Mathematical Breakthrough Sets Out Rules For More Effective Teleportation 162
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."
"More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Bit optimistic, aren't we?
Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! (Score:5, Funny)
640 kbits should be enough for any body.
Re: (Score:1)
640 kbits should be enough for any body.
640 qubits should be enough for any body.
Re: (Score:1)
640 cubits should be enough for any boo-tay.
I like big butts and I can not lie.
Re: (Score:2)
640 kbits should be enough for any body.
You must use AT&T DSL.
Re: (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.
Re: "More effective teleportation"!?!?!?! (Score:5, Funny)
640 qubits may or may not be enough for anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
640 qubits may or may not be enough for anybody.
At the same time!
Re: (Score:1)
Vroomfondle, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
Where does extra energy go? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [xkcd.com]
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but the stationary object is also a "source of a gravitational field" from the POV of the ground. Relativity, y'see.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
What the .... is the f icon next to your name? /. allow fecesbook logins now?
Does
There went the neighborhood! September again.
Re: (Score:1)
I've also already spotted a g+ logo next to a name this week.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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:
Re:Where does extra energy go? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Bacon? I thought is was pastrami! God's Jewish right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The name " quantum teleportation [wikipedia.org]" 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 [wikipedia.org]). When you perform a quantum teleportation, you must destroy the state of the originatin
Re: (Score:2)
The name "quantum teleportation [wikipedia.org]" 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 let
Re:Where does extra energy go? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [popsci.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 [newscientist.com]
cheers
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Where does extra energy go? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The Biggest "Spooky" System Ever Seen: 4 Entangled Ions (Jun 2009) [discovermagazine.com]
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) [nature.com]. 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 [aps.org].
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 Qua
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed, even the vacuum is entangled.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 te
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speedy object goes in, speedy object comes out. -G.L.A.D.O.S.
Where did you learn science?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, potential energy is a m
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 en
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (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).
Teleport Whales? (Score:1)
Maybe?
Re: (Score:1)
I's like to imagine the world with such technology (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you wouldn't have to figure out which way to plug in the goddamn USB connector.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Teleportation and special theory of relativity? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For now it is math. Whether it is really relevant for real world physics is a totally different question.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (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
It's Christmas again! (Score:1)
Re: (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.
Simple math ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
UNLESS being2 = fly THEN GOTO merge
Re:Simple math ... (Score:5, Funny)
Jeff Goldblum says "Thanks, Captain Hindsight!"
One key question (Score:1)
Where's my fucking flying car?!
There is a patent on full body teleportation alrdy (Score:2)
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 [uspto.gov]
-do note: this is akin to the person claiming barbie dolls he dug up were ancient relics.
Re: (Score:1)
That patents applies only to systems making use of gravitational waves, wormholes and hyperspace.
HAH! (Score:2)
Re:The idea of Teleportation (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's me! I'm a doctor, not a quantum brick-layer!
Re: (Score:2)
The universe would not tolerate more than one of me.
Now, turning to Bill Cosby, "What's a qubit?"
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 y
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:The idea of Teleportation (Score:5, 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".
Change (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Not what "might" be possible. What is possible. Again, you confuse fantasy with science fiction.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
This one is even better so far, half of the comments are retarded trying to be serious.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:1)
The address-of operator guarantees that you don't get a NULL pointer.
Re: (Score:1)
This looks wrong to me. It it is freeable memory, you should already be holding a pointer to it.