Beam me up ... Quantum teleporter breakthrough

Did this bit of text convey any information whatsoever about what, if anything, was achieved? :-(

what was achieved was Better quality quantum communication through Q.Teleportation. Beaming up anyone didn't have anything to do with this article, that was just used to form an example for comparison in the article. Beaming someone up is an issue of molecular de and re-construction which wasn't at all what this was about. Like said in the article, before the invention of this "teleporter" sending and receiving quantum information using Q.teleportation was unreliable at best. Pieces would be missing when the data was received to the other side or data would be out of place, etc. What the teleporter does is allow us to send Q.Information using light, and is able to send blocks at a time as to not degredate the integrity of the transmission.

Don't presume that I was misled on the "beam up" nonsense. I heard a lot of "what" but very little in the way of "how".

well yah i agree, they didn't go into to much detail about the teleporter itself, but what was achieved was clear. Its a big step for quantum computing, some really interesting progress.

Don't presume that I was misled on the "beam up" nonsense. I heard a lot of "what" but very little in the way of "how".

That's more frequently becoming my main criticism of physorg lately, too much 'look what we can do!' and not enough articulating the new knowledge or describing how we creatively approached exploiting some mechanism.

I'm not saying it's that bad all of the time, but it's more frequent now more than ever where the real meat is left out. :(

I have to agree too - not enough technical detail about what they did differently and what technology was involved.

gentlemen there are links to the free abstract

We report on the experimental quantum teleportation of strongly nonclassical wave packets of light. To perform this full quantum operation while preserving and retrieving the fragile nonclassicality of the input state, we have developed a broadband, zero-dispersion teleportation apparatus that works in conjunction with time-resolved state preparation equipment. Our approach brings within experimental reach a whole new set of hybrid protocols involving discrete- and continuous-variable techniques in quantum information processing for optical sciences.

Not to mention the fact that these stories are largely syndicated and are therefore not proofed. To all those who complain about misleading headlines and incomplete information, I share your concerns, but in most cases it isn't up to PhysOrg to fix. We should all just be happy that there IS news and that syndication is still FREE (much to the probable dismay of many news conglomerates...).

When moving past substrate duplication and into physical transport encapsulation within photon fields:

One might want to remove (de|re)construction of said substrates and rely on surface waves to shift the photo-barrier leaving the substrate intact.

Yeah, where's the beef? Maybe if the article was edited by Lisa Zyga, then maybe it would have contained more information?

Electronically speaking though; if one were to use a omniverse scanner/emitter, then the teleportation would be 100% successful at transferring almost anything! That way a person could have their cat and eat it both at the same time.

It is possible through matter light interface, when matter travels in light with photonic drive. When creating an interference of disintegration over time you place matter in stasis. We just need to create a neutral interface within the spacial field.

By creating a photonic bubble we are encased in a transitory timeless phase. But what would we see? Would we see the place as a place unlike our own, or one that's spectrally variated in theway where the future is infinitely smaller than it was, that is time. Time is the humanly derived realization of decay. Things breakdown through the course in time. Matter is in most likelihood shrinking in time but respectively they vary only slightly. Not everything degrades at the same rate. Big particles like ur pl decay alot faster than little. Being timeless would leave you large but everything else small. Light travel is a bad idea. Wormholes are the best idea. Time doesn't pass for light but it does for matter. Wormholes skip time. And space.

It seems to me, when all we know of the basic physical laws of matter and energy we should not discount the influence off harmonic intergration in the syc. Of matter and energy streams.

From wiki: "Schrodinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum." -- http://en.wikiped...%27s_cat

The article was 'light' (pun intended) on details, including the details of Dr. Schrodinger and his felined imagery. His 'thought experiment' was his attempt at ridiculing the strangeness of quantum mechanics, not to 'demonstrate its features'.

Photons don't decay. If we place matter in a photonic state it remains in stasis, stopping weak force in its tracks. Light is timeless. The problem arises in removing matter from stasis, when we extract matter from light time catches up with it. The more time you spend in stasis the more the universe around you has decayed. Imagine traveling a billion years into the future and seeing that our sun has decayed down to the size of your head. The sun is still respectively equal in size to the rest of the universe, whereas you, the time traveller, are not, you've escaped the decay process altogether.

Wormholes allow for realistic time space inclusive travel. They allow for instantenous travel time (space is squeezed to zero volume within a wormhole although the distance between a and b is great the space between a and b is nonexistent). Arriving at your destination would leave you time relative still, unlike light travel.

From wiki: "Schrodinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum." -- http://en.wikiped...%27s_cat

The article was 'light' (pun intended) on details, including the details of Dr. Schrodinger and his felined imagery. His 'thought experiment' was his attempt at ridiculing the strangeness of quantum mechanics, not to 'demonstrate its features'.

That's correct, but it backfired. :)

It seems to me, when all we know of the basic physical laws of matter and energy we should not discount the influence off harmonic intergration in the syc. Of matter and energy streams.

What?

Food for thought.

Could expansion be a relativistic view point of matter decay.

Take 2 spheres with a 2 m diameter 10 m apart from each other, now imagine that the spheres decay 1 m in diameter. The distance between the spheres was 5 times their diameter, now that the spheres have decayed the distance between them is 10 times their diameter.

The spheres haven't moved in relation with each other but relativistically the distance between them grew. We get expansion without change in distance. Weird.

The spheres haven't moved in relation with each other but relativistically the distance between them grew. We get expansion without change in distance. Weird.

No.

The spheres haven't moved in relation with each other but relativistically the distance between them grew. We get expansion without change in distance. Weird.

No.

I voted you a 3 as you may be right, but then again you might not be. This is speaking realistically. In the scenario I proposed it is definite. 1:5 and 1:10 are different ratios. The picture has changed. How you define it depends on point of view.

There is a lot of supportive evidence for this scenario, if you consider it. Unlike supportive evidence for dark energy, which is relatively non existent.

I voted you a 3 as you may be right, but then again you might not be. This is speaking realistically. In the scenario I proposed it is definite. 1:5 and 1:10 are different ratios.

No, there isn't.

Dark energy is supported by observations and mathematics otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it at all.

The reason why you're wrong is referential frame. If objects are decaying in size, they are changing. Their position is not changing, their attributes are. Since we do not see changes in attributes delineating size or shape, your hypothesis is entirely unsupported.

"Since we do not see changes in attributes delineating size or shape"

How do you propose we see the change when we are changing along with it? I doubt you understand what a referential frame is.

Dark energy is not supported by observations, the math comes in to fill the gap in understanding. It is because we cannot explain the expansion rate that we invoke it to fit the observations.

Dark energy may very well be responsible for expansion (though personally I disagree), but you are wrong. We know absolutely NOTHING about dark energy, it is the result of the lack of observational evidence.

Decay has been observed so it is supported by observational evidence, and depending on frame of reference could explain the observed expansion of the universe. The math just gets a little more complex in the explanation because observables become results of the actual.

How do you propose we see the change when we are changing along with it? I doubt you understand what a referential frame is.

Step one in determining whether someone is trolling or not is by way of determining which phrases they chose to reuse from prior commentary with obvious poor understanding. Are you insinuating that I don't understand the concept of 'frame of reference'?

Dark energy is not supported by observations, the math comes in to fill the gap in understanding.

So you're entirely unaware of the various hypotheses that were validated by the WMAP data, the BOOMERANG experiment, and multiple observational frameworks developed directly to understand the composition of the universe against existing hypothetical models.

Decay has been observed so it is supported by observational evidence

Decay of what? The Van der Wahl's radius has never been observed to decay over any period of time in any frame of reference. That is the guiding metric that refutes your idea.

You cannot observe something that is dark. You can observe its influence but you can't observe it. I'm starting to wonder if there's anything you do understand?

Dark energy is currently the best fitting hypothes for the accelerating expansion of the universe. Do you know what a hypothesis is?

Having swallowed up several decades of SF I'm very disappointed by the use of the term "teleportation" demonstrated here. Teleportation stands for changing the position of _matter_ without moving it through space.

Somehow this misuse is violating the older rights of SF authors and their fandom.

You cannot observe something that is dark. You can observe its influence but you can't observe it. I'm starting to wonder if there's anything you do understand?

You're projecting again.

Dark energy is currently the best fitting hypothes for the accelerating expansion of the universe. Do you know what a hypothesis is?

Yes. Do you know what a model theory is? You know, the standard cosmological model?

Read up on the Sachs Wolfe effect and come back when you understand what you're talking about.

I gave you 1 star because there is no zero star option. You have zero substance yet you're full of it.

I gave you 1 star because there is no zero star option. You have zero substance yet you're full of it.

Like I said, Sachs Wolfe effect.
http://en.wikiped...e_effect

Start there and then put about 4 or 5 more years of reading the material into it and then you might be up to speed.

Oh yeah, that's what I need to do, take advice from someone like you. Now excuse me I have to go start a fire to get it nice and warm before I step inside of it to bathe.

Oh yeah, that's what I need to do, take advice from someone like you.

Not advice. Evidence that refutes your opinion. Want to ignore it, that's fine, but that will simply continue your ignorance.

Now excuse me I have to go start a fire to get it nice and warm before I step inside of it to bathe.

Not my first choice, but far be it from me to give you any advice. The evidence states bathing in fire is bath for you. The 'fire bad' theory is well evidenced.

Do you see the difference between advice and evidence yet?

In terms of application, would the development of a technology that utilizes this breakthrough eventually lead to instant communication with our Mars probes or future manned Mars missions? Or, how about instant communication throughout the entire solar system?

... breakthrough eventually lead to instant communication with our Mars probes...

No, you still cannot send a message faster than c and with our current understanding of science never will.

Skeptic_Heretic is, as always, right on the ball. Turritopsis' inane trolling is both laughable in its vacuity and depressing as it appears I am of the same species as him/her.

Just a quick question as a layman, but if quantum teleportation can transfer information instantaneously, does this not violate special relativity to a fatal degree? I mean, I understand that quantum entanglement can produce effects which are instantaneously felt by all elements of the entangled system, but there is no information being conveyed. Perhaps I'm missing something vital...

No Blank, he's not right, and I'm not saying this because he made an error in assessment, he's not right because nobody is right, we still don't have a complete story, I work with the current model, it is complete in the sense of a quantitative theorem, we are able to derive solutions to problems. As a quantitative field it's functional, but it still doesn't quite fit, there are missing variables. Our understanding is not complete until we can replicate the process. And we still haven't found the Higgs. I'm hopeful we will, but alternate ideas can lead to alternate realities.

Just a quick question as a layman, but if quantum teleportation can transfer information instantaneously, does this not violate special relativity to a fatal degree? I mean, I understand that quantum entanglement can produce effects which are instantaneously felt by all elements of the entangled system, but there is no information being conveyed. Perhaps I'm missing something vital...

Quantum non-locality. Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance'.

"If we can do this, we can do just about any form of communication needed for any quantum technology."

Yikes!

It reminds me of a software demo I once witnessed where the salesman said in response to a query:

"It'll do whatever you want!".

This is not one of PhysOrg's more illuminating articles.

And we still haven't found the Higgs.

No, but we may have found something else at Fermilab. A possible fifth force of nature, called technicolor. Of course, the blip could be a statistical anomaly, and forgotten about. But if it isn't, then the Standard Model is dead. (http:/arxiv.org/abs/1104.0976)

Anyway, you seem to be saying that because we don't know everything, we do not have the right to claim we know anything. I call bullshit on that.

So if we are still sending data at the speed of light, why is this better than using light to send data as we already do?

But if it isn't, then the Standard Model is dead.

You mean 'the current standard model is dead'.

The standard model is always subject to change when the appendix supplied is verified.

The standard model is always subject to change when the appendix supplied is verified.

You're right. But it will certainly spell the death of the Higgs. And the new force, if verified, will still not resolve the problems left unanswered by the standard model, such as the predicted unification of all the fundamental forces in the early universe. I think supersymmetry is still our best bet for a theory beyond the SM.

You're right. But it will certainly spell the death of the Higgs.

The Higgs is just a name for a particle that describes the field that carries the information of mass. It doesn't necessarily remove the Higgs from consideration.

The Higgs is just a name for a particle that describes the field that carries the information of mass. It doesn't necessarily remove the Higgs from consideration.

But if the fifth force was verified, it would remove the Higgs from the equation, as the technicolour force would be responsible for giving particles their mass (via a sea of techniquark-antitechniquark pairs). I'm not really sure what role the Higgs would fulfil if its primary function has already been taken by another.

I'm not really sure what role the Higgs would fulfil if its primary function has already been taken by another.

Depends on what the technicolor hypothesis states exactly. I'm not well read up on it at the moment. I'll have to read the newer stuff.

Food for thought.

Could expansion be a relativistic view point of matter decay.

Take 2 spheres with a 2 m diameter 10 m apart from each other, now imagine that the spheres decay 1 m in diameter. The distance between the spheres was 5 times their diameter, now that the spheres have decayed the distance between them is 10 times their diameter.

The spheres haven't moved in relation with each other but relativistically the distance between them grew. We get expansion without change in distance. Weird.

Very sloppy deduction. While the centers of the spheres haven't moved relative to each other, the surfaces of the spheres HAVE moved relative to each other. So what you really get is expansion of the distance between SURFACES with a simultaneous contraction of the surfaces. What's weird about that?

Having swallowed up several decades of SF I'm very disappointed by the use of the term "teleportation" demonstrated here. Teleportation stands for changing the position of _matter_ without moving it through space.

Somehow this misuse is violating the older rights of SF authors and their fandom.

Modern physics has very nearly concluded that matter/energy is nothing more than information, so teleporting information can be equivalent to teleporting matter. Not sure that SF meaning of teleportation also implies that this information does NOT move through space as you suggest. For example, when scotty "beams" someone up, what does the beam consist of, and if it doesn't travel through space, what does it travel through? Hyperspace? Isn't that just more complicated space? Does the beam move at the speed of light? Faster?

If you followed my posts on the article about lower dimensional universe,

http://www.physor...ion.html

this thread is an excellent example of the benefit (for information processing) of adding extra dimensions. Physorg comments are posted in a linear manner. As I go through all of the posts, some are directly related to each other in a linear way, while others are totally unrelated (tangents or parallel threads). I just posted two consecutive comments that are directly extended from totally separate comments, so now what should be a nice linear thread is becoming a random hodgepodge of unrelated ideas. As the chain of comments gets longer and longer, it will become increasingly difficult to fully process all of the posts in this thread (harder to keep track of which are connected to which, etc.). If we were allowed to post comments sideways, then individual threads could be kept separate, making processing info easier!

I, for one, welcome our robot overlords.