Quantum teleportation achieved over ten miles of free space

reply to post by dzonatas

In the case in the OP, the entangled photons weren't created at a distance. But that doesn't mean it would be impossible to do so. It's probably something like a probability curve, the further apart they are the less likely they are to be naturally entangled, but that's just my speculation. So if that's true, then yes unlikely would not mean impossible.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But you're wrong if you're claiming quantum entanglement cannot transmit information faster than the speed of light. That would be true about quantum teleportation but not about quantum entanglement. Some of this is semantics.

With information I mean usable information. Ones and zeros. I prefer to see quantum entanglement as two entities sharing a quantum state so there is no need for a information transfer. But that is semantics as you pointed out.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by moebius]

reply to post by moebius

Well let me give you an example.

Let's say we have 2 quantum entangled particles 1 AU apart, or about 8 light minutes, call them A and B.

You observe the quantum state of A and at that same instant, an observer B transmits information to you about the state of the quantum particle B. The transmission that observer B sends you will take 8 minutes to get to you. But you already know what it will be (to some degree of probability), you don't have to wait the 8 minutes to get it as the light speed information travels from point B to point A.

Now that information probably isn't very useful, which is why people say it can't be used to communicate. But it is information that you didn't have to wait for the speed of light to get.

So I agree there's a difference between information and useful information.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I understand what you onto about this.

It just seem unlikely that the presence of data found through special relativity is not due to natural occurrences of quantum entanglement. Until we have solid reproducible world-wide test of quantum entanglement experiments, we can expect that special relativity has the edge on science.

It appears as people understand that quantum teleportation is not a matter transfer device that they'll start to question special relativity more.

Please excuse ignorance on this, but in time scale, how far away is this from 'beam me up Scotty". Like is this the proverbial learning to crawl before we can walk, let alone run.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by acrux]

Originally posted by acrux
how far away is this from 'beam me up Scotty"

It directly does nothing in that sense, so the quick answer it won't achieve that anytime faster.

However, people think they can use such quantum states to generate cloned atoms. There still would be a big process inbetween to dematerialize matter on one end and convert it to information that could be sent over some kind of communication devices to have it reappear on the other end to rematerialize. Note that quantum teleportation isn't actually needed to achieve such goal.

The more likely way to teleport matter from one spot to another is a wormhole, which means it opens a portal in space, basically collapses to distant points into a single appearant dimension, and matter can move through the space as it normally would. There are theories behind quantum teleportation like this of why it works, so the ideas get confused.

Originally posted by acrux
Please excuse ignorance on this, but in time scale, how far away is this from 'beam me up Scotty".

I don't see how this could be used to 'beam things'. There is no way to create an entangled version of yourself. You create entangled particles in pairs. There is no way to force entanglement for an existing particle.

Light is neither a particle nor is it a wave.

An electron does NOT exist as a wave - and then when it is observed, it does NOT collapse its wave function to turn into a "bead". (This particular theory is madness in my opinion!)

Quantum "teleportation" is utter nonsense.

Quantum "entanglement", if it can really even be called that, is nothing really like its namesake.

Go to Page 5 and watch the video I posted and enjoy.

It's starting to hurt watching y'all debate things that make no sense anyhow.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by TarzanBeta

 

Just to let you know.. if there was a tight-rope tied right here into my house and it went out the window to the moon, would would happen to the other end of the rope if I plucked my end?

But that's just the problem. They need a physical connection between the two locations, to shoot the entangled photons through, if I understand correctly.

Communication would be instant, but you would have to build a tunnel from here to the Moon or wherever.

So, atleast two people didn't watch the video I posted.

You and the person who starred you.

Well........ go back and watch the video. I'll forgive your response to my question because you didn't have the answer.

reply to post by dzonatas
Thank you

Sorry double post due to my computer going spastic.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by acrux]

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
Light is neither a particle nor is it a wave.

An electron does NOT exist as a wave - and then when it is observed, it does NOT collapse its wave function to turn into a "bead". (This particular theory is madness in my opinion!)

Quantum "teleportation" is utter nonsense.

Quantum "entanglement", if it can really even be called that, is nothing really like its namesake.

Go to Page 5 and watch the video I posted and enjoy.

It's starting to hurt watching y'all debate things that make no sense anyhow.

There we have another very serious misconception. Physics is not about explaining what things are. Physics is about finding mathematical models to describe certain natural phenomena.

If a physicist says that the light is a wave. He means that an effect called 'Light' can be described using a mathematical model called 'Wave'. This model might have some constraints, being applicable to only certain 'Light' properties. But it is still valid.

Calling this nonsense is like telling a mathematician that imaginary numbers are nonsense. Physics is all about describing the world using math - not more and not less.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by moebius]

Originally posted by psychederic
reply to post by Harte

 

This is your position. : I must say that science like to destroy this sort of "what you can't do" position :

I agree with this. Science often does this.

Originally posted by psychedericI think we must apply the scientific method ( allways , and that mean to consider all possibiliies ).

This is not a description of the scientific method, however, since you do not say "consider all impossibilities," I agree.

It is impossible to use quantum entanglement to transmit information (other than quantum state). That is a consequence of quantum theory itself.

Originally posted by psychederic So tell us your references when you say : "This results in a completely random "signal' and thus no information exchange between your counterpart and yourself. " : ie "Quantum teleportation" means 1)we cannot change quantum state ( "'Quantum' Spintronics" and at CNRS, Introduction to Spintronics and Spin Quantum Computation) 2) and keep Quantum_entanglement

No need. Your first link does this for me:

Quantum teleportation, or entanglement-assisted teleportation, is a technique used to transfer quantum information from one quantum system to another. It does not transport the system itself, nor does it allow communication of information at superluminal (faster than light) speed.

Harte

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by moebius

 

Well let me give you an example.

Let's say we have 2 quantum entangled particles 1 AU apart, or about 8 light minutes, call them A and B.

You observe the quantum state of A and at that same instant, an observer B transmits information to you about the state of the quantum particle B.

Observer B will observed exactly what you observe and nothing more. Both A and B know this. What information, then, is the observer at B sending when you say he is "transmitting" to you?

The transmission that observer B sends you will take 8 minutes to get to you. But you already know what it will be (to some degree of probability), you don't have to wait the 8 minutes to get it as the light speed information travels from point B to point A.

Both particles will be observed to have resolved into the same quantum state. This does not transfer any information from one observer to the other. The only "information" transferred is from one particle to the other and this is the message:
"My probability wave has collapsed into (a particular quantum state.)"

The observer at A will not even know this has happened. All he will know is that when he observed "his" particle, it resolved into a particular quantum state.

When he gets the (presumably) radio transmission from B, he will only see that both particles assumed the same quantum state.

Harte

Originally posted by acrux
Please excuse ignorance on this, but in time scale, how far away is this from 'beam me up Scotty". Like is this the proverbial learning to crawl before we can walk, let alone run.

As others have said this isn't really transporter technology.

On that topic we already have the fax machine which is a crude transporter of information, and I think we can make crude clones or copies eventually of things which are not living organisms, or perhaps even living organisms if we don't care too much about how much the brain's memories are scrambled.

But if you want to arrive with all your memories intact, it may never be possible to transport humans in a "beam me up scotty" fashion. I joked earlier about the "Heisenberg compensator" that Star Trek transporters use to solve the problem of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. However it should be noted that this is a fictional device and it is by no means certain that any "Heisenberg compensator" device can be built. This may be a fundamental limitation of nature that prevents certain parts of information to be copied from an object, even after centuries or millennia of additional research. So I would hesitate to use the word "impossible" but I would say that it MAY prove to be impossible to accurately transport the human brain with zero data loss. It wouldn't surprise me.

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
So, atleast two people didn't watch the video I posted.

You and the person who starred you.

Well........ go back and watch the video. I'll forgive your response to my question because you didn't have the answer.

OK I watched the video, kind of off-topic, but it was good for a laugh, but it really doesn't present a coherent argument, and ignores a lot of known facts and observations.

First it dismissed the wave and particle explanations, then it reverses itself and says the particle isn't off the hook. Then it shows a lot of wavelike behavior with wavelike interference patterns.

After seeming to dismiss the wave and particle observations, it sure does a lot to then reinforce them.

It's right about one thing though, science really isn't sure about the true nature of light, it's somewhat of a mystery. What we know about it is gleaned from what we see when we perform certain experiments.

And I was glad to see the video admitted the particle explanation isn't "off the hook" as we can transmit a single photon or quantized energy packet of light. I don't see how that fits into a rope theory.

By the way, in physics I was taught the term "wavicle" implying that light has BOTH wave and particle properties, not one or the other as that video suggests. And whether it manifests wavelike or particle like properties depends on how we observe it or what experiment we subject it to. It is kind of mysterious and fun to have your mind boggled by the double slit experiment. When you shoot a single photon through a double slit, and it still forms a wave interference pattern, that's pretty bizarre. But a rope doesn't explain that. Sorry.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

By the way, in physics I was taught the term "wavicle" implying that light has BOTH wave and particle properties, not one or the other as that video suggests. And whether it manifests wavelike or particle like properties depends on how we observe it or what experiment we subject it to. It is kind of mysterious and fun to have your mind boggled by the double slit experiment. When you shoot a single photon through a double slit, and it still forms a wave interference pattern, that's pretty bizarre.

I especially like The Quantum Eraser experiment, wich, imo at least, proves that the collapse of the wave function in the exp, is not caused by the physical interaction of the particle with the observing device that checks the slits, but by wether the information of the observation by the device, reaches the experimenters consciousness, or not.

If they measure the particle, and don't erase the info of the measurement, wave function collapses.

If they measure the particle, and do erase the info, so that it's not known, it returns to wave function again.

Very fascinating imo.

By the way, in physics I was taught the term "wavicle" implying that light has BOTH wave and particle properties, not one or the other as that video suggests.

That's what physics says but imo it's technically not true. It's just an easy way of explaining something that is not fully understood.

The single photon will remain a single photon until it is presented with a choice, in paths. If noone is looking it will go through both slits and interfere with itself, creating an interference, or wave pattern.

brings us closer to communicating information without needing a traditional signal,

yeah..about that... its called telepathy, we've been doing it for thousands of years.

yawwwn!


:-)
no seriously this is really great! would this bring us closer to quantum computing or is that an entirely different thing?

The universe moves in mysterious ways !!!!

I always believed the mind/Memories are connected to each other & other Universes through quantum entanglement. hence why I have re-occurring dreams of me slightly different in a slightly different world. tweaked somehow. I am connected to my other self's and can access there memories through my dreams.

its all true.

reply to post by Bedlam


I don't think that a Quantum entangled communications device is impossible to intercept information from. The way I would copy the data, is to "entangle" more photons with the photons being passed -- then read those Photons when they are "observed" -- you would basically send them cloned entangled photons through a fiber-optic loop and KNOW the distance to the observer by the number of loops they would cycle.

I figured you could transmit information, based on the OBSERVER effect, by having non-observed and observed photons be your "1's and 0's." You don't KNOW what information is sent, but you learn information by observing the "collapse" of the photon fields. Your source, by the way, would need to be in-between the sender and receiver.


>> My own point of view, is that the Photon "field" is not effected by distance. I explain the "coherency" of molecules by noticing that there must be extra dimensional properties of all matter that are not distance-based but "phase based." It has to do with the real nature of time and space itself (which is a THING, just not interacted with anything but gravity).

I also believe the "observer effect" is bunk, but it explains the observations, because we witness these tiny particles and photons by observing them with things of equal mass and more energy -- it's like detecting a car by bouncing cannonballs off of it, and saying that "all cars crash when observed." Since most people don't seem to understand quantum mechanics and not even the people making the theories (but they understand the math), everybody nods their heads sagely and repeats; "Oh, the Observer Effect."

Originally posted by TrentReznor
would this bring us closer to quantum computing or is that an entirely different thing?

Depends on how one views a quantum computer. If they view it is as a nanotechnology, then probably not. If they view it as a state machine (in computer science terms), then yes it does.

reply to post by Gazrok


Well, yes, there is a bit sent out through space and the speed at which is travels would appear to be FTL. the problem is that we have no method by which to CHOOSE the bit.

-rrr