believe that's possible and lots of good reasons to believe it isn't (kind of required for relativity to work as we understand it), but it could in principle be wrong in narrow cases.

      Which is a cool enough thought experiment but anyway, none of those things are necessary here because the source atoms aren't moving to the destination, just the things that they comprise is being reconstructed at the destination.

    71. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A similar example would be a process that produces two particles with opposite spin, so exactly one observer sees an up spin and exactly one other sees a down spin, if both measure for spin alignment in the vertical direction. Now, if you try measuring for spin alignment in a horizontal direction, say left vs. right, when you know the particle is in an vertical spin alignment, you have a 50-50 chance of getting left or right, as the up and down states are like superpositions of left and right. So if it was a simple as the up spin went down path A, and the down went path B, then both A and B would have a 50-50 chance of seeing left and right, so 25% of the time they would both see left, and 25% of the time they would both see right. But you can set up the entanglement such that the correlation survives even after the horizontal measurement, so that A and B still get opposite results. That projection from a vertical state to the horizontal state doesn't happen until the particle reaches the destinations. The researcher at either destination can make a choice of what angle to look for spin state at and change what the other side sees. Although, the probabilities work out such that each researcher will individually see the same mix of results they would expect regardless of what the opposite researcher sees, so it doesn't allow for communication of information. But after combining information from both locations, it can be seen that what is done at one location can affect what happens at the other in a specific, limited way.

    72. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that is a common analogy used to describe the most basic of quantum entanglement examples, that example can be quite deceptive as it does not represent quantum entanglement in general. There are many things that can be done with quantum entanglement that can not be done with classical physics and exchanging packages.

      Quantum teleporation, involves teleporting the state of a third particle, after two entangled particles have been exchanged. It would be like sending two playing cards out to two people, then allowing one end to pick any playing card they want after the first two cards were sent out, then turn the card the second person has into the one they picked. Additionally, in the actual quantum case, you can transmit states that cannot be produced at the destination no matter how much classical information is sent. So it is different than faxing, as you can't simply measure and tell the other end to remake the state with just classical communication.

    73. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Discover article directly linked to the original Nature article, which seems to be rare enough in pop-sci reporting you didn't bother to even check. Although usually such articles give a journal name and author that make it take less than a minute to find anyways.

      Actually entangling IONs would be big news and I should find it all over the net.

      I don't know how you haven't heard of it before if you've been searching for it. It is the basis of many quantum computer setups that have been in use for many years now. It has gone from the proof of principle stage to application stage in many labs and just getting a pair of ions to entangle as old news now unless you are working on entangling much larger numbers of ions. Stories related to such research have even appeared on Slashdot several times.

    74. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, copy-paste fail on the link. The actual link to the Nature article.

    75. Re:Where does extra energy go? by lightbounce · · Score: 1

      Actually, just this last year two rubidium atoms 20m apart were entangled ( https://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6090/72.abstract ).

    76. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't heard of Bell's theorem, have you?

    77. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except what you're describing is a hidden variable theory which is disproven by Bell's inequalities.

    78. Re:Where does extra energy go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure why you think photon entanglement can be explained via classical optics. Could you elaborate?

  3. Teleport Whales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe?

    1. Re:Teleport Whales? by headcase88-2 · · Score: 1

      Oh no, not again.

  4. The idea of Teleportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I understand teleportation, the original 'you' is destroyed, and a duplicate 'you' is created in another location. I have always found this prospect disturbing. Could anyone familiar with quantum physics chime in? I'm curious as to whether a solution could be found which also preserved the original consciousness (and not by simply backing it up in another location).

    1. Re:The idea of Teleportation by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is that you, Bones?

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    2. Re:The idea of Teleportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer to that will be about as useful as explaining the exact physics of how a "warp core reactor" works. IT'S FICTION!

    3. Re:The idea of Teleportation by dunng808 · · Score: 1

      The universe would not tolerate more than one of me.

      Now, turning to Bill Cosby, "What's a qubit?"

      --

      Gary Dunn
      Open Slate Project

    4. Re:The idea of Teleportation by Jamu · · Score: 1

      Until we understand consciousness, it's hard to say. Entanglement might have something to do with it. Duplication of a conscious state could be prohibited.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    5. Re:The idea of Teleportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL but on Slash, sci-fi is real. Space elevators, warp drives, Mars colonies and the hundreds of attendant magical technologies and fantasy materials are just a question of, like, how hard we really want them to happen.

    6. Re:The idea of Teleportation by pclminion · · Score: 1

      As I understand teleportation, the original 'you' is destroyed, and a duplicate 'you' is created in another location. I have always found this prospect disturbing. Could anyone familiar with quantum physics chime in? I'm curious as to whether a solution could be found which also preserved the original consciousness (and not by simply backing it up in another location).

      You used to be ten years old, certainly not at all physically the same person you are now, and yet you don't seem disturbed that your ten year old self has "died" only to be replaced with your current self...

    7. Re:The idea of Teleportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in one early episode of Star Trek: TNG, thought becomes reality and the whole crew almost goes insane.

    8. Re:The idea of Teleportation by celle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "LOL but on Slash, sci-fi is real. Space elevators, warp drives, Mars colonies and the hundreds of attendant magical technologies and fantasy materials are just a question of, like, how hard we really want them to happen."

            And remember Dick Tracy's video wristwatch was described in the 1930s when radio and telephone was less than 50 years old. We have it now and in other forms such as cell phones and tablets less than 75 years later. Slashdot is visited by people in research and science fiction, who knows what could be in the next 100 years if we put the "old nose to the grindstone".

    9. Re:The idea of Teleportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in the 1930s airplanes had motors that burned gasoline and used wings to generate lift. Do you see how information processing and the physical world have different limits?

    10. Re:The idea of Teleportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you mean to create a duplicate an arbitrary state, identical at the quantum level, then the answer is no, you cannot. The no-cloning theorem forbids it.

    11. Re:The idea of Teleportation by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Not really. 2 entangled particles can actually be viewed as a single particle with 2 disparate manifestations.

      Eg, take a wave of light, and send it through a beam splitter. Half the beam goes right, the other half goes left.

      The actual light being split is exactly the same light, going in 2 directions. The photons in branch A are entangled with the photons in branch B. (More or less.)

      If a device were made that supplied sufficient energy at the "destination" to entangle 100% of all the particles in your body without altering any of the actual states of those particles (pure entanglement, no measurement), then you would exist in both places simultaneously.

      The ethical question, is if the dissolution of the "source" instance is murder or not.

    12. Re:The idea of Teleportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well, yes, the amazing things we did in the past were completely possible, but what you're talking about now is just impossible! It's completely different! Really! I can see into the future. I know all and see all." -You

    13. Re:The idea of Teleportation by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Is that you, Bones?

      Of course it's me! I'm a doctor, not a quantum brick-layer!

    14. Re:The idea of Teleportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never had friends, like the friends I had when I was 12. Actually it disturbs me to no end...

    15. Re:The idea of Teleportation by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      This is a complete fallacy. The 'you' at 10 years old and the 'you' now are physically the same person. Let's say you clone yourself, and through some convenience-of-hypotheticals magic, your clone is instantly the same age you are.

      Now, do you expect that clone has the exact same memories as you do? Even if it is assembled at an atomic level to resemble the exact state of your body, does this 'clone' have your consciousness? Are you able to hear their thoughts as the same being, or is it completely separate from you? Is it a copy but unconnected, or has your mind somehow become linked with it? Of course, we know through animal cloning that it would not be connected, and you would have different physical matter regardless of the precision with which you were duplicated.

      In this case, regarding translocation and reassembling a person at a remote location based on 'teleported' information, it is likely that there would either be two of you with the same memories and thought patterns, or if the original is somehow destroyed in transit, you would just cease to exist and your 'cloned' version would just take over as you in the world none the wiser. There is no process by which consciousness should be transferred and not just duplicated in this example - 'consciousness' is relative to the actual physical matter of YOU, not to the general pattern of your atoms.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    16. Re:The idea of Teleportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in the 1930s airplanes had motors that burned gasoline and used wings to generate lift. Do you see how information processing and the physical world have different limits?

      And "in Rand McNally, they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people." QED

    17. Re:The idea of Teleportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actual light being split is exactly the same light, going in 2 directions. The photons in branch A are entangled with the photons in branch B. (More or less.)

      Actually, much more of the "less" than "more" as those are not entangled. Additionally, you can see such effects with a single photon. It is a property of a single particle, and that is a separate effect from entanglement.

      And that ethical question doesn't come up with quantum teleportation. Quantum teleportation does not allow the copying of states, as the process involves the measurement and hence destruction of states at the origin in order to derive the final instructions needed to transform the state of the particles at the destination into the desired state copying what was at the origin (the same final instructions limiting the process to speed of light communication as they need to be sent from the origin). Otherwise, you would just get a random state at the destination.

    18. Re:The idea of Teleportation by c0lo · · Score: 1

      The universe would not tolerate more than one of me.

      I can understand this. What I can't understand: how could it support even one instance of you? (non-malicious kidding. Or... "was speaking to myself", if you like it better).

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  5. Finally by binarylarry · · Score: 0

    Thank jebus, I was just remarking to one of my colleagues about how many seconds it took to beam down to the planet on our last mission.

    Now things should go much smoother, live long and prosper Cambridge!

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  6. Re:as usual with a hard science post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are too ignorant.

  7. Title imply that teleportation is already a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously.. "more effective teleportation", any kind of teleportation would be more effective.

  8. I's like to imagine the world with such technology by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 1

    Well, maybe someday that would help to create something like USB but without physical medium between two connected points? Yeah, I know, "no information can be transferred through QE", but still, who knows how else can we sidestep "obvious physical limitations"? Not now, but in 20, 50, 100 years from now? I'd like to imagine our world with such technology widely adapted, and I just can't - possibilities are truly mind-boggling. Ah, I just like news like this - helps to get out of winter depression a little.

    --
    Absence of proof != proof of absence.
  9. Re:as usual with a hard science post by Dahamma · · Score: 2

    This one is even better so far, half of the comments are retarded trying to be serious.

  10. free energy from teleportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this teleportation can be used to create free energy by teleporting to a point with higher potential energy

  11. "More Effective Teleportation" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great! Lately I've been feeling that today's means of teleportation just weren't effective enough...

  12. Teleportation and special theory of relativity? by rroman · · Score: 1

    Instant teleportation of information according to STR violates causality. Is this a really serious science? Recycling state of quantum entanglement might be possible but as far as I know, quantum entangled particles don't "transport" information.

    1. Re:Teleportation and special theory of relativity? by Tanuki64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Instant teleportation of information according to STR violates causality. Is this a really serious science?

      For now it is math. Whether it is really relevant for real world physics is a totally different question.

    2. Re:Teleportation and special theory of relativity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A small nitpick here. STR (And pretty much all science.) is based on the idea of causality, not the other way around.
      Instant teleportation of information invalidates STR rather than violate causality. This is not necessarily a big deal since STR might not hold anyway.
      Yes, yes, I know about GPS but elevators also work and they are based on Newtonian physics that we know is wrong, it's just that the model is good enough to be usable.

    3. Re:Teleportation and special theory of relativity? by rroman · · Score: 1

      I will answer myself. They are talking about transporting quantum information or quantum state. Quantum information is _NOT_ the same as classical information. The summary is misleading in this way.

    4. Re:Teleportation and special theory of relativity? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      QE transmits the state of or change in the state of a particle. If you can't call that information, you're not thinking hard enough.

      That's like saying a binary 0 isn't information because it is, literally, nothing.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    5. Re:Teleportation and special theory of relativity? by rroman · · Score: 1

      It does not. QE binds particles in such a way, that when one particle is measured, the second is bound by this measurement. For example if you measure, that one particle has +1/2 spin, the second then has -1/2 spin. This is not transmission of information - you can't force one particle to have spin +1/2 and cause the second particle to have instantly -1/2 spin.

    6. Re:Teleportation and special theory of relativity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quantum teleportation has already been demonstrated in the lab. Additionally, both the math and experiment show it is not instant and does not violate causality.

    7. Re:Teleportation and special theory of relativity? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      This is really serious science. And it doesn't allow to transmit information faster than light. You still need to send classical information to the other side. It's just that instead of correcting the state, the information tells the other side which of the many qubits is in the right state.

      As a simple (but not completely accurate) analogy, imagine you've generated a one-time pad, which is shared by Alice and Bob. This shared one-time pad represents the entangled state.

      The original teleportation scheme can then be roughly compared to the normal operation of the one-time pad: Alice encrypts her bit and sends the encrypted bit to Bob. Now Bob has to explicitly decrypt the bit.

      The port based teleportation scheme allows Bob to not do any calculation, by Alice just telling Bob which of the bits in his copy of the one-time pad already agrees with the bit she wanted to send. However the old scheme had the disadvantage that it destroyed the complete OTP for sending the single bit.

      This is a scheme which allows to reuse the same OTP (minus the already-used bits) to transmit further bits.

      The point where the analogy fails is that the original data to transmitted are qubits, while the encrypted data sent consists of classical bits. Which is the reason that teleportation is actually interesting because you cannot simply convert an unknown quantum state into classical information; indeed the fact that quantum teleportation works is intimately linked to the fact that the state is "encrypted", that is, the classical bits alone don't tell you anything at all about the teleported quantum state, just like with an OTP the encrypted message alone don't tell you anything about the cleartext bits.

      Also note that the "recycling" of entanglement doesn't mean that you end up with the same amount of entanglement as you started with. You just don't use up an excessive amount of it (in the OTP picture: You don't consume an entire large OTP to just send one bit; however your usable OTP still shrinks with each bit sent).

      And of course it has to be stressed that, unlike the summary suggests, quantum teleportation is something completely different from Sci-Fi teleportation.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  13. Obligatory xkcd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://xkcd.com/465/

  14. Re:I's like to imagine the world with such technol by mbstone · · Score: 1

    Maybe you wouldn't have to figure out which way to plug in the goddamn USB connector.

  15. Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one thinking in a sheldon cooper voice "The physics is theoretical but the fun is not."

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

      Am I the only one thinking in a sheldon cooper voice "The physics is theoretical but the fun is not."

      Yes.

  16. I'd never use it on myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would this do:

    memmove(&over_there, &me_here, sizeof(me)); ...or the more worrying (but possibly easier)...

    memcpy(&over_there, &me_here, sizeof(me));
    free(&me_here);

    I don't care if there is a perfect replica of me at the other end...it's still not *me*.

    1. Re:I'd never use it on myself by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Would this do:

      memmove(&over_there, &me_here, sizeof(me));

      Someone novice enough to skip the verification of the source against equality to NULL (SIGSEGV ensued).

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:I'd never use it on myself by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      free(&me_here);

      This looks wrong to me. It it is freeable memory, you should already be holding a pointer to it.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:I'd never use it on myself by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The address-of operator guarantees that you don't get a NULL pointer.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  17. Original destroyed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teleportation will most likely happen...Not in our lifetimes. The thing is, the original is destroyed. Are we prepared to die, and be reborn? I'd do it!

  18. Re:I's like to imagine the world with such technol by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 1
    --
    Absence of proof != proof of absence.
  19. Re:I's like to imagine the world with such technol by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Even better, you can plug it in both ways at once. As the physicist said to the grad student.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  20. Re:Title imply that teleportation is already a thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is already a thing, if you've kept up on physics research instead of scifi, and don't expect it to be the same for both.

  21. It's Christmas again! by CHIT2ME · · Score: 1

    Is this going to help me untangle my Christmas tree lights?

    --
    My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
    1. Re:It's Christmas again! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Is this going to help me untangle my Christmas tree lights?

      No, this scheme is designed to preserve as much entanglement as possible.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  22. The summary should've read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theoretical physicists suck at math, physics, and engineering. Oh, and deductive reasoning.

  23. Simple math ... by danwiz · · Score: 2

    IF countBeingsInChamber > 1 THEN GOTO abort_transfer

    1. Re:Simple math ... by oliverk · · Score: 1

      UNLESS being2 = fly THEN GOTO merge

      --
      ---- Please be nice in case my Slashdot karma ~= my real life karma.
    2. Re:Simple math ... by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Jeff Goldblum says "Thanks, Captain Hindsight!"

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  24. Binding Causality and Light speed is odd.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that if superluminal phenomena exist (quite possible) then the only issue will be with an observer who's limited to perceiving those phenomena at the speed of light. Since from their perspective, it will appear that causality has been violated

    But from the perspective of one who has the technology to perceive superluminal phenomenon, causality will have been maintained.

     

  25. Yeah..right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing as how I've been teleporting for many years, I'm going to suddenly give your so called rules any credence. Brawhaha....

  26. One key question by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Where's my fucking flying car?!

  27. There is a patent on full body teleportation alrdy by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    Hope they are aware of this before spending too much monies,
    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&p=1&S1=20060071122.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060071122&RS=DN/20060071122

    -do note: this is akin to the person claiming barbie dolls he dug up were ancient relics.

  28. Change by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    And in the 1930s airplanes had motors that burned gasoline and used wings to generate lift. Do you see how information processing and the physical world have different limits?

    And today, we have vehicles that utilize electricity generated from atomic decay, use EM fields to generate lift, and transport more, and heavier goods than 1930's aircraft... at higher speeds. Do you see how paradigm shifts work?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you see how paradigm shifts work?

      They certainly don't work because some sci-fi author said so. They work because the universe turns out to be much more interesting and complex than we can frequently imagine, and occasionally with luck, allow us to build what we see in sci-fi.

    2. Re:Change by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Real SF -- not this fantasy crap -- uses science to talk about what's possible. That's where the idea for geostationary sats came from, as well as a number of other things.

      Your problem (and a lot of other people's) is that you don't understand what SF is.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uses science to talk about what's possible.

      Talk about what might be possible, not what is certain. If it was well founded on accepted theories and experiences, it would be in actual science as opposed to science fiction (or hard science fiction, or whatever real Scotsman label you want to try to assign to things). When discussing what is possible, there is no need to cite science fiction beyond giving credit to the origin creator, and instead such discussion should be based in the actual science the idea came from. Otherwise, if you or others try to insist because an idea appears in science fiction, it must be achievable, than you don't know what SF is either.

    4. Re:Change by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Talk about what might be possible, not what is certain.

      No. Not what "might" be possible. What is possible. Again, you confuse fantasy with science fiction.

      Otherwise, if you or others try to insist because an idea appears in science fiction, it must be achievable

      Achievability involves a lot more than science. Political will; funding; a market; etc. What we insist is that it is possible based upon the science of the day. Hydrogen ramscoop? Possible. Star Trek style warp drive? Not possible. Robot? Possible. God? Not possible. Ray guns? Possible. Light sabers? Not possible. Fusion? Possible. Zero point energy? Not possible. And so it goes.

      If it was well founded on accepted theories and experiences, it would be in actual science

      Now you're confusing technology with science. Very few works indeed deal with science, per se; almost all SF finds its storyline or backdrop in the exposition of technology. The point being, the technology is possible, based upon the science of the day. Drop that ball, and you're writing fantasy.

      SF uses science to set the stage for a story. Technologies that appear in SF are either already extant, or rely on theory current at the time of writing. Anything else - anything - is fantasy. WRT your "no true scotsman" silliness, this definition comes to us from the Milford SFWA conferences around the middle of the last century, courtesy of Del Ray, Clarke, Asimov, Blish, Knight, Pohl, Merrill, Kidd, Laumer, Heinlein, Lafferty, etc. They knew what they were talking about. They knew what they were writing when they wrote it; most were happy to exercise both forms, but they weren't inclined to confuse them.

      Just to be clear: I'm not saying fantasy isn't a worthy form, I'm just saying it is distinct from SF and in a very specific way. What is unworthy is fantasy masquerading as SF; those that engage in such nonsense, from writers to bookstores to directors who make spacecraft go "whoosh", are charlatans — or incompetents.

      You might turn it around and ask yourself this: If a story with fantasy elements is SF, then what defines a story as a fantasy? For if we don't draw the line at nonsensical hand waving — which is really what this is all about — then either fantasy ceases to exist, or SF does. Clearly, that's not happening nor is there any reason to expect it to happen.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  29. Re:There is a patent on full body teleportation al by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    That patents applies only to systems making use of gravitational waves, wormholes and hyperspace.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  30. HAH! by slick7 · · Score: 1

    We don't have inefficient teleportation let alone any teleportation. So take your mathematics and work it out with a pencil.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.