Truth about teleportation

Scientific American's JR Minkel interviewed CalTech physicist H. Jeff Kimble about quantum teleportation. In the article, Kimble explains in simple terms why recent experiments in quantum teleportation have nothing to do with the Star Trek transporter. As Minkel sums it up, the phenomenon "turns out to be more relevant to computing than to commuiting." From the interview:
Scientific American: What's the biggest misconception about teleportation?
Jeff Kimble: That the object itself is being sent. We're not sending around material stuff. If I wanted to send you a Boeing 757, I could send you all the parts, or I could send you a blueprint showing all the parts, and it's much easier to send a blueprint. Teleportation is a protocol about how to send a quantum state–a wave function–from one place to another.


  1. “Teleportation is a protocol about how to send a quantum state—a wave function—from one place to another.”

    So says this guy. Well guess what? Teleportation doesn’t exist yet so how can he define a technology that doesn’t exist as a “protocol” or anything else? Teleportation is not a specific “technology”. It’s whatever the future invents it as.

  2. Charlie, he’s talking about something that does exist (quantum teleportation), he’s not talking about something that doesn’t exist yet.

    That said, at least some versions of teleportation in SF stories involves scanning and destroying the original, and recreating an exact duplicate of the person (including memories) at the other end. This would not conflict with Kimble’s definition, as the state, not physical matter, is communicated.

  3. They can call that teleportation but it’s just a word they are using because they don’t have any other word that fits more closely. True it has amazing implications for the future of quantum computing but it’s not true teleportation. It’s Quantum teleportation. It doesnt transport energy or matter. Transporting matter is what I consider to be teleportation.

  4. “Teleportation doesn’t exist yet”

    This is the same Kimble who shared the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physics for building a photon teleporter, right?

    What they mean by teleportation is a way of side-stepping the uncertainty relations in quantum mechanics.

    Suppose: You want to teleport something as basic as a single electron or a single photon from A to B – if you could measure with exact precision, you could take your particle at point A, measure it and take a new particle at point B, and set it up in the exact same state, then effectively you’ve teleported particle A.

    In fact, that scheme falls at the first hurdle because quantum uncertainty prevents you even in principle from making the exact measurement on particle A – you cannot get enough information from your measurement to know how to set up particle B to reproduce all the properties of A.

    Kimble is talking about a way to get round that problem, which is that you take a joint measurement on your unknown particle A and a particle C, which you setup to your specifications.

    The result of the joint measurement tells you nothing about particle A, but it does tell you how to transform particle C into the exact same state as particle A, without having to ever know what the state of A was.

    The teleporter sends particle C and the result of the joint measurement, and the receiving end uses the information to transform C back into A precisely.

  5. So Kirk, Spock, and Bones were killed by vaporization and replaced by exact duplicates every time they beamed?

    So the extant version of themselves had to willingly accept death and step on the platform so a newly generated edition of themselves could carry on elsewhere.

    That must take some heavy duty Federation of Planets social conditioning.

  6. “Quantum teleportation” is an embarrassingly awful technical term. It actively misleads and confuses every single person who hears it. As if quantum mechanics weren’t confusing enough already!

  7. @Charlie_Lesoine
    I agree with what you are saying. These researches need to come up with different terminology for what they are studying. Otherwise they will run into the never ending frustration of explaining to people that they cannot send on object from point A to point B.

  8. @ #6:

    This was the premise of an episode of The Outer Limits. Except that the travelers weren’t meant to be aware, so you can imagine the awkwardness that ensued when one escapes and has to be dealt with.

  9. @Skeeter–

    So what if you technically “die” (i.e., are disintegrated) and then reassembled elsewhere? Do you experience a lack of continuity in memory? Not if the teleport is done right. There may be a discontinuity in a teleported person’s observance of time if, say, there is a transmission lag involving the signal carrying the data. Otherwise…it feels just like you step into the teleporter and step out at your destination. The end.

    No social conditioning necessary. Once a few hundred people have done it and exhibited no alterations in personality traits or health, then the rest of the world* will assume its safe. After all, at one time a lot of people were afraid to ride in automobiles that could go more than sixty miles per hour for fear that the acceleration could hurt them! Why, then, does NASCAR currently exist? (This is a question I ask myself frequently, for different reasons, but still…)

    *This assumes that “the rest of the world” does not have some sort of ridiculous hang-up about “the soul” or any other completely unverifiable spiritual doctrine. People who ascribe to these silly memes will no doubt be scared of teleporting for fear their “soul” will be lost, yet hopefully by the time such a device can be made practical for transporting the quantum states of macroscale objects, there won’t be many of those folks remaining.

  10. Ok, about to get really geeky here, but I seem to remember from my misspent youth (Trekie girlfriend in high school) that the definition above, wherein matter was disassembled and the pattern recreated at a different spot was the definition that Star Trek used. Wasn’t there something (in the books or technical manuals if not the tv show) about Bones feeling really uncomfortable with this idea, because there was a point (however infinitesimal) where he did not exist, and in that moment, something could go horribly wrong? I mean I understand that the public understanding of the concept is something entirely different, but didn’t Star Trek get that right?

  11. As someone with some training in the subject, I would like to add that fundamental particles of the same type are indistinguishable, which is a technical term meaning that swapping two particles has no effect on the system. I would like to add that this isn’t just a technical distinction but that it actually has non-intuitive observable consequences.

    So if we were able to duplicate the state of say, an electron, by putting another electron which is on the moon into that state (and necessarily scrambling the first in the process), then to say that what we did is somehow different from physically moving the electron from A to B is not a scientific or otherwise sane viewpoint. (There are fairly solid mathematical proofs based on very well established physical laws which back this up, but which this margin is too small to contain =).

    Imagine plucking waves on a guitar string. “Matter” is no more than one of those notes, it isn’t the string itself. So if I record the note and play it on a different string somewhere else, then to say I didn’t move it is a bit metaphysical.


  12. @Lionelbrits

    Yes, but no matter what, they are still two different electrons. Even if there is no distinguishable difference. It’s like If I send someone an MP3 and then delete my copy. They are the same file but still DIFFERENT instances of an identical item.

  13. I guess the question in the quote from SciAm is really asking about quantum teleportation rather than teleportation in general, because at first glance it reads like the physicist is calling all of SF wrong in its various incarnations of teleportation. Which would be silly, since SF has been around longer than quantum teleportation.

    Well, as long as he doesn’t try to trademark Teleportation on its own, I guess it’s cool. Otherwise SF will have to hire Yoko Ono’s lawyers….

  14. This is priceless – Dorris Lessig being informed she won the Nobel prize for Literature on the way home with the shopping. She’s not impressed.

  15. Star Trek did indeed claim they were sending the person and not creating a new one then destroying the old one. I’m not awesome enough of a supergeek to remember in exactly what episodes that was mentioned.

    Derek(#10), I would have a problem with that, and I don’t have any hangups about souls. My problem is due to what Charlie(#13) describes: yes, the ‘new’ person might be indistinguishable from the old, but it isn’t the same person. A copy is just that: a copy. It’s an additional instance. Destroying the original doesn’t magically make the copy into the original. There would be continuity of memory for the copy, but not for the original. If it would be possible to make the ‘new’ person and leave the ‘old’ person intact, and alive, then clearly you’re dealing with a new being.

    Whether or not others can tell the difference means very little when you’re discussing a creature with self-awareness. To the ‘original,’ you’re still killing it in preference for another.

  16. @Derek,

    Time to get super nerdy.

    There’s a TNG episode where they accidentally make a twin of Riker. Something bad happens with the transporter, and “our” Riker returns to the ship, and a new Riker gets left on the planet. Two complete Rikers.

    If the transporter is actually moving physical bits through space, we should have ended up with two half Rikers (gross), right?

    After that episode, I began to look at the transporter very differently – it sure seems to be sending quantum state information and making a “new” you at your destination.

    I’m with #6, you’d have to condition the heck out of me to get me on one of those things. Consider our two Rikers. The “real” one doesn’t share in the awareness, or consciousness, of the second, right?

  17. I think Trek says that you are scanned and that information is sent to the other end. You get killed and then remade. And I don’t think the scan has to be down to the quantum state, just molecular. Besides, you can never scan at the quantum level and achieve a complete “state.” At that point a computer model would use probabilites to estimate the quantum state.

  18. @ dculberson #19

    It’s just like in the movie the Prestige. You can make a copy of someone but then you have to kill the original person. If you have not seen this movie, I just ruined it for you.

  19. I love it. Photons are the first WOWO particle. When they first came into physical focus it spawned a huge industry of leaned interpretation, 99% useless. When the Photon illuminated the Electron it spawned another huge industry that was 99% useless. When the Protons and Neutrons came into focus they spawned another huge industry of interpretation that was 99% useless and used the leftover 1% to blow stuff up. When the Quarks came into focus the useless 99% bailed out because they couldn’t get ahold of Plank space, and Plank time. The remaining 1% are todays particle Physicists. They are usually too involved with multi-dimensional expansion to worry about the 99% that didn’t make it. The simple notion that “Matter” at all levels serves being is simply coming into focus.

  20. #14 mrfitz
    I take it that information still cannot be transmitted faster than light.

    Correct, quantum entanglement does not allow one to communicate at faster than light speeds.

    People seem to have the same questions here as with the prospect of Transhumanism and uploading one’s mind into a computer. Are you really uploading/teleporting your mind/body or just making a copy that thinks it is the original? What is consciousness? Am I a thing or am I a pattern that is impressed on my biological substrate? I tend to believe the latter but I’m not going into the teleporter booth first. You all go ahead.

    Am I the lightbulb or the light?

  21. @ Charlie Lesoine, and others

    You said: “Yes, but no matter what, they are still two different electrons”. I have to emphasize that this thinking is not correct, according to modern understanding of quantum field theory (of nature, in general).

    At best you can say that the system has two electrons, and the system is in some quantum state Psi. You can’t talk about electron A and electron B. You can only talk about “the electron that is over here” and “the electron that is over there”.

    The idea of “particles” (and even waves) is an unfortunate accident of human interpretation. Nature is governed by the fascinating rules of quantum mechanics and particles are just a limited, crude description of something altogether more complex.


  22. @12: The two cases you describe:

    A) transferring the quantum state of an electron to the moon


    B) transferring an electron to the moon

    are completely and totally different.

    To deny this is, to use your own words, “not a scientific or otherwise sane viewpoint.”

    In the first case the electron number of the moon has not changed and in the second case the electron number of the moon has increased by one.

    These are completely different situations. Fermion number is a conserved quantity. Situations with different fermion numbers are different. And let’s not start on mass and charge conservation…

    It is precisely this tendency we have to paper over “inconsequential” aspects of a situation that makes quantum mechanics so hard for people to grasp, but it is fundamentally important to remember that even though Liebniz’s Law (the identity of indiscernibles) is false, it is only relevant when two situations are truly indiscernible, which is not the case with the two situations you describe.

    @7: Absolutely correct. “Quantum teleportation” is the worst name for a phenomenon ever, and the people who thought it up were clearly more interested in the headlines than the science. Scientists have a duty of clarity, and “quantum teleportation” fails it utterly. “Quantum state transfer via entanglement” would be a far more accurate term.

  23. @jonathan29

    That’s the reason why I liked the idea of Stargate so much, they had a method of moving from one place to another without being killed. Then some jerk writer came up with a silly episode where Tealc gets trapped inside the memory buffer of the stargate on earth and Carter explains that the stargates work just like the transporters in star trek… it’s a shame they had to have that one stupid episode.

    @Derek C. F. Pegritz

    Cogito, ergo sum…

  24. ummm…hello?
    all u guys seem to be out of the loop, the “quantum” loop.
    Human Teleportation is now a reality.
    I just saw JUMPER at the theater. it’s REAL!

  25. @ Tom (27)

    The argument you make is a bit nitpicky and doesn’t address discernability. If you want, consider two scenarios:

    a) you give me an electron, and I let it hitch a ride on a spaceship to the moon, where it is left behind.
    b) you give me an electron, and I use quantum entanglement to transfer its state to an electron that I put on the moon a couple of days prior.

    A careful tally will show that no electrons were created or destroyed in the process. Of course you can argue in other ways how the two scenarios differ, but that is missing the point. In either case, “your electron” ends up on the moon, in all ways that are real.

    One runs into people who deny teleportation is possible because, they say, if something didn’t physically travel from A to B then it can’t end up at B. This is a bit like arguing that people can’t fly because human flight is impossible.

    To those who complain that the term “quantum teleportation” is misleading, I would like to state that the term isn’t some sensationalist jargon to grab headlines. It is an accurate, technical term that describes exactly that. I’m sorry but the world just isn’t made out of “particles” with “states” attached to them. It is a convenient metaphor to teach to undergraduate quantum mechanics students until they can wrap their head around quantum mechanics as a whole, but it isn’t a complete, or even accurate description of nature.

    To those I haven’t put to sleep yet, I’d like to state that the fact that fundamental particles are indistinguishable is something you can test. If you hold that they are “different” particles that just look the same, and you try to predict things like entropy, you get entirely the wrong answer.

    These aren’t just technical distinctions. The world just isn’t the way it appears at first sight.

  26. Imagine if you ordered a birdhouse from and they faxed you a set of plans. Would you be angry?

    Simple solution…if stuff isn’t teleporting, don’t refer to it as “teleportation.”

  27. It’s like when the art world decided that new art stopped being “modern” and is now postmodern or contemporary despite the fact that people have probably been calling new art “modern” for hundreds of years…They redefined the word which is bullshit.

  28. @33:

    the history of art is littered with terms which translate as something like ‘the new thing’, for example, art nouveau. once art nouveau stopped being all that new, folks needed a new term to talk about new art.

    art started calling itself ‘postmodernist’ in order to try and find some kind of ground outside (or past, or at least critical of) Modernism. it’s a tricky thing to do, and there’s lots of slippage in the terms ‘modern’ and ‘postmodern’, but the attempt was pretty much inevitable.

    in art, at least, ‘modernism’ and ‘modern’ are technical terms. they don’t mean entirely the same thing as they do in ordinary speech, and this is no worse than, say, particle physicists redefining the word ‘charm’ for their own purposes.

  29. #31 David Bruce Murray

    The universe isn’t made out of “stuff”. It’s made out of vibrating one dimensional strings wrapped up in a ten (or eleven) dimension membrane.

  30. @ #19 posted by dculberson

    yes, the ‘new’ person might be indistinguishable from the old, but it isn’t the same person. A copy is just that: a copy. It’s an additional instance. Destroying the original doesn’t magically make the copy into the original. There would be continuity of memory for the copy, but not for the original.

    And that’s the deal. Without getting into the soul issue, and referencing physical memory alone, you could ask the new copy, “Are you the same person?” and the copy would reply, quite sincerely, “Yes,” because the copy has continuity of accumulated memory from all previous instances of the same person. And there’s no other way to test something like that other than to ask. So if they’re wrong a log of successful transportations might be a trail of death.

    This discussion would make a cool subplot for the Star Trek reboot movie and a way to background McCoy’s distrust of the transporter.

  31. The confusion in the comments seems to stem from an inability to distinguish two concepts of teleportation:
    (1) Some closed system is transferred to a different set of spatial coordinates through some hypothetical/fictitious/speculative method (“wormhole”, that watery gate-thingie in stargate, Hiro in Heroes, etc…). This involves the instantaneous (or at least very quick) transfer of “matter”. I am using the term matter quite loosely here.

    (2) Some system has its set of properties transferred to a system composed of the same components in such a way that the original system and the teleported one are indistinguishable.
    This is how it works is Star Trek or The Fly, etc… E.g the electron in quantum teleportation. Note that because of the “No Cloning Theorem”, you are not copying the electron: the properties of the original electron are lost when you do the teleportation. Here no matter is transferred but the electron is indeed teleported. Those readers that don’t have a physics background (or equivalently a good understanding of physics) might have a problem with this because they might think “it’s not the same electron!”, which is of course an invalid view: it is the same electron. You are being limited by the concept of electron as some particle or wave or other artificial construct that our brains find easier to imagine.

    To others that have a problem because they dislike the break in conscious continuity during a (hypothetical) teleportation process, I pose the following question. Say I can “freeze” Alice to keep her alive but unconscious. Over several hours, I one by one, remove all the atoms (or whatever sub-component you want, cells, molecules, elementary particles, pound of flesh) from Alice. I destroy them but place an EXACT copy in the same position in a different room. At what point is the original Alice “destroyed” and a new Alice “created”? When 50% of Alice’s brain is in the new body and 50% in the old one? 51%/49%? Is there an original and a new at all? Is the original killed? Am I creating a new Alice or just moving parts (keep in mind I destroyed and copied the parts each time)? Is the new Alice a different one? And what difference is there if I do this process very quickly (potentially transfering everything at once) rather than over several hours? Is the break in consciousness over several hours different from a short one? Is there something that you believe is not transferred: this will depend on your personal belief system e.g soul, consciousness/mind not being solely a product of brain activity, etc…

  32. “The confusion in the comments seems to stem from an inability to distinguish two concepts of teleportation.”

    There’s actually no confusion. We all understand how it’s being used, we just don’t all agree that it’s a proper use of the word “teleport.”

    From the day the word was invented, teleportation has been a fantasy of science fiction whereby objects dematerialize (vanish, cease to exist) at one location and re-materialize at another. The word was invented, defined, and popularized within that context. The scientific community, dictionaries, etc. are mostly in agreement that it’s impossible or hypothetical at best.

    Quantum physicists said they’d done it a few years ago, but then here’s this clear admission that they’ve only proven they can cause remote particles to assume the same state.

    To use the term “teleportation” outside the context in which it’s recognized is misleading and frankly, dishonest. It is especially dishonest to employ a science fiction term such as teleport in the field of quantum physics, which is already confusing enough to comprehend.

    Causing two remote particles to display the same state in two different locations may be comparable to sending information via Morse Code, but it doesn’t remotely fall under the definition of teleportation.

    (On a side note, what’s amusing to me right now is watching spell check refuse to acknowledge teleportation, teleport, etc. as a real words every time I type them.)

    (I’m going to now hit POST and “teleport” the letters on my computer screen to Boing Boing’s server.)

  33. @38
    Actually there is confusion e.g #4, #6, #19, etc…
    You seem to correctly understand that definition (2) in my post does constitute teleportation: “objects dematerialize (vanish, cease to exist) at one location and re-materialize at another”.
    However, you are mistaken as to what happens in quantum teleportation: “they’ve only proven they can cause remote particles to assume the same state.” and “Causing two remote particles to display the same state in two different locations may be comparable to sending information via Morse Code”.

    This is why I preemptively mentioned that quantum teleportation does not violate the “No Cloning Theorem” (and some other related theorems in Quantum Information Theory). The original electron does NOT retain its properties, they are effectively transferred to the remote electron and the local one ceases to be the same. To use your earlier example, the birdhouse that Amazon sold me would have to be instantly destroyed when mine is instantly built here. No copying can occur.

    It is also important to stress that the idea of measuring an electron and then teleporting it would violate the “No Teleportation Theorem”.I know it’s an extremely confusing and unfortunate name. It basically states that classical teleporation (which includes some, but not all, of the methods described in science fiction) is in fact impossible. But as with all science, we will one day have better theories and perhaps they will show this is possible. I wouldn’t count on it personally, though. Thus in your example of faxing plans for a birdhouse, the very fact of attempting to make a plan of the birdhouse would make it impossible to use that plan at my end to build a birdhouse.

    I think one issue here is that you are assuming that the structure (unknown to us) upon which the electron’s “identity” relies includes some sort of intrinsic property whatever you may call it; haecceity (“thisness”), hypokeimenon (I always hated that word, it sounds too much like pokemon), or noumenon that lies beyond its physical properties. I am using the word “properties” loosely here to avoid getting into an entirely different debate about CFD vs Locality that is part of some interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. It makes it difficult to accept that it is in fact the same electron. This is why the final question in my post above asked what people thought was not the same about the teleported Alice. That intrinsic property that is needed for people to accept it has the same identity (in the case of Alice, not the electron!) varies quite a lot: “soul”, consciousness or in Buddhism that “thing that exists from moment to moment” beyond a soul

    I personally found such concepts very hard to accept when I first studied the subject. There has for a long time been an Instrumentalist view with the motto of “Shut up and calculate!” in QM, and it does make it harder for people outside the subject to understand or accept some of its concepts because it clashes with common sense and the heavily politicised Scientific Realism mainstream view.

  34. @Val

    I think some people worry that your suggested process is exactly the same as scanning you and printing a new copy of you out on the moon (using a giant vat of boiling goo for parts). Then when you ask the teleportation machine ‘why am I not on the moon?’ it wouldn’t even bother telling you that you are on the moon and that your old body needs to be turned back into goo here on earth so that the machine has enough matter to print out a copy of someone from the moon, it’ll just go about its process of turning you into goo which would be very very painful(sedating the meat bag with chemicals prior to initiating the reclamation process is obviously completely unnecessary)

    How’s that different from what you suggested? and would you want to go to the moon in this manner?

  35. @Spoon

    First of all maybe I should mention that I don’t believe it will ever be possible to teleport macroscopic objects like people. But it’s still interesting to look at the implications.

    That damn teleportation machine turning me to goo would be scary as hell (and probably painful)! Personally I would not go through the process because at some point no matter how small, there are two distinct complete copies of me (original + clone). It would effectively introduce a discontinuity in my existence as an “original” and a “copy”, especially if I could stop the destruction process on myself and end up with a clone on the moon. That clone would clearly not be the same entity as me from the moment that we could exist simultaneously and start having different experiences and memories (even while unconscious).

    But here you are implicitly assuming that there are two distinct and separate processes: creating a “copy” and destroying the “original”. Photocopying a book, burning the book and keeping the photocopy. However, quantum teleportation is instantaneous (and by instantaneous I mean it takes NO “time” at all). Einstein in fact had quite a hard time accepting this “spooky action at a distance” as he called it, because it is in fact a single process and happens instantaneously no matter the distance between the two locations.
    There is no copying + destroying (like how a computer moves a file from one hardrive to another): copying is impossible, it is a transfer.
    For the electron there is never a moment where there are two of it with the same properties.

    Maybe my example of cutting up poor Alice was a bad example. It was more about exploring what people think about the continuity/discontinuity of existence between the “original” and “copy” and what is that “essence” that they might think is lost in the process. But of course it gives an illusion that the transfer consists of two processes: copying and destroying.

    If there were two distinct processes a scarier thought would be whether you would trust a private corporation or a government with copying you over exactly as you were. Afterall it might be convenient to add little bit of chemical stuff in your brain when you are on your way to the moon just to make you a little less rebellious. ^^

  36. “it might be convenient to add little bit of chemical stuff in your brain when you are on your way to the moon just to make you a little less rebellious.”

    It’s the likelihood of hijinks like this that make it necessary for ECCO to limit juvenile civilizations’ understanding of galaxy-class physics.

  37. OK…so it’s like flipping up the flag on my mailbox, which causes another mailbox flag on the other side of the world to flip down and doesn’t allow the original flag to go back in place.

    Whatever…it still isn’t the same thing as transferring the actual mailbox flag instantaneously (considerably faster than the limits imposed by the speed of light laws) to another location, which is the classical sci-fi definition of teleporting.

    So, it’s an improper usage of the word.

  38. Star Trek transporter technology, when used on lifeforms, operates by scanning and materially decomposing the subject at a quantum level; the stream of subatomic particles is sent to the target, and the “analog” data from the scan is used to inform reassembly.

    The transporting process can be interrupted at certain points. Before 50% of the matter has been emitted to the target, materialization can be cancelled and redirected to another target. Although the technical manuals do not explain this fully, we can assume the source of raw matter available to the replicators is available to boost the matter content of the pattern buffers in such cases.

    The Star Trek transporters can also operate at a molecular level, in “cargo” mode; here the pattern is captured digitally, and the rematerialization process is basically same as the replicator process. This is much more efficient because lower-resolution scanning is used, and the pattern does not need to pass through the “Heisenburg compensators”.

    So, contrasting real-world quantum information transmission with Star Trek teleportation is bogus unless you are specifically referring to lifeform transport.

  39. does the person doing the transporting have an ethical obligation to leave out the manky bits?

    I mean, if they can cure your cancer by hitting “delete”in the right places,should they?

  40. If they are just cloning an object at a distant location, it shouldn’t be called Teleportation. It is not even called teleportation in Star Trek.

    Although imagine the DRM on that! “Sorry this car is an illegal copy, it will dematerialise now.” And suddenly you find yourself sitting on the road naked. Because the megacorp you happened to buy your stuff from went out of business and all your stuff was unable to verify that it was legally purchased. Don’t worry however, you will not be run over by any cars. They are all having the same problem!

    #45: TAKUAN
    In fact, in Star Trek they often disable and/or remove things like weapons and viruses during transport. So bad guys often find themselves without weapons. But can still take over the ship.

    #28: SPOON
    Agreed on the Stargate thing. That idea did make the sweet taste of Stargate slightly more bitter for me.

  41. “Correct, quantum entanglement does not allow one to communicate at faster than light speeds.”

    Wrong. Part of the the idea of entanglement is that it’s instantaneous, faster than light. Some basic experiments indicate that two intangled particles exhibit instanct translation regardless of distance. Of course the only way to test entangled states is to send a packet of electrons out far enough to make the test valid.

  42. “Quantum Teleportation” is jargon. There are a lot of terms in most fields that would confuse the non-familiar. They usually make sense in the context of the field itself but not generally.

    A simple example in Maths where speed is not the same thing as velocity!

    The word “normal” confuses people. The word “Integration” could be confusing to the non familar. It requires you to be in the know for it to make sense.

    These things are a big reason why the media often incorrectly report things in the science fields.

Comments are closed.