Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Teleportation Gets a Boost 405

saavyone writes to tell us Yahoo! News is reporting that while teleportation may not quite be a reality yet a team of Danish scientists have raised the bar on this line of research. From the article: "The experiment involved for the first time a macroscopic atomic object containing thousands of billions of atoms. They also teleported the information a distance of half a meter but believe it can be extended further. 'Teleportation between two single atoms had been done two years ago by two teams but this was done at a distance of a fraction of a millimeter,' Polzik, of the Danish National Research Foundation Center for Quantum Optics, explained. 'Our method allows teleportation to be taken over longer distances because it involves light as the carrier of entanglement,' he added."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Teleportation Gets a Boost

Comments Filter:
  • You know... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by suv4x4 ( 956391 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @05:54PM (#16312607)
    I'll be glad if theys top calling information transportation via light entaglement "teleportation".

    We all know what we expect from an article talking about teleportation, and it definitely doesn't involve crypted conversation technologies.
  • Ok I will do it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by COMON$ ( 806135 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @05:57PM (#16312661) Journal
    Someone had to ask. How is this technique going to maintain a person? Arent you essentially killing the person and reassembling their likeness in a remote location? How could an outsider tell the difference, the being that is transported would simply cease to exist while a copy lives the rest of their lives.
  • by Ryan Amos ( 16972 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @05:59PM (#16312699)
    There are certain ethical questions that go along with teleportation of humans as well.

    If you create a perfect atomic copy of a living being and then destroy the original, is the copy really the same as the original? What if you just never destroyed the original? Is destroying the original tantamount to murder?

    I think questions like this will mean that even when we have the technology to do this with large objects (even living objects,) it will never be used on humans. The ethical risks, and our inability to determine an answer to the philosophical questions (if the copy has the exact same memories, when you ask it if it is a copy, it will say no) mean that we're going to have to find some method of instant transportation that does not involve deconstructing and reconstructing things on a molecular level.

    Wormholes, anyone? :)
  • Right... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by msimm ( 580077 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @06:13PM (#16312885) Homepage
    Its about time to stop calling it teleportation because the implications are much stranger: do you really want to die and while being (hopefully!) reassembled elsewhere? If this is basically like fax or xerox how many copies of myself can I make? And of course the devilish old questions, if you reassemble something atomically does that mean there is no such thing as a soul, or did you atomize it on the other side (or is it in fact, physical)?
  • Re:Ok I will do it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MoogMan ( 442253 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @06:14PM (#16312913)
    In theory, the atoms involved get replicated in a different location. Essentially, yes, the source atom gets destroyed, and the destination atom gets "created". But the destination atom is indistinguishable from the source, so who is to say that they are not the same atom? Technically, the atom does not get destroyed, but it's spin and other state[1] gets set to the state of the original atom.

    One question worth asking, is whether the relative position of the atoms are maintained through "teleportation". I would assume not. So at this stage, even if you did succeed in transporting a human, they would end up as a pool of water and carbon atoms I guess.

    This is more of a philosophical question, I think. Hypothetically speaking, you could see it as killing the person, and re-assembling their likeness. But "their likeness" would know no different, and he/she would feel and act like the real person. Equally, as you say, an outsider would know no different. Would you be willing to kill yourself, knowing that an exact replica of you is about to be re-created.

    It goes further, too. Does the soul exist as something other than the collection of atoms and particles that comprise us? If so, does this get left behind, or somehow carried across?

    [1] This is how I understand it, at least. Maybe someone could clarify, and explain if anything other than spin would get replicated.
  • Re:Please... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BeBoxer ( 14448 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @06:20PM (#16313003)
    You've basically changed the second atom to be exactly like the first but they call that teleportation. And effectively it is.

    I think most people's concept of "teleport" is something else entirely. What the physicists are doing is something more aking to "faxing". Granted, it's really high-quality faxing, but faxing none the less. But "quantum faxing" doesn't have the same ring to it.

    Fundamental to the concept of "teleport" as all non-physicists know it is that the matter being teleported moves from one place to another. In this case they "teleported" atoms of Cesium. But they started with Cesium atoms on both sides of the "teleporter" at the beginning and the end. They didn't "teleport" the Cesium any more than a FAX machine "teleports" paper.
  • Re:Please... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by partenon ( 749418 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @06:20PM (#16313009) Homepage
    Yeah, I realized that by reading a lot of comments here :-) Its probably more like this:

    $ cp source target ; rm -rf source

    (actually, I think mv does exactly this, but just to be explicit :-) )

  • Re:Ok I will do it (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kfg ( 145172 ) * on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @06:26PM (#16313113)
    How could an outsider tell the difference. . .

    They couldn't, because you are not the atoms "you" are made of. You are a collection of information in the state of the atoms.

    Which is a good thing for you, because most of the atoms you are made of today won't be the same atoms you'll be made of next week. That's why you die if you don't drink some water now and again; and maybe a bit of a nosh.

    KFG
  • Re:SciAm article (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Chemisor ( 97276 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @07:13PM (#16313755)
    According to the SciAm article, all they did was measure the quantum state of a cesium atom cloud without disturbing the cloud.

    Neither measurement disturbed the delicate entangled state between the light and cesium. But the researchers could use the results to apply a precise magnetic field to the cesium vapor that effectively canceled out the ensemble's original spin state and replaced it with one that corresponded to the polarization of the weak pulse


    I don't know why people keep calling it "teleportation" or any other quantum crap. A very simple way of describing what happened is that they figured out a way to beat the uncertainty principle by creating multiple copies of the same information and measuring amplitude and phase of different copies. Because both copies are identical, any information obtained about one copy is valid about the others, so a complete set of parameters can be determined. It should be pointed out that this experiment clearly demonstrates that the uncertainty principle is not some fundamental property of the universe, but rather an artifact of our measurement instruments. This is the very point that Einstein tried so hard to prove back in 1927, and the one so throughly disputed by the evil Niels Bohr. Unfortunately, Bohr won the argument for some reason, perhaps just out of stubbornness, and the present unsightly state of the science of physics resulted. Perhaps now the quantum heretics can be brought back to the one true faith of objective reality!

  • Re:Please... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by caitsith01 ( 606117 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @07:30PM (#16314005) Journal
    Seems to me that you would create an exact duplicate of the original person, who would feel and believe that they were the same person. However, they would not be the same person - the original person would (presumably) be dead as their constituent particles are ripped apart from their spin etc changing.
  • Re:Please... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BeBoxer ( 14448 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @07:43PM (#16314207)
    surely "Star Trek" is an example of the popular conception of teleporting, and I always interpretted that as transmitting information, not matter.

    When Captain Kirk gets beamed down to the surface of a planet, where does all that matter come from which constitutes his body in the new location? There is no transporter on the receiving end with a stockpile of matter. How big of a vacuum would it leave behind if you just sucked up surrounding gas until you had enough? Put another way, if you tell somebody you are going to teleport a block of gold from box A to box B and then announce "and to begin, I will place a block of gold in each box", they will cry foul. Are you saying you wouldn't?
  • Re:Please... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) ( 613870 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @07:46PM (#16314243) Journal
    1: The 'life force' as it appears in Star Trek is a purely fictional invention that has nothing to do with reality.

    2: Your stuff about the balance of matter and energy is something you made up (unless you can cite me a reference) and has no bearing on reality.

    Please don't confuse the contents of your head with either science or reality. It's stupid.

  • Please explain (Score:4, Insightful)

    by snowwrestler ( 896305 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @08:36PM (#16314869)
    Please describe, in a repeatable, objectively testable way, how to tell the difference between living and dead matter at the quantum level. For that matter please describe how to tell the difference between living and dead matter over very short periods of time. There's a lot about "life" that we don't understand scientifically yet.
  • Re:Please... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @09:34PM (#16315407)
    A piece of meat in a living cow and a dead piece of meat at the butcher shop are both made up of the same elements. The atoms in them react to the other atoms and energy around them in exactly the same way.

    However, the meat in the cow has a flow of glucose and oxygen coming in through the circulating blood, and the cells have been metabolizing these to maintain their cell walls and growth processes. There are also hormones, neurotransmitters, and other chemicals.

    The meat at the butcher's has lost its source of energy and is unable to metabolize any longer, so it has begun to break down chemically, but the chemical processes are essentially the same. The processes of living matter are a subset of chemistry.

    So I would say the difference between the two is merely their circumstances.

    But then, you know this and choose to see something more anyway. Be sure to give the Nobel Prize folks a call when you manage to pinpoint the unique non-chemical nature of "life."
  • Re:Please explain (Score:3, Insightful)

    by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) ( 613870 ) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @11:38PM (#16316531) Journal
    Please describe, in a repeatable, objectively testable way, how to tell the difference between living and dead matter at the quantum level.
    You don't even have a clue what "quantum level" means. You might as well ask me how to tell the difference between apples and oranges at the "astrophysical level" for all the sense you're making. Throwing together random technobabble does not meaning make.
  • Re:Please... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @03:53AM (#16317917) Journal
    I liked the explanation, but this seems great for inanimate objects. What about consciousness? I mean, you can 'teleport' a brain, but will the signals go with it and will the brain retain memories or will it be a exact copy of a body but no 'life force' in it?


    I liked the explanation, but this seems great for non-burning objects. What about fire? I mean, you can 'teleport' a log or a charcoal briquette, but will the fire go with it and will the fire retain flames or will it be a exact copy of a log but no 'phlogiston' in it?

    Dude: state is state. If you teleport an object's entire state, you end up with an object with the same state in a different location. Consciousness is just a property of (certain kinds of) matter in (certain kinds of) motion. It's nothing magic.

    Alternately: when you move your head, does your consciousness or memories or "life force" or "soul" somehow "leak out" or get left behind? What would move with your brain but not teleport with it?
  • by snowwrestler ( 896305 ) on Thursday October 05, 2006 @10:09AM (#16320683)
    My point is that right now there is clearly more to "life" than can be described by our understanding of the raw physics of the materials involved. I don't think it's wrong to call that mysterious--science can be used to investigate mysteries. I do agree with you that a mystical answer is not useful or valuable. But pointing out a gap in our understanding will necessarily involve imprecise language. That doesn't make it a mystical explanation though IMO.

Happiness is twin floppies.

Working...