Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

Scientists Find Method To Reliably Teleport Data 202

Posted by Soulskill
from the who-needs-gigabit-fiber-anyway dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Scientists at the Kavli Institute of Nanoscience say they've managed to reliably teleport quantum information stored in one bit of diamond to another sitting three meters away (abstract, pre-print) . Now, their goal is to extend the range over a distance of a kilometer. '[R]eliability of quantum teleportation has been elusive. For example, in 2009, University of Maryland physicists demonstrated the transfer of quantum information, but only one of every 100 million attempts succeeded, meaning that transferring a single bit of quantum information required roughly 10 minutes. In contrast, the scientists at Delft have achieved the ability "deterministically," meaning they can now teleport the quantum state of two entangled electrons accurately 100 percent of the time. They did so by producing qubits using electrons trapped in diamonds at extremely low temperatures. According to Dr. Hanson, the diamonds effectively create 'miniprisons' in which the electrons were held. The researchers were able to establish a spin, or value, for electrons, and then read the value reliably.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Find Method To Reliably Teleport Data

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 30, 2014 @08:48AM (#47127859)
    Can you imagine the boner the high speed traders would have if someone figured out a way to communicate information from New York to Chicago or London instantaneously?
    • by TeknoHog (164938) on Friday May 30, 2014 @08:58AM (#47127907) Homepage Journal
      You can't use quantum teleportation to transmit information faster than light. QT requires a classical information channel (like fiber optic cables) on the side to actually work. The point about QT is being able to transfer a quantum mechanical state, i.e. the wavefunction with its full phase information. You cannot do that with classical means, because you'd need to measure the state, thereby collapsing it into a classical state.
      • At least poor Erwin can finally bring his cat with him when he travels.
        • by barlevg (2111272) on Friday May 30, 2014 @09:05AM (#47127969)
          I realize you were making a joke based on a perception common in popular culture, but the truth is that the Schrodinger's Cat paradox has a simple resolution: the cat *cannot* be both alive and dead because the detector (which detects whether the decay has occurred and which triggers the release of the poison if the decay occurred) collapses the wave function of the particle. There's no such thing as a passive detector. So while a subatomic particle could indeed exist in a superposition of "decayed" vs. "not decayed," the second you go about asking the particle whether it's decayed (that is, when you set up the detector), the wave function collapses, and no superposition is possible.
          • I think that that was more polite and informative than my fairly feeble joke deserved. My thanks.
          • by NotDrWho (3543773) on Friday May 30, 2014 @09:12AM (#47128019)

            Anyone remember the movie "Mystery Men"? One of the characters in that movie summed up my feelings on modern quantum physics pretty nicely. He was "Invisible Boy." But he could only become invisible when no one was looking (not even himself), and no cameras were on him. The second that anything that could actually verify his ability tried to do so, he became visible again. This led to the obvious question "How do you know you have this power at all?" to which he relied "Well, I just feel it."

            • by Gr8Apes (679165)

              I used to be called a tinfoil hatter. But Edward Snowden proved that even *I* wasn't paranoid enough.

              You'll note that there has been a dearth on tinfoil hatter jokes since Snowden.

            • One of the characters in that movie summed up my feelings on modern quantum physics pretty nicely.

              Which are what? The rest of your post, relating the shenanigans of Invisible Boy, don't tell us what your feelings are.

          • by bondsbw (888959)

            QM is one of those things I never get around to fully grasping because 1) I use my time for learning many other things that more directly apply to my life, and 2) I have attempted to understand it and just don't get it.

            So, could someone please explain why we think that the wave function of a particle is believed to exist in superposition until it is observed (which causes the wave function to collapse)? Why don't quantum physicists assume that the wave function was always collapsed and never in a superposi

            • by skids (119237)

              The double slit experiment. Even when you slow down the rate of photons going through the slit so no two can possibly interfere, they still present a self-interference pattern. If the function was "already collapsed" it could not interact with itself.

              • IANAP, but I've hypothesized that you could also say that the slits influence the individual particle at the same time. I.e. the particle isn't interfering with itself, but is rather 'interfered' (I know) with by both slits.

                If the particles that comprise the edges of the slits (or lack of those particles in the slits) have an influence on the trajectory of the fired particle that varies in a wave-like manner, the notion of 'interferes with itself' wouldn't be required to explain the resulting patterns. Agai

            • by barlevg (2111272) on Friday May 30, 2014 @09:29AM (#47128113)
              Basically, we know that superpositions exist because we can perform experiments in which, if a particle were always in one state or the other, the results would be different. See: double-slit experiment [wikipedia.org]. If photons didn't exist in a superposition of states, then the distribution of light you'd get with the double slit would be the distribution you get from having one slit covered plus the one you'd get from covering the other one. But you don't--the distribution is completely different, which means that a single photon somehow travel though *both* slits and "interferes with itself." It's more than a little batshit.
            • QM is one of those things I never get around to fully grasping because 1) I use my time for learning many other things that more directly apply to my life, and 2) I have attempted to understand it and just don't get it.

              That's the thing. You can (a) understand QM or (b) try to learn more about QM, but one precludes the other.

          • That's the second time today you've been moderated up for a highly misleading explanation of Schroedinger's cat.
            • by mwvdlee (775178)

              He just doesn't get the concept of a "thought experiment".
              The point of the cat in the box is not the mechanism inside the box, but the inability of somebody outside the box to know the state inside the box.
              The whole box and everything in it is a metaphore, it was never meant to be an actual reproducable experiment subject to literal interpretation.

          • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Friday May 30, 2014 @09:52AM (#47128279)

            I realize you were making a joke based on a perception common in popular culture, but the truth is that the Schrodinger's Cat paradox has a simple resolution: the cat *cannot* be both alive and dead because the detector (which detects whether the decay has occurred and which triggers the release of the poison if the decay occurred) collapses the wave function of the particle. There's no such thing as a passive detector. So while a subatomic particle could indeed exist in a superposition of "decayed" vs. "not decayed," the second you go about asking the particle whether it's decayed (that is, when you set up the detector), the wave function collapses, and no superposition is possible.

            You're presenting your interpretation as fact, and it's not. It's a possible scenario, but this thought experiment is designed explicitly to show a paradox that we have yet to resolve. What you describe is the "Copenhagen interpretation" which was proposed by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and others in 1924 to 1927. It states that quantum states are not fixed but probabilities. Just as you said, once any measurement is made the wave function collapses and the state is fixed in the classical sense. If this interpretation is true, then you are correct. But there are many other interpretations that have any equally valid chance of being correct.

            In the "Many-Worlds" interpretation, the cat really is both alive and dead. When you open the box you become entangled with the cat (not literally, that would hurt) and one version of you perceives it as alive and another perceives it as dead. Both results occur, you experience both, but you remain unaware of your duplicate and he of you.

            Einstein himself supported an entirely different interpretation called the "Ensemble interpretation" which basically just makes the entire thought experiment irrelevant. It's wacky and hard to explain so I'll just link to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]

            Anyways, I recommend reading up on Schrödinger's cat via Wikipedia or some other source. You're only incorrect in that you thought your explanation was the only one.

            Oh, and full disclosure, I'm not a scientist, I just find this stuff incredibly interesting. Also it makes me sound smart at parties. Actually I don't get invited to parties... they say I ramble on about nonsense. Thank God for the many worlds theory... at least I'm popular somewhere.

            • by barlevg (2111272)
              You're presenting this response as if the Copenhagen Interpretation were not still the standard interpretation of QMech nearly a century after its formulation. In all the academic circles in which I've run (I have a Ph.D in physics, although my field was pretty far from quantum mechanics), Many World is considered an interesting idea with little practical consequence, and almost everything Einstein said regarding Quantum Mechanics has turned out to be disproved (though I'm not familiar with this specific in
              • But why is it standard? There's no reason to believe its explanation is any more valid than the others other than, its the one that is most psychologically appealing because it most resembles our classical macroscopic world.

                The best way to think of why it could be wrong is that, in order for you to make your argument, you are treating the observer and the act of measurement device classically, in a deterministic way... But treating the quantum state as a probability in a non-deterministic way. So which is i

            • It's true that the GP is just representing one interpretation. Just thought I'd throw out my favorite "interpretation", (objective collapse theory [wikipedia.org]) as it doesn't seem to get much love. No multiple worlds. No living-dead cats.

              Also, instead of thinking of things being fundamentally composed of objects that are sort of both waves and particles I find it easier to picture them all as waves that only occasionally act as particles under the right conditions. This seems counter-intuitive since most of the world
              • ooo, neat. I love wikipedia. I've not read up on the collapse theories directly but after reading what you linked to I can see this is where some of the more recent theories that propose the universe operates much like a collapsing sand dune got their start. The idea being that there is some critical point where a wave will collapse, like a sand dune having a landslide. It's impossible to know when it will collapse but as more sand builds up the chances become more and more likely.

                Particularly I like the pe

            • by pitchpipe (708843)

              entangled with the cat (not literally, that would hurt)

              I'm thinking that you are correct! [youtube.com]

            • by njnnja (2833511)

              And here this post is modded +5 Informative but somewhere else it's modded +5 Funny

              • And here this post is modded +5 Informative but somewhere else it's modded +5 Funny

                Right? I've no idea why people think Physics is dull. There's no movie, no music, no book, or even theological work (The Bible) that proposes anything nearly as insane as what reality actually is. God would be a hell of a lot easier to explain than this stuff. lol

          • by Anonymous Coward
            Unfortunately this got modded up to +5 quickly, but is completely wrong.

            . There's no such thing as a passive detector.

            A larger part of quantum mechanics is there is no such thing as any interaction being passive. You're detector could consist of a photon bouncing off of a particle or the interaction between two particles. Until you make a measurement on that second particle, or it interacts with the environment, then you've created an entanglement between the detecting particle and the thing being measured. Any dependent interaction within a sealed

            • by barlevg (2111272)
              It's true, I might have glossed over some of the subtleties, but my point with that line is that people think of observation and detection as a passive event when it's anything but, and not for any sort of mysterious "the mind makes it so" bullshit but because when you're looking at the wall in front of you what's actually happening is that photons are hitting the wall, bouncing off (or being absorbed and re-emitted--though I got chided for saying something similar about this earlier) and being collected in
          • He wasn't seriously suggesting that the experiment as described would actually work. It's a thought experiment, meant to give you a better grasp of the kind of weird things that happen at microscopic scales by scaling them to everyday experience.

            Besides which, the idea is that the entire system - including the detector and the poison bottle - remains in an indeterminate state until observed.

            There's no way it'd ever actually work as described. But that isn't, and was never, the point.

            There's also no paradox.

            • Paradox doesn't mean it's contrary to the way the universe works. Weird and counter-intuitive is a near synonym to paradox.

              Some definitions:

              a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

              a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

      • by Mr0bvious (968303)

        Please excuse my absolute ignorance, but I was under the impression that classical information channel was only required to transmit one of the entangled photons. If one of the entangled photons (or what ever it is that is entangled) was transported elsewhere (truck, fiber optics, what-not) the two entangled would still maintain the same state (spin etc) and information could then be transmitted faster than light by changing the state of one and reading the state of the other.

        I'm sure I just displayed my ig

        • by skids (119237)

          It basically boils down to this: you have to send point B the data about what you did at point A for the reading you made at point B to be interpreted in any meaningful fashion. That data travels in a classical fashion so you don't know what your reading at point B actually means until after the light carrying the data from point A has arrived. Once the data are combined, they become actual information.

          Not useful for exceedind the speed of light under currently accepted theory, but very useful for cryptog

        • Please excuse my absolute ignorance, but I was under the impression that classical information channel was only required to transmit one of the entangled photons. If one of the entangled photons (or what ever it is that is entangled) was transported elsewhere (truck, fiber optics, what-not) the two entangled would still maintain the same state (spin etc) and information could then be transmitted faster than light by changing the state of one and reading the state of the other.

          Information cannot be transmitt

        • The two maintain the same state but you cannot WHATSOEVER control that state, so all you have and all you can trasmit is ENTIRELY RANDOM DATA. The only value in transmitting random data instantly is that you can use it for security purposes in computer authentication schemes. That is all. You will NEVER be able to transmit classical information FTL (through this method anyways).
      • What you can do is use quantum teleportation to "transmit" (in a manner of speaking) a real (or complex) number, i.e. a quantum superposition, which in theory could contain infinite information, by using only a couple of classical bits. This real number can't be observed directly - you can only tell whether it's less than or greater than a specified number by appropriately designing your observation - but until you observe it, it can be further processed in its full precision as a superposition at the re
    • 'Ye cannae change the laws o' physics'

      Classical information is still limited by the speed of light. Quantum teleportation can not be used for traditional communications.

      • Quantum teleportation can not be used for traditional communications.

        Quantum teleportation can not be used for traditional communications *by itself*. It is possible to set up a situation where you combine QT with traditional transmission so that both the QT and the transmission are required to receive the data. Relativity is observed, as you don't have the data until you get the speed of light transmission. But you get QT's security, as intercepting just the tranmission won't yield anything.

    • by dywolf (2673597)

      they would fight it because one of hte most popular HFT scams involves exploiting the lag time between different markets.

    • by barlevg (2111272)
      Quantum teleportation isn't "simultaneous." It appears to require the transmission of classical "bits" of information, which is limited to the speed of light. No causality- or Eisenstein-breaking paradoxes here.
      • No causality- or Eisenstein-breaking paradoxes here.

        exactly...this is about **non-local** entanglement... [wikipedia.org]which is terminology that means actual "spooky action at a distance" which would be instantaneous not bound by c

        otherwise it's multiplexing....really, really fancy multiplexing...something we've done since computing began

        TFA is hype...good research sure...but still hype

        why do we have to exaggerate when it's already awesome?

    • You utter bastard.

      As if I didn't have enough keeping up with XKCD, now you bring this rather funny comic to take my attention.

      May the fleas of a kilocamel infest your armpits.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        And may the comments in your code always be one word too long to fit on a single line.

    • by abies (607076)

      I liked Terry Pratchett version more. It was about reign - when king dies, his successor becomes a king immediately. Idea of modulating the waves by torturing kings at near-death state was also mentioned.

  • by slapout (93640) on Friday May 30, 2014 @08:57AM (#47127901)

    "Scientists Find Method To Reliably Teleport Data"

    Scientist found the internet?

    • by barlevg (2111272)
      The key is that it's not classical data, as in 1s and 0s, it's "quantum" data, as in, the very fuzzy states of physical particles.
  • That will make our internet faster and will end the Comcast/Netflix deal.
    • Well if you can get a point to point communication without the need of a middle man ISP. Yes you could end the comcast/nextflix deal. Heck Comcast itself will be gone.

      Good news all around.

    • by geekmux (1040042)

      That will make our internet faster and will end the Comcast/Netflix deal.

      I'd be careful with wild cards. You could fill hard drives in seconds with that.

      And whatever you do, do NOT teleport at work. It would be a bitch to explain to the boss why the corporate file server became instantly full of porn.

  • only one of every 100 million attempts succeeded

    I can beat that in software.

    bool getMessage() {
    return rand() % 2 == 1;
    }
  • by NotDrWho (3543773) on Friday May 30, 2014 @09:07AM (#47127983)

    If it's real "quantum entanglement," that should be not different than 3m or 1km.

    • by abies (607076)

      How difficult is it to drop a rock? Easy. Can you please drop a rock from 50km high? After all, dropping a rock is not different if it is 1m or 50km high.

      They need to entangle both sides of the communication from single place and this is quite hard longer the distance. Moving it afterwards is also quite difficult, it is not a small, robust device you can carry in your pocket.

    • by aicrules (819392)
      If they were 100% sure how to use quantum entanglement, then yes. But they're still trying to figure it out, including whether anything they try is ACTUALLY that or some other thing happening.
  • Quantum data transfer will probably end up succumbing to the same kind of catch-22/gotcha that plagues realtime digital filtering of analog waveforms...

    a) Analog filtering introduces phase changes due to delays. When digitally-filtering a waveform, the length of time you have to sample it to get enough to analyze and transform ends up introducing basically the same phase shift an analog filter would have caused.

    b) Quantum data transfer has "1 in 100 million" odds of actually working for any particular attem

  • I still don't think teleporting would leave the soul intact. To the observer, the result may act and behave in the same way before the teleportation took place, but I wonder if it would be the same person?

    • by skids (119237)

      That philisophical debate hinges around whether the essence of the object being teleported must be destroyed.

      • We're not anywhere near that yet. We won't be able to teleport matter for a very long time / or ever. Breaking an object into information and then re-creating it would obviously destroy it.
    • Soul? This is a joke right?
    • by oodaloop (1229816)
      Good thing there's no such thing as a soul then.
      • by BitZtream (692029)

        Theres strong evidence to indicate that your mind works with and has a sizable bit of quantum state information ... your soul in effect.

        Just because you don't believe in a God doesn't mean you don't have a soul, according to the modern dictionary definition anyway.

        http://dictionary.reference.co... [reference.com]

  • scientific journal: earlier tests unsuccessful as we've managed to teleport ryans carbonara pasta lunch into the aegean sea (could not recover.)
    Update: telimetry meeting at 2:00 to discuss experimental teleportation of a cat 8 miles above the research chamber. projects will no longer be colloquially referred to as 'operation cat splat'
    informational: research staff will immediately discontinue teleportation of chicken vindaloo from the west end of town. building maintenance will be on site this aftern
  • .... then I'm not sure what the real difference is between teleporting data and simply sending it. Can somebody please explain?
    • by Zalbik (308903) on Friday May 30, 2014 @11:53AM (#47129275)

      IANAP (I Am Not A Physicist), but as I understand it, the information is sent instantaneously (teleported), but can only be "read" via the use of a measurement taken at the source location & sent (via classical channels) to the target.

      i.e.:
      2 entangled particles exist. One at A and one at B
      Measurement is take an A. This results in a change of state to both particles
      Unfortunately, due to quantum funkiness, the state at B cannot be determined without the measurement from A.
      Measurement is sent from A to B (via classical channels)
      B can then determine the state of their particle (which matches the state at A)

      Please excuse any butchering of the science that may of occurred due to my ignorance :-)

    • by Cabriel (803429)

      Intervening obstacles would be my number 1 assumption. Also, not having to run a wire through the planet, and not having to aim a laser with 0.000000000001 arc-seconds of precision (for intrastellar).

  • After reading a bunch of articles on this it seems like the general public really doesn't understand that the data does not get transmitted across distances. The encoding of the data was done at entanglement time.

    You take 2 envelopes. Write the word UP and DOWN on two separate pieces of paper, mix them up and put them in an envelope. Send them to two different locations. Open one envelope and you will have the opposite reading in the other envelope which could be miles or light years away. As far as t
    • by dcollins (135727)

      That's always what it seems like to me, too. I haven't yet heard a coherent explanation why quantum entanglement is any different from that.

      (My own metaphor involved two differently-colored hamsters in an opaque tube, yours is probably better.)

    • The encoding of the data was done at entanglement time.

      Well, sort of, but the "data" is a quantum state. It's not UP or DOWN as written on your envelopes.

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

      • by dcollins (135727)

        Thank you for that link to an 8,000-word article which doesn't initially seem related to your comment. Can the point be addressed in a key quote or summary paragraph?

        • There are things about entanglement that can't be explained by assuming that entangled particles have the contents of their "envelopes" set to definite values when they get entangled.

  • They only put the black electrons in the prisons.

  • DeBeers have announced additional funding as long as they can't do it with artificial diamonds.
  • Scientists at the Kavli Institute of Nanoscience say they've managed to reliably teleport quantum information stored in one bit of diamond to another

    When you're writing an article about the transmission of information, using the word "bit" in that sense probably isn't a great idea.

  • Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I really want my Ansible [wikipedia.org]. So the classic channel is required to report observed measurements at the origin to compare against, but they say they can deterministically set the state? Sooo..... why not do this to eliminate the need for the sub-luminal classic channel, if they can deterministically set the state at the origin. Operate on a clock cycle and deterministically set the state to an expected ground state at a certain point in the cycle. When a read operatio

Computers will not be perfected until they can compute how much more than the estimate the job will cost.

Working...