4 ms·
Storing Bandwidth with Superdense Coding
- beloch 12y agoBandwidth can be stored in this manner only for as long as qubits can be stored. At present, most quantum memories realized in experiments have a storage time of well under a second. Some last slightly longer, but with big tradeoffs. Stopping decoherence in quantum memories is hard enough that it will likely be a very long time before classical bandwidth becomes the bottleneck!
- Strilanc 12y agoRelevant, though not yet practical: quantum error correction [1]. There's a threshold we have to get over, then it gets a lot easier. edit and a reddit commenter mentioned this link saying that the current record for storing a qubit is 39 minutes [2]. Which is about three orders of magnitude larger than I would have expected, if you discount "just shoot the photon into space!" solutions. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_error_correction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_error_correction 2: http://www.livescience.com/41217-long-quantum-bit-achieved.html http://www.livescience.com/41217-long-quantum-bit-achieved.h...
- leakybucket 12y agoThough I appreciate the idea of 'storing bandwidth' by just sending lots of qubits ahead of time, that ignores the extra communication overhead needed of tracking them: When Bob receives a qubit from Alice, he needs to know which of his qubits it's paired with. That implies that Alice needs to send not just her qubit, but also some kind of identifier that will allow Bob to match up the received qubit to its proper Bell pair. That identifier, and any protocol overhead needed to keep these identifiers in sync between bob and alice, will consume bandwidth, and reduce the 2x gain.
- oh_sigh 12y agoWouldn't you just be able to pair it in a FIFO order?