Ravenstar Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140921145007.htm Is there anyone here who can explain this in English (lol). I find it fascinating but I really don't know enough to understand it properly. The phrase… "in quantum physics, the state takes precedence over the 'vehicle' -- in other words an item's quantum properties transcend classical physical properties." seems to be the key here. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miekko Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Basically, all particles of a given type are indistinguishable - except for their states. So, if I show you a container where one electron is caught, and tell you to measure it, and a year later, I show you the same container and tell you to measure the electron in it, there's no way for you to determine whether it was the same electron or not. What's happened here is that one electron now has the states previously associated with another one - which in other words is indistinguishable from those electrons having changed places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Ok, super dumb question. Why doesn't this lead to alchemy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miekko Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Ok, super dumb question. Why doesn't this lead to alchemy? Care to explain what about it makes you think it should lead to alchemy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Ok, super dumb question. Why doesn't this lead to alchemy? Care to explain what about it makes you think it should lead to alchemy? my weak understanding of what you meant by 'Basically, all particles of a given type are indistinguishable - except for their states.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miekko Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Ok, super dumb question. Why doesn't this lead to alchemy? Care to explain what about it makes you think it should lead to alchemy? my weak understanding of what you meant by 'Basically, all particles of a given type are indistinguishable - except for their states.' I really don't see how alchemy could come from that. All what that says is that given, say, two electrons for which all the quantum information is the same, we cannot distinguish those two in any meaningful sense. If you care to elaborate more clearly why you understand what I am saying as implying alchemy, I might explain better, but right now I really don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Well, I said it was a dumb question. I have only a cursory understanding here. I thought you were saying something akin to particles are like stem cells. That's the best I can do as far as explaining my misunderstanding. I didn't study physics. I find it to be an interesting subject, but I'm woefully ignorant where it's concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miekko Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Well, I said it was a dumb question. I have only a cursory understanding here. I thought you were saying something akin to particles are like stem cells. That's the best I can do as far as explaining my misunderstanding. I didn't study physics. I find it to be an interesting subject, but I'm woefully ignorant where it's concerned. Ok, so... well, electrons are - as far as we can tell - 'unitary' particles - they don't have parts. Comparing two electrons, you'll find some states in them, and that's all there is to them. These states may even change. However, if we are to compare two protons, we'll notice they consist of three quarks each - and quarks are more akin to electrons than electrons are akin to protons in this sense, as they too are not known to consist of any smaller parts. So, we compare two protons - and we can't really tell two protons apart either except for the states of their quarks. (Note: we don't, of course, have any equipment to measure the states of a quark inside a proton, these explanations rely on thought experiments.) I am not saying we can indiscriminately change these - some features of an electron probably can be changed, I know too little about that, really - but the fact that two quarks with the same states are indistinguishable (except for location) doesn't mean we can replace one quark with any other quark. Quantum teleportation would be switching two electrons or photons or whatever - particles that within their kind are indistinguishable - or making both of them adopt the states of the other. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexton Blake Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 I read the article and it seems to me that they have just sent the photon 25 km along a cable and another particle has reacted to this photon. The quantum equivalent of a telephone call is not teleportation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gall Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I read the article and it seems to me that they have just sent the photon 25 km along a cable and another particle has reacted to this photon. The quantum equivalent of a telephone call is not teleportation. They have to start someplace. Edison, Bell and all those guys didn't start with a global communications network but without them we would not probably have one today. Or light bulbs that work longer than 10 seconds. This is just a beginning of understanding. The future is coming. Pull up a chair and watch it happen, unless you know enough about physics to help. I would say that these scientists are of greater value to the world than 10000 soldiers or rather how the world should be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueScholar Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I read the article and it seems to me that they have just sent the photon 25 km along a cable and another particle has reacted to this photon. The quantum equivalent of a telephone call is not teleportation. It's actually much more complicated than that. We are talking about a transfer of information about the "state" of a photon. Unfortunately, entanglement and this so called "teleportation" is well beyond what many of us here can really understand. Thus, an informed discussion is unlikely. However, knowing the state of a "particle" in my field means you know everything that can possibly be known about said particle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted October 8, 2014 Author Share Posted October 8, 2014 http://lightlike.com/teleport/ and for those with the math background: http://lightlike.com/teleport/teletalk.pdf http://scitechdaily.com/physicists-teleport-information-in-a-solid-state-system/ http://www.gizmag.com/light-into-matter-quantum-teleportation/33906/ http://www.iflscience.com/physics/physicists-achieve-quantum-teleportation-photon-over-25-kilometers http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/teleportation1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 8, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 8, 2014 I wish I was smarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gall Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I wish I was smarter. believe me the smarter you get the harder it is to be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I wish I was smarter. believe me the smarter you get the harder it is to be happy. *SLAM* In yo' face stupid. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 I wish I was smarter. believe me the smarter you get the harder it is to be happy. *SLAM* In yo' face stupid. mwc DAAAAAAAAAAYUM! He straight up slammed in yo face, boyeeeeee! What'chew gone'dew?!? Huh? What'chew gone'dew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted October 9, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted October 9, 2014 Heh, he said "harder." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 Heh, he said "harder." He/she also said, "Believe me, you get to be happy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gall Posted October 10, 2014 Share Posted October 10, 2014 I wish I was smarter. believe me the smarter you get the harder it is to be happy. *SLAM* In yo' face stupid. mwc DAAAAAAAAAAYUM! He straight up slammed in yo face, boyeeeeee! What'chew gone'dew?!? Huh? What'chew gone'dew? Some of you have had to much coffee it seems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts