Information Teleported Between Two Computer Chips For the First Time (newatlas.com) 185
Michael Irving, writing for New Atlas: Scientists at the University of Bristol and the Technical University of Denmark have achieved quantum teleportation between two computer chips for the first time. The team managed to send information from one chip to another instantly without them being physically or electronically connected, in a feat that opens the door for quantum computers and quantum internet. This kind of teleportation is made possible by a phenomenon called quantum entanglement, where two particles become so entwined with each other that they can "communicate" over long distances. Changing the properties of one particle will cause the other to instantly change too, no matter how much space separates the two of them. In essence, information is being teleported between them.
Hypothetically, there's no limit to the distance over which quantum teleportation can operate -- and that raises some strange implications that puzzled even Einstein himself. Our current understanding of physics says that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and yet, with quantum teleportation, information appears to break that speed limit. Einstein dubbed it "spooky action at a distance." Harnessing this phenomenon could clearly be beneficial, and the new study helps bring that closer to reality. The team generated pairs of entangled photons on the chips, and then made a quantum measurement of one. This observation changes the state of the photon, and those changes are then instantly applied to the partner photon in the other chip.
Hypothetically, there's no limit to the distance over which quantum teleportation can operate -- and that raises some strange implications that puzzled even Einstein himself. Our current understanding of physics says that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and yet, with quantum teleportation, information appears to break that speed limit. Einstein dubbed it "spooky action at a distance." Harnessing this phenomenon could clearly be beneficial, and the new study helps bring that closer to reality. The team generated pairs of entangled photons on the chips, and then made a quantum measurement of one. This observation changes the state of the photon, and those changes are then instantly applied to the partner photon in the other chip.
Nice (Score:2)
They are connected indirectly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They are connected indirectly (Score:5, Informative)
The summary is not quite right. The chips are both connected to a common source of entangled photons.
The summary is more than just a little bit wrong. Its main point is incorrect. The summary twice says that quantum entanglement is used to send information from one chip to another. QE does not and can not transmit information.
Re: (Score:2)
+5 Informative.
Re: (Score:2)
At most they cemented a random bit into a particular state that could be read. You can't even send a binary bit of yes or no over this.
I think the progress here is having them be in two different computing devices. What that gets you is a mystery. Even sending a message to the other computer saying "the uncertainty has collapsed, you can read the state now" has to travel over classical channels.
Might as well study whether rabbit, in fact, reproduce like rabbits.
Re: (Score:3)
And in any event, you have to physically transport the entangled photons to each circuit before breaking the circuits. So it is not even a misunderstanding but just a blatant lie when they say there was no physical connection. There better have been, if they actually did the thing; otherwise they're lying about having even done it!
The value is determined, but unknown, before the photon is physically transported to the circuit.
Almost everything about the news story is a lie. Presumably they got the names rig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>At most they cemented a random bit into a particular state that could be read ..
>What that gets you is a mystery
A key agreement protocol.
Re: They are connected indirectly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The summary is more than just a little bit wrong. Its main point is incorrect. The summary twice says that quantum entanglement is used to send information from one chip to another. QE does not and can not transmit information.
I've seen several such claims over the past few years. The one that bends my mind the most was made by several Chinese scientists in an article whose abstract is available for your perusal at Science.mag. They describe their work with a satellite-based entanglement distribution to three land-based stations:
"We have demonstrated the distribution of two entangled photons from a satellite to two ground stations that are physically separated by 1203 km and have observed the survival of entanglement and violation of Bell inequality. The distributed entangled photons are readily useful for entanglement-based quantum key distribution."
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6343/1140 [sciencemag.org]
The key they are referring to is a sort of network encryption key that would be altered if a bad guy tried to do anything with it, and thus be detected easily. If true, this would mean QE can transmit i
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is not quite right. The chips are both connected to a common source of entangled photons.
No, the summary is total junk .
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't know that the state of one photon was changed by observing the state of the entangled photon without knowing the state of the entangled photon.
Imagine you have an hourglass that flips over randomly throughout the day, but it is also magically linked to my hourglass a thousand miles away, and it is always the opposite of mine. You are sitting at home watching your hourglass, and if flips 3 times. How do you know which, if any, of those times were me flipping mine? You still have to pick up the p
Re: (Score:2)
Nice analogy, but it doesn't work. The mere process of observing the hourglass causes the quantum state to collapse. So it's more along the lines of you and I both receive a fuzzy image of a hourglass. And when either of us observe our hourglass, we immediately know what our glass looks like and can infer what the other glass will look like. And when the other glass is eventually observed, our inference is proven to be true.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2 main uses in the future for this are (Score:2)
-communicating to other planets (e.g. Mars)
-Spy networks
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The 2 main uses in the future for this are (Score:2)
Re: NOT the 2 main uses in the future for this are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't, but if you're communicating between planets it is a good idea to think carefully about error correction, and this could be the answer.
You probably only want to use it in situations where your data transfer is so lossy that you're already using statistical analysis to extract the signal.
It could be used to detect a MITM, but isn't good encryption a better plan than line of sight?
Re: The 2 main uses in the future for this are (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. This doesn't actually prove FTL or entangled communications possible. But rest assured that if it did, several laboratories in Bristol and Denmark would mysteriously burn down. Nobody will be allowed to bypass Room 641A [wikipedia.org].
Source (Score:5, Informative)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.078... [arxiv.org]
Occam's razor (Score:2)
What scenario requires the fewest new assumptions here -- that some researchers managed to break special relativity by transmitting information faster than the speed of light, or that this is a case of bad science journalism?
To quote [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia:
No, not Occam's razor (Score:2)
You're thinking of Hanlon's Razor. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe it is Occam's razor (Score:2)
Fair point. But I think you may have been right after all: journalists screwing up is more likely than breaking the light barrier.
Peace out.
bottleneck (Score:2)
Hey, this is nice and all, but maybe they could spend a few minutes figuring out a way for me to get broadband to my place up in the Blue Ridge Mountains?
Basic question (Score:2)
How do you know that changing the quantum state locally changes quantum state at a specific remote location and not some other location?
Re: (Score:2)
Because you have transmitted the entangled particle to that specific location. That part works great. The instant communication part, not so much.
Teleported... (Score:2)
... seems somewhat of an overstatement. From the article it seems that they were able to manipulate and measure an entangled pair.
Possibly someone here may be able to explain how this is any different that this..
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-... [phys.org]
Ahem (Score:2)
Entangled. Or not entangled. There is no "so entwined."
Re: (Score:2)
Understand Quantum Mechanics, you do not.
Strong am I with The Physics. But understand Quantum Mechanics, I do not either.
6G in the making? (Score:2)
From TFA: The team generated ... (Score:2)
...pairs of entangled photons on the chips ...
That's the channel.
Summary incorrect per usual (Score:2)
FFS there wasnt information translated. As far as we know, information theory still gives this as impossible.
Useful for encryption though as the actual paper clearly points out.
when this can be miniturized, (Score:2)
The other interesting location will be in Computer chips. This will make possible not just for chips to talk to one another without a bus, but what ever nation is building the chips will likely put these in them so that they can listen to what is going on.
Re: (Score:2)
You can do same with matched marbles in two boxes. (Score:2)
This will be good for James Bond (Score:2)
Not what you think it means (Score:2)
Quantum Entanglement on a chip is a neat trick but it does NOT mean you can transfer information.
Entanglement requires you to ASK the particle you're measuring "What state are you in?" and it may say +1 or -1 and that in turn will "set" the state of the entangled particle on the other chip. What you can NOT do is TELL the particle on the first chip "I want you to be in a +1 state". If you do that, you break entanglement and the other chip will have an undefined state.
So you can't set a bit on one chip an
Re: (Score:2)
Information still need to be communicated through classical channel to complete the teleportation. So, it won't go faster than light.
But couldn't you do something as simple(yes, I know there's nothing simple about all this) as using the state change to transmit that information using something similar to binary (1 state =1, 1 state =0) or even Morse code(the time between state changes as dots/dashes)?
Re: (Score:3)
But couldn't you do something as simple(yes, I know there's nothing simple about all this) as using the state change to transmit that information using something similar to binary (1 state =1, 1 state =0) or even Morse code(the time between state changes as dots/dashes)?
No because the initial state on the receiving end isn’t known. It’s like (not exactly but this is a useful way to think about it) there were two cards, a 0 and a 1 delt randomly to each side face down. Really the cards are random and the state isn’t known. Flipping over one card by sending it lets you know ensures the other side has the other card, this is done instantly. Simply looking at the receive card early screws up the process and can result in an error. So you must classically transmit the information such as when the transmission was sent and it’s state. It’s most useful for sending an exact copy of a state (information) that is immune to being intercepted by man in the middle attacks.
Re: (Score:2)
But couldn't you do something as simple(yes, I know there's nothing simple about all this) as using the state change to transmit that information using something similar to binary (1 state =1, 1 state =0) or even Morse code(the time between state changes as dots/dashes)?
No because the initial state on the receiving end isn’t known. It’s like (not exactly but this is a useful way to think about it) there were two cards, a 0 and a 1 delt randomly to each side face down. Really the cards are random and the state isn’t known. Flipping over one card by sending it lets you know ensures the other side has the other card, this is done instantly. Simply looking at the receive card early screws up the process and can result in an error. So you must classically transmit the information such as when the transmission was sent and it’s state. It’s most useful for sending an exact copy of a state (information) that is immune to being intercepted by man in the middle attacks.
OK, so I never got the grip of physics, but I'm aware that with quantum physics measuring something changes it's characteristics (but I don't understand the mechanics behind it). So at a pure layman's understanding, for them to know that this is working, how would they have known the 2nd photon has changed without knowing it's prior state? Is it an assumption? Or are they able to measure the fact that there is a change? If they are able to the second, then couldn't it essentially be turned into a wirel
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so I never got the grip of physics, but I'm aware that with quantum physics measuring something changes it's characteristics (but I don't understand the mechanics behind it). So at a pure layman's understanding, for them to know that this is working, how would they have known the 2nd photon has changed without knowing it's prior state? Is it an assumption? Or are they able to measure the fact that there is a change? If they are able to the second, then couldn't it essentially be turned into a wireless telegraph key with essentially unlimited range?
They don't know it's prior state. Actually, in a very real sense, it doesn't have a single well-defined state: it's in a superposition of possible states. The two photons are entangled: this means that their superpositions are cleverly constructed so that if you measure one of them in one state, you know the other's state as well. The key is that neither was in a specific state before the measurement, but after you measure one of them, both of them have well-defined states, and you only need to know one to
Re: (Score:2)
Try an actual physical example. The way you entangle particles is to produce them in such a way that their states are correlated. The most common way of doing that is shooting a laser into a special crystal that absorbs the laser photons and re-emits two lower frequency photons going in opposite directions. Those photons have to have polarizations that are "opposite": one is up/down while the other is right/left for example.
So you take one of those photons and measure its polarization. That value is complet
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so I never got the grip of physics, but I'm aware that with quantum physics measuring something changes it's characteristics (but I don't understand the mechanics behind it). So at a pure layman's understanding, for them to know that this is working, how would they have known the 2nd photon has changed without knowing it's prior state? Is it an assumption? Or are they able to measure the fact that there is a change? If they are able to the second, then couldn't it essentially be turned into a wireless telegraph key with essentially unlimited range?
In the experiments, they're transmitting the expected answer the slow way, by shipping equipment around that is only configured to do statistical analysis of the results. Then they transmit a stream of entangled photons, and measure them. So when do the measurement, the entangled photons take on opposite state, but that also causes them to no longer be entangled. So one stream you do the same thing to it every time, you polarize it in a certain way. Then the other stream, you measure and do statistical anal
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, that measuring one state you influence the other state.
And timing wouldn't work, as you still need to sync timing delays
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No influence here, just knowing what was once unknown.
This claim is not even knowable according to current physics.
The assertion of the existence of an unknown inner clockwork is specious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly it seems you cannot [wikipedia.org]
Indeed. Very sad. A universe without causality would be much more interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
A universe without causality would be much more interesting.
But possibly not for very long...
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps, by definition, less interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
But couldn't you do something as simple(yes, I know there's nothing simple about all this) as using the state change to transmit that information using something similar to binary (1 state =1, 1 state =0) or even Morse code(the time between state changes as dots/dashes)?
No, because you can't choose the state that the observed particle will be in when you observe it. All it does is randomly resolve into a 1 or 0, you have no control over it.
Re: (Score:2)
But couldn't you do something as simple(yes, I know there's nothing simple about all this) as using the state change to transmit that information using something similar to binary (1 state =1, 1 state =0) or even Morse code(the time between state changes as dots/dashes)?
No, because you can't choose the state that the observed particle will be in when you observe it. All it does is randomly resolve into a 1 or 0, you have no control over it.
The procedural view: If you set the state locally, you would break the remote entanglement since setting it involves entanglement. Entanglement is a statement about correlation of state and these limits on entanglement is what prevents entropy being just plain silly.
Re: teleporting state not information (Score:5, Informative)
Not necessarily (Score:2)
So it may well be possible to transmit information using non-classical channels but you will always get a signal speed below than of light.
Re: (Score:2)
Does probability of tunneling success go down with distance of barrier traversed?
If not (I find this unlikely; IIRC the barrier must be thinner than the photon's wavelength), then the photon can "instantaneously tunnel" to the destination, regardless of distance, still enabling superluminal communication if the distance is sufficiently far, that even with data processing latency added, the time normally needed for the photon to traverse space is still greater than that processing time.
If yes-- Yup. Never su
Re: (Score:2)
Superluminal is possible, just only over very short distances, because the scaling with distance is extremely bad. 1m may already be out of reach, but 30cm or so have been done and demonstrated. But you need to pump in kW of energy to get out some micro-watt of signal on the other side. Information transfer is basically by on/off modulation. The whole thing is just a curiosity, nothing else.
Conversely, FTL communication is not possible with entanglement.
Re: (Score:2)
I was meaning more the channel for the initial state. EG, the "classical channel."
Say for instance, you have two entangled particles that are 1ly apart. The "Absolutely best possible" time will be something slightly longer than 1 year for latency when using a classical channel. (Photons carrying the modulated signal must traverse space to relay that modulation pattern to the destination, where the pattern is measured, then decoded, then used to examine the quantum entangled particle for differences.)
Howeve
Re: (Score:2)
Tunneling rates go down dramatically with distance and I mean dramatically. Quantum entanglement (which is an entirely different thing) can possible be kept up when the entangled particles get separated in space and at least current (known to be flawed) theory says distance plays no role. However, time does as keeping an entanglement up is difficult and breakdown becomes more likely with time (first problem) and you can only separate the particles with speeds below light speed. This means if you want to sep
Re: (Score:2)
No.
You still can't decode without knowing what the answer is, because the decoding is by statistical analysis.
You'd be better off tunneling a classically encoded communication if you can get it that far.
Maybe you can just stretch a 1 ly Bose-Einstein condensate string between the locations, and use that as a classical antenna?
It would be a technology like in Galileo's Dream [wikipedia.org] by Kim Stanley Robinson, where the entire energy of a large gas planetoid is consumed to run some machine a few times. You'd have to ca
Re: (Score:2)
You can. And you can actually transmit information FTL with that, there is no intrinsic limit. There is an experiment where you pump a few kW of microwaves in a tube 50cm or so long and you get a weak signal from the tunneled part on the other side. Information can be transmitted FTL with that using modulation. But tunneling scales so extremely bad that it is unusable for any real distances. A few meters are already stretching the limits of what is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
That asserts that probability of tunneling success goes down as the thickness of the barrier increases, but never reaches 0%.
Is that the correct interpretation?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. But if you want to transmit information, you have to have a minimum signal-to-noise ratio for a specific encoding to work. The weaker your signal, the worse this ratio is. Hence if you pump in a specific number of particles per time, you have a data-rate that gets dramatically lower with distance. The distance where conventional light-speed transfer is faster will be extremely low. You also need the conditions where tunneling ocures in the first place. For microwaves this is done by a barrier (
Re: (Score:3)
No. Causality is built into quantum field theory at a fundamental level. There is no FTL information transmission, not even at small scales. There were some experimental physicists claiming otherwise, but this is a misrepresentation of the results.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused. Practice informs theory, not the other way round. A lot of quantum physicists seem to be unable to understand that though. However, any good physicists knows that there is a rather bad bug in the physics we have today (no quantum gravity), but it is completely unknown where it is. It is clear that it must be at the extreme (and tunneling large enough to be measured and modulated on is by its very nature pretty extreme), because experimental verification of currently known physical theory i
Re: (Score:2)
Rather obviously. This is a stunt with no value.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a quantum physicist, but from my elementary understanding of Quantum entanglement the two particles are spinning/vibrating in perfect sync with each other. What this offers us is a better shared random number generator. As two particles that are entangled would be giving the same random numbers at the same time. So there is no need to send out a seed value or other credentials you can just encrypt based off your particle and send the data over to the next system where they would have the same rand
Serious question: What if you send it back? (Score:2)
What if you keep it all in that entangled state, so it "never enters the time of the target", and send it back like that, to the original sender, to get the result there.
From the perspective of the target system, the action it performed can only have happened some time later; but what does it matter to the sender, in whose quantum state it can happen earlier? In essence, the target was treated like it was at the same location as the source, given that the
source's quantum state was used.
The photons don't car
Re: At last (Score:5, Informative)
Re:At last (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I still believe those commenters more than any journalist covering topic.
From source publication:
In our chip-to-chip teleportion experiments, the quantum states were transmitted from chip A (transmitter, where the multiphoton states
are created) to chip B (receiver, where the teleported states are reconstructed). The two chips are coherently linked by a single-mode optical
fiber, using the path-polarisation conversion technique. The chip-to-chip experimental details and results are provided in section 4.2
Doesn't sound neither instantaneous, nor communication without connection.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when I first heard about quantum entanglement and the attempts to use it as a communication medium. People here on slashdot kept saying it was impossible.
Well, here we are at the end of 2019, and quantum communication is now a reality.
This opens up extremely interesting possibilities for space-related projects, such as instantaneous communications with deep space missions (moon, mars and beyond). Imagine having a live video feed from Voyager 2, for example.
And while this means the beginning of the end for satellite-based communications, it does means we can finally start clearing all the junk we have in orbit around the Earth. It also means a lot less rocket launches, which means it's better for the environment too.
I can't wait to see all the telecom companies going into panic mode over this new technology.
We've had press releases like this for years.
Sure, it could pan out, but I'm going to wait before I get too excited.
Re: (Score:2)
They said it was impossible because it was impossible, still is in fact, despite the breathless pop-science journalism. It is categorically not "communicating"; that is a misnomer. That the same wavefunction is stretched in space does not mean there is a pipe through which to exchange information. You always need a classical channel limited by light speed to complete the so-called teleportation process.
So, unfortunately for all of us, none of your implications follow.
Re: (Score:2)
The “impossible” will follow, it’s just a matter of time and research.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Causality - which roughly means that effects happen after causes, that time travel is impossible etc, relies completely on there being no FTL transmission of information. Some non-physical things can more faster than light (like sweeping a laser beam across the surface of the moon) ,but they cannot communicate information.
Causality could be wrong - but it would require an enormous re-write of physics, and would need to somehow be consistent with a wide range of experiments.
Its not that scientists are not
Re: (Score:2)
I refuse to believe that, with our current technology levels, we have done little more than scratch the surface of physics, and I refuse to believe that our universes laws have been unequivocally laid out as set in stone by scientists who could not begin to imagine the technology we have today, let alone what we might have a thousand years from now to investigate the universe with.
Yes, causality might be wrong, but it wouldn’t take a huge rewrite of physics for it to be so, as physics doesn’t ch
Re: (Score:2)
Its always difficult to know if we finally have a good understanding of the universe, or if there will be complete revolution in physics.
At the moment we can predict such a wide range of effects, from very small to very large scales, from very low to very high energies, that it seems that our understanding might be good.
We are also running into the limits of practical experiments: Much higher energies are beyond the reach of realistic particle accelerators. Telescopes let us see back to the first 300,000
Re: (Score:2)
The “impossible” will follow, it’s just a matter of time and research.
We can always hope that that is so, but we need to be grounded by what we observe, until we observe otherwise.
And there may well be some principles of science that will remain intact forever.
The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation
Re: (Score:2)
And there may well be some principles of science that will remain intact forever.
There will always be a space on our charts marked "There Be Dragones Here". We just keep pushing the boundary a little further every time. But we can only observe to the physical limits we're allowed to observe at, so we bump into a barrier be it one of scale or one of time. Some things may happen so fast we simply can't perceive them. Likewise some things are so slow it's likely the human race will be extinct before noticeable, measurable change happens.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, there is no underlying reason why entropy can't be reversed, there are simply no known examples of it or known physical effects or contexts that would have that result.
It is also not strictly known what the boundary of the Universe is, if there truly is one. Theories that are popular with scientists, but remain mostly untested for important reasons like "the arrow of time," can't actually be tested. Is the Universe a closed system? Presumptively yes, but go to the edge and look to make sure. What?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still impossible. This is not communication, these are synchronized dice-throws, nothing more.
You lack basic understanding of Physics, that is why you have a quasi-religious (and similarly unfounded) belief in this thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when I first heard about quantum entanglement and the attempts to use it as a communication medium.
Well, here we are at the end of 2019, and quantum communication is now a reality.
Apparently you haven't been following the developments too closely. According to the first FA, teleportation of information across a room via quantum entanglement was demonstrated five years ago.
I can't wait to see all the telecom companies going into panic mode over this new technology.
If you'd read TFA that isn't paywalled, you would have noticed that this is not being touted by the developers as something that will be commercially exploitable any time soon. It's not 5 or 10 years away. This is a baby step towards the sort of breakthrough that has you excited.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a baby step towards the sort of breakthrough that has you excited.
It is not even that. This does not get us closer to instant communication.
That would be like saying that the first waterwheel was a baby step towards a perpetual motion machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't sending any communication. It is like you have an RSA Key fob for Second Factor authentication, and you give an other one which uses the same seed, and refreshes at the same time. You travel 1 light second away and the observer who is in the middle who can see both of your fobs will notice they flip to the same number at the same time.
Now this Quantum computing isn't as magical as they make it sound. While advancements will provide benefits and probably replace current computer architectures in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when I first heard about quantum entanglement and the attempts to use it as a communication medium. People here on slashdot kept saying it was impossible.
Well, here we are at the end of 2019, and quantum communication is now a reality.
I can't wait to see all the telecom companies going into panic mode over this new technology.
Is this a joke or are you serious?
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody ever said you were a Moran, though. It is true.
Re: (Score:2)
You can rent an crow bar from comcast for only 7.99 /mo
Re: (Score:2)
comcast quantum internet. Not at fault for Resonance Cascades
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
TL/DR: the two photons are created simultaneously in proximity to one another, in such a way as to share the same wave-function, so they cannot be described independently. As the two photons move away from each other, they continue to share the entanglement.
Re: (Score:2)
At this time of year it's generally at the office party, near or in the paper store.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to reach into hypothetical physics to debunk that quote. I can whip a laser pointer from pointing to the moon, to the surface of the Earth in less than a second, clearly exceeding the speed of light. However, no actual information can be transferred faster than light in this way, nor any other way, which is what the theory of special relativity has predicted -- a prediction which has stood up to 115 years of falsification attempts.
I doubt that some hack journalist at newatlas.com has got the
Re: (Score:2)