News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Researchers quantum teleport particle of light six kilome... by dave_sullivan on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @06:16PM (#12552767)
It's still the consensus that we can't (even theoretically) send a bit of information this way, right? Like, no quantum telegraph?

So we measure the particles and find that they are in inverse states. I assume there's a reason for this, but why are we sure that we're not just reading off a random number generator that's set from the same seed?

Re:Researchers quantum teleport particle of light six kilome... by tgb on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @06:57PM (#12553019)
Third time I'm writing this in this thread, but it causes so much confusion: in order to quantum teleport one qubit, you transmit two classical bits of information, say by ethernet. So there's no way to take this to work as a sneaky means of sending a classical bit.

It's my sacred duty to keep repeating this fact until the whole internet knows. (It's even in the first sentence of the wikipedia page on quantum teleportation!)

Re:Researchers quantum teleport particle of light six kilome... by johncolanduoni on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @06:56PM (#12553006)
Quantum teleportation is actually kind of the opposite. You transmit a quantum state (which if your particle is as simple as a photon, can be used to create a copy of the particle) by using an already-separated entangled pair and sending two classical bits any boring old way (fiber, wire, smoke signals).

If you don't get the classical information on the receiving end, any attempts to read the quantum state will garble the quantum transmission such that it'll be indistinguishable from random noise. Since those classical bits are limited by the speed of light, so is the overall transmission of the state.

Re:Researchers quantum teleport particle of light six kilome... by trentlott on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @07:46PM (#12553253)
So why does the reciver need the two bits?

I'm not prone to study too deeply because I've learned (apparently) very bad analogies or schemes for entanglement.

Re:Researchers quantum teleport particle of light six kilome... by johncolanduoni on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @08:00PM (#12553315)
The teleportation process involves using a measurement to entangle the receiver's side of the pair with the original state in a useful way. Since measurements are probabilistic (and the measurement is along two qubits) there are four outcomes of this measurement with four different kinds of "garbling" of the transmission (one of which is no garbling).

The receiver needs the two bits to choose which of four kinds of garbling occurred, so it can correct them with the appropriate post-processing (if necessary).

Re:Researchers quantum teleport particle of light six kilome... by mratzloff on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @08:54PM (#12553514)
So it's kind of like a traditional error-correcting code, just sent along a separate channel?
Re:Researchers quantum teleport particle of light six kilome... by johncolanduoni on Wednesday September 21, 2016 @09:31PM (#12553672)
Sort of. The only issue with that interpretation is that either piece of data in isolation conveys none of the original information, even probabilistically. A better analogy would be sending two classical bits by different channels, with the desired bit being the XOR of the two, and one of the bits being chosen by a random number generator.
Re:Researchers quantum teleport particle of light six kilome... by etatoby on Thursday September 22, 2016 @07:45AM (#12556125)
> why are we sure that we're not just reading off a random number generator that's set from the same seed?

We aren't. In fact, according to the decoherence / many-world interpretation (and possibly others) that's exactly what happens.

When you "measure" (aka. entangle yourself with) one of the two photons, you end up (find yourself) in one of the infinitely many possible "worlds", in which both photons have a single, definite state (always the opposite of each other, in this setup.) It's as simple as that.

I keep recommending this sequence of blog posts as the best introduction to the topic:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/r5/the_quantum_physics_sequence/