“Teleporting quantum information is now a practical reality,” asserts Deutsche Telekom. The firm’s T‑Labs used commercially available Qunnect hardware to demo quantum teleportation over 30km of live, commercial Berlin fiber, running alongside classical internet traffic. In an email to Tom’s Hardware, Deutsche Telekom’s PR folks said that Cisco also ran the same hardware and demo process to connect data centers in NYC.

    • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Theoretically, zero latency. If you don’t have to wait for a photon to get all the way from one end of a line to another, that can improve a lot of things.

      I’m not sure what the fiber is doing here, but if they can get it working without that, they could drive rovers around Mars in real time, instead of waiting the 4-24 minute delay each way when sending/receiving signals.

      Or streaming video games could be actually playable instead of frustrating messes.

      • HubertManne@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Have we ever actually proved it can exceed the speed of light in information travel? I swear I have seen stuff where its theorized the speed of light is also the speed of causality

        • MatSeFi@lemmy.liebeleu.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Nope, the actual information must still be transported via a classical no quantum (and trusted) channel so that both ends can match their statistics and thus deduce the crytographic keys from the qunatum signals. And thats it what its all about: key exchange

          • HubertManne@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            31 minutes ago

            thanks. I had forgotten about that I think mainly because I can’t wrap my mind around how it works like if its intercepted and used then it will confirm that its void and produce a new one or such.

        • mech@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Yes. If you could transport information faster than the speed of light, it’s easy to find examples that break causality, where an observer sees a message arrive before he sees it being sent.

          • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            I’d argue that that would be breaking our ability to properly interpret causality, not that causality itself breaks. Things still occur in the order they happen regardless of what order we see them happen from different perspectives.

            • mech@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              No, not if the observer can see the message arrive first, and immediately send a faster than light signal to the sender that turns off their transmitter, preventing the sending of their message.

              • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 hours ago

                If they see the message arrive, it has already been sent (and received). Not seeing it get sent yet doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened yet. You’re not accounting for the frame of reference translation involved. Some of the information in your example has travel time. None of that information starts traveling before the things that created that information occurred, though. Even if it might look like that from some perspectives. It won’t look like that to others.

                • mech@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  I’m sorry, but all of special relativity disagrees with you.

        • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 hours ago

          The lack of affordable consumer: harddrives, ssds, RAM, and gpus will do that long before they get this working.

          • village604@adultswim.fan
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            But latency is the determining factor in cloud gaming, not the hardware. The speed of light is the bottleneck.

            • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              I’m aware. It’s a trash experience currently. But that won’t stop them from pushing it anyway, now that personal machines are being priced out of the market.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    The firm’s T‑Labs used commercially available Qunnect hardware to demo quantum teleportation over 30km of live

    Bit disingenuous to talk about teleporting things along a fiber line…

    Also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how quantum entanglement works…

    But it’s actually pretty huge that they’re able to do this.

    • School_Lunch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      As someone who also doesn’t fully understand quantum entanglement… is it that when two particles are entangled and far apart, when we observe them they will always be in the same state? Is there any way to manipulate that state? If so, it seems like it would be pretty straight forward to use it for faster than light communications.

      • rah@hilariouschaos.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        when we observe them they will always be in the same state?

        The two particles are in different but directly related states. For example in some circumstances with two entangled photons, it will necessarily be the case that one photon has horizontal polarisation and the other vertical polarisation. The two will never have the same polarisation.

        You can’t know which photon is in which state without measuring one. The effect of taking the measurement travels faster than the speed of light. Measurement is not manipulating though; you can’t say “I want this photon to be measured as vertically polarised”, you can only ask “what is the polarisation of this photon?”. So you can’t transmit information faster than light, unfortunately.

        • partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Quantum is a struggle for me to understand because, I feel like the current explanations don’t suffice why you can’t transmit information. To me, this still sounds perfectly viable for information transfer… just don’t encode information via polarization. You would encode it as a primitive derived from whether or not state collapse has happened yet or not.

          Using the same/similar mechanism they can use to determine collapse happens to both entangled particles at the same time (faster than light), can they not also determine whether or not collapse has happened at all?

          Maybe it’s that checking for collapse will actually cause collapse, thus ruining the information channel. But, perhaps then, you just add more entangled particles. Have some mechanism established with “throwaway” particles that can have their state collapsed either as a chain reaction or via the polling process.

          Obviously I’m not the smarted person here… probably a lot wrong with my above assumption. But my point is really that explanations about quantum seem to be unsupportive to the claims they make about quantum.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Yep

        The thing is if it’s entangled, why is there a fiber cable?

        If it’s teleportation, why is there a cable?

        However what actually makes consciousness in a brain is (hypothetically, technically) microtubules forming a very tiny cable inside of which quantum superposition is able to be maintained while we are conscious. When even brief quantum entanglement used to be insanely hard anywhere and an environment like the brain considered impossible.

        Like, it’s hard to tell what really happened from OPs article. But there should be much better articles explaining it, and this could actually end up being crazy important. Like, 20-30 years from now this might be how we finally get a real AI.

        Quick edit:

        Like, rather than one straight line to send data, if this can maintain even just entanglement in a simple fiber optic cable…

        Then that’s huge.

        If they just stretched a string between two containment chambers that each have an entangled particle, then what purpose is the string even serving?

        • rah@hilariouschaos.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 hours ago

          what actually makes consciousness in a brain is (hypothetically, technically) microtubules

          This is only a proposed theory, it’s very far from accepted fact.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            This is only a proposed theory, it’s very far from accepted fact.

            Which is why I said hypothetically…

            Although up until a year ago the very idea that quantum entanglement could happen in the brain was treated as a joke for like 30 years and that’s why the larger theory was instantly dismissed…

            Which is why I added the “technically” as well.

            If we’re being technical even gravity is just a theory. But it’s not like being deny the existence of gravity…

            • rah@hilariouschaos.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              Which is why I said hypothetically…

              I think you may have misused the word “hypothetically” then.

              up until a year ago the very idea that quantum entanglement could happen in the brain was treated as a joke for like 30 years

              I was taught Orch OR theory at university about 17 years ago.

              that’s why the larger theory was instantly dismissed

              Instantly dismissed by who? It’s a new theory, there will always be detractors and critics of new theories (see, for example: oxygen theory of combustion). That’s very different from being “instantly dismissed”.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 hours ago

                I think you may have misused the word “hypothetically” then

                I 100% did

                I was taught Orch OR theory at university about 17 years ago

                Then you were also taught that there was no way the brain could maintain sustained quantum entanglement at the same time.

                It’s a new theory

                I mean, frame of reference…

                You said you learned it 17 years ago, that’s not very “new”.

                But compared to any other science, all of psychology is incredibly “new”.

                I’m multitasking bro, this ain’t that deep

                • rah@hilariouschaos.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  Then you were also taught that there was no way the brain could maintain sustained quantum entanglement

                  No. I’ve no idea what could have possibly brought you to that conclusion.

                  Please don’t try to tell me what brought you to that conclusion while multitasking. For that matter, please don’t try to tell me at all.

      • Encephalotrocity@feddit.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        when two particles are entangled and far apart, when we observe them they will always be in the same state?

        They will be opposite states of each other the moment observing collapses their waveform. This effectively removes their entangled state. It cannot be used to communicate information faster than c.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 hours ago

      As far as I understand this, it’s not zero latency, it’s safer key exchange possible for some encryption based on a physical and not mathematical principle.

      Would be cool, of course, if they really could achieve zero latency. That could do wonders to various infrastructure efficiency. Say, allow for electric grids and internet backbone lines to know of spreading load changes to optimize for them.

      • Prove_your_argument@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        There’s going to be latency because the NIC on both ends still communicates with copper to the rest of the computer system(s.)

        Still going to be faster than a fiber connection or copper. Not to mention the latency induced by say the IEX Magic Box.