China manages a new record in quantum teleportation

[Barnek]

[quote]Chinese scientists have smashed the quantum entanglement distance record. Transmitting information through entangled photons had previously only been possible up to about 100 km (62 mi), but using the Micius satellite launched in August, information has effectively been teleported as far as 1,200 km (746 mi).

Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon so bizarre that even Einstein argued against its existence, famously referring to it as "spooky action at a distance." Pairs of particles can be inextricably linked, so that the state of one can be inferred from the other, no matter how far apart they may be. Essentially, this process can be used to instantly "teleport" information between them over theoretically infinite distances, which was Einstein's issue with the idea: it violated the law of general relativity that says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.[/quote]

Photon loss increases exponentially over distance traveled. Jumping from 100km to 1200km in two years is a huge step.

[url]http://newatlas.com/quantum-entanglement-satellite-distance-record/50071/[/url]

[Da Space Core]

its a shame that quantum entanglement cannot be used for communication.

[Exparagus]

Resonance Cascade when?

[Mr. Bones]

[QUOTE=da space core;52372439]its a shame that quantum entanglement cannot be used for communication.[/QUOTE]

Not well versed in quantum entanglement, why can't it be used for communication?

[Download]

Wait, what? They're claiming they transmitted information through QE? That's a bold claim to make.

[quote]which was Einstein's issue with the idea: it violated the law of general relativity that says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.[/quote]

Not really, things with zero or imaginary mass aren't really bound by the stereotypes of relativity. I'm pretty certain Einstein had religious/philosophical objections to it.

[thrawn2787]

[QUOTE=download;52372455]Not really, things with zero or imaginary mass aren't really bound by the stereotypes of relativity. I'm pretty certain Einstein had religious/philosophical objections to it.[/QUOTE]

You realize photons are massless right

[editline]17th June 2017[/editline]

And they, you know, travel at the speed of light...

[Pissfuck]

i suck, what does this mean, o emperor? :johnnymo1:

[daigennki]

So do correct me if I am misunderstanding this, by doing this are they trying to create a satellite communications network faster than optical fiber? :johnnymo1:

[editline]18th June 2017[/editline]

And faster as in bandwidth, latency, or both?

[Bradyns]

[QUOTE=JimmyBowen;52372453]Not well versed in quantum entanglement, why can't it be used for communication?[/QUOTE]

The speed of information is the same bound as light.

[Download]

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;52372490]You realize photons are massless right

[editline]17th June 2017[/editline]

And they, you know, travel at the speed of light...[/QUOTE]

I'm well aware. That's why they travel at the speed of light.

[Da Space Core]

[QUOTE=JimmyBowen;52372453]Not well versed in quantum entanglement, why can't it be used for communication?[/QUOTE]

im no physicist myself, but ill try to explain.

Imagine we have two particles, named A and B, each that can hold a binary value (1 or 0, true or false, etc).

If particles A and B are entangled, particle B will be the opposite of whatever we [I]measure[/I] Particle A to be. So we find Particle A to be 0, B will be 1.

First thing to understand is that the "states" of A and B are not determined when they are created. If we create entangled particles A and B, its not that we dont "know" what state they each have, it is that they dont [I]have[/I] a binary state until we actually measure them. Until we actually measure one of the particles, both particles A and B are in the 1 and 0 state simultaneously,they are both "true false".

However, say, we measure particle A, and it collapses into state of "1" (of which it had a 50% chance of doing since it can be either 1 or 0, much like flipping a coin). Particle B will [I]instantly[/I] go from the state "1 and 0 (true false)" and become state 0. (or vice versa).

This will happen instantly regardless of how far particles A and B are from each other, even if they are light years apart. This means that particle A "told" particle B its state, so particle B can become the opposite state, instantly. that "message" from A went to B instantly, which is faster than light (which does have a speed limit).

Now, for the disappointing bit of why this cannot be used for communication. Say I had the entangled particles A and B, and I put particle A on a satellite probe and kept B home here on earth. I send this satellite out to a planet light years away to see if that planet can sustain life. If I were to put the satellite with some radio transmitter or something, the radio waves would be slow since they travel at the speed of light, which would take years to cross a distance of light years. But the entangled particles A and B can send "messages" instantly, right? So say the satellite measured the planet as habitable. instead of using the slow radio transmitter, Just make particle A say "0" so particle B here at home instantly goes "1", giving us the green light (and vice versa should the planet be not habitable, where we would make A 1 and thus B would 0).

Well, recall earlier when I said particle A had a 50% chance of becoming 1, and a 50% chance of becoming 0. we cannot "force" a state on a particle, we just measure it and see, by chance, which one it became.

so back to the satellite example. what would happen is that we would just know, from the measured state of B, what A happened to be. The satellite can have no control of the outcome, the planet could have actually been covered in lava, but A became 0 anyways (making B 1) because it had a 50% chance of doing so.

So, Tl;Dr, in terms of "communication," all that entanglement allows us to do is know the results of a coinflip light years away instantly. We cant actually control what data gets sent. Its random.

Not to say that quantum mechanics is useless, it has some use in computing and particularly encryption (and cracking encryption), but we will not see its use in sending intergalactic messages

[carcarcargo]

[QUOTE=download;52372455]Wait, what? They're claiming they transmitted information through QE? That's a bold claim to make.

Not really, things with zero or imaginary mass aren't really bound by the stereotypes of relativity. I'm pretty certain Einstein had religious/philosophical objections to it.[/QUOTE]

Imaginary mass particles have never actually been observed to travel faster than light, so experimentally Einstein is still correct.

[Download]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52372586]Imaginary mass particles have never actually been observed to travel faster than light, so experimentally Einstein is still correct.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to see a citation where Einstein said imaginary particles travelling faster than light was wrong.

[thrawn2787]

[QUOTE=download;52372455]
[quote]
which was Einstein's issue with the idea: it violated the law of general relativity that says [B]nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.[/B]

[/quote]

Not really, [B]things with zero[/B] or imaginary [B]mass aren't really bound by the stereotypes of relativity.[/B] I'm pretty certain Einstein had religious/philosophical objections to it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=download;52372562]I'm well aware. That's why [B]they travel at the speed of light.[/B][/QUOTE]

:thinking:

[B-Bud]

[QUOTE=da space core;52372579]its not that we dont "know" what state they each have, it is that they dont [I]have[/I] a binary state until we actually measure them. Until we actually measure one of the particles, both particles A and B are in the 1 and 0 state simultaneously,they are both "true false".[/QUOTE]

This part will forever confuse me.

If they only have a state when they're observed, what's the difference between that and them just having a state all the time? How did they figure out the state of when it's not measured without measuring it?

All this stuff make me brain hurty

[carcarcargo]

[QUOTE=download;52372612]I'd like to see a citation where Einstein said imaginary particles travelling faster than light was wrong.[/QUOTE]

It's not that, it's that physically there is no such thing as an imaginary mass particle. It's mathematical theory that doesn't really translate into the physical world. So in terms of experimental physics, Einstein is correct

[Géza!]

[QUOTE=da space core;52372579]im no physicist myself, but ill try to explain.

Imagine we have two particles, named A and B, each that can hold a binary value (1 or 0, true or false, etc).

If particles A and B are entangled, particle B will be the opposite of whatever we [I]measure[/I] Particle A to be. So we find Particle A to be 0, B will be 1.

First thing to understand is that the "states" of A and B are not determined when they are created. If we create entangled particles A and B, its not that we dont "know" what state they each have, it is that they dont [I]have[/I] a binary state until we actually measure them. Until we actually measure one of the particles, both particles A and B are in the 1 and 0 state simultaneously,they are both "true false".

However, say, we measure particle A, and it collapses into state of "1" (of which it had a 50% chance of doing since it can be either 1 or 0, much like flipping a coin). Particle B will [I]instantly[/I] go from the state "1 and 0 (true false)" and become state 0. (or vice versa).

This will happen instantly regardless of how far particles A and B are from each other, even if they are light years apart. This means that particle A "told" particle B its state, so particle B can become the opposite state, instantly. that "message" from A went to B instantly, which is faster than light (which does have a speed limit).

Now, for the disappointing bit of why this cannot be used for communication. Say I had the entangled particles A and B, and I put particle A on a satellite probe and kept B home here on earth. I send this satellite out to a planet light years away to see if that planet can sustain life. If I were to put the satellite with some radio transmitter or something, the radio waves would be slow since they travel at the speed of light, which would take years to cross a distance of light years. But the entangled particles A and B can send "messages" instantly, right? So say the satellite measured the planet as habitable. instead of using the slow radio transmitter, Just make particle A say "0" so particle B here at home instantly goes "1", giving us the green light (and vice versa should the planet be not habitable, where we would make A 1 and thus B would 0).

Well, recall earlier when I said particle A had a 50% chance of becoming 1, and a 50% chance of becoming 0. we cannot "force" a state on a particle, we just measure it and see, by chance, which one it became.

so back to the satellite example. what would happen is that we would just know, from the measured state of B, what A happened to be. The satellite can have no control of the outcome, the planet could have actually been covered in lava, but A became 0 anyways (making B 1) because it had a 50% chance of doing so.

So, Tl;Dr, in terms of "communication," all that entanglement allows us to do is know the results of a coinflip light years away instantly. We cant actually control what data gets sent. Its random.

Not to say that quantum mechanics is useless, it has some use in computing and particularly encryption (and cracking encryption), but we will not see its use in sending intergalactic messages[/QUOTE]

Couldn't this issue be circumvented by inventing some sort o binary-esque code that carries the same meaning regardless of whether the initial quantum state is 1 or 0, instead using something like a sequence of these changes to convey information?

[Da Space Core]

[QUOTE=-Xemit-;52372619]Could you instead use multiple sets of entangled particles in a way that you'd keep checking their state until two come up as false to signify that the planet is habitable and then stop?

Or would you still need to check all of them on Earth anyway and it would collapse everything?[/QUOTE]

It would like flipping multiple coins then. You cant transmit information with coin flips.

[QUOTE=Bernie Buddy;52372624]This part will forever confuse me.

If they only have a state when they're observed, what's the difference between that and them just having a state all the time? How did they figure out the state of when it's not measured without measuring it?

All this stuff make me brain hurty[/QUOTE]

Just don't think about it too hard

[Download]

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;52372621]:thinking:[/QUOTE]

The stereotype is that only light can travel at the speed of light (or faster). Trying to be a smartass doesn't really work you're wrong.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52372638]It's not that, it's that physically there is no such thing as an imaginary mass particle. It's mathematical theory that doesn't really translate into the physical world. So in terms of experimental physics, Einstein is correct[/QUOTE]

Again, where did he say that was wrong? Also, unless you have some sort of proof, you can't make the claim that imaginary mass particles can't exist.

[Riutet]

[QUOTE=da space core;52372659]You cant transmit information with coin flips.[/QUOTE]

Sure you can, rather than measuring the outcome of the coin flips, you simply measure how many coinflips happen per interval and use that to send information.

If you say one coin flip was A, two was B, three was C etc, by someone flipping coins at set intervals you could transmit messages by paying attention not to the outcome of the coin flip but the frequency at set intervals.

I don't think that applies in this thread's situation though.

[carcarcargo]

[QUOTE=download;52372665] Again, where did he say that was wrong? Also, unless you have some sort of proof, you can't make the claim that imaginary mass particles can't exist.[/QUOTE]

Not the point. Point is there's no actual evidence for imaginary mass particles. They're a hypothetical particle and there's no real reason to believe they exist. Therefore the objection to things not being able to travel faster than light isn't really invalid.

[Download]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52372676]Not the point. Point is there's no actual evidence for imaginary mass particles. They're a hypothetical particle and there's no real reason to believe they exist.[/QUOTE]

We're talking about Einstein here. When did he say an imaginary mass inputted into his relativistic energy equations was wrong?

You're dodging my question.

[carcarcargo]

[QUOTE=download;52372682]We're talking about Einstein here. When did he say an imaginary mass inputted into his relativistic energy equations was wrong?

You're dodging my question.[/QUOTE]

I'm not, I'm saying it doesn't matter if they work in his relativistic energy equations because there's no reason to believe they exist.

It's like all the stuff about being able to go back in time if you go faster than light, yes mathematically you could do that, except you can't actually go faster than light so for all intents and purposes you can't go back in time.

[Download]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52372694]I'm not, I'm saying it doesn't matter if they work in his relativistic energy equations because there's no reason to believe they exist.

It's like all the stuff about being able to go back in time if you go faster than light, yes mathematically you could do that, except you can't actually go faster than light so for all intents and purposes you can't go back in time.[/QUOTE]

This was your original statement:

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52372586]Imaginary mass particles have never actually been observed to travel faster than light, so experimentally Einstein is still correct.[/QUOTE]

When did Einstein say imaginary particles were not valid in the energy equation? Whether or not imaginary mass particles exist is not relevant.

[Agent_Wesker]

[QUOTE=Riutet;52372674]Sure you can, rather than measuring the outcome of the coin flips, you simply measure how many coinflips happen per interval and use that to send information.

If you say one coin flip was A, two was B, three was C etc, by someone flipping coins at set intervals you could transmit messages by paying attention not to the outcome of the coin flip but the frequency at set intervals.

I don't think that applies in this thread's situation though.[/QUOTE]

Yes, someone explain why you can't have 4 particles, flip 1 (first set) for no and 2 (second set) for yes... or something.

[carcarcargo]

[QUOTE=download;52372707]
When did Einstein say imaginary particles were not valid in the energy equation? Whether or not imaginary mass particles exist is not relevant.[/QUOTE]

Well actually it is relevant in experimental physics. If you can't prove it then it isn't really valid, it's just a hypothetical.

[Da Space Core]

[QUOTE=Riutet;52372674]Sure you can, rather than measuring the outcome of the coin flips, you simply measure how many coinflips happen per interval and use that to send information.

If you say one coin flip was A, two was B, three was C etc, by someone flipping coins at set intervals you could transmit messages by paying attention not to the outcome of the coin flip but the frequency at set intervals.

I don't think that applies in this thread's situation though.[/QUOTE]

its a limit of the metaphor.

if you tried doing that with the particle, lets say the A and B the satellite example, you would have to observe B to see it "flip," but you cant do that, actually by "observing/measuring" B you actually cause B and A to flip, again either way with a 50% chance.

again im no physicist, but the same end line I hear from actual experts is that you cannot transmit information with this method.

[Download]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;52372713]Well actually it is relevant in experimental physics. If you can't prove it then it isn't really valid, it's just a hypothetical.[/QUOTE]

That's not the point.

[I]You[/I] claimed that because imaginary mass particles hadn't been proven to exist Einstein was still "right", despite the fact that Einstein never said that imaginary mass particles were not a valid solution.

Whether they exist or not is completely immaterial to your claim that Einstein (or his equations) said that.

[Segab]

[QUOTE=Riutet;52372674]Sure you can, rather than measuring the outcome of the coin flips, you simply measure how many coinflips happen per interval and use that to send information.

If you say one coin flip was A, two was B, three was C etc, by someone flipping coins at set intervals you could transmit messages by paying attention not to the outcome of the coin flip but the frequency at set intervals.

I don't think that applies in this thread's situation though.[/QUOTE]

yeah I was wondering about something like that.

We don't have control on what the coin flip will be, but can we detect IF it happens?
So if we have particle A and A¹ linked, and B and B¹ linked, couldn't we just tell which of A¹ or B¹ changed by looking at A and B?

If we can't detect IF a coin was flipped, then we can only know the opposite of a coin flip light years away, which serves no purpose

[carcarcargo]

[QUOTE=download;52372731]That's not the point.

[I]You[/I] claimed that because imaginary mass particles hadn't been proven to exist Einstein was still "right", despite the fact that Einstein never said that imaginary mass particles were not a valid solution.

Whether they exist or not is completely immaterial to your claim that Einstein (or his equations) said that.[/QUOTE]

You said Einsteins objection to QE was not because it could travel faster than light, because of imaginary mass particles. The thing is imaginary mass particles have never been proven to exist so there's no reason why they would prevent Einstein from objecting to QE on the basis of it going faster than light.

Imaginary mass particles are a mathematical idea. QE is something that has been proven through experimentation, that's why Einstein was bemused by QE.