One quantum leap

Kevin T., San Diego CA — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:16:17 GMT

It is a matter of fact and common knowledge that 3 feet is 1 yard and not 1 meter. The standard is quite different. For one thing, meters are based on the "metric" system and 1 meter would be 100 CM or 1000 MM, whereas a yard or 3 feet would be 36 inches.

One quantum leap

Ben — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:29:46 GMT

This means I can sleep in

One quantum leap

lee jackson — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:31:21 GMT

As i know it, things that travel have a "wave" in front of them..thus if something is traveling at light speed, it a has a wave in front of it..or at least things affect by its "getting there". The experiment of the mirrors having waves out before the wave comes in are this I believe.

One quantum leap

rick c — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:58:34 GMT

A meter is not equal to 3 feet, as is stated in this article. A yard = 3 feet, but a meter, although about the same, is not the same.

[ALAN ADDS: Just for you, I'll change the reference to 3.3 feet (OK, I admit it's closer to 3.28 feet, but that's just too geeky for me in this context. 3.3 feet is a bit too geeky as well, in this context, but just for you ...)]

One quantum leap

Harlen Campbell, Santa Fe, New Mexico — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:04:36 GMT

Really great article, Alan. Halfway through, I drafted a mental comment that began with "But if you have to send the microwave selection, where's the teleportation?" Of course, further thought collapsed into quantum weirdness of the nonlocal variety. Two questions: if a quantum-encrypted communication degenerates into (tech jargon warning here) quantum gobbledygook, then can't a channel be closed by any sort of non-intelligent monitor? and of course the old standby: if things seem to be happening simultaneously at some arbitrary distance, how sure can we be of our understanding of the meaning of the "distance" between the events?

One quantum leap

Steve Schafer, Athens OH — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:45:28 GMT

Alan, you were right the first time. If you only have one digit of precision, 1 meter = 3 feet. On the other hand, 1.0 meter = 3.3 feet, 1.00 meter = 3.28 feet, and so on.

One quantum leap

jes,applevalley,ca — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:46:07 GMT

welcome to fantasy island !!

One quantum leap

James, Columbia SC — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:23:46 GMT

Just so everyone out there who wanted to nitpick the article. 3.3 feet = 1.00584 meters

One quantum leap

Don, Ironton, Missouri — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:09:19 GMT

The charts are practically useless.

One quantum leap

jon, KL, Malaysia — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:34:03 GMT

i dont understand. so when can i buy stuff on ebay without waiting on delivery?

One quantum leap

Noah, OKC, OK — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:45:30 GMT

So lets say that we get to the day where we can teleport someone from A to B. If their body gets destroyed, then wouldn't you in effect be killing the person or what ever the living thing is? Even if the person is still alive down on the planet or where ever they teleported to, it would just be a clone. Even if the clone has every single memory and features of the person, it's still not *that* person. Yeah, a little freaky lol

One quantum leap

John Doe — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:55:48 GMT

3.281 feet = 1.00004 meter/s

As close as one can get, for this website. :)

One quantum leap

Rob L, Wallingford, CT — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:51:44 GMT

Perhaps there is a sort of negative refraction going on where there is a wavefront of sorts that is faster than the speed of light that traverses back to ion B; given that ion A has been in a pre-determined state.

This can happen due to the fact that the 50/50 beamsplitter is in the optical path of the emitted single photon from each ion source. There is an optical path 'backwards' to ion B and thus far the experiment focuses on the photon 'states' as detected simultaneously by two detectors.

For all one knows, ion A may appear back at a low state of energy after being 'read' by the laser pulse because due to the same 'negative refraction' method at the 50/50 beamsplitter; ion B has 'written' its state onto ion A.

My suggestion is to delay the writing and reading from ions A and B as if transportation did occur; ion B should remain in a state of what ion A was.

The other suggestion is to attach directional optical filters to the photon output ports where outgoing photons from each chamber have near 100% forward transmitivity, but reverse direction energy, light, etc. has a significant attenuation factor.

Overall, this is very interesting !

Thank you.

Oh yes, 1 meter = 39.37 inches. (3 feet and 3.37 inches OR 3.28083333 feet)

One quantum leap

Paul J.S.Beaubien Victoria B.C. Canada — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:33:45 GMT

given that gravitational waves are not at this point understood,,how can these honest folks be blamed for misunderstanding the interaction and the resonance,,the Q.T.R.F.of E.and A.R. mathematics I have worked out show exactly what I speak of however that explanation will only happen via nondisclosure...

One quantum leap

Chuck, Chicago IL — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:17:44 GMT

"No information was sent directly from A to B." But there was "entanglement" between the two ions. Being in the arts with just a passing fancy in quantum physics, this sounds like a simple passing of gossip from one biddy-hen to another with the retrieval of said gossip being hearsay. Oversimplification of such a complex process, I know, but keeping it simple, stupid, usually works best. Fascinating.

One quantum leap

Tom — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:28:56 GMT

First point contact transistor----1947.

One quantum leap

Philip J. Calamatas, Montreal, Canada — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:41:43 GMT

One thing people have to realize is that this is not really a true form of matter teleportation, its only the quantum state(s) of the particle that is teleported. Its like telling someone over the phone line what a particular person looks like down to the smallest detail, and the person receiving the information recreates that person down to the smallest detail. The only difference here is that the fact of sending the info actually causes the original person to change its appearance (has something to do with fact that you can't know everything about the first person as the mire action of looking at him causes some quantum changes in him). For all Q-teleportation to work, the first person (or particle in this case) has to be completely isolated from all external energy fields, even a stray photon can disrupt the whole process as that photon will carry away some information about the particle thus changing it. As in the telephone example, no mass (matter) was actually transmitted. However physicists like to call this teleportation because they use the phrase if particle “B” now equals particle “A” in all respects than “B” is now “A”. But this is not true, as Alan mentioned the particle “A” still exists (it was not destroyed) it only lost its entanglement (or attachment via spooky action at a distance) to “B” at which point particle “A” took on a random quantum state and “B” continued with the original state of “A”. It would be more correct to call this quantum copying than teleportation with the added feature where the original gets automatically changed by the coping process.

One quantum leap

Stephen Hatfield, Rochester Hills, MI — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:49:02 GMT

Great point Harlen, this really causes a redefinition of distance in this respect. Does the simultaneous action really mean superluminal communication, or is there a possibility of the distance between the two particles being reduced to zero? Call it what you will, a wormhole, say. But whatever the "vehicle", I believe that this opens the possibility to drop the feedback loop (the part that restricts the speed of communication to less than lightspeed), resulting in a chance of faster than light communication.

When I wrote my paper about precisely this in 2001, every publication I could find on non-locality dismissed superluminal communication as a violation of Einstein's 'laws', but Einstein didn't subscribe to quantum mechanics at all, correct? Isn't that where his famous quote "I do not believe that God plays dice" came from? I figured that at a minimum a cyclotron would be necessary at either end so the application would be highly improbable but this article makes me optimistic in its success.

One quantum leap

"Scotty" — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:59:36 GMT

What I can't believe... is everyone missing this great discovery. If I remember correctly, admittedly that is a big IF, these atoms can be separated by immense distances and this will still work. If this is so, then we have a quantum network going or at the very least, a Quantum Radio! I do not know how fast they can change the atoms state, but I imagine it is well above the gigahertz range. Imagine if you will, landing a large rover on Titan. Then, using these two atoms to pass data between there and here, we have a communications link. One that in our world appears to break the laws of light, but in the quantum world is a ho hum fact of life. What I could do with that!

One quantum leap

Aldo, Tampa, FL — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:16:31 GMT

The article states 3.3 feet; for the sake of simplicity that's 1 meter :)

One quantum leap

Eric, Salinas, CA — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:23:05 GMT

The old faster than light or seamless whole conundrum. Interesting article Alan! Some really brain addling stuff to consider, like if someone who is trying to monitor the "signal" can collapse it wouldn't the intended listener also collapse the wave function and destroy the message?

It will be interesting when scientists are able to figure out how this faster than light information dissemination works. I'm still baffled how changing one ion can somehow change another somewhere else which isn't in contact with the first one. If we see one ion changing are we missing seeing other ions changing too?

One quantum leap

michael, eureka, ca — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:36:15 GMT

I'm unclear. Can information be be sent at faster than light speed using "spooky action at a distance?"

One quantum leap

mourad bousmaha,jijel Algeria — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:36:47 GMT

who knows maybe Jesus was not crucified ,but was......"teleported"!!

One quantum leap

Nolan, UT — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:29:57 GMT

From my humble interpretation I'm thinking that instantaneous communication may not be possible with Bell's Theorum/Quantum Tunneling/Spooky-Action-at-a-Distance. And I was hoping we might have "sub-space" transmissions for Mars or interstellar Satellite Missions.

One quantum leap

Fahim, Houston, TX — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:43:50 GMT

Sufies and Yogies has been using this form of communication for centuries now. It's about time.

One quantum leap

Dennis, Richmond VA — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:19:54 GMT

What are the prospects of a 2 way communication system from this? Would this allow for the remote operation of probes on Mars in real-time?

One quantum leap

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:20:06 GMT

Would this also make computers (if quantum based) really small? I believe that there was an article on the in an issue of Scientific American from June of 2007 talking about black holes (page 82).

Could someone intercept the information and decode it with another quantum computer?

One quantum leap

Woody, Toronto, Ontario — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:55:53 GMT

This article definitely proves that mathematical physicists need to be on lithium.

One quantum leap

jd — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:09:05 GMT

By resending the same message three or four times, a 90% success rate could be immediately useful for a deep space ansible on unmanned spacecraft or rovers.

One quantum leap

Eric Westerfeldt, Milwaukee, WI — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:32:25 GMT

"Beer."

Homer Simpson

One quantum leap

Scott, Lexington, Kentucky — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:05:05 GMT

It seems that the promise of quantum computing dramatically extends the current limits of traditional transistor-size by eliminating space-consuming buses between registers and memory addresses. This could mean palm sized computers emitting little or no heat with the computing power of modern super computers.

One quantum leap

metric lovin' american — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:35:48 GMT

No, 1 meter is not 100 CM or 1000 MM. A meter is the same as 100 cm or 1000 mm. 'M' is mega- (1,000,000). You wanted m, which means milli- (1 millionth). You also wanted c for centi- (1 hundreth). Not even sure what C would be. I guess maybe 100, but we use hecto- for that.
Oh, and meters aren't "based on" the metric system. Meters are the standard base unit of length on which the metric system is based.
Which means, other than the "3 feet is 1 yard" part, everything you said was exactly (wrong) backwards.

One quantum leap

James Tilles ,nogales az. — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:40:26 GMT

It sounds to me that they are looking for a way to extinguish a nuclear explosion before it is complete.

One quantum leap

Jeff K, Santa Clara, CA — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:45:20 GMT

Can this process be happening anywhere out in the real world? And what would it look like on a large scale? Would it look anything like the effects of dark energy?

One quantum leap

roofoo — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:48:49 GMT

Oh, science... boring... interest... fading...

Wake me up when they actually teleport something....

One quantum leap

KVW — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:05:53 GMT

And the point is...? Nobody's getting anywhere anytime soon with a "teleportation" device. Unless another Einstein comes up...
But all this is rather pointless.

One quantum leap

Dave Jarvis, Victoria, BC — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 08:16:17 GMT

http://www.davidjarvis.ca/dave/entanglement

One quantum leap

Tom Walsh — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 09:45:37 GMT

"If one is in the "1" state, the other has to be in the "0" state. It might take thousands of tries to get the right combination". Do the 'hits' on the thousands of tries occur at pure random or is there some, perhaps complex, relationship? If there is no space between the particles, then neither is in 'motion' of any kind?

One quantum leap

Sandu, Dacia — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:57:17 GMT

Professor Michio Kaku: "Teleportation and forcefields possible within decades... What is unthinkable today might not be forbidden in a few decades or centuries... We will have the power of the gods."
Teleportation and forcefields could become scientific realities within decades, and time travel will also be possible in the future, according to one of the world's leading physicists:
http://cristiannegureanu.blogspot.com/2008/12/teleportation-and-forcefields-possible.html

One quantum leap

Ray, Worcester, MA — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:21:25 GMT

It seems the real confusion is caused by people using words implying motion or movement from one point to another to explain what is happening, when in fact there is no such movement. Entanglement does not involve "moving" or "transferring" anything. There is no "portation" of any kind. Stop using this misleading terminology and you might get fewer idiotic responses.

One quantum leap

puppylover — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:16:03 GMT

very interesting article. everything has to begin somewhere and this might be the beginning of teleportation.

One quantum leap

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:26:56 GMT

All the sqwabble about how long a meter is and it's meant absolutely nothing. Did they use a micrometer to get it exact? Was it exactly 1 m outside edge to outside edge? Center to center? Was the "container" one meter away or the trapped atom? If we're going to obsess let's at least do it right.

I think you should change it to "a yard (1 meter)" to give a sense of scale and leave it at that.

One quantum leap

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:47:31 GMT

Is this supposed to work for long distance communication? Light pulse through fiberoptic timed to coincide with a light pulse on the receiving side? A long chain of atoms that all have to be entangled? Is this supposed to get us away from a medium or just secure communication over a medium?

One quantum leap

kurt — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:31:50 GMT

how do use talking monkies use this to stop us from making the planet uninhabitable?

One quantum leap

J Quinlan — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:43:31 GMT

If this were practical for interstellar communications for far flung advanced civilizations, then SETI would most certainly be using the wrong equipment to find a "Signal" wouldn't they?

One quantum leap

Chris in Phoenix — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:48:34 GMT

WTF?! Researchers teleport info from one atom to another, over a distance, pretty cool stuff, and all many of you simpletons can do is argue over what the hell a meter is? Really? None of you have any input on the consequences or significance of this breakthrough?
I’ll throw my hat in the ring, forget what a meter is to a yard, how do we know they were only 1 meter apart? Did they measure the distance, and how did they measure it, did they use a calibrated device, do several measurements, confirm with other devices to ensure the distance was 1 meter? Did they do a MSA study to confirm that indeed it was 1 meter?
Morons and a computer...

One quantum leap

randy anderton — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:13:45 GMT

Hey kevin common knowlege says however that 3.3feet equals 1 meter.

One quantum leap

randy — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:19:48 GMT

Einstein did not believe this could be done so he's out. Every atom in the universe is in a constant state of motion and the thousands of times will be resolved be patient.

One quantum leap

Russ H — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 04:50:11 GMT

Hey, Noah (from Oklahoma) I case you haven't known this before, none of us are the same person that we were only a moment ago. Oops, got to go - I'm morphing again...

One quantum leap

Russ H — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:16:05 GMT

Mr. Schroedinger has found his box empty, and would like for his cat to be returned. Msrs. Michelson and Morley are of differing opinions on whether any entanglement actually occurred. Really, folks, lighten up. Scientific progress is accellerating at an exponential rate, so get used to it. By the way, who gives a rats ass about Alan's definition of a meter? If you want to be that serious, refer to the appropriate "white paper", not a friggin' msnbc.com science article.

One quantum leap

Frank Turner Van Alstyne, TX — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:16:43 GMT

SETI? Finally, THE way an extraterrestrial would contact us. No 80 delay of broadcast, just
instant messaging".

One quantum leap

john kavas, Athens, Greece — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:53:21 GMT

From what i understand, i detect this problem. The 2 ions have to be near in order to be entangled. So you COULD "teleport" the qubit to the other end of the galaxy instantly but FIRST you would have to somehow transfer the second ion there! Also, you have to transmit the results of the measurement of the first ion to the person who has the second.

That effectively cancels the "instant" thing.

Is it good for encryption? Yes

Is it faster than light? No, because a photon and some information must be transmitted through conventional means.

One quantum leap

Stew — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:01:42 GMT

It may not be a matter transporter but it might be a way for a FTL com.
As for the belief that information cannot be transmitted faster then light we need to stomp this stomp this out as it's likely completely wrong.
I also feel the belief is holding us back like some some beliefs that were held in the 1600s held back science.
The classic view of causality is a hold over from the 1950s before modern quantum physics and long before newer theories such as string theory and M theory.

One quantum leap

Carlton, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:19:00 GMT

"Spooky" for Einstein and Us BUT not for Photons

As far as photons are concerned, they are eveywhere in our universe at once. We, for example, say it takes photons 8 minutes for them to get to us from the Sun. The photons DISAGREE; they say the time is zero. We say about 2.5 million years for photons to get from, say, Andromeda (our twin galaxy) to us; the photos say it takes no time at all. Because photons are "carrying the load" in many of these experiments, there's no problem, as far as they are concerned with being in more than one of our places (different places do not exist for photons; hence, for them place and time are meaningless concepts from the start) at the same time. Photons, therefore, are really not "spooky"; however, experiments that don't use photons, say, electrons present another "spooky" situation, unless there is some photon like exchange involved.

One quantum leap

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:37:54 GMT

"Spooky" P.S.
Perhaps Bohr might also have told Einstein to stop telling photons what they can do, like telling Einstein to stop telling God what He can do (like, playing dice if He wants). Maybe photons are God??? At least they have, by our physics, omnipresence. This could then mean that scriptures, in reporting that God first said "Let there be light." (photons) Let there be Me? I AM? Photons exist?
Einstein's no-dice-playing God may have trouled Bohr in view of quantum revelations, but they would agree with forbidding God to be inconsistent or demanding He be consistent, if He is to be worthy of being called a god. {-)

One quantum leap

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:40:31 GMT

I understand this up until what happens after the beam splitter. If ion A is measured and that result is applied to ion B there is still a transfer of information through a mediator isn't there?

[ALAN ADDS: The beam splitter is kind of an entanglement filter that registers the right result only if the ions A and B are entangled. That's part of the preparation for the teleportation. So yes, there is some information that has to be transferred at no faster than the speed of light, if only to check initially that the ions are really entangled. If you're confused, join the club. What was it that Feynman said? Something like "If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory."

One quantum leap

SalemCat — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:40:12 GMT

"But in order to reconstruct the information at his destination, Kirk would have to be destroyed atom by atom on the Enterprise."

In "Think Like a Dinosaur" by James Patrick Kelly, later interpreted by "The Outer Limits", the original individual remains, and to "maintain balance" with the transport the original must be eliminated.

At least this new theory removes this unpleasant ethical dilemma from consideration.

One quantum leap

Clayton Vires, Dayton, Ohio — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 04:32:25 GMT

Interesting explanation in the second to last paragraph, in which Captain Kirk would have to be destroyed atom by atom as his information was being beamed down to Vulcan.

In the novel "Spock Must Die!" by James Blish, in which there were two Spocks, Scotty explained the operation of the transporter in very much the way that this article was described. This novel was written about forty years ago. Star Trek may have been on the right track about future technology - again.

One quantum leap

Kyle Crawfordville Florida — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:12:35 GMT

this is whats wrong with all of you today, you would rather sit around and copy paste your conversions of meters to yards and cry and whine about how do we know how far apart it was...WHO CARES, the fact that technology advanced 1000% in the past century based on all the other centuries combined and predictions say it will advance at a rate exceeding 100x what it did last century we are in for a very awesome next hundred years or so. Get with the future or get left behind, my only word of advice.

One quantum leap

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:18:45 GMT

"I'm unclear. Can information be be sent at faster than light speed using "spooky action at a distance?""

Generally, we think not...and yet, go back and see the stories here (and elsewhere) on John Cramer and 'retrocausalty.'

The last word may not have been said on this.

"If this were practical for interstellar communications for far flung advanced civilizations, then SETI would most certainly be using the wrong equipment to find a "Signal" wouldn't they?"

Once you get around that big *IF*, I would have to agree with you. Concievably, civilizations typically learn to use this physics this way (if indeed it can be), not that long after they discover radio, so perhps no civilizations are sending out intentional interstellar RF signals, because anyone capable of detecting them, will soon learn to use 'this' (whatever we might call it) anyway, so why bother?

Highly speculative of course, but reasonable to me.

One quantum leap

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:15:02 GMT

Thomas,
As near as I can figure, and may be wrong, it's like rolling two dice, one here and one there. A process can tell when the spots equal 7 (interference pattern?), so that they are in opposite states. Then the there die can be tested, if it's a 3 then the here die is a 4.
So some information, in this cas a photon, has to be sent over a medium. And then several times until you get entanglement. Then, I assume, a confirmation message back to the source to advance to the next bit. Supposed to be secure but it seems like tapping the line with a beam splitter gets you a testable signal that doesn't collapse the process. Although I'm not sure the split beam would work, maybe something that selectively routes the signal.

One quantum leap

Frank Turner, Van Alstyne, TX — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:30:17 GMT

FTL Info: I am pleased to see discussion got off of metric meter conversion onto something positive. I don't think any of us needed that.
RE: distance limited to 1 meter. Is there not discussion on cosmic level that FTL occurs? Forgot exact discussion but open to reply.

One quantum leap

"Scotty" — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:38:43 GMT

We are at the very beginning of this major find. I believe that in the near future, that we will find out how to keep atoms in the "entangled" state and not require the beam splitter to see if they are. Once we have this, then the "Cosmic Radio", "Sub-Space Ethernet" or what ever you want to call it...will be built. Then we'll have our -*apparent*- Faster than Light communications.

One quantum leap

Stephen Hatfield, Rochester Hills, MI — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:41:13 GMT

Really? No one has any feedback about what I said of superluminal communication (above)? How about this: What if the two particles are the same? I'm just offering another explanation for why this occurs "instantaneously". Sure, we are pretty confident that two particles can not occupy the same point in space and time, but what about one particle occupying TWO points in space? Maybe the two particles aren't 'communicating' or sending information to each other, because they are actually one!

Unlikely, but worth consideration.

One quantum leap

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:09:19 GMT

Stephen Hatfield,
Interesting to consider, but then they'd only sometimes be one, then other times be two. Maybe when they're two they are each one with their respective selves somewhere else. Meanwhile as all these particles appear in this space, each in sequence, the same space is always occuppied. Probablility theory might support parts of the theory if you twisted it, but the odds against finding the two spots the particle was representing itself, out of all the universe where it could happen, are big. Of course those odds improve if the same particle could be in billions of places at the same time. I don't know how you could even try to test that.

Another possible avenue for FTL communication would be through another dimension. Fold space over so that the XYZ distance is 100 light years but through W it's only 2 ly and communication appears to go at 50C (assuming same travel time across that W distance, or by defining a ly in W by W's standards). Of course, how do you bend space, how do you open a portal through W, how do you enter and exit the portal, does matter that goes in come out as matter or anti-matter, do the properties of light change, ...?

One quantum leap

Ian Durham — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:08:53 GMT

>> Is this supposed to work for long distance
>> communication? Light pulse through fiberoptic timed
>> to coincide with a light pulse on the receiving side?
>> A long chain of atoms that all have to be entangled?
>> Is this supposed to get us away from a medium or just
>> secure communication over a medium?

This is simply a way to secure information. A classical signal still needs to be passed from one to the other. For example, in the setup carried out by Monroe's group the result of the measurement on A has to be communicated classically to whomever is controlling B so they know what type of microwave burst to apply to B.

One quantum leap

yoyo springfield, ill — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:11:44 GMT

this is soooo cool