Our self image is rather that we are the smartest animal and the best hunter, the strongest, the brightest, the best looking.
Everyone knows that there are animals that are stronger than we are. I also don't think that humans are the best hunters, nor do I think too many people think they are. And of course "best looking" is not an objective trait. What most humans do think is that we are the most intelligent, and that this more than compensates our other weaknesses, because we can just outsmart all other animals.
BTW, what is the difference between "the smartest" and "the brightest"?
What I'm more concerned about, is how he will be treated : what rights will he have . What is the legal definition of 'human' ? If it's not covered by law, we need Neanderthal rights as soon as possible, or they might just start experimenting on him ( which I find horrible for any animal though, but it's currently still legal ).
Of course it will depend on where/by whom he is actually born. I guess there are places in the word where even considering him human would not be a major roadblock to experimenting on him.
Actually it doesn't matter if you listen to one song of the label 100 times, or 100 songs of the label 1 time each. The label will get the same money. However if you have to buy the songs, you'll only buy those which you intend to listen to repeatedly.
Maybe the source of the methane is some exotic life form: They feed on the more complex hydrocarbons and reduce them to methane (I'm no chemist, so I don't really know whether this would be a possible way to gain energy). They cannot consume the methane to gain more energy because they are lacking oxygen, therefore the methane is the end product, just like CO2 for earth's life. The methane then goes into the atmosphere where it gets combined into more complex hydrocarbons using solar energy (that process is actually described in the article).
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.
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).
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.
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).
According to that Wikipedia article, it's from 19th century and based on exactly the misconception I mentioned. So there's nothing to correct on my post.
6000 years are about 2.2 million days. For god, 1000 years are just a day, so 2.2 billion years are just 6000 years. So the earth may be 6000 years old for god, but 2.2 billion years for us. OK, science says it's about twice as old... well, the rest is probably god's nights!:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, when they saw the modern humans arrive, they figured out that the world was fucked beyond repair and thus decided to go extinct.
Everyone knows that there are animals that are stronger than we are. I also don't think that humans are the best hunters, nor do I think too many people think they are. And of course "best looking" is not an objective trait. What most humans do think is that we are the most intelligent, and that this more than compensates our other weaknesses, because we can just outsmart all other animals.
BTW, what is the difference between "the smartest" and "the brightest"?
What I'm more concerned about, is how he will be treated : what rights will he have . What is the legal definition of 'human' ?
If it's not covered by law, we need Neanderthal rights as soon as possible, or they might just start experimenting on him ( which I find horrible for any animal though, but it's currently still legal ).
Of course it will depend on where/by whom he is actually born. I guess there are places in the word where even considering him human would not be a major roadblock to experimenting on him.
Actually it doesn't matter if you listen to one song of the label 100 times, or 100 songs of the label 1 time each. The label will get the same money. However if you have to buy the songs, you'll only buy those which you intend to listen to repeatedly.
No. Planetary distances are distances as found on planets. Like, from New York to Moscow. From Earth to Venus would be an interplanetary distance.
Of course, laser communication on planetary distances is not new, as there are tons of fiber used for exactly that.
#
127.0.0.1 facebook.com www.facebook.com
Mark Zuckerberg, is that you?
Whoosh!
This obviously referred to "to be born in 30,000 years".
Maybe the source of the methane is some exotic life form: They feed on the more complex hydrocarbons and reduce them to methane (I'm no chemist, so I don't really know whether this would be a possible way to gain energy). They cannot consume the methane to gain more energy because they are lacking oxygen, therefore the methane is the end product, just like CO2 for earth's life. The methane then goes into the atmosphere where it gets combined into more complex hydrocarbons using solar energy (that process is actually described in the article).
Buy a stock of them (yes, one suffices), go to their annual stockholders meeting and ask them where they spend their money.
Indeed, even the vacuum is entangled.
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.
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).
I've also already spotted a g+ logo next to a name this week.
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.
Is this going to help me untangle my Christmas tree lights?
No, this scheme is designed to preserve as much entanglement as possible.
Vroomfondle, is that you?
That patents applies only to systems making use of gravitational waves, wormholes and hyperspace.
The address-of operator guarantees that you don't get a NULL pointer.
This looks wrong to me. It it is freeable memory, you should already be holding a pointer to it.
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.
According to that Wikipedia article, it's from 19th century and based on exactly the misconception I mentioned. So there's nothing to correct on my post.
But not everything that is illegal is a crime.
6000 years are about 2.2 million days. For god, 1000 years are just a day, so 2.2 billion years are just 6000 years. So the earth may be 6000 years old for god, but 2.2 billion years for us. OK, science says it's about twice as old ... well, the rest is probably god's nights! :-)
"Devolution"?
You seem to have the misconception that evolution means that everything gets better all the time.
But maybe it's at least the most average country? ;-)