Problem of Induction... my arse!
 

Indeed, the sun may not rise tomorrow.... but I bet that it does!

jseal - I agree that the engineering needed for teleportation is overwhelming. I don't think Dr. Heisenberg would stand in the way of this process.

The uncertainty principle can be stated as

uncertainty in position (X) multiplied by the uncertainty in velocity (V) > h/m

Where h is Planck’s constant and m is the mass of the particle.

In the quantum world, each measurement changes the system. To measure the position of the object will introduce an uncertainty in the velocity, and vice versa. This is what it means to have the number on the right side of the equation not equal to zero. As the uncertainty in one variable (V) approaches zero, the uncertainty in the other (X) must increase to keep their product greater than h/m.

Here’s the point: at room temperature, the thermal vibration of the atoms in anything to be teleported creates a sufficiently large X that V can be very small.

As for the engineering, I’m less concerned with the count of the particles that need to be entangled as to the fact that the values of many quantum states must be captured simultaneously for the teleportation to be effective. As I mentioned above, each measurement changes the system being measured. It would be inaccurate to claim that useful measurements cannot be made, but they would be tricky. In all likelihood, the sum of the X * V would be small enough for uncomplicated objects. For dynamic objects like the brain, where the state of the system could change while the measurements were being made, I doubt that what would be received would be identical to what was sent. I sure wouldn’t volunteer.

and if i was around and able to witness it...wouln't that be somethin'!!

BIGbad,

That is what happens with quantum entanglement.

...or in the immortal words of the foremost theologian on the subject of :rofl:

OMFG~~~~~> rofpmpl


(((((((BIGbad))))))))

:yikes:

PalaceGuard,

Are you familiar with the work of Claude Shannon? :)

BIGbad :thumb:

:grin::rofl:
:rofl::grin:

All:

That "big dummy" was directed at myself for pointing out what was so obviously pointed out by the gentlemen above. If my message was misconstrued by anyone I apologize. Again I am a "big dummy". I never should have weighed in on this one with the big dogs.

BB

jseal - You wouldn't, by any chance, be referring to Claude Shannon's "A mathematical theory of communication", would you?

Nothing miscionstrued and you can't be an indian giver! ;) If we get a tool, we get to ise it where ever it fits. :D

PalaceGuard,

Yes sir, I believe that is the one. Do you think it may be applicable in this instance? :)

jseal – Well, a portion of it. I do think that the Signal/Noise ratio is relevant in this instance.

In information theory, the Shannon-Hartley theorem computes the maximum amount of information (error-free digital data) that can be transmitted over a communication link with some bandwidth in the presence of noise interference.

We’re facing a similar situation here, where packets of data are being passed through a particular messaging system with a seemingly unavoidable amount of noise. The amount of information which may be carried here is more or less limited by the number and size of the packets of useless data.

PalaceGuard,

How significant is this situation?

jseal - It depends on the communication channel. In this instance there are many concurrent channels. Assume for the sake of simplicity that all the active channels have the same bandwidth. Some have much higher information content than others. Those channels with high information content are more sensitive to noise degradation than those which don't.

Actually, the usefulness of the messaging system as a whole becomes inversely proportional to the total system noise at high noise levels.

Can't stay tonight - gotta go.

PalaceGuard,

What kind of noise causes the degradation?

Jseal – It may better to think of noise as “interference” rather than something related to sound. On an analogue line, this interference with the data (signal) does sound like noise. On a digital line, a bit is a bit, so thinking of noise as interference is more useful. The root problem remains unchanged, which is first how to discriminate between the signal (data) and the noise (interference) and also, when approaching the bandwidth limits of the channel, that the noise can elbow the signal aside.

It doesn’t matter what your messaging system is – they all have these problems.

PalaceGuard,

The messaging system must be open enough to enable a complete range of messages, but this openness admits the interference. So noise/interference is an intractable engineering issue. A messaging system must admit noise to admit data, so some portion of the data must be used to identify it as data rather than noise.

jseal –While the problem is unavoidable, the common technique used to filter out the noise is to encode the signal. The messaging system, or at least the message channel, can distinguish between packets by accepting as data (signal) packets having particular characteristics. That is one way of looking at encoding, the process puts a particular stamp on or shape to a message. Backing into the solution, if the signal can be identified, then the noise can be filtered out.

PalaceGuard,

Isn't encoding computationally expensive?

jseal - yes, but what commodity has had the greatest increase in cost/performance ratio over the last 10 years? MIPs are cheaper than dirt - and getting cheaper and faster daily.

PalaceGuard,

OK. So with encoding, we can be looking at a minimum of 10^27 or so measurements in 3 seconds.

Now in the almost 30 years since the original supercomputer, the Cray-1, was set up at Los Alamos National Laboratory in 1976, computational speed has increased some 500,000 times.

Even if the rate of progress remains at this level, it will still be 150 years before the necessary computing power is available to be harnessed.

Sir, you’ll have to be fortunate to see teleporting in action! :)

Still it IS fun to speculate how it might be achieved.

:teleport:

Thank you!

jseal – Can’t agree with you. The rate of change will increase. One of the first applications of quantum entanglement will be in the field of quantum information science. When realized, the number crunching demanded for teleportation will be trivial compared to capacity. Here’s an example:

How many computational steps are needed to find the prime factors of a 300-digit composite integer number?

The best classical algorithm suggests about 5*10^24 steps – about 150,000 years with a 1 GHz clock. The cost of computing increases exponentially. Using quantum computing the cost rises only polynomially, and takes only 5*10^10 steps. Guess what? Less than 1 second on the same box. (Peter Shor, AT&T Labs, 1994)

It will be the rest of the engineering that’ll stop it from happening. Africandan also correctly pointed out that the receiver would have to pre-exist – so no spooky Star Trek opportunities there.

Still, it is theoretically possible – and it will be computationally possible sooner than you may think.

One good source on quantum information science for those who are interested – is www.qubit.org

PalaceGuard,

Perhaps I’m behind the times here – feel free to correct me, but isn’t all this about quantum computing just theoretical? I’m unaware of any computer having been built from these components. Mind you, I’m not saying that it CAN’T be done, only that – to my knowledge – it HASN’T been done yet.

I’d be more comfortable about your projections if I knew of any computer which functioned according to these principles. The Devil is in the details, and there seem to me to be a considerable number of engineering details still to be resolved between now and the time that these brave new machines will be available for use.