A few more questions about quantum teleportation

Fascinating!! :cheers:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:scratchin:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My question is this. What, exactly, are the challenges that prevent us from doing this, and can they be overcome? I've heard that, for example, in a system with over, say, 100 atoms, the noise resulting from internal interactions makes it impossible. Also, I've heard that the internal interactions cause decoherence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think we agree(?)

Either way, I might just do that.

 

I did some more reading into it, and it looks like I was wrong about at least one thing: Whatever the initial state is, you can in principle teleport it precisely. The catch is you still need to include a light speed or slower signal to accompany the transmission.

For those who know more about this stuff like Alphanumeric, I have some questions:

1) How do you physically go about measuring a Bell state like \(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0\rangle|0\rangle+|1 \rangle|1\rangle\right)\) and distinguishing it from \(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0\rangle|0\rangle-|1 \rangle|1\rangle\right)\)?

2) I see that you have to do one of four unitary transformations at the destination in order to recover the original qubit, if you're just teleporting a single qubit. Obviously the identity transformation is trivial, how are the other ones accomplished? Do they apply magnetic fields to cause spins to precess, or do they just adjust the measurement equipment to measure the final state differently? I can't seem to find any quick resources describing any of this stuff even at the schematic level.

 

So what challenges stop us from scaling up the process of QT of a single atom to QT of a macroscopic object? Interactions between particles? Don't those stop at absolute zero?

Can someone please explain?

 

1) Nothing can reach absolute zero, there's always guaranteed to be energy in the vacuum even when it's in its ground state (lowest possible energy).

2) Freezing something to near absolute zero before initiating the procedure would usually destroy it. Maybe you could teleport a frozen carcass this way.

3) The teleportation schemes I've heard of as of this moment do not teleport all the information about a particle (such as its position and momentum) nor even what kind of particle it is. So far they've teleported simple properties like spin/polarization, with the source and destination already possessing the type of particle needed for the teleport.

4) It's one matter to get a small system of photons or electrons to enter into "maximally entangled states" to begin the procedure. To get an enormous number of particles (~10[sup]23[/sup]) to all enter into such states, and for each of these particles to interact with only a single particle in the object to teleport, and with an exact one-to-one correspondence... Seems beyond anything we can conceive of at this point. You might as well just take the person apart cell by cell, get the info on each cell and make a copy of them at the destination using the "old-fashioned way".

 

In fact, there's plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite - for example hitting somebody on the head and they lose consciousness.

 

Variabilities, often presumed, in the meaning of something can make understanding assertions quite murky, especially when thresholds are not matched in the use of a term, can you be more exacting in what you mean about "consciousness", please?

 

I can prove you wrong:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2628878&postcount=243

 

Here's a nice resource describing some of the details and actual implementation for quantum teleportation and quantum computing. I've been learning loads about this stuff in the last few days, didn't realize it mostly involves simple spin couplings I've known how to handle since undergrad.

 

I've found myself do that as well recently. I just got into a bit investigation into a doctor Lier in the psuedoscience. It's funny how you learn and through what channels.

 

Some of the arguing, bickering gets quite nasty, such as one of those barking sessions where "I'll have my dog[ma] bark at your dog[ma] and we'll see who gets bit the worst."

Beastiality is not for humans, and most beasts don't behave that way, anyway, certainly not for entertainment purposes where abusing someone is a form of pleasure -- not the human way.

True scientists, the ones that deserve that moniker at all, are always aware that what they know, or think they know, may be insufficient or even wrong. Whatever a scientist or other bipedal hominid resemblant believes or thinks they know has subtler thresholds of existence as yet unexplored, if at least by them. When a planet is discovered, it didn't suddenly come into existence because an annointed "scientist" or amature discovered it, it existed before such an august cerebralite found it, and probably for jillions of years longer than since that haute' intellectual's birth. The same for principles of the Universe.

It's obscene to witness badgersome dogmatists barking at each other, impuning and some times destroying the dignity and life of another -- that's not the human way, and it most certainly is not the thought, word or deed of a "scientist" deserving of such a moniker.

 

History is replete with examples contradicting this.

 

Nanking.

Aww take the voodoo talk elsewhere. It simply does not apply here.