No, it wouldn't be good for faster than light communication. But it could be used for secure communication, or implementing a "shift" register in a quantum computer. The separate line of communication doesn't pass information about the initial state of A, just its final measurement, which actually says nothing about it's initial state to anyone or anything except ion B. And, because we're talking about quantum mechanics, A's initial quantum state could be a superposition of states, not just "0" or "1".
Let's see if I can shorten my explanation to this: All the second line of communication says: "Entanglement between A and B was successful. Please use method 1 (or 2) to set B to A's initial state."
I hate to contradict a good rant, but in actuality, this "teleportation" can be used for communication.
Here's the experiment, without all the theory:
1. Put the atom A into the state you want to teleport to B. Let's call the two states "red" or "blue". Put atom B into a "known" state.
2. "Stimulate" both atoms so they will fire off a photon. The photon from each will either be a "red" type or "blue" type, but we won't know which (that's important).
3. Both photons "meet" in a beam splitter, then go to separate detectors.
4. If one detector detects a "red" and the other a "blue", then continue, Otherwise go back to step 1. Key here is that this step "confirms" the atoms are now entangled. At this point, if we measured A, the result would determine the B measurement. But we're not going to do that yet.
5. Instead, apply an operation to atom A, so that subsequently measuring it doesn't lock B into a "single" state. It instead puts it into one of two states, still dependent on the initial state of A.
6. Measure A. The measurement will either be "red" or "blue".
7. Use the measurement of A to choose the final operation to apply to B. B will, due to the magic of Quantum Mechanical entanglement, now be in A's initial state, whatever that was.
If A was initially in a "red" state, then measuring B will get you "red". If it was original in the "blue" state, measuring B will get you "blue".
While this does require that you repeat until you get a "red/blue" detection and you need the final A measurement to know what operatation to apply to B, the final A measurement doesn't contain the information about its original state. You could do the final operations on B only when you received the "red/blue" at the detectors and "red" measurements of A. B will still end up in whatever state A started out in.
So, to summarize one last time:
Apply operations to ions A and B. They fire off photons simultaneously into a beam splitter and detector. If the photon detectors detects a particular condition, then operate on A and measure it. Depending on the A measurement, apply one of two operations on B. B will now be in A's original state. If A started in a "singlet" state, then in the end B will be in that "singlet" state, and measuring it will indicate what that state was.
If the use of these things become the norm, it'll be only a matter of time before natural selection kicks in, and all weeds in fields will be those that the robot either can't recognize or discriminate from the "good" plants.
It could happen fast, too. If some common weed varies enough so that the robot can recognize and kill about 99% of its brethren but the 1% variant survives and reproduces, very quickly you'll have fields full of the hard-to-recognize variant.
Of course, refinement of the recognition algorithms might outpace the adaptation of the weeds, but I'm not willing to place a bet against Darwin.
Your point doesn't stand - the moon mineral composition is fundamentally different from Earth's for the straight forward reason that it was made up of materials from Earth's outer layers - it lacks the heavy elements that concentrate in the Earth's core.
I recall reading, though, that there might be significant amounts of heavy metals on the surface from meteoritic impacts. Unlike on earth, the materials wouldn't have disintegrated in the atmosphere, and the ancient impact sites (i.e. craters) would be easy to find.
You've misrepresenting what the article says: Environment alters gene EXPRESSION, not genes.
That makes the whole "Lamarckian" inheritance comment irrelevant, too.
If IBM had contributed UNIX system V functionality to Linux, the comparison to the IBM/Compaq court case might be valid. However, IBM didn't do that. It contributed stuff that originated in OS/2 that they later put into AIX.
Regardless of whether they build a "Chinese" wall in the development process, they had the right to do that.
That is, unless you buy into SCO's peculiar derivative work theory.
Potato famine was not deliberate - it was caused by a microorganism. Both the hack and the monopoly are socially constructed. Science can fight the former, but not the latter.
However, the "monoculture" policy of having an entire population's survival depend on a single crop WAS deliberate. The policy was just as "socially constructed" as a monopoly. Therefore, the connection between the two is a good one.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it wouldn't be good for faster than light communication. But it could be used for secure communication, or implementing a "shift" register in a quantum computer. The separate line of communication doesn't pass information about the initial state of A, just its final measurement, which actually says nothing about it's initial state to anyone or anything except ion B. And, because we're talking about quantum mechanics, A's initial quantum state could be a superposition of states, not just "0" or "1".
Let's see if I can shorten my explanation to this: All the second line of communication says: "Entanglement between A and B was successful. Please use method 1 (or 2) to set B to A's initial state."
I hate to contradict a good rant, but in actuality, this "teleportation" can be used for communication.
Here's the experiment, without all the theory:
1. Put the atom A into the state you want to teleport to B. Let's call the two states "red" or "blue". Put atom B into a "known" state.
2. "Stimulate" both atoms so they will fire off a photon. The photon from each will either be a "red" type or "blue" type, but we won't know which (that's important).
3. Both photons "meet" in a beam splitter, then go to separate detectors.
4. If one detector detects a "red" and the other a "blue", then continue, Otherwise go back to step 1. Key here is that this step "confirms" the atoms are now entangled. At this point, if we measured A, the result would determine the B measurement. But we're not going to do that yet.
5. Instead, apply an operation to atom A, so that subsequently measuring it doesn't lock B into a "single" state. It instead puts it into one of two states, still dependent on the initial state of A.
6. Measure A. The measurement will either be "red" or "blue".
7. Use the measurement of A to choose the final operation to apply to B. B will, due to the magic of Quantum Mechanical entanglement, now be in A's initial state, whatever that was.
If A was initially in a "red" state, then measuring B will get you "red". If it was original in the "blue" state, measuring B will get you "blue".
While this does require that you repeat until you get a "red/blue" detection and you need the final A measurement to know what operatation to apply to B, the final A measurement doesn't contain the information about its original state. You could do the final operations on B only when you received the "red/blue" at the detectors and "red" measurements of A. B will still end up in whatever state A started out in.
So, to summarize one last time:
Apply operations to ions A and B. They fire off photons simultaneously into a beam splitter and detector. If the photon detectors detects a particular condition, then operate on A and measure it. Depending on the A measurement, apply one of two operations on B. B will now be in A's original state. If A started in a "singlet" state, then in the end B will be in that "singlet" state, and measuring it will indicate what that state was.
That seems like communication from A to B to me.
If the use of these things become the norm, it'll be only a matter of time before natural selection kicks in, and all weeds in fields will be those that the robot either can't recognize or discriminate from the "good" plants.
It could happen fast, too. If some common weed varies enough so that the robot can recognize and kill about 99% of its brethren but the 1% variant survives and reproduces, very quickly you'll have fields full of the hard-to-recognize variant.
Of course, refinement of the recognition algorithms might outpace the adaptation of the weeds, but I'm not willing to place a bet against Darwin.
I recall reading, though, that there might be significant amounts of heavy metals on the surface from meteoritic impacts. Unlike on earth, the materials wouldn't have disintegrated in the atmosphere, and the ancient impact sites (i.e. craters) would be easy to find.
You've misrepresenting what the article says: Environment alters gene EXPRESSION, not genes. That makes the whole "Lamarckian" inheritance comment irrelevant, too.
If IBM had contributed UNIX system V functionality to Linux, the comparison to the IBM/Compaq court case might be valid. However, IBM didn't do that. It contributed stuff that originated in OS/2 that they later put into AIX. Regardless of whether they build a "Chinese" wall in the development process, they had the right to do that. That is, unless you buy into SCO's peculiar derivative work theory.
However, the "monoculture" policy of having an entire population's survival depend on a single crop WAS deliberate. The policy was just as "socially constructed" as a monopoly. Therefore, the connection between the two is a good one.