Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A few more questions about quantum teleportation

  1. Sep 19, 2010 #1
    The argument is often made that quantum teleportation is completely unrelated to Star-Trek style teleportation, but isn't the main issue just a matter of scaling? Is there something that fundamentally prevents us from scaling the process up to a macroscopic object, like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

    I understand that, for example, there are interactions constantly going on between the atoms of a macroscopic object, but don't those interactions stop at absolute zero? Isn't there some way to get around this? Couldn't we, in theory, find a way to send not just the quantum states of the constituent atoms but also their correlations with each other? Isn't there some way quantum decoherence for a macroscopic object can be prevented?

    I also understand that, in order to perform QT on a macroscopic object, one would need a group of "receiver atoms" at the destination onto which the quantum state of the initial atoms could be projected. Again, isn't this merely a matter of developing the technology required to put that mass together?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 19, 2010 #2
    Isn't there some way quantum decoherence can be prevented in a generalized, parctical way?"

    If you could find a way to do this you'd win a Nobel prize and possibly be the richest man alive.
     
  4. Sep 19, 2010 #3
    Better start with quantum computing :)
     
  5. Sep 20, 2010 #4

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is absolutely an obstacle - just one of many. How are you going to clone/teleport object A when you cannot - in principle - determine half of its essential characteristics? And that is, of course, assuming you could determine the other half without otherwise disturbing the object.
     
  6. Sep 20, 2010 #5

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You're missing the forest for the trees. QT has nothing to do with getting something from one place to another. Teleportation of physical things really has nothing to do with QT at all.

    Consider:
    1] At the transmitting end, you first need to determine and record the position of each individual atom.
    2] At the receiving end, you need to place each atom in its physical location (including adding any binding energy to hold the atoms together as molecules).

    What does QT have to do with any of that?
     
  7. Sep 26, 2010 #6
    But isn't QT supposed to be a way to work around the HUP?
     
  8. Sep 26, 2010 #7
    Well, if you can construct a replica of the object to be teleported and then send the object's quantum state to the reciever, you would basically be teleporting the object, right? I know, right now we don't know how to build the object, but it CAN be done, right? Perhaps with nanotechnology?
     
  9. Oct 4, 2010 #8
    Can DrChinese and DaveC426913 please answer my questions?
     
  10. Oct 4, 2010 #9

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Why would that be so?

    If we don't have the ability to do something yet then we don't have the ability to do it yet. How does setting its quantum states get us any further toward that goal?

    It's kind of like saying I have the clothes to wear in England, all I have to do is figure out how to get there and I'm there!
     
  11. Oct 4, 2010 #10
    If you have a group of receiver atoms at the destination onto which you can project the quantum states of the atoms at the origin, isn't the end result the same as physically transporting the object?
     
  12. Oct 5, 2010 #11
    I mean, I've read from plenty of sources that it's possible, at least in theory, to scale up QT to macroscopic objects. What stands in our way? Interactions between particles in an object?

    What about Bell measurements? I've heard that they're in some way related to QT, but how would they relate to QT of a macroscopic object?
     
  13. Oct 5, 2010 #12
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: A few more questions about quantum teleportation
Loading...