5 ms·

In theory, could that be used on a block of random matter and a, say, banana, so that you can get lightspeed transmission of banana-ness?

no-no-no-no 7y ago
No.
TheRealPomax 7y ago
Realistic theory? No, not even remotely. The problem comes from having to measure the quantum state of every quantum particle in that banana and transmitting the bits necessary to perform the state transfer. We're talking destructively reading out well over 10^25 particles, turning that into tens of yottabytes of data, and then transmitting that data with error correction over distances that you can't just... you know... ship a banana over. And then you'd have to receive that data in a way that either lets you perform the transfer in real time, or in a way that lets you store that data so you can transfer the quantum states one by one or in small batches. And that's if you're okay with "Scanning" the original banana in a way that destroys the banana as yous scan it. Not the quantum states, the actual banana: the destructive read of particles will cause nuclear reactions and so very quickly you're no longer scanning "a banana" but "messed up subatomic partilces".
- DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
  I don’t like the term “observer” because it implies it’s an entirely passive thing. Why is it that we cannot passively observe quantum states? Why does observation necessarily have to be destructive?
  - ozmbie 7y ago
    To “observe” something, you need to interact with it in some way, such as bouncing a photon off it. That interaction changes the quantum state.
  - TheRealPomax 7y ago
    There is no such thing as "passive" observation: something has to change in order for information to become known. Without a transfer of energy, no observation can be made, so either we absorb the particle to register that energy (and then it is literally gone after measurement) or we stimulate the particle into emission (drastically changing its quantum state), or we "poke" the particle by throwing things at it (changing its quantum state in the process).

no-no-no-no 7y ago

No.

TheRealPomax 7y ago

Realistic theory? No, not even remotely. The problem comes from having to measure the quantum state of every quantum particle in that banana and transmitting the bits necessary to perform the state transfer. We're talking destructively reading out well over 10^25 particles, turning that into tens of yottabytes of data, and then transmitting that data with error correction over distances that you can't just... you know... ship a banana over. And then you'd have to receive that data in a way that either lets you perform the transfer in real time, or in a way that lets you store that data so you can transfer the quantum states one by one or in small batches. And that's if you're okay with "Scanning" the original banana in a way that destroys the banana as yous scan it. Not the quantum states, the actual banana: the destructive read of particles will cause nuclear reactions and so very quickly you're no longer scanning "a banana" but "messed up subatomic partilces".

DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
I don’t like the term “observer” because it implies it’s an entirely passive thing. Why is it that we cannot passively observe quantum states? Why does observation necessarily have to be destructive?
- ozmbie 7y ago
  To “observe” something, you need to interact with it in some way, such as bouncing a photon off it. That interaction changes the quantum state.
- TheRealPomax 7y ago
  There is no such thing as "passive" observation: something has to change in order for information to become known. Without a transfer of energy, no observation can be made, so either we absorb the particle to register that energy (and then it is literally gone after measurement) or we stimulate the particle into emission (drastically changing its quantum state), or we "poke" the particle by throwing things at it (changing its quantum state in the process).