backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 68 comment(s) - last by Diesel Donkey.. on Mar 31 at 8:40 PM
New research into advanced photon data transmission is revolutionary but guaranteed to make your head hurt

Significant news broke yesterday in the field of quantum computing.  The world record for the amount of data sent by a single photon was shattered using some intensely cerebral science. 

The new record for so called "dense coding" in linear optics, set by researchers at the University of Illinois, involves the use of hyperentanglement to achieve "superdense" coding levels.  Paul Kwiat, a John Bardeen Professor of Physics and Electrical and Computer Engineering, explains dense coding stating, "Dense coding is arguably the protocol that launched the field of quantum communication.  Today, however, more than a decade after its initial experimental realization, channel capacity has remained fundamentally limited as conceived for photons using conventional linear elements."

Classical photon coding works like silicon transistor coding in basic principle-- an element, in this case a photon, can convey one of two messages, or one bit of information.  Dense coding takes advantage of quantum mechanics to allow photons to encode up to four messages theoretically, or two bits of information.  Kwiat explains, "Dense coding is possible because the properties of photons can be linked to one another through a peculiar process called quantum entanglement.  This bizarre coupling can link two photons, even if they are located on opposite sides of the galaxy."

However, past efforts have fallen short of the theoretical 4 message limit, due to inherent 3 message limitation placed by the standard entanglement protocol using linear elements.  This means that in the past communication was limited to 1.58 bits/photon as opposed to the theoretical 2 bits/photon.

Kwiat's team took advantage of a more complicated form of entanglement known as hyperentanglement.  By hyperentangling photons, the team is able to cause the photons to become entangled in more ways than one, allowing for the full transmission of data and achievement of 2 bits sent per photon.

The achievement of superdense, 2 bit coding carried out by Kwiat, graduate student Julio Barreiro, and postdoctoral researcher Tzu-Chieh Wei (now at the University of Waterloo) described the results in a paper, which has been accepted for publication in the Nature Physics journal.

The new superdense coding relies on conveying both photon's "wiggle" polarization, and its "twisting", its orbital angular momentum.  In order to do this, spontaneous parametric down conversion is performed on a pair of nonlinear crystals, creating this phenomenon of dual-parameter hyperentanglement.  Data is then transferred from one photon to the other by changing the polarization by applying birefringent phase shifts utilizing liquid crystals. 

Barreiro warns that the method may impractical within the Earth's atmosphere.  Says Barreiro, "While hyper-entanglement in spin and orbital angular momentum enables the transmission of two bits with a single photon.  Atmospheric turbulence can cause some of the quantum states to easily decohere, thus limiting their likely communication application to satellite-to-satellite transmissions."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By Fnoob on 3/25/2008 11:19:13 AM , Rating: 4
"This bizarre coupling can link two photons, even if they are located on opposite sides of the galaxy."

This made my brain hurt.




RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By ksherman on 3/25/2008 11:24:02 AM , Rating: 3
So would that mean we would be able to (theoretically) send data across the galaxy? Is this like the Ultimate WiFi connection?

If not, what does that really mean.


By therealnickdanger on 3/25/2008 11:56:45 AM , Rating: 2
If I understand what I'm reading, the data transmission would only work that way if you had these magical crystals at both sides of the galaxy...

</dunce cap>


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By Guuts on 3/25/2008 11:59:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, that's basically what it means, except the transfer of data is instantaneous, and I believe this effect isn't limited to just "across the/a galaxy"...but you can wiki search if you want to verify that.


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By MicahK on 3/25/2008 8:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite, I thought this too the first time I heard about entanglement. Contrary to what some people are saying here, the laws of physics do hold in the quantum realm, even tho it leads to some crazy and weird conclusions...

Anyways, you can only convey classical information at a maximum of the speed of light. Without getting into too many details...

Say Alice and Bob both hold coins that are entangled in such a way that when one is heads so is the other. Say Alice observes a head, then Bob will observe a head, regardless of the distance separating them and instantaneously!

But Alice has no way of knowing what she will observe before she has observed it. Thus she cannot piece together a message in this way.

And Bob has no idea if his observation is random, or a result of Alice's measurement, UNLESS, she somehow communicates that to him, which defeats the whole purpose in the first place...


By Comdrpopnfresh on 3/25/2008 10:30:02 PM , Rating: 1
When someone is talking to me, I have no clue what they are saying until I hear it...

If two particles are entangles, and one is kept in a manner where it's state will not change- the system works flawlessly. If bob puts his coin in a glass-sealed vacuum, it will changes whenever alice's does-

Technically nothing is traveling, so the speed limit doesn't apply here. I don't see what the problem is- you say not quite, and then you go on to explain what you just said not quite to...

If you are saying that the observer with the coin that is used to display the resultant states cannot get a message because they don't know what form it is being sent in- hot air. Then why are we doing things like SETI? I'm sure if intelligent life out there is communicating to use, they're not doing it in binary let alone windows messenger and the like. I believe the idea would be to start with a sequence and establish a frame, and rate of transfer. So x changes in y amount of time is a frame packet. Use prime numbers, or the elements to get across some meaning (hell, any sequence with repeats) in what would most likely be math, and eventually something could be worked out.


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By MicahK on 3/26/2008 3:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
A - SETI is based on using EM waves to communicate... These are bound at the speed of light. It would take 4 years to send a message to the nearest star and another 4 to hear a reply back.

B- I suggest you do some reading on quantum mechanics, its just the way it is, no matter how hard you argue otherwise...


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By SlyNine on 3/26/2008 4:11:25 AM , Rating: 1
We will never fly. No what's that you say, Oh well then. We will never go faster then the speed of sound, Oh we have. Well then, We will never travel to the moon. What we've done that too.

Well we will certainly never travel faster then the speed of light or be able to analyze a subatomic piratical/wave( whatever they really are).

I find it amazing that we keep on saying this even though we don't even know the nature of light, electrons or how they even manage to travel threw space and yet act like a wave, If they do travel threw some sorta medium in space we have no clue what that is.


By theapparition on 3/26/2008 8:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
While I admire your optimism, your initial observations are a bit misleading.

We will never fly, even though man has seen birds flying since the dawn. Never go faster than speed of sound, even though man had observed other phenomenon "breaking" that rule. Etc.

But we've never observed anything that can go faster than the speed of light (quantum tunneling phenomenon aside). So far, all theories reguarding light have been verified. While travel to distant worlds seems like an insurmountable challenge right now, I hold out hope that we will discover a breakthrough that lets us go "warp speed ahead". But that's all it is now......hope.

The original explanation is pretty valid, though. You can't hold that coin in "some neutral state" unless you know what that neutral state is supposed to be, which takes communication between parties.


By MicahK on 3/26/2008 3:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't saying that one day we won't be able to... I hope I see some major breakthroughs like that in my lifetime!! I'm just pointing out that THIS particular breakthrough doesn't mean instantaneous communication, although it is progress towards secure quantum communication!


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By Sanity on 3/25/2008 1:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like the beginning of an Ansible. I first heard that term from reading Orson Scott Card's "Enders Game". It allowed instantaneous communication across light years of space. I've read other articles on this site that refer to two particles having some mysterious relationship that transcended all distances instantly, but nothing that mentioned harnessing that property. This would make a huge impact on space exploration. Sure, it would take 60 years for a probe to get to the nearest star, but it would relay information instantly back home, instead of having a 4 year lag. Hell, if we sent one now, I might even be alive when it got there!

If you couldn't build an FTL ship that would take people to other stars, I'd think instant communications across light years of space would be the next best thing.

I guess what I can't figure out from this article, is whether or not they are using photons to sent information due to their entanglement relationship, or if they're actually sending a photon from one place to another via something like fiber optics, but with a higher bit rate.


By Ajax9000 on 3/25/2008 9:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
I was going to say "No, it was Ursula K. Le Guin", but Wikipedia notes Orson Scott Card, Vernor Vinge, and others borrowed the term from her writing.


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By charliee on 3/26/08, Rating: -1
By jajig on 3/26/2008 11:01:58 AM , Rating: 2
Why must you quote the bible in every (almost?) post?

I don't care that you do, it's just makes me think WTF.


By Steve Guilliot on 3/25/2008 5:14:19 PM , Rating: 3
Not really, but sort of. You can't link two photons from opposite sides of the galaxy, so we couldn't use this tomorrow.

However if you had two friends, each 10 lightyears away from you (example), you could send them a linked stream of photons. 10 years later when they start receiving the stream, they could start communicating with each other across the 20 lightyear void. They wouldn't be able to communicate with you at all, just each other.

I doubt it will ever be possible, but if we had a way to indefinitely store and retrieve photons without losing their quantum state, we could send one linked stream, store the other, and communicate with anyone anywhere. Of course, you still have to wait for the photon stream to arrive at the other end. Across the galaxy would require ~100,000 years. At the end of the ~100k year wait, you could communicate for as long as you sent (and stored) the linked stream.


By jlips6 on 3/25/2008 5:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
I've done a little research on quantum mechanics, and I understand them, in the vague sense that an ant can understand there is more above him than just a foot. Apparently, quantum doesn't need to follow the rules of physics. They have made some particle (I forget whether it was atom or photon or electron.) Be in two places at the same time. It was not moving at the speed of light, it was in two places at once. This might be what they are talking about. The laws of physics are almighty, but quantum is just weird as hell. This is about all I could understand before my head exploded, but I don't think it's sending information at the speed of light....


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By hcahwk19 on 3/25/2008 11:24:32 AM , Rating: 2
As a law student, I am used to reading convoluted language, but this is ridiculous. I can usually figure out what is going on in these kinds of scientific articles, but I totally feel retarded after attempting to read this. My head hurts now.


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By odessit740 on 3/25/2008 11:44:29 AM , Rating: 5
Am I the only one that finds this pretty straight forward. Guys, for the layman, the details are not important, because you're not a specialist in the field. It is the overall product which is important, and that is achieving the theoretical limitation of sending information via photons. (At least that is considered to be the limit as it is agreed upon today)


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By Tsuwamono on 3/25/2008 11:49:25 AM , Rating: 2
I was able to read it pretty easily as well. A few things were alittle confusing but i get the basic idea.

The thing I don't understand is if it would be possible to use this type of communication for space ships as they are always moving.


By dever on 3/25/2008 1:32:46 PM , Rating: 3
Moving relative to what? Aren't we all?


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By bertomatic on 3/25/2008 2:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
Everything, everywhere is always moving. Stationary does not exist.


By Diesel Donkey on 3/25/2008 2:46:36 PM , Rating: 1
I would have to disagree. It all depends on your frame of reference. A photon wouldn't "see" itself as moving if its reference frame were itself.


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By SlyNine on 3/26/2008 4:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
However a wave is moving based on the medium it travels threw, So a photon might consider its self moving, if it is a wave.


By Diesel Donkey on 3/31/2008 8:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
Who says light needs a medium? The idea of the luminiferous ether went out the window a number of years ago. Your comment did make me think, though, about whether or not light can be in a stationary reference frame as observed by itself.


By cscpianoman on 3/25/2008 4:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm stationary, but then again the universe does revolve around me:)


By ksherman on 3/25/2008 12:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I didn't have too much trouble reading it.

One thing I wish you would add (in a lot of your articles) in the conclusion a sort of "So What" statement. This would especially be useful for these high science type articles. I know some of that is woven through the article, but it would be nice that after all this info dump, you would just simply state what are some of the implications.


By EE Pete on 3/25/2008 1:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
No problem here either. Although when I tried to think about it deeper and started to dust off my physics neurons :D ... It hurt, it hurt bad. Then I just said screw it, I get the gist.


By hcahwk19 on 3/25/2008 1:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
I do get the basic idea here that we are developing ways to send data across photons, with the possibility of doing so over extreme distances. I was simply referring to the details and scientific jargon used. You are correct in that they are only important to specialists in the field, but that is true for any field of expertise. It is still fun to read the details and try to figure them out. The details are where the layperson feels stupid.


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By hellokeith on 3/25/2008 11:46:39 AM , Rating: 2
Keep in mind that while entanglement may allow communication across vast distances, the entangled photons would still have to already be in place. So yeah, you might be talking to astronauts in orbit around Alpha Centauri, but it still took them at least 40 years to get the quantum walkie talkie there.


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By glennpratt on 3/25/2008 11:58:38 AM , Rating: 4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
quote:
...causality cannot be violated through entanglement.

Communication doesn't happen between entangled objects. So no, you won't be performing faster-than-light communication with a quantum walkie talkie.


By phil126 on 3/25/2008 12:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
It is more like that both share the same states then they communicate with each other. In single photon communications a single photon is transmitted in the middle two locations. Both locations recieve the photons information at the same time, even though it was only a single photon.


By geddarkstorm on 3/25/2008 12:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't limit FTL communication through entanglement at all. Causality, that a cause must precede an effect, is not broken by using entanglement across the galaxy as time is not somehow standing still everywhere except where you are. Even if entanglement is instantaneous, the cause, starting the entanglement, and the effect, decoding the information in that entanglement, still precede in the proper order.

What the quote means is that you cannot send entanglement information back through time to a moment before you initiated the entanglement event. It has nothing to do with actual FTL relativity as there is no "movement" involved: it's a coupling of quantum states which happens irregardless of distance--so theory goes.


By NainoKami on 3/25/2008 12:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
Irregardless?


By glennpratt on 3/25/2008 2:06:42 PM , Rating: 3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%...
quote:
...special relativity has shown that it is not only impossible to influence the past; it is also impossible to influence distant objects by signals that travel faster than the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
quote:
no information can be transmitted through entanglement alone, it is possible to transmit information using a set of entangled states used in conjunction with a classical information channel. This process is known as quantum teleportation. Despite its name, quantum teleportation cannot be used to transmit information faster than light, because a classical information channel is required.


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By MrBlastman on 3/25/2008 1:03:33 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, in theory you certainly can.

With two entangled photons, their relative spin will be opposite each other. They have a tendency to react instantaneously to a change in state of their counterpart photon, regardless of distance apart.

If you can grasp this concept, then it is only logical to theoretically suggest that if you placed these photons at great distances apart, you could manipulate their spin on one end and the other end, even if it were in a distant corner of our galaxy, would instantaneously respond and by measuring that change, you could create a 1-bit data channel.

If you had enough of these working together, you could have a 4, 8 or 16 bit channel creating quantum FTL communications.

There is no transmission of photons from point a to point b required.

The biggest drawback of this system is it is not a mass communications method due to the two particle system, however if you were able to achieve entanglement between multiple photons. If so, you could create a VERY secure communications channel between say multiple ships/bases etc. spread out over great distances that could not be intercepted unless you possessed one of the devices containing an entangled particle.

Otherwise, you're limited to base to single ship and the transmission station would be a large warehouse full of multiple comms units containing entangled photons and in order to broadcast you would have to manipulate each and every one at a single time to send the transmission. Very bulky indeed. You also could not change channels unless you had a relay station, similar to an operator on a switchboard routing your transmission. Theoretically, all of this is possible - very possible, through this principal.


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By glennpratt on 3/25/2008 2:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, no, in theory you cannot. Please read about the subject before you confuse more people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
quote:
...no information can be transmitted through entanglement alone...

quote:
...quantum teleportation cannot be used to transmit information faster than light...


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By MrBlastman on 3/25/2008 2:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
You aren't transmitting information per say - you are simply measuring a state. (Is the Cat dead or Alive?)

There is a difference here, even if this might possibly create a paradox.

I've read quite a bit on this area and have been since day 1 highly skeptical of anything that says you can or can not do anything with any absolute tone. If you accept words for what they are and fail to peer even further into paths you can take, new discoveries will not occur.

John S. Bell had done quite a bit of work in this area of detection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Now, nothing of fact has been determined yet that it can be done reliably 100% of the time; likewise there have been many obstacles against it but none of them have proven with sheer certainty that it can not be done either.

It has been theorized and hypothesized a great deal but I feel to generally say that you cannot is just a counterpoint to those whom share thoughts similiar to Bells area of research that there is indeed a possibility.

I'm not confusing anyone with my statement, I'm just stating a pro-theory to counter the anti-theory camp.

It warrants further exploration for sure.

I think if we were to make a proper statement, and anyone whom is unfamiliar in the least with Quantum Physics, is that the field is to this day highly theoretical and even with its inception by Einstein he himself stated he did not have a full grasp of all the possibilities at the time.

There is much to still be discovered.


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By glennpratt on 3/25/2008 5:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
NO! It's in the article you quoted!!
quote:
Bell test experiments to date overwhelmingly show that Bell inequalities are violated. These results provide empirical evidence against local realism and in favor of QM. The no-communication theorem proves that the observers cannot use the inequality violations to communicate information to each other faster than the speed of light.


Most physicists agree that information cannot be communicated by entagnlement. Bell's theorem, doesn't claim that information can be transmitted faster then light (there is no way to decipher information without information sent in a classical channel.

You are claiming something very unlikely and totally unsupported, and should qualify your remarks as such.


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By SlyNine on 3/26/2008 4:25:30 AM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't be the first time something imposable came true.


By glennpratt on 3/26/2008 10:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, but most physicists consider it impossible under these theories; many comments on the subject would have you believe that it's known to be possible, which isn't the case.


RE: I rode the short bus apparently, because...
By MrBlastman on 3/26/2008 9:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
You are very quick to believe everything you read.

If everyone was like this, new technologies would never be invented.

I still don't buy it. I also consider Wikipedia as not the defacto standard of all scientific data.

Have you read books on his experiments?


By glennpratt on 3/26/2008 10:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
Ahh, the old I don't trust Wikipedia card. I've read about this stuff since I took my advanced physics classes in college, since you asked.

IBM http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportat...
quote:
Another well-known fact about EPR correlations is that they cannot by themselves deliver a meaningful and controllable message.


Caltech http://www.its.caltech.edu/~qoptics/teleport.html
quote:
To perform the teleportation, Alice and Bob must have a classical communication channel and must also share quantum entanglement


American Institute of Physics http://www.aip.org/pnu/1997/split/pnu350-1.htm
quote:
This does not mean that faster-than-light information transfer has occurred. The people at the sending station must still convey the fact that teleportation had been successful by making a phone call or using some other light-speed or sub-light-speed means of communication


You shouldn't be saying things that aren't likely and ARE considered impossible by most physicists are in fact possible. You should qualify your statements, instead of confusing people.


Umm...
By 325hhee on 3/25/2008 11:30:40 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone have any subtitles for this article? I feel like I'm watching a foreign movie. I think I just lost some IQ points for feeling really dumb trying to read this article. It's worse than the blond leading the blind.




RE: Umm...
By JasonMick (blog) on 3/25/2008 11:37:29 AM , Rating: 6
Subtitled version of article:

"In new research scientists do funny things to light with shiny crystals. Funny things allow scientists to make light be friends and to send lots of data. If the data were apples, before they could only send 3 apples. Now they can send four apples. That's one more apple! Cool stuff promises really fast internet and computers someday. However shiny light does not not get along well with Mr. atmosphere, so there may be no super fast internet and computers after all. <frowny face>"

Well I tried :)


RE: Umm...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/25/2008 11:42:56 AM , Rating: 3
HAHAHAHA, although I understood the article from the get-go, that was funny :)


RE: Umm...
By SlipDizzy on 3/25/2008 11:51:12 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the subtitle, I'm going to go play with my red ball now.


RE: Umm...
By fictisiousname on 3/25/2008 12:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
about the missing apple...was it the one that bonked Newton in the head?
Newtonian and Quantum physics need to be entangled again.


RE: Umm...
By FITCamaro on 3/25/2008 12:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
Give this man a 6.


RE: Umm...
By Joz on 3/25/2008 11:46:59 AM , Rating: 2
BRAAAINNNZZZZ!!!!!

My head hurtz.

Yea, in layman's terms would be nice...I got too were it said "Entglement" and then my brain overheated and shutdown.


RE: Umm...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/25/2008 11:54:13 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's worse than the blond leading the blind.

I smell a joke coming ...

Here's some footnotes
quote:
New research into advanced photon data transmission is revolutionary but guaranteed to make your head hurt

If it hurts your head, don't worry. Einstein spent the last 50 years of his life trying to explain these problems with classical physics. And naturally, my alma mater decided to skip the explanation step, and instead would rather figure out how to use these "spooky actions at a distance" (that's really what Einstein called them) for super computing.

This is what happens when you have guys that grow up on "But can it run Linux?"

quote:
Significant news broke yesterday in the field of quantum computing. The world record for the amount of data sent by a single photon was shattered using some intensely cerebral science.

quote:
The new record for so called "dense coding" in linear optics, set by researchers at the University of Illinois, involves the use of hyperentanglement to achieve "superdense" coding levels. Paul Kwiat, a John Bardeen Professor of Physics and Electrical and Computer Engineering, explains dense coding stating, "Dense coding is arguably the protocol that launched the field of quantum communication. Today, however, more than a decade after its initial experimental realization, channel capacity has remained fundamentally limited as conceived for photons using conventional linear elements."

There is a debate that touches on this: can we create a simulation of the universe with fewer particles that exist in the universe? "Dense coding" argues that we can; we can send two bits of data in one qubit.

quote:
Classical photon coding works like silicon transistor coding in basic principle-- an element, in this case a photon, can convey one of two messages, or one bit of information. Dense coding takes advantage of quantum mechanics to allow photons to encode up to four messages theoretically, or two bits of information. Kwiat explains, "Dense coding is possible because the properties of photons can be linked to one another through a peculiar process called quantum entanglement. This bizarre coupling can link two photons, even if they are located on opposite sides of the galaxy."

Kwait is explaining "quantum entanglement." This is actually what drove Einstein over the edge. If you have two entangled photons, one will always "spin up" and the other will always "spin down." You can put one of these photons on Mars and the other in Urbana, and the one on Mars will always spin in the opposite direction of the one on Earth.

I don't even pretend to understand this, we just know that it works.

quote:
However, past efforts have fallen short of the theoretical 4 message limit, due to inherent 3 message limitation placed by the standard entanglement protocol using linear elements. This means that in the past communication was limited to 1.58 bits/photon as opposed to the theoretical 2 bits/photon.

2 bits per qubit is sort of the Eureka moment.

quote:
Kwiat's team took advantage of a more complicated form of entanglement known as hyperentanglement. By hyperentangling photons, the team is able to cause the photons to become entangled in more ways than one, allowing for the full transmission of data and achievement of 2 bits sent per photon.

Kwiat was actually the first to observe hyper-entanglement, I think. It basically states that all 36 states of a photon are entangled, as opposed to just the spin up and spin down.

quote:
The achievement of superdense, 2 bit coding carried out by Kwiat, graduate student Julio Barreiro, and postdoctoral researcher Tzu-Chieh Wei (now at the University of Waterloo) described the results in a paper, which has been accepted for publication in the Nature Physics journal.

So here's your Eureka moment.

quote:
The new superdense coding relies on conveying both photon's "wiggle", polarization, and its "twisting", its orbital angular momentum. In order to do this, spontaneous parametric down conversion is performed on a pair of nonlinear crystals, creating this phenomenon of dual-parameter hyperentanglement. Data is then transferred from one photon to the other by changing the polarization by applying birefringent phase shifts utilizing liquid crystals.

This is just manipulation of the 36 states.

quote:
Barreiro warns that the method may impractical within the Earth's atmosphere. Says Barreiro, "While hyper-entanglement in spin and orbital angular momentum enables the transmission of two bits with a single photon. Atmospheric turbulence can cause some of the quantum states to easily decohere, thus limiting their likely communication application to satellite-to-satellite transmissions."

Gibson wrote it in the 80s: the really big super computers (the AIs) are going to be orbital. :)

Hope that helps. If you wanted a unified theory of everything, one that answers philosophical questions (like this) based on observed science seems like an interesting place to start


RE: Umm...
By therealnickdanger on 3/25/2008 12:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
Orbital? Or more like a "Jupiter brain"?

Great commentary, BTW.


RE: Umm...
By Myg on 3/25/2008 6:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
"philosophical questions (like this)"

Ive tried my best to find the philosophical question, but cant seem to. Would appreciate it if you could satisfy my curiosity in how it connects; thanks.

Otherwise, as an imperfect human being, I am highly offended by the idea that we are acting arrogant enough to think that we have created an inherently imperfect concept such as physics and mathematics that have the singular or conjoined capacity to create one formula to perfectly explain everything. :-)


As long as nothing explodes...
By wingless on 3/25/2008 1:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
God once said that if we eat the apple of knowledge we will have the knowledge of God but lack the wisdom to use it (read: Genesis). I get the feeling after reading this article that we have a huge amount of knowledge about our physical universe these days but lack the wisdom to REALLY use it well. We could be capable of such great feats but usually end up botching it up (ex: splitting of the atom, getting to Mars by 1988). Hopefully down the road we'll get our act together and put this type of amazing tech to good use to better mankind.

Knowing us though, some asshat will figure out how to weaponize quantum mechanics.




By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/25/2008 3:25:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
some asshat will figure out how to weaponize quantum mechanics.

HG Wells theorized the atom bomb in "The World Set Free." He even called it an atom bomb and described how it would work. Forty-some years later, Oppenheimer perfects the design it and gives Wells the credit.

In his epitath, one year after the U.S. bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Wells wrote "God damn you all, I told you so."

Weaponizing special relatively (a field of quantum mechanics) is OK to do in books, but not in real life it seems.


RE: As long as nothing explodes...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/25/2008 3:30:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Knowing us though, some asshat will figure out how to weaponize quantum mechanics.

Nothing pushes innovation and advancement faster than the threat of being wiped off the planet.


RE: As long as nothing explodes...
By Myg on 3/25/2008 7:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing pushes being wiped off the planet faster then innovation and advancement.

Nifty, how it can reverse so easily :-)

I think fear would be a better reference then "being wiped off the planet", not that they arn't the same thing (just easier to find an entrypoint into understanding if you use the word "fear").

Fear is what drives the creation of weapons, and since in a state of acting out of fear we form the weapon concepts and the designs; the weapons will inherit our fear, becomming instruments of fear and further spreading it. The weapons become children of our paranoia and hate, thus spreading and performing their particular talents wherever they are found.

The only way for humanity to stop abusing its hard earned technological advancement, is if we do our part and chose not to fear and not allow such feelings and mentality to perpetuate itself; which is a really hard thing to do, but its worth it in the long run.


By roadrun777 on 3/26/2008 12:33:49 AM , Rating: 2
The "Apple" of knowledge was a representation of man using farming to supply his need for food rather than relying on nature's system to provide it. In other words it was a conscious decision to control nature rather than let nature provide. I don't subscribe to the idea myself, but I do find it interesting. I have studied quite a bit of Sumerian texts and stories while looking for religious origins.
Adam and Lillith, then Adam and Eve, Eve supposedly being the daughter of those that sought to control nature rather be subject to it.

If I am not mistaken, I think they recently found where the original garden of Eden was, which is now submerged. Very interesting if your not afraid of origin.

I seem to have a fan club here on DT that loves to rate me down, but at least I try to respond to every comment even if its off topic.


For Sale!
By kileil on 3/25/2008 12:30:31 PM , Rating: 1
One box. Contains cat. Cat may be alive, cat may be dead. Don't peek inside box, because if cat is alive peeking will kill it.

Item ships before payment is received.




RE: For Sale!
By buckao on 3/25/2008 1:56:42 PM , Rating: 3
Hey, that's MY cat!

-Schrodinger


RE: For Sale!
By kileil on 3/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: For Sale!
By roadrun777 on 3/26/2008 12:25:10 AM , Rating: 2
Lets talk about your mother, now sit back...


RE: For Sale!
By theapparition on 3/26/2008 8:46:57 AM , Rating: 2
Wait, I thought I had a dog,
Oh well, give it back!

-Pavlov


RE: For Sale!
By theapparition on 3/26/2008 8:48:10 AM , Rating: 2
BTW,
One of the most original posts I've seen here.


YES!
By TimberJon on 3/25/2008 11:51:22 AM , Rating: 2
Now maybe we can have things like Dolby or THQ certified systems that can tap our nervous system to simulate fear and excitement as if we were really there! Or video games for that matter! what a rush that would be!

J/K

Quantum everything, hurry the hell up and get here, I want to prospect asteriods.




RE: YES!
By JonnyDough on 3/25/2008 3:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
It wouldn't be a rush. Research has shown that people like video games to be realistic, but not TOO realistic. That's why they're video games and not real life.


eh?
By zinfamous on 3/25/2008 11:53:11 AM , Rating: 2
I have no idea what's going on here, yet I remain impressed.




By kattanna on 3/25/2008 12:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
once they get this to work better, i wonder if they will setup a communication outpost up on the moon, no atmosphere, that then could relay communication in real time to off world satellites off exploring. also then making a satellite, or 3, then would then orbit mars, would give any new robotic or human explorers there real time comm with earth.

VERY HANDY!




This is what happens...
By HercDriver on 3/26/2008 10:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
When scientists misinterpret what they are seeing. the whole idea of "quantum entanglement" and "spooky action at a distance" is flawed. After years of reading the CQM theory of Dr Randell Mills, and seeing his experiments and explanations, I finally have a (limited) understanding of what is actually happening. The entangled photons do not change their state simultaneously "regardless of the distance"...this violates causality. If you really want to know how entanglement works (along with many other phenomena of quantum mechanics), visit blacklightpower.com and read Dr Mills' ~2000 page book. Basically, you can transmit information with photons, but not across the universe instantaneously.
When you look at quantum mechanics, or QED theory and just think logically about some of their crazy predictions (light taking all possible paths simultaneously is among my favorite) you'll realize that they are simply trying to "make the math work" even if the result is nonsensical. Just remember that the reason these theories are still mainstream has more to do with research funding than anything else. No one wants to admit that they are wrong, and give up their cash cow. As word gets out, and scientists give up their bias, I think Dr Mills will be validated in the future (hopefully in his lifetime).
Flame away.




"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki