Information teleported between two computer chips for the first time(newatlas.com)
newatlas.com
Information teleported between two computer chips for the first time
https://newatlas.com/quantum-computing/quantum-teleportation-computer-chips/
9 comments
However, the article claims:
> Changing the properties of one particle will cause the other to instantly change too
Is this true? Doesn't that mean if we can control the spin of one particle on command, the other will instantly change according to our control?
So basically, FTL communication is possible iff controlling the spin of a particle is possible.
> Changing the properties of one particle will cause the other to instantly change too
Is this true? Doesn't that mean if we can control the spin of one particle on command, the other will instantly change according to our control?
So basically, FTL communication is possible iff controlling the spin of a particle is possible.
Think of it this way. We have a pair of gloves. By the nature of pairs of gloves one is right and one is left. We mix them randomly and put them both in closed boxes. Then we classically ship one box at below speed of light to Mars. Now someone on mars if they open their box will “instantaneously” know at above speed of light correlation which glove was in our box back on earth. But no information was transmitted through the revealing itself, and in fact you would need a classical below speed of light bit stream to accompany the quantum glove boxes if you want to use it for communication.
In reality there’s some extra concepts to the quantum states because they act as though the selection of which glove is in which box doesn’t happen until we force the gloves into a definite state through opening the box. But that doesn’t change the nature of there being no information transfer.
You can do the same sort of above speed of light signaling fully classically. If you for instance consider a lighthouse with a single beam switching between two far away points. One location will know instantly the signal the other receives, but since you aren’t controlling the lighthouse moving back and forth you can’t transfer information through the signal.
In reality there’s some extra concepts to the quantum states because they act as though the selection of which glove is in which box doesn’t happen until we force the gloves into a definite state through opening the box. But that doesn’t change the nature of there being no information transfer.
You can do the same sort of above speed of light signaling fully classically. If you for instance consider a lighthouse with a single beam switching between two far away points. One location will know instantly the signal the other receives, but since you aren’t controlling the lighthouse moving back and forth you can’t transfer information through the signal.
You have two particles, A and B, which can be in state 0 or 1.
When you measure particle A, you get random value 0. B is instantaneously set to 1. Or the other way around.
But you can't communicate using this, because you can't control the random value you get, thus there is no way to "modulate" the other end.
When you measure particle A, you get random value 0. B is instantaneously set to 1. Or the other way around.
But you can't communicate using this, because you can't control the random value you get, thus there is no way to "modulate" the other end.
Why can't we control the state of a particle (i.e. force toggle a particle from state 0 to 1 or vice versa)? Is there some fundamental law of physics preventing this or is it just because we don't have a method of observing the state of a particle without changing it?
Observation is a tricky word in quantum mechanics. You’re thinking about observing without changing like you would perhaps observe your neighbors through their windows without causing any change to their current state.
However the way you make a measurement in qm is by causing the small subsystem to become correlated with a huge external system, so that for instance the spin of your one small particle is now 100% correlated to a thermal reservoir of maybe 10^23 other particles, such that a led lights green if the particle was spin-up and red if it was spin down.
That’s like observing your neighbor by blasting down their home with a cannon firing a continues stream of other people at them, tearing the brick walls to shreds and observing the splatter patterns to tell after the fact if your neighbors where home or not.
Now the tricky thing here is that by definition, your “observer” has to 100% correlated with the state of the system, otherwise the measuring device isn’t accurate. But the device is constraining the state of your neighbors to either “home” or “not-home” in order to be certain in the outcome. So there no room left for details like “home and playing chess” or “home cooking dinner”, and obviously those details also fairly quickly get lost once they see their walls get torn to shreds by your observer person cannon.
Now this all might make it sound like we just need more delicate measurement devices, but that’s not the case. Any device that can 100% correlate to the state of the subsystem has to force the subsystem into a definite state. So the question isn’t “can you observe a particle without changing it” it’s “can you create a device that tells you either ‘yes the particle is spin up’ or ‘yes the particle is spin down’ with 100% certainty and no other outcomes, which however does not force the system to actually be either up or down?”. This obviously is not possible.
However the way you make a measurement in qm is by causing the small subsystem to become correlated with a huge external system, so that for instance the spin of your one small particle is now 100% correlated to a thermal reservoir of maybe 10^23 other particles, such that a led lights green if the particle was spin-up and red if it was spin down.
That’s like observing your neighbor by blasting down their home with a cannon firing a continues stream of other people at them, tearing the brick walls to shreds and observing the splatter patterns to tell after the fact if your neighbors where home or not.
Now the tricky thing here is that by definition, your “observer” has to 100% correlated with the state of the system, otherwise the measuring device isn’t accurate. But the device is constraining the state of your neighbors to either “home” or “not-home” in order to be certain in the outcome. So there no room left for details like “home and playing chess” or “home cooking dinner”, and obviously those details also fairly quickly get lost once they see their walls get torn to shreds by your observer person cannon.
Now this all might make it sound like we just need more delicate measurement devices, but that’s not the case. Any device that can 100% correlate to the state of the subsystem has to force the subsystem into a definite state. So the question isn’t “can you observe a particle without changing it” it’s “can you create a device that tells you either ‘yes the particle is spin up’ or ‘yes the particle is spin down’ with 100% certainty and no other outcomes, which however does not force the system to actually be either up or down?”. This obviously is not possible.
We can change it (light polarizing crystals for example), but that breaks the entanglement of the individual particles.
You can force a particle state to 0 or 1, but this will break the entanglement with the other particle, and the other one will no longer be correlated with yours.
It has been proven mathematically that FTL communication of information using entanglement is impossible (under our current understanding of physics, of course). It's called a "no-go theorem":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
It has been proven mathematically that FTL communication of information using entanglement is impossible (under our current understanding of physics, of course). It's called a "no-go theorem":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
It can be proven from the theory of quantum mechanics that communication via entanglement is impossible. No currently accepted physical theory allows communication faster than the speed of light.
FTL communication has not yet been observed/discovered. The parent's last sentence explains the restrictions in this case.
>the spin you observe is effectively random, so there’s no way to know that the results match up unless you compare them with another means of communication, one that is at most the speed of light.
The term for this is called "quantum teleportation" and for each qubit that is "teleported" there are two "classically communicated" bits that are required for information to be transmitted.
>the spin you observe is effectively random, so there’s no way to know that the results match up unless you compare them with another means of communication, one that is at most the speed of light.
The term for this is called "quantum teleportation" and for each qubit that is "teleported" there are two "classically communicated" bits that are required for information to be transmitted.
When you measure the spin of a particle, you can only get 2 possible answers, up or down. The up or down is with respect to the angle you measure the spin. You could measure it with respect to the z direction, the x direction, half way in between, etc.
The important part about entangled particles is if you choose to measure two entangled particles in the same direction you will always get the opposite answer. Note that once you do such a measurement, the particles are no longer entangled and you're gonna need another timmy.
Teleporting the quantum state involves transferring the entanglement of a particle here to a particle over there. This is done by using another pair of entangled particles. It's not possible to just transmit quantum state by purely classical means.
I'll also note that the "transmitted instantly" part depends on your interpretation of quantum physics.
The important part about entangled particles is if you choose to measure two entangled particles in the same direction you will always get the opposite answer. Note that once you do such a measurement, the particles are no longer entangled and you're gonna need another timmy.
Teleporting the quantum state involves transferring the entanglement of a particle here to a particle over there. This is done by using another pair of entangled particles. It's not possible to just transmit quantum state by purely classical means.
I'll also note that the "transmitted instantly" part depends on your interpretation of quantum physics.
> I'll also note that the "transmitted instantly" part depends on your interpretation of quantum physics.
Ok, the way I interpret it is that entangled particles are like 2 hard boiled eggs that have collided.
It is well known that if you roll 2 hardboiled eggs into each other, only one will crack.
So basically, if I roll two hardboiled eggs into each other and then hide them in paper bags, the eggs are now "entangled" and if I separate the bags by 1 million miles, I can observe the state of my egg and know instantly what the state of the other egg is.
For example, if I peer into my bag and see my egg is not cracked, I know that the other egg is indeed cracked! However, if I change the state of my egg (crack it) then obviously nothing happens to the other egg because the eggs are no longer "entangled".
There is no "instant transmission" happening here. All the properties of the eggs were set in stone the moment the eggs collided and thus it doesn't matter how far away you move them because the "entanglement" (collision) event already happened.
This is not a very useful property of hardboiled eggs and so I fail to see how this could be useful by scaling down the eggs to photons.
Ok, the way I interpret it is that entangled particles are like 2 hard boiled eggs that have collided.
It is well known that if you roll 2 hardboiled eggs into each other, only one will crack.
So basically, if I roll two hardboiled eggs into each other and then hide them in paper bags, the eggs are now "entangled" and if I separate the bags by 1 million miles, I can observe the state of my egg and know instantly what the state of the other egg is.
For example, if I peer into my bag and see my egg is not cracked, I know that the other egg is indeed cracked! However, if I change the state of my egg (crack it) then obviously nothing happens to the other egg because the eggs are no longer "entangled".
There is no "instant transmission" happening here. All the properties of the eggs were set in stone the moment the eggs collided and thus it doesn't matter how far away you move them because the "entanglement" (collision) event already happened.
This is not a very useful property of hardboiled eggs and so I fail to see how this could be useful by scaling down the eggs to photons.
That's the 'local hidden variable' model that was disproven by Bell in the sixties.
Yeah, and I watched Veritasium's video on it, but I still don't really buy "spooky action at a distance".
The way I understand it, particles have an "absolute orientation" in space that is impossible to determine because currently we are limited to measuring the orientation relative to another orientation and getting a yes/no probabilistic outcome (also, we can only perform this measurement once because the act of measurement changes the orientation of the particle).
Nevertheless, in reality the particle has an absolute, no-guesswork spin orientation property that a theoretical godlike being running the universe simulation would be able to observe in a "read only" fashion. (We mortals have to use probability abstractions because we don't have sophisticated enough methods of getting quantum information in a read-only fashion)
So basically, when you "entangle" two particles, the act of entanglement affixes their absolute spin orientation to be polar opposites. Bell's theorem doesn't disprove that, afaik, and it accounts for the "spooky action at a distance".
The way I understand it, particles have an "absolute orientation" in space that is impossible to determine because currently we are limited to measuring the orientation relative to another orientation and getting a yes/no probabilistic outcome (also, we can only perform this measurement once because the act of measurement changes the orientation of the particle).
Nevertheless, in reality the particle has an absolute, no-guesswork spin orientation property that a theoretical godlike being running the universe simulation would be able to observe in a "read only" fashion. (We mortals have to use probability abstractions because we don't have sophisticated enough methods of getting quantum information in a read-only fashion)
So basically, when you "entangle" two particles, the act of entanglement affixes their absolute spin orientation to be polar opposites. Bell's theorem doesn't disprove that, afaik, and it accounts for the "spooky action at a distance".
Ok, let's say the absolute truth orientation is +x. What would you expect to happen when you measure along the +y axis? You'd expect a completely random result. But that isn't what you get when you measure both entangled particles in +y. Yes the spin of either particle on it's own is completely random, but their spin will always be opposite.
If you already know the absolute truth orientation, then there should be no guesswork when it comes to measuring it
OK, so when you measure spin, you get two possible results. Either up or down. Set up a particle so it it's spin is in the +z axis. Now measure it in the +x axis. Will the detector return up or down?
Will the "backward in time" model work? If two experimenters far away from each other make the same measurement and have the opposite answer, then they are, from the point of view from each other, backward in time to the source and then forward to the other one, in the other direction.
This is very similar to the pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics.
How is it similar? I tried to learn but do not quite understand how this is similar.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are stating.
Yes, I probably wrote it not very clearly, but I don't know how to write it more clearly.
I think of it this (probably wrong) way: If a particle is sent to me, and its pair - for the sake of argument, the matching photon pair that comes from one beam of light through a prism, is sent to you, they will be continue to spin in exactly the same way since they started the exact same-but-mirrored way. So if we each look at the photon at EXACTLY the same time, and nothing has slowed down either photon's travel, the spins will match. In order for us to see it, we have to observe it - and that takes some sort of sensor that is definitely slower than the speed of light (as was the photon's travel through the prism). So the moment we see them, they'll match, but unless we know the EXACT way the spin was altered by both sensors and reconstruct that, anything beyond the initial spin we caught is forever unrelated to the spin of the other photon.
Likewise an eavesdropper would have to alter one of the photon's spin in order for it to reach their eavesdropping sensor, and at that moment, it is useless. Same goes for the true recipient, because the photon passing through the eavesdropping prism changed the spin simply by reflecting it away from its original polarization, and so the "key pair" will no longer match.
Think about how networking works. If your stream of photons is treated essentially like binary (but better), then your packets will all end with a checksum of sorts. If the packet contained an error, the checksum won't match, and you resend the packet so eventually the message gets there.
It's not a very "spooky" factoid when you look at it purely mechanically. I believe this is also why we can coax out quantum behavior from water, electricity, and other things that move around easily. We can even demonstrate quantum weirdness using 3 polarized lenses like you get from the cinema.
The randomness you can envision with all this travel and bouncing and sensing adds up to a lot of noise, making it an expensive problem to solve before things get practical. Early IP networks were pretty crappy. Look at how they go now! The information is light speed. The reading of it is simultaneous. Splitting one of the protons into another pair leaves you with 3 unrelated protons that are not read at the exact same moment (a little simplified - there is math involved to calculate when is that EXACT moment).
Likewise an eavesdropper would have to alter one of the photon's spin in order for it to reach their eavesdropping sensor, and at that moment, it is useless. Same goes for the true recipient, because the photon passing through the eavesdropping prism changed the spin simply by reflecting it away from its original polarization, and so the "key pair" will no longer match.
Think about how networking works. If your stream of photons is treated essentially like binary (but better), then your packets will all end with a checksum of sorts. If the packet contained an error, the checksum won't match, and you resend the packet so eventually the message gets there.
It's not a very "spooky" factoid when you look at it purely mechanically. I believe this is also why we can coax out quantum behavior from water, electricity, and other things that move around easily. We can even demonstrate quantum weirdness using 3 polarized lenses like you get from the cinema.
The randomness you can envision with all this travel and bouncing and sensing adds up to a lot of noise, making it an expensive problem to solve before things get practical. Early IP networks were pretty crappy. Look at how they go now! The information is light speed. The reading of it is simultaneous. Splitting one of the protons into another pair leaves you with 3 unrelated protons that are not read at the exact same moment (a little simplified - there is math involved to calculate when is that EXACT moment).
Veritasium explains it quite well. https://youtu.be/ZuvK-od647c
I get the feeling this article is extremely inaccurate and that the author doesn't understand quantum mechanics at all. I'm no expert either, but I've heard over and over from experts that FTL information transfer is still impossible even with "teleportation".
Articles like this come out once per week. And yes, the authors almost always have very little physics experience. (Or are blatantly misleading for the purpose of clickbait.)
It's also very tiring that people keep needing to be reminded of the fact that no, faster-than-light communication is still not (and never will be) possible.
(Which really does leave us back at this question: if it doesn't get us faster communication, then what advantages do we think quantum teleportation is going to get us?)
It's also very tiring that people keep needing to be reminded of the fact that no, faster-than-light communication is still not (and never will be) possible.
(Which really does leave us back at this question: if it doesn't get us faster communication, then what advantages do we think quantum teleportation is going to get us?)
> Which really does leave us back at this question: if it doesn't get us faster communication, then what advantages do we think quantum teleportation is going to get us?)
I believe currently its most useful property is its ability to detect eavesdropping. With classical information, it is possible to make a copy of information you observe without being detected. With quantum information, the act of observing changes the state, so eavesdropping can be detected somehow[1]
> An important and unique property of quantum key distribution is the ability of the two communicating users to detect the presence of any third party trying to gain knowledge of the key. This results from a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics: the process of measuring a quantum system in general disturbs the system. A third party trying to eavesdrop on the key must in some way measure it, thus introducing detectable anomalies. By using quantum superpositions or quantum entanglement and transmitting information in quantum states, a communication system can be implemented that detects eavesdropping. If the level of eavesdropping is below a certain threshold, a key can be produced that is guaranteed to be secure (i.e., the eavesdropper has no information about it), otherwise no secure key is possible and communication is aborted.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution
I believe currently its most useful property is its ability to detect eavesdropping. With classical information, it is possible to make a copy of information you observe without being detected. With quantum information, the act of observing changes the state, so eavesdropping can be detected somehow[1]
> An important and unique property of quantum key distribution is the ability of the two communicating users to detect the presence of any third party trying to gain knowledge of the key. This results from a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics: the process of measuring a quantum system in general disturbs the system. A third party trying to eavesdrop on the key must in some way measure it, thus introducing detectable anomalies. By using quantum superpositions or quantum entanglement and transmitting information in quantum states, a communication system can be implemented that detects eavesdropping. If the level of eavesdropping is below a certain threshold, a key can be produced that is guaranteed to be secure (i.e., the eavesdropper has no information about it), otherwise no secure key is possible and communication is aborted.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution
Agreed, the article is grossly inaccurate and sensationalized.
Quantum entanglement can't transfer information because you have no way of knowing whether the other end has "observed" their particle(s) yet. A conventional signal is required to establish this.
But... as far as I recall there may be ways to have that conventional signal only carry minimal (e.g. parity) information and thus to achieve not only much higher data rates but physically un-snoopable communication. I wonder if you could pair quantum entanglement with a slow ultra-long-range signal in the low frequency range to achieve high speed perfectly secure long distance links? I assume this sort of thing would be first of interest to military and intelligence users.
But... as far as I recall there may be ways to have that conventional signal only carry minimal (e.g. parity) information and thus to achieve not only much higher data rates but physically un-snoopable communication. I wonder if you could pair quantum entanglement with a slow ultra-long-range signal in the low frequency range to achieve high speed perfectly secure long distance links? I assume this sort of thing would be first of interest to military and intelligence users.
Regarding the observation problem: Wouldn't you be able to set up a protocol beforehand (e.g. sample the photon at X MHz) and then you know your window for when the other side would have had the chance to observe? Isn't this how a lot of time division multiplexing already works?
For me the bigger issue with quantum computing is that I just don't believe it will ever be practical. Feels like we've been seeing this same article for the last 30 years. I'll love to be proven wrong.
For me the bigger issue with quantum computing is that I just don't believe it will ever be practical. Feels like we've been seeing this same article for the last 30 years. I'll love to be proven wrong.
> Quantum entanglement can't transfer information because you have no way of knowing whether the other end has "observed" their particle(s) yet
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but this just reminds me of old serial communication without hardware flow control. As long as both sides can send messages to each other, there's special control codes that are included in the stream for flow control.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but this just reminds me of old serial communication without hardware flow control. As long as both sides can send messages to each other, there's special control codes that are included in the stream for flow control.
[deleted]
You don't need teleportation for secure comms; you just need pairs of entangled qubits (at which point you can just use their measurements as a one-time pad).
That said, if you really want to amplify your transmission rate, you'll also need massive ensembles of entangled qubits (i.e. instead of pairs, you'd need N-tuples). Entanglement gets much, much harder to sustain as the ensemble size goes up.
Oh, and you'll also want to replenish your entangled ensembles on a regular basis, since they decohere over time, and you can't reuse them across messages (since measurement destroys entanglement)...
That said, if you really want to amplify your transmission rate, you'll also need massive ensembles of entangled qubits (i.e. instead of pairs, you'd need N-tuples). Entanglement gets much, much harder to sustain as the ensemble size goes up.
Oh, and you'll also want to replenish your entangled ensembles on a regular basis, since they decohere over time, and you can't reuse them across messages (since measurement destroys entanglement)...
There are many ways to get around this, like side channels.
>The team managed to send information from one chip to another instantly without them being physically or electronically connected
Doesn't current quantum teleportation require optical connectivity because the state transfers along photons?
The abstract says
>Here, we report the demonstration of chip-to-chip quantum teleportation and genuine multipartite entanglement, the core functionalities in quantum technologies, on silicon-photonic circuitry
So while there may not necessarily be a phsyical connection this does require line-of-sight by my read, and "silicon-photonic circuitry" sounds like this is all on one physical board.
I guess I don't understand how this is "two different chips" as the article claims. Did they use two photomasks? Baby steps, I suppose.
Doesn't current quantum teleportation require optical connectivity because the state transfers along photons?
The abstract says
>Here, we report the demonstration of chip-to-chip quantum teleportation and genuine multipartite entanglement, the core functionalities in quantum technologies, on silicon-photonic circuitry
So while there may not necessarily be a phsyical connection this does require line-of-sight by my read, and "silicon-photonic circuitry" sounds like this is all on one physical board.
I guess I don't understand how this is "two different chips" as the article claims. Did they use two photomasks? Baby steps, I suppose.
Any form of quantum "teleportation" requires that the two chips first share a pair of entangles particles. Usually this is done by making the two entangled particles on one of the chips and sending one of the particles to the other chip. Usually the particles are photons for engineering reasons.
The quantum teleportation happens after that. Once the particles are entangled, you can destroy yours in a very particular way that forces the other particle to instantaneously become either a copy of the particle you destroyed (i.e. its state is the same) or the opposite of the particle you destroyed (i.e. its state is something like a boolean negation). Only you know which one happened (you learn that when you destroy your particle) and need to send one bit of classical information to the other chip in order for it to know as well.
In other words, you can transmit one bit of classical information and sacrifice one entangled pair to "teleport" one qubit of quantum information.
It is called teleportation because the quantum information never actually physically moved, rather it instantaneously went to the other chip. To know how to use it, you still need that classical bit to be transmitted in order to know whether the quantum information underwent a boolean negation.
The quantum teleportation happens after that. Once the particles are entangled, you can destroy yours in a very particular way that forces the other particle to instantaneously become either a copy of the particle you destroyed (i.e. its state is the same) or the opposite of the particle you destroyed (i.e. its state is something like a boolean negation). Only you know which one happened (you learn that when you destroy your particle) and need to send one bit of classical information to the other chip in order for it to know as well.
In other words, you can transmit one bit of classical information and sacrifice one entangled pair to "teleport" one qubit of quantum information.
It is called teleportation because the quantum information never actually physically moved, rather it instantaneously went to the other chip. To know how to use it, you still need that classical bit to be transmitted in order to know whether the quantum information underwent a boolean negation.
I'm still so confused. I understand what a photon is (ish... I understand it can behave as a particle or wave, but in this case it is a "particle"). How do you "observe" a single photon? How do you "destroy" a single photon "in a particular way"? Heck, how to do keep something moving at the speed of light stuck inside a chip? Create a fiber optic loop somehow? How is the photon introduced into the loop?
Typically (for polarization qubits) a combination of waveplates, polarizing beam splitters and single-photon detectors (avalanche photodiodes, photomultipliers, or superconducting nano-wire detectors) are used to measure the qubit state. These detectors absorb the photons and turn them into detectable electrical signals. It is also possible to detect photons without destroying them (non-demolition measurement). However, this is much more difficult to do and leads to exactly the same results. After the measurement, the photon is no longer in a superposition state and is no longer entangled with the other one.
There is number of techniques for storing photon qubits. The easiest way is to send the light through a very long optical fiber spool. However, the achievable delay is limited due to absorption in the fiber. It is also possible to transfer the photon state onto a different system, such as a single ion or a superconducting qubit. Then the state of that system can later be measured.
There is number of techniques for storing photon qubits. The easiest way is to send the light through a very long optical fiber spool. However, the achievable delay is limited due to absorption in the fiber. It is also possible to transfer the photon state onto a different system, such as a single ion or a superconducting qubit. Then the state of that system can later be measured.
As always with such articles, this is also misleading. They do not explain that according to the "No-communication theorem" [1] it is not possible to use quantum teleportation for faster than light information transfer.
This is becoming very common in popular science articles to be represented some misleading propositions by avoiding to report a little, but important part of the whole picture. In this way many people (sometimes including myself) stayed with invalid picture for what is actually achieved or possible to achieve.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-teleportation_theorem
This is becoming very common in popular science articles to be represented some misleading propositions by avoiding to report a little, but important part of the whole picture. In this way many people (sometimes including myself) stayed with invalid picture for what is actually achieved or possible to achieve.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-teleportation_theorem
Whereas we can’t send specific information between two entangled qubits would we not be able to use it synchronize state (read seed) FTL? That state would for instance allow the two systems to instantly be in sync with a newly generated random seed?
[deleted]
One interesting theory of why a maximum speed of communication (speed of light) exists is that it allows simulating the universe in a distributed way, since it gives you a maximum effect range (light cone), thus you can shard your simulation (of course, you still need to sync neighbor shards).
There is a simpler explanation. Assuming our world is discrete, like a mathematical graph, every world state has one or a few next possible states. If we imagine all possible states from past and future linked together by causality links as a huge mathematical graph, any two states have a shortest path between them. The length of this path is what we perceive as time or as the speed of light. Same idea applies to chess: there is large, but finite, number of chess board states and they are linked by moves allowed by the chess rules; the number of moves on the shortest path connecting two positions is what we'd call the speed of light in chess.
My bet is it will be first adapted by high-frequency traders.
What advantages would it give them though?
It's no faster than any existing means of communication since you still need to send classical information along with the quantum, though I guess it's nice that it can be used for almost completely unbreakable encryption.
It feels like complete overkill for no practical advantage that I can see.
It's no faster than any existing means of communication since you still need to send classical information along with the quantum, though I guess it's nice that it can be used for almost completely unbreakable encryption.
It feels like complete overkill for no practical advantage that I can see.
The word “information” could be interpreted to mean communication faster than the speed of light, which is important to note is not made possible by entanglement.
Entanglement can’t be used for faster-than-light communication because although observing the spin of particle A affects the spin observed for particle B, the spin you observe is effectively random, so there’s no way to know that the results match up unless you compare them with another means of communication, one that is at most the speed of light.
This article explains it way better: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/05/04/the-real-r...