Scientists Report Finding Reliable Way to Teleport Data

Scientists in the Netherlands have moved a step closer to overriding one of Albert Einstein’s most famous objections to the implications of quantum mechanics, which he described as “spooky action at a distance.”

In a paper published Thursday in the journal Science, physicists at the Kavli Institute of Nanoscience at the Delft University of Technology reported that they were able to reliably teleport information between two quantum bits separated by three meters, or about 10 feet.

Quantum teleportation is not the “Star Trek”-style movement of people or things; rather, it involves transferring so-called quantum information — in this case the spin state of an electron — from one place to another without moving the physical matter to which the information is attached.

more…

Here’s another important part …

“Moreover, the scientists are now closer to definitively proving Einstein wrong in his early disbelief in the notion of entanglement, in which particles separated by light-years can still appear to remain connected, with the state of one particle instantaneously affecting the state of another.”

It means that instantaneous communication is likely to be possible some time in the future.

Spiny Norman said:

It means that instantaneous communication is likely to be possible some time in the future.

It could be very handy on things like missions to Mars.

Back on planet Earth, it’s unlikely to make much difference.

Communications around the planet are pretty much instantaneous already, and providers of communications networks (e.g. Telstra) are likely to strongly resist any attempts to bring in a system which makes their networks obsolete.

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

It means that instantaneous communication is likely to be possible some time in the future.

It could be very handy on things like missions to Mars.

Back on planet Earth, it’s unlikely to make much difference.

Communications around the planet are pretty much instantaneous already, and providers of communications networks (e.g. Telstra) are likely to strongly resist any attempts to bring in a system which makes their networks obsolete.

The military would like it to have an edge

gamers too

QT relies on a classical signal so it doesn’t communicate faster than light.

Entanglement per se produces a random measurement and so can’t transmit data.

CrazyNeutrino said:

gamers too

No-one cares what a bunch of wallies locked in darkened rooms, surrounded by empty noodle packets and dirty plates, want.

captain_spalding said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

gamers too

No-one cares what a bunch of wallies locked in darkened rooms, surrounded by empty noodle packets and dirty plates, want.

But companies want their money

create a faster way for them, and they will pay

MartinB said:

QT relies on a classical signal so it doesn’t communicate faster than light.

Entanglement per se produces a random measurement and so can’t transmit data.

If it’s random how do the scientists know anything has been transmitted?

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

It means that instantaneous communication is likely to be possible some time in the future.

It could be very handy on things like missions to Mars.

Back on planet Earth, it’s unlikely to make much difference.

Communications around the planet are pretty much instantaneous already, and providers of communications networks (e.g. Telstra) are likely to strongly resist any attempts to bring in a system which makes their networks obsolete.

I think telstra should invest in this technology now, and when its viable, scale it up, charge a premium price, I dont think it will harm their existing networks, they roll out 2g, 3g, 4g, 5g etc anyway

Spiny Norman said:

MartinB said:

QT relies on a classical signal so it doesn’t communicate faster than light.

Entanglement per se produces a random measurement and so can’t transmit data.

If it’s random how do the scientists know anything has been transmitted?

Schrödinger.

We don’t know that it has been sent.

But, then, we don’t know that it hasn’t been sent.

Claims areas valid as are counter-claims.

This technology will make distant telescopes more accurate and faster

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

MartinB said:

QT relies on a classical signal so it doesn’t communicate faster than light.

Entanglement per se produces a random measurement and so can’t transmit data.

If it’s random how do the scientists know anything has been transmitted?

Schrödinger.

We don’t know that it has been sent.

But, then, we don’t know that it hasn’t been sent.

Claims areas valid as are counter-claims.

So on the observed particle, nothing may or may not happen and the scientist will claim that it did.

Ooookay.

Spiny Norman said:

captain_spalding said:

Spiny Norman said:

If it’s random how do the scientists know anything has been transmitted?

Schrödinger.

We don’t know that it has been sent.

But, then, we don’t know that it hasn’t been sent.

Claims areas valid as are counter-claims.

So on the observed particle, nothing may or may not happen and the scientist will claim that it did.

Ooookay.

from the article

Classical bits, the basic units of information in computing, can have only one of two values — either 0 or 1. But quantum bits, or qubits, can simultaneously describe many values

CrazyNeutrino said:

Spiny Norman said:

captain_spalding said:

Schrödinger.

We don’t know that it has been sent.

But, then, we don’t know that it hasn’t been sent.

Claims areas valid as are counter-claims.

So on the observed particle, nothing may or may not happen and the scientist will claim that it did.

Ooookay.

from the article

Classical bits, the basic units of information in computing, can have only one of two values — either 0 or 1. But quantum bits, or qubits, can simultaneously describe many values

True, but there are also qbit computers being built so that is not a limiting factor for the transmission or processing of data.

Spiny Norman said:

MartinB said:

QT relies on a classical signal so it doesn’t communicate faster than light.

Entanglement per se produces a random measurement and so can’t transmit data.

If it’s random how do the scientists know anything has been transmitted?

For pure entanglement experiments you compare the measurements recorded by the different detectors after the fact.

QT is more complex and does involve encoding a signal, but as mentioned it also uses a classical channel to do this.

CrazyNeutrino said:

This technology will make distant telescopes more accurate and faster

Our most distant telescope is Hubble, at 559 km.

At light speed, signals from it take 1/300,000th of a second to reach us.

That’s not fast enough?

Correction

559/300,000ths of a second

“ If they are able to repeatedly show that entanglement works at this distance, it will be a definitive demonstration of the entanglement phenomenon and quantum mechanical theory.”

I thought this had been demonstrated years ago.

Is this a bit of journalistic over-simplified hype, or do I have it wrong?

captain_spalding said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

This technology will make distant telescopes more accurate and faster

Our most distant telescope is Hubble, at 559 km.

At light speed, signals from it take 1/300,000th of a second to reach us.

That’s not fast enough?

More like 560/300,000

captain_spalding said:

Correction

559/300,000ths of a second

You just read my post and teleported that back in time, didn’t you!

“Teleport data”

What a weird thing to say. Sending data at the speed of light is not a new phenomenon.

The actual content of the article is interesting and they’ve developed something new, good on them. But the use of that phrase in the headline and intro is silly.

dv said:

“Teleport data”

What a weird thing to say. Sending data at the speed of light is not a new phenomenon.

The actual content of the article is interesting and they’ve developed something new, good on them. But the use of that phrase in the headline and intro is silly.

Science journalism over/hypes actual discovery.

Film at 11

dv said:

“Teleport data”

What a weird thing to say. Sending data at the speed of light is not a new phenomenon.

The actual content of the article is interesting and they’ve developed something new, good on them. But the use of that phrase in the headline and intro is silly.

But the article talks about “teleporting” data (or information) all the way through.

What do you see as being new and interesting?

it seems all they’ve done, for high values of “all”, is worked out a more reliable method.

>What a weird thing to say. Sending data at the speed of light is not a new phenomenon

What though if data could be sent and received in vast amounts simultaneously, that you could do away with a stream of bits, so it were sent here and appears elsewhere in its entirety. Though have a hunch the elsewhere is an everywhere.

I’d hink the hope is to transmit data parallel, which is the direction technology is sort of going anyway.

that is more a bandwidth problem than the speed of signal problem.

The Rev Dodgson said:

“ If they are able to repeatedly show that entanglement works at this distance, it will be a definitive demonstration of the entanglement phenomenon and quantum mechanical theory.”

I thought this had been demonstrated years ago.

Is this a bit of journalistic over-simplified hype, or do I have it wrong?

Well, it is a bit hyped up, IMO.

ChrispenEvan said:

it seems all they’ve done, for high values of “all”, is worked out a more reliable method.

Agreed.

There have been many demonstrations of quantum entanglement, but it’s nice to do it over larger distances, as that helps to verify that it is actually working according to theory and that entanglement really does happen instantaneously. The bigger the distance, the harder it is to claim that the observed effects are due to some overlooked classical mechanism.

We’ve been able to demonstrate “simple” quantum entanglement for quite a while now; we can even utilise it in primitive quantum computer and communications circuitry, although such technology is still in its infancy.

As MartinB points out, it’s not possible to use quantum entanglement to transmit information instantly, since verification of the quantum state at the other end requires the use of a classical channel which, of course, is bounded by the speed of light.

MartinB also mentions that quantum teleportation is a bit different to plain quantum entanglement. The term “quantum teleportation” (QT) is a bit misleading. QT does not involve transmitting matter from point A to point B, it involves transmitting the quantum state of a particle (or larger quantum system).

The quantum state of a system is the full quantum-level description of that system. But Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (HUP) prevents us from accessing all of the information locked up in the quantum state, and it also makes it impossible to duplicate the quantum state, eg if we have an electron at position A in a particular quantum state (disregarding position) we can’t force an electron at position B into exactly the same quantum state as the electron at A. But if our apparatus is allowed to scramble the quantum state of the electron at A during the process then we can effectively transmit electron A’s original state to the electron at B. And that’s what we mean by quantum teleportation.