A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Scientists teleport two different objects



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #32  
Old October 14th 06, 11:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Alan Anderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 335
Default Scientists teleport two different objects

Joe Strout wrote:

No, what's happened is that one particle has *lost* its property (or has
had it randomized), and another particle has been assigned the property
that the first particle *used* to have.


Right. Much like when I connect two monitors to one computer with a KVM
switch -- when I flip it, the picture disappears from one screen and
appears on the other. I have therefore (to use the conventions of the
press on this topic) teleported the monitor from one place to another.


Leaving aside the issue that a KVM switch does exactly the opposite of
what you're talking about, the distinction is twofold. First, the
picture on a computer monitor can be described perfectly by the numbers
producing it, with no uncertainty principle keeping you from knowing as
much about it as you wish. Second, you *can* display the same picture
on multiple monitors at the same time; you do not *have* to remove it
from one in order to place it on the other. Quantum teleportation
requires that the source object's state be destroyed before the target
object can receive it. I believe teleportation is an appropriate word
for such a "destructive perfect copy at a distance" process.
  #33  
Old October 14th 06, 11:36 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Wayne Throop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default Scientists teleport two different objects

: Alan Anderson
: Leaving aside the issue that a KVM switch does exactly the opposite of
: what you're talking about,

That depends only on how you hook it up.
Well... there are some complications, but certainly
the simple mechanical switches would do it.

: First, the picture on a computer monitor can be described perfectly by
: the numbers producing it, with no uncertainty principle keeping you
: from knowing as much about it as you wish.

Yes, that being the difference between quantum and classical.
Not between teleporting and telecommunicating.

: Second, you *can* display the same picture on multiple monitors at the
: same time; you do not *have* to remove it from one in order to place
: it on the other.

Yet, what if the drivers on your video card can only drive one
monitor? Sure, you could hook an amplifier in, but even so, whether
it is possible to copy vs move doesn't seem the dmoniant issue.

The thing is, you're moving a state, not a particle; software not
hardware. And moving a state is, in the classical world, communication,
not portation. Software is stuff you can send over an ethernet
connection, hardware is stuff you can't. And what's going on here
is you're sending a bit of classical information, and a packet of
quantum spookiness, which when you get it where you're going you can
induce a particle to aquire here a state some particle there lost.
Which seems much more like sending a description of something to
do to an object than anything else.

You're saying limits of the quantum world make it a portation, yet
even so, it is *still* going to be inevitably misleading because of the
tranditional connotation of the word "teleport".

And one simple way to tell that it's misleading, is that people
immediately say "gosh, maybe we can scale this up to get treknological
transportation", whereas you haven't even started to be able to transfer
coherently a whole object, or indeed a particle of any sort. And the
ability to transfer, oh, spin state of some of the particles on a
quantum level doesn't even start to head in that direction.

Now of course, everybody is their own Humpty Dumpty. And there are
rational justifications for the usage as you've just shown. But using the
term "teleport" for this operation is inevitably going to be misleading,
whether it's "proper" or not.

And after all, people call it quantum cryptograpy, implying
communication, not quantum postal service, implying portation.
Which seems altogether less misleading.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
  #34  
Old October 15th 06, 06:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alan Anderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 335
Default Scientists teleport two different objects

(Wayne Throop) wrote:

The thing is, you're moving a state, not a particle; software not
hardware. And moving a state is, in the classical world, communication,
not portation.


The word "moving" is what makes me happy with calling it teleportation.
Communication copies information from place to place (or time). Quantum
teleportation cannot be used to make copies; it can only be used to move.

Software is stuff you can send over an ethernet
connection, hardware is stuff you can't.


Classically, that simple test is a good distinction. In the spirit of
vigorous debate, however, I can counter it in two fundamentally
different ways.

First, what you can send over a network is information. You need the
appropriate setup at each end to make the transfer work, which in the
simple case is basically general-purpose computers following the same
protocol. You can send an appropriately detailed series of bits which
can be executed on a computer and run a copy of a program that way. But
you can also send an appropriately detailed description of a piece of
hardware to a machine shop and have a copy of a physical object produced
that way. The simple test fails to recognize the possibility of an
established infrastructure which makes the distinction irrelevant.

Second, quantum teleportation requires entangled particles, which
unarguably cannot be sent over a network. By the simple test, it is not
software.

And what's going on here
is you're sending a bit of classical information, and a packet of
quantum spookiness, which when you get it where you're going you can
induce a particle to aquire here a state some particle there lost.
Which seems much more like sending a description of something to
do to an object than anything else.


It seems that way because that's exactly what it is, and I do not
dispute it. The result of the process, however, is that a quantum state
has been relocated from one place to another without having it visit any
place in between, and I think relocation without traveling is perfectly
compatible with the definition of teleportation.

You're saying limits of the quantum world make it a portation, yet
even so, it is *still* going to be inevitably misleading because of the
tranditional connotation of the word "teleport".


I'm actually saying that quantum limitations make it impossible to
duplicate a state completely, while still making it possible to relocate
that state.

And one simple way to tell that it's misleading, is that people
immediately say "gosh, maybe we can scale this up to get treknological
transportation", whereas you haven't even started to be able to transfer
coherently a whole object, or indeed a particle of any sort. And the
ability to transfer, oh, spin state of some of the particles on a
quantum level doesn't even start to head in that direction.


Hrm? Quantum teleportation has been done *only* with particles.

Now of course, everybody is their own Humpty Dumpty. And there are
rational justifications for the usage as you've just shown. But using the
term "teleport" for this operation is inevitably going to be misleading,
whether it's "proper" or not.


If that's what's bothering you, consider that the term "telephone" is
just as misleading. It implies sound at a distance, when it really
involves an intermediate stage of decidedly non-sonic transmission. It
sounds like your objection to the term is based not on what it means but
on what you imagine other people might think it means.

You do have a valid point, as such misunderstanding of what it means has
been demonstrated in this very thread. But if I were to refuse to use
jargon just because not everyone understands it, I'd lose a significant
fraction of my vocabulary.

And after all, people call it quantum cryptograpy, implying
communication, not quantum postal service, implying portation.
Which seems altogether less misleading.


Quantum cryptography is a different process. It does not use entangled
photon pairs to move unmeasured states around. It measures the photons
directly to simultaneously get the same random number at two different
locations.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mauro Frau: maurofrau dvd about apollo 14 yo UK Astronomy 0 August 19th 06 05:08 PM
Scientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle Mike Simmons Amateur Astronomy 0 March 6th 06 08:09 PM
Near Earth Objects -- what lies ahead? (Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 December 6th 05 05:44 PM
Scientists Find Huygens Probe Landing Site, Release New Animation of Titan [email protected] Astronomy Misc 4 November 30th 05 11:26 PM
Scientists Prepare to Place Einstein on the Rim of a Black Hole(Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 June 2nd 04 12:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.