Slashdot Mirror


First Object Teleported From Earth To Orbit (technologyreview.com)

Researchers in China have teleported a photon from the ground to a satellite orbiting more than 500 kilometers above. From a report: Last year, a Long March 2D rocket took off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre in the Gobi Desert carrying a satellite called Micius, named after an ancient Chinese philosopher who died in 391 B.C. The rocket placed Micius in a Sun-synchronous orbit so that it passes over the same point on Earth at the same time each day. Micius is a highly sensitive photon receiver that can detect the quantum states of single photons fired from the ground. That's important because it should allow scientists to test the technological building blocks for various quantum feats such as entanglement, cryptography, and teleportation. Today, the Micius team announced the results of its first experiments. The team created the first satellite-to-ground quantum network, in the process smashing the record for the longest distance over which entanglement has been measured. And they've used this quantum network to teleport the first object from the ground to orbit. Teleportation has become a standard operation in quantum optics labs around the world. The technique relies on the strange phenomenon of entanglement. This occurs when two quantum objects, such as photons, form at the same instant and point in space and so share the same existence. In technical terms, they are described by the same wave function.

33 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. A photon is not an "object" by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Outside of an arbitrary definition that says a photon is an object because we say so, a photon is most certainly not an "object" using any ordinary definition of the term or even a definition that the vast majority of physicists would use (i.e. than an "object" has mass, which photons most certainly don't have or else they would never be able to travel at light speed).

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:A photon is not an "object" by turkeydance · · Score: 5, Funny

      the photon objects.

    2. Re:A photon is not an "object" by sinij · · Score: 5, Funny

      the photon objects.

      We looked into that, but couldn't determine where exactly this objection came from.

    3. Re:A photon is not an "object" by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      A photon has mass. It's both a particle and a wave.

      Right, first of all, no, it absolutely does not have mass.

      Secondly, the fact that it's both a particle and a wave (which is an oversimplification) has nothing to do with whether it should have mass or not.

      A photon has mass. It's both a particle and a wave.

      Ditto.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:A photon is not an "object" by grumpy-cowboy · · Score: 2

      Yes it is : Photon photon = new Photon();

      --
      Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
    5. Re:A photon is not an "object" by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      A photon has no REST mass (mass at velocity = 0). It has mass due to velocity (special relativity), or as you mention, it has momentum, which implies mass. (momentum is mass times velocity, after all).

      Heck, a photon carries energy, which implies mass as well (E=mc^2, energy and mass are the same). And its energy is related to its wavelength...

    6. Re:A photon is not an "object" by profssrfink · · Score: 5, Funny

      I saw it wave from across the room.... Ill see myself out

    7. Re:A photon is not an "object" by wolfemi1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      the photon objects.

      We looked into that, but couldn't determine where exactly this objection came from.

      ...and then once we figured that out, we forgot how fast it went.

    8. Re:A photon is not an "object" by jandrese · · Score: 2

      Seemed like pretty standard technical reporting from a major news agency. In other words all of the details are wrong and/or overstated.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    9. Re:A photon is not an "object" by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Interesting

      About 100 years ago Bertrand Russell pointed out that probability means we can't mathematically differentiate between chance and "free will." If you graph the choices a bunch of humans make, it comes out with the same Gaussian distribution as the photon spread pattern.

      There seem to be many differences between "objects" at the atomic scale, and sub-atomic particles. Rather than being the same as teleportation of an object, this seems to be more the same as teleportation of intent; it has no weight at all. It is a measurable thing, but it is not guaranteed to have substance outside of a narrow context.

    10. Re:A photon is not an "object" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Right, first of all, no, it absolutely does not have mass.

      Photons have momentum, they have inertia, they are affected by gravitational fields, and they generate gravitational fields. You could say they have no "rest mass", but since they are never at rest that is meaningless. There are experiments that "stopped" light in a Bose-Einstein condensate, but really the energy was temporarily stored in the excited state of the BEC, and during that time, the mass of the BEC increased.

       

    11. Re:A photon is not an "object" by rgbatduke · · Score: 2

      E = \gamma m_0 c^2 for massive objects, where m_0 is their rest mass. Alternatively, E^2 = m_0^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2. In neither case do electromagnetic waves have mass. Indeed, for electromagnetic waves (or photons) E = pc because m_0 = 0. This does NOT mean that E = \gamma m_0 c^2 = pc = m c^2 with m_0 = 0 and \gamma = infinity (where you effectively have to assert that 0 * infinity = 1) so that you can conclude that p = mc for electromagnetic waves for some meaningful/useful definition of mass. Note well that one cannot just assert that 0*infinity = m (for some specific, varying, value of m!) in the first place as a useful step in algebra, and there is no good way to take limits of m_0 \to 0 and v \to c to define an "asymptotic" massive electromagnetic wave of photon, at least that I've heard of.

      Either way, U(1) symmetry requires the photon to be massless, classical electromagnetic theory requires electromagnetic waves to be massless, experiments have restricted the (rest) mass of photons to be less than 10^{-18} or so kg, and \gamma is not a meaningful construct for objects with zero rest mass that propagate at the speed of light.

      Finally, to rebut the various people who WANT to make m = p/c for a photon or assert that it is not a massless particle, I quote the wikipedia page for massless particles:

      In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero.

      That is, by definition the invariant mass of a photon is zero -- it is a massless particle. In fact, it is the first example of a massless particle given on this page, along with gluons and gravitons.

      So please, can we stop accusing people who assert that the photon is massless of being ignorant or stupid or not understanding physics. If anything, quite the contrary.

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    12. Re:A photon is not an "object" by nickersonm · · Score: 2

      You could say they have no "rest mass", but since they are never at rest that is meaningless.

      It's not meaningless, it's very useful: it means the m0 in the mass-energy equivalence formula is zero (E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m0^2 c^4). It's a helpful quantity elsewhere in SR and GR as well. Whether one is referring to 'rest mass' or 'relativistic mass' when writing 'mass' varies on context in physics, but is important.

    13. Re:A photon is not an "object" by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      It should not surprise you. Both the words "artificial" and "intelligence" are deep philosophical questions.

      Given that artificial flavors are often quite distinguishable from the original they are trying to emulate, I am willing to accept that artificial intelligence is not equivalent to human intelligence or even mammalian intelligence. But I still expect there to be some reasonably high bar for what is intelligence even if it is artificial. Systems that employ problem solving and machine learning even if lab-controlled training is reasonable to refer to as A.I. in my opinion.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    14. Re:A photon is not an "object" by strikethree · · Score: 2

      Wow. That was deep.

      This was not a sarcastic response. The lack of exclamation point after 'wow' indicates that I am deep in thought. There are numerous implications in the words you just wrote. Thank you for sharing (whether or not the future finds your words right or wrong).

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  2. Very Funny, Scotty... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...now, beam down my clothes.

  3. Feel like I need to go back to school by H3lldr0p · · Score: 3, Insightful

    in order to understand everything that was going on with the experiment. I wish the traditional media good luck in trying to translate all of that into an article for mass consumption.

  4. Re:Stock Traders by CSMoran · · Score: 3, Informative

    Entanglement does not transfer information.

    --
    Every end has half a stick.
  5. Re:Too many words, mismash by Bill+Hayden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funny, I was thinking that this was one of the better summaries that I've seen on Slashdot lately. No click-bait, all the pertinent facts, and covers a subject that's actually news for nerds. The summary is plenty good enough to not have to RTFA, which should be the top criterion for all good Slashdotters!

    --
    Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
  6. Also did faster than light communication! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you are going to hype like this, why aim so low? Might as well tack on cure for cancer and solving world hunger.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  7. Quantum "teleportation" is badly misnamed by gotan · · Score: 5, Informative

    What it means is, that the quantum state from a particle on Site A is transferred to a particle on Site B. This involves an entangled state of two particles in A and B. Depending on the experimental set up the entangled particle in site B may be the object the quantum state is transferred to. The "teleportation" involves a measurement in Site A, and to completely transfer the quantum state to B one needs the (classical) result of this measurement at site B.

    --
    "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
    1. Re:Quantum "teleportation" is badly misnamed by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      The end result is physically and fundamentally impossible to distinguish from "real", sci-fi teleportation though.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Quantum "teleportation" is badly misnamed by nickersonm · · Score: 4, Informative

      You cannot tell that anything has happened by just looking at one of the entangled particles, no.

      On a very brief and undetailed level, entanglement just says that measurements of particles A & B are correlated. What happens in an entangled measurement is vaguely like this:

      1. Particles A & B are two-state systems: when measured in a certain way, they can either be a 1 or a 0. Before being measured, they are some combination of 1 and 0 and thus have a probability of being measured 1 or 0, but are not either.
      2. Particles A & B are now entangled and in a state such that each individually has a 50% chance of being either 1 or 0.
      3. Without being measured, B is moved to a long distance away.
      4. A is measured.
      5. When B is measured, it will be !A (100% of the time if the entanglement is perfect).
      6. The important part is that the people measuring B don't know what A was until someone tells them via a classical channel.
      7. If one makes continuous measurements of a stream of Bs (B1, B2, ...), they see a random pattern of 1s and 0s.
      8. The people measuring a stream of As see a random pattern of 1s and 0s, but the interesting part is the A1...An is exactly !(B1...Bn) (anticorrelated)! You can't use this to send a signal, since each measurement is itself random, but if team A sent classical messages of their results, team B could predict the measurements of B.

      Using further methods like mixing A with C and also B with D before measuring and other stuff, then telling each other what measurements of A&C resulted, it's possible to say that D4 == C4 exactly, 'teleporting' particle C4 (i.e. just reproducing the exact quantum state), but this requires measuring D1, D2, and D3 and thus destroying their state. It's more complicated than this, but resembles a logic puzzle.

    3. Re:Quantum "teleportation" is badly misnamed by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not really. The problem is that we didn't take a photon in the lab, and create an identical photon in space. We took a photon in the lab, created a photon in space, then made the photon in space identical to the photon in the lab. That's a bit like taking a block of marble and carving it into *exactly* the same shape as, say, Michelangelo's David, then claiming we "teleported" the statue. Even if the final product is molecule for molecule identical, few people would call it "teleportation". Teleportation would involve taking the particles from one location and transferring them to the other, in some kind of stream or through a wormhole or something. Note that this is probably impossible.

      The key to quantum "teleportation" is that particles are indistinguishable except for a couple of quantum numbers, so if we take a particle and force it to have the same numbers as another particle, we've "teleported" it. Except that we can also distinguish particles based on position. Yes, it's true that you can take two electrons in two hydrogen atoms, exchange them, and you'd never know the difference. But we can still say the electron in that hydrogen atom over there is not the same electron as the electron in this hydrogen atom a million miles away. This isn't just a philosophical distinction: the two electrons really are different (i.e. have different quantum wavefunctions), at a physics level.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  8. Re:Stock Traders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No-Communication Theorem

    In physics, the no-communication theorem is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer. The theorem is important because, in quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement is an effect by which certain widely separated events can be correlated in ways that suggest the possibility of instantaneous communication. The no-communication theorem gives conditions under which such transfer of information between two observers is impossible. These results can be applied to understand the so-called paradoxes in quantum mechanics, such as the EPR paradox, or violations of local realism obtained in tests of Bell's theorem. In these experiments, the no-communication theorem shows that failure of local realism does not lead to what could be referred to as "spooky communication at a distance" (in analogy with Einstein's labeling of quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance").

  9. TL;DR Summery: by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Funny

    They pointed a flashlight at some satellite.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  10. Re:Too many words, mismash by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Informative

    No not technically. Did particle A starting in position X end up at position Y? Was any information transferred or able to be transferred? Is faster than light communication possible? The answer to all these are no. Describing entanglement with teleportation is dumb.

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

  11. Obligatory xkcd by Shimbo · · Score: 2
  12. Great job on whoever named this teleportation by Headw1nd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Scientists: laypeople are twisting our words and making hyperbolic claims based on their misunderstanding of our research.

    Other Scientists: Hey let's name this phenomenon after a fantastical and thematically similar yet completely unrelated concept in popular culture.

  13. correcting a programming joke, IR AWESOME. by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    surely you mean:
    Photon new_photon = new Photon(old_photon);

    after all, we're trying to duplicate the properties.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  14. Re:Too many words, mismash by slew · · Score: 4, Informative

    No not technically. Did particle A starting in position X end up at position Y? Was any information transferred or able to be transferred? Is faster than light communication possible? The answer to all these are no. Describing entanglement with teleportation is dumb.

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

    Actually, quantum information was transferred. Of course there wasn't faster than light communication as quantum teleportation relies on entanglement *and* a classical communication channel.

    For each qubit of information that wants to be sent, one of a pair of entangled photons needs to be conveyed to the destination (which can be done at nearly lightspeed for photons in free-space). After this is conveyance is done, then anytime later, a qubit from a third photon can be "teleported" to the destination by use of a conventional communication channel (which obviously isn't faster than light speed).

    The way this works is you jointly measure the 3rd photon and your local singleton of the previously entangled photon which yields one of 4 joint states. This doesn't tell you the original state of the 3rd photon, only the joint state relative to the entangled photon, (but in the process collapses the state of these photons).

    You then send this description of the measurement (basically two bits of information) across a classical channel to the destination (at whatever speed you want).

    To replicate the quantum state at the destination, you manipulate the phase of the previously conveyed/entangled photon (without measuring it) according to on the results of the relative (2-bit) state description. After this manipulation, this previously conveyed entangled-photon has a non-collapsed replicated quantum state of the original 3rd photon, but the state was transmitted/teleported to its destination over a classical channel.

    You can read the details from their paper paper. Over 32 days, they managed 911 four-photon events and achieved an estimated accuracy of about 80% of conveying the quantum state (the theoretical limit accuracy of a conventional channel was about 66% w/o using information obtained using measurements of previously conveyed entangled photons).

    Remember you can't simply pre-measure a quantum state w/o collapsing it to determine the accuracy rate, so accuracy was determined statistically using two entangled pairs (which is why they needed to create a four-photon-event and for which it was hard to create a process for).

    Baby steps.

  15. Re:Did anyone tell them by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Pretty sure there's a book or story about that..

    There is a short story: Fat Farm, although that may just be ordinary biological cloning. I read it a long time ago.

    It is also part of the plot of the movie The Prestige. The basic premise of this movie is that it you could teleport and create copies of yourself, rather than using that ability to acquire vast wealth and power, you would use it in a medicore magic show to duplicate what another act does using identical twins. That movie should win a Golden Raspberry for "most ridiculous premise".

  16. How's life in the hypocrite lane?