First Teleportation From One Macroscopic Object to Another
technologyreview.com
technologyreview.com
They will. And, to some extent, they will be wrong. There's nothing rudimentary about a nuclear reactor, yet indeed the basic concepts are now available for a bright primary school student to grasp.
I think we just got better at creating a more accessible mythology that stands in place of rigorous math for the laypeople.
For those people, modern science has replaced mythology.
But I agree with you. Pop science, correctly done, is heavily indebted to analogy.
I've tried dropping fundamentals of quantum mechanics on my kids so that it doesn't seem so alien to them. I still have trouble grokking the spooky-action-at-a-distance experiments, but I know what the punchline is.
The trade-off is that your picture of reality has to become much weirder.
Possibly, but I doubt they'll ever find it intuitive. The fact is, we build up our intuition on the "macroscopic" scale, and that just doesn't apply at the quantum scale. So there'll always be a level of weirdness when you learn about it for the first time regardless of how much further our theories advance beyond what we know now.
Also: IF (write that in large font, bold, in capitals) teleportation at macroscopic scales becomes common, say with schoolchildren going to a disco on The moon or on Mars every weekend, they will rapidly build up their intuition around such things, just like the current generation is quite used to "going to Madrid/New York for a weekend".
On the other hand, I'm reminded of the following lecture by Brian Cox. He explains the double-slit experiment, draws things on a board, shows a really nice physical demonstration with water, and.... the person on stage is still completely lost: http://youtu.be/PaGwpbHJWGE?t=1m54s
I'm not sure how much better that could possibly be explained.
I can already tell that this article is going to be ridiculous fluff without even reading past the headline.
> None of those challenges seem like showstoppers. Which means that practical quantum routers and the quantum internet that relies on them are just around the corner.
Seems like quite a statement to make.
Or can you manufacture entanglement with each connection, where you initiate the entanglement with a client, and maintain that connection during transport? I'm really just curious if you can use this technology, and literally replace the methods of connections and transport as we use them now, or if this is simply a single function method.
1) You can have perfectly encrypted communication that no one can eavesdrop on (not even theoretically).
2) You can transmit twice as much classical information using superdense coding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdense_coding
I thought we already had this with quantum encryption (although there a few attacks against it) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptographyhttp://en.w...
You can buy real off the shelf devices that will give you quantum encryption.
>[..] that no one can eavesdrop on (not even theoretically).
Why does this follow? How do we know that there are no measurables that could be used to eavesdrop?
>2) You can transmit twice as much classical information using superdense coding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdense_coding
I think you are right that this is probably the primary advantage, but this article keeps talking about "quantum information" and not entanglement. Can this actually send quBits or just bits?
That is an interesting observation because there is a flip side to it. I can sell you some ordinary looking gear that contains a quantum entanglement based eavesdropper. You can have your device in a cave 20 miles below the earth's surface in a bunker running off diesel generators, with no connections outside the bunker, and here I am, watching everything you do.
Not exactly. Quantum "cryptography" assures you that only one party received the data, but not who that other party is. There is no authentication. To prevent a man in the middle attack, you have to use a conventional message authentication code, and the system as a whole is no stronger than the MAC algorithm.
No more lag because of distance, no wires, no radiation... the future is going to be awesome.
I wonder, since this experimented worked on macroscopic scale, it will possible to transmit "energy"?
While changing particle A makes particle B change, the second's information can't be understood without transmitting a third piece of information from A to B.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation#A_summary
Quantum teleportation is faster than light
I know there's a difference between what they did and regular fiber optics. It just doesn't seem to be quite the same. Can it be done without the interconnecting material? If not it's really useless. When I picture practical uses of quantum teleportation I picture things like rovers instantly sending data and receiving instructions.
That won't happen. It's impossible to transmit classical information faster than light via quantum teleportation. You don't necessarily have to have "interconnecting material", but there will always have to be a classical information channel, and that will always be light-speed bound.
Will Quantum Teleportation, if possible, let us reduce, if not remove, the hardware for communications? As in, there will be no need for giant fiber-optic cables or wireless routers?
The computing and theoretical fields (so long as they're non-experimental and require no more than simple simulations) are the exception to the rule rather than the rule itself.
Also, until a space is commoditized, working in it is expensive and time-comsuming.
Thankfully, these stations have dropped in price a lot - you can easily buy a good one for ~$200-300, which would allow you to repair your phone, modify your motherboard, resolder memory chips and whatnot...
http://www.digikey.ca/product-detail/en/EROPAASA/EROPAASA-ND... http://www.digikey.ca/product-detail/en/SMD4.5NL/SMD4.5NL-ND...
I shouldn't need a degree in Physics to understand how it works. Is it really that complicated and magical, or is it still so barely understood that no one can explain in simple terms?
Anyone feels the same?
That's the kind of understanding I mean. It seems there isn't one concise, simple explanation for these effects. I wonder if it's because the reasoning behind it is that complex that you need to resort to esoteric math and abstractions (in which case, the current theories might be crude, Occam's razor and all), or if it's because no one truly comprehends it enough to explain concisely.
By the way, I picked up Leonard Susskind's lectures to watch. It was all fine up to special relativity - his explanation about frames of reference was so obvious, it just made sense. After that, though, nothing made sense anymore.
Frames of reference are fairly obvious in SR. In General Relativity they're more non-trivial.
I get excited about the potential of replicating data of physical things. :D
2 pens spinning in exact opposition, one clockwise the other anticlockwise, are hurled from a space ship in opposite directions. You do not look at them when you are doing this. When a pen is found light years away, that person instantly knows how the pen on the other side of the universe is spinning and in what phase.
No teleportation has actually taken place. Information has not been transferred faster than the speed of light. This assumes that pens travel through empty space and do not interact with things that would affect their rotation or movement.
The reason you know about the both pens in the moment you look at them is, well, because they are "entangled". But no information has been sent. You had this information all along with you, bound by the space-time and it's C speed limit.
The scenario you outlined is quite important and actually has a name: it's the "Bertlmann's Socks" thought experiment, and if you want to read about it I'd seriously recommend the paper by the great J S Bell[1].
To use the language of your example, both pens begin in a superposition of clockwise and anti-clockwise. It's not the case that each pen has a particular spin value, and that we're simply unaware of which has which. The pens really are in a superposition.
Until, that is, a measurement is made on one of them. At this point the joint pen-pen system collapses and both pens have determinate spin values. The nature of the entanglement ensures that those spin values are different.
The notion that quantum-entangled particles could have well-defined properties that we're just ignorant of was actually pretty popular in the early days of quantum mechanics. In fact, the theory was put forward by Einstein, among others. As it turns out, however, that we can test for this. The tests have been done, and it seems Einstein was wrong on this one.
[1]: J. S. Bell (1980), "Bertlmann's Socks and the Nature of Reality"
I'm sorry if this sounds stupid - I just want to understand.
Say the pen is spun in the box by a classical random number generator. You don't know which way the pen is spinning, but you do know that it's either been spun one way or the other. You might say that the probability of finding it spinning clockwise when you open the box is 1/2.
Now say the pen is prepared in a superposition of the two spin states, again in the box. As before, we might say that the probability of discovering the pen spinning clockwise is 1/2. However, this time we the probability isn't generated by our lack of knowledge: we know exactly what state then pen is in. When we open the box, however, the pen will change instantly to the state of spinning clockwise, or the state of spinning anti-clockwise.
In the quantum case, the probability is an expression of what we think will happen to the pen, not what we think has happened to it.
It is hard to grasp, and harder still to believe. There is, however, good reason for thinking that, sometimes, the pen changed just as we opened the box.